Dohey: Father Wayne Dohey

Share Button
Dohey Father Wayne CBC pic

CBC photo – (Courtesy Archbishop Howley Assembly)

Wayne Gerard Dohey

Priest, Diocese of St. John’s Newfoundland.  Ordained 1987.  2001 sex abuse allegations reported to Archbishop Brendan O’Brien – Father Dohey sent for counselling and then recycled back into parishes.  2007 charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation in relation to the 2001 allegations.  Charges dismissed after preliminary hearing by judge who did not believe that Father Dohey had a relationship of trust with the victim.  Father Dohey is currently in active ministry in the Archdiocese of St. John’s, Newfoundland.

07 March 2014:  News release from Archdiocese of St. John’s that Father Wayne Dohey has been suspended pending the outcome of an investigation .  The nature of the allegations and who exactly (police or archdiocese?) is conducting the investigation is unknown


18 May 2014:  St. Patrick’s priest Wayne Dohey won’t be charged: archbishop

10 March 2014:  Complaint against priest Wayne Dohey filed with RNC

09 March 2014:  “Priest suspended in St. John’s parish following complaint” & related articles


Archbishops of the Archdiocese of St.  John’s Newfoundland form time of Father Gerard Dohey’s ordination to the presentAlphonsus Penney (April 1979-February 1991); James MacDonald (February 1991-December 200o); Brendan O’Brien (December 2000 – June 2007); Martin Currie (October 2007- )


The following information is drawn from Canadian Catholic Church Directories (CCCD) which I have available, and media (M)

2017:  address for t. John the Baptist Basilica (CCCD)

May 2014:  police will not lay charges in relation to allegations of March 2014 (M)

March 2014:  further allegations unrelated to previous allegations  –  Father Dohey suspended.  (M)

2013:  Pastor at St. Patrick’s Parish, St. John’s Newfoundland (Message on St Patrick’s website)

2013:  Member of the Archdiocesan Board of Administrators (External link)

2012:  listed as Pastor at St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church, St. John’s, Newfoundland AND Pastor at Saint John Bosco Roman Catholic Church, St. John’s (Shea Heights), Newfoundland (CCCD)

Secretary for Presbyteral Executive Committee (external link)


Most Reverend Martin W. Currie, D.D.

Reverend Patrick Power, Chairperson

Reverend Jeffery Kolonel, Vice-Chair

Reverend Wayne Dohey, Secretary

Ms. Anne Walsh – Recording Secretary

2011:  listed as Pastor at St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church, St. John’s, Newfoundland AND Pastor at Saint John Bosco Roman Catholic Church, St. John’s, Newfoundland (CCCD)

2010:  address and phone number for Saint Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church, St. John’s, Newfoundland (Pastor, Father Msgr. James Doody) (CCCD)

March 2007:  Charged (M) – suspended from pastoral duties (M)

Fall 2006:  Assigned to serve in churches in the Placentia region of the St. John’s Archdiocese (M)  According to media report, Archbishop O’Brien said “churches” in both Placentia, and Belle Island were told about the complaint [which was received by the archdiocese and never made public] (M)

July 2006:  Administrator, St. Michael’s Parish, Bell Island, Newfoundland (External link)

July 2005:  St. Michael’s Parish, Bell Island, Newfoundland  (External link) Excerpt:

Greetings from St. Michael’s Parish:

The school year is complete and the excited kids and youth begin a few months pf relaxation/  For families and adults, it is time to take a vacation or to immerse themselves into the work that must be competed around Home and other properties.

It is also time to get ready for the Home Coming celebrations……

God Bless

Father Wayne Doherty

2005:  according to the complainant a sexual ‘relationship’ continued until 2005 (M)

– After couselling Father Dohey was assigned to serve at Belle Island (M)

– Father Dohey was sent for couselling (m)

2002:  address for the diocesan centre (CCCD)

2001:  Allegations of sex abuse reported to then Archbishop of St. John’s. Brendan O’Brien.  The Archbishop alleges the complainant did not want to go to police.  The Archbishop also alleged that counselling was offered to both the complainant and Father Dohey (M)  The complainant disputes the diocese’s claim that she did not want to go to police (M)

2000, 1999:  Pastor, Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, Marystown, Newfoundland (CCCD)

– no longer listed as member of diocesan Vocation Team (with Father James Doody) (CCCD)

1998, 1997:  Pastor, Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church, Marystown, Newfoundland (CCCD)

– only priest listed as member of the diocesan “Vocation Team” (CCCD)

1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1992:   St. Thomas Aquainas Parish, St. Lawrence, Newfoundland (CCCD)

– member of the diocesan “Vocation Team” (CCCD)

1991:  Pastor, Christ the King Parish, Rushoon, Placentia Bay (CCCD)



  ‘Give me a polygraph’

Accuser angry about Father Dohey’s discharge

The St. John’s Telegram

Geoff Meeker  Blog

30 November 2007

Father Wayne Dohey’s accuser is angry about the dismissal of charges against the Roman Catholic priest.

Dohey was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual exploitation, for incidents that allegedly happened between 1996 and 2000. He was placed on administrative duties until the case had been tried.

I actually interviewed the victim, who I will call Justine (her identity is protected by court order) in May of this year. During our 90-minute interview, I found her to be credible and believable. So did a reporter with the CBC, the Marystown RCMP and the Crown prosecutor.

However, the judge did not find her as credible. And because there is a ban on the publication of evidence related to the trial, I cannot tell you a lot more than that. However, I can talk about some of the fundamental points in Judge Harold Porter’s decision.

And frankly, there is cause for concern.

According to the Library of Parliament, Canada’s legal age of consent to sexual activity is 14 years, which is when Justine alleges the abuse began. However, the law “also makes it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 but under 18, where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and child.”

Outside of the usual authority that comes with being a priest in a small community, which is substantial in itself, Justine alleges that there was a relationship of trust and authority between her and Dohey. She says she was assigned to the Catholic Church in Marystown, after being sentenced to community service for drinking under age, and placed in the supervision of Father Dohey. However, the judge did not view this as a position of trust.

“Here, while the accused was the clergy for the complainant’s mother, he was not in a priest-penitent relationship with the complainant,” the judge writes in his decision.

However, Justine feels it was “quite obvious” that she was in a relationship of trust with Dohey.

“Not that I should have to explain this, but I had been going to this church for years before this, even before Wayne came to Marystown. There are cases where people go to a different faith church and never change religions. Does this mean the priest/pastor etc. is not really theirs?

“He (the judge) must have forgotten the fact that the reason I was in the presence alone with Wayne to begin with was because he was my mentor/supervisor’ when I had been assigned to do community service. Is this not a position of authority/trust? Judge Porter did not acknowledge Father Dohey’s position of trust and authority at any point in his decision.”

“(Judge) Porter stated that I gave no evidence of lack of consent… the evidence is that I was a scared, intimidated, impressionable 14 year old and he was a Roman Catholic priest and the adult in this situation.”

This issue of consent is just part of the decision, of course. The judge also maintains that Justine’s testimony is contradictory and unreliable a contention that Justine finds astonishing. In fact, she has written a five-page letter that rebuts, with anger and indignation, all of the reasons behind the judge’s decision. However, I cannot reproduce much of it because it relates to evidence that is banned from publication.

Having worked at The Sunday Express when we broke the Mount Cashel scandal, I will say this: I do not agree with the judge’s view that certain alleged behaviors of the accused are “difficult to believe”. I found them to be quite believable and within the realm of possibility, even for a priest.

As well, the judge places considerable emphasis on the fact that Justine denied the assaults when approached by the police some years earlier, in response to rumours’ they had heard.

“Anyone who is educated in the area of sexual assault/abuse is familiar with the pressure, fear and embarrassment victims and their families experience at the thought of the abuse being exposed,” Justine says. “A prime example of this are the many victims of Mount Cashel. Many of them waited years and years before exposing their abusers some never do. It is something that one has to prepare for, psychologically. It is very troublesome to know that judge Porter does not acknowledge the psychological aspects of this case.”

The judge also states that no one reported the situation to police, though Justine challenges this view.

“My father consulted a lawyer in Marystown regarding his obligation to report it and was told because I was 18 years old, there was really nothing he could do unless I chose to do it myself.

“I had to visit my family doctor and explain this to him in order to get my exams deferred. He said the same thing. If you were not 18, I would have to report this to the police.’

“If this was so important… WHY DIDN’T THE BISHOP REPORT IT WHEN HE FOUND OUT? He stated on the news that he was not obligated because I was 18 when I approached them.”

Justine alleges that there are numerous inconsistencies between her testimony and the judge’s apparent understanding of the facts.

“It’s funny how, of all the people that I have told this to in detail, (Judge) Porter is the only one that doesn’t believe it. The (investigating) police (officer) told me he has never had so much strong evidence in a case, all the testimonys are like a book, all the same. (Corporal) Hall said that every statement I gave which was three to three different officers were exactly the same. Give me a polygraph test!”

According to Justine, the Crown Prosecutor told her and her family that the issue of an appeal will be addressed within two weeks of the judge’s decision.

As for Father Dohey, the Archdiocese says he will remain on leave pending a review of the judge’s decision. However, as the judge said, Dohey is now “free to go on about his business.”


Judge’s decision outrages complainant in priest case

Last Updated: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 | 8:57 AM NT

A woman who says she was sexually assaulted by a priest in southern Newfoundland expressed outrage with a judge’s determination that she is not credible.

Judge Harold Porter discharged Rev. Wayne Dohey in provincial court in Grand Bank court this month, saying there was not enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

Wrapping up a preliminary inquiry, Porter concluded he did not believe the complainant, and that he did not believe a “reasonable jury could believe her” as well.

Dohey, 45, had been charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

“I was disappointed, disgusted,” said the complainant. “[I] just couldn’t see how it was possible … This is, like, the biggest example of injustice that I have ever seen in my life.”

The woman, who cannot be identified because of a publication ban, told police she and Dohey began having sex when she was 14.

The woman, now 25, maintains that what happened to her was a crime because Dohey, a Roman Catholic priest, was in a position of trust and authority.

But Porter disputed that, and in his decision wrote that Dohey “was a parish priest, but not the complainant’s, since she was in fact a member of a different faith.”

The woman, who was Anglican, began attending a Burin Peninsula Roman Catholic church long before Dohey became a parish priest there.

She said she cannot accept the judge’s finding.

“It blew me away,” said the woman. “I think if you are a priest, you are a priest.… It’s a position you hold 365 days a year — it just doesn’t matter.”

The woman maintained she had had a sexual relationship with Dohey over a five-year period, but that it was never consensual and that it continued because, she said, Dohey had control over her.

Porter said the complainant was not credible, because several years before she laid the complaint, she had denied to police that there was any sexual relationship.

In his decision, Porter cited case law that said a preliminary inquiry “does not require a judge to assess credibility.”

Alison Manning, the Crown prosecutor in Grand Bank, said she is evaluating Porter’s written decision.

Officials with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John’s have said the complainant came forward in 2001 and disclosed the relationship, but insisted at the time that she did not want to go to the police.

The church offered counselling at the time to the complainant and to Dohey.

Dohey remains on administrative leave, pending a review of Porter’s decision.

CBC News has not been able to contact Dohey.


Sex charges against priest dismissed

Last Updated: Thursday, November 1, 2007 | 4:34 PM NT

A judge in Newfoundland and Labrador has dismissed sex-related charges against a Roman Catholic priest.

Wayne Dohey, 45, was charged last year with sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

Criminal charges against Wayne Dohey, shown in a 1997 image, have been dismissed. Criminal charges against Wayne Dohey, shown in a 1997 image, have been dismissed.


At a hearing Thursday in Grand Bank, provincial court Judge Harold Porter dismissed both charges.

The charges were laid after a woman in her 20s complained about alleged incidents that occurred when she was 14. At the time, Dohey was working as a parish priest on the Burin Peninsula.

Last winter, Brendan O’Brien, then the archbishop of St. John’s, said the woman had approached church officials in 2001, but did not at the time want to press criminal charges. O’Brien said counselling was offered to both the woman and to Dohey.

Dohey was placed on administrative leave after the charges were laid.

Rev. Frank Puddister, speaking on behalf of the Archdiocese of St. John’s, said Dohey will remain on leave, pending a review of Porter’s decision.

Puddister said the archdiocese was glad


Roman Catholic priest charged with sexual assault appears in NL court

Canadian Press

20 August 2007

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. (CP) _ A Roman Catholic priest from Newfoundland charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation will be back in court today.

Wayne Dohey, 44, was charged with offences which allegedly occurred between 1996 and 2000 while he was parish priest in Marystown, N.L.

A preliminary inquiry is scheduled to begin today.

The accused has chosen to be tried by a Supreme Court judge and jury


Priest chooses jury trial on sex charges

Last Updated: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 | 3:41 PM NT

A Roman Catholic priest charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation has chosen to be tried by a Newfoundland Supreme Court judge and jury.

A lawyer for Wayne Dohey made that selection during a court appearance on Wednesday in Grand Bank. Dohey has pleaded not guilty.

Wayne Dohey, shown in a 1997 image, has elected trial by judge and jury.Wayne Dohey, shown in a 1997 image, has elected trial by judge and jury.

A Burin Peninsula woman alleges Dohey, 44, sexually assaulted her when she was 14.

The woman has said the abuse continued until her early 20s. The RCMP said the incidents that led to the charges occurred between 1996 and 2000.

A preliminary inquiry is scheduled for Aug. 20, in Grand Bank.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John’s suspended Dohey in March, when he was charged. He had been working in Placentia.

Archbishop Brendan O’Brien said in March that church officials were approached by the woman in 2001, although at the time she did not want to press charges.

O’Brien said that counselling was offered to both the woman and to Dohey.


Moral duty to inform authorities over priest allegations: advocate

CBC News

Last Updated: Monday, March 26, 2007 | 8:09 AM NT

Officials with the Roman Catholic Church in Newfoundland and Labrador should have contacted authorities in 2001, when it heard allegations that one of its priests had had sex with a minor, says the former chair of child protection at Memorial University.

Kathleen Kufeldt does not agree with the church’s decision not to inform authorities about a young woman who said she had had sex with Rev. Wayne Dohey when she was a teenager.

Dohey, 44, was charged earlier this month of sexual assault and sexual exploitation. He has been suspended from duties as priest in Placentia.

The complainant said she was 14 when she first had sexual intercourse with Dohey — an encounter she described as an assault.

The complainant approached church officials in 2001, but at the time did not want to go to the police. The RCMP said the alleged incidents that led to the charges occurred between 1996 and 2000.

Archbishop Brendan O’Brien has said the church did not have a legal obligation to report to authorities in 2001, because the complainant was an adult when she spoke with them.

Wayne Dohey, shown in a 1997 image, will appear in court in Grand Bank in May. Wayne Dohey, shown in a 1997 image, will appear in court in Grand Bank in May.

Kufeldt told CBC News she feels the church had a moral obligation to report the incidents, particularly because a priest was involved.

“Any person that has been found to have preyed on a young person sexually should be made known to the appropriate authorities,” said Kufeldt, who has retired and now lives in Calgary.

“Even more so … anybody in a professional position or a position of trust should be known to the police and the child welfare authorities. The church above all should be aware of its moral duty,” said Kufeldt.

The church offered counselling to both Dohey and the complainant.

Dohey had been working on the Burin Peninsula at the time of the alleged incidents.

After Dohey finished counselling, he was assigned to work as a parish priest on Bell Island and then in Placentia.

The complainant said the sexual relationship with Dohey continued until two years ago.

Dohey is scheduled to appear in court in Grand Bank on May 2.


23 Responses to Dohey: Father Wayne Dohey

  1. Disgusted Catholic III says:

    O’Brian was the same Bishop sent to the Pembroke Diocese and then himself made an archbishop for the performance he gave here. What year did he arrive here Sylvia? Was here for Prince fiasco? He was the bishop when the mother of a victim slapped\decked Miller for the abuse of her children, and O’Brian said she need anger management. If you dance the dance, you get a promotion. Bishop Smith also got the big step up for his part or lack of it. Coincidence I wonder.

    • Sylvia says:

      Here are the details regarding Archbishop Brendan O’Brien, a native of Ottawa, Ontario, since his consecration as bishop (I’ve shown the month of installation vs the date/month of appointment):

      June 1987-June 1993: Auxiliary Bishop of Ottawa, Ontario
      June 1993-December 2000: Bishop of Pembroke, Ontario
      December 2000-July 2007: Archbishop of St. John’s, Newfoundland
      July 2007 – : Archbishop of Kingston, Ontario

      Archbishop was well gone when the Prince scandal erupted publicly in 2006. I believe however that some Prince victims did have dealings with then Bishop O’Brien prior to the charges being laid, but don’t know the nature of the dealings. I will see if I can find out if the contact was positive for the victims – I also ask those who know anything in this regard to please contact me or post a comment.

  2. Sam says:

    Sounds to me she was like all the others now just wanting in on the money that comes from all this her story is no more believe able, I know the Priest involved and this is as further from the truth as you can get it. It’s about time that this judge saw people for who they really are, trying to destroy a mans life..shame on her carma my dear carma….

    • PJ says:

      Wow sam…you’re pretty judgemental without knowing all the facts. Watch out that karma doesn’t bite you back through a loved one of yours. Just because nothing has been reported in a while doesn’t mean it’s over…you poor ignorant individual. More than 95% of victims that come forward are genuine and trust me, we wouldn’t want anyone to go through what we go through to achieve justice. Go read some more on this website to see what anguish we face. Maybe then you’ll realize how hurtful and irresponsible your comments are.

  3. Sylvia says:

    I think I understand what triggered Sam’ comment. The latest from the Archdiocese of St. John’s Newfoundland is that Father Wayne Dohey has been suspended [pending the outcome of an investigation. There is no indication if the allegations are or are not sex related. Nor is there any indication as to who is conducting the investigation. Is it police? Is it officials with the archdiocese? Hopefully tomorrow will bring more news, – for now, here is coverage to date:

    09 March 2014: “Priest suspended in St. John’s parish following complaint” & related articles

  4. Leona says:

    I always appreciate when people like Sam come to this site and come to the defense of the priest that they know so well. It helps to highlight another one of the older stories Sylvia has documented on this blog. I then have the opportunity to reaffirm the purpose of staying vocal on this issue. It is clear that Sam is defending Dohey who from what I read, clearly had at MINIMUM a highly inappropriate relationship with the complainant. The judgement was based on the issue of age of consent, not whether or not there was a sexual relationship.
    It is hard to open one’s eyes to the darkness in this world especially when it comes to those we have come to trust. Sam’s protective defences are working hard to keep him from seeing the truth. Go easy on him, PJ!

  5. Charmaine Squires says:

    It infuriates and saddens me to no end when many people find it so easy to condemn a fellow human being immediately upon the first bit of news that he MAY have done something wrong. They will immediately and vigorously campaign for his guilt and insist on just that until he is proven innocent . This feeding-frenzy vulture type behavior is disgusting; it is toxic, and so very very wrong. Father Wayne is a good and decent man and I am certain that he would be the first to stand behind another in the same situation. That being said, none of us knows whether he is guilty or innocent. I’m just saying please let’s try to be kinder to one another. We are all struggling in this oftentimes very challenging existence and, collectively, we would all benefit by supporting one another, or at the least not pounce like vultures on a “suspected” law breaker. Judge not, people….

  6. B says:

    I know nothing about Father Wayne, and so am not going to judge him at this point.

    However, I believe that Christians are asked to judge what behaviour is and is not appropriate. In my books, an adult having sexual relations with a 14-year old child is completely and entirely inappropriate. A priest having sexual relations is also completely unacceptable, and using one’s position of trust (as a priest, counsellor, guide, leader, etc) to engage in sex is horrifying and reprehensible. In addition, lying under oath to save one’s skin is shameful.

    I agree that it saddens me when people easily condemn a fellow human being on the first hint of news that he or she may have done something wrong. In my case, it is the victims I tend to support, as numerous angry voices claim they are lying, are troublemakers, are looking at charges of abuse as a get-rich scheme, or other such judgements. They, too, should not be judged, until it’s possible to hear what was said in court and make up one’s own mind.

  7. JG says:

    Just stick your head in the sand! You’ll be fine…
    Don’t “Judge” Father?….Just don’t call him “Father” if he MAY have “abused” a 14 year old girl. There is a lot of smoke in this story and it is just a matter of locating the fire…
    Were it not for your “religious blindness” your almost generous and Christian display of words would have included just a hint of compassion for this “bit of news” we here MAY view as a victim of a not so “chaste” or “honest” man who was posing as a “servant” of Christ.
    You should be furious and very sad that this type of behavior was covered up by the church and that priests were move around, protected while the victims were told to forget, forgive and move on, when they are not simply “blamed” for seducing “father”!!!
    He did not volunteer for the polygraph in this story, did he?
    The victim did.
    I would have very few questions about her part in this. The priest and the judge…??Not so sure.
    Common sense should make you pause, at least. Open your eyes and take your head out of the sand, preferably not in that order, as you have demonstrated…
    I get the impression you want to believe the “swamp” is really a “rose garden”…if we could only go away!! I know! Much easier for everyone but not the solution.
    Your “pain” doesn’t begin to “compare”…

  8. Usef Tabriq says:

    Funny that anyone would become a priest these days. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

    The sad thing is many of you are secretly hoping he would be implicated in another sex related crime without even considering that would mean there is a victim. Then when he is not charged, and when it is finally released he was falsely and maliciously accused of something completely unrelated… what then? How will you spin that?

    I am not a fan of the Catholic church and I can accept the justice system some times makes mistakes, but what some of you are doing is like cancer that threatens the very life of a free and democratic society. You supplant the judgment of the system we have in place with your ill informed opinion and hold that up as the truth… all the while screaming burn the witch! Except now its burn the Priest!

  9. 1yellowknife says:

    Usef: Thanks for visiting this site and posting a frank response. I trust you will have the courtesy to hear my reply.

    1. If you have issues with the accuracy of the information Sylvia posts, please inform her. I am confident she will take any suggestions for correction of information she posts very seriously.

    2. My relationship with Sylvia began when I provided information on a series of residential school trials from Arctic Canada. If not for this site, others would not know of horror and the impact thereof. If it had happened in southern Canada, it would have been national news. Not so when it involves the remote arctic.

    3. My relationship with Sylvia evolved when I translated materials regarding a current pedopriest trial in Arctic Canada. If not for this site, this previously convicted pedofile would not have been returned to Canada to face his accusers.

    In summary, you may disagree with feedback on this site. Fair enough — at times I do as well. But the motives and ethics of the host/moderator deserve respect and thanks.

  10. Parishioner, St. Patrick's Parish says:

    “…2001 sex abuse allegations reported to Archbishop Brendan O’Brien – Father Dohey sent for counselling and then recycled back into parishes. 2007 charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation.”

    Is this the same or two different allegations? I believe it is the same “one” but leads readers to think there are two separate allegations. That would not be consistent with the fairness and integrity of this site. As of recent, whatever was the problem, Father Dohey has not been charged by the RNC. So, in all of these allegations the complainants just go about business as usual. Meanwhile, Father Wayne Dohey, never charged with respect to complaints, will carry the burden of same through his priesthood. While justice has taken its course, the priest will carry a haunting burden; the complainant(s) will get on with whatever they do.

    We happily await the return of Father Wayne to his duties as Parish Priest. We were never so blessed.

    • PJ says:

      Ah, goody for you for being so blessed! Aren’t you just a picture of happiness and bliss with blinders on? I’m sure the victim feels so blessed by that collar too. Wonder if you would feel so good if the victim was your relative?

  11. Sylvia says:

    I have re-worded that Parishioner to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.

    From what I read I’m not so sure the complainant who first went to Bishop O’Brien in 2001 and then had charges laid in 2007 just went about her, as you say, “business as usual.”

    Perhaps you should re-read the article above: ” ‘Give me a polygraph’: Accuser angry about Father Dohey’s discharge.”

    The “complainant” was upset. I get the impression that she was justifiably upset at the ruling, but, unfortunately for all, there is a publication ban on the proceedings from the preliminary hearing so, barring the media and others who were present for the testimony and must abide by the ban, no one will ever know what the evidence was. Such a shame.

  12. Parishioner, St. Patrick's Parish says:

    “I have re-worded that Parishioner to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.

    From what I read I’m not so sure the complainant who first went to Bishop O’Brien in 2001 and then had charges laid in 2007 just went about her, as you say, “business as usual.”

    Perhaps you should re-read the article above: ” ‘Give me a polygraph’: Accuser angry about Father Dohey’s discharge.”

    The “complainant” was upset. I get the impression that she was justifiably upset at the ruling, but, unfortunately for all, there is a publication ban on the proceedings from the preliminary hearing so, barring the media and others who were present for the testimony and must abide by the ban, no one will ever know what the evidence was. Such a shame.”

    Thank you for any re-wording to insure misunderstanding. As you state, you are not sure the complainant went about her business as usual. You are not sure. I read the article that you note and the accuser presented oneself as being angry at the discharge of Father Dohey. Justice was served. If emotions were to determine right and wrong, we would be in serious trouble today. That’s why we have “law”, the law. We cannot determine justice for all on emotions.

    “You get the impression that she was justifiably upset at the ruling – and that no one will ever know what the evidence was. Such as shame.” What you are suggesting to your readers is that this priest is guilty of allegations with which he has not been charged. You seemingly want the readers to believe he technically was not charged. Now, I think that is a shame. Justice has been served.

    That said, there have been grave and serious abuse of children and adults everywhere one can think of over the past decades. Not just sexually, but in every which way one could imagine. Your site is an informative site. It keeps so many alert to the dangers of the world we live in. However, the site is most assuredly focused on the Catholic clergy community of our part of the world. You might well think about expanding and adding other demographics to your site for some balance and abuse of persons by other groups in various other ways. Worth a thought..

    • Miecul says:

      My dear Parishioner of St. Patrick. Take a look at the Accused Tab at the top. Take a look at how many Clergy there are on that list, Then dive into each one and see how much information there is there. Now go through the other Tabs at the top.

      This is one woman, (God Bless Her) that’s reporting on just Canadian Clergy. I really don’t know how she does it. She never asks for donations, or help. She pays for this site + the Cornwall Site, manages both sites by her little ole lonesome. Can you imagine if she then added Anglican Clergy, Protestant, Clergy, Mormon Clergy, Doctors, Lawyers, Police, and any other pedophile out there? Well God bless her again, but she’s not Superwoman, close, but not. Sylvia a gentle soul who will give you her time and her ear and of herself. Mistakes, she makes them, and she will tell you that herself., but what she prints here is fact from many sources. She doesn’t print anything lightly or without caution. She can’t. Her site and the Cornwall site has stood up for many years without anyone charging her with slander or fraudulent hearsay. But every once in a while, someone will ask her to take off a name because the charges didn’t stick. Well what if this Priest got moved to another site and did the same thing. If she removed the name, there wouldn’t be record of the charge whether it stuck or not. If this happened years down the road at a different parish, a person needs only to Google the name and find out if this person has ever done this before.

      You may love this Priest and the way he treats others. Has been nothing but gracious to you and your family. Has great sermons, gives blood whatever. This doesn’t mean what happened isn’t true, and it doesn’t mean that it’s not. Be happy that nothing happened to you or your family. A Priest or anyone abusing a child doesn’t just hurt the child, it almost kills a family unit’s happiness and sometimes it does. Being abused by a trusted god like person, is something you never ever get over, no matter how much counselling you go to. Money doesn’t even begin to relieve the damage done.

      I’m really sorry this happened to your parish Priest. It seems like he really touched you in a special way. But wanting this not to have happened won’t make it so. Something’s going on. Is it the same person? They’re not telling us. What they did say is that it’s happened at different parishes, and not just once. It’s OK to love, but not blindly. God Bless.

      • Parishioner, St. Patrick's Parish says:

        I respect the individual moderating this site. It, indeed, is a monumental task as you suggest. But, you are saying that this did happen. The priest was not charged. That’s what I believe. Consequently, I trust the justice system and have moved on believing that the accusations did not stand the test of the system. Thank you for your response; thank you to Sylvia for her generous and genuine attempt to help the Church in its mission.

        • JG says:

          Forgive me for butting in but this claim that Dohey “wasn’t charged” according to the reports provided on this page is incorrect. Please read again with eyes wide open: everyone from Police, to reporter, to Crown Prosecutor “believed” the complainant. Only the judge held a different opinion and did not accept the “position of trust”…
          So, to claim there was no charges laid before a criminal court of law is incorrect and borders on disinformation everytime you repeat it!
          The priest was charged and a “disconnected” Judge , for whatever reason, wouldn’t let it go to trial. Believe it, he wouldn’t be the first judge to “err”…
          So, read again: he WAS charged! …and the concensus favored the complainant. From personal experience I can tell you the “Law” would sometimes need to be on trial itself! But this is for another site…

  13. northernfancy says:

    Hello, “Worth a Thought” Parishoner (St Pats Parish): Why should this site include other demographics and religious denominations? There are a number of internet sites which already do so, although often not as evenhandedly and well researched as this site has been for the years I have been following it daily. Why should you suggest this to Sylvia as a task she should add? You appear to be implying a bias on her part. May I suggest you take on this “expanded” role? The lower right hand of the home page has a listing of similar interest sites. Pick a template you like and a group you feel familiar with or strongly about and “have at’er”. Telling this host what she has “failed to do” or questioning her motives is offensive.

  14. Parishioner, St. Patrick's Parish says:

    On postings of August 9th and August 10th I used the word “charged” as opposed to “convicted”, creating some confusion. My apologies for that. I made the postings hastily. Thank you for your indulgence.

Leave a Reply