Toledo Diocese: Local Priest Had "Inappropriate" Contact With Woman
Many of you know that I have been covering the Perrysburg St. Rose saga in the Toledo Diocese here at this blog. Recently, I promised that once the news of why Fr. Nuss had refused to take the pastorate at St. Rose became official I would cover it here. While I was on vacation, the Toledo Diocese did make it official, so the story below is a little dated:
A Toledo priest who was to take over St. Rose Parish in Perrysburg — but then abruptly stepped away from the new post — has been placed on a sabbatical after a “consensual but inappropriate” relationship with a woman, the Toledo diocese said.Since it's now official, comments will remain open. But the same rules apply. Play nice. Don't cross the line. I can countenance some questioning of Bishop Blair's decision-making in this instance, but just be aware that I will not tolerate personal attacks against the man, or attacks on the Church itself.
The Rev. David Nuss alerted the diocese in January about the relationship and has “expressed his sincere sorrow” for his actions, according to a release yesterday by the diocesan office.
[More]
Labels: Bishops, Diocese of Toledo, Priests
posted by Pro Ecclesia 10:17 AM
9 comments
9 Comments:
I'm glad that you are okay Jay. I don't agree with everything that you write or the radical positions that you embrace, but I did feel concerned about you.
I do have a question. Can you explain to me, how it is that Bishop Blair can say that he did not acknowledge the exploitive relationship with the representatives of St. Rose when they brought it up to him, but later he issued a press release about the "affair?"
It seems suspicious.
Jay embraces radical views? Cool! When can I get a Jay Guevara t-shirt?!?!?
LOL!
Maybe someone could photoshop my face onto one of those Che t-shirts.
Whether politics or in the church it seems like people have a difficult time dealing openly and honestly with the public... or in this case the congregation.
It isn't new news but they act like it. Only if they had been this forthright from the beginning with all such inappropriate behavior... including when it didn't include females.
Jay -
I'm sincerely asking.
Honestly, I don't have an answer for you. That's not a dodge, I just don't have sufficient information to make the assessment for which you are asking.
For one, there is no indication in the official release that the relationship was "exploitive".
Secondly, I wasn't privy to the conversation that took place regarding this issue between the Bishop and the group of St. Rose parishioners.
Third, and finally, the Bishop may have had good reasons at the time for not discussing the matter with the St. Rose "representatives". At that point, Fr. Nuss had not declined the appointment, so there was no need to make a public statement about Fr. Nuss' sinful behavior in the past. In short, the Bishop probably thought, and with good reason, "It's none of your business."
Absent some proof that this affair truly was "exploitive", we're talking about something completely different in kind from priestly pederasty and pedophilia. I see no reason why Bishop Blair should have felt the need to discuss Fr. Nuss' past with these individual parishioners.
Review the postings under "Bishop Blair Refuses to Reinstate Fr. Leyland." One of the parishoners at the meeting describes it. Bishop Blair would not discuss or acknowledge knowing anything about it with them. He feigned ignorance. He may have felt that he didn't want or need to discuss it with the parishoners, but the proper response would have been "I do not need to discuss that with you," not "What? This is serious. I need to know about this!"
And the press release is equally troubling. They only informed parishoners about this becuase there was already an issue concerning Fr. Leyland's departure? So if there hadn't been a pre-existing issue, it would have been fine to place a priest with a questionable history with the church without any warning whatsoever?
As for it not being exploitave, any licensed professional who engaged in this type of sexual relationship with a person who came to him for counseling would lose his license, or at minimum be subject to severe sanction. Therapists, physicians, lawyers... Unfortunately for us, the priests aren't licensed by the state of Ohio, and only Bishop Blair determines what sanction is appropriate. I completely disagree that this was not exploitave. A grieving woman and her family being taken advantage of by a man in a position of authority. How is that not exploitation? You are a lawyer and familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct. I know Fr. Nuss is not, but explain for me how, if he was a lawyer, that would not violate any ethical obligations.
And as far as "considering" the January discussion with Fr. Nuss as under the confessional seal, that is ridiculous. A doctor can't just "consider" something physician-patient privileged, nor can an attorney "consider" something attorney-client privileged. There are standards under which you determine whether something was a confession. And if it was indeed protected by the confessional seal, this would have required Fr. Nuss' consent for the bishop to reveal it. He has been noticibly absent from any of the information released on this.
Jay - You seem to embrace what so many do regarding these matters . . . "If it were bad, our bishop would have said something. Since our bishop has not officially said anything it must not be that bad."
We will only solve this mess in the church when we stop looking at it from a political perspective (liberal v. conservative) and start addressing it from a moral perspective.
Supporters of Fr. Nuss may be interested in this link:
http://mcmarysville.blogspot.com/
I am interested in what Nuss supporters think of this issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home