Headline:

“Cardinal Marc Ouellet is among 88 members of the clergy facing sexual assault allegations”

Ouellet was named yesterday as being included in a class action suit against the archdiocese of Québec.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lawsuit-against-quebec-diocese-sexual-assault-1.6552456


It’s not really news any more, is it? Except to name names. Cardinal Ouellet has been a Catholic priest for over 50 years. He was formerly the Archbishop of Québec and is described as being among the highest echelons of the church. I heard on the radio that in 2013 he was a member of the College of Cardinals and was a candidate for pope (but Jorge Mario Bergoglio was eventually elected and became Pope Francis).

In 2019 Ouellet was in Rome attending the Pope's "Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church”. He was still in line to perhaps be elected as successor to Francis.

The article states that “Ouellet is by far the most prominent person among those listed in the class action, and the one with the highest-ranking position in the Catholic Church. The cardinal is not facing any criminal accusations.” (This is due to the action being against the church and not individuals, as far as I understand).

The article describes the assault as being repeated inappropriate touching of a sexual nature and states "You have at that time [2008-2010] a young woman in her mid-20s versus a powerful man in a position of authority, known worldwide at the time, who was maybe 60," he said. "Like most victims, she froze."

“Although the allegations against Ouellet seem less serious physically than other cases cited in the class action, the impact on the victim is nevertheless just as important, said Arsenault [Plaintiffs’ lawyer].”

“The complaint against Ouellet was filed directly to the Vatican in 2021. It was assigned to priest Jacques Servais, a theologian tasked with looking into the matter.”

“A virtual meeting was arranged between the victim and the Vatican, but a year and a half later the woman said she still hasn't been informed of the conclusion of the investigation.”

-----

I note that this complaint wasn’t filed until 2021. The cardinal’s name wasn’t publicized until yesterday. Otherwise, it would be even more difficult to comprehend why the Vatican is so positively glacial in its responses to such events (as above, these occurred in a 2008-2010 time frame).

What I can never get used to is the widespread nature of these types of offences in the Catholic Church (and others) and the fact that even after the spotlight shining on the Church illuminating such sordid realities it doesn’t stop and, again, why the Vatican is so slow to respond.

Over and above the offences, which of course are appalling in their nature, persistence and seeming lack of consequences, I can never get used to the absolute hypocrisy. How can you be so high up in the pecking order that your name is floated as perhaps being pope-worthy and yet your personal behaviour is so flawed? And also egregious, how can you be such a HYPOCRITE (amongst my Top-3 least favourite things) as to prance around in a frock, telling others how to behave and yet be so flawed in yourself and unwilling or unable to change?

And to go anywhere near any Church meetings about sexual abuse is also hypocritical but I can see that he would perhaps not have a choice if he was summoned and expected to attend.

I know Pope Francis is an elderly man and is battling some health concerns but it’s hard to reconcile the fact that he was recently in Canada apologizing, apparently sincerely, for widespread abuses (understatement) perpetrated by the Catholic Church against Indigenous Peoples, with the seeming reluctance, or feet-dragging or worse, of Church officials and governors (in whatever offices) when it comes to naming perpetrators of sexual abuse, that we've heard so much about for so many years now, and holding them to account, and making recompense to victims in a meaningful way.

It’s also sad (not being critical of her) that a 20-something woman in the 21st Century, had to ask, as described in the article, if unwanted touching of a sexual nature should be considered abuse.

Yes. Yes it should.

Sadder still that those who are so good at preaching don’t follow the word themselves.

Sigh.

Don't judge by the words they say...apologies, regrets, etc.

Judge them by the actions they take to punish, prevent and compensate.

Nothing will happen as long as people keep attending, IMO. They only admit they are wrong about something after 200 years. It's disgusting that people keep giving them legitimacy.

Very good points, dagny.

How do you denounce and purge child molesters and coverups if 90+% of your senior officials have engaged in those coverups and some significant percentage also rank among the molesters?

Who would be left to help Francis run the church?

Would Francis himself be left?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who would be left to help Francis run the church?

> Would Francis himself be left?

Oh Dear God

Good point, LW. I haven't thought of that. There are SO MANY. The mind boggles.

I was going to mention celibacy and repression, not as excuses but only to say I wonder if the CC ever thinks about relaxing the Big C requirement.

I don't have the knowledge to say whether those could be causes of the seeming inordinate numbers of wayward priests.

Seeing some young priests who were TV commentators on CBC during the Pope's recent visit made me wonder again about why/how young men are attracted to a monastic life in 2022. They all came across as personable, well-educated, informed, well-spoken, humourous and attractive.

So what gives I continue to wonder. The CC is *fortunate* to still be getting new crops of people. But why can't they modernize a bit and rethink some of the strictures?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2022 08:17PM by Nightingale.

Celibacy must surely go.

But that's only a (significant) contributing factor. The more fundamental problems are the authority structure, the obedience culture, the focus on the church's reputation, and the fact that the leadership is so thoroughly inculpated.

Protestant Christianity may survive its scandals because there is no overarching organization. A particular church/congregation has a crisis and it generally melts away as believers leave for other groups or denominations.

The RCC and the Mormon church, however, claim exclusive and hierarchical authority. That means when a crisis occurs, it threatens the prestige and power of the entire faith. It's that institutional dynamic that explains the extent of today's coverups: over decades, centuries, or millennia the political imperative dictated that the sins be concealed from the public, and those coverups compromised even the "sinless" leaders.

How many decades did Francis have authority over child molesters? How many scandals did he defuse in order to protect the RCC's name and influence--not to mention his own stature within the church? How many other scandals did he see his fellows cover up? I wouldn't be surprised if the number is measured in scores or even hundreds while the episodes of abuse that Mormon apostles hid, or knew were being hidden, might be counted in dozens.

It strains credulity that either of those churches could survive the purge of all leaders who have betrayed children and their families.

This may well be existential.

Insightful, LW.

I don't know anything much about F before he became pope. I admit to wearing rose-coloured glasses when he was elected, having heard of his "good reputation", and hoping for some positive results during his tenure. But I wonder now how much sway a pope actually holds even in his own church.

I really questioned this when I saw the interplay and struggles on his recent trip to Canada between what he may have wanted to do and say, what the injured parties were hoping for (and some even demanding) and what in the end he said and did that fell short. Who knows who wrote his speeches, but it was widely agreed that he likely didn't write them himself and also that they would surely have been run past a bevvy of church lawyers before he was cleared to utter them.

I know one reason given for anybody's potential disappointment was the considerations of his age and state of health (couldn't walk for instance). He also didn't speak much English, which actually surprised me. I've been out of the Pope loop I guess and missed the fact that of all his languages English is not anywhere near the top. He tried to recite some prayers etc in English but he was very difficult to understand. At times there were translators for three languages repeating his words, French, English and I believe it was Inuktitut when he travelled to Iqaluit near the Arctic.

One of the huge expectations and hopes of the Indigenous Peoples he visited was that he would not only offer an apology for the tragedy and trauma of the residential school system but also that he would use the 'G' word - genocide. It was so very important for people that he acknowledge that what the Catholic residential schools (among other church schools) did amounted to genocide, trying to expunge the Indigenous languages, cultures, spiritual beliefs and even peoples. All of those negative effects certainly occurred and the trauma persists down to this very day and beyond.

Pope Francis did offer apologies at all his stops but he never said the G word on dry land in Canada, much to the great disappointment of many who had longed for that acknowledgement of the extent of the wrongdoing. (The Catholic Church ran about 60% of all residential schools in Canada. Many children suffered trauma that would last throughout their lifetimes and be transferred onto succeeding generations and, of course, many died far away from home and still lie in mass or unmarked graves).

On the plane ride back to Rome, a journalist asked him why he didn't use the word 'genocide' that so many were waiting so heartbreakingly to hear - an acknowledgement of what occurred and how and by whom. He responded to the effect of "that is what I described". Not quite the fulsome acknowledgement so many yearned for. Although, again, his age, his state of health, his fatigue after a hectic schedule, the degree to which his handlers controlled every minute, etc.

Yes, it's certainly a burden on them to consider the numbers and extent of all the apologies owed for negative policies (understatement) throughout the ages. No doubt their lawyers are numerous and busy.

Unfortunately, this story came out before the Vatican's conclusion was reached about Cardinal Ouellet.

Today they said "Not enough evidence to begin an investigation".

So, there is still a class action law suit involving other church officials but it seems that this cardinal's name will be dropped from it, you'd think.

My bad to jump the gun - I didn't realize there was little/no evidence in this case. It's always going to be a challenge for those who allege that abuse occurred in the '50s and '60s due to the passage of time and deaths of alleged abusers as well as witnesses. In this case, the allegations concern events in the 2008-2010 time period. Even so, not enough evidence. Maybe it's a he said/she said case when it comes to touching and how the toucher intends or interprets it compared to how it comes across to the touchee. Also, the interpretation of observers, if any, would weigh in too.

If people just kept their hands to themselves, some of these issues wouldn't arise.

I (naively as it turns out) thought that if the cardinal's name was made public and he is included in the class action suit there was some likelihood that there was a case to answer by him. Apparently not.

I'm sorry I posted this before I knew the outcome. I wasn't actually expecting this to happen, especially just one day after his name as a potential abuser became public.

I've been reading up on the cardinal, and evidently he developed quite a reputation in Quebec church circles for inappropriate touching of women (to the point where it was noted with a sense of relief that his successor as Archbishop of Quebec only "shook hands" by comparison.) I think there's plenty of evidence, but the Catholic church, as usual, is ignoring it. And women's experiences (as usual) are being seriously downplayed.

Ouellet has gained a tremendous amount of power within the church, and a cynic might note that he has become all but untouchable.

From what I've read, Ouellet was not a serious candidate in the 2005 papal conclave that elected Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger always had a firm control of the votes,) but was very much a serious candidate in the 2013 papal enclave that elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis. In fact, it was likely between just the two of them at the end, and might very well have been Ouellet who gained the papacy had he wanted it (he clearly did not, and by reports, threw his support to Bergoglio.)

OK, so more details are now available, here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/as-vatican-says-no-grounds-to-investigate-ouellet-questions-raised-over-handling-of-complaint-1.6554961

To be clear, it was the Vatican that decided there was no case to answer, not an impartial party.

This cardinal appears to be off the hook; however, the class action suit continues.

What's the difference between sexual touching and non-sexual touching? Some people touch your arm when they talk. Is that sexual? It could be construed that way by some people. Standing closer than six feet away could be considered sexual assault. Not by reasonable people, but who is reasonable these days?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's the difference between sexual touching and
> non-sexual touching?

Well, I'd hope most people would know the answer to this. It depends who is doing the touching and to whom, what their relationship is, if there is a power imbalance (i.e. priest and penitent; teacher/student; boss/employee etc), where it takes place and whether both parties are desirous of the "touching". I'd think that most men, especially in professional situations, would keep their hands to themselves at all times, given all the cases being brought and the discussions about them and court cases and guilty verdicts. We should certainly have a better idea now than apparently was the case decades ago.


> Some people touch your arm
> when they talk. Is that sexual?

As above - it depends on the situation and who is involved.


> Standing closer
> than six feet away could be considered sexual
> assault.

Who would think this? (Unless perhaps if it's a situation of power imbalance and comments/words/statements being made). Also, there are degrees of sexual impropriety - there are legal definitions for assault vs sexual assault etc.


> Not by reasonable people, but who is
> reasonable these days?

Well, quite a large number I would think.

Some not, true enough.

But for people to casually dismiss 'touching' as not assault adds to a victim's pain.

I've been to an MD whose touch wasn't therapeutic, is all I want to say.

We should give both parties a chance to present their case/defend themselves but we shouldn't casually dismiss a complainant's assessment of any situation they were in that made them feel uncomfortable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2022 11:05PM by Nightingale.

The problem is that "victims" are the new protected class, which creates a perverse incentive for deluded sociopaths. Admittedly, the number of women who imagine inappropriate touching in their heads and believe it actually happened is small. But the havoc they can wreak with no evidence whatsoever is disproportionately large.

So, I see the Cardinal as a victim of cancel culture. Cancel mobs don't care about truth. You are guilty even if proven innocent because of the rules of group politics.

It's a numbers game. The more contact someone has with the public, the higher their probability of false accusers. This happens in Mormonism. I forget the names of the parties of a case discussed here a few years back, something about a secret sex room at the MTC, but we were all over it because we wanted it to be true. She talked the guy into a confession, which can't be too hard for someone with dementia. They can be talked into a lot of things. Maybe that was elder abuse. MTC haha, get it? Us as the cancel mob, not funny.

As the article said, the Cardinal's case had insufficient evidence. That means "he said, she said" except that he most likely does not remember her. Humans can only keep 100 people or so in their head. He has met many thousands. Cardinal was canceled with zero evidence. Now, do I care? Yes. False accusors are extremely corrosive to society. Who will believe real victims? That’s why the commandment against bearing false witness. We enable false accusors at our own peril.

It was the Catholic church that found insufficient evidence. Do you really find this surprising? Ouellet has gained a significant amount of power within the Catholic church, and has become pretty much untouchable. No one with any authority in the church is going to go there if they can possibly help it.

And it wasn't just this one woman. There were numerous reports. He knew better. He knew that what he was doing was inappropriate and an abuse of power. Women have been subject to this nonsense forever. It has become less and less acceptable within the world of work, and it needs to become less and less acceptable in other domains, including church, as well.

And thinking men need to stop the weeping and wailing and gnashing of cancel culture when these events come to light.

My heavens you're posting nonsense today.

The fact that there is insufficient evidence to take the Cardinal to trial does not mean he is innocent. There are other reports from Canadian sources that suggest he was well known to engage in inappropriate behavior.

If there is not enough evidence to proceed legally, the case should not include him. That is what happened here. There is no "cancel" in that culture. The system has worked as it should have.

As for Joseph Bishop, you're memory is either selective or just weak. Sure, Denson was a bitter woman with a history of bad behavior but people who've come from abused homes and are sexually molested often develop subsequent histories of bad behavior--sort of like people who are hit by cars and subsequently exhibit limps and sometimes fall over. Her personal history in itself does not disprove her allegations of abuse.

Note also that Bishop was the object of intense criticism for his misogyny and violation of women's boundaries when he was president of Weber State College. Some report that he was pushed out of that job as a result. Moreover, other women RMs have confirmed the existence of the room in the basement of the MTC; and when Denson challenged Bishop about abusing her, his response was not to deny that he had done that but to try to remember which one of his victims she was.

Is that how you would reply to an accusation of having raped a woman, bradley?

"Which woman are we talking about?"

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see the Cardinal as a victim of cancel
> culture. Cancel mobs don't care about truth. You
> are guilty even if proven innocent because of the
> rules of group politics.

The cardinal is not cancelled.

To the contrary, he still holds a high position in the Catholic Church and apparently has the ear of Pope Francis.


> As the article said, the Cardinal's case had
> insufficient evidence. That means "he said, she
> said" except that he most likely does not remember
> her. Humans can only keep 100 people or so in
> their head. He has met many thousands. Cardinal
> was canceled with zero evidence.

It was an accusation and the complainant's name was included in a class action lawsuit brought by hundreds of complainants against dozens of other priests. It was another priest, who turns out to be a close associate, if not friend, of the accused priest, who made the ruling that there is insufficient evidence.

That doesn't mean there *is* insufficient evidence, just that so the investigating priest has ruled at this point.

Again, the cardinal is *not* cancelled.


> False accusors are extremely corrosive to
> society.

The woman in this specific case has not been found to be a "false accuser", just that there is insufficient evidence, according to the priest who looked into the case. (A priest, by the way, who acknowledged that he is not a trained investigator and, in fact, has never carried out an investigation before).


> We enable false accusors at our own peril.

Even if the complainant never gets to testify on her own behalf in this case and/or they can't collect enough evidence or witnesses to include her in the suit, it does not naturally and irrevocably follow that she is a false accuser, just that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed.

I note that today's article gives more details about her allegations than I saw yesterday, namely "unwanted touching and kissing, as well as sexual harassment". It would likely be exceptionally difficult to prove these allegations if there were no witnesses. It doesn't mean it didn't occur.


Here is today's article giving more details on this decision (also linked above):

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/as-vatican-says-no-grounds-to-investigate-ouellet-questions-raised-over-handling-of-complaint-1.6554961

Here are some excerpts:

"The Vatican says there is insufficient evidence to open a church investigation into Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the former archbishop of Quebec, despite a recent class action accusing him and some 88 other clergy members of sexual abuse and misconduct."

"Ouellet, who works at the Vatican and is seen as a potential successor to the Pope, is accused by a woman identified as "F" in the lawsuit of unwanted touching and kissing, as well as sexual harassment."

"In its statement, the Vatican says theologian Jacques Servais, who was tasked with conducting a preliminary investigation into the allegations, found no evidence that warranted further disciplinary measures."

"There are no grounds to open an investigation into [allegations] of sexual assault on the person F. by [Ouellet]," Servais said in the statement. "Not in her written report to the Holy Father, nor in [her] testimony on Zoom."

"But an investigation by Radio-Canada's program Enquête found Servais might have had a conflict of interest."

"According to the Vatican's protocols on sexual assault, any allegations against a priest must be reported to the bishop of the diocese where the priest is currently working, explained theologian Jean-Guy Nadeau."

"Since Cardinal Ouellet is in Rome, the bishop for [him], it's the Pope," he said."

"The 78-year-old cardinal is the head of the Vatican's department responsible for selecting new bishops, one of the most senior positions in the Catholic Church."

"The fact that Servais was the one who investigated Ouellet, even though they work together, goes against a decree made by the Pope himself that says an investigator must be impartial and not have any conflicts of interests."

"If that's the case, the decree says the person must abstain from partaking in the investigation."

The lawyer said his client, F, was "very disappointed" by the Vatican's decision, but said "she's still determined to prove all the facts that she alleged."

"If it won't be in a canon law trial, it will be in a civil trial," he said."

-----

So, on the woman's side - there are apparently no witnesses, no compelling evidence (to date) and no official complaint was made at the time of the alleged assaults (which is not unusual).

On the cardinal's side:

1. The complaint was "investigated" by a fellow priest who apparently knows him well and perhaps is even a friend.

2. The cardinal holds high office in the Catholic Church.

3. He is apparently a friend of Pope Francis.

4. Sexual assault allegations must be reported to the bishop of the diocese where the priest is working. The pope is Ouellet's bishop because Ouellet now lives in Rome (and the pope is the Bishop of Rome). I don't know how impartial the pope can be when he wants/needs to protect the church, when he knows the accused cardinal well and when they are said to likely be friends.

5. Cardinal Ouellet has previously been in the running to be elected pope.

6. He is considered to be a top prospect for pope when Francis either retires or passes away.

7. There was an inordinate delay in the Vatican's processing of the complainant's allegations.


Article: "According to the Pope's decree, Servais [investigating priest] had 90 days to issue a decision on his findings." (He took a lot longer to state his conclusion. Delay does not usually benefit complainants).

Article: "We're wondering why it took so long to have that conclusion," Wee [complainant's lawyer] said. "Is it because they didn't want to make any noise about [the Pope's visit to Canada] that they waited?"

-----

So, yeah, the cardinal isn't cancelled, by any means. The woman still has the right to submit further evidence or witnesses. There's a ways to go yet on this thing.

And, again, she's only one of dozens of complainants. And there are many priests who have questions to answer.

This isn't a one-time deal. Some of these complaints date back to the '50s and '60s and even the '40s have been mentioned, all with similar accusations in similar circumstances.

In all that time, the church hasn't managed to weed out problem people in its ranks or to get to the root of the issue of widespread, ongoing sexual, physical and spiritual abuse that destroys people's lives.

It's difficult to defend that record.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2022 02:18AM by Nightingale.

This is certainly fascinating the troubles catholicism is going through, the priest sex scandle is the biggest problem the curia has faced since Martin Luther and the protestant revolution, Peter's pence has seriously dropped, why would anyone tithe to an organization that has banking embezzlement fraud within the ior gawds bank and decades of cover ups with abuse?

I've been reading gods bankers and am learning all about Benedict and why he had to resign, the cover ups all on wikileaks, yet they spin this as he was old and needed to retire for health reasons,

And even the beloved John Paul refused to hear anything bad about his Mexican bishop who abused many and had 7 illegitimate kids. John Paul only focused on the work he was interested in, travelling... not sex abuse so it got swept under the rug, Ratcliff focused on what he cared about, bible scholarship and dead languages, not sex abuse or banking integrity.