"Priest made me gay" sues for $5million - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 10-12-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

UNHOLY WAY TO TURN GAY
By DAN MANGAN
LINK
A debonair New York socialite filed a $5 million legal notice against the Catholic Church yesterday — claiming his molestation at age 7 at the hands of a young priest led him to become gay.

J. David Enright IV — a scion of Albany's renowned Van Rensselaer and de la Grange families — told The Post he was repeatedly sexually abused by the Rev. Joseph Romano, a seminarian counselor at upstate Camp Tekawitha on Lake Luzerne, in 1961 and 1962.

"I believe that my life would be very different now," said Enright, 51, dressed in a custom-made English suit and French cuffed shirt. "I'd probably be married, living in Greenwich, with four children in boarding school.

"Romano bent my life."

The Upper East Side resident said Romano, then 21, took him behind a cabin after dinner and evening prayers and engaged in sex. The molestation was repeated up to seven more times, extending into the following summer, Enright said.

He'd "explain to me that this was a rite of passage," said Enright, who recalls the "devastating" abuse every day of his life.

Enright made his mark in New York City as a young ad man. In 1982, he landed a $5 million annual account for David Merrick's Broadway production of "42nd Street."

"I had a completely straight life in business, socially on Park Avenue and Fifth Avenue," he said, noting that he dated women in the 1980s. "Then there was the other world, which was slinking around in Greenwich Village gay bars, finding mates."

Enright for years believed he might have been Romano's only victim, but became angry last month when he learned the 65-year-old retired priest, who now lives in disgrace in Florida, may have molested two other children.

A newspaper article revealed that although Romano was suspended by the Albany Diocese in 2003 over the allegations, he is currently seeking restoration of his priestly powers.

Enright believes Romano should be defrocked. Enright yesterday filed a notice of claim in Manhattan Supreme Court naming Romano, Bishop Howard Hubbard and the Albany Diocese as defendants in a planned lawsuit.

Diocese spokesman Kenneth Goldfarb said that the diocese will investigate Enright's allegations, but noted that his claims predate Hubbard's tenure as bishop. Romano couldn't be reached for comment.

It's not like he had a bad lifestyle or career. Seems like he was quite successful on the surface, but that doesn't necessarily mean much when one has to meet the demons one keeps in the privacy of their own head.

I'm not sure where this lands for me since it infers that an action of someone else made him gay.

rsl12 · 10-12-2005, 07:01 AM

Excellent! Either the Church cannot concede that homosexuality is a genetic trait; therefore, the environment must be to blame.

Gatorade Frost · 10-12-2005, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsl12

Excellent! Either the Church cannot concede that homosexuality is a genetic trait; therefore, the environment must be to blame.

He could be gay by choice, then chose to pose the same 'question' toward the Catholic Church and hold them responsible for it, creating a bit of a political fire storm and trying to take a jab at the Catholic Church.

I think it's just politics in its lowest form.

Ustwo · 10-12-2005, 07:18 AM

Oh noes he gave him teh gay!

I wonder how the many activist groups view this. If he 'wins' it would mean that to the courts, being gay was a negative trait, like being maimed in some way. To win is to lose and to lose is to win (on many levels here for both groups).

10-12-2005, 07:40 AM

This is a stupid case to take to trial. It isn't a matter of legality to decide whether people can be 'turned' gay - a ruling that showed in the eyes of the law that homosexuality is brought on by the behaviour of others might open lawsuits where lesbians and gays can sue their parents for dressing them in inappropriately coloured pyjamas. Pure lunacy - it should be thrown out of court.

Radarhero · 10-12-2005, 11:23 AM

Mmmm... A very contaversial subject indeed. but yet the answer is simple.

For a liberalist would blame Cannon law and say "Because of celebasy and other religious abstanances caused the priest to break out in liberation of his sexual irritation"
For a pantheist would say "That he cannot sue God."
For an atheist would say " how unlucky he was to be molested"
An existentialist would probably say "he must be gay"
and an agnostic would look at this and say nothing because he does not know where he stands ethically...

What's my point?.. well it's obvious this issue deals with ethics and moral law. However it's sinful nature.

