St. Lucia Star
07 July 2011
by Alisha Ally
Archbishop Robert Rivas, has declined to comment on the case of a clergyman who was recently sentenced by a Canadian court to two years imprisonment, after he admitted multiple charges of child molestation.
William Hodgson Marshall, 88, also known as Father Hod, was ordained in 1951. He admitted before a Windsor Court that the molestation began just two years later. In 1989, Marshall arrived in St Lucia to do missionary work. He was attached to the St Benedict’s parish at Morne Fortune and in that time helped to establish the Holy Family Children’s Home, in Ciceron. He was removed from St Lucia in 1996, when allegations of abuse started surfacing in Canada.
Parishioners of St Benedict’s have mixed recollections about Father Hod. Some were
flabbergasted by his admissions. “But he was always so kind,” they said.
Others were hardly surprised: “I always felt there was something a little off about him.” But nearly everyone praised him for his “compassion and foresight.” When it came to credit for the Holy Family’s Children’s Home, however, there was totally harmony: Without William Hodgson Marshall, it would never have materialized.
Before running the story of the priest’s conviction, the STAR made several futile efforts to contact the Archbishop Rivas. After the story was published on June 25, the STAR continued its attempts to reach Rivas at his office. When finally we reached his secretary she agreed to seek on our behalf an interview with the Archbishop.
We made several follow-up calls and then just last Friday we were told that the Archbishop had refused to speak to the STAR because “we had already made up our minds.” The STAR later discovered that the Archbishop had taken issue with our headline: Children’s Home Priest Admits Sex Offenses!
Sources close to the local Roman Catholic Church are of the opinion the Archbishop would have spoken to the STAR but for the fact that we had reported the fact that Marshall had admitted the charges against him. They noted the Archbishop had spoken to a reporter from a local station before Marshall’s conviction. The STAR’s story of Marshall’s sentence, our sources tell us, amounted in the eyes of the Archbishop to an indictment of the priesthood.
Second-hand information can be misleading. We will therefore reserve comment about what the Archbishop may be thinking. However: It wasn’t so long ago that the Archbishop was reassuring Saint Lucians that sexual molestation by his priests would not be tolerated in his time. On the other hand, rather than advising complainants to go to the police, the Archbishop suggested reports be made to church authorities. Considering this is precisely what has led to the church’s molestation-related problems, the Archbishop’s advice to victims was shocking to many.
As a Catholic, I am befuddled by the Archbishop’s stance in this matter given that Father Hod may have some victims in St Lucia. Here was the perfect opportunity to reach out to possible victims in Saint Lucia. To my mind, the Archbishop blew it again.
Traditionally the church has kept such matters a secret and has even been accused of cover-ups. It seems the local public can expect nothing new from church leaders, that the past will remain the present where sexual molestation by priests is concerned. Apologies such as that to Irish Catholics by Pope Benedict in March 2010 will amount to nothing without back-up action by such as Archbishop Rivas. The Pope’s words: “You have suffered grievously, and I am truly sorry. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated.”
He also criticized Ireland’s bishops for “grave errors of judgment and failures of leadership.”
In September 2010 Pope Benedict spoke out once again during his four-day trip to the United Kingdom, when he expressed “deep sorrow to the innocent victims of these unspeakable crimes.”
The Pontiff said he felt “shame and humiliation” because of the scandals, and called upon Catholics to express “concern for the victims and solidarity with your priests.”
Benedict acknowledged that the church was “not sufficiently vigilant, and not sufficiently quick and decisive” in coming to grips with such scandals.
We suggest Archbishop Rivas should take note and reconsider his decision regarding an interview with this newspaper!
One Response to Archbishop silent on priest’s conviction!
Dear reporter Alisha Ally, I beg to differ.I do think(stand corrected)that the correct way you should have gone about this article is to investigate whether or not the children(now grown ups) at the children’s home set up by William Hodgson in StLucia were indeed molested by the said priest, then and only then would you have the carte blanch to question the Arch Bishop on the situation pertaining to a priest who served in his Arch Diocese and under his direct management. To randomly attack the Arch Bishop because of his refusal to be interviewed on a matter of the conviction of a priest in a Canadian court is preposterous. As you said close sources are second hand information and cannot or…
Reply
Now while I do not agree with Alisha’s license she takes with her deductions in this case, I have to disagree with you Anthony that there need to B some kind of investigation of victims in St. Lucia B4 the Archbishop’s feet were pulled close 2 the flame (interestingly an interrogation tactic often used by the church in the crusades and other situations). A proven pedophile was sicced on unsuspecting children and congregation. If for that alone, the Archbishop needs to come out and openly condemn the actions and placate his sheep. But then again the church has never been good a…
cont. should not be used as reliable facts in a storyline. The fact that the Arch Bishop asked his followers to report to the church authorities does not in any way prevent the complainents from also reporting to the police. Have you enquired from the police if there have been any complaints made. On the matter of stating what the church’s view is in relating to the Canadian conviction, the Pope is the Head of the Catholic Church and he should be the one to address this matter. As you stated he(Pope) has apologised to many a country whose catholic congregations have faced the molestation of those criminally minded paedophilic priest.I think you are wrong attacking the bishop for his stance.
Cooops O please as if this news, of course he won’t speak out, has he ever, ever, SPOKEN OUT ?? BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCKS TOGETHER THE BIGGEST COMOUFLAGE CHI CHI MEN ARE THE ONES IN ROBES YES I SAID IT !!! Tired of their foolishness, every day you hear or read about them and their DAM SLACKNESS every day when will it end. Chooops
The truth is looking right in your face, that sexual repression creates perversion and perverts. Every animal on this planet has sexual energy, including the priest. So what is he supposed to do with it? Since he only knows himself which is a man, and he cannot enjoy women, just what do you think he is going to do?
Lucian, every man has his right to their opinion, and all I was saying is that I disliked the attitude taken by the female catholic reporter, who I think was reacting to her not being granted an interview by the Arch Bishop(stand corrected). You seem to have disliked her reporting manner as well, so at the end of the day we are on the same wavelength pertaining to my point of objection to her reporting standards.
Hod’s first posting (50s) was in Toronto where he molested young boys. He moved to Windsor (50s) and molested again. He spent a year in Houston where no victims have yet come forward. He moved to Saskatoon and molested boys in 1959. In the 60s and 70s in Sudbury he continued molesting. From 80 to 85 he was in S. Ste. Marie again molesting. He was posted back to Windsor for 85-89 and molested again. In 1996 he was sent for treatment of sexual deviance.
Mr. Charlemange suggests the Arch Bishop should deign to speak to this matter only if victims come forward in St. Lucia. Did Hod miraculously stop forty years of uninterrupted molesting upon arrival in St. Lucia? Preposterous!
What else can we expect of the Clergyman. The Stat reported facts, and the man of the cloth says that the star has made up its mind and by its report the star has condemned the clergy. It is men like the ash bishop who condemn the clegy, by insisting on keeping from the public eye the crimes against children committed by errant members of the clergy. in this era of detente, the catholic hierachy should use every available avenue to condemn the atrocities committed by its members, and cease to blame the public for the sins of the clergy, and to imput hatred as a motive for justice, or anti-catholicsm as the motive for the outcry against such calleouness by clergy. This is fermenting anger
against the churh more than anything. People have a right to know and to be informed, and the clergy must understand they are not above civil law, neither should they expect people to simply turn a blind eye or not want to know or require justice. This isn’t the middle ages where the church was the law and whatever evil its members carried out was not for lesser mortals to judge, but was a matter only for God to deal with, but the people must simply allow under penalty of death as heractics. The more things change the more they stay the same. The curch rfuses to divest itself of the cloak of being above lesser mortals and accountable to the flock for its wrongs against them. It continues
to provide safe haven to the criminal elements amount it and there will continue to loss the trust of the faithful. It wants to bind the moral mconscience of men, but fails to adhere to the principles of justice in the turning over its ecument tyrans and betrayers of the trust of the faithful, Rather she continues to move them to places where they may hide for a short period before being unleashed on an unsuspecting parish. This is not a condemnation of the clergy, as there are several good men in the mindst. Perhaps these may be in the majority, but they by pursuing a policy of protecting our own is in our best interest allow a few corrupt underserving elements to ruin the rep clergy.
I speak in condemnation of such an evil practise, which is widespread and encourage by people who ought to be setting examples. The clergy is subject to state law no matter how th vatican may feel, and it is not for the church to deal with its members as it sees fit and thereby denied common citizens justice. The clergy has its role and function and do serve a common good within the societ. But that common good does not render her officials above the law or subject to being left to handle its members who violate the vulnerable or those she is sworn to protect and lead to God. the AB failed at fine opportunity given him to clearly condemn the behaviour of an admitted sex offender.