I posted a pdf file of an article re the Bathurst Diocese/Bastarache compensation package for sex abuse victims. It ran in the Campbellton paper a week ago but bears note. Here it is:
05 November 2010: Abuse report given to bishop
First, good for Lowell Mallais, Conrad Brideau and Michael Jensen. They all spoke well. Very well.
Now, scroll down to the second page where Vicar General Father Wesley Wade is quoted, first from his press release, and then in an interview with the Tribune.
Look at the tap dancing!
Here’s a few quotes from the article with my thoughts on the matter:
Wade refused to quantify what exactly “a few” priests meant, saying only “that is a very valid question,” and “we can’t give you that at this time.”
Could he not have said I’ll take a look and call you right back?
He said however that they were named in the report, and quantifying those known to date would simply be a matter of adding up the individual names.
Again, if quantifying the numbers is so simple why did Wade not say “I’ll take a look, add them up and get back to you”?
Asked if any of the priests complained of were doing ministry outside of the Diocese of Bathurst, he said “Our main concern is that they were not doing ministry in our diocese,”
They weren’t concerned that clerical molesters are elsewhere in the Catholic world- unknown to the faithful as molesters and with unfettered access to children?
And so what if those molesters aren’t “doing ministry”? Is a clerical molester with unfettered access to children any less a threat to children if he’s not “doing” ministry? He’s still a priest is he not? and as a priest does he not continue to enjoy the trust bestowed upon those who, as priests, are perceived tobe honest, holy and trustworthy men of God?
Asked if some kind of action would be taken to ensure no priest named in the report is possibly still serving somewhere in the world, Wade said “That is forthcoming. That is part of our job to do that”
Ah yes. Action is “forthcoming.” It’s “part of our job.”
Wade said that given the length of time that had passed since some of the incidents were alleged to have taken place, it was probable that the priests in question would no longer be in the ministry.
Did Wade say “alleged,” or is the reporter using the the word? I hope it wasn’t Wade. The diocese after all is in the process of compensating victims for the abuse they endured as children. There are presumably apologies to be offered to the victims for the abuse they endured.
“Alleged” is out the windo. If the diocese believes that these men were molested by priests then the word “alleged” is out the window. With the diocese/Bastarche deal comes certainty that those who will be compensated are victims, and that those clergy who victimized these men as children are clerical molesters.”
“Most have passed away because it was many years ago.”
“Most”? Not all?
How many on the list are as alive as Picot and Noel and, thanks to Father Wade et al, have the privilege of having their identities and their perversions ekept under wraps?
For that matter, how many are dead whose identities as molesters is being secreted? Does Father Wade truly not understand what an act of charity it is to other victims of these men to release the names so that they, i.e., other victims, know they were not the only ones? and that now maybe someone will believe them?
Does he truly not know what a service it is to parents and family to know that Father X was a molester? does he really not understand the turmoil of families who don’t understand what happened to Johnny when he was a little boy – why he changed overnight? why his grades at school plummeted? why he got into drugs and alcohol?
As for that old chestnut, “because it was many years ago,” I am so tired of hearing that. What difference does it make? Surley Father Wade knows that there are countless clerical molesters roaming about who molested years ago. The fact that they molested a few years back is no assurance that they are now dead. Far from it. Many, it seems, live to a ripe old age.
Enough for now.