Action Alert!

no sweat

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Aug 09, 2007

Fr. Bob admitted to the police the illicit pleasures of

  • jogging...
  • on an outdoor track...
  • at a high school...
  • in a small town...
  • during the wee hours of the mornin...
  • buck naked.

Fr. Bob also admitted that his frolic was "wrong" but that he "didn't think anyone would be around."  Someone was, a cop on his beat, and Fr. Bob, a youthful 53, was charged with indecent exposure. It seems that Fr. Bob sweats allot, and this may be his putative line of defense for casting aside his clothing and his modesty. In regards to Fr. Bob's sanity, perhaps there has been nothing to cast aside for quite some time. Perhaps someone has noticed. 

For now, the Church is "awaiting the outcome of the case" according to the Post, with no explanation (although the Archbishop was out of the country around the time of the arrest, and there is no information on when the Archdiocese was informed of the affair.)  Drudge didn't see any reason to wait, however, and posted a link today within two hours of the story's publication, informing the world that the  "(Rev.) Whipkey, ... remains an active priest." Ouch.


Update based on additional news reporting that was published this afternoon in the Denver Post.

Here's the timeline:

  • June 22: ole Bare-Bottom Bob “was stopped by Frederick police at 4:30 a.m.” and charged with a misdemeanor. 
  • June 29: “The church (Archdiocese of Denver) learned of the incident…”
  • August 9: “Jeannette De Melo, spokesperson for the archdiocese, said "it was announced" Wednesday (August 8) that Father Robert Whipkey had been placed on administrative leave.”

Yesterday’s news report, (see above in the main post) noted that as of Tuesday, Whipkey was “an active priest.” If the report is indeed accurate, it took the Archdiocese some six weeks to decide to give ole Bare-Bottom the boot, and only after news of the romp came to the public forum. 

Go ahead and add another half-dozen points to the Denver Archdiocese’s PQ.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

  • Posted by: sparch - Jan. 29, 2010 11:24 AM ET USA

    Chestertonian, This is exactly the point where their ignorance shines through, as if mere semantics can alter the reality of what abortion is. Then, trying to justify abortion through the use of redefining an unborn life, as you have described. Utter shock sets in when what they say is not embraced as fact.

  • Posted by: Chestertonian - Jan. 29, 2010 12:09 AM ET USA

    Two responses to normnuke and sparch: this isn't a beginning; the 'concerted effort' began prior to Roe v Wade, and most of the opposition refuse to use the term pro-life at all. We are at best 'anti-choice', and they are 'pro-choice', the very terms conferring a negative aspect on our advocacy. This goes in lockstep with their other uses of semantics, such as 'products of conception' or 'uterine contents' rather than 'baby'. It is easier to justify destroying an amorphous mass than a human.

  • Posted by: sparch - Jan. 27, 2010 3:43 PM ET USA

    I tend to think that in trying to distort and deceive they expose their ignorance. This goes for most people who try to publicly espouse the pro-abortion ideology.

  • Posted by: - Jan. 27, 2010 12:44 PM ET USA

    I am with extreme. I think what we are seeing here is the beginning of a concerted effort on the part of the Democratic party and their toadies in the media to turn 'pro-life' into a slur.

  • Posted by: extremeCatholic - Jan. 26, 2010 10:21 PM ET USA

    I guess I am less charitable. I think the incoherence and ignorance is only feigned and they simply do intend to distort and deceive their dwindling audience.

  • Posted by: Paladin - Jan. 26, 2010 10:06 PM ET USA

    We want a free and independent press. No one said they had to be intelligent.