River Forest priest charged with criminal sexual abuse

Bede R. Jagoe, who reportedly worked at Midway Airport, tried to kiss a man in an airport elevator, police say

Updated:

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Devin Rose

Staff Reporter

A 77-year-old River Forest priest was charged Dec. 23 with criminal sexual abuse after he fondled and attempted to kiss a man at Midway Airport earlier last month, according to Chicago Police News Affairs.

Rev. Bede R. Jagoe, is a member of the Dominican order and lives at the Dominican Priory residential community, 7200 W. Division St., said Jessica Mackinnon, director of public information at Dominican University. Jagoe is not a member of Dominican's faculty or staff, she said.

He turned himself in to Chicago Police Dec. 23, said News Affairs Officer Robert Perez.

Jagoe received the felony charge for an incident that allegedly occurred the morning of Dec. 11 in one of the airport's terminals, Perez said. The Chicago Tribune reported that Jagoe, who was assigned to the chapel at the airport, spoke to the man after services that day and tried to kiss him in an elevator. Surveillance cameras captured Jagoe moving toward the man.

The 58-year-old victim reported the incident to Chicago police after he returned home to Kansas, according to the Tribune. Jagoe's bail was set at $10,000.

Charles Bouchard, Prior Provincial of the Dominican Friars of the Province of St. Albert the Great, of which Jagoe was a member, could not be reached for comment.

Reader Comments

69 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: September 16th, 2013 11:17 PM

As was O.J.

Bill from Chicago  

Posted: September 16th, 2013 5:27 PM

Fr. Jagoe was found not guilty by the court this afternoon.

@ A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 20th, 2012 2:32 PM

Anything else to add. Maybe he could come by your place and babysit your kids. http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/01-17-2012/River_Forest_priest_facing_charges_seen_near_Lincoln_School

A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 9:04 PM

Violet: No cats? just overweight, middle-aged and smelly then? got it! thanks for the clarification. p. s. only imbeciles call people dude these days, hadn't you noticed? If you insist on masquerading as a teenager, at least update your vacabulary beyond the '90s. lulz! Parent: did your ancestors live in Salem, Mass. by any chance? just sayin'

Parent  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 7:48 PM

Q, YES I do think someone in their right mind would do this. Look at the news to see them every month. Scary society. This isnt far fetched for this creep to do this and have people be alarmed. If he didnt do it and this was all made up, wouldnt he be knocking the press's doors down to get his side of the story out. Not innocent in my book.

Violet Aura  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 5:50 PM

@A Simple...: How old are you, Einstein? "LULZ???" That is soooo mature, dewd! I mean, like, tottttttalllly...And wassup with the Ike reference? That was pretty obscure. I cannot figger out if you are trying to dis South Side OPers or what is rattling in that vacuous cranium of yours...No cats, though.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 2:01 PM

Parent, if this account of what the Priest did is really true, do you think anyone in their right mind, regardless of sexual preference is going to go up to a stranger and do this? Of course not, as it's the same that you don't walk outside in the nude. You just know better. You may also think that Gay's will touch same sex kids. Not true, although there may be some people who still believe that.

Parent  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 1:55 PM

@ A simple YES, Maybe the 80 yr old man thought he had more leeway becasue of his age to get away with his childish behavior? Dont try to defend a "fondler". Its wrong then and wrong now, no matter how you add it up. Priest, public servant, person working in an airport, etc.... Wrong wrong wrong. Clearly you condone his behavior.

A simple NO would have sufficed  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 1:33 PM

Violet: an overweight, middle-aged woman sitting among her cats in her smelly apartment who spells words like "skillz" is all kinds of pathetic. Your OPRF days have been over for decades and trying to act like a teenager ain't gonna bring 'em back! Enjoy your view of the Eisenhower, granny. lulz!!

A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 1:19 PM

FONDLING can mean many things, most gestural and most very legal - you probably fondled your coffee cup this morning -see how subjective that word is? Hardly worth the capslock is it? And again, this charge to action all based on one phone call from Kansas from some milquetoast who wasn't willing to just say no thanks to a nearly eighty year old man? It would be impossible to get a conviction here.

