Posted on 04/14/2010 7:27:01 AM PDT by Judith Anne
MIAMI — A Presbyterian youth minister who has been teaching local children with learning disabilities is accused in a Chicago lawsuit of repeatedly sexually abusing four minor boys throughout the 1990s.
The suit filed Tuesday, May 14, claims that the Rev. Douglas R. Mason took advantage of his position as the director of a youth ministry in Chicago. From 1990 to 1999 Mason had sex with the boys while taking explicit photographs and filming them, court documents said. Mason also is accused in the lawsuit of providing alcohol and cigarettes to the minors.
The lawsuit said the abuse took place in the basement, the minister's office, a Youth Ministry van, movie theaters as well as during field trips. In addition to Mason, the Presbytery of Chicago, the Presbyterian Church (USA) Foundation and the Catholic Bishop of Chicago are defendants. The unidentified boys, who are now about 18, are asking for "fair and just compensation."
This is not the first time Mason has faced problems relating to claims of abuse.
Chicago police investigated Mason in May 1999 for unspecified abuse allegations after the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services received a call on its hotline. A spokesman for the Illinois agency said Wednesday their case was determined to be "indicated." To the agency, this means enough evidence was found to justify the claims.
The police opened its own investigation, but an arrest warrant was never issued before Mason left Chicago, Sgt. Robert Cargie said.
"I have nothing to hide," said Mason in Miami on Wednesday, adding that he is scared, numb and "doesn't have a dime. I knew about (the lawsuit) before, but I didn't know if it was just a threat."
Reluctant to comment on the specifics of the suit, Mason referred questions to his attorney Jerry Latherow in Chicago. Neither Latherow nor the Chicago Archdiocese could be reached for comment. Jerry Reynolds, the executive director of the Presbytery of Chicago, has not reviewed the lawsuit and had no comment.
Before coming to Miami about two years ago, Mason was the director of the San Marcos Youth Ministry, which reaches out to bring underprivileged youth into the fold. Mason provided "help, spiritual guidance and counseling, specifically to parishioners under the age of 18," documents said. He also provided the four boys scholarships to the local Catholic school, awarded by the Youth Ministry.
"He would routinely go in and take them out of the school sometimes for the entire day," said the boys' attorney Devon Bruce, adding that none of the parents was told Mason took their children out of school.
Both the Chicago Archdiocese and the Presbytery of Chicago were alerted in 1999 after a teacher received a tape one of the boys made for Mason in which the boy talked about sex, Bruce said. The Chicago bishop was named in the lawsuit because the Archdiocese oversees the school.
The tape launched a separate investigation into Mason, who about that time moved to an Indian reservation in South Dakota.
Eventually, Mason made his way to South Florida, where he found work as the interim associate pastor at the Miami Shores Presbyterian Church for more than a year beginning in March 2000.
While working at Miami Shores, the Presbytery of Chicago contacted church officials about their investigation into Mason, said spokeswoman Melissa Gracey. Mason did not share the nature of the claims but openly told the senior minister and congregates they had no merit, she said.
"He didn't want to leave us, and we didn't want him to leave, but the Chicago Presbytery required that he not be in a ministerial position," Gracey said, adding that, until formal findings to the contrary, Mason still has their support.
Mason left the church about June 2001. According to standard procedure at Children & Family Services, by that time Mason's name should have been entered into a database available for background checks. It is unclear whether Mason's name is on the Children's Abuse and Neglect Tracking System.
Chicago police said they still are interested in talking to Mason, though they have no plans to travel to Florida to find him.
Mason was hired to work at the Academy of the Arts at Hope, a Miami Christian performing arts school, through the end of 2001.
When the school closed, the director of the South Florida International Academy hired Mason to teach a class of 13- to 17-year-old students who have learning disabilities including dyslexia and attention deficit disorder.
