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-1.6554961Here 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.