Friday, May 15, 2009

SCANDAL AT ST.VINCENT'S PART TWO

[In re-reading Part One of this- I notice I used the wrong word. Father Webster announced his intention to take a vow of celibacy, not a vow of chastity. It doesn't make a great deal of difference, but I'll bet the whole thing made the diocese take notice, since it was followed not long after by Father Webster's marriage. He might have received a message from the powers that be that he was not to proceed with publicizing this vow.]

At any rate, the real trouble was soon to begin. The members of the parish received a letter from the parents of a teenaged boy, saying that their son had been molested and seduced by the rector, had left home because of this, and that this perversion was an ongoing thing at St. Vincent's. They also said the Bishop had been notified but had not appropriately responded. As events began to unfold it seemed that the rector had been involved with other boys on an ongoing basis, and had even acted as a procurer for a group of several businessmen in town who shared Father Webster's predilection!! There was more to come, and to me this was the worst. The parish had a young priest, just out of seminary, as a helper over the summer. He had found out what was happening, and had done nothing about it. I thought this was despicable - in my somewhat clouded thinking at the time, Father Webster had a sickness that he couldn't help, but the young priest had a terrible character.

In their reaction to the scandal, the Diocese and the Bishop acted just as the Catholic church did in present time. No one was arrested, no public fuss was made,
and Father Webster was hustled off to an Episcopalian contemplative order somewhere in another state. I wonder whatever happened to him? Or to the cowardly young priest?

The St. Vincent's survived - parishioners did not leave en masse. It was a nice church in a pleasant middle-class neighborhood,and it still is. No one thinks about the scandal any more -after all it was almost 50 years ago and the lack of publicity was beneficial. Perhaps the Bishop was right to keep it a secret. I was glad we had left when we did, and I was glad that our boys were too young to be acolytes. So I can view this as a bystander, but I am not so trusting any more. Are you?

1 Comments:

At May 31, 2009 at 10:02 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Catching up on some blog reading today so this comment is mostly to send you a big HURRAY for finding a good dentist. I have had so many dentist appointments I won't allow the family to talk about dentists or teeth around me.
Enjoy your blog. I agree you can't talk to the other political side, specially family.
Genie

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home