Busy week in the offing

A busy week in the offing in court:

(1)  Monday 14 May to Friday 18 May 2012

Ex-priest Albert Leblanc sex abuse TRIAL:  Yarmouth, Nova Scotia  courthouse.  The courtroom is booked for the week.

Please keep these complainants in your prayers in a special way this week.  They will be called to testify.  It will be a difficult week for both the complainants and their families.  In many if not most cases the family know little of the nature of the allegations until they hear them at trial. My thoughts and prayers are with you all.

I encourage those in the Yarmouth area who are free to do so to please attend.  As always, I ask that you send along any information which can be passed along or links to media  coverage at the end the end of each day of the trial.

(2)  Monday 14 May 2012

Father Eric Dejaeger omi:  Iqaluit courthouse, Iqaluit, Nunavut: to file formal indictment.  We should get some idea tomorrow of the nature of the 35 new charges and how much additional time the Crown and/or defence might need/request before moving forward.

Again, keep the complainants in your prayers, both those in Nunavut and those in Edmonton, Alberta.  They will all I am sure be anxiously awaiting any news at all on the outcome of tomorrow’s hearing;

(3) Tuesday 15 April 2012

Father Rene Labelle:  9 am, Kingston, Ontario Ontario courthouse (247 Wellington St.).

If there is anyone in the Kingston area who is free to pop into the courthouse to find out what happens on Tuesday please do.  These early ‘revolving’ door court dates are difficult for all.  So often it is no more than a rescheduling to another date, but, sometimes things happen which are of interest.  The only for sure is that it will be months before a trial is set.

Again, keep the complainants in your prayers, and please pass along any news of the outcome of the proceedings.

(4) Wednesday 16 April 2012

Holy Cross Father Rheal Leblanc: 9 am, Welland courthouse, Welland, Ontario (102 East Main Street) (child porn charges)

If anyone can attend please do so,  Again, this may be another adjournment so be prepared.

*****

The Cap-Pele plebiscite was scheduled to be held tomorrow.   As we all know, the “good” news here is that a plebiscite is no longer necessary:  The sign bearing the name of clerical molester Father Camille Leger was torn down from the hockey arena 12 March 2012 and the arena has been re-named:)

*****

Our abdicating Bishop James Wingle was recently sighted in the Renfrew area.  The word I have received is that he was offering Mass for the Golden anniversary of a family member.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Posted in Canada, Scandal, Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The “trimmins” of the Rosary

For Mother’s Day, a poem which I have posted in the past at Christmas.  I thought of it as I sat down to blog.  It’s about the faith and devotion of a little Irish mother long long ago, and the “trimmins” of the Rosary -the trimmins being an abbreviation for  “trimmings” – referring to prayers which were frequently tacked onto the end of the Rosary, for ailing friends and so on.   As I said  when I posted it before, many of you Roman Catholics would have grown up with the evening family Rosary, and probably the trimmings too.  As a convert it’s not a part of my past, but I have many friends who fondly recall being rounded up each evening to say the Rosary …..and, yes, the trimmins too.

So here it is, The Trimmins of the Rosary, by Father Patrick Joseph Hartigan who was, apparently,  Australian of Irish descent.

Trimmins Of The Rosary

Ah, the memories that find me now my hair is turning gray,
Drifting in like painted butterflies from paddocks far away;
Dripping dainty wings in fancy-and the pictures, fading fast,
Stand again in rose and purple in the album of the past.

There’s the old slab dwelling dreaming by the wistful, watchful trees,
Where the coolabahs are listening to the stories of the breeze;
There’s a homely welcome beaming from its big, bright friendly eyes,
With the Sugarloaf behind it blackened in against the skies;

There’s the same dear happy circle round the boree’s cheery blaze
With a little Irish Mother telling tales of other days.
She had one sweet, holy custom which I never can forget,
And a gentle benediction crowns her memory for it yet;

I can see that little mother still and hear her as she pleads,
“Now it’s getting on to bed-time; all you childer get your beads.”
There were no steel-bound conventions in that old slab dwelling free;
Only this  -each night she lined us up to say the Rosary;

E’en the stranger there, who stayed the night upon his journey, knew
He must join the little circle, ay, and take his decade too.
I believe she darkly plotted, when a sinner hove in sight
Who was known to say no prayer at all, to make him stay the night.