OP Resident  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 12:51 PM

So if a male custodian had " FONDLED and attempted to kiss" a woman. it wouldnt be sexual assault?? I think it would.

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 12:08 PM

"Thinking" doesn't make it so. No one should care what a commenter "thinks" sexual assault is. That is why people wrote the law, so we can have a definition. Also, it is hard to comprehend words written in gibberish. VA, ee cummings, you ain't (sic).

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 11:51 AM

Violet Aura, I go along with your thoughts on what is sexual assault.

Violet Aura  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 11:17 AM

@Respect: ((facepalm)) Again, I ask you to brush up on comprehesion skillz. Not trying to be rude, but you've done it again. In THIS ARTICLE, FIRST SENTENCE (!!!): "...after he FONDLED and attempted to kiss a man..." For those who disagree with the charge of sexual assault, I have to agree: 'assault' seems over the top. I think of sexual assault as rape or at least a violent sexual act.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 8:14 AM

To A Simple: NO, I was just trying to clear up the possible improper use of the word assault, when the word battery should be used. Nothing more.

A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 3rd, 2012 12:32 AM

@Bruian. by your legal interpretation, any kiss is also battery and also assault and worthy of a call to the police. If this had been a 23 yo girl calling the police from Kansas to report a 23 yo boy for trying to kiss her in an elevator in Chicago the cops would have laughed themselves to the next doughnut shop! This is just ageism and homophobia at play.

respect.each.one@gmail.com  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 10:39 PM

Violet: my comments are based on this one article which says he tried to kiss him, not on th exhaustive research you seem to have done. I also don't know what either party had for breakfast that morning, but perhaps that information is available from one of your other imaginary sources.

Bruian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 7:24 PM

TO @ simple. Battery in any physical contact of a provoking or insulting nature to another. Assault is placing someone in reasonable apprehension of a battery. Just to keep it clear, kissing is a battery not an assault. Every battery carries the included offense of assault

saulo22@gmail.com  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 5:44 PM

I've noticed a lot of Devin's stories these days contain the words "The Chicago Tribune reported" or "according to the Chicago Tribune." Why not just link to the Tribune story?

Violet Aura  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 5:28 PM

@respect: Ask Santa to get you Hooked on Comprehension next xmas, dearie. It says that the priest FONDLED the man, as well as kissed him. In another account, it said he grabbed the man's crotch. Or is kvetching about having one's cajones MANhandled also "narrow-minded?" LOL

A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 4:12 PM

based on a phonecall from Kansas? Clearly the SA wasn't thinking at all

respect.each.one@gmail.com  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 4:04 PM

kissing is a crime in OP now? my, those minds must continue to grow ever more narrow in the land of broad lawns. big diff between assault and a kiss and who said anything about tongue?!? your really letting yourself explore your priest fantasy aren't you?

Parent  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 4:00 PM

Clearly the SA thought it was a crime. We'll see if he gets cleared.

@A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 3:38 PM

It is a crime to try to stick your tongue down another man's throat while he is in public going about his day. It's called ASSAULT. Inside the Velvet Rope, I'm assuming it is okay. There is a TIME and a PLACE for most everything.

Atlas Wasn't Narrowminded  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 2:48 PM

Atlas Shrugged is still trying to get over the closing of the Nutbush. He hasn't yet found a new

A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 2:33 PM

Parent: oh you're sure about it, are you? Lots of people are arrested and then later cleared - arrest doesn't equal guilt in our legal system,our hadn't you heard? Further, it's not a police duty to enforce Church law; priests can make passes all day long and, while your little parental sensibilities might be offended by it, it's not illegal. Atlas Shrugged: yours is just the kind of vile homophobia I was talking about. That's exactly the kind of thinking that results in false arrests.

