Dirty rotten mess

Share Button

Well, all I can say is good on the Toronto Star and good on Mary Ormsby.  A good article in today’s Star:

03 September 2010: Fifteen-year search for pedophile priest ends – with him going free

As unbelievable as it may seem, the mayor of Igloolik, Lucassie Ivalu, didn’t know that Oblate priest Father Eric Dejaeger did not stand trial on charges related to allegations of sexual abuse of young boys of Igloolik.  Apparently others in Igloolik have also been in the dark.  They did not know that Dejaeger had eluded justice.  Nor did they know that he was a fugitive who had high-tailed it off to Belgium rather than show up in a Nunavut court to face his accusers. I gather that they knew nothing until this whole sorry mess spilled into the news in the past few weeks.

How can this be possible? 

I wish I knew. 

Is it in part because those who alleged abuse by Dejaeger had perhaps moved on from the small community?  Or, perhaps, as is so often the case, is it that those whose allegations led to charges  didn’t understand what was happening when Dejaeger failed to appear in Iqualit, the capital of Nunavut which is not, but the way, easily accessible from the remote northern community of Igloolik.  In truth, there’s a good chance they probably weren’t even in court the day Dejaeger failed to show.

But, what were they told? What explanation were they given when it was discovered that Dejaeger was a no-show?  For that matter, what explanation were they given when officials discovered that Dejaeger had fled the country?

Were the complainants, for that matter, given ANY explanation?  Did anyone at all keep the Igloolik complainants in the loop?  If not, why not? 

This opens up another whole can of worms…

I am floored that people of Igloolik have been in the dark.

The chief prosecutor in Nunavut says the case is “incredibly complicated.”  True enough.  It seems it has indeed become incredibly complicated.  But, it wasn’t too complicated when Dejaeger fled the country in 1995, was it?  

Why, for example, did it take six full years to have Dejaeger on the Interpol “wanted” list?

I blogged ever so superficially on my troubles trying to get information from Interpol back in May of this year.  I felt like I was banging my head against a  brick wall.  It was frustrating.   People in Belgium have known where Dejaeger was living, but it was like pulling teeth to find out if Dejaeger was still on the Interpol list, and equally problematic trying to find out who to report to with information that Dejaeger’s whereabouts in Belgium were known.

Anyway, here we are.  What a royal mess.  And still we are presumably awaiting an extradition order from Canada.

And yes, how DID Dejaeger manage to get out of Canada?  Did not a soul think to take his passport? That aside, how may lies and how much deception were entailed in getting a convicted clerical molester fleeing further sex abuse charges out of the country and into Belgium?  Dejaeger must have had a helping hand or two? Will anyone be looking into that?  If accomplices are unearthed, will there be charges laid?

What about the 05 July 1995 Letter to Father Erik Dejaeger in Belgium from “J.P.” in St. Boniface, Manitoba ?  The RCMP knew, at the least, that Dejaeger had high-tailed off to Belgium?  Did they follow through on that lead? 

And what of “J.P.”?  He received a letter from Dejaeger.  He wrote a letter to Dejaeger – a heads up that Dejaeger would be arrested if he returned to Canada.  And he couldn’t give the RCMP Dejaeger’s address? 

Note too that Rheal Teffaine, the lawyer for the Diocese of Churchill-Hudson Bay says the diocese did not realize the extent of Dejaeger’s abuses and that:  “We didn’t know this guy was a bloody monster.’’  And, note too that he says ‘they’ somehow “lost track” of Dejaeger in 1995.   

And, oh yes, there was a “healing fund.”  Every civil suit was settled without making victims go to court.  Were there any settlements related to Dejaeger?  If yes, how many?  And, if yes, surely there must have been some sense then and there that, as Teffaine says, Dejaeger was “a bloody monster”?  And, further to that, if there were victims of Dejaeger who benefited from the “healing fund” surely there was information available to the diocese that Dejaeger was a fugitive from justice?

I’d say this whole thing smells to high Heaven: from the judge’s conclusion that Dejaeger is not a paedophile, to Deajeger’s ability to flee the country as a convicted criminal and defendant in further criminal action, to the failure of the Oblates in both Belgium and Canada to turn in a convicted clerical molester running from the law, to the six-year-delay in getting Dejaeger’s name and picture on Interpol, to Dejaeger’s ability to function as a priest in Belgium, to the mayor of Igloolik and other Igloolik residents’ total lack of knowledge of what has been going on.

I am now beginning to think that there is need of an investigation to determine who – if anyone – overtly or covertly aided and abetted Father Eric Dejaeger him from the moment he decided to flee Canada and become a fugitive from justice.

Meanwhile we await news that an extradition has been both issued in Canada and actued upon in Belgian.

*****

There is talk that Archbishop Martin Currie (Archdiocese of St. John’s and Diocese of Grand Falls Newfoundland) may be heading to St. Brendan’s to listen to the concerns of the those poor souls regarding convicted child molester Father Michael Walsh

Does anyone know any of Father Walsh’s victims?  If yes, could you please send me an email at cornwall@theinquiry.ca?

*****

I missed “Betrayal” on the Fifth Estate 01 October 2010.  Fortunately the entire show is available for for viewing online:  http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/betrayal/

It’s worth watching – Linden MacIntyre has done an excellent job of conveying the pain of victims of clerical sexual abuse as well as the anger of Catholics in the Diocese of Antigonish Nova Scotia who are left footing the bill for the ‘deal’ hammered out by our disgraced Bishop Raymond Lahey. Lahey, facing charges of possession and importing child pornography, is also defending himself against a sex abuse lawsuit .

Lahey was recently spotted strolling the streets of Ottawa toting a backpack – footloose and fancy free.

*****

What a dirty rotten mess!

Enough for now,

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Bishops, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Raymond Lahey, recycled, Scandal and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Dirty rotten mess

  1. prima facie says:

    “A little off topic..but related”….

    I wonder if people ever take a look at the Interpol website. On it there is a link to “trafficking in human beings”, then, “children”, “women”, etc.
    Also, as you peruse the site, you will see the organizations “promoted” as working together, to “supposedly” break-up the industry that generates billions of dollars a year in the trafficking of children and women for sexual exploitation; (I suspect many children/women end up dead).
    It seems to me, I saw a documentary or other program on television over this past year, where the RCMP and others were paraded around as being hero’s, for breaking up, dismantling or cripling the day-to-day actions of many of the business enterprizes-“rings”.
    Wasn’t Canada’s own Norm Inkster (Google) and John Spice (Cornwall Public Inquiry)working with one of these bureau’s at Interpol when Mr. Inkster was its “lead man”?

    Make no mistake about it, the international “trade” of stealing and trafficking children, adolescents and women, as a business enterprize, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and dominance, is huge and very dangerous. I suspect, there is a big demand, which includes a very prominent and affluential client base.

    How can organizations such as Canada’s R.C.M.P. or Interpol for that matter, have been so incompetent in this case?
    (I guess the motive for my ranting here, is that for some reason, it seems to me, so many officials, with so many resources and contacts, still seem to somehow screw up or be mysteriously absent, when significant events take place, involving prominent institutions, individuals, professions, elitists and/or other affluential citizens.) Conspiracy theory?

  2. Reality Checker says:

    Prima Facie – you do know WHO is an officer of Interpol NOW??? He kinds left Canada after a major scandal
    with the RCMP a few years back. He had to resign in disgrace. Anyone question where he went after he resigned??? Give you a clue – he took up reins in France…and NOW he’s some kinda top director with Interpol.

    ARE VERY OWN ZACARDELLI!!!!!!

    Wonder if he took his boots with him? 🙂

    – that may/maynot answer the questions about WHERE has Interpol been.

  3. MYOMY says:

    I watched the fifth estate online. I missed the broadcast. They are just going for deeper pockets. They point out that the Church in Nova Scotia is very poor then start talking about the Vatican responsibility and the Vatican art treasures which could be sold to pay the liabilities. I am reminded of the lawsuit against Boeing aircraft after the soviet union shot down the KAL flight over the Kamchatka peninsula. The rule is go where you think you can get the most money regardless of who was really responsible for the harm done. Is it a good thing to disperse the art treasures of the Church to the highest bidder to enrich mostly the lawyers?? I think not. Their real value is as a patrimony of art which enriches the faith of the people – not whatever price is attached to them for settlements!

