There are some things that the average person truly could not make up. I beleive the following falls into that category.
You recall that Father Javier De Los Angeles Cortazar ‘walked’ from his sexual assault charges against a follow priest. Cortazar had ‘won’ a stay of proceedings, and that only after he had placed his accuser in a no-win situation of either answering a question posed by defence which would cause him, the accuser/ complainant, to violate the Seal of Confession and be excommunicated, or refuse to answer, hence be cited for contempt of court which would invariable lead to his own incarceration.
The complainant opted to stay true to his solemn vow and, even though answering could possibly if not probably have assisted him, declined to answer the question. Rather than see the complainant be cited with contempt and land in jail, the Crown asked for a stay. As I understand it, the stay in this case puts the case on hold for a year. In other words, it is not over per se. Because this is a stay requested by the Crown, if there is occasion to bring the case back to trial within the next year, that can be done.
Now, just look at this:
Bishop Thevenot is rejoicing! Rejoicing!!!
He is rejoicing as he erroneously reports that the case against Father De Los Angeles Cortazar “has been dismissed.”
It was not dismissed. It was stayed. There is a difference.
Do you see one iota of compassion or concern in there for the complainant? Just one teeny weeny bit of compassion?
Nothing. The bishop apparently could care less for the plight of the complainant, and even less for the fact that he, the complainant, was true to his solemn vow and upheld the Seal of Confession. The bishop couldn’t care less. The bishop is, it seems, just thrilled that, in his mind, Father De Los Angeles Cortazar had been exonerated and is therefore set to “resume ministry. ”
This is disgusting!
The bishop knows full well what Father De Los Angeles Cortazar did to the complainant sexually, and he’s known for a darn long time. And the bishop knows full well that the case came to a grinding halt because, and only because, Cortazar holds absolutely no respect for the Seal of Confession.
But, the bishop is rejoicing. And Cortazar is back hearing confessions and offering up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
How sick and twisted is all of this?
I sent the following email off the the bishop nine days ago (18 April 2017). To date, no response:
As a Roman Catholic I have very deep concerns regarding the manner in which Father Javier De Los Angeles Cortazar chose to defend himself at trial against the sexual assault charges originating from the allegations of a fellow priest. It is beyond reprehensible that Father De Los Angeles Cortazar would put the complainant priest in such a situation, ie., that the complainant either (1) violates the Seal of Confession and incurs excommunication, or (2) upholds the Seal of Confession, thus remaining silent and thereby facing a charge of contempt of Court and jail.
As Father De Los Angeles Cortazar well knows the complainant priest can not even acknowledge whether he ever heard Father De Los Angeles Cortazar’s confession. He also well knows that he can say whatever he wants about the complainant priest and confession and the complainant priest will be excommunicated if he tries to respond. Father De Los Angeles Cortazar knows that as well as every priest.
Was this the best he could do to defend himself?
As is stands, thanks to what can only be viewed as a dirty clerical ploy, the trial was brought to a premature halt. Father De Los Angeles Cortazar “walks.”
Is this a case of Father De Los Angeles Cortazar determining that the end justifies the means? That, sadly, seems to be the case.
I have many many questions Your Excellency, but would like at the very least to inform those who follow my blogsite Sylvia’s Site what we can expect. I shall limit my questions to the following four:
Will there be a canonical investigation regarding the sexual assault allegations to determine if Father De Los Angeles Cortaza is in fact a sexual predator? And, if not, why not?
Will there be a canonical investigation to determine what penalty can and should be imposed on a priest who defends himself by forcing his accuser, also a priest, to choose between excommunication and jail?
Will you perhaps inform Father De Los Angeles Cortaza and his lawyer that that line of questioning regarding confession is not to be used as a defence ploy and insist that the case go back to trial?
Does Father De Los Angeles Cortaza have faculties to say Mass and hear confessions?
In truth the letter to the priests answers all questions. Father De Los Angeles Cortaza will carry on ‘ministering’ as though he never laid a wayward hand on a fellow priest. There will be no canonical investigations of anything. And, lest we forget, in the midst of all this sacrilege and cover-up, Archbishop Thevenot is joyful. He rejoices.
God help us. Dear Lord God above, help us.
Please keep the complainant in your prayers
Enough for now,