I dug into old files yesterday – papers that I photocopied about 12 years ago and had tucked away for future reference. There are all sorts of bits and pieces of information scattered throughout. For now I have scanned and posted the following four:
(1) April 1988: “In Memoriam” for Bishop John Beahen
I posted a comment on the article. Finally an end to the confusion – Bishop Beahen suffered his stroke while conducting a retreat at St. Gregory’s Roman Catholic Church in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
I am still utterly revolted by this one sentence from Bishop Plourde’s homily at the funeral: “Bishop John’s pilgrimage of faith and hope is over. His journey of love is not.”
And equally revolted to think that Monsignor Morin believed those words to be inspired.
(2) June 1980: Ontario religious educators meet in Ottawa 1980
As I point out at the top of the article, note that Fathers Bill Russell, Tim Flaherty and Francis Reed and are all sexual predators. and there they were in Ottawa in 1980, a a meeting for Directors of Religious Education.
Who else was there I wonder? Who else was there like a wolf in sheep’s clothing claiming to look out for the best interests of our children?
(3) 01 July 1980: Father Ed MacNeil says Mass at Waupoos Farm
And, yes, there’s Father Ed MacNeil at the Ottawa Waupous Farm – a “fun” farm for “underprivileged families.” He was to say the opening Mass on Canada Day. That was 1980. Before he was charged and convicted
And yes, that is the same Father Ed MacNeil who was, as a convicted child molester, was in the company of young people, and was given faculties to say Mass, and hear confessions until Sylvia’s Site found out in November 2010
I can’t help but wonder what roles, if any, Father Frank Morrissey and now Father Jeff King played in putting this draft together back in 1987.
The Morrissey/King documents were entered into evidence at the Cornwall Public Inquiry. The date of the documents was somewhere around 1986-1988.
As I went through my documents papers yesterday I saw Father Morrissey’s name here, there and everywhere in papers from the Archdiocese of Ottawa. Given that Morrissey and King worked together on what I refer to above as the Morrissey/King documents I am hard pressed to believe the pair didn’t play some role in helping Archbishop Plourde hammer out this Draft.
So, one year after Crampton’s conviction, here is the draft. I don’t know if I have the final version or not, but this is quite an interesting read just as is. It gives us an idea of the prevailing mindset of the archbishop and at the diocesan centre.
There are a few comments I want to make about the draft:
(1) Note the archbishop is apparently to stay clear of contact with the victim and parents. In other words, the Shepherd won’t be there to reach out to the child, or to the parents. No. The plan is that someone else is to meet with parents “in the name of the Archbishop” ;
(2) If the priest admits he molested he is to be shipped off for treatment;
(3) Note that there is nary a word about treatment if the priest denies he molested a child;
(4) Note the use of the word “discreet.”
If the archbishop (Ordinary) concludes the allegations are credible (“has some truth to it”) he should “in discreet fashion” suspend the priest. In other words, even though the bishop thinks the priest may be a molester, no one is to know. Note too that this discreet activity is presumably pursued to enable the archbishop to “protect his diocese should legal prosecution ensue.” ( I am totally lost as to how such deception could/can protect the diocese?);
(5) Amazing as it may be it seems that the archbishop was to seek out “competent” lawyers to remind him of, among others things, his duty to report ( I wonder who determines the competence of the lawyers?);
(6) Note that if the priest is found to be a molester he “must leave the diocese for an unspecified length of time, not only for his own good but also for that of the victims and the parishioners”;
(7) Note the clerical molester’s departure it is only for “an unspecified” period of time, at which time, it seems, the archbishop and whomever vetted this draft are comfortable with the notion of a child molester functioning as a priest, hearing confessions, offering up the Holy Sacrifice and, yes, being around children; and
(8) Finally, note what is to be done with documentation from the first meet between the archbishop and the priest – one copy to the accused priest, and the other into the secret archives
I am now truly wondering why it is alright for the bishop to meet with the accused priest but not with the victim or his/her parents? Does the bishop’s obligation to his priests trump his spiritual obligations to his flock? I have deep difficulties with that.
I really must call it a day. I am fed up with bishops who let lawyers run their dioceses, to the detriment of the flock.
There is more I would like to say. I don’t dare 🙁
Enough for now,