[Note from Sylvia: This is the same text which appeared in the weekly Campbellton Tribune 31 August 2012 and in a 24 August 2012 press release to CBC. It then appeared as a Letter to the Editor 03 September in some of the Telegraph-Journal papers. The letter appears on the Telegraph-Journal website as follows]
Letters to the Editor
Bishop responds
Tribune Letter To The Editor
Dear editor:
Certain unfounded statements were recently made concerning the Reconciliation Process initiated by our diocese and overseen independently by retired Supreme Court Justice, the Honorable Michel Bastarache.
Eighty out of 86 victims of sexual abuse by Lévi Noel, and other clerics of the Bathurst Diocese, participated in the process and accepted awards made representing a 93 per cent success rate, one of the highest ever achieved in such a process.
I have spoken with many victims. They praised the Bastarache Process as being speedy and fair and that it provided for them a dignified way to bring forth their experiences in an environment that was receptive to listen to them and to deal with their needs. They were grateful that they received compensation and did not have to share a large part of it with lawyers.
The process was designed and administered and adjudicated by one of Canada’s leading jurists and a man who has fought his whole life for the interests of New Brunswickers and Acadians. The Ontario lawyer who now publicly criticizes the process and the diocesan effort represented a number of people who successfully participated in the process and who, with his counsel, accepted awards.
A number of victims who criticize the process and the diocese did not even participate in the process. They suggest that their lawsuit is about seeing that further details come to light, intimating that the Diocese is hiding something or has denied its failures in acknowledging mishandling of Noel and others. This is simply incorrect.
When I initiated the Reconciliation Process I had learned the extent of Noel’s abusive actions. I publicly acknowledged the failures of my deceased predecessor bishops to recognize and curb his abuse. It led me to extend the process to others known and unknown in an effort to be fair to all victims.
No group, be they churches, police forces, teachers, scout leaders, or any other groups of public service or charitable foundations knew just how seriously these types of abuses harmed victims. Abusers were rarely caught. When they were, the belief was that they could be reformed. This has proven to be false.
I ask the victims and their families and the people of our diocese for forgiveness on behalf of my deceased predecessors. People in the past did not recognize the damages caused by sexual abuse on the minds and dispositions of victims. In today’s world, assisted by professionals and their research, we know that past approaches were wrong and that some people do suffer.
Because of the scourge of such abuse and in full recognition of its evil, our diocese established a heightened program of abuse prevention and protocols to dissuade abusers. All of our clergy, employees, and approximately 3,500 volunteers have been briefed in our anti-abuse protocols. All priests, including the bishop, diocesan and parish employees, and all volunteers involved with children or vulnerable people have cleared a police records check. To suggest that we have not reacted properly or learned from the past or that we must be made subject to an extensive and expensive lawsuit is wrong.
We cannot express regret for the past if we do not demonstrate that we have taken the necessary steps to prevent its happening again. Our programs to combat abuse are reviewed frequently to see if they can be improved. We wish our church to be a place of welcome and solace for all God’s people and in turn we must be witnesses of Christ’s love.
While the reconciliation process was meant to provide compensation to victims and show that we are taking our role seriously, its primary purpose was to effect reconciliation and seek the forgiveness of those who were sinned against. All victims are God’s special people. He will not forget their innocence and the suffering that they and their families have borne.
While anyone is entitled to use the courts to seek redress, the emotional upset and expenses associated with defending a lawsuit are better answered by resolution and reconciliation. To those persons with whom we have not reached a settlement, I wish to invite them in all sincerity to join with their fellow victims in arriving at a just and negotiated settlement. Together, we can move forward as we continue, each in our own way, in following the Saviour’s command to love our neighbour as ourselves and forgive our trespassers to the best of our ability.
Dear friends, I conclude by asking for your prayers for all who have been victimized, be it in our church or elsewhere. As well, I ask you to pray for your clergy and those who serve our diocese, that by their calling, they may be living examples of Christ’s love and concern for all. Most Rev. Valery Vienneau
Roman Catholic Bishop-Administrator of Bathurst
Too little, and too late, apart from the BS! Civil suit will make a real man out of you and we can’t wait!
“its primary purpose was to effect reconciliation and seek the forgiveness of those who were sinned against.”…How hollow those words sound as I think back to my abuser watching me through the confessional screen, supposedly to forgive my sins because he was a holy man of that church…how can I trust anyone in that church?? Just thinking about how this pervert collar could “act” so holy in public while being so evil behind closed doors angers me beyond belief. Valery, I no more trust your sincerity in this letter than I would trust the bastard collar who took the innocence of more than 13 young boys over a 30 year period. Like Baspuit said, “too little too late”. See you in court. PS, bring lots of money.
Conciliation has occurred for most victims in Bathurst. Time will tell how the process will pan out in the Moncton Archdiocese.
Questions still gnaw at me – what happens once the archbishop eventually learns of abusers (other than Camille Leger) who are still alive and have avoided being reported by other means? Will the Archdiocese report these allegations to the RCMP, even if a priest in question has retired, and no longer “in service”? Why would a lawsuit be necessary to pursue criminal accusations against the perpetrator after the conciliation process? Will victims who were compensated via the conciliatory process be able to voice these allegations to a criminal process? Why would these other allegations be kept from potential victims and their families?
Transparency and follow-up with legal authorities may be the catalysts victims need to come forward and receive treatment/counselling/compensation, while maintaining a sense of dignity and justice.
PJ & jj;
While this bishop is saying all the “right” things, questions still gnaw at me as well. He seems to be grasping at little straws, and coming up empty-handed.
He finds this a “dignified” way to settle the claims, using “reconciliation” amd”forgiveness” as his tools, as if civil litigation is an undignified way to settle. I find his words pompous and very condescending. Basically, I read into this that if you do what he (the bishop) wants, you are a “good” person”. Should you fail in this and instead seek civil litigation, you are undignified and resentfull, and lack any forgiveness.
The bishop says he wants “transparency”!!! REALLY! I feel he should practise what he is preaching. Why the “cloak and dagger” approach if he so desperately wants “transparency”?
I remain (unfortunately) deeply distrustful, and angry with the church that ruled my life for almost 50 years. Mike.
Mike: You are bang on in your comments. Good point on his transparency comment and that his process is 100% cover-up! What lies come from that church…no wonder many have stopped going. And I believe it’s going to get worse once more lawsuits and revelations come out.
*….regardless of the tactics “they”(bishops,priests, church as a whole, supporters, enablers…)use, the end result they are seeking is to DELAY! ….as “time” goes by, memories fade, spirits weaken, details are blurred…and THAT is what they are banking on!
To assert there is no “concerted effort” is to treat the victims, the church faithful and the public in general as absolute imbeciles! They transferred from parish to parish, from province to province(Saskatoon to Windsor, more recently!) country to country… Everything is good to steal time!
Valery Vienneau was rewarded for a “job well done” to protect the assets and keep time on their side! So, if any of the scenarios suggested by jj should come up in the future, they will drag from court to court and delay some more…They have no conscience! They will accept collateral damages forever to save the “institution”…not a lone, lost sheep!
To call that approach by the church “sickening” is much too polite. They’ll do anything not to take responsibility.Very fitting on this date to understand that the “grim reaper” is their associate. They are manipulative beyond our understanding. Not only wolves in sheep’s clothing but also snakes with an angel’s whisper! …
Their response is organized from the top down.
jg
*”All victim’s are God’s special people. He will not forget their innocence and the suffering that they and their families have borne.” (Bishop Vienneau)
The ‘unknowable’ God is thus spoken for.
Well let us take the Bishop’s assumption that the Catholic Church does speak correctly for the compassion of the Saviour. The Bishop should also include the admonition of Jesus by His Words and Actions. How did he “gently” approach the money changers in the temple and His reference of comparison with ‘white sepulchers’ for the pharisees. Not enough forewarning, the suggestion ‘to tie a mill stone around one’s neck and ……….’ should do the trick.
