BLOG

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - April 2, 2025 Breaking the silence. Confronting clergy abuse. The month of March has come and gone, with its mix of sun, wind, rain, and clocks that needed changing! Some of us may have been surprised waking up this morning to realize that it is already April. How fast time flies when you’re having fun…or perhaps, are exceedingly busy! For my part, I’ve been exceedingly busy, but here I am once more, with yet another blog. It is one I will attempt to keep short but know, dear readers, that this week’s blog is one I would prefer not to be writing at all. Why? Because the end of March was the promised date for the wildly late, overly long-awaited Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Abuse Update Report. But, as you have guessed, it's not coming. We're not getting anything! It's been nearly three full years of absolute silence. No communications or updates of any kind, despite the Archbishop's commitment to publish a Clergy Abuse Update Report every six months. I quote first from Archbishop Miller’s speech at the Vancouver Archdiocese Annual Dinner on 30 October 2018: “This evening, I would like to begin my conversation with you by calling attention to the grave situation of clerical sexual abuse and cover-up by bishops, which has recently come to light. My first responsibility is toward the victims of these horrific crimes, those who have been so severely harmed by members of the clergy. It has been an extraordinarily trying time for victims and their families, who have been forced yet again to revisit the injustices they have suffered.” As reported by the B.C. Catholic, Archbishop Miller then went on to say: “We must find more effective ways to support and care for victims of abuse, to protect everyone from it ever happening again, and to bring justice and closure to historical cases of abuse.” Then from his Pastoral Letter, four months later on 19 February 2019: “The Archdiocese is committed to supporting victims of clergy sexual abuse meaningfully through the provision of counselling and effective advocacy support as they journey on the path to healing. Too often in the past, victims have been allowed to fade away from our Church family without receiving the justice and support that they deserve... It is imperative to find ways to reach out to victims and their families with our most sincere apologies and an invitation to receive whatever comfort and healing we can facilitate”. He goes on to say: “We will also be taking bold steps to ensure that abusive clergy members are held accountable for the terrible crimes they have committed. Greater transparency will invite more input for change and will foster greater trust in the faithful members of our clergy and religious communities.” And then there is Archbishop Miller’s Pastoral Letter from 25 November 2019, his letter which accompanied the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Abuse Report and its thirty-one recommendations: “Now is the time for us to address more fully what we, as the local Church, can do to respond better to the needs of victims of abuse, as well as improve our policies and procedures that have been in place for many years. All these efforts going forward entail a profound and continuous conversion of our hearts. Such a conversion must be accompanied by a firm commitment to take concrete and effective action marked by greater transparency and accountability in all that we do.” I can quote so much more, but I’ll stop right here. “All these efforts going forward entail a profound and continuous conversion of our hearts. Such a conversion must be accompanied by a firm commitment to take concrete and effective action marked by greater transparency and accountability in all that we do.” It gives me no joy to say that: I have seen no such “conversion of heart”. Not in all the years I have tried hard to help the Archdiocese of Vancouver address this topic and care for its victims. I have seen no “firm commitments” honoured nor have I witnessed or experienced “concrete and effective action”. And I have seen no “transparency” or “accountability” take place. Have you? Please do let me know so that I might share it with others. So allow me instead to share what we do get in place of concrete action, conversion of heart and firm commitments… We, as in myself and a couple of others (who were also members of the Clergy Abuse Review Committee) get an email from the Archbishop’s Delegate for Operations, James Borkowski, telling us that: “After receiving feedback from insurers and other stakeholders, the new website is being paused.” As an invested stakeholder myself, along with many other Catholics and non-Catholics alike, whether victim-survivors or not, what can one possibly say to this? There is quite simply no suitable or adequate response to be made! Here's a thing. None of us is looking for a fancy website! We never asked for a website. Just a report - twice a year. We just want to be updated on the progress of all the recommendations and the commitments made by the Archbishop and the Vancouver Archdiocese. We just want to be updated with news of other predator priests still not named but known to the Archdiocese. We want to hear and know that the plight of victims matters. And that when names are released of predator priests known to the Archdiocese but kept hidden till now, many victims who have suffered alone will know they are not alone. We don't want lofty language and empty promises on fancy new websites, all of which amount to nothing when action does not follow. And as for silence? Perhaps no one at the Vancouver Archdiocese has yet realized the impact that silence has on victim-survivors? Silence was, and still is, the very weapon which predator priests use over their victims. Thus, silence today, from leaders who should know better, is incredibly harmful and damaging. Another recipient of that email from last week, notifying us that the Catholic Church’s insurance companies and “other stakeholders” are not happy with the website wrote: “We are not the only people who are concerned about this matter. The community at large needs to be informed as to what will and will not happen, and why.” They then added, “the Archdiocese should publish a statement about what it does intend to do, and how it expects to move forward on commitments made,” suggesting that this should be done "as soon as possible". Yet another wrote, “I am losing hope that anything will change in this diocese” adding that whatever improvements and undertakings have taken place, leave one with the feeling that these are just “temporary band aids to create an illusion to convince the public that things will change.” Needless to say, since receiving the email, and all recipients responding, there has only been more silence. No further communication. No reaction. No offer to publish a statement about what the Archdiocese intends to do. Whatever happened to Archbishop Miller’s and the Vancouver Archdiocese’s first responsibility being “toward the victims of these horrific crimes, those who have been so severely harmed by members of the clergy” and “respond(ing) better to the needs of victims of abuse”? Has nobody in the Vancouver Archdiocese, leaders or administration, made the connection yet that the victims “so severely harmed” are the very ones waiting and wondering why there are no updates being shared, whether about predator priests, cases in progress, or class action suits underway? And what about Archbishop Miller’s imperative “to find ways to reach out to victims and their families” and the “invitation to receive whatever comfort and healing” the Archdiocese can facilitate? Allow me to bring this blog to a close by sharing words received from a blog reader this past week. They wrote: “Your blog is unprecedented in scope, detail and history, and stands alone as a reference work”. Albeit this is weighty stuff for me to hear, I am glad that my truth-telling stands alone as a reference work, for too much is hidden by Catholic Church leadership and kept in the dark. Too much that is still covered-up. I find myself carrying a torch that I would rather not carry... Whoever the original quote may be attributed to, I echo their words that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” I, for one, cannot stand by. Please do not become one of the many who do nothing, but join me instead, in speaking out and speaking the truth... Until the next time, Bernadette

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - March 24, 2025 Breaking the silence. Confronting clergy abuse.  Dear readers, In a recent blog titled “Loss, Illness, Near Reprieves and Broken Dishwashers” I spoke about how demoralizing and deflating it can be, attempting to hold Catholic Church leaders accountable as we work to try and bring about meaningful and healthy change. It's a Sisyphean task. And, like Sisyphus, that Greek mythological figure who was condemned forever to push a boulder up a mountain side, only to see it roll back down again just as he reaches the top, I was recently feeling rather weary and tempted to walk away. Just because it's so demoralizing, does not mean however, that one should do nothing nor bother to try, but one should take care; for there's a risk that if we’re not careful, the negative energy it draws from us may silently kill us in the process of trying. Marie Collins, a fellow Irish woman and victim-survivor who served on the Pontifical Council for the Protection of Minors, but who resigned in frustration in 2017, once wisely said to me soon afterwards: “There is a temptation to walk away, and I have many times felt like giving up. However, even small victories make a difference and in the end, I have decided to continue to try but at a level which will be less damaging to myself.” If you have time and feel so inclined, you can read this article from her interview with Mary Hynes on CBC's radio program "Tapestry': https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/marie-collins-abuse-survivor-challenges-the-catholic-church-1.4018300/survivor-who-quit-papal-committee-on-abuse-tells-her-story-1.4018335 Consequently, and keeping in mind Marie's wise words, in that blog of five weeks ago I shared with you that, going forward, I would respect my own health and wellbeing by choosing to pause, honour what is life-giving, release myself from the responsibility of feeling it necessary to blog each week and instead, would only blog when I feel moved to share. To this end, I am moved to write today and share this six-minute video clip sent to me last week by a victim-survivor in Ontario. I wish to share this with you because I know just how invested this victim-survivor, David Cullen, is in also trying to bring about change; in wanting to ensure that what happened to him will never happen to another child. https://youtu.be/VDD3qV9PMfg The opening words in this video clip of the then Archbishop Tom Collins, now Cardinal Collins read: “Our first concern must be for those innocent young people who have been abused to help them overcome their suffering and to resolve to take whatever steps are needed to be as sure as is possible that this does not happen again.” My personal sense is that the Church has dutifully and respectfully put in safe environment policies and reporting structures to ensure that this is not happening to children any more (…although I can’t say the same for abuse of vulnerable adults…) but, helping victims to overcome their suffering? What, if any, programs have been put in place? I welcome hearing from any readers out there who know of such programs that may exist so that I can share this information with others who seek support. David Cullen shares in his video which, if my understanding is correct, he arranged to fund and produce himself, is that his first step was to go to the Toronto website where sadly he, “saw nothing that suggested that there was any kind of process for victims” who want help. Assuming this was something he encountered a few years ago but that things had changed a lot since then, I went onto the current Toronto website, confident I would find a link on the home page directing people where to find help along with a compassionate note encouraging people to come forward and be supported. Not quite… There is no easy link that speaks of clergy abuse. If you search for it, under “Contact Us” which I typically only associate with basic phone and mailing details, you will find a link to “Report Misconduct” and then another link “Inform us of an Incident.” You can indeed phone in—though its unclear as to who answers the phone at the number listed. You can also email, and you will then be encouraged to speak to the Archbishop’s Delegate. Not to the archbishop himself. “Hello Mr. Archbishop’s Delegate. My name is John. Can I tell you about an 'incident’ that happened to me? “Hello John… and thank you for calling. Absolutely. Please do share” “This incident that happened to me...would you mind awfully if I called it by its real name?” “Most certainly…. we’re here to help with any incidents of misconduct” Umm…. well, it’s a four-letter word. And it involves sexual assault. I notice on your website that we can report an allegation of ‘misconduct’ or ‘abuse’ against a priest, lay employee or volunteer, but it doesn’t mention the words ‘clergy sexual abuse.’” John pauses for a deep breath….and then continues. “The incident I experienced is what everyone else but the Catholic Church calls rape. “Oh dear. Yes, this certainly would be an incident of misconduct and improper behaviour.” And so it goes…. Why does the Catholic Church not like to use the words clergy sexual abuse or sexual assault? Albeit I could find nothing directly linked to reporting clergy abuse on the home screen of the Toronto Archdiocese website, now under the leadership of Cardinal Frank Leo, and even though its not that easy to find, located a bit deeper, there at least is a way offered to report abuse. Unlike the St Paul Alberta Diocese now under the leadership of Bishop Gary Franken. On that website, there is nothing