"FRIAR TUCK' WINS HIS POINT \ BENEDICTINE MONK SIDESTEPS LEGAL
Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
May 20, 1994
Author: James Dempsey
In courtrooms, clothes have power and meaning. There are the police-like outfits of the court officers, those gate-keepers of the sacred bar; the dark, well-pressed suits of the endlessly verbose lawyers, whose ties are never loosened and whose jackets never come off; and, perched high above the proceedings, the black bogeyman robes of the judge.
Recent years have seen other, less-secular garb in the courtrooms, most noticably the Roman collar of the Catholic clergyman. The rush of accusations of sexual misconduct has touched almost every level in the church hierarchy, including cardinal, bishop, monsignor and priest.
This week in Superior Court yet another such scandal was played out. The central character in the trial was Brother Antonio Antonucci, 42, a Benedictine monk who was accused of sexually molesting a 15-year-old boy last year. In his cowled, almost medieval gray-and-black vestments, bearded, with a rich, powerful voice, the monk was a striking figure. This impression was deepened by the fact that Antonucci, a man of average height, is extremely big, his monkish vestments covering his girth like an "oversized tent," according to his own defense attorney James Reardon. Some courthouse habitues began referring to the proceedings as "the Friar Tuck trial," and there was much speculation as to the monk's exact weight. When Reardon asked him under oath how much he weighed, the clergyman laughed and admitted to "at least 340 pounds at this point." Later he suggested it was closer to 370.
TAKES THE STAND
Antonucci came to Worcester in 1986. He operated a "street ministry," involving himself mostly with teen-agers and their concerns. At the time of the alleged offense he was living alone in a diocese-owned house in Northbridge that served as his monastery. It was in the monastery that the incident occurred, the boy told the court Monday. Then on Wednesday the monk took the stand to deny the charges.
There were points of concurrence in the two stories. They agreed that the monk became good friends with the boy and his family, and that he took the boy out shopping and for treats such as Chinese food and ice cream. They also agreed that the monk and the boy were alone together in the monastery on April 20, 1993, and that there was an incident in which the monk tickled the boy's bare stomach. A good amount of time went to determining exactly what part of the boy's anatomy was tickled.
"You touched his belly button," said Assistant District Attorney Mary Sawicki.
"No, I touched around his belly button," the monk said.
Seeing a monk close to middle age and an unsmiling prosecutor arguing so seriously while using the infantile phrase "belly button" was indeed bizarre.
POINT OF DEPARTURE
With the tickling and the belly button, the two sides' versions of what happened parted company. The boy maintained that the tickling led to his genitals being fondled. The monk said that after tickling the boy, he noticed the boy's oversized pants falling down, and that the incident ended there.
Under cross-examination Antonucci started off hesitantly, stuttering his words and at one point wiping his forehead. But as he survived the initial attacks he seemed to grow more confident. At one point Sawicki was trying to fasten onto a remark in Antonucci's statement to the police in which he explained what happened at the monastery. The boy had claimed not to be ticklish. In Antonucci's statement the monk said he told the boy there were "nerve paths" between the legs and chest cavity that made everyone ticklish. When Sawicki asked Antonucci, with some sarcasm, whether it was true that the genitals were just about in the middle of those two places, the monk took a quick beat and then answered, "As I recall," drawing smiles from the jury.
Through Sawicki's questioning, the monk stood by his story. "He's good," one trial-watcher in the public gallery whispered to another. Antonucci emphasized again and again how the boy seemed angry that the monk wasn't giving him more attention that day. He testified that the boy slammed doors, stormed out of a room, and swore.
Of course, what is hard to fathom is why on earth a Catholic monk would get involved in tickling the bare skin of a 15-year-old boy, especially considering the tidal wave of molestation charges against the clergy over the last few years. Antonucci said the incident began when he reacted to a remark the boy made about Antonucci's mother speaking in Italian too much. The monk poked the boy in the armpit. The boy then claimed he was not ticklish. The monk said everyone was ticklish. The boy lifted his shirt, the monk tickled his bare belly, and the boy giggled. "I won my point," said Antonucci. The whole incident sounded like the kind of thing that might go on between a couple of kids.
WON HIS POINT
Yesterday the jury found Antonucci not guilty of indecent assault and battery. Antonucci had won his point again. The boy and his family walked despondently to the exit. A few moments later Antonucci's family learned of the verdict, and ran to defense attorney Reardon to kiss and hug him. Each side missed seeing the other's emotional reaction. Maybe that was for the best.
During recesses of the trial, there had been a few awkward moments in the hallway between the two groups. At one end of the corridor stood Antonucci, his family, and a couple of black-robed monks from St. Mary's Priory in Petersham who turned up to show their support. A little way off stood the boy and his parents. Occasionally members of each group surreptitiously glanced down the hall. For the most part, though, the groups studiously ignored each other. I was reminded of a divorcing couple, each surrounded by their separate families, the air full of a resentment that was even more intense because of the affection there had once been between them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Scary world out their kids...be careful.
~ toyou
Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)
May 20, 1994
Author: James Dempsey
In courtrooms, clothes have power and meaning. There are the police-like outfits of the court officers, those gate-keepers of the sacred bar; the dark, well-pressed suits of the endlessly verbose lawyers, whose ties are never loosened and whose jackets never come off; and, perched high above the proceedings, the black bogeyman robes of the judge.
Recent years have seen other, less-secular garb in the courtrooms, most noticably the Roman collar of the Catholic clergyman. The rush of accusations of sexual misconduct has touched almost every level in the church hierarchy, including cardinal, bishop, monsignor and priest.
This week in Superior Court yet another such scandal was played out. The central character in the trial was Brother Antonio Antonucci, 42, a Benedictine monk who was accused of sexually molesting a 15-year-old boy last year. In his cowled, almost medieval gray-and-black vestments, bearded, with a rich, powerful voice, the monk was a striking figure. This impression was deepened by the fact that Antonucci, a man of average height, is extremely big, his monkish vestments covering his girth like an "oversized tent," according to his own defense attorney James Reardon. Some courthouse habitues began referring to the proceedings as "the Friar Tuck trial," and there was much speculation as to the monk's exact weight. When Reardon asked him under oath how much he weighed, the clergyman laughed and admitted to "at least 340 pounds at this point." Later he suggested it was closer to 370.
TAKES THE STAND
Antonucci came to Worcester in 1986. He operated a "street ministry," involving himself mostly with teen-agers and their concerns. At the time of the alleged offense he was living alone in a diocese-owned house in Northbridge that served as his monastery. It was in the monastery that the incident occurred, the boy told the court Monday. Then on Wednesday the monk took the stand to deny the charges.
There were points of concurrence in the two stories. They agreed that the monk became good friends with the boy and his family, and that he took the boy out shopping and for treats such as Chinese food and ice cream. They also agreed that the monk and the boy were alone together in the monastery on April 20, 1993, and that there was an incident in which the monk tickled the boy's bare stomach. A good amount of time went to determining exactly what part of the boy's anatomy was tickled.
"You touched his belly button," said Assistant District Attorney Mary Sawicki.
"No, I touched around his belly button," the monk said.
Seeing a monk close to middle age and an unsmiling prosecutor arguing so seriously while using the infantile phrase "belly button" was indeed bizarre.
POINT OF DEPARTURE
With the tickling and the belly button, the two sides' versions of what happened parted company. The boy maintained that the tickling led to his genitals being fondled. The monk said that after tickling the boy, he noticed the boy's oversized pants falling down, and that the incident ended there.
Under cross-examination Antonucci started off hesitantly, stuttering his words and at one point wiping his forehead. But as he survived the initial attacks he seemed to grow more confident. At one point Sawicki was trying to fasten onto a remark in Antonucci's statement to the police in which he explained what happened at the monastery. The boy had claimed not to be ticklish. In Antonucci's statement the monk said he told the boy there were "nerve paths" between the legs and chest cavity that made everyone ticklish. When Sawicki asked Antonucci, with some sarcasm, whether it was true that the genitals were just about in the middle of those two places, the monk took a quick beat and then answered, "As I recall," drawing smiles from the jury.
Through Sawicki's questioning, the monk stood by his story. "He's good," one trial-watcher in the public gallery whispered to another. Antonucci emphasized again and again how the boy seemed angry that the monk wasn't giving him more attention that day. He testified that the boy slammed doors, stormed out of a room, and swore.
Of course, what is hard to fathom is why on earth a Catholic monk would get involved in tickling the bare skin of a 15-year-old boy, especially considering the tidal wave of molestation charges against the clergy over the last few years. Antonucci said the incident began when he reacted to a remark the boy made about Antonucci's mother speaking in Italian too much. The monk poked the boy in the armpit. The boy then claimed he was not ticklish. The monk said everyone was ticklish. The boy lifted his shirt, the monk tickled his bare belly, and the boy giggled. "I won my point," said Antonucci. The whole incident sounded like the kind of thing that might go on between a couple of kids.
WON HIS POINT
Yesterday the jury found Antonucci not guilty of indecent assault and battery. Antonucci had won his point again. The boy and his family walked despondently to the exit. A few moments later Antonucci's family learned of the verdict, and ran to defense attorney Reardon to kiss and hug him. Each side missed seeing the other's emotional reaction. Maybe that was for the best.
During recesses of the trial, there had been a few awkward moments in the hallway between the two groups. At one end of the corridor stood Antonucci, his family, and a couple of black-robed monks from St. Mary's Priory in Petersham who turned up to show their support. A little way off stood the boy and his parents. Occasionally members of each group surreptitiously glanced down the hall. For the most part, though, the groups studiously ignored each other. I was reminded of a divorcing couple, each surrounded by their separate families, the air full of a resentment that was even more intense because of the affection there had once been between them.
----------------------------------------------------------
Scary world out their kids...be careful.
~ toyou
