A ROMAN Catholic priest with expensive tastes and a penchant for male escorts was expected yesterday to surrender himself to police in Connecticut, who have been after him ever since the Sacred Heart Church found itself short of $1.3-million.
Rev Kevin Gray
According to this report, to many of his supporters, the Rev Kevin Gray was a humble servant of God who helped those in need, sacrificed for his flock and preached the Gospel in sermons described as soul-touching.
But police say a months-long criminal investigation revealed that the 64-year-old Gray was leading an extravagant double life that his parishioners never knew about.
That secret life included male escorts hired in New York, $200,000 in restaurant bills and hotel stays in the lap of Manhattan luxury.
Detectives say they discovered Gray, a well-respected Catholic priest and former leader of several city parishes, siphoned roughly $1.3 million from Sacred Heart to pay for a lavish lifestyle usually reserved for the wealthy.
If proved, the charge against him of first-degree larceny could lead to 20 years in prison.
Police say for the past seven years he wrote cheques from the church bank account to pay for designer clothes by Armani and overnight stays at Madison Avenue hotels.
Although police believe Gray told his congregation he was battling cancer, detectives have determined Gray has never had cancer.
Said police spokesman Capt Christopher Corbett:
I think that’s how he explained his absence from the parish.
Police have investigated Gray since May, when the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford came across financial “discrepancies” during an internal investigation. Archdiocese officials presented their findings to police, who say they’ve confirmed Gray embezzled the funds.
Hat tip: Holland
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
July 7th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I think this is really a decent, hardworking parish priest and Satan made him do this. Once he washes himself in the blood of the Lamb and does lots of praying then he will be stronger, spiritually fitter and much more able to help his flock. Don’t priests do confession? Or does the confidentiality of the confessional preclude tipping off the cops?
July 7th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
If Pope Ratty gets Prada shoes on the firms expenses I suppose the RCC can’t complain when one of the plebs starts plundering the collection.
I suppose it’s OK as long as he can produce reciepts for hiring “luggage lifters”.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
hi, been reading the freethinker for a while now. great stuff love the articles. wondering if i can make comments but been hesitant to as it looks a bit cliqueish here. seems that people with differing opinions (freethinkers) aren’t always made welcome and get knocked by the orthodoxy. just saying thats what it looks like.
July 7th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
”no no no bishop brenan, i’ve told you.the money was just ‘resting’ in my account.” father ted.
Sticky fingered dress wearing invisible friend loving loving, perv gets busted! Delicious.
July 7th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Hello Simon
You’ve dipped your toe in the water so you may as well jump right in.
At the risk of sounding like a guitar-strumming, tambourine-thrashing, happy-clappy trendy vicar, I’ll say come and join us.
July 7th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
thanks broadsword. i’m an atheist so its not like i want to start a fight but sometimes the comments sound like a southern baptist congregation shouting hallelujah after each sentance the preacher speaks.
have commented on some threads now.
July 7th, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Simon, you have a point. There is a regular choir but I think there is a quiet congregation of Freethinkers that tend to keep themselves to themselves and only comment when the spirit moves them. Perhaps if more Freethinkers were to chime in the comments would be more engaging. I look forward to reading your comments as I do others here.
July 7th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
And this big problem with this…
Many Catholics will be appalled by this and want something done – but when bishops cover up child abuse they don’t see a problem.
July 7th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
would be good to read some genuine examples of freethought rather than just posts about the stoopid things religiots do.
July 7th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Like Madoff
Mr. Gray….just one letter to many….has acted just the same as Madoff separating a group of “trusting” people from there money.
…Marvin Gaye had it right
“People say believe half of what you see,
Son, and none of what you hear.”
Just because a man wears vestments and seems to answer to a higher calling does not mean what you see is what you get
July 7th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Simon, click “Features” at the top of this page. Or google the Heresiarch blog for genuine Freethinking articles.
July 7th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
@Simon Chase. Hi Simon. I’m not quite sure what you have in mind so push the boat out and give it a try yourself. For myself, I admit I see the agenda being set by the initial comments. I rarely look further than knocking religious bigotry, as I see it. Unburdening myself here, I guess, is a kind of catharsis instead of just repressing my feelings or being ignored through more formal channels.
