Labels. Who cares?

Share Button

So, that’s a bit of a bombardment of information over the last two days!  Three new articles have been posted:

18 May 2016:  Archdiocese of Ottawa comments on articles in the Ottawa Citizen concerning cases of clergy abuse

18 May 2016:  Lawyer’s career dominated by clergy abuse scandal 

18 May 2016:  Ottawa diocese repeatedly warned about local clergy’s most notorious abuser 

There are several things I want to comment on.  Things that are bothering me.  I will work at it in separate posts.   This is the first, dealing largely with comments made by  Father Barry McGrory in the following two previously posted articles, and the latter of the three above.

17 May 2016:  Special Report: ‘I’ve been given peace:’ Rev. Barry McGrory  

17 May 2016:  “Priest admits to sexual abuse for first time in Citizen interview” here. 


 Father Barry McGrory

Unfortunately I get the impression that Father Barry McGrory, a child molester, views himself as a victim.  A victim of an ‘illness’ (“hebophilia”), and, this I can not believe,  the victim of a 13-year-old girl!

Truth be told, I’m sure his victims could care less whether he is a hebophile, an ephebophile, or a paedophile.  Whatever the lable, those who enured the abuse must  live with the damage done.  Ditto their families.  Those who follow this site know that it goes without saying that when the molester is also a Roman Catholic priest, there is immense damage done to the faith of victim, and not infrequently, the faith of the victim’s family and friends, and often the faith of other Roman Catholics.  What matter the lable?

The bottom line is that Father Barry McGroy is a child molester.  A convicted child molester.  He has molested teenage girls.  He has molested at least one pre-pubescent boy.  His actions were, in the eyes of society, criminal, and, in the eyes of the Church, sinful.

If indeed he has changed his ways and is “cured,” I am happy.   However, the fact that in at least one instance  he blames one of his victims for “instigating” sexual contact belies what I expect to hear from a priest molester who is “cured.”

Imagine the audacity.  When asked asked how he can blame a teenager his response was:  “That’s a good point. I certainly should take my own responsibility in saying yes to her. I don’t know what else I could have done.”

Straight from the mouth a Roman Catholic priest!  A convicted molester.   Well, yes, not just a convicted molester, a convicted clerical molester

And then, of course, there’s the boy.  The nine-year old boy.  Perhaps nine-or-ten-year-old? No matter.  A child.  A little boy.

The boy doesn’t fit into McGrory’s claim that he, McGrory, is a hebophile.

Ah, but wait, the nine-year-old boy was, according to McGrory,   ‘an exception.’

An exception!  Oh my.  An exception!!

In truth, we have not the slightest clue how many boys and  girls – pre-post pubescent and/or post-pubescent – this priest has molested. When asked, his response was: “I have no idea….I don’t think I’ve … I’m not going to answer that question. I don’t think … It’s not a very nice question to ask.”

The one for sure is that the answer is not three at Holy Cross.

How many “exceptions” might there be to this predatory priest’s hebophile rule?

As I say, it makes no difference to his unfortunate victims what he labels himself , but if he molested one nine-year-old boy one has to wonder if there were others?

There is of course the forth known victim.   The 17-year-old native boy!  The one to which he entered a guilty plea in 1991.

That may fit some definitions of hebophilia, – but not all.  It wouldn’t fit, for example, those who cap hebephilia victims at around age 14.

More power to anyone who can figure out how to label these molesters in a fashion which suits all – molesters included!

As an aside. something which struck me  as I was scanning through the articles is the dates.  Look at this…

McGrory began molesting the nine-year-old boy in 1974.  That abuse continued until 1985.  He began molesting 13-year-old  “Karen”  in 1975. That abuse continued until, I think, about 1982.   In other words, he was molesting the boy and the girl at the same time!  And, yes, he molested both until they were into their late teens.

Labels.  As I say, do the victims care?  Do parents care?  For that matter, does God care?  Does God, I wonder, split hairs over whether a clerical molester is labelled on this earth as a paedophile, an ephebohile, a pederast or an hebophile? or, does He just plain care that (1) a child or youth or adolescent was sexually violated by a sexual predator masquerading as a priest? and (2)  that every case of clerical sexual abuse is the rape of a soul? and (3)  a  a wolf in sheep’s clothing is a priest?

Boyhood friend Father Dale Crampton

Fathers Barry McGrory and Dale Crampton were boyhood friends.  According to the Citizen they attend seminary together, but they were actually ordained three years apart, McGrory in 1960, and Crampton in 1963.

Now, look at Father McGrory’s response to Crampton’s “paedophilia.”  According to article, McGrory didn’t know.  He, a child molester who is adamant he is a hebophile and not a paedophile, did not know that his boyhood friend and fellow priest was a ‘paedophile.’

And, then, when, according to McGrory, when he was confronted in the mid 80s with a story of some sort regarding Crampton and abuse, McGrory says he did, …nothing.  It seems he did nothing to protect children.  Nor, it seems, did he report Crampton, to anyone.  However, what seems to be Father McGrory’s greatest regret, is that he did not confront Crampton!  (“I should have gone over and said, ‘Dale, let’s have a drink. You and I have to sit down and talk.’”)

This is from clerical molester, who was himself actively molesting at the time.  “You and I have to sit down and talk.”  His failure to do this, according to McGrory, is an omission that he regrets!

I don’t know.  I am scratching my head here.

I honestly don’t know what I would expect when one molester priest presumably learns for the first time that a  priest friend is also a molester.  I suppose concern for the safety and well being of children would not be high on the list of a fellow molester, would it?  But, strange comment.

And, as far as I’m concerned, it gets stranger…

Next we learn that Father McGrory visited Crampton in jail to, according to the article “apologize for his failure” ( to confront Crampton).

Is it just me, or is this just bizarre?

And then, well then we learn that Father Crampton forgave McGrory and said: “Barry, you couldn’t have done anything. So many people knew about my problem and your voice wouldn’t have made that much difference.”

Oh my!

And then “So he forgave me for not confronting him.”

This is weird.  Weird.

It seems the whole Father Crampton thing is a bit of a lament.  Poor Father Crampton.  Poor Father McGrory.

No mention at all of the countless poor victims.  No mention of the countless Roman Catholics betrayed by this pair. No mention of the scandal they caused.

What is it?

Two final comments

(1)  Father McGrory said he visited 10 psychiatrists and psychologists – none of whom could do anything. Why did not one of those people report him to police?  or, as they were legally obliged to do int those days I believe, to Children’s Aid Society?

(2)  I pray that Father McGrory is indeed living a chaste life these days.   I pray that he has indeed been “cured.”    I also firmly believe that he has proven himself unfit to be a priest in the Roman Catholic Church.  He should be defrocked/laicized.  He should have been defrocked years ago.

Enough for now.


This entry was posted in Canada, Circling the wagons, Clerical sexual predators, Scandal and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply