I have been reading the information on Farther Barry McGrory a little more closely – trying to sort out where exactly he is coming from. Part of my dilemma probably relates to a few email exchanges I had with him four years ago, back in January 2012, and again in January 2013.
First, here are links to three of the articles Andrew Duffy wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:
17 May 2016: Special report: Insurance lawsuit reveals secrets of Ottawa’s clergy abuse scandal
17 May 2017: “Priest admits to sexual abuse for first time in Citizen interview” here.
17 May 2016: Special Report: ‘I’ve been given peace:’ Rev. Barry McGrory
The latter two deal solely with McGrory.
Now, here is the issue. I will recount it to allow you read what Father McGrory has to say today in light of what he had to say to me four years ago. Normally I would paraphrase, but right now I don’t want to risk being accused of taking someone else’s words out of context.
Here we go….
On 21 October 2011 “Anonymous” posted the following comment on the Father Barry McGrory page:
I publicly asked Anonymous to email me a first name and phone number.
On the 24th of January 2012 I received the following email from Father Barry McGrory:
i knew you had a site for me, but was shocked when a friend told me that ‘Anonymous’ had alleged that i am a pedophile. i was more surprised that you had to ask for a name and an e-dress from this person. Is this your common practise, to publicize such anonymous, unfounded, damaging allegations? Now over three months have passed, and there has been no reply to your request, or so it would seem. Perhaps you could consider removing it?
I replied, on the same date (24 January 2012):
Thank you for your reply. But replying to that person would likely only provoke a shouting match. i believe that the onus is on you not to publicize any Anonymous slanderous charges, especially one so serious that effects so many. This is a matter effecting your site’s integrity, is it not?
On Friday 26 January 2012 I wrote:
Later that day, 26 January 2012, Father McGrory replied
That is very kind of you, Sylvia, but why not just remove it? It has been up there for since October 21 with no activity. Doesn’t that say anything?
On Friday 27 January 2012 I received the following email from Father McGrory:
In Father McGrory’s reply on the same date (27 January 2012) there was no response to the question:
This anonymous person states that i am a dangerous, convicted pedophile who ‘is always abusing others.’ That is libelous and actionable in law, Sylvia. Currently there are few more damaging accusations. Why would you publish it on your site?
Once more i respectfully request that you remove that statement.
As a result of the exchange, I posted the following comment on the Father Barry McGrory thread:
I have been contacted by Father Barry McGrory. He advised me that he was shocked to see you allege that he is a paedophile. He wants me to remove your comment.
I suggested to Father McGrory that he say what he wants to see to you here as a comment, and I offered to post his comment if he doesn’t know how. He declined. He believes the onus is on me to remove your comment.
We have had a few more exchanges. He is using words such as “slanderous” and “libelous and actionable in law.” I decided to bring it to an end by posting this comment.
As everyone who follows this site knows I decided long ago to refer to those who sexually abuse children – teens included – as sexual predators or molesters. The decision came after learning that no matter which classification was used it created an uproar somewhere, and that the “experts” regularly disagree on definitions.
As I told Father McGrory, and as I said many years ago, most people refer to molesters as paedophiles. They just do. They always have, and, I believe they probably always will. The average person does not know what an ephobophile, or hebophile or pederast is – they just say paedophile. However, I suggest to you Anonymous, and to one and all, that unless a clerical molester has been formally labelled a paedophile in a court of law they may take exception and there may be legal ramifications.
I have no proof that Father Barry McGrory is a paedophile. He tells me he is not. I do have proof that he, a Roman Catholic priest, molested a 17-year-old native boy. And I do have proof that he was convicted in a court of law for molesting that boy.
Anonymous, if you have proof that Father McGrory is a paedophile, then away you go. If, however, you don’t have documentation which proves he is a paedophile then best to use another word.
Choose your words carefully people. If you have no legal proof that an individual is a paedophile best avoid use of the term completely. That it seems is where we are at. We seem to have reached some sort of threshold where the ultimate insult to a clerical sexual predator is to be referred to as a paedophile. I don’t pretend to understand it, but I do know that that’s the way it is.
Nearly a year ago I blogged “Watch the language.” I think of that now. It seems we are entering an era where there is other cause to watch the language – legal cause. So please, a reminder to one and all, watch the language. They are watching.
And, that seemed to be the end of it..
Until 28 January 2915, the following from Father McGrory
i wrote a message here, Syvlia, then took a break to prayerfully
consider my appeal to you to remove the calumnious statemnet by
‘anonymous’ now up there since a year ago November? When i got back
this site was blank. Did the letter get sent? Please let me know.
That was the end of our communication.
Of course, as we know, while Father McGrory was engaged in long term sexual abuse of a young teenage girl which started when the girl was 13, he was also engaged in long-term abuse of young boy which started around the time the boy was all of a 9 or 10 years of age. I’m not sure if the abuse of each began simultaneously, but for a number of years he he was certainly abusing both at the same time. And, oh yes, he claims that the abuse of the boy was an exception because the victim was so young.
He claims he is hebephile. And, of yes, he claims it is an illness.
God help us. Dear Lord G0d above help us and have mercy on us.
Thankfully, it’s supper time 🙂 I’ve had enough
In closing, yes, I do refer to him as Father Barry McGrory. And, yes, it is an oxymoron, isn’t it? For me it is a constant reminder of what hasn’t been done that should have been done. Father Barry McGrory should have been defrocked years ago.
And another expose from the Andrew Duffy and the Ottawa Citizen. I’ve scanned but not read it yet. Here it is:
18 May 2016: Ottawa diocese repeatedly warned about local clergy’s most notorious abuser
Enough for now,
Barry McGrory is a pedophile — articulate predators are the most dangerous. I civilly sued The Ottawa Diocese in 1997 for sexual abuse. The priest who abused me was Barry McGrory. I know of at least 5 other people he abused and I am sure there are many more. I was assured by the Diocese that he would not be allowed to call himself a retired priest nor ever work in a counseling capacity again. All lies. He continues to call himself a retired priest, work with others, and I am sure abusing them — he is a fraud and a very disturbed man. The Canadian press does not do there vetting on this man — he is a convicted pedophile — that is the only thing that should be written after his name, NOT retired priest.