To all who just don't get it wrote on Feb 2, 2007 11:28 AM:
" This is the Methodist Statement of their beliefs adopted by the church. Sexual abuse within the ministerial relationship occurs when a person within a miniterial role of leadership,pastor,educator,counselor,youyhh leader or other position ofleadership engages in sexual contact or sexual behavior with a congregant,client,employee,student,staff member,co-worker or volunteer. He admitted! "
old friend wrote on Feb 1, 2007 12:04 PM:
" I've known Don Budd and his family for many years. I will not believe these charges. He is innocent until proven guilty. But I have learned that once the charges were made he is quilty until he can prove his innocents. Especially when it gets in the newspapers. There are to many discrepanticies for me to believe he is quilty. "
Manville Bates wrote on Feb 1, 2007 6:15 AM:
" If any of the acusations are true at all, I can imagine only one reason for the complaint after 10 times, and that would be that he stopped before she was ready to stop. And the paper blasts his name all over the place. "
anonymous wrote on Jan 31, 2007 8:50 PM:
" I have been a non-clergy person in the United Methodist Church for 40 years around the state. I have witnessed the fast action of the church as it dealt with persons who have done inappropriate acts. During those times I have talkied with clergy who have confirmed that this church has no tolerance for abusive behavior and does not sweep incidents like this "under the rug." In many cases credentials are removed and in others the person is deemed to be ill and need care. Either way they will not be put in a situation again where they can abuse another. I will wait to find out if this man is guily and what reason can be given for the act and hope and pray for all involved. "
judge and jury? wrote on Jan 31, 2007 3:55 PM:
" It seems that the Winona Daily News is trying this case instead of the court.
The use of the word alleged may save the paper from a lawsuit but the amount of coverage given and the liberal use of the Pastors name have the man already convicted in the public eye. I would also question why the woman’s name has been omitted. I will wait for all the facts and base any judgments, pro or con after that.
"
Poor Zimmy.......... wrote on Jan 31, 2007 3:46 PM:
" That is what they said about Jeffery Dahmer as well. Many people who commit such acts live normal daily lives and only commit the acts behind the scenes where no one knows. "
Zimmy wrote on Jan 31, 2007 2:08 PM:
" I do not believe he could commit such an act. I have known him for about four years and have been a member of the church all my life. He is a happily married man with two children what reason would he have for this. "
JUST STOP wrote on Jan 31, 2007 1:35 PM:
" Judge not lest ye be judged.
Matthew 7:1 "
Too Judgemental wrote on Jan 31, 2007 1:24 PM:
" It seems to me that a lot of people are being very judgemental of both parties involved. I think it is up to the general public to read the news realizing that not all the information is there and not to make any assumptions until all facts are given. Why can't people just let things lie still and let the law handle this, that is after all why we have the system we do. "
wait a second...breathe...and be rational wrote on Jan 31, 2007 12:45 PM:
" The charge isn't rape. He is accused of using his authority as a pastor during her time of distress to take advantage of her, which IS against the law. The UM Church, especially the Bishop has been very clear that this is unacceptable behavior. It tried to do its job by making sure the initial allegations had merit, but if the person with the complaint quits participating in the process, how does the church find the merit in the complaint? Also, the church didn't neccesarily wait until it was in the paper to remove the pastor, it removed him as soon as the criminal charges were brought against him. "
LeftLegMissing wrote on Jan 31, 2007 12:13 PM:
" I've got to say winona is a great town I used to travel there on my way to florida from massachusetts. "
You're missing the point wrote on Jan 31, 2007 10:40 AM:
" 10 times or 100 times - what does that matter? The preacher was COUNSELING her, and for that reason is ethically bound by his church and his profession to refrain from intimate relations with his CLIENT, no matter what "mitigating" factors may have been in play. This is obviously a disturbed and vulnerable individual making these charges. If the guy was a psychiatrist, he would be out on his ear even if the CLIENT initiated the activities. If he didn't do it, he should be left alone, but if he did it he should at least be fun out of the church, even though it might not turn out to be technically illegal. "
I think this church has more serious issues wrote on Jan 31, 2007 9:44 AM:
