Police move on priests over abuse 'cover-up'
Finally! Maybe now, Father Farrell's protectors will be charged as well...http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-move-on-priests-over-abuse-coverup-20120730-23aba.html
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Rogue Ex-Priest of Armidale Part 3
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-move-on-priests-over-abuse-coverup-20120730-23aba.html
Saturday, July 7, 2012
The Rogue Ex-Priest of Armidale Part 2
Bush Lawyer Priests Decide Whether Police Should Prosecute Allegations of Child Abuse
Another story today about the Rogue Ex-Priest of Armidale, this time by James Robinson of the Sydney Morning Herald - see http://www.smh.com.au/national/top-priest-keeps-silent-over-clashing-accounts-of-child-sex-admissions-20120706-21mg4.html
This story shows clearly how catholic priests regard themselves as capable of not only interpreting the Word Of God, but also, it seems, the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900.
Father Wayne Peters, the vicar-general of the diocese of Armidale, when asked about inconsistencies in his account of a meeting in 1992 with John Farrell to discuss allegations of child abuse, said that Farrell's confession was limited to ''instances of misconduct'' - not criminal conduct. He then said that ''[Father F.] deliberately would not give any details or say anything that would incriminate him or amount to an admission in the legal sense."
Then we have a spokeswoman for the Church, Katrina Lee, helpfully explaining that Father John Usher, now the chancellor of the Archdiocese of Sydney (and also present at the now infamous 1992 meeting), used a note from the meeting ''to confirm his recollection that Father F. made no admissions of actual criminal conduct''.
As Robinson reports:
Before he advised Cardinal Pell, Father Usher spoke to the two other priests, Father Peters and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference general-secretary, Father Brian Lucas, Ms Lee said.
Father Lucas told the Herald that Father F. did make admissions of ''wrongdoing'' at the 1992 meeting.
So, according to Fathers Peters and Usher, fondling the genitals of young boys and "sucking off their dicks" monthly for a year (the behaviour Farrell confessed to at the meeting, according to Peters' letter written some 8 days later) is not worth reporting to the police . This type of behaviour, in their Bush Legal Opinion, is simply "misconduct" or "wrongdoing", and not "actual criminal conduct".
As a final insult to the victims in particular and the entire community in general, Usher concludes that because Farrell didn't give him the actual names of the victims, he didn't report the matter to police.
...(Usher) claimed he (Farrell) did not provide names of his victims so the church did not advise police. ''I did not consider at that time that reporting to the police would assist in any prosecution since we did not have any details of victims,'' he said.
Is he joking? Or is the joke on us?
I wonder if any of the three priests at the meeting actually asked Farrell who the victims were, or took ANY STEPS WHATSOEVER to actually find out (perhaps with a view to finding them and helping them, for example)?
No evidence so far suggests they did. Even THEY don't say they did.
It seems the more the Church says in public on these matters, the more they demonstrate how they genuinely believe they are above the law, and that protecting their child-raping priests is FAR more important than protecting the children of those parents unfortunate enough to trust them.
Court Dude hereby officially inaugurates a new Movement to educate the Catholic Church as to why they can no longer be be a Law Unto Themselves. It is called People Opposed to Paedophile Ecclesiastics (P.O.P.E), and its collective actions shall be known henceforth as "The P.O.P.E Offensive".
If you would like to join the P.O.P.E Offensive, contact Court Dude here at the blog.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
How Did Cricket Become So Uncool?
It used to be fun to watch cricket. People who played it on the international stage were cool dudes. You could look up to them. Now, they're a pack of self-congratulating spoiled nerds, and watching most games makes you cringe with embarrassment. What happened? Court Dude explains…
Cricket in the ‘70’s.
Cricket in the '80's.
Cricket in the '90's.
Cricket in the 00's...can't you just feel the cool slipping away?
And now? Crikey! It's just not cricket! (more like Gay Star Trek on acid...)
There was one guy in recent times who managed to stay cool despite being forced to hang out with a team full of Doogie Howsers. And what happened to him? They kicked him out for going fishing!
Thank God for Rugby!
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
The Rogue Ex-Priest of Armidale
There's a big difference between a "lovable rogue" and a "rogue". This is often overlooked.
A lovable rogue is a character who, often from humble beginnings, manages to beat the system using extraordinary and unconventional means. Although he at first seems to act for personal profit alone, the lovable rogue can win over an audience with charm and wit, eventually revealing some ethical motivation that was not immediately apparent. He is not condemned as a villain, but celebrated as being adventurous, individual and creative.
Not so the plain old "rogue"!
Some of the perhaps less-used-these-days definitions of a "rogue" include:
A lovable rogue is a character who, often from humble beginnings, manages to beat the system using extraordinary and unconventional means. Although he at first seems to act for personal profit alone, the lovable rogue can win over an audience with charm and wit, eventually revealing some ethical motivation that was not immediately apparent. He is not condemned as a villain, but celebrated as being adventurous, individual and creative.
Not so the plain old "rogue"!
