It should be noted that no charges were filed and the cases were dropped by the sheriff and the DA. If the sheriff believes grooming and crimes occurred, then some media outlet should ask the question., “why did you close the case and not press charges?”
Bridget, it was was reported that there was other victims, even the Pillar reported that. Also, there was a specific law that was cited that doesn’t need anything from her to press charges.
Either they should have had sufficient evidence, or some of the statements that have been made from sources have not been accurate. The truth needs to matter, especially when looking at if a criminal behavior occurred or not.
Of course, just because the sheriff believes a crime has been committed, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sheriff and DA believe that they have sufficient evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a court of law. Now, the question of prosecutorial discretion is a whole other can of worms...
The burden of proof is very high, and without the victim's testimony, a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be difficult to obtain. I imagine that the local prosecutor hopes that by waiting, the victim will eventually realize that she has been groomed and assaulted and testify against Crow. On the other hand, if they prosecute now and he is found Not Guilty, then the victim will never get justice (because of Double Jeopardy rules), even if in five or ten years she comes forward and says, "Yes, I was groomed and sexually assaulted as a minor."
Mike, there were other victims and supposedly this was a pattern and other complaints of a criminal nature made to the diocese about Alex Crow. That is what unnamed sources have stated to the Pillar and a few of the other outlets. Was this correct or not? It doesn’t appear to be. The people need to know, because then it can be discovered whether the diocese knew or should of known about this behavior.
Besides that, the Alabama law that the sheriff brought up, statute 13a-6-82, doesn’t have the same burden as what you specify. It bans all sexual relations with teachers or school employees (public or private) and students under the age of 19. The state created the law because of the high of this occurring in the state of Alabama.
The Pillar's previous reporting states, "A source with direct knowledge told The Pillar he understood that Crow’s behavior toward that girl was not sexual or romantic. Nevertheless, the priest’s behavior was significant enough that the Mobile archdiocese saw fit to intervene directly, and with a clear warning to Crow." That's extremely troubling, but it's hardly criminal. And even under the sexual battery statute, they can't prove the two of them are having sex, even if they are married, unless the girl testifies against him, which she is currently unwilling to do.
Mike, the Pillar reported that another girl left his room in the middle of the night on a school trip.
I am just stating what the sheriff has said and making clear some of it doesn’t add up. He says in the below article that they just need proof of a “physical” relationship because he was a volunteer at the school, and they have it in the letter that they found at Crow’s place.
The letter strongly implies it, but it doesn't prove it. And apparently the text message angle didn't pan out, since they haven't filed charges. As others have stated, without a direct complainant saying, "Yes, this happened," it would be very difficult to prove this in court. And per the US Constitution, you only get one shot at a person for a specific crime.
What exactly do you think doesn't add up? Do you think that a crime was committed and that it is being covered up by the archdiocese and/or the local law enforcement agencies? Or do you think that, based on their non-action here, that no crime was in fact committed and that they were misleading the public earlier with their statements alleging that criminal behavior took place.
I think it lies somewhere in between. I think the sheriff has been misleading the public here. As you said below, law enforcement typically don’t run to the media every few days with new information on open cases. He has been everywhere with this including Nancy Grace and has made some wild claims, like Italy refusing to help and/or was going arrest anyone that would go over there to question the couple.
Alex Crow behavior is morally abhorrent, but was a crime committed? I am guessing the truth is that timeline can’t be established or it only started when she was 18 or maybe 17, and it might not had been through the school but rather the church. Or knowledge of the law in question was lacking. So was a crime committed? Maybe not. The sheriff has been acting like it is a slam dunk, which apparently was not the case.
Then the Sheriff needs to find other victims and pursue prosecution through them. For whatever reason at this point the DA is not following up on the issue of the age of the young lady.
Crow was also not a teacher or employed by the high school. He was a visiting priest, brought in to speak to classes and hear confessions. I am not excusing him by any means, but I don't think the statute cited applies. The whole situation is murky.
Sheriff said that doesn’t matter and that the law applies to volunteers or other people in authority at the school. People keep wanting to argue with me in bad faith but I am taking the sheriff at his word, and he is the law enforcement and should be the expert on the matter.
The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the area, but the decision to bring criminal charges against someone is the responsibility and at the discretion of the local district attorney. They would be the ones to assess the evidence and decide 1) whether there is a case and 2) whether there is enough evidence to successfully prosecute. If there is not, then standard procedure is to leave the case open and keep investigating until that evidence surfaces. And they rarely inform the public about the details of ongoing investigations.
