FREDERICK — A Catholic priest faces an indecent exposure charge after police said he went jogging in the nude about an hour before sunrise.
The Rev. Robert Whipkey told officers he had been running naked at a high school track and didn’t think anyone would be around at that time of day, a police report said.
He told officers he sweats profusely if he wears clothing while jogging. "I know what I did was wrong," he said in the report.
Good thing he didn’t sweat profusely while preaching. Next time though he might consider buying a treadmill instead.
36 comments
This priest could have saved himself and everyone else a whole lot of embarrassment if he had just taken up swimming.
I do hope the policeman isn’t scarred for life.
If this were an employee of Sears, do you think the regional office of Sears would be involved? Would it be news? This whole situation is out of control.
Kathy, if said offender were an employee of Sears and volunteered for a parish ministry, the required criminal background check would turn up positive – and they would be barred from having anything to do with children.
Given the shifting status of laws (for example protesting abortion), perhaps the Church ought to either re-examine its local policies for dealing with those caught on the wrong side of the Law – or hold their leaders to the same standard of behavior that they do for their sheep.
Great googly-moogly! I’ve attended a Mass at one of his parishes. Seemed like an ordinary middle-aged priest to me. Can we hope for a moment that he was studying and meditating on St. Paul’s “I have run the race” and was trying to live up to the standards of New Testament times in running? Can we hope that no other priests in the area have his habit of going so completely unhabited?
Frederick is a rapidly-growing bedroom community and pretty conservative. He and his parishioners at St. Therese (and at Guardian Angels in Mead and St. Scholastica in Erie) are in need of prayers.
Couldn’t he have compromised and, I dunno, just wore a nice pair of track shorts? Duh.
Good grief.
I about sprayed my coffe when the article said the naval observatory recorded the sunrise that day in Frederick at 05:31. How’d they observe his navel if it was dark? And isn’t it more relevant to record what time the moon rose?
And so on.
broed, I hope I’m never the butt of your jokes! Arr arr.
Bad judgement, yes. Dumb, yes. Uncomfortably bouncy, probably. A sex crime? No. Or go along the beach at night and arrest all the skinny dippers and publish their names on Megan’s Law.
Burnt M., even if you didn’t get to teach CCD, that would be bad, but your embarrassing idiocy wouldn’t have to be handled by the archdiocesan spokesperson.
I don’t think laws should be so vigorously pointed at any class of persons. It’s discrimination. And some of the rhetoric against bishops and priests is really what I’d call a hate crime.
Public nudity (except, it seems, in gay pride parades) is an offense for which one can be arrested for.
In one of Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s programs he speaks of public nudity as a sign of the presence of the devil. Something is very wrong here. One could wear at least a swimsuit…
Somebody hand him an Episcopal clergy job application. He’ll fit right in.
Erring on this issue: is it possible he has a condition that makes him overperspire? I bet he could use a medical defense. Google on overproduction of sweat, I can’t remember the proper name. Remember, I’m giving Father the benefit of the doubt. No flamers, please. (All puns intended.)
I have to agree w/Ave Maria. This guy is a few bricks short of a load and, I fear, about to find out how “laicization” works.
Good gravy! Talk about causing scandal!
As if we need MORE strangeness from priests.
Big deal, Mr. Rodgers swam naked every morning, and everything worked out well.
When he saw the headlights he covered himself. He wasn’t intending to expose himself. Poor judgment is not, Ave Maria, the same as diabolical possession. Nor, PMG, is it schism.
Kathy,
When priests violate our laws we give them a free pass. When our parishes adopt a smug zero tolerance policy for the laity, we call this wisdom. But when I point out the inconsistency this is embarrassing idiocy?
B–sorry I wasn’t clear. The embarrassing idiocy would have been your naked jogging, had this been you.
I don’t think priests get away with diddly right now. So to speak.
Kathy, I completely misread your first post about my embarrasing idiocy. You were perfectly clear – I got my underwear in a knot way too quickly – now I’m all embarrassed. Please accept my apology.
Moving right along, you are right that the secular world drags the faults of the clergy to unreasonable levels of publicity. Your well-timed call for mercy refreshes the soul. Your defense of the clergy to Ave Maria and PMG will be remembered by Our Lord before angels.
Had I been in my right mind when I was commenting, I would have added to your call to mercy and suggest we lead by example at a parish level. I find the current mandatory criminal background checks highly invasive not because I have criminal activity to hide but because it is so easy to get a criminal record without being a criminal. Rev Whipkey and the two nuns in a previous story are good examples.
There was a quote on the internet the other day from a priest who said he sometimes celebrates a private Mass in the nude.
Those vestments do look pretty warm.
Priests are one of those occupations that are rightfully held to a higher standard. Others include the military, police, teachers and there are probably a few I missed. It’s part of the package. Deal with it!
This guy is an idiot and should be defrocked ASAP.
I can understand taking your shirt off. As for the rest, it reminds me of the advice not to run wearing flip-flops.
B–no prob, and I’m sorry to hear about your underwear.
It’s pretty blatant that the press has an agenda. They go after Catholics, not the mainstream. Why? Because if Catholics suddenly all started acting (never mind voting) like Catholics, the majority press agenda would be out of business. The fallout is, priests and laity both suffer. But even worse is the “tearing and biting one another to pieces” that is occurring in our own Church.
Subvet, “that guy is an idiot” does not always followed by “and should be defrocked ASAP.” Priests are priests becasue they are called and ordained, not necessarily because they’re the brightest Speedo on the beach.
No excuses. Another shameful expose of priests behaving in an ungodly manner. Would anyone want such a man hearing their confession?
I’m with Archbishop Sheen. The devil is at work in public nakedness…….just as at the naked homosexual parades!
I’m scratching my head here, trying to recall exactly which Council of the Church declared Archbishop Sheen to be infallible, even when he said some fairly knuckleheaded things.
jm,
God died to save us from our sins. Our priests sit for hours every week in a small box so that we can repent of our sins and rise from our failures. Why shouldn’t our priests also have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and receive mercy and forgiveness?
If you do not forgive others when they admit their fault, Our Father in Heaven will not forgive you when your fault gets exposed.
Kathy, you are right – the persecution our clergy face from the media is nothing compared to the persecution they face from their sheep. Now excuse me as I continue tearing others to bits…
So when Saint Francis of Assisi preached in the nude, was he possessed by the devil? Amazing that the Pope who canonized him missed that detail…
For priests in particular, common sense and prudence should be part of the job description. I don’t believe this man repented. Just said he knew it was wrong!
Cathy and Burnt Marshmallow are part of the problem if they see nothing wrong with men of God exposing themselves.
Jm, in the Catholic moral Tradition part of the measure of guilt is intention. What did he desire to get out of this? Exercise. Not exposure. That’s why he apparently set his alarm for the middle of the night.
And it’s Kathy with a K.
“For priests in particular, common sense and prudence should be part of the job description.” (For all leaders, but especially the clergy and religious.)I agree that one would HOPE for more prudence from a priest. If he were in a culture where public nudity posed no problem or scandal, or if he were a young seminarian or something, this wouldn’t be so weird. But it IS weird!
As for over-heating, are there any runners out there? I know there used to be special materials for running clothes (barely there to begin with, but they’re not scandalous)20 yrs ago to deal with overheating and excessive perspiration. Surely, there are not fewer runner’s products on the market today?
The man was either dangerously thoughtless, or harboring some of the same problems as persons who “innocently” stand in windows to undress. (It’s someone ELSE’s problem if they happen to look up from the street, and besides, will they be damaged for life? Blah, blah. Right.)
Cathy and Burnt Marshmallow are part of the problem if they see nothing wrong with men of God exposing themselves.
Did I say there was nothing wrong? What part of “receive mercy and forgiveness” do you not understand? Offering mercy and forgiveness to Rev Whipkey presumes wrongdoing on his part – which he has already admitted to.
What I have issue with is the idea that “good Catholics” could consider Rev Whipkey unworthy to hear confession simply because of a lack of common sense. The Eleven faithful disciples did far worse than this and Our Lord still chose them to rule his Church. Though if you want to be show yourself wiser than Jesus, perhaps you should first die and then rise on the third day.
Burnt Marshwiggle, no offense, but if you are going to offer such strong and correct theological arguments, full of faith, you ought to consider changing your name.
Kathy wrote:
Burnt Marshwiggle… you ought to consider changing your name.
Good suggestion. Now that the indult relaxes the rules so that I no longer need the approval of my bishop.
Yours truly,
Exuro Palus-Intorqueo
Streaking is a sex offense. And yes, going around naked in public places (associated with underage people!) is pretty much a sign that a person is not handling his sexuality very well. It’s better that he should be doing it in the dark, I suppose, but it’s pretty clearly not the middle of a howling wilderness with nobody around for miles. Clearly, he wanted to do something forbidden in a place where he could easily get caught.
(Very easily, because the cops patrol their cars around school grounds all the time, to prevent pranks. Also, 5-6 AM isn’t all that early for the janitors or teachers to begin to show up. And yes, I’m sure they have summer school and summer athletics.)
If he’d really had a sweating problem, he’d at least have been wearing a jockstrap.
Or some tightie whities.
If I were the cop, and I thought I was the only one who had seen him, I would have sternly sternly warned him never to be caught naked in public again or it would be Megan’s Law for sure. I would have made it clear that there would be severe repercussions if anything like this happened again. But I wouldn’t have made a big public international spectacle of the man just because he happens to be a Catholic priest. That is why this matter is even known to us, and is on the cnn website by the way, and is being broadcast in Australia. The world is one big gossipy small town where priests are concerned. Meanwhile molesting coaches and teachers and ministers of other faiths are handled on the local level. Why? Because the Church has deep pockets, isn’t protected by the laws that protect government employees, and is organized regionally. A diocese can be sued for a lot more money than a congregation can. Our Church is being attacked because of money.
Oh, and because the Church speaks out on moral issues having to do with sex.
I agree that the incident wouldn’t have made national or international news. It would definitely have been picked up by a local paper though, at least where I live. Especially since it involved a man (and a moral leader) of that age, running on a high school track.
What isn’t mentioned in the article are any mitigating factors. Was he drunk? Stressed out to the max? Off his meds? Had he just returned from a “real men jump naked over campfires” sort of retreat? Was there something about this situation that should tip off the local bishop that this priest may need help? Or, at least, a vacation?
Here is the rest of the article:
“An officer said he saw a naked man walking down the street at 4:35 a.m. The U.S. Naval Observatory Web site said sunrise that day in Frederick was 5:31 a.m.
The officer said when he shined his flashlight at the man, he covered himself with a piece of clothing he was carrying.
The Archdiocese of Denver said it takes the incident seriously but is awaiting the outcome of the case. Whipkey, who also officiates at parishes in the nearby towns of Mead and Erie, remains an active priest.
If convicted of indecent exposure, a misdemeanor, he would have to register as a sex offender, prosecutors said.”
For ANY citizen this is indecent exposure. He was walking down a public street after jogging. At the least he could have toweled off and dressed before taking a further stroll. The man has a problem. And there are hints that there have been behaviour problems in the past. So this event is public domain and civil laws some into place. there is NO excuse here!! No specious reason; there was the excitement of the risk of getting caught with the whole thing. It IS sick.
And we can let Archbishop Chaput deal with it.
And I protest that St. Francis preached in the nude! Yes , he stripped when he gave all his clothing back to his father and the bishop covered him with his cape. But he did NOT go around naked.
Public nakedness is indecent exposure and I will not condone it for a priest, expecially a priest, or anyone–the in the gay pride sinful parades or anywhere. It is wrong! I know we live in a relativist society and can hardly see right from wrong but at least in the case of the naked priest, there are still some civil laws in place. Or will the ACLU step up to defend him?
And won’t a lot of people here feel very silly and ashamed if he is diagnosed with some kind of mental condition that makes his judgment a little “off” by most people’s standards? How exactly DO we judge what constitutes “innocence” in either a legal matter or matter of conscience, especially when we only have a brief and possibly biased news report and not all of the relevant details?
Comments are closed.