What would a Christian say? It is quite clear to see that this priest had an evil in him that had a mighty sway over his sexual orientation. For the priest must have spent a lot of hours within the church with other men. Learning from each other and growing an almost brotherly bond between them. I would even question if there might have been acts of homosexuality within the priesthood because of celebatical law... we don't know.

But this cannon law and the celebatical law within the Catholic church is a huge danger. If the church does follow the Written word of God then they should consider 1 Corinthians 7 v 9.

This man, "J. David Enright IV" can still sue the Catholic church. but then only the Catholic church. for it is only the Catholic church that reserves the cannon law and rejects truth of the Word of God which they claim to believe in. To sue the Whole Church including the evangelical Christian would be an act of sueing God. Fundementally it is incorrect to do that because the evangelical church does not follow Cannon Law.

However it is an unfortunate thing to happen to J. David Enright IV. but he still expresses a desire to get married and have Four children in boarding school. Why Four and why boarding school? It is clear that he has this desire to marry and that he has been pondering on this subject for a long long time..

The past is the past i agree. But the devil loves to shove it in our faces and make us frozen with fear unable to move on, and in this case not being accepted by the opposite sex. The devil probably told this guy he must be gay because he enjoyed it so much or he could be gay by choice. Sueing the church is only (in my opinion) a cry for acceptance or attention. His longing for a change in his life expresses this idea.

Final thought: Money will not digress the past nor will it ever change the desire to get married. Only forgiveness can do that...

maskedrider · 10-12-2005, 04:52 PM

Interesting news....

martinguerre · 10-12-2005, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Oh noes he gave him teh gay!

I wonder how the many activist groups view this. If he 'wins' it would mean that to the courts, being gay was a negative trait, like being maimed in some way. To win is to lose and to lose is to win (on many levels here for both groups).

For me, and i know you were just waiting for my contribution here...

it boils down to this...the trauma, and the legitimate source of the suit is the molestation, which is inarguably a tort under the law as well as a criminal act. from the sound of it, he sought relationships with both men and women, but had intense shame and guilt around his gay relationships...which if they were associated with abuse a fairly predictable response. I think a court would have a hard time coming up with a finding of damage specifically for the claim of a changed orientation, but surely could for the abuse.

jorgelito · 10-13-2005, 01:16 AM

Regardless of homosexuality, priests should not go around molesting kids. Period. Actually, IMO, no one should go around molesting children, in my opinion.

Ustwo · 10-13-2005, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Regardless of homosexuality, priests should not go around molesting kids. Period. Actually, IMO, no one should go around molesting children, in my opinion.

I also hear the sky is blue and water is wet

We don't have any members of NAMBLA here do we?

RAGEAngel9 · 10-13-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I also hear the sky is blue and water is wet

We don't have any members of NAMBLA here do we?

Yeah what of it?

rsl12 · 10-13-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Regardless of homosexuality, priests should not go around molesting kids. Period. Actually, IMO, no one should go around molesting children, in my opinion.

hahahaha sorry that was really funny.

jorgelito · 10-13-2005, 10:49 PM

Sure it's obvious, but it seems like it gets lost in all the "extraneous noise".

Ah...wet water......love it.

Still, it's kind of a weird case: to claim someone "made" you gay. I guess I don't see it.

Gatorade Frost · 10-14-2005, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Regardless of homosexuality, priests should not go around molesting kids. Period. Actually, IMO, no one should go around molesting children, in my opinion.

Well, imo, I agree with you. It's just not right, in my opinion. Think of the children.

highthief · 10-14-2005, 06:28 AM

Maybe being gay made him successful in his ad career and he should thank the guy!

Seriously, if he was genuinely molested, that's unfortunate, but I doubt he was "turned gay".

Heck, he's a "scion" and a "IV" - probably as queer as a 3 dollar bill to begin with.

martinguerre · 10-14-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Heck, he's a "scion" and a "IV" - probably as queer as a 3 dollar bill to begin with.

Yeah, that's funny.

Bigot.

Cynthetiq · 10-14-2005, 01:20 PM

There was actually another article about someone who was molested by a priest and was mute in the paper today. Between this and the child support one maybe people will start suing their parents for XYZ reasons...

10-12-2005, 07:01 AM	#2 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	Excellent! Either the Church cannot concede that homosexuality is a genetic trait; therefore, the environment must be to blame. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

10-12-2005, 07:18 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Oh noes he gave him teh gay! I wonder how the many activist groups view this. If he 'wins' it would mean that to the courts, being gay was a negative trait, like being maimed in some way. To win is to lose and to lose is to win (on many levels here for both groups). __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-12-2005, 11:23 AM	#6 (permalink)
Radarhero Upright Location: I live in a third world or First world. Whatever you want to call it. The land of many nations... South Africa	Well Ahem... Mmmm... A very contaversial subject indeed. but yet the answer is simple. For a liberalist would blame Cannon law and say "Because of celebasy and other religious abstanances caused the priest to break out in liberation of his sexual irritation" For a pantheist would say "That he cannot sue God." For an atheist would say " how unlucky he was to be molested" An existentialist would probably say "he must be gay" and an agnostic would look at this and say nothing because he does not know where he stands ethically... What's my point?.. well it's obvious this issue deals with ethics and moral law. However it's sinful nature. What would a Christian say? It is quite clear to see that this priest had an evil in him that had a mighty sway over his sexual orientation. For the priest must have spent a lot of hours within the church with other men. Learning from each other and growing an almost brotherly bond between them. I would even question if there might have been acts of homosexuality within the priesthood because of celebatical law... we don't know. But this cannon law and the celebatical law within the Catholic church is a huge danger. If the church does follow the Written word of God then they should consider 1 Corinthians 7 v 9. This man, "J. David Enright IV" can still sue the Catholic church. but then only the Catholic church. for it is only the Catholic church that reserves the cannon law and rejects truth of the Word of God which they claim to believe in. To sue the Whole Church including the evangelical Christian would be an act of sueing God. Fundementally it is incorrect to do that because the evangelical church does not follow Cannon Law. However it is an unfortunate thing to happen to J. David Enright IV. but he still expresses a desire to get married and have Four children in boarding school. Why Four and why boarding school? It is clear that he has this desire to marry and that he has been pondering on this subject for a long long time.. The past is the past i agree. But the devil loves to shove it in our faces and make us frozen with fear unable to move on, and in this case not being accepted by the opposite sex. The devil probably told this guy he must be gay because he enjoyed it so much or he could be gay by choice. Sueing the church is only (in my opinion) a cry for acceptance or attention. His longing for a change in his life expresses this idea. Final thought: Money will not digress the past nor will it ever change the desire to get married. Only forgiveness can do that... __________________ it happens to all of us... Last edited by Radarhero; 10-12-2005 at 11:30 AM.. Reason: Repition of words

10-14-2005, 06:28 AM	#15 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Maybe being gay made him successful in his ad career and he should thank the guy! Seriously, if he was genuinely molested, that's unfortunate, but I doubt he was "turned gay". Heck, he's a "scion" and a "IV" - probably as queer as a 3 dollar bill to begin with. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-14-2005, 01:20 PM	#17 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	There was actually another article about someone who was molested by a priest and was mute in the paper today. Between this and the child support one maybe people will start suing their parents for XYZ reasons... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-12-2005, 07:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	This is a stupid case to take to trial. It isn't a matter of legality to decide whether people can be 'turned' gay - a ruling that showed in the eyes of the law that homosexuality is brought on by the behaviour of others might open lawsuits where lesbians and gays can sue their parents for dressing them in inappropriately coloured pyjamas. Pure lunacy - it should be thrown out of court.

10-12-2005, 04:52 PM	#7 (permalink)
maskedrider Banned	Interesting news....

10-13-2005, 01:16 AM	#9 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Regardless of homosexuality, priests should not go around molesting kids. Period. Actually, IMO, no one should go around molesting children, in my opinion.

10-13-2005, 10:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Sure it's obvious, but it seems like it gets lost in all the "extraneous noise". Ah...wet water......love it. Still, it's kind of a weird case: to claim someone "made" you gay. I guess I don't see it.