    I don’t think the people should have to buy back their churches ( Newfoundland ) or that the bill should be sent to the poor people in Antigonish diocese. The whole idea of vicarious liability is being abused in these cases. Punish the perpetrators themselves and if you find that a bishop assigned a priest to any parish while knowing or suspecting that he was a bad risk of abusing children then the bishop himself should be punished as well. These leaders ( Eg Lahey ) get off scott free with the parishioners making the sacrifices while they trot around looking as if they are more caring than the others while making large monetary settlements. Punish the perpetrators and their enablers but not the faithful who are being victimized all over again.

    The film showed clips of Pope John Paul II and mentioned his indulgence of Marcial Maciel The founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Why wasn’t Pope Benedict given credit for dealing with this case? He is shown refusing to answer a reporters quesiton. The fifth estate implies that Pope John Paul II winked at Maciel’s crimes because he brought in lots of money to the Vatican. It is true that Pope John Paul II was letting well placed abusers go ( Maciel, Prince ). The explanation is that when he was living under communism his experience was that communists accused those they wanted to discredit and destroy of being child abusers. When John Paul II heard this charge his instinct was to reject the charge as more of the same dirty communist sliming of innocent victims. Hey – lets hold the communists liable not only for shooting down of the KAL flight but all the abusers that skated while Pope John Paul II was in charge!

    The point is you can always find a way to turn the liability guns on the ones you hate but this does not correct the problem. We need to get a grip and punish the perps and enablers but leave others alone.

    The question of reporting these crimes to the police was brought up. That would be a good idea if they had a good record of dealing with the corruption. On this site we know that the rot runs through both the Church and the civil authorities ( Remember Cornwall ) . Sure report it to the police and if/when they bury it where do you go next?

  4. Sylvia says:

    I agree whole heartedly that the likes of Lahey are getting off scott free.

    I don’t believe the laity should be footing legal bills for clerical crimes and sins.

    I don’t know what my thoughts are on the art treasures. I agree that it would be far more appropriate that lawyers dip into the bishops’s pockets, not ours. Right off the bat I think of cottages. What if every bishop who owns one were obliged to sell his cottage and put the monies into the hat. And what if every clerical molester in the Antigonish diocese were obliged to do likewise?

    Lahey hammered out the Antigonish deal. Does Lahey have a cottage? I don’t know if he does or doesn’t, but, if he has one, why not put his cottage on the market to help defray the tab he decided the laity could shoulder.

    And perhaps every molesting priest who has brought disgrace upon on the priesthood and scandal to the Church should be obliged to throw their cottages into the pot?

    Ditto every bishop, chancellor and/or Vicar general enabler.

    It’s those people who brought us to this sorry day. You’re right MYOMY. They get off scott free. Take their cottages. Garnishee their wages. At the very least, make them financially accountable

    I have trouble with the idea that John Paul II turned a blind eye to allegations of clerical sexual abuse because he thought it was some sort of communist plot. I’ve never heard that one. Surely he was smarter than that? How many victims alleging abuse by Maciel could be possibly be construed as communist agents?

    Perhaps the reality is that there was a communist plot to destroy the Church from within by convincing the Pope that there was communist plot to defame good and holy priests by alleging they were paedophiles, and because the Pope thought it was all a communist plot the paedophiles were allowed to carry on molesting and bringing their molesting colleagues into the priesthood.

    I don’t know. I think rationalizing Pope John Paul IIs inaction with the notion that he thought it was a communist plot is going over the edge. It would be interesting to take a look at statistics, but I think that by the time the allegations against Maciel were public there had been literally hundreds of priest worldwide who had been convicted. Are we to believe that he thought judges and juries were part of a communist plot to??

    Yes ‘we’ need to punish the perps. The trouble is that it is rare that molesters are actually ‘punished’ by Church authorities. Besides, when it comes to punishment of molesters within the Church, what can “we” the laity do?

    The same holds true for bishops who are enablers. What can we do? And what should be done within the Church? What is a fit punishment? Should they, like the molesters, be laicized? Or, should they be ‘demoted’ and assigned clerical/administrative duties for the remainder of their priestly lives?

    As for reporting to police, yes, it’s true that when it comes to clerical molesters the rot runs through both the Church and civil authorities. I don’t think however that we should negate reporting to police because some police are corrupt anymore than we can negate trusting one priest because some are molesters.

    True, we saw what happened to Perry Dunlop when he reported to authorities. Not a good outcome. But surely we can’t just throw up our hands in despair? That would be a major coup for the clerical sexual predators. If everyone gives up in despair the molesters are home free. Wouldn’t they love that?

    So, what’s the answer? At the very least we Catholics can fight to get Church officials to do the following:

    – stop recycling molesters;

    – identify those known molesters who are presently and unbeknownst to the laity functioning as priests;

    – encourage all victims to report to police;

    – lift the statute of limitations in canon law;

    – promise that no known molester will be permitted to function as a priest in any capacity in the diocese;

    – instruct priests to with-hold absolution from clerical molesters who confess their predatory sins but refuse to turn themselves over to police;

    – laicize known clerical sexual predators; and, last but by no means least,

    – establish Catholic counselling centres for victims of clerical sexual abuse.

    There are wiothout doubt more, but those are the ones which come to mind right now MYOMY.

    Any ideas on all of this out there?

  5. Larry says:

    Allow priests to marry. Allow women into the priesthood. These are 2 of the most important measures the church can take to make the vocation less appealing to child preditors.I doubt if the priesthood creates molesters but it provides a wonderful front for them as well as plenty of protection.

  6. michael says:

    Larry,
    Allowing priests to marry does not solve the problem nor allowing women to be ordained. I think Priesthood is not a right but sacrificial commitment to God and people. There are many in this world who are married who are child preditors( both men and women), some even abuses their own children. 98% of the priests are doing a great job and are woderful people . It is just less than 2% have problems. If you take hunderd thousand ordinary people, there are many among them who are criminals, child preditors etc.

  7. Larry says:

    If all the problems in the catholic church stem from less than 2% of the clergy, then its a waste of time to to even consider doing anything about it. Any population that bears less than 2% pedophiles would be considered statsicaly much better than the norm. The priesthood is a vocation that any catholic who feels called has “The Right” to pursue.Every vocation involves commitment and sacrifice , not just the priesthood or catholics. Priests ARE ordinary people with the same sexual drive as the rest of us ordinary people.
    My argument for allowing priest to marry and allowing women into the priesthood does not make the claim to SOLVE any problem just as any argument you may advance will not SOLVE the problem. For anyone to think that there exists some solution to erdicate the problem of pedophilia within the clergy is an idealogical dreamland. The reality is that there are many things the church can do to harness the unrestrained breeding ground she has nurtured for so long.
    The measures that I suggest are only 2 of many but they are the 2 most crucial elements ( for these and other reasons) to the survival of the church as we now know it. For very many of the faithfull , apparently yourself included,this is a reality very difficult to accept but if it isn’t already to late ( as it is for many) then there for sure is very little time left for sleeping.

  8. Myomy says:

    Re: Married and women priests: It is assumed that these measures would alleviate the problem. I don’t think so. The problem of child abuse extends beyond “celibate” males. We would need some statistics about how this problem plays out in other churches that have married and women ministers. I have not seen any information that verifies that this will help solve the problem.

    I would not object to the measures Sylvia suggests above. I just think that the current law of vicarious liability and large cash settlements gives a perverse incentive to bishops and leaders of the church. Let the punishment fall on the perps and enablers is my rule. The perverse inclination is to defend the the hilt any priest ( or teacher by school board authorities ) accused of child sexual abuse. The priest can be hung out to dry when it is some relatively trivial complaint but they are defended to the hilt when there is an accusation of child sexual abuse because the bishop knows that the moment they admit it is true they become liable for a crippling lawsuit that impoverishes the whole diocese. This is the reality and it arises from the law of vicarious liability. I just think that some thought should go into this so that the law gives an incentive to stop the child molesters sooner rather than later. Stopping the damage is better than a vain effort to un-damage the children with lots of cash.

    I don’t think the money battles are really helping. You might think that when a bishop hears of a case where some diocese was forced to pay a huge sum of money he would go all out to make sure it doesn’t happen to him. These cases keep happening and the only thing I have seen done is a policy imposed by insurance companies on the church of screening everyone ( not just the priests) who work with vulnerable people in the church. The screening involves the subject signing a waver and then a police records search is conducted. The church worker gets a little ID card that attests that they passed the police records search. The best I can say for this is that it is better than having the endorsement of a shrink!! I still remember proudly showing this to a victim of the Cornwall fiasco who dismissed it saying that “Charlie could get one of those” Oh well it keeps the insurance companies happy but it may not be the last word in prevention.

