Former priest, dismissed on abuse charges, suing Milwaukee archdiocese

Catholic World News ^ | 7/22/2013

[Salvation]

**I understand “protecting our children” at all, but does that include throwing priests who are probably INNOCENT to the wolves?**

I know of a trial when this happened. Three attorneys sat through the entire trial of the priest who had state records (he had worked as the chaplain at a boys reform school.) They chased after the jurors who left early — and one talked.

Sitting in the jury room the statement was made — “Well, he’s a Catholic priest; he HAS to be guilty. Now let’s prove it.”

The state dates did not align with that juror’s attitude. But he swung the jury.

[count-your-change]

“Before making absolute judgments about this case specifically, I’d want to know a lot more about it.”

You’re quite right. There surely are other ways of handling the situation other than just a boot out the door.

[Triple]

What if the confession was to the Bishop? Or If the confessions were to multiple priests - who then would be obligated to prevent placement.

3

[A.A. Cunningham]

Diocesan Priests do not take vows of poverty. They promise to live simple lives but are allowed to accumulate possessions. Religious order Priests do take vows of poverty. Since Knighton has been dismissed from the clerical state by the Holy See he is no longer bound by that promise.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Diocesan Priests make promises. Religious order Priests make vows.

[A.A. Cunningham]

If he takes the $250,000 and buys an annuity,

Which would be a big mistake. Annuties are a ripoff and are good only for the people selling them who receive the high upfront commission.

[sitetest]

Dear Triple,

Here is Canon Law on the matter: “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” (983 §1)

A priest may not act on knowledge of a penitent’s confession to him in a way that would reveal or possibly reveal, or even suggest the substance of the confession.

Even if a priest confessed to the personnel director of the diocese, if the priest were already publicly accused, action by the personnel director would betray him as the penitent. And since all adverse personnel actions in a diocese must be justified, it would be difficult to take action even if the accusation were not public, as the director would need to present a formal justification for the adverse action.

A bishop could not laicize a priest as a result of what he heard in confession, especially a priest charged publicly with an act for which laicization is often a direct consequence.

Here is something from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Regarding the sins revealed to him in sacramental confession, the priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this obligation he cannot be excused either to save his own life or good name, to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him, or any oath which he takes — e.g., as a witness in court. He cannot reveal them either directly — i.e., by repeating them in so many words — or indirectly — i.e., by any sign or action, or by giving information based on what he knows through confession."

Even if every priest in the diocese has heard the man’s confession, the CHURCH has no knowledge of the man’s crimes that he confesses.

sitetest

[A.A. Cunningham]

Marvin Knighton

Assignments/Locations
St. Anne Parish (Milwaukee) 1975 1976
Pius High School (Milwaukee) 1976 1987
Leave of Absence 1987 1988
Pius High School (Milwaukee) 1988 1991
Unassigned 1991 1992
Mount Mary College Campus Ministry 1992 1994
Leave of Absence 1994 1995
St. Martin De Porres Parish (Milwaukee) 1995 1995
All Saints Parish (Milwaukee) 1995 1997
Leave of Absence 1997 1998
Dominican High School (Whitefish Bay) 1998 2000
St. Mary High School (Phoenix, AZ) 2000 2001
Archdiocesan Schools Office (Milwaukee) 2001 2002

In 1993, a parent confronted Knighton about sexual abuse of a teen dating from 1986. Knighton reported this confrontation and his denial of abuse to the vicar for clergy and Knighton was referred to legal counsel. The attorney advised Knighton that, because no one had filed a complaint, nothing could be done. Knighton continued to exercise ministry.

In the latter part of 2001, the same individual who had first reported sexual abuse to a parent, revealed the same information to a therapist. In February, 2002, the therapist contacted the victim assistance coordinator of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the therapist and the individual reported the abuse. The abuse was reported as occurring at Knighton’s home when the individual would stay overnight as well as at the Cousins Center where they would go to swim and exercise.

The victim assistance coordinator and the vicar for clergy facilitated a meeting between the person making the report and Knighton, each with support persons along.

In March, 2002, a second individual contacted the victim assistance coordinator of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and reported being sexually abused by Knighton in 1974, prior to Knighton’s ordination, when the individual was around 15-years-old. The abuse was reported as occurring at Knighton’s residence. Knighton later admitted that some “inappropriate behavior” had occurred but refused to elaborate on what it was.