Director Lise Holash called Mason "a good man, compassionate, knowledgeable and the students love him." She added in accordance with school policy Mason was never left alone with any students and "therefore we know for a fact nothing happened here."
But, shortly after Wednesday'’s interview, Holash fired Mason for what she said were problems unrelated to the lawsuit.
She said Mason was warned about his inability to discipline students and about not signing in every morning.
"Frankly, I think this thing is being extremely overblown and everyone is trying to ride on the scandal of the Catholic Church's coattail," Holash said. ------------------------------------------
................<darn sarcasm off
I don’t have the answer to your questions. Maybe the liberal media and the civil authorities are intimidated by the power structure of the Presbyterians. After all, it’s only okay to trash Catholics. not protestants.
I like that better than what I did.
DARK sarcasm — yes!
Or should it be DARK CHASM??
Your statement seems to imply that you have equated celibacy with disinterest with marriage - although this is a common misconception, it is patently false.
The vocation of marriage is a good. However, the celibate willingly forgoes this good because God has called him or her to live without a spouse for the betterment of His Kingdom - see I Cor. 7 for St. Paul's explanation of this. Celibacy (properly understood) is also a good - and is the greater good for those God has chosen for it.
Those who are homosexuals, pedophiles, and ephebophiles have historically used celibacy as a means of concealing their own temptations and sinful acts, because the celibate lifestyle allowed them to either hide their inclinations or (in the unfortunate cases we hear about now) act upon them and still remain above suspicion.
If a person is discerning a celibate life and seems to have no attraction whatsoever to marriage, it is viewed as a 'red flag' that something is amiss, and would be something that would lead to not being ordained (in the case of a seminarian) or not being admitted to final vows (in the case of a religious). The embrace of celibacy is not simply a rejection of married life - rather it is the free acceptance of celibate chastity for the sake of building up God's kingdom. Those who have sought a celibate lifestyle as a manner of hiding should never have been admitted and ordained/professed - because they couldn't choose celibacy in freedom due to the chains of their perversions.
There are plenty of homosexuals, pedophiles, and other perverts whose "interest in marriage" has not quenched their perversions. Thus while disinterest in (heterosexual) marriage ties to the other perversions, there is nothing inherent in celibacy that ties to any of the perversions.
I can not imagine the police not issuing an arrest warrant had they found any physical evidence to support the allegations of sexual abuse.
As is typical in so many of these cases there is a sizable gap between the alleged incidents and the filing of a civil suit. I could argue for understanding this in those cases where abuse took place in the 60’s and 70’s but in the 1990’s when society was well informed of the danger of child predators? When parents and other care givers were cautioned over and over about the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. Told that it was not just a matter of stranger danger?
I almost hate to say it, but something does not smell right about ths story. And if it does prove to be a credible accusation then a lot of people charged with the protection of these chidren have much to answer for. And that includes their parents.
If something doesn’t smell right about this story, take it up with someone else. We are frequently told that one of the worst problems victims have to face is skepticism from those they ask for help. Maybe you can explain that.
Did you read the article? There are tapes, photographs, etc. And these kids were disabled.
PCUSA is a liberal protestant denomination. Liberals tend to shield their own. If this happened in a conservative denomination you can bet it would get lots more coverage.
I am a Presbyterian. He was not "allowed," he got away with it for 9 years. Please follow the timeline as listed in the article:
Both the Chicago Archdiocese and the Presbytery of Chicago were alerted in 1999 after a teacher received a tape one of the boys made for Mason in which the boy talked about sex, Bruce said...The tape launched a separate investigation into Mason, who about that time moved to an Indian reservation in South Dakota.
So, the PCUSA found out about it in 1999. The so-called pastor then basically fled to South Dakota. In the PCUSA, pastors aren't assigned to a church the way priests are.
Eventually, Mason made his way to South Florida, where he found work as the interim associate pastor at the Miami Shores Presbyterian Church for more than a year beginning in March 2000.