July 7th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
At least he didn’t fiddle kids, we have to give him that; in the end, this may have been cheaper for the church, who knows? And if people want to believe in nonsense, they shouldn’t be surprised their trust is betrayed. For a fine example:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto.....ion=justin
July 7th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@ Simon. Glad you have decided to contribute – the more opinions from like-minded people the better as far as I’m concerned. Welcome!
July 7th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Catharsis indeed Broga. Plenty of links to enjoy down the side Simon.
After 2000 years of spreading tyranny, religion really, really needs a kicking.
We are a good humoured lot though.
July 7th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
It doesn’t say how long it took him to spend 1.3m., which is a heck of a lot. Of course, his parishioners still love him and would rather believe he gave the money to the poor.
July 7th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Simon says that it would be good to read something other than the stupid things religiots do. The hard copy of the Freethinker is a bit more varied and well worth subscribing to, my subscription has expired and I am slightly ashamed that I have yet to get my finger out and renew it.
It should also be noted that mocking religion has been what the Freethinker has been about for something like 130 years. In the early days, loosening religion’s grip on people’s lives was the goal, making fun of those doing the gripping proved highly effective. Huge progress has been made since then of course but there is still a huge amount of mocking to be done.
Personally I enjoy the mix of articles on Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers blogs. They mix bashing religion with sciency stuff.
July 7th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
More power to him! If I could land a job where I could embellish expenses via the gullible in order to get sex, hotels and Armani suits I would!
(OK I wouldn’t but compared to raping children this guy is a dude…)
July 7th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Simon, I’m pretty new here myself. Just go for it.
July 7th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
@Stonyground
I think you do have a point… I would be happy to pay for a PDF of the mag (at half the price seeing as there’s no distribution and manufacturing costs…) I don’t understand why decent mags/newslettters/etc don’t provide that service… I’m sure it would work out well for them (ditto to FFRF and Skeptic’s mags…)
July 7th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
PS Simon – it ain’t that cliquey, but it can get nasty when a certain banal, oft published yet rarely read atheist extremist comments. Praise the lord he hasn’t in a while… It put me off for months. The people here tend to be genuine freetinkers who won’t tear you a new areshole (apart from the forementioned godless-taliban twunt…
Give it a go!
July 7th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Mr. Monist, I wasn’t actually advocating that the Freethinker be made available online, for some reason that I can’t explain I like getting a nice envelope through my letterbox.
In engaging with our newcomer, I actually forgot to comment on the OP.
I used to get ‘Freethought Today’ the newsletter of the US ‘Freedom from religion foundation’ until it got too expensive to have it shipped. It was similar in size to a tabloid newspaper and was published six times a year. Every edition contained the ‘Black collar crime blotter’ which in appearance was like a small ads page and listed hundreds of stories like this one, taking up two or three pages every two months. Of course it goes without saying that child abuse figured heavily as well, a mixture of sexual abuse and excessive physical punishment.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Anyone else remember Colleen McCabe; the nun turned ‘thieving headmistress’? Decades of self-denial can be a dangerous thing.
The Beast had long been caged; it came out roaring
– Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson.
July 7th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
The Freethinker is an anti-Christian organ, and must therefore be chiefly aggressive. It will wage relentless war against Superstition in general, and against Christian Superstition in particular. It will do its best to employ the resources of Science, Scholarship, Philosophy and Ethics against the claims of the Bible as a Divine Revelation; and it will not scruple to employ for the same purpose any weapons of ridicule or sarcasm that may be borrowed from the armoury of Common Sense.
From the page entitled History on this site. These original guiding principles of the founder have now been somewhat brought up to date, as you will find if you go to that page, but the aims of The Freethinker remain much the same!
July 7th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I do indeed remember the Colleen McCabe case, StuartW, and the fantastic dramatisation of it shown on TV. I fear that we shall see more of the same sort of thing as Michael Gove’s nonsensical “free schools” get under way!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/educ.....chools.uk2
July 8th, 2010 at 2:05 am
Hey, Simon, you said:
“seems that people with differing opinions (freethinkers) aren’t always made welcome and get knocked by the orthodoxy.”
I agree with the point. The jury is in and rendered it’s verdict on religious mythology, but, I choose not to decide about inteligent design because the presumption is theory not fact. And I have been called a “chicken” for my failure to make that last intellectual leap. It’s not cowardice, it’s sticking to my philosophy of never believing anything that is yet to be proven. But, I have a thick skin
. Let me join the others in welcoming your input.
On topic: threadhead said “who have been after him ever since the Sacred Heart Church found itself short of $1.3-million.”
It makes me vomit that a single church(of a non-profit organization) has that kind of cash to be stolen. But, I think it’s hilarious that the global conmen got conned. If the guy ripped off the RCC for a million three, I think he should be given a parade, not thrown in jail. At least (as far as I know) he didn’t rape any alter boys, he just took a joyride for as long as it lasted. There is no better money to steal than stolen money.
NeoWolfe
July 8th, 2010 at 3:23 am
How much do you want to bet the RRRW will be whining about this left and right, whereas they’ve been acting as complete apologists for the child abuse scandals?
July 8th, 2010 at 9:25 am
NeoWolfe, not wishing to pick a fight but perhaps it is my misunderstanding of American English. Your statement “I choose not to decide about inteligent design because the presumption is theory not fact”.
ID is a proposition and that has yet to produce evidence to form a theory; the religious tend to use the “only a theory” tag to bash evolution.
Welcome Simon Chase, always good to hear fresh ideas.
July 8th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Neo, Angie, ID does not constitute a “theory” by any stretch of the definition. It is, at best, a “postulate”. (And that’s being polite.)
July 8th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
I have to agree with Arnold on that one. The “Theory of Evolution” has all the evidence behind it, whereas the “Hypothesis of Intelligent Design” has an almost endless string of embarrassingly idiotic proposals that have been refuted, usually even before the proposal was made. This is due to the lack of scientific scrutiny and understanding on the part of ID proponents. Aside from that, anyone with a little engineering knowledge will realize that the human body, and many others, if designed were designed rather poorly for many functions. Hardly the signs of design, much less intelligent design, especially by an all-powerful all-benevolent dude in the sky.
For the newcomers, welcome. You may want to develop a bit of a thicker skin, like our good friend NeoWolfe has mentioned, because this site is generally an outlet for disgust at religious bigotry and stupidity. As long as you enjoy bashing and heated debate, this is a great site.
July 9th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Dr Kenneth Miller on “irreducible complexity” – the linchpin of ID:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM
July 10th, 2010 at 5:31 am
Janstice said,
““Hypothesis of Intelligent Design†has an almost endless string of embarrassingly idiotic proposals that have been refuted, usually even before the proposal was made.”
If it were really true that intelligent design meant some connection to religion, your statement would be true. But, it doesn’t mean that at all, at least, not to me. It’s the question of whether the universe is an accident, or the product of an arranged explosion of chaos to watch the random results. It’s the explosion of questions that arise about the nature and origin of such an “arranger” that make the concept counter intuitive, but, at the same time, we hear astro-physicists developing theories of “dark matter” and “dark energy” that they claim to know exists because they have interpreted their effects. While the truth is that they can’t prove shit about what they say, these are all theories, they do documentaries and present this under the heading, “This is what we know so far”. That’s religion.
Simple point, if Einstein’s theory that gravity is caused by time-space bending around mass, then in a deep coal mine or oil well the properties of time and space would change if not cease.
Secondly, the Australian experiment that supposedly proved his theory by demonstrating that gravity bends light, can be explained even better by the fact by a parallel with the fact that its light before the sun comes up and it’s not dark for a while after the sun goes down demonstrating that gas bends light, particularly hot gas (mirage).
While chemistry is a field of science that proves it’s shit every day with new compounds and alloys that they can predict how it will behave, even before they create it, astophysicists and those who claim they understand how the universe began are ALL blowing smoke through their own horns, worshipping their own intellect. The fact is that they don’t know shit, and the difference between them and me is that I admit it.
Evolution is a proven fact, accidental universe is presumption. That leaves me undecided. If that is grounds to look down on me, then you don’t understand my philosophy to believe nothing unproven. I am a freethinker, not a theorist’s pet sheep. No religion.
NeoWolfe
PS. arnold, angie, janstice I hope this clears up this issue.
July 10th, 2010 at 7:12 am
NeoWolfe – I was mistaken in thinking that you meant the ID in the more commonly associated sense, as in a god of sorts intervening in evolution. I hope you will forgive the misconception as that is the actual name of the newest offshoot of creationism.
The problem I would have with your proposal here is this:
The light refracted with sunrise and sunset can be calculated with Newton’s theorems on refraction, true. However, that cannot account for the gravitational lending observed elsewhere. The theory of dark matter has been shown to be observable with other gravitational lending effects, most commonly seen around large clusters of galaxies, outside the reaches of their gases. Not only that, but also in the observable effects of the angular and tangential velocities of galaxies and satelite clusters (so-called dwarf galaxies). With dark energy, I admit my knowledge is less keen, but that doesn’t mean there is nobody that can.
Finally, I feel compelled to reiterate that just because a phenomenon is unexplained does not mean there is no naturalistic explanation. If we threw up our hands and said “god did it,” we wouldn’t get anywhere. I know you are trying to keep an open mind, but science has shown that for many observable phenomenon, there is a natural explanation. If there is not yet, that doesn’t mean we need to acommodate religion with the postulate if a great designer. It tells me, instead, that we need to keep looking. The problem with religion is that no matter how far you go, they move the goal posts, and when you solve things they said were unsolvable, they try to say the next unknown is proof of god. It becomes an unwinnable battle, or unlosable in their minds, but to give in is to allow the next tier of knowledge to fall by the wayside.
July 10th, 2010 at 9:13 am
I don’t even understand why we are debating “Intelligent Design” on a RATIONALIST site! We should be holding the “theory” up to ridicule, as we do with all other superstitions and fairy stories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
July 10th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Hey Simon,
Better watch yourself, buddy, if we hear any disagreement, we’re gonna…gonna…
bury you up to your neck and stone ya!
Just kidding, dude, welcome to the comment page!
July 11th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Janstince,
Bjohn demonstrates what Simon was talking about. He dismisses my point of view, even though I can handily support it with logic. And I don’t believe you need to apologize, no two freethinkers see the universe in the same way. That’s why we come here, to compare ideas.
And, I never preach ID, I just present reasons for doubt. Reasons for not adopting unproven beliefs. I, personally, leave that to religiots.
NeoWolfe
July 11th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
I don’t think you understand ID, NeoWolfe. It is the very antithesis of Evolutionary Theory. How can you allude to Evolutionary Theory as “unproven beliefs”? It is a theory that works and is used in many branches of science, therefore we can accept it as the truth about the origins of life on this planet. What grounds do you have for “doubt”? Behe’s arguments (mainly regarding “irreducible complexity”) have all been debunked. Just read this, from the Wikipedia article, and tell us that you are happy to support people with such an agenda!
After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms. The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design. The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on theistic realism, which strayed away from direct statements about a Young Earth and stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased “materialist” science, aimed to legitimise the teaching of creationism in schools. In March 1992 a conference at Southern Methodist University brought Behe together with other leading figures into what Johnson later called the wedge strategy. In 1993 “the Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars” met at Pajaro Dunes, and Behe presented for the first time his idea of ‘irreducibly complex’ molecular machinery. Following a summer 1995 conference, “The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture,” the group obtained funding through the Discovery Institute. In 1996 Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed the Center for Science and Culture) dedicated to promoting intelligent design.
If you are trying to paint me as “unreasonable”, then I see no reason here!!
July 13th, 2010 at 4:16 am
Well, Bjohn, perhaps your right, I don’t understand the denotation of intelligent design (wrong). The connotation, however, that the universe is not an accident, has everything to do with science and nothing to do with religion. If you choose to believe in dark matter and dark energy, the theory of relatity, that red shift is not affected by space debris, or whichever religion you subscribe to, I do not share your viewpoint.
My mind remains open.
NeoWolfe