A “mistake”

Share Button

Sometimes I read an article and I just really don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  Take for example the following:

05 April 2010: Bishop regrets helping Canadian paedophile priest

There are a few interesting backgrounders on this.  Here goes, with a few questions which have been running through my mind tossed in:

(1) Bishop Jacques Gaillot, the French bishop who took in and graciously  recycled  convicted Canadian paedophile priest Denis Vadeboncoeur in 1987  was a public advocate of abortion and homosexuality with communist sympathies.  Gaillot was eventually removed from his post by the Bishop of Évreux for , amongst other things, permitting married priests to celebrate Mass, blessing homosexual unions, encouraging distribution of condoms in public schools, and working to change Church teachings about divorce and contraception.

When he was removed from his diocese in 1995 Gaillot was assigned to the titular diocese of Partnia.  This meant that Gaillot no longer had a flock.  Undeterred the disgruntled exiled bishop  took to dispersing his dissident views via cyberspace.

I must add that Gaillot was the darling of many a dissident Catholic throughout the world.  I recall more than one who shared his views and leaped to his defence.

(2)  Where did Vadeboncoeur come from?  I decided to do a quick check.

Vadenboncoeur was ordained in 1968 1965.  It seems he was probably ordained as a member of the religious order of St. Vincent de Paul.   In Canadian Catholic directories the letters sv, designating the order, are behind his name.

In 1967 Vadaboncouer was at a minor seminary in Ste. Foy Quebe.  In the early 70s he was in Brazil.  Around  1985 he was back in Ste Foy Quebec.  Ste. Foy seems to be the order’s Canadian headquarters.  The order is headquartered in France.

(3)  The Archbishop of Quebec when Vadaboncouer was shipped off to France for recycling was Louis-Albert Vachon.  Vachon later became Cardinal Vachon.

Vachon’s General Secretary at the time was Jean-Robert Hamelin.  Hamelin was later consecrated a bishop and, from 1993-1995 was president of  the CCCB.

What role if any did Vachon and/or Hamelin play in slipping Vadaboncouer off to the tender care of Gaiillot who so promptly allowed this convicted molester unfettered access to young lads? Since Vadaboncouer was an ordered priest the arrangements may have been made through his superiors with the religious order of St. Vincent de Paul.

Why was Vadaboncouer in Brazil?  Had he been “caught’?  Was that a recyle job?

Gaillot now says it was “a mistake” to take in a convicted molester.  “A mistake.”  Just a little mistake.

What can I say to that?

Enough for now

Sylvia

(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Canada, CCCB, Clerical sexual predators, France and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to A “mistake”

  1. Sylvia says:

    A thought: If a goodly number of bishops really thought there was no problem recycling clergy because that’s the way it was done ‘then,’ why did they feel the need to do it on the QT?

    Was it perchance because they knew their own views on child sex abuse were diametrically opposed to those of the faithful, and, for that matter, of society at large?

    Is it perhaps because they know/knew in their heart of hearts that the large majority – if not all – the faithful would NOT tolerate a clerical molester in their midst?

    If perhaps that be the case, why the moral divide between bishops and faithful?

    I suppose some might say the secrecy was/is to protect the Church, i.e., it wouldn’t be good Catholic PR for the faithful to know that a priest had molested a child. And if that is truly the case, and if those enabling bishops share/shared the faithful’s lack of tolerance for clerical molesters, then why do/did they not get the priest out of the community and quietly defrocked? That would have solved the problem, would it not? True, the molester would be out in society and other children would be at risk, but if on the one hand someone was truly repulsed by the idea of a priest molesting a child, and on the other hand was anxious to ‘protect’ the Church, well, that would do the trick, would it not?

    Am I getting the thought across?

    I really just am having the greatest difficulty understanding bishops who recycle(d)molesters in the first place, and greater difficulty still with the justification for the same.

    My difficulty extends to canon lawyers, and to the ‘experts’ who presumably counselled bishops that a predator priest could be recyled. And, yes, now that I think of it, it extends too to those bishops who paid/pay heed to the child-molester-friendly-psychobabble of ‘experts’.

  2. E. Murphy says:

    It has been suggested that the Church should be suing those in the medical profession who were ‘treating’ these men and sending them back into circulation to continue their predation.

  3. Reality Checker says:

    What’s up with Bishop Wingle’s (from the diosese of St. Catharines ON)sudden and unexpected resignation today???

    Is there more news to come???
    (ie. like Lahey?)

  4. John says:

    Word with Bishop Wingle is that it is heart issues………gimme a sec, gotta wipe the tears from my eyes (from laughing).

  5. HJM says:

    Hello…………!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Does this have anything to do with the Grecco case?????

  6. Sylvia says:

    DOES it perhaps have anything to do with the Grecco case? When did Grecco leave to get married? Was that before or after Wingle took over in November 2001?

    What dealings, if any, did Grecco victims have with Wingle? I have no idea. Did they, the victims, go directly to police? or did they go to Wingle?

    If they went to Wingle, how were they received?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *