few minutes to spare and chance to post articles on two stories I have been itching to get up this week. I don’t have time now to comment as I would like, so, for now, very briefly, the following:
(1) 08 June 2009: No plea deal in works for psychiatrist accused of molesting his patients
I have pulled together several articles from the past years to give some background on this trial which is just now getting off the ground in the States. All I can say is it looks like the chickens may finally be coming home to roost. This Dr. Ayres, child psychiatrist, former president of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and “alleged” molester was a staunch advocate of early and explicit childhood sex education back in the 60s. And here he is in 2009 – heading to trial on multiple allegations of molestation of his young male patients. There are allegations against Ayres which date back to the 70s – because the U.S. has a statute of limitations none of those allegations are proceeding to trial. But, the allegations go all the way back to the 70s. Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Who’s health and well-being did Ayres have in mind when he was pushing sex education onto children in grades four, five and six?
Note the link to the William Hamilton Ayres Watchdog Site on the “Of Interest” page by Ayres name – it’s an interesting and informative site for those who want to know more and for those who are interested in following the Ayres trial.
(2) 11 June 2009: Church blames victim’s lawyer for lawsuit
Legal action launched against Ottawa’s Father Dale Crampton!
Good for you Alex! Good for you!
And look at the tizzy which has erupted in the Archdiocese of Ottawa! The Bishop and Monsignor Beach seem to think that victims of clerical sexual abuser are incompetent and incapable of making decisions. Why else do they seem to presume and imply that “Alex” was cajoled into launching a lawsuit by his lawyer?
A strange response to a lawsuit if ever I saw one. Blame it on the lawyer. They can’t claim Alex is lying, so up they come with this rediculously ill thought response.
The response is particularly strange given that there would be absolutely no wrong done if indeed Rob Talach did tell Alex to sue. I rather doubt that that’s the way the lawsuit got launched, but, even if that were the case, so what?
It’s even stranger given the fact that Monsignor Kevin Beach is a lawyer himself. Yes indeed. That was Beach’s first calling – he practised in or around London Ontario, and then somewhere along the line he felt called to the priesthood and in 1995 was ordained. I don’t recall Beach offhand exactly when he arrived in Ottawa but I do know it was then or very shortly thereafter. He is now Vicar General.
Beach however is also a canon lawyer. Whether he now speaks more as a canon lawyer than he does as a lawyer I have no idea, but I can tell you for certain that I have a hard time reconciling the fact that Monsignor Beach, a priest and Vicar General of the archdiocese, would respond thus to a lawsuit launched by a man who is a known victim of clerical sexual abuse.
Rather pathetic really. But, telling. I personally think the tip line set up by Rob Talach is the problem. My goodness if people start getting on that phone line and telling what they know…. Well, there’s no shortage of stories to tell. I do hope those with stories to tell or any information at all will take the plunge and pick up the phone. Get it off your chest. The number is: 1-866-674-4994
or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
In case you missed it, another little point of interest here. Crampton’s lawyer in the mid 80s was none other than Michael Neville. Yes, the same Michael Neville who ensured Father Charlie would “walk” by wrapping him up as snug as a bug in the 11 (b) section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Do take a moment if you can to read the blog I posted back in 2006. Note that Crampton is also a canon lawyer and was hustled off to —–yes, ……..LONDON, Ontario, to do canon law for the Diocese of London after his ever so brief stint in jail. Why the assumption that a clerical molester is well qualified to render decisions on marriage annulments is beyond me. Ditto the apparent assumption that a priest doing work on marriage tribunals is incapable of coming into contact with and molesting Catholic children in any given diocese.
The question here is did Beach and Crampton cross paths in London? I have no idea. But if they did could that perhaps account for Beach’s bizarre response?
And if indeed their paths did cross, did Beach know that Crampton was a homosexual paedophile fresh out of jail? Did he know that Crampton had been shuttled out of Ottawa where his dastardly deeds were known and on into London where he could patter about and do his thing in relative obscurity? And did he know that the children of the London diocese, in this instance probably primarily young boys, were at risk?
So many questions.
The bottom line is, why would a priest come out with a comment like that? “I would think that it was at his lawyer’s urging that this gentleman decided to launch a lawsuit, rather than communicate with us directly.”
What’s the point? What’s the message Beach and Archbishop Prendergast want to seed in the public mind?
Alex is too stupid to decide to launch legal action?
And Alex should have contacted officials in a diocese which hasn’t given him a moment’s thought for over 20 years?!!
Too too much. Too much.
What an insult. What a cruel , thoughtless and heartless insult to a man who has without doubt suffered deeply and in silence for so many long years.
Beyond that, it’s just plain frantic. Heaven forbid people finally start talking. Publicly.
Frantic, and almost laughable: ‘Don’t call them, call us.’
Can you beleive it?!
Anyway, good for you for summoning up the strength to fight the demons of the past Alex. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
A final note, I strongly encourage any and all victims of Father Dale Crampton to contact the tip line.
And a final final note, I have newsclippings and info on file re Crampton which I shall get posted once life settles down to ‘normal.’
Enough for now,