Marsh  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 1:59 PM

Turn the other check, Atlas Shrugged. You would face arrest if you did respond to a pass by kicking his a#$. That might result in jail time where you could be confronted on a daily basis with someone making an unwelcome pass. Better to express you feelings verbally than to resort to violence. As you know from your Bible, residents of Sodom sought to rape the angels who were staying in Lot's home. Lot refused to turn God's messengers over to the mob but did offer to them his virgin daughters.

Parent  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 1:13 PM

I'm sure this was a lot more than just a pass. People do not get arrested for just hitting on someone.

Atlas Shrugged  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 1:08 PM

If some dude made a pass at me, I would kick his a#$. Go to your gay bars for that sodomite behavior.

Parent  

Posted: January 2nd, 2012 1:09 AM

If that is what most do, then we have a much bigger problem than originally reported. The priest shouldn't be making passes at anyone. ever. period.

A simple No would have sufficed  

Posted: January 1st, 2012 7:44 PM

good lord! one mature man makes a pass at another - why is this a police matter?!? why didn't Mr. Kansas just say Thanks, but no thanks and move on with his life? this overreaction of everyone involved is just another form of homophobia. This would only be a story if the "victim" were a minor (which he hasn't been for many decades) Man up and learn how to deflect a pass without involving the police - women do it everyday.

epic lulz  

Posted: January 1st, 2012 5:22 PM

Always fun to see Violent Aura, the WJ comments section's resident bigot, accuse others of bigotry.

Joseph Cassidy from highlands ranch ranch co  

Posted: January 1st, 2012 4:16 PM

For how many years have Dominican superiors/buddies covered up this priest's sexual life ?Provincials & bishops all do that;Jagoe's sex life should be made public.He is one of many Fr Grabbers among us today;they should have their own congregation..PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF OUR LADY OF HOLEY GRABBERS .

Parent  

Posted: December 31st, 2011 9:10 AM

Priest 77 years old tries to kiss a 58 year old male congregant after a service. How many others has he successfully kissed or tried to kiss that may have gone unreported? What about the ones who liked it and continued to have a "relationship" with the priest? This is disturbing to me.

Violet Aura  

Posted: December 30th, 2011 4:44 PM

Nice try yourself. My point is that you act as if anyone associated with that "organization" is guilty before being found innocent. You are also a recovering Catholic, having been conditioned in that school system.

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: December 30th, 2011 4:26 PM

Nice Try, Violet. The black race never conspired to cover up crimes. The race of black people are a lot more diverse than the men employed as Catholic priests. I am bigotted against child rapists and those that apologize and cover up for them, regardless of religion, race, etc. (To clarify, I am not a child rape victim.)

Catholic School Gril  

Posted: December 30th, 2011 3:53 PM

My heart goes out to you in regard to "rapes", that's unforgivable! However, there is NO WAY I find gay folks "yucky" as you put it! I do not judge anyone's sexual preference! I have in the past taken a strong stand on same sex marriage and insurance benefits, but that is because I believe is the fair and right thing to provide to folks who are committed to one another.

Violet Aura  

Posted: December 30th, 2011 3:43 PM

@Phil: LOL! Pot meet kettle! I guess your bigotry manifests in organized religion, given your previous statements. How is that different from the mentality of a man prejudiced against Blacks because he was robbed by one? Aren't both examples of broadbrushing an entire group? Crickets...just crickets...

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: December 30th, 2011 2:51 PM

The Cardinal certainly has a right to his opinion, and I have a right to my opinion of his. Using 'some kind of liberal' as a slur while defending an institution that covered up the rape of children is a good example of "blaming those that dont agree with you." Anti-Catholic? I was raised Catholic and had 12 years of schooling. The Church lost complete credibility with me because of the child rape. I suppose I am also anti-Penn St. for the same reason. Sorry you find gays so yucky.

Catholic School Girl  

Posted: December 30th, 2011 2:23 PM

@ Phil, Conspiracies and vendettas are not exclusive to the 1950's. The concepts are still applicable today. A Cardinal having an opinion that doesn't agree with your philosophies is his right . Are you some kind of liberal who likes to place blame on those who don't agree with you, or are you just anti Catholic? I think both may be applicable to you.

