CFRA Soundoff poll

Share Button

580 CFRA

05 July 2012

CFRA Soundoff (results as of 11:40 am)

CFRA Soundoff

Does the Archdiocese of Ottawa bear some of the responsibility for the series of events that led to charges against Fr. Joe LeClair? (Please vote first. To comment, email [email protected])

  1. Yes, the archdiocese failed Fr. LeClair and the parishioners with lax financial procedures and by ignoring the priest’s workload and gambling problem.
    46.2%
  2. No, despite the lack of financial checks and balances, if money went missing, the responsibility rests with whoever took it.
    53.7%

CFRA Soundoff (results as of 06:30 am)

Does the Archdiocese of Ottawa bear some of the responsibility for the series of events that led to charges against Fr. Joe LeClair? (Please vote first. To comment, email [email protected])

  1. Yes, the archdiocese failed Fr. LeClair and the parishioners with lax financial procedures and by ignoring the priest’s workload and gambling problem.
    36.1%
  2. No, despite the lack of financial checks and balances, if money went missing, the responsibility rests with whoever took it.
    63.8%

14 Responses to CFRA Soundoff poll

  1. Norm says:

    So if I am out of work, in need of cash, the bank left its doors unlocked, I walked in and helped myself to the cash, the bank is at fault for my crime, not me? That is what the 36.1% are saying.

  2. Sylvia says:

    That’s about it Norm, and it gets worse – as of 11:40 am the numbers are up to a rather unbelievable 46.2%

  3. Larry Green says:

    *

    I sure find it very difficult to understand what relevance or significance the statistical result from a CFRA POLL has to do with any sense of treating people with respect or dignity at all. It’s as though we are trying to separate one group from another to achieve some form of measurement that may indicate which side ‘I’ should be on. Most times these ‘ mock’ surveys are carelessly conducted and based the known premise that people in general want to be on the ’ winning’ side i.e. the stronger , the most popular. In other words their aim is to provide a fundamentally primitive source of entertainment, to build stronger walls and has nothing to do with ascertaining the truth.

    Norm , if you’re vehicle has ever been stolen or ever gets stolen and you call the cops, the first question they will ask is “did you lock the doors?” If you say no then you bear some responsibility for your missing vehicle. That doesn’t make you the criminal and it does not render the thief free from ‘fault’ or guilt.

    Like it or not , we all do bear some responsibility for many reasons and in many ways for all criminal activity, sickness and injustice.

    Doesn’t mean that Fr Joe isn’t guilty though and it doesn’t mean that he should not take responsibility for his own action and misconduct. It doesn’t mean that he should be exonerated from retribution according to the laws of the land. I have not seen anywhere that he has blamed anyone else for what he has done and if that is indeed the case then he is more likely than not well on a road to recovery because that is always the first step to recovery , taking responsibility for ones own action , because no one can take away our free will. Of course there are people who are angry and have been deeply hurt and want to see him punished and rightly so. Of course there are those who are more compassionate and merciful for whatever reason and would like the whole tragedy to be not real and just forget about it. I can empathize with how they feel because I know if Fr. Joe was my son or if my daughter did the same I would react the very same. There is no one side ‘worse’ than the other, there are in reality no sides at all , we are all unique and we all react differently and in our own way to tragic events.

    I feel it’s important to reiterate here, what I said on another thread after watching the video Sylvia posted :

    It certainly serves to reveal the heart of a very good , compassionate and broken man. One who is truly and surely worthy to be recognized as an inspiration to many with mental health disorders, addictions , families and friends of those inflicted with the same and also to so many ‘ healthy’ , ‘ NORMAL’ people who care about the health and welfare of others who are not as fortunate as so many of us ’rich ’ people i.e. lots of friends; plenty of ’success’; strong relationships; well structured upbringing with ’healthy , smart and caring ’ parents ; born without inherited psychological or physiological flaws or defects.

    The sad part about it all is that it takes a broken man like Fr. Joe LeClair to demonstrate to the world that the weak , the vulnerable , the powerless individuals of our society ‘ as Jesus was’ should not be discarded or despised as they are because in reality the ‘rich’ can only be transformed by the ‘poor.’

    I do not know you personally Fr. Joe LeClair but I know you are much like Jesus as you walk courageously in His footsteps ( stumble as you may my friend indeed) and I am one who will always be willing to support you in your journey, whether you are up or you are down.

