Kroner: Wrongdoing minority leads to diminished respect for priests

The article “Diocese defends its response to Lake Delton police report” (Aug. 5 Tribune) calls for a response. When reading this criticism of the diocese, consider my background. I am not a Catholic-hater. I am a lifelong Catholic who has lived in the diocese most of my life. I attended Catholic schools for grade school, high school and my university education. I also have two children who went through catholic grade school and high school here.

I first met the Rev. Patrick Umberger when I visited Ireland. He was among the tourists in our tour group. I am a member of St. Patrick’s Parish in Onalaska where he served as pastor before he resigned. While I do not know him well, I suspect I know him as well as most people. He appeared to me to be a good man and a respected priest.

I am also an attorney, one who frequently represents people accused of committing crimes. I am familiar with, and hold in high regard, the presumption of innocence people who are accused of crimes are entitled to when the state prosecutes them. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the response from the diocese was woefully deficient.

First, let me be clear the legal presumption of innocence only applies when the state is attempting to convict someone of a crime. The law does not hold private entities or individuals to evaluate the actions of people by the same standard when making decisions in daily life. In fact, we should, and do, hold individuals who deal with what is important to us (our children, our spouses, our finances) to a much more rigorous standard every day. If we have reasonable suspicions, we do not risk what is dear to us.

We should expect the Catholic church to make decisions about priests it puts in positions of authority and trust using that same more rigorous standard, but it is clear it does not. In this situation, the diocese had plenty of reason to have reasonable suspicion.

The diocese knew its 59-year-old priest was observed repeatedly following young boys into restrooms. It knew individuals who observed that were sufficiently suspicious to bring it to the attention of security at Noah’s Ark. The diocese knew security at the park found it disturbing enough to remove the priest from the park and to revoke his season pass. The diocese knew Lake Delton police found it sufficiently disturbing to report it to the diocese.

How is it everyone else who knew of the circumstances concluded it was of great concern, and yet the diocese didn’t? A reasonable investigation by the diocese might have focused on attempting learn why a 59-year-old priest had a season pass to a water park about 90 minutes from his home and was spending his entire day by the kiddie pool area and bathroom, apparently without going in the water.

In its initial public statements responding to Umberger’s arrest, a spokesman for the diocese said the diocese took no action to restrict Umberger’s activities upon learning of the Noah’s Ark incident from the Lake Delton police because “we’ve never had a complaint about him.”

They just don’t get it.

The report to the diocese from the Lake Delton police was a complaint about him. The Lake Delton police report that was shared with the diocese is available to view at the Tribune’s website. I encourage those who wish to evaluate the response of the diocese to read the report. It is disturbing.

According to news reports, when state investigators finally interviewed Umberger about the incident at Noah’s Ark, Umberger made disturbing admissions.

He admitted being sexually attracted to young boys, to having viewed adults engaging in sexual activity on the Internet, to visiting gay chat rooms and having had anonymous sex with adult men and women on various occasions. If Umberger was so open as to make such admissions to police, how is it the diocese was not able to obtain similar admissions from Umberger during its investigation? Did they try?

The diocese, and the Catholic church hierarchy, are in denial. The priesthood is in crisis. Respect for priests is significantly diminished by the wrongdoing of a minority.

Priests are the main link between church hierarchy and its members. If the priesthood loses the respect and trust of catholics because the hierarchy is unwilling to be protective of its members, it isn’t just the church that suffers, it is the faith of its members.

There is no other way to put it. The diocese dropped the ball. We have a right to expect better of it. Own up to your mistakes. I hear confession is good for the soul.

LaCrosseTribune

Hindsight is 20/20.  It's pretty clear to me that Umberger admitted everything because he was caught red handed, not because the police played good cop/bad cop or because of some lawyers superb interrogation skills .  What should the diocese have done?  Mr. Kroner doesn't answer that question.  "Did they try[to get an admission out of Umberger]?"  ..... We are bordering on ridiculous, how can they get an admission to charges that were not even available to them?  Its stupid the diocese doesn't publish what it did do, because I know it was thorough(and not required by law).  I'd recommend my post on Fr. Umberger's cancer.  I think it makes a pretty strong case for health problems causing frequent urination(at that time). Again, all I can go off is what is publicly known and not be a historical revisionist.  What would I have done in that situation if I had been reviewing the Umberger Dells report?  Probably the same thing. 

I would agree that the diocese should be more forthcoming with information.  We will only see more and more people hoping to pin the blame on the diocese because it's too hard to just blame the priest who committed the crime in the first place. It would be the same thing with a cop.  Did the chief know? Why didn't he fire him?  Ect. 

You know what is a good question?  Did Fr. Umberger have these kinds of temptations while in seminary?  Did the seminary director know about them?  How was he instructed to handle these kinds of temptations?