Can you believe it?

Share Button

I have added a page with further information on Scarboro Foreign Missions priest Father John Stock (Father Gerard Stock).

These truly never get easier to do.

Look at this…

Stock was charged and convicted not once, not twice, but three times.  The second set of charges involved 16 men who had been molested by Stock between 1959 and 1981.  Initially there were 68 charges laid on the latter set of charges.  Stock entered a guilty plea to 34 charges. The other two convictions stemmed from two men who had been abused by Stock when they were boys.

So, 18 victims in total.

This priest did not spend one single moment behind bars!  Not one!!!

That was in late 1998 and early 1999.

Not a single day in jail!

Can you believe it?

Father Stock – yes, he’s still very much a Roman Catholic priest – was graciously given conditional sentences for all convictions – to run concurrently!!

Oh yes, he had to put in 240 hours of community service (Where a convicted clerical molester does community service is beyond me.) And he was give three years probation.  And he was barred from being in the company of young people unless accompanied by an adult.

I’ve often wondered about these bans.

Who I wonder determines what adult is qualified to oversee a convicted molester in the company of young people?  Does anyone screen these ‘escorts’?  How does it work?  Must permission be attained before the fact?  or is it presumed the molester is capable of monitoring himself, and of finding someone whom he trusts to oversee him to ensure he doesn’t ‘slip’ in these situations ?  I really don’t know. Does anyone? If yes, can you fill us in?

Anyway, there is it is.  I don’t think this even qualifies as a ‘Tu tut bad boy?’!

Note too that this act of perfect judicial charity was agreed upon by the Crown and defence.

And, note that Stock’s lawyer wanted the court to know that Father Stock had received  ‘very serious treatment’  for his sexual problems years before the first charges surfaced!

Why was Father Stock receiving “very serious treatment?  What exactly prompted Father Stock’s superiors to ship him off for “very serious treatment”?

Does, for example,  a stint in Southdown constitute “very serious treatment?  If not, what does?

And when did this “very serious treatment”  start?

I just heard on the radio that charges have been laid against, I think a priest.  Before I say more I must check to ensure I heard what I think I heard.


Here it is.  I heard what I thought I heard.

Father Daniel Miller, Diocese of Pembroke, has been charged,  From the Ottawa Citizen:

Pembroke priest charged with sexual assaults dating to 1970

OTTAWA — A Pembroke priest faces charges in sexual assaults dating back to 1970, police said Wednesday.

The sexual assaults against teenage boys and one man occurred between 1970 and 1980, Ontario Provincial Police said.

Daniel Miller, 67, has been charged with three counts each of gross indecency and indecent assault.

Miller was released from custody on a promise to appear in a Renfrew court March 28.

Police continue the investigation. Anyone with information can call the Renfrew County OPP crime unit at 613-432-3211 or 1-888-310-1122.


Enough for now,


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

11 Responses to Can you believe it?

  1. Sylvia says:

    I have added a news clip above. father Dan Miller, a priest with the Diocese of Pembroke, Ontario, has been charged.

    I will start a page later this evening. I commend those who found the courage to come forward and go to police.

  2. Walter Holman says:


    Please explain to me why you continue to use the honorific “Father” when discussing the charges against these priests.

  3. Sylvia says:

    It’s a constant reminder Walter that those who warrant the title/salutation are priests in the Roman Catholic Church. For those clergy who have been convicted or had “credible” allegations reported to diocesan officials it’s a reminder that Church officials have not done their job – those known predators have not been laicized/defrocked.

  4. Larry Green says:

    Sylvia, there is nothing unbelievable at all in any of the above. Disheartening , discouraging, unfair, immoral and evil but not in the least unexpected nor unbelievable.
    I can very easily and readily believe it. It would be much more difficult to believe otherwise.

  5. Larry Green says:

    There is a correlation between Priesthood and sexual predator.

  6. Larry Green says:

    A strong correlation.

  7. Larry Green says:

    It happens that sometimes sexual predators are caught , apprehended , tried, convicted and sentenced … end of story. At other times one pervert “ getting caught “ represents the opening of a ‘new can of worms’ which have the potential to be a nightmare for a greater number of people who managed to convince themselves in their own little world that ‘ keeping secrets’ to protect criminals is the honourable thing to do because it’s ‘ for the good of the church image.’ For as long as the lid is on the ‘ can ‘ these enablers are seduced into believing that their conduct is justified and will never be discovered or scrutinized by a legal system that is regulated by principles which are in direct opposition to such immoral conduct.
    Might be time to pay the piper.

  8. Walter Holman says:

    Sylvia says,

    “It’s a constant reminder Walter that those who warrant the title/salutation are priests in the Roman Catholic Church. . . . it’s a reminder that Church officials have not done their job – those known predators have not been laicized/defrocked.”

    One of the reasons that these predators were not reported to the police earlier is because “Father” is attached to their name. Father is an emotive word and carries with it the idea that a father figure is a good and trustworthy man. In the RCC, a Father must be respected, obeyed and deferred to. You are perpetuating this myth when you apply the title to accused/convicted priests. While you are waiting for priests to be laicized/defrocked, you should laicize/defrock them yourself; drop the honorific

  9. Larry Green says:

    I do aggree with Walter !

  10. Mike Mc says:

    Fr Des McGrath, Fr George Smith and Bishop Lahey will always be Fr and Bishop to me. You might argue the above or tell me I am tarred with the Catholic brush. Perhaps I am. But I must say that when I use the terms Fr and Bishop for these men, it brings to me an awareness how a title can be misleading. They were called this because we trusted them and respected them. How wrong. How sad it is to see a priest today and begin to wonder and speculate. So if they (priests today) are still called Father, I hope they live up to the word in both good actions and deeds.
    It is interesting, however, ….even though I am no Bible thumper,…. it does say: ” “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9).

  11. Sylvia says:

    Walter & Larry, I know that many disagree with me, and strongly.

    I don’t believe that these men warrant the honour of being a spiritual father to anyone. I also firmly believe that until Church officials defrock these men the message which is conveyed to one and all is that they are fit to be priests and hence spiritual fathers.

    I cringe every time I say or type the words “Father” when dealing with a convicted or known clerical predator. But, as I have said elsewhere, it reminds me constantly of what has not been done and what must be done.

    Yes, it’s an oxymoron. But, until such time as these men are defrocked they are, God help us, priests in the Roman Catholic Church and hence accorded the title of Father.

Leave a Reply