So by March 2000, he'd fled again, to Miami Shores, FL.
While working at Miami Shores, the Presbytery of Chicago contacted church officials about their investigation into Mason, said spokeswoman Melissa Gracey. Mason did not share the nature of the claims but openly told the senior minister and congregates they had no merit, she said.
The Chicago Presbytery tracked him down in Miami Shores and advised them about the pending investigation. The church in Miami Shores apparently chose not to pursue the issue - hard to tell from the article, though.
It's not as if the Chicago Presbytery had him move from one church to another. He *left* when he came under investigation.
Judith,
The press has done a horrible job of reporting on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. It stands to reason this carries over into reports on sexual abuse in other churches. My skeptism is a honest one based on the time frame when the alleged abuse took place.
The 1990’s were not an era of ignoring sexual abuse or of thinking therapy for the abusers would stop the behavior. It was not a time when police feared the power of the churches to raise a stink about investigations. Or when ministers (Catholic or Protestant) had so much influence with local politicians that they could derail an investigation by saying it would be handled in house.
This was investigated by the police yet they did not issue a warrant. The article does not say why the warrant was not issued but again I think that if credible evidence had been found an warrant would have been issued. And yes the article says police want to talk to Mason but that can mean any number of things and is not necessarily a red guilt flag. The article also says that they have a tape of a boy speaking to Mason about sex. Well in that case they better arrest all Planned Parenthood officials cause there website aimed at teens and preteens does just that.
And I would love it if that happened. But my point is that the statement is so vague. Does it mean he was soliciting the boys for sex or was he answering questions about sex? The former is criminal behavior and the latter may be inappropriate but in a world where the chattering classes insist on sex education how do we call that criminal?
I want to say that I also believe some of the accusations against priests do not pass the smell test. Anytime you have the potential for a lot of money you are gonna have fraudalent claims. Yes these are in the minority but we stilll need to examine accusations with a clear eye and not make assumptions of guilt or innocent right off the bat.
And between the time of the alleged abuse and the suits had the SOL run out? In many cases of victims in the Catholic scandals such time had run out and a civil suit was the only way for the victims to seek recompense.
And again how the world viewed allegation of sexual abuse and how they dealt with sexual abusers is vastly different in 1990’s than in the 1960’s and that does play a part in my skepticism.
The children were disabiled. While there was evidence, they may not have been, and may still be unable to, testify.
I don’t care how fair you were or weren’t to Catholics. This is about Presbyterians letting a deviant child abuser get away with killing these children’s souls. Why?
You need to re read the article. The suit alleges the existence of such tapes and photographs and the boys in question were not disabled.
And I promise you that no child was allowed to leave any school campus with an adult without the permission of the parents. Public or private schools by that time had strict policies in place about who could or could not pick up kids. Heck even non custodial parents had to get put on the approved list. So either the guy did a good forgery of parental signatures or it never happened.
Your thread’s point is well made.
You do know I am Catholic, right?
I do not believe that celibacy necessarily indicates a lack of interest in marriage/women — but I believe it can be a good hide-out for those who are disinterested and don’t want to answer a bunch of questions about their lack of interest.
SnakeDoc
“He would routinely go in and take them out of the school sometimes for the entire day,” said the boys’ attorney Devon Bruce, adding that none of the parents was told Mason took their children out of school.
Both the Chicago Archdiocese and the Presbytery of Chicago were alerted in 1999 after a teacher received a tape one of the boys made for Mason in which the boy talked about sex, Bruce said. The Chicago bishop was named in the lawsuit because the Archdiocese oversees the school.
_______________________________________________________
Now, what were you saying about “I promise you that no child was allowed to leave any school campus with an adult without the permission of the parents”?
Who needs to re-read the article?
Why do I care if you say you are Catholic? We’re discussing Presbyterians, here.
Thank you.
This is what I have learned today:
Protestants= bad
Catholics= victims
You did not learn that from this article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.