Yes, it may be true that the crime is per se and her testimony is unnecessary to a prosecution. But you can bet that the defense would call her to testify on his behalf. And you know what else would be on trial in Mobile, AL? The Catholic Church and the idea that celibacy is unnatural, etc. There most likely wouldn't be 12 jurors to unanimously convict him. So, I am just fine with the prosecutor using the discretion he or she has to decide not to go forward with the case. And I will be praying that the young woman will find herself free of her infatuation with Alex Crow and escape him.
Are there specifically known facts relating to the manipulation charge, or is this a statutory manipulation by reason of their leaving the diocese/state together? I have nothing wrong with the latter understanding, I just want to get the case posture straight in my mind.
The logic and reasoning of "the doctors of law" at The Pillar is commendably flawless, but apparently you guys never got the memo... Under the spirit (and miscellaneous footnotes) of Amoris Laetitia, couples civilly married due to irregular circumstances are to be welcomed, not judged, and, following a period of discernment and examination of conscience... readmitted to the sacraments. Perhaps we'll see the newly minted Mr. & Mrs. Crow flipping pancakes soon at a communion breakfast at a parish near you.
Hi, Bridget. Well, the sarcasm was aimed more at the "spirit of Amoris Laetitia" than at the Crows' relationship per se. But your point is fair. If the young Mrs Crow were my daughter, I likely wouldn't appreciate the humor.
Catholics are asking how Fr. Crow's departure to Europe could have been prevented?
Short of having vigilantes and clerics either "arresting" him, locking him in the chancery basement or taking his car keys and banning him from using Uber what do these folks expect?
There is always a need to blame someone, so I guess it is "logical" to blame the Archdiocese, right?
While possible to have better monitored Crow's actions and behaviors, and while the Archdiocese could have stopped his so called "exorcisms" prohibition of from travel is not the competency of the Archdiocese.
The Archbishop could have forbade his travels but does this seem like a priest who cared about this possible avenue?
In my personal experience, there was virtually no training with regard to celibacy at the progressive Saint Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore during the years I studied there (1987–1992). I am not surprised in the least that priests succumb to their passions and leave ministry.
It’s changed a bit since 1992. My parents are invited regularly to the seminary to do formation in the role of marriage in priesthood and marital spirituality. They’re expanding the program into multi-week programs that pair the seminarians up with a married mentor couple and the seminarians participate in the marriage preparation program that every engaged couple in my diocese is to do. It is in part to connect the seminarians with well formed married couples and help with their ongoing discernment. If your going to be celibate, it should be a real choice among two goods!
I appreciate your information, KP, and I believe that exemplary married couples can disabuse young seminarians of any fantasies they may have about marriage. But explicit training/formation in celibacy still isn’t addressed in this way. If celibacy “for the sake of the Kingdom” isn’t cherished, the seminarian and later priest will likely have an impoverished or failed ministry.
They get plenty of direct formation in celibacy too. Sometimes though, for some of them, it is through understanding the good being sacrificed for the sake of the kingdom that gets the penny to drop. My parents have done similar workshops at clergy conferences and had grown men who’d been priests for decades in tears because they finally ‘got it’. These’s a deep theological nuptial mystery at the heart of the vocation to celibacy too as JPII and Benedict XVI has written about. You would have missed it, Christopher West and theology of the body in the English speaking world was on just coming on to the scene in 1992.
Well, that’s all very good news. Unfortunately, I suspect not every seminary is on board, and—as you alluded—there are many priests who were shortchanged during their years of formation.
Mother Church would do good to allow men ordained in the Latin rite to receive the sacrament of matrimony as well. Their sacraments, they do not cancel each other out; time for the Church to open its eyes to this ontological truth.
How very sad.
It should be noted that no charges were filed and the cases were dropped by the sheriff and the DA. If the sheriff believes grooming and crimes occurred, then some media outlet should ask the question., “why did you close the case and not press charges?”
https://www.al.com/news/2023/11/mobile-county-sheriff-joins-da-in-closing-case-of-former-alabama-priest-alex-crow.html
Because the victim does not understand that she is a victim.
Bridget, it was was reported that there was other victims, even the Pillar reported that. Also, there was a specific law that was cited that doesn’t need anything from her to press charges.
Either they should have had sufficient evidence, or some of the statements that have been made from sources have not been accurate. The truth needs to matter, especially when looking at if a criminal behavior occurred or not.
Of course, just because the sheriff believes a crime has been committed, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sheriff and DA believe that they have sufficient evidence in order to obtain a conviction in a court of law. Now, the question of prosecutorial discretion is a whole other can of worms...
The burden of proof is very high, and without the victim's testimony, a conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" would be difficult to obtain. I imagine that the local prosecutor hopes that by waiting, the victim will eventually realize that she has been groomed and assaulted and testify against Crow. On the other hand, if they prosecute now and he is found Not Guilty, then the victim will never get justice (because of Double Jeopardy rules), even if in five or ten years she comes forward and says, "Yes, I was groomed and sexually assaulted as a minor."
Mike, there were other victims and supposedly this was a pattern and other complaints of a criminal nature made to the diocese about Alex Crow. That is what unnamed sources have stated to the Pillar and a few of the other outlets. Was this correct or not? It doesn’t appear to be. The people need to know, because then it can be discovered whether the diocese knew or should of known about this behavior.
Besides that, the Alabama law that the sheriff brought up, statute 13a-6-82, doesn’t have the same burden as what you specify. It bans all sexual relations with teachers or school employees (public or private) and students under the age of 19. The state created the law because of the high of this occurring in the state of Alabama.
As I said before, the truth needs to matter.
The Pillar's previous reporting states, "A source with direct knowledge told The Pillar he understood that Crow’s behavior toward that girl was not sexual or romantic. Nevertheless, the priest’s behavior was significant enough that the Mobile archdiocese saw fit to intervene directly, and with a clear warning to Crow." That's extremely troubling, but it's hardly criminal. And even under the sexual battery statute, they can't prove the two of them are having sex, even if they are married, unless the girl testifies against him, which she is currently unwilling to do.
Mike, the Pillar reported that another girl left his room in the middle of the night on a school trip.
I am just stating what the sheriff has said and making clear some of it doesn’t add up. He says in the below article that they just need proof of a “physical” relationship because he was a volunteer at the school, and they have it in the letter that they found at Crow’s place.
https://www.wkrg.com/mobile-county/mobile-sheriff-text-messages-key-to-proving-crow-broke-the-law/amp/
The letter strongly implies it, but it doesn't prove it. And apparently the text message angle didn't pan out, since they haven't filed charges. As others have stated, without a direct complainant saying, "Yes, this happened," it would be very difficult to prove this in court. And per the US Constitution, you only get one shot at a person for a specific crime.
What exactly do you think doesn't add up? Do you think that a crime was committed and that it is being covered up by the archdiocese and/or the local law enforcement agencies? Or do you think that, based on their non-action here, that no crime was in fact committed and that they were misleading the public earlier with their statements alleging that criminal behavior took place.
I think it lies somewhere in between. I think the sheriff has been misleading the public here. As you said below, law enforcement typically don’t run to the media every few days with new information on open cases. He has been everywhere with this including Nancy Grace and has made some wild claims, like Italy refusing to help and/or was going arrest anyone that would go over there to question the couple.
Alex Crow behavior is morally abhorrent, but was a crime committed? I am guessing the truth is that timeline can’t be established or it only started when she was 18 or maybe 17, and it might not had been through the school but rather the church. Or knowledge of the law in question was lacking. So was a crime committed? Maybe not. The sheriff has been acting like it is a slam dunk, which apparently was not the case.
Then the Sheriff needs to find other victims and pursue prosecution through them. For whatever reason at this point the DA is not following up on the issue of the age of the young lady.
Crow was also not a teacher or employed by the high school. He was a visiting priest, brought in to speak to classes and hear confessions. I am not excusing him by any means, but I don't think the statute cited applies. The whole situation is murky.
Sheriff said that doesn’t matter and that the law applies to volunteers or other people in authority at the school. People keep wanting to argue with me in bad faith but I am taking the sheriff at his word, and he is the law enforcement and should be the expert on the matter.
https://www.wkrg.com/mobile-county/mobile-sheriff-text-messages-key-to-proving-crow-broke-the-law/amp/
The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer in the area, but the decision to bring criminal charges against someone is the responsibility and at the discretion of the local district attorney. They would be the ones to assess the evidence and decide 1) whether there is a case and 2) whether there is enough evidence to successfully prosecute. If there is not, then standard procedure is to leave the case open and keep investigating until that evidence surfaces. And they rarely inform the public about the details of ongoing investigations.
Yes, it may be true that the crime is per se and her testimony is unnecessary to a prosecution. But you can bet that the defense would call her to testify on his behalf. And you know what else would be on trial in Mobile, AL? The Catholic Church and the idea that celibacy is unnatural, etc. There most likely wouldn't be 12 jurors to unanimously convict him. So, I am just fine with the prosecutor using the discretion he or she has to decide not to go forward with the case. And I will be praying that the young woman will find herself free of her infatuation with Alex Crow and escape him.
Because the young lady refuse to cooperate and at the time as an adult could not be compelled to do so in most states.
All we can do is pray for him, and for the young woman he persuaded to 'marry' him.
There is nothing good about this situation.
I will ask St. Elizabeth of Hungary to pray for the repentance of Fr. Alex Crow.
I pray that the girl comes to her senses and returns to her family, soon.
As the crow flies…
Are there specifically known facts relating to the manipulation charge, or is this a statutory manipulation by reason of their leaving the diocese/state together? I have nothing wrong with the latter understanding, I just want to get the case posture straight in my mind.
You might find helpful background on that in our prior reporting on this, linked to a few times in this explainer. Here you go:
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/details-emerge-on-fr-alex-crow-questions
The logic and reasoning of "the doctors of law" at The Pillar is commendably flawless, but apparently you guys never got the memo... Under the spirit (and miscellaneous footnotes) of Amoris Laetitia, couples civilly married due to irregular circumstances are to be welcomed, not judged, and, following a period of discernment and examination of conscience... readmitted to the sacraments. Perhaps we'll see the newly minted Mr. & Mrs. Crow flipping pancakes soon at a communion breakfast at a parish near you.
Ought we to joke about abuse?
Hi, Bridget. Well, the sarcasm was aimed more at the "spirit of Amoris Laetitia" than at the Crows' relationship per se. But your point is fair. If the young Mrs Crow were my daughter, I likely wouldn't appreciate the humor.
I don't think the AL envisioned clerics as being covered by the dubious footnote in that document.
Catholics are asking how Fr. Crow's departure to Europe could have been prevented?
Short of having vigilantes and clerics either "arresting" him, locking him in the chancery basement or taking his car keys and banning him from using Uber what do these folks expect?
There is always a need to blame someone, so I guess it is "logical" to blame the Archdiocese, right?
While possible to have better monitored Crow's actions and behaviors, and while the Archdiocese could have stopped his so called "exorcisms" prohibition of from travel is not the competency of the Archdiocese.
The Archbishop could have forbade his travels but does this seem like a priest who cared about this possible avenue?
The Adversary attacks each of us in the easiest way… we poor humans, and our Original Sin.
This IS sad: For him, for her, for Mobile, for the Church. Even for the world. Yet another club with which secularists can beat us.
But… Christmas is coming… and Easter
Minor point: I think the language re: marriage licensing in Alabama needs tweaking. There are apparently no marriage licenses anymore in that state. https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/vitalrecords/assets/marriage_faq.pdf
In my personal experience, there was virtually no training with regard to celibacy at the progressive Saint Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore during the years I studied there (1987–1992). I am not surprised in the least that priests succumb to their passions and leave ministry.
It’s changed a bit since 1992. My parents are invited regularly to the seminary to do formation in the role of marriage in priesthood and marital spirituality. They’re expanding the program into multi-week programs that pair the seminarians up with a married mentor couple and the seminarians participate in the marriage preparation program that every engaged couple in my diocese is to do. It is in part to connect the seminarians with well formed married couples and help with their ongoing discernment. If your going to be celibate, it should be a real choice among two goods!
I appreciate your information, KP, and I believe that exemplary married couples can disabuse young seminarians of any fantasies they may have about marriage. But explicit training/formation in celibacy still isn’t addressed in this way. If celibacy “for the sake of the Kingdom” isn’t cherished, the seminarian and later priest will likely have an impoverished or failed ministry.
They get plenty of direct formation in celibacy too. Sometimes though, for some of them, it is through understanding the good being sacrificed for the sake of the kingdom that gets the penny to drop. My parents have done similar workshops at clergy conferences and had grown men who’d been priests for decades in tears because they finally ‘got it’. These’s a deep theological nuptial mystery at the heart of the vocation to celibacy too as JPII and Benedict XVI has written about. You would have missed it, Christopher West and theology of the body in the English speaking world was on just coming on to the scene in 1992.
Well, that’s all very good news. Unfortunately, I suspect not every seminary is on board, and—as you alluded—there are many priests who were shortchanged during their years of formation.
Mother Church would do good to allow men ordained in the Latin rite to receive the sacrament of matrimony as well. Their sacraments, they do not cancel each other out; time for the Church to open its eyes to this ontological truth.