As someone betrayed by the Catholic Church amidst all its pomp and ceremony, I have no continuing resentment towards the multitude of sick priests who could not overcome their perversions or immaturity of sexual expression. This is the just dessert of celibacy. (Please read The Shepherd by Joe Girzone – exposes that celibacy is constructed evil)
What I have suffered, is a lifetime of stuffed anger and rebellion towards authority. The corporate and systemic evil of the hierarchy conveyed this disease onto the gullible and naive congregations in their Diocese. The PRIDE and need for POWER and WEALTH was the driving forces behind such a disgusting culture. I don’t for a minute believe that many of the Bishops, themselves, were caught in the difficulty of being exposed themselves if too strident action was engaged.
The example of the Bishop caught with pornography crossing the border ; he was involved with Mount Cashel on the investigative side of the Church. No wonder that mess became so entrenched within the order.
I have just read a very good book, Faith Beyond Belief / Stories of Good People Who Left Their Church Behind by Margaret Placentra Johnston. She dicusses Scott Peck’s stages of Spirituality. It suggests an exit for some of us betrayed. Move from Faith to Rational to Mystic in our spiritual growth.
God Bless YOU greatly Sylvia for this blog site.
Annonymous
Thanks, Mike, PJ, and JG, for your comments.
In the Archbishop’s letter to the Tribune editor, he states that “(the victims who opted out of the conciliation process) suggest that their lawsuit is about seeing that further details come to light, intimating that the Diocese is hiding something or has denied its failures in acknowledging mishandling of Noel and others. This is simply incorrect.”
My initial comment above specifically addresses the discovery of (a) new abuser(s) in the Moncton regions through this new conciliatory process. What precludes a victim from pursuing criminal complaints AFTER the conciliatory process has taken its course? My (somewhat limited) understanding is that one can have his identity initially protected by the police, but would ultimately have to be revealed in a criminal process, so that the defendant could, in fact, defend himself.
I completely agree that wrongs were committed. I am asking if anyone has opinions on how the Moncton process could be approached differently so that the abuser(s) who are still alive and can answer for their actions now. Any suggestions?
jj
*jj,
I have just read over the release signed in the case of Leon Gagnon by my family and it only concerns further actions under Civil Law and not disclosing the “stipends” allocated. I would say that the Diocese’s approach has been designed to try and instill just enough fear for a victim not to proceed with a Criminal complaint.
Criminal Law will “trump” the Civil action. If a complaint is brought to the authorities and a Crown prosecutor has enough evidence( look at the recent Picot ruling at the Supreme Court re: corroboration…) to go to Court, this is a new ball game! You are right to believe nothing “precludes” the action, I believe, and you are also right about eventually being named in a Criminal proceedings.
If the case was not successful criminally, then the “church” could probably decide to reclaim the sums paid under the original civil litigation/settlement, for which the victim has probably signed a release, as we did. Would they do it?… Great publicity for “them”, wouldn’t be!!
The person who would decide to take this plunge and trust the Police, the Crown Prosecutor and eventually an(possibly many)impartial Judge for the next several years, would need the determination, the courage, the integrity and internal strength of …all the other victims who have suffered through this before!…
Do your serious “homework” first but the short answer is to go to the Police and be prepared to become public. Be prepared for the “eternal” delays.
Maybe this is just what would be needed to shed light on the “process”. The secrets of the Civil court could be revealed in Criminal Court if Justice is the ultimate goal!…
Good luck!
My opinion.
jg
jj, you asked:
To my knowledge there is no onus on the diocese to report to police, even if the priest is still alive. That is one of the concerns about such settlements.
A lawsuit does not pursue allegations in a criminal fashion. A lawsuit can hold those responsible accountable financially, but can not find someone guilty of violating the law of the land and therefore be designated a criminal and sentenced to jail or prison.
Those who participate in the conciliation process probably sign a document promising that they will not initiate a lawsuit. They can not, however, be told NOT to proceed with criminal charges.
Yes, a victim who participated in the conciliation process can take his/her allegations of sex abuse and/or cover-up to police.
Why would the allegations of a victim be kept from potential victims and their families? That is a deep concern. Why indeed would anyone not alert those who are or may be at risk?
jg, you blogged:
I doubt that that would happen. In some cases a molester is acquitted on lack of evidence or a technicality: that doesn’t mean that he didn’t do it. The threshold in criminal proceedings is much higher than in in civil. ‘They’ know that very well. The diocese can payout in a civil suit but ‘win’ in criminal court. It is not at all uncommon. They usually sort of explain away settlements in civil suits as an act of charity, and frequently deny that such civil settlements are proof in any way shape or form of the priest’s guilt.
