Poor little souls

Share Button

I am home.  Had a wonderful get away – time with children and grandchildren.  On the way home an overnight with a dear friend who put us up in his charming little rustic cabin at the edge of the woods.  Babbling brook and all 🙂 

 Back Tuesday evening.  Yesterday unpacking etc etc – all the usual getting things back in order after a few days away from home.  I took time throughout the day to catch the media of the last couple of days.

 There are two incidents which transpired while I was on the road which I want to comment on, and a third  which hit the news in a big way yesterday and today:

 (1)  Accolades from on high for NOT reporting a clerical molester

There have been a number of articles regarding the praise bestowed upon a French bishop who refused to speak out against a priest in his diocese whom he knew to be a molester.

 April 18th, 2010 Vatican disses one of its own on sex abuse

April 18th, 2010 Top Vatican Official Praised Bishop Who Covered for Child Molester

April 18th, 2010 Vatican praised bishop for concealing abusive priest

April 18th, 2010 John Paul backed praise for hiding abuse: Cardinal

April 16th, 2010 Cardinal praised bishop’s silence over abuse priest

  The story is that Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, while he was Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, congratulated French bishop  Pierre Pican of Bayeux-Lisieux, France, for NOT reporting a clerical molester to the police.

 The molester priest,  Abbot Renè Bissey, was convicted in 2000 to serve 18 years in prison sexually abusing eleven boys between 1989 and 1996. 

 Eighteen years!  While I still don’t think it’s nearly enough, can you even conceive such a sentence in molester-friendly Canada?

 And Pican – the non-communicative bishop – was sentenced to three months in jail for his refusal to speak out!!!

The courts were tough on Pican, and rightly so.  But, it was a horse of a different colour when it came  to “Church” response to the bishop’s atrocious behaviour. 

 Pican’s blatant obstruction of justice and deliberate decision to put/leave the boys in his flock at risk won him accolades, …. from none other than the head of the Congregation for the Clergy, Hoyos.

  “I rejoice to have a colleague in the episcopate who, in the eyes of history and all the others bishops of the world, preferred prison rather than denouncing one of his sons, a priest.”

 And, according to media reports, it was Pope John Paul II who sanctioned the September 2001 accolades and authorized  that it be sent to bishops around the world and be posted on the internet:

 “After consulting the pope … I wrote a letter to the bishop congratulating him as a model of a father who does not hand over his sons……The Holy Father authorized me to send this letter to all bishops in the world and publish it on the internet.””

There are numerous comments which could be made about this ‘little’ fiasco, not the least is was this indeed posted somewhere on the internet and if yes, who saw it?  That aside, what particularly struck me was Hoys’ analogy that the bishop priest relationship as akin to that of a father and son, and the implication being ‘what father would turn in his own son?’

And this from a Cardinal!  

I would hope every right thinking father on the face of the earth would turn in his own son if he knew that the son was out and about sexually molesting children. 

What caught me here is the similarity between Hoyos’ train of thought and that of  Mgr Charles Scicluna, a canon lawyer who, as the Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, investigates the ‘serious’ cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors.

In a recent interview Scicluna talked of what he obviously perceives as the onerous duty imposed upon bishops who are legally bound to report a molesting priest to judicial authorities:

CS: In some countries with an Anglo-Saxon legal culture, but also in France, the bishops – if they become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession – are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. We’re dealing with an onerous duty because these bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a parent who denounces his or her own son. Nonetheless, our instruction in these cases is to respect the law.

I was struck by the comment when I first read it.  Now we hear something similar, from the mouth of a Cardinal who heaped accolades on a bishop for both violating the law of the land, and tolerating the sinful, criminal and heinous deeds of a predatory priest.

Is there a canonical thread here?  I’m not sure, but it strikes me as odd that both Hoyos and Scicluan seem to be thinking along the same canonical wavelength.  True, Scicluna adds that “our instruction in these cases is to respect the law.”  But, if that truly is the case, why was Pican not soundly denounced by Church authorities for, at  the very least,  his abject failure to comply with the law of the land? 

And, for that matter, why was Hoyos not  soundly dencounced for tossing accolades Pican’s way?

And why no reprimand for Hoyos for sending the accolades off to the bishops of the world, which without doubt could be construed as leading  bishops to keep mum, let molesters run amok, and violate the law of the land, all in the name of defending their clercial molesters because they are just like sons ? 

Perhaps there was a reprimand?  Is there any inkling of censure for either of the pair?  If there is, I have yet to find it. 

 (2)  Rasing himself off the sword

Father Gerhard Grueber, who so stoically took the fall for the mishandling of paedophile priest Father H while Archbishop Ratzinger (now Pope Benedicat XVI) was Archbishop of Munich, now says he was bullied into falling on his sword:

 18 April 2010:  Priest says he was bullied into taking fall for Pope abuse scandal 

If Grueber was not responsible, who ?  Is the current Pope now  more seriously implicated?  Is someone else about to fall on sword?  Or will Grueber perhaps recant and say he fell on his sword joyfully and any talk of bullying is no more than rumour and innuendo . or something akin to the same.

 It’s hard to know quite what’s going on now that theblame game and  finger-pointing has begun in earnest.  We shall have to wait and see how this one unfolds.  But my goodness what a pathetic lot they are. 

 (3)  Pro-homosexual sex ed

 Our “good” Roman Catholic premier who gave us the flawed molester-friendly mandate for what boils down to the multi-million-dollar-cover-up in Cornwall is about to impose a pro-homosexual sex ed curriculum on all Ontario children, Catholic and non Catholic alike.

 21 April 2010:  Ontario to introduce more explicit se education in schools

 21 April 2010:  Catholic schools must teach new sex ed: McGuinty

 I was going to ask where oh where are the bishops of Ontario in all of this?  Canadian bishops, as many know all too well,  become notoriously silent when the H word raises its head, and Ontario’s bishops twiddled their collective thumbs in 1997 when a fury erupted over the blatantly pro-homosexual AIDS Ed curriculum introduced by Catholicsinto Catholic schools, – —with the blessings of Bishops James Dolye (now deceased), Fred Colli and Archchbishop Marcel Gervais. 

Revisions were eventually ordered, but they were minor, and the  program went in and was utilized by Catholic schools throughout the province.  That was 13 long years ago.

  Here we go again. 

 How did it get to this without one little whimper of protest from Ontario bishops?  Where have they been?  Why no alert to their Catholic flock?  Why no public words of caution to the “Catholic” McGuinty?

 I for one saw new reports of this sex ed curriculum  in the news some weeks ago.  I know there was a bit of a healthy uproar at a school board in Hamilton not too long ago.   I am therefore hard pressed to believe that not a one Ontario bishop knew it was coming, and, alas, I am equally hard pressed to believe they will put up a fight. 

I hope I am mistaken, but, contrary to popular opinion, Canadian bishops do not fare well when it comes to abiding by and/or upholding and/or imparting Church teaching on homosexuality.

Perhaps the idea of indoctrinating children in Grade 3 will strike a chord with them and spark some Episcopal action?  We shall see.  I won’t, however,  hold my breath.

 Just as I get this blog ready to post I received an email with a link to a recently relased news update.  One Ontario Bishop is speaking out.  Hallelujah.

 21 April 2010: Catholic leaders criticize new sex education curriculum

 Will others follow suit? 

 I will hold my tongue, but not my breath, until I see  what happens next.

 Meanwhile I can’t help but think that that Alfred Kinsey must be rollicking in his grave.  He could not have asked for more.  This is the ongoing abject and unmitigated sexualization and social engineering of little children.  The poor little souls. 

 Final word on this….

 I trust by this that Dalton McGuinty has either lost or rejected his faith and won’t therefore have the audacity to show his face inside the doors of a Roman Catholic Church.  I also firmly believe that this is grounds for excommunication. 

 Enough for now,

 Sylvia

 (cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Bishops, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, France, homosexual, Hoyos, sex ed, Vatican and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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