Then we’d softly gather round her, and we’d speak in accents low,
And pray like Sainted Dominic so many years ago;
And the little Irish mother’s face was radiant, for she knew
That “where two or three are gathered” He is gathered with them too.

O’er the paters and the aves how her reverent head would bend!
How she’d kiss the cross devoutly when she counted to the end!
And the visitor would rise at once, and brush his knees-and then
He’d look very, very foolish as he took the boards again.

She had other prayers to keep him. They were long, long prayers in truth;
And we used to call them “Trimmins” in my disrespectful youth.
She would pray for kith and kin, and all the friends she’d ever known,
Yes, and everyone of us could boast a “trimmin’” all his own.

She would pray for all our little needs, and every shade of care
That might darken o’er The Sugarloaf, she’d meet it with a prayer.
She would pray for this one’s “sore complaint,’ or that one’s “hurled hand,”
Or that someone else might make a deal and get “that bit of land”;

Or that Dad might sell the cattle well, and season’s good might rule,
So that little John, the weakly one, might go away to school.
There were trimmin’s, too, that came and went but ne’er she closed without
Adding one for something special “none of you must speak about.”

Gentle was that little mother, and her wit would sparkle free,
But she’d murder him who looked around while at the Rosary:
And if perchance you lost your beads, disaster waited you,
For the only one she’d pardon was “himself”-because she knew
He was hopeless, and ’twas sinful what excuses he’d invent,
So she let him have his fingers, and he cracked them as he went,

And, bedad, he wasn’t certain if he’d counted five or ten,
Yet he’d face the crisis bravely, and would start around again;
But she tallied all the decades, and she’d block him on the spot,
With a “Glory, Daddah, Glory!” and he’d “Glory” like a shot.

She would portion out the decades to the company at large;
But when she reached the trimmin’s she would put herself in charge;
And it oft was cause for wonder how she never once forgot,
But could keep them in their order till she went right through the lot.

For that little Irish mother’s prayers embraced the country wide;
If a neighbour met with trouble, or was taken ill, or died,
We could count upon a trimmin’-till, in fact, it got that way
That the Rosary was but trimmin’s to the trimmin’s we would say.

Then “himself” would start keownrawning-for the public good, we thought-
“Sure you’ll have us here till mornin’. Yerra, cut them trimmin’s short!”
But she’d take him very gently, till he softened by degrees-
“Well, then, let us get it over. Come now, all hands to their knees.”

So the little Irish mother kept her trimmin’s to the last,
Ever growing as the shadows o’er the old selection passed;
And she lit our drab existence with her simple faith and love,
And I know the angels lingered near to bear her prayers above,

For her children trod the path she trod, nor did they later spurn
To impress her wholesome maxims on their children in their turn.
Ay, and every “sore complaint” came right, and every “hurled hand”;
And we made a deal from time to time, and got “that bit of land”;

And Dad did sell the cattle well; and little John, her pride,
Was he who said the Mass in black the morning that she died;
So her gentle spirit triumphed-for ’twas this, without a doubt,
Was the very special trimmin’ that she kept so dark about.

But the years have crowded past us, and the fledglings all have flown,
And the nest beneath The Sugarloaf no longer is their own;
For a hand has written “finis” and the book is closed for good-
There’s a stately red-tiled mansion where the old slab dwelling stood;
There the stranger has her “evenings,” and the formal supper’s spread,
But I wonder has she “trimmin’s” now, or is the Rosary said?

Ah, those little Irish mothers passing from us one by one!
Who will write the noble story of the good that they have done ?
All their children may be scattered, and their fortunes windwards hurled,
But the Trimmin’s on the Rosary will bless them round the world.

Happy Mother’s Day!

Sylvia

Posted in Administrative | 11 Comments

Plea bargains

Yesterday I posted several articles and/or documents regarding ex-Anglican priest and former scout master Ralph Rowe.  I realize that Rowe is not Roman Catholic but  posted the articles for good reason.  It has to do with sexual predators and plea bargains.

This is of interest in that a plea bargain was struck for Father William Hodgson Marshall whereby he was assured that, following his guilty plea,  no further charges would be laid.  That means that any victim who approaches police with sex abuse allegations against Marshall is told immediately or shortly thereafter:  ‘sorry – we can’t proceed.’

My curiosity was piqued on the Rowe case after I read the initial coverage of the new charges against Rowe and reference to a plea bargain, a plea bargain which assured that Rowe would spend no further time in jail if he were to convicted of similar offences.  I hunted down a few more articles to try to get a handle on the nature of both the case and the plea , and then I looked for court documents.

This is quite convoluted with some conflict regarding dates and so on.  Here is what I have sorted out.  I hope it makes some sense:

(1)  Rowe was once an Anglican priest and a scout master;

(2)  Row, who currently lives in Surrey, BC, is facing five new counts of sexual assault and two of indecent assault.  The allegations northwestern Ontario between 1973 and 1986 in the First Nations communities of Fort Severn, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Wunnumin Lake and Kingfisher Lake.

(3)  In 1994 Rowe pleaded guilty to 39 counts of indecent assault involving 19 boys and was sentenced to six years.

Under the terms of a plea bargain struck at that time, Rowe would serve no additional jail time if convicted of similar offences; which predated the offence

Later in ’94 Rowe pleaded guilty to further charges.  Because of the plea bargain, no time was added to his sentence;.  He was released on parole after serving 41/2 years of a six year sentence;

(4)  After his release from jail Row went to live in Surrey, BC where his brother , a retired Anglican priest, assisted at a local Anglican church, St. Michael’s;

Rowe maintained a low profile in the church until after his brother’s death in 2003.  After 2003 Rowe began to sing with the choir and say prayers at the front of the church.  The congregation did not know that he was a convicted child molester;

Authorities in the Anglican church locally knew of Rowe’s past. Parishioners were not told;

(5)  In 2006 Rowe faced a further 75 charges from 31 complainants.  The charges were whittled won to 57 from 25 complainants.  Only five of those charges went on to trial, those being offences which did not fit the plea agreement because they were ‘more serious’ than those of 1994.

A number of the allegations related to penile and/or digital penetration.  Although these offenses occurred when buggery was part of the criminal code, no charges of buggery were laid. (06 July 2007: R v Ralph Rowe 2007 (Reasons at trial))

Rowe was convicted.  On 07 July 2007 he was sentenced to 3 years in prison.  The plea bargain did not kick in on all charges.  According to the judge: “The sexual misconduct here is more egregious than fondling-like behaviour of a sexual nature.  It falls outside the plea agreement.” (06 July 2007: R v Ralph Rowe 2007 [Reasons at trial])

The gist of the plea bargain is cited in one court document:

07 July 2006: R v Rowe Reasons on Defence Motion 2006

(in a letter from defence counsel to the Crown dated April 14, 1994)

This will confirm that Mr. Rowe’s pleas are not predicated on a Crown position for sentence.  Mr. Rowe’s pleas, however, are predicated on the understanding that all outstanding complaints which occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s against Mr. Rowe would be brought before the court before sentencing.  In this regard, if further allegations in the nature of fondling which occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s are made after sentencing, that the Crown would not proceed.

(in a responding letter from the Crown to defence counsel dated April 15, 1994)

Thank you for your letter dated April 14, 1994.  As I indicated in yesterday’s telephone conversation, I have no authority to bind the Crown not to proceed on any future, similar allegations.  I do, however, make the representation that if substantially similar allegations against your client arise in the future in Kenora District that those matters will be dealt with by way of concurrent sentences.

Defence asked for a conditional sentence.  The judge declined:

08 May 2007:  R v Rowe Reasons for Sentence (May 2007)

Mr. Sinding has asked that the Court consider a conditional sentence of 2 years.  In my view such a disposition is not proportional when the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility is considered.  Nor is a conditional sentence, in my view, consistent with the case law that suggests clearly in cases like the present that the principle of general deterrence and the denunciation by the community towards the conduct find expression in the sentence that is accorded.  …..

Much of the focus of the trial has focussed on what counsel and the Court have regularly referred to as “more egregious conduct”.  It would be regrettable, in my view and wrong in principle, if because of our focus at trial on  the determination whether there was more egregious conduct, if this left the impression that the offending behaviour of Mr. Rowe that was at play in respect of the offences to which he plead guilty during the course of this hearing, were somehow on the lower spectrum of sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse is act of violence and when committed against children is violence, both physical and profoundly psychological in its impact.  And we have witnessed in the Victim Impact Statements just how profoundly damaging sexually abusive conduct can be on the psyche of a child, enduring to the point that it continues to haunt, even during adulthood.

I elect not to exercise the discretion that Justice Fraser exercised in 1994 in invoking the section of the Criminal Code that required that Mr. Rowe serve a minimum number of years before becoming eligible for parole.  There are those who are more adept at risk assessment and have greater information before them than the Court presently has and I will leave it to them.  To the extent I can comment on Mr. Rowe’s risk of re-offending, I share the view of the Crown that the risk will be ever-present.  He has shown signs that it may be manageable but I am persuaded that even upon his release there needs to be conditions intended to secure the safety of the public.

(6)  According to a media report from 2007, when word was out at St. Michael’s in Surrey that Rowe was a serial molester who had been charged again, some members of the congregation said  they had seen  Rowe more than once in the company of a young Caucasian male who seemed to be in his early to mid-teens and did not appear to be a parishioner;

(7) There was a raft of new charges in 2009 – those were whittled down  six of indecent assault and one of sexual assault.  The victims were between the ages of 5 and 15.

Rowe attempted to get a stay based on abuse of process and the plea bargain.  A stay was denied.

03 February 2009: R v Rowe February 2009 Reasons on Motion for Stay on grounds of abuse of process (re plea agreement) (Motion denied)

 Mr. Rowe says that the offences to which he entered pleas of “guilty” in earlier prosecutions (1994 and 2007) are symbolic of every offence he committed in the remote northern communities during the 1970’s and 1980’s, whether they were actually prosecuted or not.

In my opinion, these defence submissions ignore entirely the previous plea agreement that, with the benefit of counsel, Mr. Rowe entered into with the crown in 1994.  The plea agreement related to sentencing only.  It did not proscribe future prosecution.  By that agreement, Mr. Rowe remained subject to future prosecution and additional jail time in respect of after–discovered offences involving more egregious conduct.  Similarly, Mr. Rowe, by his plea agreement, faced additional prosecution even for after–discovered offences that were similar in gravity to those already known in 1994.  The most he could hope for was no additional jail time for offences similar in gravity to those for which he was convicted in 1994.

I note that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a series of trials will not, in and of itself, constitute an abuse of process.[14]  In my opinion multiple prosecutions, based in each instance on new allegations from newly emerging complainants is neither contrary to law nor offensive unless the totality of circumstances demonstrably raises further prosecution to the level of an abuse of process;

Although the stay was denied and Rowe was convicted, he did not suffer.    The judge decided Rowe should not serve any more time in prison because the “serial prosecution” of the 69-year-old former priest amounted to a harsh punishment.

Rowe was sentenced to one year to run concurrent to the sentence he was already serving.  Rowe was convicted 02 July. (02 July 2009: R v Rowe 2009 [Reasons at trial])

Rowe was released from jail the following day;

(8)  Rowe was released on parole on 2009, one day after he was found guilty on seven new charges.

The Kenora, Ont. Superior Court judge who found him guilty decided Rowe should not serve any more time in prison because the “serial prosecution” of the elderly former priest amounted to a harsh punishment;

(9)  In November of last year 24 First Nations men went to Ontario Provincial Police  alleging sex abuse at the hands of Rowe.

Where the plea bargain fits in here remains to be seen.  There is no way of telling by the charges if these offences might be considered ‘more serious’ than those of 1994.

On 22 April 2012 Rowe was charged with five new counts of sexual assault and two if indecent assault.

This is the impact of a plea bargain which merely assures no further imprisonment for crimes of a similar nature committed before the date of the agreement.  But, note the Crown’s comment:  “I have no authority to bind the Crown not to proceed on any future, similar allegations.”

Have things changed since 1994?  How did Father Hod Marshall manage the sweetheart deal he has?

There is lots of reading there for those who wish to delve deeper into this.  My husband often tells me that we in Canada have a legal system, not a justice system.  When I read of shenanigans such as this I am inclined to agree.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

 

Posted in Accused or charged, Clerical sexual predators | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Not a wasted day at all

Father Daniel Miller‘s court-date of today (09 May 2012) has been rescheduled to 13 June 2012, 09:30 am, Renfrew court-house.

I had the good fortune to be given a lift to Renfrew and was able to sit in on the proceedings.  Those who have been to proceedings such as this know what it is like.  There is a roster of cases, a packed courtroom, and one by one the name of each accused is called out (in alphabetical order).  In some instances the accused is present in the courtroom, in many cases they are not.  In most instances the order of the day was to quickly set a new court-date agreeable to all.

The courtroom is large.  There are no microphones.  Things move along very quickly.  It is very easy to miss what is happening, and sometimes difficult to hear what is said.

Here is my understanding of events as they relate to Father Daniel Miller.

When Miller’s name was called, a lawyer identifying herself as appearing on behalf of Mr. Carew rose.  I am quite certain that that is Mr. Robert Carew, the lawyer who so ably defended  Monsignor Robert Borne and managed to ensure that that convicted clerical predator will serve no more than a paltry nine month conditional sentence.  Carew is also the lawyer who has objected to the release to me of certain exhibits which were publicly and without mention of publication ban entered into evidence at the Borne sentencing hearing.

I don’t know why Carew is now dealing with the Miller charges.  In previous court proceedings Miller was represented by either Kimberly A Pegg or Dominique Smith.  Perhaps Carew, a sole practitioner,  has been retained by Kimberley A. Pegg?  That is highly possible.  No matter, and for whatever reason, today a lawyer appeared in court on Carew’s behalf to represent Father Daniel Miller.

Father Miller was not in court.

An agreement was quickly/instantly  reached between lawyer and judge to reschedule to 13 June 2012.  According to the lawyer this was necessary to review about 1,500 pages of documents disclosed to defence.  There was also mention made of further charges.  I truly don’t know if this means that further charges are pending, or if it was reference to the new set of charges laid 13 April 2012. It could well be the latter.  I will try to find out, but no guarantees I will get answers.

So, there it is.  All over in the twinkle of an eye.

I wouldn’t say it was a wasted trip.  It is always interesting to see how the the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly along. And it is always interesting to see one case after the other set over to another day.  And, yes, of course, it was very interesting to learn that Mr. Carew is now involved.

And all of that aside, I had a beautiful lunch served up courtesy of an amazing and very dear 85-year-old lady.

Not a wasted day at all :)

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Posted in Accused or charged, Canada, Scandal | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Some new dates

Father Daniel Miller has a court-date tomorrow:  09:30 am at the Renfrew, Ontario courthouse (127 Raglan St. S.).   If things proceed I believe the two sets of charges will be merged so there is one set of charges.

Keep the complainants in your prayers:  No matter what  is scheduled to happen, these court dates  are always difficult days for them.  If you are within driving distance and free to do so, please try to attend.  And, as always, please pass along any news of the outcome of the proceedings.

*****

An update on some new court dates:

(1) Father Kenneth O’Keefe csb

Next court date is 06 September 2012, 09:30 am, “to be spoken to,” Ottawa, Ontario courthouse (161 Elgin St.)

(2) Father Jean-Claude Lefebvre

Next court-date is 29 May 2012,  3:20 pm, pre-trial, Sudbury, Ontario courthouse. This is not open tot he public.

(3) Father Eric Dejager

Next Nunavut court date is 14 May 2012, Iqaluit court-courthouse, Nunavut, to file formal indictment.

(In case you missed the news, Dejaeger now faces 74 charges from 39 complainants in Nunavut and a further four charges from two complainants in Edmonton, Alberta)

(4) Father George Smith

next court-date is 04 June 2012, 10 am, Corner Brook, Newfoundland courthouse (82 Mt. Bernard Ave.) – for arraignment on all charges

*****

Check NEW to the Site for new articles and/or documents/and/or video clips .  I always post links on the NEW page after posting anything on the site.  Checking the NEW page is the best way to keep on top of what has been posted on a day-to-day basis.  The page can be accessed manually by clicking on the NEW tab on the horizontal menu under the picture.

Time to get supper :)

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Posted in Accused or charged, Administrative, Canada, Scandal | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

New program seeks healing for all in wake of child sex abuse crisis

U.S. Catholic

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

By Lou Baldwin Catholic News Service

PHILADELPHIA (CNS) — Church action following the clergy sexual abuse scandal is most importantly about justice for the victims. But it’s also about healing — not only for the victims, but for the entire church community.

With that in mind the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has begun a new initiative, “Honesty, Healing and Hope in Christ: Confronting Sexual Violence in Our Archdiocese.” The plan, which consists of four phases implemented over six months, is designed to address the feelings and responses experienced when final resolutions about clergy are announced and going forward.

Coordinating the initiative is Mary Achilles, who served as victims advocate for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a decade, and who is the victims advocate for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

“This is all about the parishioners, people who have been impacted,” Achilles said at a May 4 news conference. “As Catholics, we have been battered by this experience, and our sense of the integrity of the process has been robbed.

“This is an opportunity, a leaping off point, letting people get their arms around the sex abuse scandal, look at it honestly and in a way that people can have an opportunity to voice their concerns, look at remedies and actions that can begin the healing process,” she added. “Nothing ends today; today is the beginning.”

Achilles and her committee have put together a binder that was given to the clergy that covers a multitude of scenarios and suggestions, including how the news should be broken that a former priest of the parish has either been restored to ministry or permanently removed.

It covers meetings with parish staff, pastoral and financial councils and communicating with parishioners, complete with sample announcements and even sample homilies prepared by St. Charles Seminary faculty as well as suggestions such as informal gatherings for coffee and donuts after Masses where people can exchange their views.

“We have communities of faith that need support and assistance in processing this,” she said. “This is certainly not the most positive era in the church, but we have to honor the victims by responding to them appropriately and by doing the best that we can to prevent this from happening to someone else and the best we can to respond better the next time.”

Achilles cited statistics that show 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually assaulted before age 18.

“We have a moral imperative to reach out to everyone, and it is not just clergy sexual abuse,” she said. “A quarter of the people in our pews’ lives have been directly touched by sexual violence as a child.

“We cannot return men to ministry without realizing that these individuals will view these men through their lens of victimization, their lens of experience of sexual abuse,” she added.

Posted in Accused or charged, Circling the wagons, Clerical sexual predators, Scandal | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

“The foulest crime”

Former fugitive Oblate Father Eric Dejaeger ‘s Iqaluit courtdate of yesterday (Monday 07 May) has been rescheduled to 14 May 2012

08 May 2012: Accused priest misses court, faces more than 70 charges

Note that according to the above article Dejaeger now faces more that 70 charges in Nunavut.

I believe the 14 May date will still be to file a formal indictment.  Whether or not Dejaeger’s new lawyer will be prepared to proceed at that time remains to be seen.

Dejaeger’s preliminary hearing in Edmonton Alberta is set for 20-21 December 2012.  There are four charges from two complainants in Edmonton.

 *****

On the heels of The Shame of the Catholic Church, and in an attempt to understand the manner in which Cardinal Sean Brady dealt with the 14-year-old victim of Father Brendan Smyth I have been in contact with an individual who has a doctorate in canon law.

Well, this is indeed fascinating.  I have a lot of issues with the manner in which Brady dealt with that boy (Brendan Boland), but at the top of the list were the following:  (1)  the boy’s father was excluded from the interview; (2)  the boy was sworn to secrecy; and (3) the parents of the  14-year-old Belfast boy who was later interviewed by Brady were not told of their sons allegations and hence the abuse of that boy at the hands of Smyth continued for another year, and the boy’s sister was molested by the priest for years as were several of his cousins.

I could maybe understand why in those days the police were not contacted, but I could not understand why those children were not protected, and why child victims would be treated in such fashion.

The answer lies in Crimen Sollicitationis, the controversial and once top secret 1962 Vatican document instructing bishops on how to proceed when a penitent has been solicited for sex in confession.  (The Vatican now has the document posted online – a much easier read.  I will copy and post)

While there is no indication that Brendan Boland was solicited by Smyth during confession, still, it would seem, in conducting his investigation (“note taking” he called it) Cardinal Brady was true to the instructions in Crimen.

The bulk of Crimen deals explicitly with solicitation in confession, however, according to the the last section of the document, all the rules for investigating a priest accused of  soliciting a penitent to sexual favours, also apply to the case of a priest who has sexual relations with another male or with pre-adolescent children.

So here is how it goes…

(1)  “The secret of the Holy Office”

The following is an excerpt from Crimen regarding the utmost confidentiality  (“the secret of the Holy Office”) demanded  in dealing with the crime of solicitation :

“11. Since, however, in dealing with these causes, more than usual care and concern must be shown that they be treated with the utmost confidentiality, and that, once decided and the decision executed, they are covered by permanent silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, 20 February 1867, No. 14), all those persons in any way associated with the tribunal, or knowledgeable of these matters by reason of their office, are bound to observe inviolably the strictest confidentiality, commonly known as the secret of the Holy Office, in all things and with all persons, under pain of incurring automatic excommunication, ipso facto and undeclared, reserved to the sole person of the Supreme Pontiff, excluding even the Sacred Penitentiary. Ordinaries are bound by this same law , that is, in virtue of their own office; other personnel are bound in virtue of the oath which they are always to swear before assuming their duties; and, finally, those delegated, questioned or informed [outside the tribunal], are bound in virtue of the precept to be imposed on them in the letters of delegation, inquiry or information, with express mention of the secret of the Holy Office and of the aforementioned censure.

12. The oath mentioned above, whose formula is found in the Appendix of this Instruction (Form A), is to be taken – once for all by those who are appointed habitually, but each and every time by those who are deputed only for a single item of business or cause – in the presence of the Ordinary or his delegate, on the Holy Gospels of God (including priests) and not in any other way, together with an additional promise faithfully to carry out their duties; the aforementioned excommunication does not, however, extend to the latter. Care must be taken by those presiding over these causes that no one, including the tribunal personnel, come to knowledge of matters except to the extent that their role or task necessarily demands it.

13. The oath to maintain confidentiality must always be taken in these causes, also by the accusers or complainants and the witnesses. These persons, however, are subject to no censure, unless they were expressly warned of this in the proceedings of accusation, deposition or questioning. The Defendant is to be most gravely admonished that he too must maintain confidentiality with respect to all persons, apart from his advocate, under the penalty of suspension a divinis, to be incurred ipso facto in the event of a violation.”

(2) “The foulest crime”

The following is an excerpt from Crimen regarding “the foulest crime,” that being a priest engaging in sex with a person of his own sex, with pre-adolescent children or with “brute animals” (bestiality).  This section makes clear that the manner in which the crime of solicitation is handled is to be applied to “the foulest crime.”

TITLE FIVE

CRIMEN PESSIMUM

71. The term crimen pessimum [“the foulest crime”] is here understood to mean any external obscene act, gravely sinful, perpetrated or attempted by a cleric in any way whatsoever with a person of his own sex.

72. Everything laid down up to this point concerning the crime of solicitation is also valid, with the change only of those things which the nature of the matter necessarily requires, for the crimen pessimum, should some cleric (God forbid) happen to be accused of it before the local Ordinary, except that the obligation of denunciation [imposed] by the positive law of the Church [does not apply] unless perhaps it was joined with the crime of solicitation in sacramental confession. In determining penalties against delinquents of this type, in addition to what has been stated above, Canon 2359, §2 is also to be taken into consideration.

73. Equated with the crimen pessimum, with regard to penal effects, is any external obscene act, gravely sinful, perpetrated or attempted by a cleric in any way with pre-adolescent children [impuberes] of either sex or with brute animals (bestialitas).

74. Against clerics guilty of these crimes, if they are exempt religious – and unless the crime of solicitation takes place at the same time – Religious Superiors also can proceed, according to the sacred Canons and their proper Constitutions, either administratively or judicially. However, they must always communicate a sentence rendered, or an administrative decision in those cases which are more grave, to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office. The Superiors of a non-exempt religious can proceed only administratively. In the case where the guilty party has been expelled from religious life, the expulsion has no effect until it has been approved by the Holy Office.

As my contact pointed out to me,  the instruction gives no directions for preventing the offender harming other innocent victims: “The focus of these Vatican laws is sin and redemption, so the offending priest is first and foremost seen as a sinner in need of repentance. From the point of view of canon law, his victims were only relevant insofar as they were witnesses. Their eventual fate and the fate of other victims was not a concern of canon law.”

However, note the reference to 2359§2.  This is from the ‘old’ 1917 Code of Canon law,the code in effect at the time  (it was replaced in 1983 by the the new code ).  Here is what had to say:

Canon 2359§2 of the 1917 Code stated:

If they engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility,  if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases they are to be deposed

Secrecy aside for the moment, what consideration was given to canon 2359§2? Presumably, according to Crimens,  canon 2359§2 “is also to be taken into consideration.”

Why then was Smyth, as a molester of a minor and in violation of canon law,  not ‘suspended, declared infamous, and deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility,  if he had such, whatsoever, and in as serious a case as this, deposed’?

All very disturbing. On the one hand Crimen and the the Secret of the Holy Office, and on the other hand canon 2359§2.

The bottom line I suppose is that, secrecy or no, why was Father Smyth not declared infamous and deposed?  I am no canon lawyer, but seems to me common sense says that that too would have been in accord with Crimen, and morally-speaking it would have been the right thing to do.  Had that step been taken Smyth would not have had continued access to the Belfast boy, nor to the boy’s sister or cousins.

A final comment:  Cardinal Brady should resign.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Posted in Accused or charged, Clerical sexual predators, recycled, Vatican | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Adjourned

Father George Smith‘s arraignment  has been adjourned to 07 May 2012:

07 May 2012: Priest’s case set over to June

 According to the above report RCMP is waiting for information from Nova Scotia. Previous reports in early April indicated that there is another charge from Nova Scotia involving one of the current complainants, and also that there was a possibility of charges from New Brunswick.Smith is currently facing 62 charges from at least 11 complainants.

I wonder if, aside the additional charge related to a current complainant, there are more charges from Nova Scotia?   I wonder too if there is anything in the offing from New Brunswick?

We shall see.  But, oh my, this is so terribly frustrating for the complainants and their families.  Keep them all in your prayers.

Most people think that once there is a court date it is trial time.  Once upon a time I would have been included in those ranks.  Those who follow the site now know, as do I, that that alas is not at all the case.  In Canada it usually takes at least a year, usually more, from the time charges are laid until  trial – the intervening months are what I call the revolving door, with what seems like court date after court date, adjournment after adjournment, and regardless the circumstance each court date over in the twinkle of an eye, and usually without the presence of the accused.

There has to be  better way.  I don’t pretend to know what it is, but there has to be a better and more efficient way to handle these cases.

*****

I nearly missed this.  Oblate priest and former fugitive from justice Father Eric Dejaeger had a court date in Iqaluit today, to file formal indictment.  I hadn’t posted the date in the Legal Calendar so nearly missed it. I strongly rely on the Legal Calendar to keep on top of things – if for whatever reason I fail to enter a court date then I miss it.  I do try to enter new dates in Legal Calender immediately, but sometimes I miss.  If you ever notice  a date missing from the calendar please let me know.

I will be interested in hearing the outcome of today’s hearing.  I do believe that Malcolm Kempt, Dejaeger’s new lawyer, will  beg for time.  Given that Dejaeger’s former lawyer Andrew Mahar was appointed to the bench at the beginning of March Dejaeger had to retain a new lawyer.  As much as I hate to say it, I really don’t think Kempt has had enough time to get himself up to speed on the case.

And then of course there is the fact that the RCMP investigation in Igloolik was on-going even in mid March. As I blogged before, IF at the 11th hour there are further charges from that investigation, or IF at the 11th hour there is a stack of relevant documentation turned over to the Crown, then the Crown will have to beg for more time.

So, given the circumstances, I do think it’s highly possible if not probable that today’s hearing will be rescheduled. But we may just get a sense of what has been happening with the RCMP investigation

Again, we shall see…

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Posted in Accused or charged, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Scandal, Trials | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The lies

Two scheduled court dates this week:

(1)  Monday 07 May 2012

Father George Smith: Corner Brook, Newfoundland courthouse (82 Mt. Bernard Ave.) – for arraignment on all charges.

I don’t have the start time but both of the last dates were scheduled for 10 am so there is a good chance it is 10 am.

I hope those with the time and within driving distance can make it to the courthouse, both to witness the proceedings first-hand and to support the nine or more complainants.

As always, keep the complainants in your prayers, and please pass on any news of the outcome

(2) Wednesday, 09 May 2012

Father Daniel Miller:  09:30 am, Renfrew courthouse (127 Raglan St. S.).  I believe the new charges will be merged with the initial charges.

*****

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can not stop thinking about Cardinal Brady and that 14-year-old boy who was dragged in for interrogation without his father.  I am floored by the questions put to the boy, even asking if he got to enjoy the abuse!  What kind of demented mind thought that one up?  And truth be told, what difference would it make if the child’s body did betray him in response to the unwelcome sexual stimulation he endured at the hands of a priest?   Would that make the crime any less a crime?  or the sin of the predatory priest  any less a sin?

And then along comes this one:

06 May 2012: Catholic church knew pervert priest had “unwholesome relationship” 25 years before he was jailed for sexually abusing boys 

Lies.  Just outright lies.

I am at a loss for words.  I know I shouldn’t be, but the lies are really getting me :(

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Posted in Accused or charged, Scandal | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Wonderful testament

Attended the funeral service for Lorraine Eaman in Cornwall yesterday. Standing room only in the church – a wonderful testament to Lorraine and comfort to the Ron and the family.

Today off to Montreal to pick up our son and his family at the airport.

Sylvia

Posted in Administrative | Leave a comment