The witch-hunt is over; the allegations of sexual assault against Cardinal Ouellet were false

Rome. Back in August 2022, Ms Paméla Groleau, as part of a class action lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Québec for abuses committed over several decades, accused Cardinal Marc Ouellet of non-consensual advances (repeated sexual violence) that took place between 2008 and 2010, when the prelate was the local archbishop. The case triggered a public scandal, extensive media coverage, character assassinations, and demonisation; stones were hurled at priests and fires were set to churches. The narrative was further fuelled by gossip, confidences, and half-truths. A familiar narrative, offering little that was new. Four years later, a judge ruled that the allegations were unfounded, that the cardinal had committed no wrongdoing, and ordered the woman to pay him one hundred thousand dollars in damages for defamation and slander. Cardinal Ouellet noted ‘with gratitude that the civil courts of my country have recognised that the allegations of sexual abuse levelled against me were false and made with extreme recklessness, amounting to malice, and that the person in question has been held responsible for the defamatory and slanderous statements directed against me and widely disseminated worldwide’.

Four years of public shaming for the man who, at the time, was Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops – a prominent and crucially important post within the Roman Curia – to the extent that Pope Francis was forced to launch a preliminary investigation to ascertain whether there were credible grounds for the allegations. The report by the investigator, the Jesuit Jacques Servais, quickly dismantled the case against him: “There is no well-founded reason to open an investigation into sexual assault” against “Cardinal Marc Ouellet”. At that point, the Pope did not proceed: the canonical investigation did not go ahead because there was insufficient evidence to justify it. The damage, however, had already been done and the cardinal’s reputation tarnished. The Canadian criminal justice system pressed ahead, and as witnesses were heard and the events were pieced together, the baseless nature of the allegations became apparent. Ms Groleau’s statements proved to be contradictory, to the extent that she changed her version of events at the trial: her initial account resembled the plot of a soft-porn film from the 1970s: during an ordination, the cardinal allegedly first greeted her and then touched her bottom – voluntarily, it goes without saying. This was presented as the apex, the culmination of a ‘progression’ of increasingly invasive behaviour. The first version made no mention of any progression, but spoke of three episodes of explicit and proven sexual violence.

The judge heard the case, evaluated the evidence, and showed no leniency: ‘wokism’ applied to the Catholic Church, once all the rage, no longer holds the same sway as it once did; an increasing number of individuals are coming forward to speak out, and even in courtrooms the old prejudice against priests and their superiors has gradually faded. Cardinal Ouellet has stated that the $100,000 in compensation will be donated to organisations fighting against sexual abuse (the real cases) suffered by indigenous peoples in Canada.