    I would add one suggestion to those you have listed above. Let the vetting be done by faithful lay church members with disputed cases referred to crusaders on the matter such as Sylvia, Randy Engle, Judith Reismann or Stephen Brady, people who take a hard line on fixing this problem. I think it is time the bishops cede their authority over these matters to such an authority- but don’t hold your breath.

  9. Larry says:

    I am so bewildered as to the unreasonable opposition to women priests and married priests. Intuition alone , if one considers realisticly the nature of human sexuality added to the fact that the catholic clergy is by far the most prevelaint of any proffession for child molestation. If the overwhelming number of instances of pedophile priests that you see and hear about around you aren’t enough to substantiate a recognition of an infestation of molesters far beyond any other proffession, then one ought to by all means do the reasearch into statistical data because it is out there. But if one refuses to give any weight to the general intuitive perception ,I think it unlikeley that unfavourable stats would recieve any weight either.
    Apart from the molestation aspect, What is the reason for the need to descriminate on the basis of marital staus or gender? Why can’t the value and quality of candidates be judged on individual merrit just as they should be in any other segment of society ? It’s a question of equality in
    respect and dignity of all humans.

  10. michael says:

    Harry,
    Do you know that recently there was a study in the united states about the married clergy in the protestant and other eastern orthdox churches. Over 11 thousand sexual harrasment and child abuse cases were found and almost all of them were married clergy with children! So this is not a problem in the catholic church alone or the problem of unmarried clergy, It is the problem of the individual person. Most of the people understand it. That is why inspite of all these, they still go to church and pray. (Over one Billion in Catholic church itself)with out counting other denominations.

  11. Larry says:

    OKay michael.

  12. Larry says:

    Kay Ebeling Says:

    September 28th, 2010 at 11:47 am
    I am always perplexed as to how advocating for truth about pedophile priest sex crimes is an attack on religion or even the Catholic Church, as one of the victims who has covered this crime spree at City of Angels Blog for four years.

    If you think your church is under attack, you’re saying your religion has something to do with pedophilia.

    Most of us are shocked that this much criminal activity against children was allowed to happen, and the real perpetrators, the bishops who kept these men in the priesthood, are still in office, in positions of esteem. What does that have to do with religion?

    There are 10,969 pedophile priests identified so far by Bishop Accountability, 20-200 times more than in other professions. I know from experience the bishops are doing all they can to keep the truth about the extent of these crimes from getting into mainstream media.

    It’s felony sex crimes against children, not religion, that we seek to undo

  13. michael says:

    Larry,
    For your information there are many married clergy in the catholic eastern churches too. I know a priest in welland who is a great friend of mine and also many in Toronto. Though their church’s priests have permission to marry before ordination, there are many who chose to be celebate. They consider it as a sacrifice and free choice which they made freely. Even in marriages people make sacrifices. Some of us may not understand the meaning of it, unless we have a sacrificial mind and so on. I strongly believe religion is a choice one makes. It is not a right so also priesthood. Each faith has it’own rules and regulations. If I do not like it, I quit and join another church or religion which allows me to be a minister whether I am a woman or man, gay or lesbian etc. I do not know any churches or religion that consider religious ministry as a right. It is not like a job you apply where every one has a right to apply and work. Some of the churches I know tried to do it and they lost many of their members. I think in this regard catholic church stood by what they belive in and thus they have over one billion members in the world.

  14. Larry says:

    I dont know who or how valid the study conducted that you are refferring to but the numbers according to Kay Ebling are staggering. Just because one recognizes that the pedophile problem is rampant within the catholic church does not mean that we are saying pedophiles are only in the catholic church. That kind of strawman fallacy does nothing to address the reality of the problem.
    As for your great numbers still going to church to pray, what relevance does that have to the millions whos faith in the church has been undermined and are to well aware of the destruction of spiritual well being both individually and collectiveley.
    It serves no one including yourself to use the ” appeal to spiritual authority ” ( the implicit premise that you who go to church are superior to we that dont). It just makes your arguement very weak and it states clearly that your head is to high in the heavenly clouds to see whats going on down here on earth.

  15. Myomy says:

    Larry let me try to answer your closing question “What is the reason for the need to descriminate on the basis of marital staus or gender?…… It’s a question of equality in respect and dignity of all humans.”

