Ottawa Catholic archdiocese settles sex-abuse claim

OTTAWA — The Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa has settled a lawsuit filed by a man sexually abused by an Eastern Ontario priest more than 25 years ago, according to a statement from Archbishop Terrence Prendergast. The victim, who can only be identified as “Alex” under the terms of an old publication ban, was molested by then-priest Dale Crampton, who pleaded guilty in December 1986 to indecently assaulting seven altar boys between 1973 and 1982.

Crampton was diagnosed with alcoholism and pedophilia – with a preference for boys – and was originally given a suspended sentence, with no jail time, placed on probation and ordered to undergo psychiatric counselling. An appeal of that sentence was upheld in June 1987, and Crampton was sentenced to eight months in jail. “Alex” filed suit against the archdiocese last June, after learning the archdiocese had paid $150,000 to the families of three of the seven victims in 1990. In June, the archdiocese’s vicar-general Kevin Beach suggested “Alex” had been put up to the suit by his lawyer.

“This occasion gives me the opportunity to apologize to “Alex”] and to the other victims of Dale Crampton,” Predergast said in his statement. “I state again the commitment of our diocese, and my personal commitment, to create a safe environment in the church for young people and for other vulnerable persons.”


I was angry when I read this (below);

On Thursday, Prendergast announced the archdiocese would offer shelter to former Antigonish bishop Raymond Lahey while he faces charges in Ottawa for allegedly possessing and importing child pornography.

…but then again, aren’t we to turn the sinner away from sin? …rather than reject them? :shrug:

“Hate the sin, not the sinner” :frowning:

We should help those hurt by the sinner, locking up the sinner turns him away from this sin:shrug:

Since the justice system chose to let him out on bail he needed a place to live. Being in NB, in a village where nobody wanted him, put him far from his lawyer and he couldn’t find a place to stay in Ottawa. I don’t think Archbishop Prendergast had much choice if he was to do as Jesus asked us to do.

It makes me angry that the money I give in offering every Sunday is used to settle sexual abuse cases. That’s the last thing I woul like my money to be used for. If the victims are to be compensated, it should be out of the pocket of the priest who is to blame for this behavior, not from my own pocket!

Yes, because we all know that those priests are floating in dough.

While I have never understood how money can ever fix what has been broken in those who were abused, I realize that sometimes the most painful place to hit the abuser (and his supervisors) is in the pocketbook. Unfortunately, the average parish priest who is accused is earning a pittance and is in no position to pay the increasingly large amounts that are awarded in civil cases – even less so is the religious priest who took a vow of poverty.

I thought it was ridiculous for the former bishop to negotiate a multi-million dollar out-of-court settlement in his own diocese and then tell the parishes, “OK, you’re going to have to cough up this dough because the diocese has no money.” The average parishes are scraping by with decreased income due to industries closing left and right and they’re supposed to somehow keep paying the bills PLUS this settlement?

This is ridiculous. Why should the Catholic church be financially responsible for what their members do? If I commit a crime, will my employer pay the damage done? No!
I know that priests are not floating in dough, but even if he had to give 30-50% of his income to the victims, that would be an adequate punishment IMO. Perhaps we should change our judical system and back away from the system of these ridiculous US-style multi-million dollar lawsuits. The financial penalty should be based on the means of the person who commited the crime, not his employer/institution he belongs to.

Well, if you commit a crime while acting as an agent of your employer he may well be found liable by the courts and that’s precisely what has happened in the various cases we have seen.

You got my vote! :smiley:

I don’t mind contributing to the Sunday envelope because I realize it’s helping the victims. (okay and a few lawyers:mad:) but mostly the victims. In the future we’ll just have to collectively be better stewards to the Church Jesus founded for us (Mt16:18) with better screening of our vocation applications. Unfortunately it appears that legally we are bound to pay for these unfortunate hiring decisions. All of this is making me more determined to be protective/watchful/prayerful for Jesus’ Church.

LOL - calm down, these things can’t be helped…

Quit calling them paedophiles-they are predatory homosexuals who victimize pubescent boys NOT toddlers.

!? Say what? But these boys are children.

These boys are adolescents not helpless babies and toddlers the real victims of paedophiles.These adolescent,pubescent boys are the victims of predatory homosexual chickenhawks that are hiding behind their cassocks.The vast majority of the victims of these “priests” are adolescent BOYS or YOUNG MEN.These "priests are homosexual criminal rapists not paedophiles.Even the homosexual 'community’recognizes this.Ever hear one little peep out of them regarding “paedophiliac” priests?Never because their not paedophiles they’re homosexuals who can’t/won’t control their perverted desires.

The ones that truly have my prayers and pity are the chaste,celibate,priests who suffer from same sex attraction,but obey God’s Law.There will be a special place in heaven for them,I am sure… .

So you don’t think that 8 year old boys are young enough to use the term?

I’ve heard a lot of criticisms made by catholics on CAF regarding Mohamed and his 9yo wife, I’d think that 8yo boys would provoke the same level of upset rather than a debate over terminology. :mad:

Soutane, are you mentally ill? Could you do us all a favour and please read over your own post and think about it.

Your post has been reportedto the moderator.

The term paedophile denotes abuse of little children,male or female.The vast majority of those abused by priests are pubescent boys or young men denoting a homosexual orientation on the part of those “priests”.If you want to argue semantics,fine,be my guest.My point is that these “priests” are not paedophiles within the common definition of the word but predatory homosexuals.For goodness sake even the Vatican says so:

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican ( 1 2 3 4 5 … Last Page)
Pro Life News

If you want to argue further write to the Holy See.

A peadophile is someone that abuses someone under age. That’s quite simple.

No, sorry, a pedophile by definition is only interested in pre-pubescent children. While it may be a crime for a 21 year old to sleep with a 15 year old, it’s not pedophilia. Consider that Canon Law allows girls 14 years old & boys 16 years old to marry.

We have to stop expanding these categories beyond their original meaning.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit