He’s lost his sex drive, poor dear soul

Share Button

For those who may have missed the sad and disturbing news,  clerical molester Father Jacques Faucher, was sentenced yesterday to one year house arrest and 18 months probation:

16 February 2017:  “House arrest for the ex-priest Jacques Faucher” & original French text

16 February 2017:  “Former priest Jacques Faucher given house arrest for molesting choir boys” & related article

According to the google translation in the first posting:

Judge Pierre Roger referred to a psychiatric report revealing that the ex-priest no longer had any sexual urges. In his decision on Thursday, it states that “this report indicates that today Mr. Faucher is not sexually active, that he has been suffering from sexual dysfunction for two or three years, that he has lost interest in Sexuality and that he has no impulses “.

First, Faucher is still a priest.  That may be an error in translation, but, to my knowledge, Faucher is still very much a priest:  he has not been defrocked/laicized.

That aside, in light of Faucher’s numerous violations of his release conditions I can not for a moment fathom why any judge , or anyone for that matter, would put stock in a report by anyone alleging that Faucher has not had any sexual drive for the past two to three years.

Why would anyone suppose that Faucher risked violating a court order numerous times to lurk around swimming pools watching children running around in bathing suits?  I don’t think it takes rocket science to sort that out?

I suppose that there is a remote possibility that Justice Roger was not advised of the breach conviction and” sentencing.”  If not, why not?

Surely the circumstances surrounding the breach alone are sufficient to appeal this “sentence”?

The breach and ‘lack of sexual drive aside,” what ever happened to holding criminals accountable for their crimes?  Have we slipped so far into a  ‘be kind and charitable to molesters’ abyss that those who molest, deceive, lie and betray with abandon for a lifetime without being caught are rewarded?  And, rest assured – at least as far as I am concerned – house arrest is a reward.  When it comes to being held accountable for the lifetime of damage that he has inflicted upon his victims and their families, does it matter whether Faucher does or does not have a sex drive? and whether this priest’s sex drive did or did not disappear two or three years ago?

Why do the large percentage of judges never ever see the cover-up and deception and lying of the molester as a negative?  To put it another way, why should a clerical molester, or any molester for that matter,  be rewarded if he can just buy time by continuing to lie, deceive, betray and cover-up until he’s  perceived as aged and grey?

Poor Father Faucher.  He’s 80-years-old.  He’s lost his sex drive.   Let’s give the poor dear soul a break.   House arrest.

This sickens me.

What about the damage done to those boys?  To their families?  To the countless Catholics who were so sorely betrayed by this wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Where is the justice?

And, yes, I do refer to him as “Father.”  I realize that upset many, and I understand why, however, that is the reality of the situation.   We are talking about convicted child molester Father Jacques Faucher.

That’s an oxymoron, is it not?   ” convicted child molester Father Jacques Faucher”?  The truth is that until someone decides that a predator like this does not belong in the priesthood, that’s the reality.  Father Facuher, convicted child molester.

A sad state of affairs indeed, both in and out of the Church.  Tolerance for the unconscionable and abhorrent acts of child molesters abounds.

Back to the ruling…

Let’s hope an pray that the Crown appeals this insult of a sentence.  It truly is an insult to every one of those victims who first found the courage to go to police, and then set aside four years of their lives to see justice done.  Please keep them all, and their families, in your prayers.

*****

The next court date for previously convicted child molester Father Barry McGrory is:

08 March 2017: 08:30 am.  “to be spoken to,”  courtroom #5, Ottawa courthouse (161 Elgin St.

Father McGrory, a priest with the Archdiocese of Ottawa, entered a guilty  plea August 1993 to a charge of sex assault of 17-year-old native boy.   These new sex abuse charges were laid 25 November 2016.

Please keep the victims and complainants in your prayers:

 

*****

The following two articles are of interest regarding dollars paid in out-of-court settlements:.

17 February 2017:  Australian catholic church pays $212m to abuse victims  

15 February 2017:  Pacific News Minute: Sex Abuse Charges Against Priests in Guam Spread to CNMI

*****

There are a multitude of articles out regarding the Holy Father writing the preface to a book written by Daniel Pittet, a victim of clerical sexual abuse:

16 February 2017:  “‘I humbly ask for forgiveness,’ pontiff tells victims of clergy sex abuse” & related articles

I commend Daniel Petit for speaking out, and for finding the grace to forgive his molester.  As most of you would probably agree, the forgiveness of his molester is a huge step.  People often think that forgiving negates the pursuit of justice.  No, it does not.  There can be forgiveness while seeking seeking justice.

Anyway, I shall wait to see what the Pope does.  I await the day  a decision is made to defrock every known molester in the priesthood.  That wiull truy be the start of addressing the blight of predatory priest.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

 

 

This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Bishops, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Pope Francis, Scandal, Vatican and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to He’s lost his sex drive, poor dear soul

  1. John MacDonald says:

    At least now we know what he was doing at the pool…..he was looking for that long lost sex drive.

    John

  2. Anonymous says:

    You may wish to get your hands on the court transcripts, because judge Pierre Roger would have asked the Crown and the defence if the pool incident should have a bearing on his decision…and they BOTH said NO. To which he would have replied “Are you sure?”(incredulously I would imagine). I assume this happened in a hearing shortly before the sentencing.

    • Sylvia says:

      Are you saying the judge DID ask the Crown and defence if they thought the pool incident should have a bearing on his decision and both said no, or are you saying that you THINK the judge might have asked both and they both said no?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *