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.