Too too familiar

Share Button

Hearings resume at 09:30 hours.  Roman Catholic Father Frank Morrissey will return to continue his cross examination.

Another Roman Catholic canon lawyer, Father Tom Doyle, is supposed to take the stand after Morrissey, however, the diocese seems to be crying foul due to Doyle’s Cornwall ties and the content of emails which he sent to Dick Nadeau in 2001.  What happens regarding that remains to be seen.

I had a busy evening.  I was late getting at this and must say am mentally weary after listening to Father Morrissey all day.  I will keep it short for now.

Father Morrissey seemed extremely and unusually nervous.  Why I have no idea.  He is a veteran at taking the stand in defence of “alleged” clerical paedophiles, and an old pro at addressing large groups.  But, he seemed to have stage fright.  That aside, as a Roman Catholic I found it painful to watch a priest of my church exhibit such a disproportionate concern for the “rights” of suspect and/or bona fide clerical abusers.  The was no such hint of concern for a child’s right to retain his innocence, or the “right” of parents to protect their children, or the “right” of parishioners to a priest who abides by the moral teachings of the Church, or the “right” of God to a holy and pure priesthood for His Church.

In Father Morrissey’s eyes, the rights belong to the “alleged” clerical paedophiles.  It sounds all too too familiar, doesn’t it?

A disgrace.  A true disgrace.

There was evidence regarding the 1922 secret Vatican Instruction Crimen Sollicitationis which was re-issued in 1962.  Therein the four “Worst Crimes” are listed as:

(1) Solicitation for sex in the confessional

(2) homosexual sex

(3) sexual abuse of minor males and females

(4) bestiality (sex with animals)

There was no evidence elicited regarding the gender of victims of clerical sexual abuse.  . Lead commission counsel Peter Engelmann did not seek such information or statistics, nor did Morrissey offer the well known fact that the overwhelming majority of victims of clerical sexual abuse are male.

There was discussion of the Doyle – Mouton – Peterson report,  but no mention of the bias Father Michael Peterson would have or might have brought to the report as a practising homosexual.

That’s the way it went.

The transcript is available online.

I must call it a day.  I have one very important matter to address but will have to leave it for later – just too tired right now too think straight.


This entry was posted in Clerical sexual predators. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Too too familiar

  1. Myomy says:

    Morrissey was continually concerned with balancing the rights of an accused priest vith the rights of the victims. It would be wrong to destroy the life and work of an innocent priest as it would be for the priest to destroy the life of a child by sexual abuse. I would have liked to ask him about this balance. Can he tell us of any innocent priest that was punished and if more than one how many vs how many guilty priests walked away scott free. If the system was perfect the number in both cases would be zero. Since we cannot have a perfect system and are really only trying for a balanced system the number in each case should be equal. So ask Fr Morrissey if these numbers are really equal and which way the system needs to be tipped right now to make it balanced.

    It may be that Fr Morrissey attaches a greater value to a destroyed innocent priest than to a destroyed life for an innocent child. If so his testimony on this point should be elicited as well.

    Another concern that was evident in the testimony of Fr Morrissey was that priests that were laicized were left on their own financially. I know of one case where an innocent priest was left on his own financially for many years which was only corrected recently. Perhaps a good solution would be a commitment by the church to continual financial responsibility for priests even after they are laicized in return for prompt action and removal from the priesthood for child abusers. This method may be very expensive but not more expensive than paying out the massive liabilities for child sexual abuse which is going on today. Lets think creatively on this problem.

  2. Myomy says:

    Another question for Fr Morrissey. Fr Morrissey has on other occasions has stated that one motivation for not removing abuser priests and trying to rehabilitate them is the $250,000 cost of educating a priest which would be effectively abandoned if they are permanently removed from ministry. Is this still a motivation in the Church? If so I submit that the hugh liability payments are still more costly than the current policy which should be reconsidered.

  3. prima facie says:

    “Why Is Public Outrage Muted?”
    “Unchallenged Authority Leads To Corruption”

    WHY? Because, in part:

    1- “Power,intimidation, fear, misrepresentations”.

    Regarding this blog, Father Doyle, Dick Nadeau, etc.,
    I believe, anyone who know’s David Sherriff-Scott or who has interacted with him in a professional basis, including many of his “associates” is aware, he can become very disturbed, when he does not get his way.
    I believe, he is the “hired gun” and “protege” of the “prestigious”, David W. Scott, Q.C., who is the VERY influential and powerful lead Counsel for the Diocese in this matter..since in or before 1995.
    2- “Muted?-Why?” At the opening of this Inquiry, Commissioner Glaude, was appearingly surprised, at the various and many, “esteemed” lawyer’s, who were applying for standing and funding at the Inquiry. Commissioner Glaude, asked why these applications were being made. The lawyer’s replied, something like, “to protect our clients names.” This Inquiry quickly “spiralled” into “re-writing history” and going to any length to “destroy” witnesses and their testimony.
    3-“Muted?-Why?” There are absolutely no lawyers or other people, institutions or other, representing a “position” asserting that “sexual abuse” occurred as alleged. At this Cornwall Public Inquiry, there are only “high paid” malpractice, “liability insurance carrier” type lawyers, attempting, successfully, to “control” the whole Inquiry and re-write history, relating to “their clients”.
    4-“Muted?-Why?” Since they first “cried out” for help, alleging they had been sexually abused, MANY YEARS ago, I believe, documents/evidence will show, all or most of the “alleged” victims who applied for standing at the Cornwall Public Inquiry, have BEEN INFLUENCED, received “monies” from the “Victim’s Compensation Board” and/or have received “monies”, “promises”, other “benefits”, from “out-of-court” settlements; many with real or perceived threats, confidentiality clauses and non-disclosure “stipulations” attached. Furthermore, evidence will show where some of these “settlements” took place since “The Cornwall Public Inquiry” began.

    In fact, several or all of the “alleged” victims, depicted above, provided their testimonials on Dick Nadeau’s website,, regarding their victimization. They have received out-of-court settlements or voluntary “monies”/”benefits”, from the “accused”, who were identified on Dick’s website…..or maybe the “accused” were just handing out gifts and these lucky one’s happened to be “the fortunate recipients”.
    I believe, Dick was subsequently, further victimized, as he became a co-defendant in what I believe to have been a “harassment style, fraudulent and malicious”, related civil litigation (see Sylvia’s website “Cameron et al v. Bateman et al”); one which was never prosecuted, but one which securred “silence”. I believe this civil litigation and related issues, largely contributed to Dick Nadeau’s death.
    5-“Muted?-Why?” Sylvia’s excellent “blog” entitled “Define The Problem”, “Saturday 25 August 2007 at 2:50 a.m.”, surrounding “reconciliation” further explains why there is no “outrage”. Reconciliation with who? or what? and why?
    “THE UNSPOKEN MESSAGES” of a very “dysfunctional system” is defined by this “false” reconciliation “package”. “THE UNSPOKEN MESSAGES”: Whether it is a family, institutional, community, political, religious, legal, etc. system, “THE UNSPOKEN MESSAGES” involve exhibiting behaviours and attitudes, or, “signs/symptoms”, which “deny”, “minimize”, etc. a problem really “exists”. Common behaviour’s asserted by “authority” and “instilled” in others, support the belief, “nothing that bad happened”, “you are lying”, “let’s move on, reconciliate”, “it could have been worse”, “you are lucky”. “Denying”. Walking around, “The Elephant In The Living Room” and denying, rationalizing, justifying, blaming others, etc., why it is there,…..or not really there.
    A “system” will go to any lengths to “keep a secret” a “secret”. ANY LENGTHS!!! The more severe the consequences of “disclosure” the more severe the methods utilized to “keep the secret” a “secret”.

    If someone “within the system” speaks out or asks for help, they will be “destroyed”.


Leave a Reply