A few days ago I was told that the Diocese of Pembroke was suing ex-priest and convicted molester Bernard Prince. I checked into it. It turns out that the diocese is actually crossclaiming against Prince: it is denying any irresponsibility for Prince’s abuse, but, in the event that it is found responsible by the court, it expects Prince to ante in.
09 October 2009: Pembroke Diocese Statement of Defence and Crossclaim against Bernard Prince
This is happening with all the Prince lawsuits. It has been going on since 2009!!
Initially I was really annoyed with the idea of the crossclaim, but, I must admit there is a part of me which believes that clerical molesters should not be getting off scott free financially in these lawsuits as they usually do.
But, is this the only way to dip into the pockets of molesters to force them to pay their ‘dues’?
For some reason I don’t like it when I see that it is the diocese which is initiating the action against Prince. I smell a rat.
Perhaps that’s because I don’t like the denials I see in the Statement of Defence? Prince was convicted in a court of law for goodness sake. And there is paper trail which shows that Church officials were aware as far back as the 60s that Prince was molesting and turned a blind eye:
30 March 2010: Barry Conway Affidavit re Monsignor Bernard Prince sex abuse
10 February 1993: Pembroke’s Bishop Windle letter to Papal Nuncio re Father Bernard Prince expressing concerns that Prince’s sexual abuse of several young boys might become public knowledge.
Why then the denial of responsibility?
Why put the victims through this?
Oh, yes, oops, I forget: $$$$$$s. That’s what it’s all about now, is it not? The almighty dollar. Not, as we might hope, as as it should be, in Almighty God, but, ………………….The Almighty Dollar.
Somehow the whole thing doesn’t sit well.
If the diocese wants to squeeze dollars out of Prince to help defray their costs then why not just flat out sue him? Why does it have to be done this way? Why choke up the victims’ suit with this?
Obviously I’m not a lawyer. Still, I truly do not see why the diocese would opt to go this route. Common sense and concern for the victims tells me there has to be another way to get money out of Bernard Prince. If the diocese thinks he owes them, then let them sort it out between themselves. Leave the victims out of it. Heaven knows, they’ve suffered enough.
Anyway, for now the bottom line is that for the past two years the diocese has been denying responsibility for the damage Bernard Prince inflicted on a host of young lads, but, in the event that it loses that battle in court and is obliged to pay it wants Prince to ante in.
I’m sure Prince isn’t about to roll over on this one.
I think the victims deserve better than these legal head games.
A final note. I updated the Monsignor Bernard Prince page today.
Enough for now,
Sylvia, this is news (not in the least surprising) to me but so so disturbing none the less.
Would you mind- if you can- reveal the source from you obtained this document referencing the court file?
I have not seen any indication anyplace except for this site that it is public knowledge. I may have missed it if it was in the media at some point or other but if I did, the fact remains that it has been an undertaking chugging along in great secrecy. They continue to try to fool us with their sneaky motives. Even when occasionally they do the right thing it is in self interest instead of for the common good. Clearly and very obviously any convicted molesting priest who has been defrocked has been the result of a strategic ploy to gain the upper hand from a legal standpoint. Not an admission of transgression or responsibility or anything to do with simply doing what is right – as they would passively allow the outside world to believe- Quite the contrary it is rather a deliberated commitment to continue with relentless persecution of victims spiritually, psychologically and financially.
The mysterious essence of “ the catholic church” is a definition that is subject to never ending change relative to what appears to be more beneficial to clergy and not exclusively to but especially and in particularly to those who are in charge of receiving and spending “the money.”
We hear at times from clergy “those who know” that all members including parishioners are “the church.” That’s the definition when “the church” is under public scrutiny for the evil doings perpetuated from within It’s almost as though the powerful and arrogant little group inside become urged by a sudden humble desire to draw on the power from the -much larger group- of ‘sheepys..’ These are very humble times when they want to share the power of the church.
Then at other times they feel the need to have full control over the reigns of power. They have loud mouths from high on the pulpit when it comes to pointing out the immoral conduct they see everywhere else in the world. The sheepys are instructed to swallow “the teachings of the church” and to be sure to tell the rest of the world what is good and right and how to live. They scream from the pulpits about how high and mighty it is to be a Catholic and how proud God must be of us Catholics because we have the right values, the best ones, the only ones that God approves of and we are sure to be rewarded as we look down from heaven at all those non-Catholics (we’ll show those hateful media that we were right all along.)
We see in society politicians who will stop at almost nothing in order to win political power. We see greedy rich people who will stop at nothing to gain financial power. We see cult leaders who spare no means to achieve a spiritual power. It has become such a tragedy that the Catholic Church has become ensnared and seduced by the hunger for power in all three of it’s most sought after avenues. It is so ironic how the Church has become so successful in achieving a certain attractiveness through an ever increasing pursuit of superficial image has become transparent to the ugliness within in the eyes of the world where there is an ongoing pursuit of substantial human qualities of justice, peace, love and acceptance.
I got the document from the law firm Larry. As I said, I was told that the Diocese was suing Prince. And then I heard something about Father Proulx being relieved of his duties as the contact for sex abuse in the Pembroke Diocese to work on the Prince file. I also heard that Proulx was presumably sprung free to work on the Borne case, but it was word that he was in Ottawa specifically working on the Prince suit which led me to believe there must be something going on.
The Diocese suing Prince made little sense, but I wanted to find out. I contacted Ledroit Beckett to see if, as lawyers for the victims, they knew anything of a such a lawsuit. I then asked for a copy of document. These documents are in the public domain Larry. Anyone can go into the court in which they were filed and access them. There is sometimes a small fee attached to retrieve the file. All documents in the file can be photocopied. The trouble is that a person has to first know that there is an action, and the names of at least one of the parties.
Like you Larry, I am surprised but not surprised. I knew nothing of this. If it was in the news I missed it too.
Re you comments about priests pointing out immoral conduct they see elsewhere in the world and forcing the flock to obey Church teaching: I suppose things differ these days from priest to priest, parish to parish, and diocese to diocese to diocese, but honest to goodness I do believe that the priests who enunciate the moral teachings of the Church are few and far between.
Sylvia the terms I used were “telling others how to live’ and ” insructed to swallow” , not forced, although to the most vulnerable of the faithful “forced” is the proper term.
You need to ask non- catholics if the church does not point out immoral conduct in the world.
They think without any hesitation that they are the author and creator of moral quality.
You are right Larry. Apologies. Bad choice of words on my part.
As for non-Catholics pointing out what the Church has to say, I don’t know about that. You may well be right My thing is that, at least here in Canada, the priests who enunciate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are few and far between. We Catholics in Canada just don’t tend to hear priests “telling others how to live” or pointing out immoral conduct.
The Sunday homily has the notorious reputation of being the perfect place for some people to have a nap. With you’re most recent comment Sylvia you have revealed that you are one of those!!!
No Larry, I don’t nap. I listen. There is always much to be learned, both by what is said and what is left unsaid 🙂