Hard to stomach!

Share Button

Hearings wrapped up at 17:15 (5:15 pm) and resume Monday afternoon 10 September 2007.  Father Tom Doyle’s testimony is complete.

Ron Leroux’ motion to excuse and application for standing and funding have been rescheduled for 10 September 2007.   Ditto Carson Chisholm’s application for standing and Funding.

I have a number of comments to make about Father Doyle’s testimony.  I must collect my thoughts.  Enough to say I have deep trouble with a Roman Catholic priest who testifies  that we’re dealing with sexual dysfunction which, according to him, is a medical, not a moral issue and  “you can’t run it to go away.”

I’m quite certain that’s what I heard Father Doyle say.  And can there be any doubt that if he did indeed say just that it certainly will go a long long way to exonerate all clerical sexual predators? They’re sick.  They really can’t help it.

This could be expected from secular authorities.  But, from a Roman Catholic priest testifying as an “expert” in Church matters?  To help a judge “frame” an inquiry which is handling large numbers of sexual abuse allegations against clergy?

Honestly, it’s pretty hard to stomach!
So, I will collect my thoughts, review my notes ….and then pen my thoughts :).


I have started putting information in the Father Gaetan Deschamps page.  Still a little more to do there, then a few comments.

Enough for now,



This entry was posted in Alexandria-Cornwall Diocese, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Cornwall Public Inquiry and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Hard to stomach!

  1. prima facie says:

    As with EVERYTHING and ANY “TOPIC-AREA”,…you can secure “expert witnesses” from a variety of personal, professional, philosophical, ideological, theoretical perspectives and interpretations. It’s pick and choose, like in a candy store…..ON ANY TOPIC!!!

    There is significant research and study, providing “findings”, supportive of any given topic and equally significant research and study opposed to any given topic. Your chosen “expert” depends on “your” objective…..what “you” wish to accomplish.

    “You” choose the “expert witness” in a particular “area” that meets your objective. Then, an “opposing party” or person who shares different views from “you” conducts research supporting “their” objective.

    Both sides, also secure and often “pay for” “expert witnesses”, who usually have earned some accredited, professional credentialling. These “expert witnesses” provide testimony in court or inquiries, supporting “their-your” position.

    For example; there is significant research and study available, providing “findings”, “supporting” “capital punishment”. However, there are just as many studies and “findings”, “opposing” the “topic” and equally as many “expert witnesses” sitting around waiting “on deck” to testify.

    Deciding on which “position” is chosen, depends in part, on “public opinion”, current “social policy”, “YOUR” or
    “The Inquiries” objectives and the “tone of the times”.

    What is the “tone of the times” today in 2007? ex)”capital punishment?”, “minimal sentencing?”
    “freedom’s gone wild”? “no accountability?”, “no responsibility?”, self indulgence, immediate gratification, no consequences for deviant or unlawful behaviours, all deviant behaviours are really a physiological, psychological and/or psychiatric illness, “deviants” or “alleged deviants” should be felt sorry for and helped….not punished?…..you get the picture!

    In the Cornwall Public Inquiry most “experts” appear to me to be leaning heavily to one side….

    Oh; by the way, ask the “expert witnesses” to state, under oath, that what they “offer” as research, study, “findings” and other expert testimony, regarding a “topic” is, “undisputed proof”. An “expert witness” will very rarely testify that “their” testimony and supporting research, philosophies, theories, and related, is “proof”, they or “their, your” assertion is “correct”.

  2. Myomy says:

    I believe that this shift in outlook on the human nature and the reality of sin is one of the most important reasons for the moral decadence in the Church today. The church has forgotten everything it used to teach about moral life and sin and adopted a therapeutic outlook which takes a fundamental view that everything in a personality can be explained by their experiences. This viewpoint does not talk of sin at all and reduces everything to a disease. Fr Doyle has fallen into this way of thinking. Human nature exibits a range of responses we do not find in the animals. Some humans would kill their mother for a nickle while others heroically accept great costs even death for the benefit of people they don’t even know. This cannot be explained by reference to experience but only by understanding that human beings are left free by their creator to make fundamental choices putting them in opposition to their creator. Humans are creatures of habit and we can get a good idea about what they will do in the future but this can never be absolute. No one can predict what another person will do or even what they themselves will do.

    Treatment centres take money from the Church to treat priests and then call them “cured” to go back into ministry. I would suggest that anyone who certifies such a thing should put their own money behind their word. Don’t ask the therapist if a priest will offend again. Ask them if they will pay the liabilities if he does. Therapy centres are well payed. Let them demonstrate their confidence in there work by putting their money where their mouth is. Of course we know they will not do this but until they do why are we treating their ideas with such awe.

    The sexual appetite is a strong one so sexual sins will never be eliminated completely. The best we could do would be to restore the old moral teaching of the church where we understand that we are prone to sin and learn to practice self restraint and discipline so that we can control our passions and desires. Candidates for the priesthood should be living with older wise priests who practice this self control themselves, who believe in this world view and get to know the candidates well. If such a priest passes a candidate for ordination it would be the best we could do on rooting out clerical sex abuse. There is no perfect method but this training combined with swift sure correction of deliquent priests would be as good as we will get in this life.

    The therapeutic Church is going downhill and this will continue till we all toss out Freud and reclaim the richness of Catholic Moral teaching.

  3. Sylvia says:

    Wise words Myomy. Wise words.


Leave a Reply