    Larry Green

    • Suzanne Herrick-Lee says:

      The survey reflects our society’s trend that one doesn’t have to be accountable if there are circumstances; (crimes of opportunity) that led to the alleged crimes…. if Fr Joe didn’t have the popular following of his parishoners; the survey would be mute…It was due to his popularity that he was able to skirt the procedures that were in place; as for being over-worked- he made choices- he hosted a weekly radio show- that was a choice- yes- he had a heavy work load….but; so do many others in our society today…. the allegation that he took items totalling  $20,000 with him as he headed to Southdown; really floors me….if this allegation is true; then the deed smells of entitlement and dare I say narcissism?  I also query what his colleague priests think of the matter… I support all people out there who every day are fighting addictions- but if they break the law; they need to be held accountable- when one can acknowledge the deeds; deal with the consequences; then their healing can begin-….. I do pray for Fr Joe and all the parishoners…. but…many need to step back from their emotional attachments and take a reality check of the facts..

  4. Norm says:

    Who you are and what good you have done should not change how you are treated based on the laws you have broken. My fear is that Joe will be treated differently based on his position.

    It could be argued also that he should be treated more harshly because he was in a position of trust, but I don’t agree with that. He needs to be treated in a fair and secular way under the law. The pious can choose to forgive, but that should not change the legal restitution that he will face if found guilty.

    Earl Jones is human as well, he betrayed a trust and is serving 11 years. He is not a priest, but that should not matter.

    Larry, you are correct about the CFRA poll. It is a mere amusement to provoke discussion and has no scientific merit.

  5. Larry Green says:

    Suzanne , I do not believe and I don’t think you do either that any reasonably minded person thinks that Fr. Joe should not be held accountable for whatever crime he may have committed. Surely you yourself have not concluded on any reasonable basis that this so called ‘ survey’ really reflects any societal trend whatsoever. You know very well the difference between ; a sound and reliable survey; and ; a fake one designed to fuel emotion cause chaos in order to gain ratings and to provide entertainment at the expense of human dignity and respect. There is no random sampling here , the selected sampling is much to narrow to form such broad conclusions as you have Suzanne. The so called ‘survey’ specifically targets and appeals to those who are emotionally charged with love and sorrow or with hate and disdain.

    Addiction is a disease which affects the whole personality of the addict and it affects everyone in many ways who are involved the addicts life. It is NOT a disease which ends with the object of addiction. “ Supporting those with addictions” ( recovering or active ) should not entail kicking them when their down. Fr. Joe is down, he’s caught , he’s going to pay for his deeds no matter who thinks he should or shouldn’t. Why kick a human being when he/she is down. Jesus is there to help him up ‘I believe’ why kick the both of them.

    If you knew what a colleague priest thought of the matter, would you judge him based on those thoughts?

  6. Larry Green says:

     

    I agree with you that there is a growing trend in our society and perhaps the world that many people respond to the suffering of others with ‘emotional attachment’ but I believe that is a true sign that love and compassion are far from being diminished and we choose to see which ‘facts we want to see.

  7. Lina says:

    *There is no fear that Fr. Joe LeClair will be treated differently based on his position. I have yet not seen a priest who got himself into some kind of trouble with the law that he didn’t have a good representation, good lawyer(s). No doubt, he will be well looked after.

    Fr. Joe LeClair’s supporters are going through a grieving process and that is to be expected.

    It’s difficult to witness a priest you like and admire do things you never would believe a priest would do. It’s embarrassing and it does hurt to hear your priest took part in a crime. This priest is now probably made fun of in form of bad jokes. He let many people down. It doesn’t mean you need to stop caring about your beloved priest it just mean many other folks do not want to share that caring part about him with you all just yet or even never.

    Lina

  8. Rina says:

    Fr. Joe is/has suffered from depression, which can cause the strangest / unexpected reactions in a person.  We the general public do not understand enough about this disease and what it can do to the brain.  We should not judge.  It is most unfortunate the sequence of events that have happened, but I trust the Lord will guide Fr. Joe to an even greater position in life.  He has guided many of us, and now I feel it is our responsibility to help him and/or pray for him.  We needed him, but now he needs our positive support!  Many of us love, admire, respect Fr. Joe in spite of the happenings and wish him all the best. 

  9. prima facie says:

    *
    Well, I’d like to write a few words here…been on an extended
    vacation.

    The following reflect my opinions and thoughts of course.  I like Suzanne’s post dated July 5th, 2012. I believe she has a good
    understanding of our current state of affairs. Further to her post, I witness daily, wherein, if a
    suspect or an accused is fighting an addiction or other real or perceived
    mental illness, then society’s trend and the trend of  “public
    administrators”-i.e.) justice, legislators, et al, is to rationalize, justify the criminal behaviour and minimize the consequences ordered
    against the accused.  Very often, the
    “mental illness, including addiction” only “comes to light” subsequent to a
    person becoming a significant suspect or officially, being charged as an accused.
    In addition, many people in the “suspects/accused” entourage have known or
    suspected untoward behaviours with the “suspect”, but elected to remain silent.
    Co-conspirators?