Some of the perhaps less-used-these-days definitions of a "rogue" include:
1 an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal;
2 a vicious and solitary animal that has separated itself from its herd;
3 an organism that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.
Where would we find such a person? Such an out-and-out, old-fashioned rogue?
Well, through his many contacts around the world, Court Dude can reveal that there's a real live one living right now in Armidale, northern NSW who goes by the name of John Farrell.
Farrell case:
Rev. John Joseph Farrell (1953-) was ordained at the Armidale cathedral on 21 September 1981. His main parish placements were: St Edward's parish, Tamworth South (as a deacon, early 1981); St Francis Xavier parish, Moree (1981 to mid-1984); and St Nicholas’s parish, Tamworth (1985-87). In 1987-88 he lived at the residence of Armidale Bishop Henry Kennedy. In 1989 he was transferred, on loan, to the Diocese of Parramatta, where his parishes were: St Madeleine’s, Kenthurst (until November 1990); and St Margaret Mary’s, Merrylands (until 1 July 1992). He had no subsequent parish appointments. He was accused of sexual abuse and the diocese made civil settlements with two former altar boys. One former altar boy, who was offered $175,000, was from the Moree parish in the Armidale diocese (in northern NSW) and the other was from the Merrylands parish in the Parramatta diocese (west of Sydney). The settlements were made in 1998 and 2005. Source: http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Diocese_of_Armidale
Last night, as it happens, there was an excellent piece of investigative journalism on the ABC's Four Corners program about a rogue ex-priest from Armidale who according to Court Dude's contacts on the ground there bears a striking resemblance to Good Old Father John - see http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/06/28/3535079.htm?WT.svl=bestOfScroller
The story reveals, amongst other horrific collateral damage to family and friends, that both of the former altar boys mentioned above later committed suicide.
Although no longer practising as a priest, John Farrell swans about Armidale these days as a bona-fide man-about-town, writing articles for the local paper and promoting himself a close student of local history. Specifically, local Catholic history.
But why hassle Good Old Father John if he's never been convicted? The presumption of innocence is paramount - isn't it? Yes, it is. Are there ever, ever, exceptions to this Golden Rule of Justice? Yes, there are. When men, to whom you entrust the care of your children, rape them and get away with it.
John Farrell is a rogue. An "unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person"; a "solitary animal who has separated himself (in this case, morally) from the herd"; an organism who has shown a most "undesirable variation from a standard".
It is sometimes the case that a crime can resonate so deeply and tragically that it actually works itself to make a legal conviction extremely difficult. And that is what has happened here. Will justice ever be visited upon the Rogue Ex-Priest of Armidale? Stay tuned...
Well, through his many contacts around the world, Court Dude can reveal that there's a real live one living right now in Armidale, northern NSW who goes by the name of John Farrell.
Farrell case:
Rev. John Joseph Farrell (1953-) was ordained at the Armidale cathedral on 21 September 1981. His main parish placements were: St Edward's parish, Tamworth South (as a deacon, early 1981); St Francis Xavier parish, Moree (1981 to mid-1984); and St Nicholas’s parish, Tamworth (1985-87). In 1987-88 he lived at the residence of Armidale Bishop Henry Kennedy. In 1989 he was transferred, on loan, to the Diocese of Parramatta, where his parishes were: St Madeleine’s, Kenthurst (until November 1990); and St Margaret Mary’s, Merrylands (until 1 July 1992). He had no subsequent parish appointments. He was accused of sexual abuse and the diocese made civil settlements with two former altar boys. One former altar boy, who was offered $175,000, was from the Moree parish in the Armidale diocese (in northern NSW) and the other was from the Merrylands parish in the Parramatta diocese (west of Sydney). The settlements were made in 1998 and 2005. Source: http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Diocese_of_Armidale
Last night, as it happens, there was an excellent piece of investigative journalism on the ABC's Four Corners program about a rogue ex-priest from Armidale who according to Court Dude's contacts on the ground there bears a striking resemblance to Good Old Father John - see http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/06/28/3535079.htm?WT.svl=bestOfScroller
The story reveals, amongst other horrific collateral damage to family and friends, that both of the former altar boys mentioned above later committed suicide.
Although no longer practising as a priest, John Farrell swans about Armidale these days as a bona-fide man-about-town, writing articles for the local paper and promoting himself a close student of local history. Specifically, local Catholic history.
But why hassle Good Old Father John if he's never been convicted? The presumption of innocence is paramount - isn't it? Yes, it is. Are there ever, ever, exceptions to this Golden Rule of Justice? Yes, there are. When men, to whom you entrust the care of your children, rape them and get away with it.
John Farrell is a rogue. An "unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person"; a "solitary animal who has separated himself (in this case, morally) from the herd"; an organism who has shown a most "undesirable variation from a standard".
It is sometimes the case that a crime can resonate so deeply and tragically that it actually works itself to make a legal conviction extremely difficult. And that is what has happened here. Will justice ever be visited upon the Rogue Ex-Priest of Armidale? Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)