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 10:51 PM

OK, DBA, let's learn from each other. I will give him his day in court. (Will he plead not guilty?) I just stopped doubting those that accuse priests, regardless of record.

Doesn't Believe All  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 10:36 PM

I'd like to think the purpose/discussion is to learn from opposing views. For the record, PHIL, I'm not blaming the victim. I just doubt him. I also think it makes sense that he was in a hurry to get on his plane. I also reject priest being railroaded and think the conspiracy related to Cardinal George is absurd. Since the priest has no criminal record (he does not) and on it's face it's very one word against the other, that the police or states atty filed charges is telling to me.

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 4:00 PM

"This poor priest is being raliroaded" has been the refrain for the last 20 years. Gimme a break. Yeah, innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, but assuming the victim is wrong, lying, etc. is "old school" rapist defense. Those seeing a conspiracy because of Francis George's recent (and continuing) pathetic remarks are living in the 50s. Next, people will say the complaintant was asking for it, or promiscuously dressed. There isnt a two hour statute of limitations, sorry.

Parent  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 2:07 PM

If it was so obvious then shame on the CCSA office. Maybe there's more than meets the eye in this case. These people are not amateurs, especially in Cook County. Let wait and see what happens.

Catholic School Girl  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 12:18 PM

Dear Parent, you are correct in regard to the State's Attorney, however, not to get graphic on this site, google up this charge for the State of IL. and you will see the elements of the crime are not AT ALL even close to what happened...there wouldn't have been enough time on the elevator for what constitutes the element(s) of the crime the Priest was charged with. It doesn't make sense.

Parent  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 10:14 AM

Isn't the burden on the CCSA office to press charges and to what degree? Thats where the decision is made, with police assistance. Clearly there was enough evidence to proceed.

Catholic School Girl  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 8:19 AM

Hi Matt, apparently there was a camera but it only reflected the Priest walking toward the man. I have read your other posts and I understand that after what you went through you have zero tolerance for any misconduct as it should be. But we have to consider all the facts. Cardinal Bernadine was once falsely accused as well, we are in hard times perhaps the Kansas fellow wants a pay out-don't know. A friend of mine was molested by a Priest yrs. ago, he got his payout and it sits, he won't use it

matt from chicago  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 7:45 AM

possible kansas man was taken aback but had little time to catch flight so filing report time would cancel his departure. yet he did have time on flight to think. it is only because he is a priest that makes it news. priest having clean record means little as many priests that have became known also had no priors. if something did occur, the fact that it wasn't a child wouldn't make it less right, just less harmful. wouldn't there be an inside elevator camera in an airport this age?

Catholic School Girl  

Posted: December 29th, 2011 7:31 AM

To my memory there is a prominent police presence at Midway Airport, including a Chgo. PD information desk and a police station. Chgo. police walk the concourses and food courts. If this indeed happened why was the complaint telephoned from Kansas to Chgo instead of discussing it with police at the airport? This sounds like a set-up to humiliate an elderly Catholic Priest and it is curiously close to the Cardinal George news story of last week. Could this be a retaliation from a distance?

Irish Up  

Posted: December 28th, 2011 11:30 PM

He seems to know alot of Irish folk.

From Oak Park from Oak Park  

Posted: December 28th, 2011 7:33 PM

@ Phil of Ideas...you don't get it. If the charges are way off base the case will be tossed. Example, someone slaps you in the face and they charge the offender with attempted murder...makes no sense. I have a gut feeling something is wrong here, of course Mr. Kansas should go home, but if he was that "damaged" why call Chicago Police when he gets home...geez, he's an adult, he was not damaged or hurt, I don't think this really happened and he must come back for the trail...be that wont' happen.

Doesn't Believe All  

Posted: December 28th, 2011 6:24 PM

Phil of Ideas: good point. The time of Catholic priests being afforded the benefit of the doubt may be over but innocent until proven guilty is not. I am not an apologist. If this is a case where one person's word is against another is all there is, this priest's background (never a report of abuse or misconduct) will likely matter in court. Leave Cardinal Law out of this. This is not about child sexual abuse or covering up of abuse. Focus.