In April, 2002, these two reports were submitted to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office after the victim assistance coordinator of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee was advised that at least one might fall within the criminal Statute of Limitations. Knighton was removed from ministry and placed under restrictions. The Bishop of Phoenix, Knighton’s alternate site of residence, was notified of these restrictions.

In June, 2002, the district attorney notified the archdiocese that Knighton was to be charged with one count of second degree sexual assault of a child. Knighton’s attorney was likewise notified by the DA’s office. Knighton was charged on June 18, 2002. Only one of the two reports submitted to the DA fell within the criminal Statute of Limitations.

When the information about criminal charges became public, a classmate of the individual whose report was the basis for the charges contacted the individual to offer support and to report similar abuse by Knighton while the classmate was in high school.

In August, 2003, the criminal trial against Knighton took place. Knighton was acquitted by a jury.

In September, 2003, Archbishop Dolan initiated a preliminary canonical investigation to determine if any canonical charges should be made against Knighton. Archbishop Dolan also reissued a canonical precept restricting Knighton’s ministry.

In October, 2003, Archbishop Dolan was advised by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that Knighton had taken recourse against the canonical restriction on his ministry. Archbishop Dolan informed the CDF that a preliminary investigation in the matter was underway.

Two different independent investigators conducted the investigation. The Diocesan Review Board reviewed the final report in March, 2004, and recommended to Archbishop Dolan that he should refer the case to the CDF.

In March, 2004, Archbishop Dolan forwarded the necessary documentation to the CDF.

In November and December 2004, through the Independent Mediation System, two individuals entered into settlement agreements with the archdiocese over their sexual abuse by Knighton.

In June, 2004, the CDF informed Archbishop Dolan that he was to conduct a judicial penal trial in accord with the norms of canon law.

From February, 2005, to July, 2007, the canonical trial was conducted by the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Two of the three judges in the case were from outside the archdiocese. The canonical court found that Knighton was guilty on two charges.

In September, 2007, Knighton appealed this finding of guilt to the CDF.

In January, 2009, an appellate court in Cincinnati was designated by CDF to hear the case.

In January, 2011, the appellate court upheld the findings of guilt of the first instance court and recommended to CDF that Knighton be dismissed from the clerical state. The penalty of dismissal was imposed by CDF.

Through the Independent Mediation System two individuals entered into settlement agreements with the archdiocese over their sexual abuse by Knighton in November and December 2004.

[sitetest]

Dear A.A. Cunningham,

From what I'm gathering from what you posted, it appears that three people accused the priest.

It appears that one resulted in criminal charges of which he was acquitted, and two were settled by the Church.

The article says this, “A former Milwaukee priest who was removed from ministry after being charged with sexual abuse but cleared by a jury in a civil trial,...”

This suggests that one of the victims sued him civilly, and the jury found him not liable.

Finally, it appears that a canonical trial was held and found him guilty in two of the cases.

Is there information that makes it clear which alleged victim is which? Whose case was tried criminally? Whose case was tried in civil court? Whose cases were tried in the canonical court?

If the criminal and civil courts found the priest not guilty and not liable in a different case than those where he was found guilty in the canonical court, then the article is a little misleading, because his dismissal from the clerical state isn't a result of the case tried criminally and civilly.

If the criminal and civil courts found the priest not guilty and not liable in one of the same cases that the canonical court found him guilty, that's a little more involved.

sitetest

[A.A. Cunningham]

Priests are not required to take vows of poverty. They MAY if they choose. Most don't.

Religious order Priests take vows of poverty. Diocesan Priests do not. In addition, Diocesan Priests do not technically take vows. They make promises to their Bishop and his successors.

Nuns/sisters can always be released from all their vows; priests, not so.

Incorrect. Priests can indeed be released from their vows/promises by the Holy See as can be nuns and sisters. With men and women religious, it depends whether one has professed simple or final vows as to who has the authority to dispense.

[Rashputin]

". . . reported being sexually abused by Knighton in 1974, prior to Knighton’s ordination, when the individual was around 15-years-old. The abuse was reported as occurring at Knighton’s residence. Knighton later admitted that some “inappropriate behavior” had occurred but refused to elaborate on what it was. "

He would have never been ordained in the first place if the Church had known about the above incident and admission. Seems to me that's just like telling a lie on a job application or your paperwork when you enlist which is sufficient grounds to let you go even years later.