Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Synod Pope Matt Harrison Really Cares About the Victims of Clergy Abuse?
Read About a Known, Convicted Sex Offender Given a Job by the DP

The LCMS gave Darwin Schauer a new opportunity for his crimes,
but Matt Harrison is silencing discussion.



Pr. Don Kirchner (Kirchner)
Senior Member
Username: Kirchner

Post Number: 3351
Registered: 11-2001
Posted on Monday, January 14, 2013 - 6:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


Not a rant. The objection is implying that Synodical officials were making calls to stifle discussion on some websites.

We were told by a BJS editor that this in fact did take place. After the thread was removed there was a statement thereon about its removal that referenced the Office of the Synodical President.

Furthermore, I received a confirmation that "Matt asked Rossow to stop discussing the case on the site for now."

Moreover, President Harrison made a very negative comment about on-line conversations about the issue in his address to the MN North convention.

It became a circle-the-wagons situation, the Synod investigated its own and (surprise!) found that Synodical officials handled the whole situation quite appropriately. In the letter that they sent us, laying this out, they of course copied Synodical legal counsel with their findings and conclusions. So, we can ascertain what their underlying concern was, and it sure wasn't the victim, her family, or the congregation. 

Pr. Don Kirchner (Kirchner)
Senior Member
Username: Kirchner

Post Number: 3352
Registered: 11-2001
Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2013 - 9:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post


"And what perhaps concerns me most is that from all indications, this is inconsistent from the Synodical administration's usual actions."

Really? How so? I'm more inclined to view things as Mr. Blecker stated them. There is nothing new under the sun. This is the way a bureaucracy typically works.

Example: During the Barry administration there was a push for the districts to pass specific disciplinary guidelines for cases of alleged sexual harassment or abuse. We questioned the need since there already are "guidelines" in place that the DPs are too (sic) follow in such cases. Furthermore, by passing them the pastor was agreeing to be generally hung out to dry in cases of mere allegation. The basic purpose of the proposed guidelines was to cover the Synod/District in case such a situation arose.

President Barry, present at the MN North Disrict Convention, was asked about the need. He couldn't be specific; he simply said they were necessary. And he passed the word through his surrogates that he wanted those new guidelines passed. It was clear to us that legal counsel was insisting on it.

They did not pass, and President Barry was not a happy camper, particularly with those of us who worked to get the proposal defeated.

So, my comment of what is the big deal is in response to a view that such Synodical action is out-of-the-ordinary. No, it is typical and not surprising at all.

When our situation all came down last year, my circuit counselor asked to have lunch with me. My sense of why he'd come was confirmed as he furiously took copious notes of everything I said in our conversation. When I brought up the fact that, the day we found out about the abuse and held a meeting with him and the DP, that the DP had mentioned Schauer's previous conviction and also stated that the circuit counselor also knew about it, which the CC affirmed. But, when I brought it up at lunch (Keep in mind that the Synod/District position had now changed to one in which they claimed that they thought the previous conviction had been expunged.), the CC's response? "I don't recall that comment." To a trial attorney, the response that "I don't recall that" or "I have no recollection of that" is a red flag that the person is lying. It's an awkward response; a truthful response typically is "I don't remember that" or "I don't know." I snapped back: "How do you think I found out that you knew about the previous conviction?" His reply: "Oh, right."

I patiently explained that I knew Synod's concern, that they were afraid of a lawsuit, but that Synod/District did not place Darwin Schauer in the situation whereby he could abuse the victim. Generally, it didn't happen at church in his capacity as a "lay minister." Bottom line- there was no legal basis for a lawsuit even if somebody wanted to bring one.

The circuit counselor's closing comment to me, after the pious devotion after lunch of course: "I'll tell them that there is no lawsuit." Again, I knew why he'd come. I kind of felt sorry for him. I bought him lunch.

Good men will rationalize their actions, Mr. Gehlhausen, with the view that they are protecting Christ's church.

***


GJ - The entire discussion about Darwin Schauer was erased from the "Steadfast" Lutheran group-think blog. 

Needless to say, the entire site is devoted to UOJ, where Antinomians rule supreme.
Post a Comment