Phil of Ideas  

Posted: December 28th, 2011 6:01 PM

I dont think leaving for your scheduled flight back to Kansas means this didnt happen. It means he wanted to continue with his life. The charges might be a little high for what is described, but I think the time of letting Catholic priests have the benefit of the doubt is over. Maybe Cardinal Law can return from the Vatican to defend his collegue, or is he hiding from the jurisdiction? The apologists here are likely also defending Sandusky, et.al. DISGUSTING!

Doesn't Believe All  

Posted: December 28th, 2011 5:05 PM

WORKS IN OAK PARK: You are exactly right. This priest has no record of misconduct or abuse and the actions of Mr. Kansas seem suspect. Most disconcerting in this context is MATT, stalking the man's FB page.

Works in Oak Park from Oak Park  

Posted: December 28th, 2011 1:08 PM

I don't understand these charges, they appear too severe to fit the crime. Now if this alleged victim goes home to Kansas I don't understand how there will indeed be a "victim". If a woman attempted to kiss Mr. Kansas on the elevator would the police charge her with criminal sexual abuse? NO! they would laugh. I do not believe this happened, a "background" is needed on the alleged victim! Something is not right with this picture!

A. Parent  

Posted: December 28th, 2011 9:44 AM

Given his age, it might be dementia, with its loss of impulse control.

Colors  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 11:36 PM

How many "consensual" relationships has Jagoe had? Hmmmm

Steven Tyler from Aerosmith  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 9:55 PM

Love in an elevator Livin' it up when I'm goin' down Love in an elevator Lovin' it up 'til I hit the ground

Doesn't Believe All from Chicago  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 9:46 PM

Innocent until proven guilty. This priest is 77 and has a clean record.

Laughing from Oak Park  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 9:14 PM

I heard Father Jagoe was really packing. I am not being Silly!

matt from chicago  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 9:06 PM

parent; he's not my friend. more will be revealed. article sez surveilance cam only shows priest coming toward him as doors were closing. i can't imagine in todays world, an airport elevator wouldn't have an inside camera. else it might be a matter of a "he said-she said" issue. at least the alleger is not a child not that that would make this here now more innocent. any such priest news as this really stirs me as i certainly had my time. good-nite. happy tuesday nite.

Parent  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 8:52 PM

I guess if your his friend we should question all contacts and what they know or knew?????

Walt from Scotland  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 8:02 PM

Oh! what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!

matt from chicago  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 7:46 PM

his fb prvcy settings are set so u can't post on his wall. can merely send him a prvt mssg or request to be his fb friend.i figure a person can harass his friends but a person willing to go that far will do so by any means.

matt from chicago  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 7:37 PM

i for the most part agree john. even thought about it for a very brief moment. i just simply searched his name on facebook as anyone can do. i guess maybe i'm a little bias as i am a victim of priest abuse.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 7:35 PM

John Butch Murtagh, I agree with you, but Matt wants to be the first to show off his facebook skills. As for Judy Jones, it's so nice for her to advertise her e-mail address for everyone to contact her. If she isn't already, maybe she can take an ad out with the W.J..

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 5:56 PM

To: WJ Webmaster - Matt from Chicago's gesture of providing the priest's FB address is innocent and my comment is not being critical of him. I believe that releasing a FB address can be damaging to innocent people that are mentioned on the site or listed as friend. If people want to investigate in that manner they can, but allowing people to broadcast what could be intrusiveness is not consistent with WJ's comment standards.

matt from chicago  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 5:44 PM

he has a facebook. if someone desires to send him a mssg. ~ https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000042450561

Judy Jones  

Posted: December 27th, 2011 4:55 PM

Hopefully others, who may have knowledge or may have been harmed by Jagoe, will have the courage to report it to police no matter how long ago the abuse may have happened. Keep in mind your silence only hurts, and by speaking up there is a chance for healing, exposing the truth, and therefore protecting others. Also know that you are not alone, and there is hope, help, and a chance for healing. Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511 snapjudy@gmail.com "Survivors

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor