More breaking news: Godwin Scerri to be defrocked
Godwin Scerri is to be defrocked too. The tribunal set up by the Vatican to see to these matters finished its findings in Malta and sent out to Rome its decision that Godwin Scerri should be defrocked.
That decision now awaits ratification by the cardinals, to become official, following which a papal decree will be sent to Malta. This will not happen in August.
Charles Pulis was defrocked first for no other reason than that the administrative side of things was wrapped up faster. Scerri’s took a few weeks longer and then hit the August administrative shut-down.
Scerri’s defrocking is also the result of abuse he committed in Canada.
The process was speeded up after Pope Benedict and Archbishop Cremona met the victims last year and heard firsthand of what they endured.
37 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The Times of Malta:
The magistrate referred to testimony given by Fr Pulis in which he said that, although he showed compassion to gay men, which he learnt from the Church, he also despised them. In fact, when the gay son of a care worker came to help out at the home in Ħamrun, he warned the children to be careful of the man precisely because he was gay.
Absolutely speechless. Where does this kind of monstrosity come from?
“which he learnt from the church”
That should tell you where the monstrosity comes from – and I don’t mean the church.
And what were he and his buddy if not gay? Gay paedophiles.
Baxxter, there is a fine line between gay and paedophile . . .
[Daphne – Adrian, adolescents are not children. Paedophiles are attracted to children who are not yet pubescent: anything up to 12 years old. Once puberty sets in, paedophiles are not interested. A 15-year-old girl is not a child in sexual terms, but has all the sexual characteristics of a woman. Boys of 15 are not children either, still less boys of 16.]
Fine line? In what way? It’s like saying there’s a fine line between heterosexual and pedophile-who-preys-on-girls-only.
@Daphne. I know that, Daphne. I was just referring to Baxxter’s comment. To be gay is not to be paedophile, that’s what I meant.
As a side comment, however, I still think that someone having sex with a 16 year old is committing a henious crime.
[Daphne – Yes, if the 16-year-old hasn’t consented or has been groomed by somebody in a position of trust.]
Ah, then the word you’re looking for is “yawning gulf”, not “fine line”.
“As a side comment, however, I still think that someone having sex with a 16 year old is committing a henious crime.
[Daphne – Yes, if the 16-year-old hasn’t consented or has been groomed by somebody in a position of trust.]”
Well, I know that 16 is the age of consent in most countries, but does that mean that a 50 year old, or even 30 year old, can freely have sex with a 16 year old if she\he consents?
To me that’s still a crime!
[Daphne – Only if the age of consent is higher than 16. Otherwise it’s just criminal stupidity, on the part of both.]
If a person is not considered old enough to vote then one can safely say that she\he is not mature enough to consent to a sexual relationship with someone who could be their father\mother.
Age difference should be taken into account with minors, and no extreme stance should be taken either for example prosecuting 18 year olds who sleep with 17 year olds!
Yes I know, but in my humble opinion it should be a crime too.
Age difference should be taken into account.
Of course one must, and should, draw the line at 18.
“Baxxter, there is a fine line between gay and paedophile . . .”
Adrian, not so fine a line if you ask me – it’s completely different.
Do you really think they were paedophiles? I am more inclined to believe that the truth never came out in the open earlier because many of them must have had “a thing” going between them, and they all covered up for each other.
Of course Pulis would say that to his children, he wanted them to himself and play with them alone, no sharing!
Not very sensible mitigation from Pulis side.
What about the decision of the so-called response team set up by the Curia? One heck of a name to live up to, seeing that in 8 years they still haven’t come up with any conclusions…. and then some people wonder how come the hold of the Church in Malta is decreasing.
As for the poor victims, they should sue the Catholic Church for damages like victims in other countries have done.
Yeah. Some “Response Team”. You’d think it was a crack SWAT team of priests with chiselled jaws in white clerical collars and black tactical gear, armed with birettas and Berettas,
There are also clean-up teams, clearing up evidence and giving everybody a run around .
Teo, this may answer your question quite clearly: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110805/local/Convicted-priest-was-absolved-in-2003.378874
Ok this was a story that seemed a never ending one. Let’s move on now, can we? Yesterday, for example I was far more interested in the iminenent (some say) economic crisis that may once again hit the US of A then the sexual abuse of boys by priests (Like, what’s new?) and yet you keep rubbing your hands in glee because two ex priests are going to spend some jail time. Daphne, please: perspective.
[Daphne – Keep rubbing my hands in glee? Unbelievable. The judgement was handed down YESTERDAY.]
4 posts in a few hours on the same subject. Oh, by the way I notice that I wrote ‘then’ instead of ‘than’. I hope you won’t think I’m an elf :-) (Note to cikku u l-poplu – the plural is elves but the singular is not elve)
[Daphne – So let’s see now: I shouldn’t break two lots of news about the two defrockings, because they count as two posts and dery will get neurotic. And I can post 100 times about divorce but only once about these priests. You’d better be warned: there’s a column about it tomorrow.]
@ dery – They are only “ex-” priests because this case was made public. Think of all the others who are still priests, performing priestly duties, because they did not pass through the judicial system. Fr. Mercieca of Gozo, for example, springs to mind.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/31/church-child-protection-chief-caught-with-child-porn-pictures-115875-23308972/
Well done, your Holiness.
He’ll earn my respect more if he comes down hard on the Curia and its “Response Team”, which should never have been considered a substitute for police action.
The ‘Response Team’ is not a substitute for police action but rather a counter to it, and a very effective one at that with a few rare exceptions such as this one.
Anthony Mercieca is still performing priestly duties in Rabat, Gozo, despite owning up to having an inappropriate relationship with an adolescent boy (though he himself doesn’t think it appropriate because massage parlours exist, you know).
Scerri and Pulis should stop wasting more time and money with more appeals. They should quit using the order they belong to as some sort of shield.
They should admit guilt and face the music without further ado. Ghandhom joffru is-sofferenza li ha jghaddu fil-habs as just punishment for their abominable sins and hope for forgiveness in the next world.
Agree
Marelli this is also unbelievable ta imma that you associate all persons who do not toe your line … as Muscat cheerleaders. I may have posted in favour of Muscat in the past, as well as in favour of Gonzi. Both have their pluses and minuses. The only thing keeping me from voting for Labour in the next election is the presence of those two stooges: Toni and Anglu, otherwise I would vote for PL no problem.
I do think that your mindset is conditioned by the typical Maltese mentality: intom vs ahna.
[Daphne – Not at all, if you’re talking politics. I tend to divide people into 1. bright and enterprising/not bright and enterprising and 2. amusing/not amusing. Category 1 people in their vast majority do not vote Labour. Category 2 people are so very rare that it’s impossible to draw conclusions.]
So simplistic. Either black or white … no shades of grey. You vote or sympathise with Labour or Muscat … then you have no analytical skills whatsoever or you are a suspect character or you have skeletons in your closet … etc. Ghal naqra ma’ tghidx li tista’ taghraf bniedem jekk huwiex Laburist jew Nazzjonalist mill-apparenza tieghu!
[Daphne – David, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to be bright, have analytical skills and vote Labour out of choice, rather than brainwashing from birth. And even you were raised Labour, if you were born bright the chances are you are also intelligent enough to make your own assessment of the situation. Bright people do not look at Muscat and see a prime minister, or at his sidekicks and see a government. And bright people do not vote out the better option just to make a point about divorce. That’s neurotic.]
My point, in connection with this story, which I’ve already made in a previous post and which you’ve found despicable and “Labour” (!!!) is this: IF THE APPELLANTS ARE FOUND GUILTY BY THE COURT OF APEPAL THEN YES, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT FR. PULIS AND FR. SCERRI ARE PAEDOPHILES WHO DESERVE TO BE LOCKED UP FOR LIFE.
However until their appeal is decided and since litigation is still pending and actively in suit, the media and the public “cannot comment on it in such a way (if) there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the action as for instance by influencing the judge, the jurors, or the witnesses, or even by prejudicing mankind in general against a party to the cause … Even if the person making the comment honestly believes it to be true”. .
[Daphne – What an effing idiot you are, David. If you’ve written in to disprove my thesis that you have to have a half-assed brain to vote for Muscat, you’re making a damned hash of it. This case was decided by a MAGISTRATE. The appeal will be heard and decided by THREE JUDGES. No JURORS are involved and NO WITNESSES either. Therefore at no point anywhere in the proceedings could anything have been done to influence jurors because there were none. As for witnesses – they don’t decide; they testify. But even in the case of jurors, had any been involved, your argument is wholly invalid. I pointed you in the direction of the ECHR judgement which made your argument invalid in 1979, still you persist. Don’t embarrass yourself further. Call up the judgement and read it. The sum of the conclusion of that judgement is this: that the media not only have the right to discuss court cases while they are ongoing but they have the DUTY to do so, and it would be a dereliction of that duty to avoid such reporting and discussion. ]
The sub-judice principle is not only not “oblivious” but it is also enforceable in a Maltese court of law, even today.
[Daphne – Absolute and utter bollocks. Go back to school.]
To conclude: I repeat unless and until the definite conclusion of the judicial process we cannot speak of a guilty party. We can only refer to parties who have been convicted by a first court but whose conviction is now suspended pending a final decision by the Court of Appeal.
[Daphne – Spoken like a true law student with a most inferior mind, of the variety that are now being let in and out of the law course in droves to lower the standard both of the course and of the profession. Imissek tisthi.]
It is only after a definite confirmation by the Court of Appeal that we can discount the possibility that what the men reported may have never happened. This is no conspiracy theory or rocket science … but pure logic.
[Daphne – The absence of logic, actually, David. You are one of those ‘I can see trees but not the wood (as in forest, not firewood) people, I’m afraid.]
Cannot agree with you. I’ve read the House of Lords’ decision a number of times and I think you should read it more carefully. You should read the decision and not a summary or report of such decision. Go on read the damn decision!
[Daphne – What House of Lords decision? I’m talking about a ECHR judgement, which over-rules any such decision.]
On the other hand, as always and since I do not put people into categories (of the black and white type !!) I’d like to tell you that I do enjoy reading your blog (it’s one of my daily online chores …. just after ESPN Soccernet but before timesofmalta.com and maltatoday.com.mt). It’s also nice that you still post comments that you find irritating, deluded, etc.
@ David Gatt:
If what you say is true, then how come all newspapers, with no exception, are reporting that they have been found guilty? Do we expect all editors to be sued for libel?
Ah the lawyers of the future. Nice.
David Gatt – Let us suppose that the two priests drop dead tomorrow. There will be no appeal and we can and should treat them as guilty beacuse there is a court judgement.
When an appeal court OVERTURNS A JUDGEMENT, it is exactly that – the overturning (or upholding) of an already existing judgement.
So now we cannot discuss a judgement until it goes through the appeal stage? Not discussing it before the judgement is handed down is bad enough.
Sometimes justice is slow but sin never sleeps and eventually the long arms of the law catches up and in any case, not a moment too soon.
One only hopes that the victims can, if at all possible, put all this behind them and start fresh again with a clear mind.
Good luck to them all.
And the church is asking for forgiveness. As far as I recall, to be forgiven, one must be sorry for one’s actions. The two priests, rather than bowing their heads and heading straight to jail , are appealing against the judgement. This means that they still feel they have done nothing wrong.
If the Catholic Church truly wants forgiveness, it should publicly denounce Pulis and Scerri for appealing.
By dragging its feet, and just hoping the problem will go away, the church is not in a position to ask for forgiveness. When it starts reporting cases of abuse to the police, only then can it ask for forgiveness.
The Church asks for forgiveness because the two men were priests, in a position of trust.
Today our institutions are being monitored by social workers and specialists in this field, they are government employees.
It wasn’t like this, twenty or thirty years ago.
Pulis and Scerri have rights.
I am surprised that one of them was let off the hook because of a technical mistake by the police/prosecutor.
In my opinion if the ex-priest was wrongly charged, he should stand another trial on a proper bill of indictment. That would be a different charge, it would not be a retrial.
If they lose the appeal there is a special division at Corradino prisons: Division 11.
There they would be in the company of other people like them who also vow that they never touched a child. There they can play billiards, checkers, and can also enjoy some sunshine in a ten by ten yard.
The responsibility of their acts lies mainly on them personally. The Church was and still is offering this service for a pittance and the government should have watched over the service provider.
I know of priests who left the priesthood because they were gay, and others who left because they couldn’t live without a woman.
Just like that Gozitan priest (forgot his name) who thought he did nothing wrong “ghax ma kienx hemm pinitrejxin”. Spoken likea true Gozitan. And defended by his peasant parishioners. And if my comments offend any Gozitans, why, bring it on.
[Daphne – Mercieca.]
@ david s:
I’m not generally known for defending the Church, but surely you must understand that:-
1. The Catholic Church is asking for forgiveness for the crimes of some of its priests. Even if the priests in question are not repentant, this does not invalidate the Catholic hierarchy’s plea for forgiveness. The Bishops cannot force anyone to repent.
2. Pulis and Scerri have a legal right to appeal, and the Church should have no say in that. It’s out of their hands now. It’s a secular issue.
Regarding expecting the Church authorities to immediately report criminal cases to the police, on that I certainly agree.
I am no fan of this Louise Vella, having seen her various “contributions” regarding the so-called “illegal immigrants”, however, I feel that this comment of hers on http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110803/local/mssp-not-informed-of-vatican-s-decision-to-defrock-charles-pulis.378611 should be given wider coverage:
“Ms Louise Vella
Today, 20:07
On June 10, 2006 I met Archbishop Mercieca at the Curia in Floriana. His PRO had called me a few days previously. He told me that the archbishop wanted to meet me regarding the several letters I had been sending to the press about paedophile priests. We had been hearing of clergy abuse scandals in dioceses abroad and I kept wondering how the Maltese bishops dealt with Maltese abusive priests. The archbishop had a blue file, with my name on it. I guess that the file contained the letters I had sent to newspapers. I believe that the Archbishop was troubled by the letters I was writing and he probably sought to silence me.
During the meeting which lasted well over an hour the case of Godwin Scerri was brought up. I asked the archbishop why he posted Godwin Scerri as a spiritual director to the Girls Secondary School Rabat, when he knew that Godwin Scerri was allegedly implicated in a child sexual abuse case in Canada. I also invited him to tell me how he thinks the girls who spoke in confidence to Godwin Scerri were feeling after they learnt of his involvement in the St Joseph Home case. Archbishop Mercieca told me that Godwin Scerri kept denying any wrong doing. Then I asked him whether he requested a report from the police in Canada. However the archbishop stated that for him the denial of Godwin Scerri was enough”