    Everybody is equal. Men and women are equal but they are not the same. It is appropriate that they have different roles in accord with their different nature. It is important that all of us defer to the founder of our faith on this. Our Lord died and rose to establish this religion. His blessed Mother was the most perfect creature God ever created. She was given every honour and dignity and was a partner along with her divine son in the work of salvation – but she was not a priest. This does not make her lesser, far from it, She is greater than any other creature.

    Words such as discrimination, rights, equality, respect and dignity just do no apply as we are usually use them. Let us respect the founder of our faith. His choices have a deep purpose and they are not to be dismissed as crass discrimination or disrespect.

    The church has had a celibate priesthood for centuries. It is not fair to make wild generalizations and imply that the current condition with so many unfaithful priests is the norm for all history. Do not conclude that holiness is impossible because you can’t find examples of it today. The ideal is worth restoring and when it is restored children will be safe in Church. This is not impossible, it has been done before and can be done again.

  16. Larry says:

    How do the words such as descrimination , rights ,equality ,respect and dignity apply if not in the usual way ? There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the founder of the catholic church ,Peter, was married and fathered children.Furthermore celibacy is not a doctrine , it is a discipline.There have been many changes through the centuries from one pope to another on this issue.So if it’s direspectfull to question the wisdom of this notion then there are several popes who have been disrespectfull of the founder according to your arguement.
    I make no generalizations about the number of pedophile priests , the numbers speak for themselves. Why would it be unreasonable to suggest that the incidence of molestation dates back much further than we have the ability to verify?
    I have never made any claim that holliness is impossible to find nor have I made any such claim I cant find examples of it today.On the contrary I know of many very holy men and women. I most certainly dont believe that you have to be an unmarried male priest to be holy though. Being a priest and being holy are Two entireley seperate things just as being human and being holy are.
    The assertion that the ideal can be RESTORED presupposes the notion that there was a time when children were safe in the church.I fail to see the reasoning for that assumption. The trouble with ideologies is that they need to be protected at all cost, whereas reality relies mereley on the power of the truth.

  17. michael says:

    children certainly safe in the church where I go and most of the churches people go to. It is much safer than many homes where you sent your children, safer than many schools.If it is not, why many churches are filled with children and altar servers today? Filled with so many young people, young families?
    I have not heard anyone who go to church make statement that church is not safe.Ofcourse there may be a few churches which is not safe, and people should not go there.

    Celebacyin priesthood is a choise one makes at the time of ordination . Three times the bishop asks the candidate whether he has made this choice by his own free will, in front of the the all congregation. So it is a free will and free choise. Again it is not a right. Catholic church is strong , in spite of having a few rotten apples, because it always followed the teaching of the Jesus. It was founded on the rock of St.Peter. No one can ever destroy it. The scandels made the church stronger and more united. Did you not watch how the pope was welcomed in England? what a croud!!! many young people and children cheering!!! I am proud to be a catholic.

  18. Myomy says:

    Jesus Christ is the founder of the Church not Peter. Celibacy is a discipline but the non ordination of women is a doctrine from the founder not to be changed. You conflate these as dual solutions to child abuse in the Church. During the French revolution slogans such as “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” were used to hurl very destructive mobs at others who were marked for destruction. Evil hides itself behind high sounding ideals to do great damage.

    My concern is that in demanding “Equality” for men and women in the Church we are not allowing any room for the differences. It would be a great injustice for men to treat women as the same and not allow any different role for them. There is a complementarity between men and women in their relationships where each supplies what is lacking in the other and the two together are more than the sum of the parts. This is something precious which is destroyed by sloganeering about “Equality”

    Feminism is destructive of the harmonious relationship which should form between men and women. This leads to homosexuality and that in turn leads to child abuse. I know these statements are not politically correct these days so let the condemnations fly!!

  19. Michel Bertrand says:

    The healing fund that is mentioned above is only the organization by the governemnt of the then North West Territories and a direct response to the community crisis the disclosure and conviction had on Baker Lake nothing else was done and the sum I am aware of is approx 130,000 and that was to hire 3 specialized community sexual abuse staff to work with the community for 1 year. The actual paymemt and documentation of this contractual agreement was concluded by Greg ? my supervisor with the regional office og GNWT. As far as I know no other compensation was ever offered or requested directly to these individuals.

    The issue here is that a person has been able to twart the justice system by means of symbolic power and was invoved in a systemic approach to covering the sins of the organization namely the Roman Catholic Church. As a citizen of Canada I have rights and responsibilities one of which is to not breach it’s laws and to be responsible for my actions if I do break those laws. As far as my limited understading of our rights and responsibilities they apply to all, I don’t see any exclusions because you are part of an organized religion.

  20. michael says:

    You are Peter, and on this Rock I build my Church’ … and … ‘everyone who listens to my word and acts on it will be like a sensible man who built his house on rock.’

    Peter, the Rock, that is the foundation of the Church, on the one hand; the words of Christ, the rock-like foundation of a Christian life on the other.

    Peter and his successors (Popes) are the tru leaders of the church instituted by christ Jesus. Celibacy in priesthood is disciple of the church, but made by one by free will and choise. It is demanded of one who aspire to be a priest.I think that is one of the great strength of the catholic church. Even in Buddism, Jainism and in Hindu religions theor spiritual leaders are celibate.

  21. Michel Bertrand says:

    It’s not about celibacy, its about the sexual abuse of children. I argue that the true leaders of the church are it’s most vulnurable, the children, the Church has lost it’s way and their message is about them and their power and their leadership and not about God at all. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  22. Michel Bertrand says:

    if you reread the judgement he says ” At the sentencing hearing, documents were provided by Defence counsel, with no objection from the Crown, which contained opinions of professional doctors who interviewed and examined Eric Dejaeger. Upon reading those documents, I would simply say that I am not satisfied that Eric Dejaeger is a pedophile. From the facts that were provided to the Court today, in my view, this is simply a case of a lonely man who had normal sexual urges, which he repressed for many years because of his calling no doubt and who satisfied those sexual urges, not by approaching adults who were old enough or mature enough to say no to him, but by befriending or seducing young children who did not know enough, or were not courageous enough, to say no to him. ”

    In my world adults are responsible for knowing right from wrong and it is not up to children to be responsible. I bewleive if you search the archives you will find that this judge also was in trouble for his comments about an Inuit women who was drunk and was raped and he indicated that she was just a pair of hips to mount and that it was understanable that the man took advantage of her. He was publicly rebuked for these comments and this also occured while I was in the north.

  23. Michel Bertrand says:

    The judge in this case was M. Bourrasa

    http://www.defamationlawdebate.ca/fm/JournalGender.htm

    and if you read this debate you might conclude that a different justice standard is extended to First Nation children, had these kids been from Corwall would Dejeager have been supervised more closely, out of site out of mind. Bring him back afford him the right to defend himself but give those individual’s the right to protection.

  24. prima facie says:

    Re: Definition of “pedophile” (paedophile):
    Re: Post #22 above and “lonely man who had normal sexual urges”.
    Are the definitions vague and ambiguous, resulting in interpretations replete with “working” speculation and conjecture….or, are there only interpretations…..and no, real, definition?
    In Michel’s post, does he not write about the vulnerabilty, power, control and implied fear young victims experience?…(which is also prominent in sexual abuse scenarios.)

    Yet Judges, professionals and others really, would like us to believe they, “don’t seem to have a clue…”. Is this ignorance, stupidity, arrogance or what?
    It reminds me of the defence often rendered at the “Cornwall Public Inquiry”, ie)”…we didn’t have the knowledge, education, technology, money, resources, etc., etc…….to do the right job…” really, I mean really!!

    I would suggest the quotes referred to above (in Michel’s post), clearly describe in part, the behaviours of a pedophile; despite the reasons/excuses or the affidavit’s elicited from and submitted by one or more doctor.
    As we well know, one professional can be solicited to “write” one opinion and another can be solicited to write an opposing one.
    We also know that, in many situations, pedophiles relocate, change professions, volunteer, etc., etc., to venues, where children live, play, go to school, take part time jobs, hang out, babysit, etc.

    Do “normal men, with normal sexual urges” resort to any “avenue” or victim “available”, to satiate their “normal sexual urges”?…..whether living in isolated areas or not….or are we to assume that the accepted “social norm” for Northern Communities…is as Michel writes about?

    I assume these are the words of the sitting Judge, not the the social worker…since the Judge had previously made the “just a pair of hips to mount.”

    Michel: I once worked with the Kativik School Board-student services. My boss was a “Sheila W-C”. The Southern offices were in Dorval, Quebec. I understand she became more actively involved-politically…Do you know who I am referring to and if so, does she still “actively” get involved in matters such as these. She seemed like quite a sincere and assertive advocate for children.

  25. Michel Bertrand says:

    yes Primae that was a judges rendition about the differences in northern communities versus southern not this social worker for sure. I agree that to sexually assault children is one.. violent period and two, charecteristic of pedophilia. Finkelhor writes of 2 types, regressive types who are situational and are sexually turned on by their own age group and obsessives who are sexually turned on by children. I would venture to say from a professional standpoint that if a priest goes after children in one community and then another, he is of the obsessive type. He could have chose to come onto a women or a man but he chose children. The note I wrote was to paraphrase the comments of judge Bourassa, I was mistaken in saying it was the sitting judge on dejaegers court case and so put the link to the discussion to clarrify that information. In that link he does consider the difference between a drunken women in the north or a dainty person from the south, regardless it is wrong in both instances and rather racist despite the conclusion of the discussion. If the justice systems perceived northern people as less than others it is easy to see how judgements and sentencing as well as keeping people close at hand if they where charged was not a priority

  26. prima facie says:

    Michel: Thanks for your reply. It appears you are well-versed and experienced in this topic. Also, I believe you are “tuned in” to the perceptions of Justice et al, relating to “issues-in northern communities”—I was unable to remain patient with some “personalities” when witnessing how justice, many bureaucrats, et al, perceived northern communities and with particularity, what I saw as their prejudging of people living in northern communities.
    I see your posts on other threads. I urge you to continue your networking and advocacy.
    IN ADDITION; I mentioned Sheila W-C. I believe her father was or still is a Senator (Canadian Senate).
    At least when I interacted with her, late 1980’s-1990’s, she was very involved as an activist and seemed pretty genuine-even though she and I went “toe to toe” in the boardroom. If she is still involved, I believe she can be an excellent resource with valuable information and access.

  27. prima facie says:

    RE: Sheila Watt-Cloutier:
    Strange for me. I kinda backed away from “the system” in the 1990’s. In addition, I have been out of Canada alot–Things change-evolve, I guess.
    I see where Sheila Watt-Cloutier has really made tracks, so-to-speak. (Google her bio-career).
    However, she seems very active as a public speaker, activist, etc. I think she might be a good contact.

  28. Larry says:

    Myomy Re: post 18
    If we are to follow your logic ( the slippery slope argument)
    we have an obligation to protect our children by putting feminists and homosexuals behind bars.
    I dont think what you say about these groups is politicaly incorrect at all. It borders on criminal.

  29. Michel Bertrand says:

    Matthew 19:14 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

    The most salient part of this scripture of course is do not hinder… sexually abusing children really makes a mess of their lives and beliefs hence the leadership of the church hindering those who own the kingdom of heaven. I don’t see let the little popes, cardinals, bishops or priest come onto me as the church or kindom of heaven belongs to them… can’t beleive I am quoting scripture

  30. Larry says:

    I,m sorry Michel Bertrand I dont see your point.

  31. Michel Bertrand says:

    The point is that the leadership is about themselves and not about its lambs sort to speak, not much sheperding going on. The spirituality is non-existent, if you consider a pope whose frame of reference is infalibility, the church really belongs to it’s most vulnerable, the children according to the scripture quoted and they, the church expend a lot of resources defending themselves and their empire the result being they hurt children more so by doing so, the excuses, the hiding of criminals, the xenophobia. I don’t think JC would approve of that…. is my point.

    For example if dejeager had come to court in 1995 and the church had accepted thats it’s membership had serious relational problems they might have entered into an honest dialogue and opened it’s ample resources to make the necessary amends and to help those affected to really heal. The way it is now we have a number of young adults who where not beleived, not heard and not afforded the help needed to go on with their spiritual life. It has caused a lot of discord and very little peace.

    This talk of how the church should be composed has very little to do with the effect that the wrong doings have caused to people. If the water is poison remove the pump.

  32. Larry says:

    Oh Wow!
    Thank you for the beautifull clarification on that fundamental and crucial point Michel Bertrand.It most certainly and directly addresses the heart of the whole matter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *