The reason why they haven't been cast out of the convent
I thought that Charles Pulis and Godwin Scerri would be free to disappear into society once they come out of prison, but have been told that this is not the case.
The reason that the Vatican has stipulated that they are to remain in the Missionary Society of St Paul (MSSP) convent, even though they have been defrocked, is not to protect them but to ensure that they are monitored.
They will, of course, have no access to young people or to St Joseph Home.
Other priests in the convent have not taken kindly to the idea, because quite apart from the damage these two have done to the reputation of the organisation as a whole, they have to contend with them on a daily basis knowing what cruel things they have done to their charges.
After the victims, those most upset that Pulis and Scerri have had a stay of punishment pending appeal are the priests who have to share a roof with them whether they like it or not.
31 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“The reason that the Vatican has stipulated that they are to remain in the Missionary Society of St Paul (MSSP) convent, even though they have been defrocked, is not to protect them but to ensure that they are monitored.”
Can you please clarify this? I mean, aren’t they to serve a jail term now, before they return to the convent?
[Daphne – They are in the convent pending appeal, and when they leave prison, they will return to the convent.]
Sorry about my question, since you actually mentioned the prison term in your first sentence. I believe, however, that by the time they come out prison, they would be old enough to be put in the home for older priests.
Hardly. Do bear in mind that Pulis is only 65 years old.
One of the ex-rectors of St Aloysius’ College here fathered a child at 64 …
I sympathise with the boss priest who has the responsibility of running the convent as well as overseeing the community of the religious within it. The presence of these despicable two in their midst must be quite a cross for them to bear and on a daily basis too, especially since they do not seem to be the least bit repentant for what they have been found guilty of.
I am not one to encourage lynching, but were one of their charges still alive today, maybe he would have meted out the same treatment as he had to a poor taxi driver (beheaded and torso dumped in the sea in Valletta some 20 years ago or so).
That poor man had been “rescued” from a horrible family environment, only to find himself at the mercy of the likes of these awful priests. I believe that he was eventually found dead in a bus-stop, having succumbed to a drug overdose.
Pulis and Scerri have the lives of such men on their conscience – assuming that they ever had one, that is.
They are fighting the legal battle to the end. I do not expect them to repent publicly at this stage.
If and when they lose their appeal, then, and only then will a public act of contrition be in order.
If this is not forthcoming the local church authorities and the MSSP will be expected to take appropriate action.
Let us wait and see. As things stand, the Maltese Catholic Church can ill-afford any more monkey-business.
The Law courts ruled Guilty. Hence justice calls for incarceration immediately. Their lawyers can appeal all they want but they must be jailed now.
What a joke. Bad behaviour should not be rewarded with convent time. So convenient.
Again the church is not being just to society.
The Church has no right to interfere in the legal process. I don’t understand why you are blaming the Church for their appeal and the postponment of their incarceration.
Daph,, for the first time EVER I have to say that on this issue you are completely long. I used to attend SPMC years ago, and although I am trying as much as possible not to be prejudaced against even though my experience there was quite a low-down. Let me just note that the convents have 8 INTERNAL entrances, very accessible to the students and members of the convent alike which are never closed. In certain activities such as alter boys etc, the kids have a lot of connections with the convent too.
I’m pretty sure that the Vatican could have come to some agreement with the MSSP to transfer the priests into an institution abroad which may focus on their issues.
Ms. Caruana Galizia (Daphne?) – I’ve tried looking for your e-mail address in the archives.
[Daphne: dcg@proximuspr.com]
As an ex-student of St. Paul’s Missionary College, the secondary school run by the MSSP fathers, and as an Atheist hence with no religious agenda, I have nothing but words of praise for the excellent education and school experience devoid of any such nuisance, provided by the fathers in general.
The despicable crimes of these monsters should not overshadow the great work being done for the community locally and abroad by the MSSP.
I am trying to understand: Will these priests be defrocked? in the affirmative, after their prison term, I think they cannot be “obliged” to stay at the convent. If they are defrocked thay do not fall – any more -under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
@red nose:
According to the information published in the media, they will remain “brothers,” and will still form part of the community of the MSSP. They will remain under the authority of the Superior General of that community.
They will still be “brothers”. In any case, even if they were to remain priests, they have no legal obligation to remain in the convent in any case.
Is it true that the Curia assigned Scerri to be spiritual director of Can. P. Pullicino Girls’ Secondary School in Rabat, a year after the Canadian authorities issued an arrest warrant for similar cases…….. I was surfing on the net and came across this site. http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Black_Collar_Crime_In_Malta..
It looks like the page on the link you provided has since been removed.
I can imagine how horrifying it must be for the other priests. But when they come out of prison there isn’t anything that can force them to remain in the convent is there?
[Daphne – No money and nowhere else to go. They’re not forced to stay there, but the convent is obliged to keep them and feed them.]
What really upsets me is that there is so much mention of the MSSP. It must be so humilating for the boys living there now to tell people where they live.
Schoolboys can be hurtful and it must be daunting for the kids living there now.
Does anyone know who is paying the lawyers – they don’t come cheap.
Regarding the lawyers: my thoughts exactly. It’s time the Curia issued a statement on the matter.
Obviously these two are being kept away from any child/adolescent boy – but why is it that few priests seem to be attracted to girls?
If celibacy was the problem than surely they would favour girls.
[Daphne – Celibacy is not the problem. Priests are never in charge of girls – nuns are. The priests who are attracted to adolescent boys are generally the ones whose own homosexual development has been arrested or warped. Think about it: they lived in a world where to be homosexual was the worst thing. They became novices at a time when their were just beginning to discover that they weren’t attracted to women.They might even have chosen the priesthood because they weren’t attracted to women. Instead of blaming celibacy, I think we should look elsewhere.]
Charles Pulis, unknowingly, pretty much admitted this himself:
“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.”
The Vatican defrocked the priests – doesn’t that imply that the Vatican has forfeit any authority it has over them, since they are not priests any more? How could it force them to continue living at the convent?
[Daphne – It can’t force them to continue living at the convent, but it can force the convent to keep them. And Pulis and Scerri have nowhere else to go without a dog-collar.]
I’m not familiar with church procedures, so I may well be (and probably am) wrong though.
I’ve read that they will still be “Brothers”, and thus under the Church’s authority for as long as they choose to remain so.
BuBu: according to Catholic Church doctrine, once a priest, always a priest. A defrocked priest loses the right to exercise the functions he could exercise after ordination but he remains a priest and may even hear the confession of someone in extremis. Even a priest who requests to be lalicized in order to marry and does marry remains a priest.
The stay at the convent would be voluntary as there is no legal way to coerce them into staying there if they don’t want to after they leave prison. As to serving time in jail, let’s wait and see.
The article in today’s The Times about Charles Pulis’ alleged psychiatric problems seems to me (I hope I’m wrong) to be the first notes of an orchestrated attempt at having him serve his sentence in a psychiatric hospital rather than Corradino. I may be wrong but time will tell…
This Times’ report, assuming it’s faithful to the facts, is quite shocking.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110804/local/-I-tried-to-make-a-good-home-for-troubled-angry-children-.378640
If Pulis really had such a known psychiatric history, was it a responsible decision on the part of his religious order, not to mention the Maltese Church itself, to assign to him the care of minors?
Who would blame me if I come to the conclusion that the whole set-up of entrusting children and other vulnerable persons to the Church should be closely scrutinized by competent State authorities?
I admit I do not know what kind of control is exercised by the State to see that private institutions, such as those run by the Church, carry out such functions as they should and here, of course, I’m not referring to the purely religious aspect.
Is it assumed that the Church cannot err and that scrutiny by the State is unnecessary or uncalled for? I’m only asking since I am not informed.
“Who would blame me if I come to the conclusion that the whole set-up of entrusting children and other vulnerable persons to the Church should be closely scrutinized by competent State authorities?…Is it assumed that the Church cannot err and that scrutiny by the State is unnecessary or uncalled for? I’m only asking since I am not informed”.
That’s not the problem. The problem is that the Church is providing a service (sometimes at a financial loss) that the State does not provide for. If the State puts “too much pressure” on them, they simply close down.
I had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they would serve their sentence at Mount Carmel, even before tThe Times article revealing the guy’s psychiatric problems. That’s the way things are done on this island after all.
[Daphne – The psychiatric problems are in the 100-page judgement. They were not ‘revealed’.]
Well, they certainly were “revealed” to us disinterested onlookers who were not present in court weren’t they?
[Daphne – You can read the full judgement on line. It should up soon. There’s no need to act so helpless, waiting to be spoonfed.]
When they joined the convent they ‘left’ their family to join another. So I expect their ‘family’ take care of them in the same way that my fmaily would take care of me and I would take care on mine. No mother or father should abandon their sons or daughters.
… and no priests should abuse the minors left in their care.
I would leave the bastards out on the street once they are out of prison.
Jien mhux hames snin kont naghtihom, imma kont nibaghthom gurnata wahda l-habs l-Amerika, ghax hemm kif il-habsin ikunu jafu li dahal pedofelu tghidx x-xebgha jaghtuh.