Seems that Listecki is a target, no?
So SNAP goes off to the MSM, and the MSM is perfectly happy to insinuate stuff in their story-writing and is also happy to 'bury' important stuff near the end of the article. They are also remarkably IN-curious about certain details.
Last August, a woman in LaCrosse Diocese complained that a visiting priest had touched her inappropriately. She complained (in September) to the Diocese.
The woman reported the incident to diocese administrator Monsignor Richard Gilles in September and met with diocesan attorney Jim Birnbaum, according to the report. It’s unclear why she met with Gilles instead of then-Bishop Jerome Listecki, now archbishop of the Milwaukee diocese
That last sentence is planted carefully, no? One can think of several good reasons that she visited with Mgr. Gilles instead of Listecki, beginning with "schedule conflict." And Gilles acts/speaks FOR the Bishop. I cannot walk into the office of John Chisholm whenever I feel wronged (can you?), but he provides a lot of Assistant DA's who are perfectly capable of helping.
The diocese did investigate the report,...“Sufficient evidence did not exist to confirm the woman’s story,” Birnbaum said. “There were no other like or similar allegations ever made.”
It's a maxim that abusers usually have a pattern of practice. None was found here. Doesn't mean that nothing happened, but it's a reliable sign.
Then Bp. Listecki wrote a letter to the woman.
A Dec. 22 letter from Listecki to the woman stated he “cannot conclusively determine what happened.”
Still, Donkor-Baine [the priest in question] was ordered not to have contact with the woman or St. James parish, where he led Mass. Listecki also recommended she avoid Franciscan Skemp Healthcare and Viterbo University, where Donkor-Baine provided ministry services and occasionally led Mass.
The woman didn't like that.
“Basically, it was Bishop Listecki’s blow-off letter to me,” the woman testified at the Madison hearing, which Listecki attended.
This raises a question. The woman complains that 'she was frustrated' by the Diocesan investigation--but it took her several months to file a complaint with the civil authorities.
Was she being led on by the Diocese? No information.
Why did she not file a civil complaint immediately? Or 1 week later? Or 3 weeks later? No information.
What punishment or action from the Diocese does the woman seek if their investigation proves that the priest IS a perp? No information.
Gee. The press is not real interested in those questions, eh?
She said she reported the incident to law enforcement after becoming frustrated with the diocese’s handling of her complaint.
Authorities by law must immediately be notified if the sexual abuse report to the bishop involves a child, La Crosse diocesan attorney Jim Birnbaum said. But the diocese has no such obligation in complaints by adults — nor does any other organization or employer, Birnbaum said.
“There’s nothing in there (the policy) that says people can’t inform the authorities,” he added.And there's another factor:
Adopting a mandatory [civil-authorities] reporting policy also could discourage adults who don’t want their cases handled in public from coming forward, Birnbaum said.
So what's the policy in Milwaukee? Not all that different! Curious that SNAP has not attacked Abp. Dolan about it, eh?
The Milwaukee Archdiocese encourages adults to contact civil authorities, though the church will not automatically make that call, said Archdiocese Victim Assistance Coordinator Amy Peterson.
We also note that the above graf is almost at the end of the LaX newspaper story--which is where the MSM puts stuff they hope you never read. Surprise!!
So. A woman alleges that she was abused. She reports it to the Diocese, which IMMEDIATELY launches an investigation. She is unhappy with what the Diocese concludes. She then files a complaint with civil authorities--which she could have done a WHOLE lot earlier. There's an indictment, recalling the famous phrase that 'a good prosecutor can obtain an indictment of a ham sandwich.' In short, the indictment proves zero.
It's entirely possible that the priest DID act inappropriately, of course. I hope he didn't.
But something about this whole thing smells. And it is not the LaCrosse Diocese's policy.
HT: Badger Catholic