Convoluted. But, bottom line, because of the lower threshold in civil actions there is little fear that an acquittal in criminal court would result in claw-back of a settlement.
Re being identified. Yes, the predator will eventually know who initiated the action, be it civil or criminal. A victim’s identity can be protected, but there will invariably be those who know who he/she is.
When it comes to clerical sexual abuse, this desire of victims for anonymity is probably one of the biggest stumbling blocks in pursuing justice and protecting the vulnerable. Understandable, but a problem. I must admit that I spend countless hours trying to sort out how to deal with it.
Sylvia,
Thank you for your insight regarding my concerns. As I read through so many victims’ accounts of their experiences, I am particularly disturbed by their frustrations with the legal process, while being inspired by their courage, their tenacity, and their inner strength to see things through.
JG, I also thank you for your opinion.
As far as anonymity, Sylvia, I believe that victims are kept silent by fear of being “outed” from the very beginning, as is the nature of the abuse itself. Unfortunately, the legal system (and small towns!) don’t usually afford that anonymity for long if one wants to bring bad behaviour to light. Watching victims speaking out on television, I think this may bring strength and courage to others who are still hidden.
jj, you are right re the victims’ fear of being “outed.” And that I think is all part of the terrible shame which victims battle, the shame which I so often say is not theirs to bear but rightly belongs smack dab on the shoulders of the abuser (and those who may have enabled and covered-up for him).
Yes, seeing and hearing other victims speak out does bring strength and courage to others. Remember that all of you who are speaking out. So many are watching: they’re where you probably were once upon a time – struggling with their inner demons, and fearing no one will believe them, and thinking they were the only one, and wondering how they ever allowed it to happen – and forgetting that they were children and he was not only an adult, but a priest. Your strength strengthens them. You courage gives them courage. Your ability to put the shame where it belongs helps them to understand that the shame is not theirs to bear. You ability to speak out helps them to find their voice. You concern for other victims helps them to know that someone understands and cares.
Another though here jj. The diocese is more than capable of suspending a priest who has NOT been charged or convicted. They (Church officials) are also more than capable of announcing that “Father” has been suspended because there are credible sex abuse allegations against him, or because he is a sexual predator. And they are more than capable of asking that those who have been molested by “Father” to come forward so that they can receive the help they need. They are also more than capable of asking that anyone with any further information contact them.
If the will is there, it can be done. I believe that it goes without saying that it should be done.
*jj,
I re-read my post from yesterday earlier this morning and I didn’t like that it feels too negative, even cynical. What happens on the positive side is that so many people are helped by everyone’s seemingly small gestures. Whatever you do is like a ripple in the water after you throw in a stone.
I have been involved for three and a half years now in what I believed would be a month “at the most” if the church had acted “properly”. I was very naive! It was a letter concerning “Picot” written by Bob Jensen to the Campbellton Tribune that got me started. My reply to the Tribune was read by Lowell Mallais,who got me in touch with this site and eventually with Rob Talach. I don’t for one second regret any of it and would not change a thing especially when I think of the 6 or so victims, maybe more, who were helped by my involvement. All we did was BREAK THE SILENCE!
In the case you bring forward, maybe it needs to be done, to follow through the Criminal system. That could help and save the victim along with so many others. You should be encouraged to follow-up. I sincerely hope my “reality”opinion of yesterday didn’t do the opposite.
Sylvia:
You forgot the rest of that line in the post, which says: <<Would they do it?… Great publicity for “them”, wouldn’t be!!>>….meaning that they wouldn’t do it because of the bad publicity… and it would cost them as much to recover anything…and turn them into greater “villains” in doing so, regardless of the “legalities”!
and you add in your comments: <<…frequently deny that such civil settlements are proof in any way shape or form of the priest’s guilt …>> Right on!..That is almost word for word part of the “release” which they require… I was told it is a “standard”release form.
jj, If I can be of any help, get my E-mail/phone from Sylvia. I’m in the Moncton area the next few days if you want to get in touch.
jg