" The parishioners of this church need to take a good long look at why the church council decided to try and sweep this whole thing under the rug. If it had been handled properly internally then there would have been no need to go to the police. This woman was seeking to have the pastor punished for his actions and the church higher-ups chose to look the other way. Now it's front page headlines and a criminal matter. Note to church councils-sometimes it is a lot less messy to clean house the right way the first time. "
Sacred Places wrote on Jan 31, 2007 9:39 AM:
" I about tossed my breakfast when I read what the pastor said on the tape recording. When asked why he had touched her in church his reply was "because it is the most sacred of places". When asked how he thought he was going to heaven he replied "By the grace of God". He might get to heaven but by the grace of God I hope he is kicked in his own "sacred places" first. The thought of this creep using his position as a pastor to get his sexual thrill makes my skin crawl. "
Not at a loss for words wrote on Jan 31, 2007 9:33 AM:
" It clearly states in the article that the pastor used his position of influence and power to coerce her into these acts. It also states that she was emotionally unstable and seeking counseling from this man. That is how he was able to convince her to do these acts. I am happy that she had the determination to go to the police with this problem when the church would not help. I am also glad that she wore a wire and got this sick pervert to confess to everything he did. "
I read the article wrote on Jan 31, 2007 8:55 AM:
" The first line says she is charging him with having "sex" with her. No where does it say rape, which means to me that she was ok with it at first and then changed her mind after 10 times and decided to get a good man into trouble. If it would have been me or other women I know, it would never have happened; we know how to say no. But if it was rape, why did she go back for more? Her story sounds fishy to me. "
Anonymous? wrote on Jan 31, 2007 8:46 AM:
" Why is he not able to remain anonymous until proven guilty? Until that happens, both should remain anonymous, or neither. "
RE: Wondering wrote on Jan 31, 2007 8:46 AM:
" I found the information. Sorry, I just read this article first. I now found the other article. "
Wondering wrote on Jan 31, 2007 8:40 AM:
" Where is the criminal complaint? Is it public information? If it's public information, where and how can it be accessed? "
"Daytime dreamer", have some empathy wrote on Jan 31, 2007 8:32 AM:
" It is clear to me that "Daytime dreamer" has not been a victim of a sexual assault or any crime of force. Denial is often a survival mechanism. It can take time to process through an assault, especially if it is perpetrated by a person of trust and in a position of leadership, either publicly or within a group. The victim's delay in reporting may confuse the uninformed reader, but this is exactly why the statute of limitations provides a lengthy time to come forward. It takes time to come to terms with an assault. Stop "dreaming" and start paying attention to your world... "
Sad Day For Church wrote on Jan 31, 2007 8:31 AM:
" I do not understand the charges. Was it 10 times that they had sexual encounters. I am not blaming the victim if this truly happened, but why on earth would you go back and have it done 10 times. Once should of been enough for something to go off and say This is not appropriate. Whether the charges are true or not it will no doubt ruin 2 families. "
Re: Daytime dreamer wrote on Jan 31, 2007 7:37 AM:
" According to the article on the criminal complaint, they never had sex. He is accused of asking her to undress and he is accused of fondling her. "
re: you've got to be kidding me! wrote on Jan 31, 2007 6:54 AM:
" Maybe she realized she was just as wrong as he was!!! Come on!!! 10 times! Evidentally she didn't think it was wrong, otherwise why did she keep going back!!! If it is true, which I have my doubts, let the families deal with it, after all that is who it is all about to start with!!!!! Also daily news, lets put her name in the paper also!!! My prayers go out to all families involved!! "
You've got to be kidding me! wrote on Jan 31, 2007 6:07 AM:
" Maybe the reason she stopped cooperating with the church hierarchy was that they weren't doing anything on the complaint -- she came forward months ago but he just now being placed on leave -- after the news is published in the paper.
Everytime I hear someone say they are not blaming the victim it seems to me that they are! Since there is a tape acknowledging what he did let us hope there will be justice for this victim.
I hope the members of his church will be able to heal as well
"
Daytime dreamer wrote on Jan 31, 2007 1:36 AM:
" Did they have sex ten times? Or is she alleging he raped her ten times, why does it take so long (over a year to bring charges from the victim?) This type of act confuses me, did she get angry because it stopped, or was he wrongly coercing her into sex. "
Advertisement
