Perry Dunlop is a political prisoner. He has spent 152 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
Don’t forget, Perry’s birthday is tomorrow, 22 July 2008.
Lunch break was early. Hearings will resume 15 minutes earlier – at 1445 hours (1:45 pm) this afternoon, Monday 21 July 2008.
This is digusting. Disgusting beyond words. A Roman Catholic priest claiming if he knew back in the 60s what he knows now his reactions to knowledge and/or allegations of clerical sexual abuse would be completely different.
What does Msgr. Rejean Lebrun know now that he didn’t know back in the 60s? What?
Did the Roman Catholic Church ever ever teach that it is alright for priests to sexually abuse young boys? Ever?!! Was that ever Church teaching?
What did Msgr. Lebrun learn when he studied moral theology?
I have Father Heribert’s Jones widely published Moral Theology (1961 – reprinted 1993) – one small excerpt:
“whoever has a perverted attraction towards persons of the same sex should be dissuaded from accepting a position (eg., teaching) in which he will scarcely be able to avoid proximate occasion of sin.”
Why would Father Heribert , a reputable Roman Catholic moral theologian, come up with something like that if not for concern that children might be at risk under certain circumstances? And if such concern existed why should the concern not be equally if not more applicable to priests who, in those days, were constantly surrounded by altar boys?
In short, how could a Roman Catholic priest NOT know that no child is the better for being sexually abused? How could Lebrun not have been revolted to hear that Father Carl Stone had disappeared from the diocese because he’d abused a boy? How could Lebrun and every other priest in the diocese remain silent when Stone returned a few years later?
So, he knew about Stone.
And now we learn that Lebrun heard “rumours” about Father Paul Lapierre back in the
early early 60s late 50s – very specific “rumours” by the sound of it, to the extent that he actually knew the identity of the victim!
But, it was just “rumour” – nothing was done. Nothing until Lapierre ended up with a guilty verdict in Montreal, at which time Lebrun approached the mother of the boy who was the object of that “rumour.” The mother allegedly said she wanted to hear no more and wanted nothing more to do with it.
Why did Lebrun wait for the guilty verdict in Montreal? Why did he not contact Project Truth officers with his information and “rumour” as soon as the sex abuse probe started? Or why did he not at least volunteer the information as soon as the word was out that Lapierre had been charged?
By the sound of his testimony to date Lebrun didn’t tell a soul. It was “rumour.”
And then there was Father Lucien Lussier. Seems the clergy, or least some, knew about Lussier too way way back. They watched him being transferred to another parish! Silent!! Roman Catholic priests.
No questions yet about what he knew or what “rumour” he may have heard about Fathers Kenneth Martin, Hollis Lapierre and Luc Meunier. And no questions about the goings on at the Classical College. Or about “rumours” about Bishop Adolphe Proulx.
But, he didn’t know. This Roman Catholic priest didn’t know.
It’s all pathetically, shamefully and disgustingly sickening,
A final note of interest. Lebrun wold have been going through seminary at St. Paul’s around the same time as one of Ottawa’s notorious clerical paedophiles – Father Dale Crampton.