    However, contrary to Suzanne’s assertion and the “CFRA Sound
    off poll”, I do not believe this is a “trend”. Believe me, this is “public
    policy” and it will be here for awhile. Tighten your seatbelts folks.

    As a person who entered alcohol and other drug addictions
    treatment in 1986 and thereafter, was also diagnosed as being bipolar, (all of which are now classified as mental illnesses in the
    “Diagnostic Statistical Manual” and the eyes of society’s administrators)
    , I wonder….gee…what could I actually do and get away with or
    at least face sympathetic, minimal consequences….if I got caught? I also think, “has
    anyone else fantasized this”?

    Will the more elitist, affluential members of our society
    face the same “labels mental illness classifications” as we members of the
    subordinate classes do? Or, will “they” for whatever reason, in most cases, elude the “labelling” and
    possible ostracizing? We all know some big names.

    As far as Larry’s post of July 5, 2012 at 6:13pm; I see
    Larry as writing as I have often seen him write in the past…..like he is
    reading from the pulpit. As I see it, Larry tells us what we “of the reasonably
    minded people” should conclude. I “assume” that if we do not, then we are not
    reasonable minded people. Larry and others then construct various assertions
    relating to the “CFRA Sound off Poll”. Get real people, “The Poll” was just
    that, an unscientific “sampling” of “CFRA listeners”, not the province, not the
    country, not the world, but of “CFRA listeners”. This is very reasonable to me…just
    as a “poll” can be conducted in a household, neighbourhood, classroom,
    university, any website, etc. Obviously, a poll conducted by “CFRA” would be
    targeted to the “CFRA” listening area.

    Finally regarding kicking a human being when he/she is down.
    I don’t believe Suzanne was doing that. Larry implies, 1st sentence, that
    Fr. Joe should be held accountable for whatever crime he may have committed and then he writes
    later on about not kicking someone when they are down. In MANY cases I see many people “kicked” while they are down. ex) stereotyping mental illness, discrediting and intimidating victims of sexual abuse in and out of the courtroom, taking advantage of the aged, the ignorant and the uneducated, etc., etc. So let’s get into context here.

    Larry writes in his final statement on one of his recent posts, “we choose to see the facts we want to see.” No kidding! Everyone does, lawyers, civilians, etc., etc…..so “we” can “win” what we want to “win”. Very few people or institutions present all of the facts.

    The biggest voice, the most often heard, presenting their interpretation (unchallenged) of the facts, wins the public opinion and WINS.

    So really, it all comes to that,..as Larry implies, the lawyers via the courts will
    decide “whatever crime he MAY have committed” and then the accountability
    and/or consequences will be assigned from the context of “not kicking him when
    he’s down.”

    And more outrageous is that Larry asserts we will be kicking
    Jesus too.

    Again, who’s kicking-really!

    The old story, “shame us into submission”.

  10. Mike says:

    Rina;
         You say “we should not judge”.  Should this also apply to the catholic church? Please think about this in terms of the Inquisition and the Reformation.      Mike.

  11. Sylvia says:

    I’ve been thinking about the cleansing of the Temple, where Our Lord went into the temple with a whip, and overturned the tables of the money changers, and told those present that it was supposed to be a house of prayer but they had turned it into a den of thieves. (Matthew 21: 12; Luke 19: 45,46; John 2 13-16.)

    He didn’t take kindly to thievery.  I know it’s not quite the same as the situations we find in the Church these days, but the very fact that Christ called those in the  to belittle them seems to indicate that He didn’t think well of thieves or thievery.  He did however forgive the good thief on the cross.  The thief still died on the cross as punishment for this crime: he was not spared that.  But, the good thief was to be welcomed into Heaven.

    Food for thought?  I think it is.

    • Larry Green says:

      *You’re soul is the ‘Temple’ Sylvia!
      Surely you don’t believe that those who crucified and executed our Lord and two ‘criminals’ were just men. Do you really take moral lessons from these people who wanted for many reasons to see Jesus suffer and die ? These actions were carried out with evil intent and motive and yet Jesus saw in them something deeper when He cried out in agony to God in heaven to forgive them “because they know not what they are doing.” Dosn’t being a Christian ( a follower of Christ) mean that we should follow HIS example and not those who crucified him.
      Didn’t he say ” let he who is without sin to be the first to cast a stone?” If any of those who are casting stones here are ” Christian ” then they belong to a new breed of human beings who have a pure white soul.

  12. Lina says:

    *That good thief was to be welcome into Heaven and I may add also no need for this good thief to make a pit stop in Purgatory. I always wonder about the good thief skipping Purgatory. I gather suffering on the cross by Jesus was all he needed?

Leave a Reply

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