at all for victim-survivors, sadly sending a clear unspoken message, whether intended this way or not, that silently reads: we really don’t care. I was somewhat comforted by the fact that, as members of the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Abuse Review Committee (2018/2019), we had suggested, requested and ensured that the home page of the Vancouver Archdiocese website would always display a direct link for reporting abuse. To remind myself of this and our hard work, I went to double check it out again. NO. NO. NO. Nada. Nothing. The website is all changed. It’s all about celebrations for the new incoming bishop and celebrations for the outgoing one, all of which I have no objection to and totally understand. But in this change up, no longer is there the promised clearly visible link on the home page for reporting clergy abuse—or even being supported— as was agreed to. The long list of various “Ministries and Offices” on this and any other diocesan websites I have looked at range from ministries relating to anti-human trafficking to bereavement and catechesis, from supporting Hispanic and indigenous communities to natural family planning and to respecting life and more. All very honourable and worthy ministries. But shouldn’t caring for victims of clergy sexual abuse and those who have experienced rape by a priest constitute respect for another person’s life? We victim survivors are not zygotes such as the yet unborn are. We are here, now. We are living and we are fully formed, fully breathing, human beings. Perhaps the CCCB might consider producing guidelines on setting up a new pastoral ministry called ‘Supporting Clergy Abuse Survivors’ to include not just sexual abuse but all other forms of clergy and church related abuse. The Church could show that it cares, not just by offering a place to report abuse (…on those diocesan websites that actually do this!) but it could also offer programs of support and healing as well. Indeed, it’s a suggestion I made just a few days ago. This was when I contacted the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (the CCCB) asking if they would please ensure that the St. Paul Alberta Diocese offers victim-survivors online ability to report abuse. And indeed, offers resources and information for people wanting to know what to do and where to go, for currently there is NOTHING. But this was when I learned that the CCCB is not a supervisory body. “Canon Law does not give Episcopal Conferences, like the CCCB, supervisory responsibility over any diocese or eparchy in the area of safeguarding” I was informed last week by the CCCB’s General Secretary. The General Secretary went to write that the CCCB publication Protecting Minors “provides guidance to Diocesan Bishops as they each seek to develop and implement safeguarding practices most suited to the specific needs and circumstances in their dioceses/eparchies while respecting both secular and canon law.” My concern therefore is this: what good are guidelines if there is no one here in Canada to ensure that Canadian bishops ever do what is suggested by the CCCB as best practice? I must say that I found the General Secretary to be most helpful in dealing with my original request as well as in further correspondence. This is in stark contrast to a situation back in July 2017 when I needed to contact the CCCB with regard to a complaint and query I had at that time, and got no response whatsoever from the then General Secretary. The General Secretary of the CCCB at that time was Monsignor Frank Leo. In order to elicit any kind of response in relation to a complaint I had back in 2017, I had to email Archbishop Michael Miller who in return suggested I could either write directly to the President of the CCCB (at that time, it was Bishop Douglas Crosby, Bishop of Hamilton—now it is Bishop William T. McGrattan, Bishop of Calgary) or that the other option was that he, Archbishop Miller, could put in a word with Monsignor Leo. I chose to contact Bishop Crosby directly as I was not interested in only being given the respect and courtesy of a response because a bishop had prompted it! (Hey Frank, for God’s sake. can you please respond to this woman who keeps ‘wigging in my ear?!) But back to the current General Secretary, Fr. Jean Vézina. He went on to write and helped me to clearly understand that: “Within the structure of the Church, it is the Pope who has oversight over a diocesan Bishop in matters concerning safeguarding. He is assisted by various departments of the Vatican, called Dicasteries, such as the Dicastery for Bishops in cases where the complaint concerns a Bishop. However, knowing that victims would need to be assisted by an ecclesiastical authority if they wished to bring a complaint of abuse or cover-up to the Pope’s attention, Pope Francis asked the Bishops of each country to set up a reporting mechanism for sexual abuse or cover-up by a Bishop, and he also established a process by which such complaints could be received, reviewed and responded to by the Vatican. In response to Pope Francis’ request, about four years ago, Canada’s Bishops launched the Canadian Reporting System for Sexual Abuse or Cover-up by a Bishop. The platform is hosted by a third-party whistleblowing firm, Clearview/Syntrio, which directs complaints against a Bishop to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority who will gather the information and transmit it to the Vatican.” Alas, this still means there is an internal review of ‘bishops by bishops’ before anything is transmitted to the Vatican, something that certainly does not instill me with any confidence. The General Secretary then invited me to visit the website: www.bishopreportingsystem.ca. There is also 24-hour hotline: 1-866-892-3737. This reporting tool, I since learned, is specifically for the following: To make a report to Church authorities about a Catholic Bishop in Canada who has committed sexual abuse, or other sexual misconduct (e.g. sexual harassment or possession of child pornography), or whose actions or omissions intended to interfere with or avoid civil or canonical investigations regarding sexual abuse. If your report concerns: 1. a priest, deacon, consecrated person (i.e., Brother or Sister), or officially mandated lay pastoral worker, or 2. a deceased Latin or Eparchial Bishop or 3. an Eparchial Bishop (active or retired) other than the ones named above, 1. please contact the diocese/eparchy where the incident took place. A blog reader who was in contact with me earlier this week asked the question: “If there is a “Reporting System for Sexual Abuse or Cover-up by a Catholic Bishop”, what if your complaint concerns reporting an Abbott?” This is an excellent question and pertinent in light of so many blog readers who have reached out to me in connection with cover-up and lack of proper investigations as it pertains to clergy abuse and sexual abuse-related incidents at Westminster Abbey and Christ the King Seminary in Mission, B.C. Sadly however, to this question, I do not have an answer. But should any readers wish to follow up in relation to this (and other questions you may have), I share here the contact details of the General Secretary of the CCCB: Fr./ Abbé Jean Vézina General Secretary / Secrétaire général Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) Conférence des évêques catholiques du Canada (CECC) 2500 promenade Don Reid Drive Ottawa, ON K1H 2J2 Email: gensec@cccb.ca Telephone: 613-241-9461, ext. 206 Website: https://www.cccb.ca/ For that it’s worth, I did find the following on Encylopedia.com: “Since the Middle Ages abbots have received, by papal privilege, the use of insignia and ceremonial proper to bishops. These prelatial prerogatives are recognized in law and liturgy. An abbot is allowed the use of a ring, pectoral cross, and zucchetto. Vested for pontifical functions or assisting in formal choir, he wears the garb of a bishop, except that its color is proper to his religious order. Thus, a Norbertine abbot wears white, a Benedictine abbot wears black. An abbot celebrates Holy Mass and performs other liturgical functions according to the ceremonial of a prelate. He uses a throne with a canopy, wears complete prelatial vesture, and observes the rubrics for a pontiff.” I additionally learned that an Abbott is voted in by secret ballot, not unlike papal voting and similarly, is elected for life. And so, I draw to a close for this blog. For those blog readers who always felt so supported by my consistently regular weekly blogs, I hope you will understand that I am still here, still blogging, still working to break the silence and confront clergy abuse…but doing so in a way that respects my own health and wellbeing when dealing with such a difficult, but necessary, topic. Until next time, thank you again for your loyalty, readership and support. Bernadette

Aaron Lealess, Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers - March 5, 2025 Clergy sexual abuse is a grave and deeply troubling issue that has impacted countless individuals and communities worldwide. The abuse of power and trust by religious leaders has left scars that are not easily healed. In the wake of these crimes, both the victims and society as a whole must grapple with the consequences of such profound violations. Addressing the impact of clergy sexual abuse requires not only acknowledging the pain it has caused but also taking actionable steps toward accountability, justice, and healing for all involved. The Lasting Trauma of Clergy Sexual Abuse The emotional, psychological, and spiritual trauma caused by clergy sexual abuse is profound. Many survivors experience a range of effects, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a loss of faith. The abuse often undermines an individual’s sense of safety and trust, and when the abuser is a person in a position of religious authority, it can also lead to spiritual disillusionment. For many survivors, the abuse occurs within an environment of silence and secrecy, where the church or religious institution may have actively shielded the abuser from accountability. This complicates the healing process, as victims may feel invalidated or isolated, unsure of where to turn for support. The damage done can extend beyond the individual, affecting families, communities, and the broader faith tradition itself. The Importance of Accountability and Justice One of the most important steps in addressing the impact of clergy sexual abuse is ensuring accountability. Church leaders, institutions, and society must recognize that sexual abuse is never acceptable, regardless of the perpetrator’s position within the church hierarchy. This includes: Transparency and Investigation: Religious institutions must be open about allegations and investigations, ensuring that those who are responsible for abuse face legal and ecclesiastical consequences. A refusal to act or silence around such abuse only perpetuates the trauma. Support for Survivors: Survivors of clergy sexual abuse must receive the care, recognition, and resources they need to heal. This includes legal support, access to counseling, and a safe space for survivors to share their stories without fear of retribution or disbelief. Policy Changes: Religious institutions need to establish and enforce stringent protocols to prevent abuse, ensuring that leaders are properly vetted and trained to maintain safe environments. This should include creating clear channels for reporting abuse, as well as enforcing zero-tolerance policies. Legal and Financial Responsibility: Faith-based institutions must be held legally accountable for failing to protect vulnerable individuals from abuse. This may include criminal charges, civil lawsuits, or other legal actions. The financial resources of the institution can be used to fund survivors’ compensation programs, therapy, and other necessary support services. A Commitment to Restorative Justice While criminal and legal measures are crucial, restorative justice offers a complementary approach. Restorative justice is a process in which offenders are held accountable for their actions while offering victims a chance to heal and restore their dignity. In the context of clergy sexual abuse, restorative justice can help: Acknowledge the Harm Done: Survivors often feel as though their pain has been minimized or ignored. Restorative justice allows them to voice their experiences and receive the recognition they deserve. Provide a Path to Healing: Instead of focusing solely on punishment, restorative justice allows for healing and dialogue between the survivor and the community, promoting understanding and reconciliation. Prevent Future Abuse: By focusing on accountability and communal responsibility, restorative justice can help prevent future abuse by transforming the practices within faith communities Moving Forward: Healing and Renewal Addressing the impact of clergy sexual abuse is a long and challenging journey, but it is essential for the health and integrity of religious communities and society at large. In the aftermath of abuse, it is crucial for survivors to be empowered to reclaim their lives and their faith, should they choose to do so. This requires empathy, consistent support, and a genuine commitment to change. As we move forward, it is important to remember that addressing clergy sexual abuse requires collective action, a commitment to justice, and a deep respect for those whose lives have been forever altered. Only through a shared commitment to accountability, compassion, and transformation can we create a future where abuse of any kind is not tolerated. A good resource is Outrage Canada, which is a non-religious coalition of outraged Canadians that holds the Roman Catholic church of Canada accountable for ongoing crimes and advocates for all victims of Catholic clergy. They are committed to ensuring justice for victims, the safety of all children and the prevention of abuse by the Roman Catholic church. If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted by a member of the clergy, reach out to an experienced personal injury lawyer.

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - March 5, 2025 Breaking the silence. Confronting clergy abuse. For those of you who’ve been following my recent blog posts you will know that last month I had a reprieve from jury duty. I’d cleared my calendar and old clients I would likely not be available for five weeks. This then resulted in subsequently finding myself with extra free ‘time’ stretching before me! Quite a delight really. But what to do? Take a local road trip and explore somewhere new? Fast forward my planned summer trip back to Europe? Or curl up at home and indulge myself in lots of reading and writing? One blog reader suggested that I should watch the Prime Video series called “Jury Duty”. (Thank you to this reader for such light hearted entertainment!) Spread over eight episodes “Jury Duty” is filmed documentary style. However, unbeknown to one person, a delightful young man called Ronald Gladden, it really is in fact a comedy ‘mockumentary’ Everyone is an actor with the exception of Ronald who genuinely believes himself to be chosen as Juror # 6. The wealth of different characters comprising the other eleven jurors, the two alternatives, the judge, the prosecutor, the accused, the defense team, the court bailiff and even the security guard on duty at the entrance of the courts are wonderfully and beautifully drawn-out personalities and well acted. Its hilarious should you want to dip into something lighthearted! Aside from watching this, I also ended up doing some reading. And, in line with the current focus on Pope Francis dealing with a health crisis, I thought this week I’d share an overview of one book, should some of you be interested in reading it. My thanks to the blog reader who recommended this book. But before I dive into this book, I want to also thank the blog reader who sent me a link to CBC’s “The Early Edition” of February 25th, 2025, when Stephen Quinn invited Archbishop Michael Miller onto his early morning radio show. Michael Miller gave his reflections on his time as the outgoing Archbishop of Vancouver to include “having to” deal with the clergy abuse crisis. What I found quite extraordinary was Archbishop Miller’s response when Stephen Quinn asked him where things were at with regards to the thirty-three recommendations published in the 2019 Clergy Abuse Report. “We’re pretty well ahead” he replied, with immediate ease and confidence. Goodness! This IS news to me! It’s a tad disappointing to hear this shared on CBC radio, and only when prompted and asked directly by the show’s host. Why has the archdiocese not addressed this publicly, of its own volition, through proactive public channels? It is, after all, close to three years since the public was last updated on just how “well ahead” the Vancouver Archdiocese is with all of the thirty-three recommendations. Archbishop Miller, in all fairness, goes on to say, “there are some things we’re a little slower with, as in, getting this stuff on the web” but then concludes: “We’re in an okay place.” Really? Surely “getting this stuff on the web” should not take three years? But hey, let’s not worry too much. All will be revealed in four weeks time, at the end of March, when the archdiocese promised that we'll see a public website, complete with an updated list of just how “far ahead” they are with each of the recommendations. I for one, really look forward to viewing this and especially, seeing more names published. Some wonder why it is important to see names published. Let me offer explanation on this. Publishing names helps silent victims, and many are out there, who believe they were the only one to be sexually assaulted or abused by a certain priest only to learn, when names have been published, that they were, in fact, not alone. Remember the February 2024 trial of John Doe versus the Vancouver Archdiocese and Fr. John Kilty? For years, John Doe believed he was the only one. And then found out he was not. If my memory serves me, there are now a further six victims who have come forward, each filing individual cases. I cannot begin to fathom what it must be like for each of these individuals to finally now bring their hidden past to light, and feel validated that what happened to them was so very real, totally unacceptable and finally can be highlighted and confronted. But back to Archbishop Miller’s comment that the Vancouver Archdiocese is “well ahead” dealing with clergy abuse in the Vancouver Archdiocese. Something to bear in mind is that 35 files, not 36, were brought forward to the 2018/2019 Clergy Abuse Review Committee. This committee was led by the self-appointed Chair: the Vancouver Archdiocese’s lawyer at that time. It was Leona Huggins, once a Vancouver SNAP representative, and myself who brought forward the name of an additional predator priest not listed in the thirty five files brought before the committee. This name was one the Vancouver Archdiocese clearly knew about for the archdiocese had in fact paid a victim a sum of money when they'de brought their complaint forward. Not only this, this transaction was facilitated by the very lawyer who was chairing our committee. Hmm… now how did that happen? And shouldn’t we be wondering how many other ‘lost’ or ‘hidden’ files are lurking about? Out of thirty-six files, nine names were published in 2019. One of the published names was a name not brought to the table or discussed with the review committee. So where was that file hiding? A year later in December 2020, three further names were published. Two of those names had not brought to the committee. And in June 2021, six months on, five more names were published of which a further two had not been brought to the committee. What then shocked everyone and hurt so many people however was that the Vancouver Archdiocese waited three years after the initial 2019 Clergy Abuse Report before finally choosing to publish the name of Benedictine monk, Placidus Sander. Placidus Sander’s name was not published until June 2022, six months after his death and three years after it was clear to anyone sitting on the Clergy Abuse Review Committee what heinous crimes he had committed. Why? To let the ‘holy monk’ die in peace? To protect the Benedictine community out in Mission? Whatever the reasons, one vaguely alluded to in the The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative documents, there certainly was little to no care afforded to Placidus’s many victims and their loved ones. So yes, publishing names is hugely important… In 2025, seven years after what was hailed as an historic event in the Catholic Church’s history in Canada, it’s easy to do the math. From the original list of 35 files presented by the Vancouver Archdiocese in 2018, only 13 names from those files have been published. Will the incoming bishop, Archbishop Richard Smith, care about this? During the same CBC radio interview on February 25, 2025, Archbishop Richard Smith is recorded as speaking about his work supporting reconciliation with indigenous groups—and of both “walking with them” and “learning from them”. After he takes up his new position, will he choose to meet with the many victims of clergy abuse who live in the Vancouver Archdiocese, whether indigenous or not, and “walk with them” and “learn from them”? One can always hope... But now, let me give you an overview of the book called “Jesus Wept” by Philip Shenon. Shenon is an award-winning investigative journalist and bestselling author who, earlier in his career, was a reporter at The New York Times. This book has garnered a lot of attention with its timely publication as the health of Pope Francis continues to lie in the balance. One way or another, the time is near to usher in a new pope to take over the monarchy and the throne—that is, the ‘throne of St. Peter” as it’s called, along with the power and politics that come with this coveted position. Shenon’s book "Jesus Wept" is subtitled “Seven Popes and The Battle For The Soul Of The Catholic Church”. Through his unprecedented research, Shenon conducts hundreds of interviews and ploughs his way through extensive, exhaustive archival material. He chronicles the struggles of the Catholic Church through the lives and the lens of the last seven popes, beginning with Pope Pius XII (1939 – 1958) and up to an including Pope Francis (2013 to present day). This book has been called a masterpiece that gives a “consummate vibrant history of the modern Church”. Amazon reports: “In ‘Jesus Wept’, Philip Shenon takes us inside the Holy See to reveal its intricacies, hypocrisies, and hidden maneuverings, bringing all the momentous disputes and issues vividly to life: priestly celibacy, birth control, homosexuality, restoring ties with other Christians and Jews, shameful sex abuse crimes, the role of women in the Church.” This book sets out with Pius XII, an Italian pope born by the name of Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli who became pope in 1939 and it ends with the current pope, Pope Francis, born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who still is, at this time of writing, the Catholic Church’s current pope. In short, Pope Pius XII, whose papacy began during turbulent times in Europe, was known for not having spoken out against Nazi crimes despite evidence that he was well aware of what was happening. Pope Pius XII was often referred to as the “silent pontiff’... As Shenon notes, Pius XII was “the Vatican's diplomatic representative to Bavaria and later to Germany for a dozen years after World War I.” He was also the Archbishop of Munich prior to becoming a pope, meeting personally with a then-rising Adolf Hitler. This pope had a great love for Germany. While many like to credit Pius XII for his support of the Jewish population, Shenon’s research into archival material unearthed the role of a nun by the name of Sr. Pascalina Lehnert. This “tough-willed nun” Shenon maintains, was “one of the most influential women in the history of the Catholic Church”. Close to Pope Pius XII, Sr. Pascalina Lehnert was the pope's housekeeper. She also, it seems, became a close advisor who pressed him into speaking out against Nazi Germany. It is Sr. Pascalina Lehnert who should be credited for saving the lives of thousands of Roman Jews when Nazi Germany marched into Rome in 1943. It was she who pressured Pope Pius to shelter them in the Vatican City. After Pope Pius XII’s death in 1958, then comes an Italian bishop, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli. He takes the name of Pope John XXIII. As Shenon notes, Pope John XXIII quickly makes it clear that he's ready to overhaul the Catholic Church. He wishes to modernize things by initiating the Second Vatican Council, a definitive marker in the history of the Catholic Church. This council is still referred to as the point of reform even though it’s already sixty years old. Pope John XXIII was pope for only four years and eight months. This pope unfortunately didn’t live to see the conclusion of the Vatican II Council which he so vigorously set in motion, a heroic effort on his part to modernize the Catholic Church and bring it into the twentieth century. Not so well known or publicized is that Pope John XXIII set up a secret commission to determine whether or not the Church should lift its ban on birth control. He himself was open to the idea but sadly, he died in June 1963, shortly after the opening of Vatican II, and things went no further. The commission this pope appointed, however, continued to meet. In 1966, it recommended to the new pope, Pope Paul VI, that the ban on birth control be lifted. Alas, Pope Paul VI as Philip Shenon reports, fully rejected the findings of this commission. Progress is made, but then new leadership intervenes... Shenon goes on to note that this “rejection of the reforms of Vatican II lasted over the next four popes that followed John XXIII …all who were different from each other, in one way or another.” He goes on to say that all four popes following in the steps of John XXIII “pretty much used their power to impede or roll back these reforms.” Those popes were, namely, Pope John Paul I (who died twenty-five days after his installation), Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and our current, and outgoing pope, Pope Francis. Pope Paul VI, rejected all attempts by his predecessor Pope John XXIII who had so actively engaged many leading theologians to explore the issue of birth control and who in turn “overwhelmingly conclude that birth control is not a violation of the church's teachings.” The commission proposed that all Catholics and couples “should be allowed to engage in family planning” and "control the size of their families". Alas, Pope Paul VI (…not a family man...) disagreed. This incurred a lot of criticism as well as disregard from the Catholic public and consequently, in 1975, Pope Paul VI instructed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to publish Persona Humana. This was a “declaration on sexual morality, which had hardened condemnations of extramarital sex, masturbation and homosexuality.” For those of you wise enough, understanding the absolute physical nature of sexuality, you will understand why suppression, secrecy and sexual abuse soon started to abound. Not only this, ‘Persona Humana’, prompted kick back and revelations in the media about Pope Paul VI’s own personal life: namely that Pope Paul VI was himself “gay and had a boyfriend in Milan.” Yeah? No? Oh yeah! I’m not making any of this up... But let’s move on. Pope John Paul I was not in office long enough to affect any major changes, whether in taking the Church forward or backwards. We learn that he died from a heart attack in the evening hours of September 28, 1978. Another pope had to be elected and so we come to the reign of Pope John Paul II, who was made a ‘saint’ by those, I suspect, who are in denial about his darker and shadier side. Shenon writes that one of the most “eye-popping” documents he ever came across in all his years of research was a letter written in 1999 by Cardinal John O'Connor of New York. This cardinal, arguably, in Shenon’s opinion, was at the time the most powerful churchman in America to Pope John Paul II. Cardinal O'Connor had, in 1999, just been informed that he was "about to die”. Shenon goes on to say that O'Connor had "just had brain surgery with only weeks to live. One of his final acts was to write this letter in late 1999. It was a dire warning (to Pope John Paul II) that he must not promote Archbishop Theodore McCarrick, who was then based in Newark, New Jersey. He must not be promoted to any higher office in the Church because of widespread, well-known evidence that he was a sexual predator.” Apparently, Cardinal O'Connor offers “quite explicit information about McCarrick, including the fact that he liked to invite young men to his home for dinner and then insist that they sleep with him in his bed.” Shenon goes on to say that “even though this letter is presented (to Pope John Paul II) by a respected senior churchman in the United States, Pope John Paul II ignores this warning from Cardinal O'Connor and ignores warnings from lots of other senior Vatican officials who also know about McCarrick and still promotes him to membership in the College of Cardinals and makes him Archbishop of Washington, D.C.” Hmmm....well, we all know the rest of this story. But consider this… Back in 1999, Pope John Paul II was notified and made aware of the actions and abuses of this predator priest yet chose to ignore and protect this priest, his friend. This supposed ‘saint’ similarly ignored warnings about his friend, the notorious Marcial Maciel, founder the Legion of Christ and the Regnum Christi movement. Maciel was a “longtime drug addict who sexually abused many boys and young men in his care. After his death, it came to light that he had also maintained sexual relationships with at least four women, one of whom was a minor at the time.” He also additionally “fathered as many as six children, two of whom he is alleged to have sexually abused.” How does the Catholic Church choose it’s ‘saints’ when they ignore things like this? But back to Theodore McCarrick.... It is said that Pope Francis was “reportedly unaware of allegations of (Theodore McCarrick’s) sexual abuses till 2018.” So how does a cardinal of such “high standing” (…and one who allegedly paid Pope Benedict $250,000 in a quiet cash deal on the side) get to carry on with such abhorrent criminal activities, all in the name of ‘God’ ? Apparently unseen by the man in charge, the Pope? McCarrick, as noted by Shenon, was “one of the best fundraisers in the Church”. He apparently bestowed many financial gifts to bishops and cardinals as a way of “buying their cooperation and to allow himself to advance within the church, to prevent any sort of investigation of his sexual misconduct.” In June 2018, two decades after Cardinal O’Connor’s wrote that letter to Pope John Paul II and two popes later, McCarrick was finally removed from ministry. Two decades and two popes later? Would such crimes and corporate cover-up be acceptable elsewhere? Shenon goes on to share that Pope Francis, who took up the reigns in 2013, put himself out there as a pope of “mercy and tolerance’ albeit not withstanding “a lot of justifiable criticism for having not done nearly enough about the child sexual abuse crisis”. Indeed, Pope Francis has had his own checkered record on sexual abuse in Argentina with reports about sexual abuse that he was reported to have covered up in Argentina despite his claim, “It [sex abuse] never happened in my diocese.” Many of us have come to appreciate all the good that Pope Francis has brought to the Catholic Church over the course of his papacy. The Pope, as absolute monarch, can choose, as Francis has done so, all of the personnel around him he wishes to succeed him. Whatever his papacy has been, one thing Pope Francis has done is to ensure that 80% of the cardinals who will vote in the next conclave, which, lets face is, is likely to happen soon, are men who were put there by him. But who can fault this. Wouldn’t any leader want to do the same? While Francis may not have achieved all he hoped to achieve during his papacy, he most certainly has moved the needle in the right direction. He also leaves behind a College of Cardinals who will, in part, continue his legacy... Or will they? As Shenon succinctly points out, any “future pope could just reverse them (improvements made and steps forward taken) as easily as Francis put them into place.” Think “Biden v Trump”... Anything, good or bad that Biden put in place, Trump has been and is swift to reverse. What, indeed, will the next pope do? After all his detailed research and commentary in his book, “Jesus Wept”, Philip Shenon comments that: “Whatever your religious background, you have to admire much of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The message of mercy and tolerance is a noble one. You don't have to be a Christian to see the wisdom of what Jesus Christ offered to the world….2,000 years ago.” He goes on to write: “That there is this institution that claims to act in his name, I think, would surprise ‘the savior’ and would surprise his disciples and apostles. Yet I think they would be enormously disappointed by how often the Roman Catholic Church fails to live up to the message of the Gospel and how often it has allowed itself to be corrupted…” This alone makes me weep. No wonder Jesus also wept…. ‘Til next time, Bernadette

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - February 26, 2025 Breaking the silence. Confronting clergy abuse. This week and with no specific posting day in mind, I’d planned to share information on two recently published books, both of which were recommended to me by two different blog readers. However, it turned out to be an interesting week as far as popes and bishops are concerned. Subsequently, I thought it would be important to be timely and to bring you the recent news from Rome on 'bishop resignations and replacements '. First off, Pope Francis, as we all know, remains in stable but critical condition in hospital. Indeed any 88-year-old suffering with double pneumonia would be considered in critical condition. Some media reports tell us that he’s been well enough to meet with the Vatican Secretary of State to “approve new decrees for possible saints and to make governing decisions.” Approving new saints, I guess, must come high on the list of priorities… So also approving new bishops. Replacements only come when resignations are accepted and this past week, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of two Canadian bishops. Pope Francis accepted the resignations of Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver and Bishop Jean-Pierre Blais of Baie-Comeau in Quebec and in their place, appointed two new bishops. First, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Bishop Jean-Pierre Blais. Bishop Blais was recently named in a class action lawsuit for alleged sexual assault. The Vatican announced this 'resignation and replacement' with an accompanying message stating that the Pope’s acceptance of this particular bishop’s resignation had nothing to do with any sexual abuse claims that surround him. But of course not! To correlate the two would be demonstrating transparency, and transparency, as we know, is something the Catholic Church most frequently chooses to avoid. Indeed, the Diocese of Baie-Comeau went as far as to specifically note in their statement that, “the nomination of a new bishop (Pierre Charland, O.F.M.) is not linked to the allegations against Bishop Blais” and that the Church’s policy simply requires all those who hit 75 to offer their resignation. Several days later, Pope Francis then accepts another resignation. That of Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver. For those not familiar, Archbishop Michael Miller offered his resignation four years ago in 2021 when he was aged 75 but it has taken the Vatican nearly four years to find a replacement bishop. So, the Catholic Church on one side of Canada is quick to say all bishops offer resignation at the age of 75, hence the Pope accepted Bishop Blais’ resignation. And the other side of Canada, the Pope lingers for close to four years before accepting a different bishop’s resignation. All this aside, Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver is now finally to be relieved of his duties and in his place, Archbishop Richard W. Smith, twelve years his junior, and a native of Halifax, will soon take over. News reports indicate that the official installation will likely take place at the end of May. Richard Smith has been Archbishop of Edmonton for the last eighteen years.  Change is usually good. And I’ve no doubt that Archbishop Michael Miller is happy to finally retire to a quieter life. We wish him well as we also wish the new incoming bishop well as he makes his move from Alberta to British Columbia. Perhaps this time of change is one that will bring new opportunities? I note that back in October 2018, Archbishop Richard Smith pledged to “work toward restoring trust broken by sex abuse”. And in August 2022 he wrote, “The mistakes of the past have caused great pain, but they also offer us an opportunity to work for change in exercising our responsibility for the care of children, vulnerable people, and each other.” I expect that those of us advocating for change and greater care of victim-survivors of clergy abuse in the Vancouver Archdiocese will welcome this new bishop who speaks about ‘exercising responsibility’ for the care of those who have suffered from clergy abuse. But can, and will, trust be restored? I wonder what responsibility he will take and what concerns he will show for “the care of children” currently housed at Christ the King Minor Seminary? Time will tell… In his press conference in Edmonton today, Archbishop Richard Smith was asked about some of his achievements in the Edmonton Diocese where he’s been bishop for the past eighteen years. Wishing to be humble, he responded that on this earth he would never dream of speaking about any personal achievements—for all and any achievements “are of the Lord”. (Hmmm…) However, when pressed to share about some good memories he will take with him, he spoke with joy about how “people always rallied together” whether through COVID or during the Pope’s visit to Alberta in July 2022 or whenever support of each other was needed. He additionally spoke about the importance of “keeping people safe” during COVID times and the importance of “ keeping people safe so as to be able to celebrate their faith. ” This phrase left me feeling a deep twinge of sadness. Keeping people safe so as to be able to celebrate their faith. In the context of COVID, it seems that Archbishop Richard Smith was able to witness how people rallied together and supported one another, making sure all were taken care of and able to continue living out their faith as best as possible during trying times. Faith and beliefs are so sacred. But what of victim-survivors of clergy abuse? Who ever "rallied together" around them? Who ever rallied around to support them, making sure they were being taken care of, and able to continue living and celebrating their faith? Who in the Church, lay people or Church leaders alike, are rallying around now to help victim-survivors heal from the profound wounds inflicted on them? I think many of us will be watching and waiting, hopefully witnessing welcome changes that come with new leadership. I only hope that Archbishop Richard Smith knows what an ultra conservative diocese he is coming into to! Until next time, Bernadette

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - January 28, 2025 Breaking silence. Confronting clergy abuse. The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative My heartfelt thanks to all who reached out to me these past days. It’s been exactly a year since I started ‘Bernadette’s Blog,’ believing at that time that I would perhaps produce one or two blogs on the February 2024 John Doe trial and then maybe produce a blog every couple of months or so. Little did I know just how much was hiding in the dark, waiting to be exposed to the light or just how many people felt supported by someone speaking out loud, advocating for much needed change, and speaking the truth. Nor did I know what stories would be revealed, what challenges victim-survivors face, what lack of accountability there is within Church leadership and just how off-course the institutional Catholic Church actually is; so far removed it is from the life and person of Jesus Christ upon whom Christianity was founded. So much grief abounds in the lives of those who, as young children, then youth and young adults, set out filled with hope, wanting to be active in the life of church only to find that the church they loved so well was “more death-dealing than life giving”. And lastly, little did I know, and especially since D.H.’s landmark case last May 2024, that I could be so shocked by stories since shared with me about some of the predator priests, monks and seminarians who have attended Christ the King Seminary and Westminster Abbey in Mission, B.C. Or that I would be shocked by the tragic number of suicides and early deaths associated with the abuses that went on up there as well those linked to other predator priests in B.C. and across Canada. Such grief ripples out and impacts so many people, forever altering the life course of victims and their loved ones. And so, I want to thank you all for continuing to read. How good it would be to write more light-hearted material or speak of the good things that can be found within the Catholic Church. Indeed, I am sure you would welcome this too, but the truth is important and until the disease of abuse and cover-up is eradicated, this Church will continue to lose members. Clergy abuse and its cover up needs to be heard and addressed, even if the truth hurts. As responsible Christians, should we all not want to examine the foundations of a religion and the institution that governs it and work for renewal and reform? Truly, over the past year I have been shocked. I have been shocked and moved and horrified, and none more so than this week as I look back over all the emails that blog readers have shared, and the conversations I have had with those who reached out in person. Where does it end? Back in February 2019 I stood in front of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Pope Francis was holding his 'Summit on Clergy Abuse of Minors and Vulnerable Adults’ and despite the number of people who had converged upon Rome that week, it was deathly quiet late at night as I stood there. As I looked upon that iconic landmark, I experienced such an ocean of grief. I saw before me a beautiful historic building, but I also saw that the very foundations of this ancient place of prayer that once held such richness and beauty for me, were collapsing from the weight of so many secrets hidden behind its walls. Too many men dressed in their robes of power with little to no consideration or place for women. Too many men dressed in their robes of power intent on cover-up of the crimes taking place all around them. Too much rot. I was sickened to the pit of my stomach that night and I knew then that until its rotten foundations collapsed in upon themselves, died completely, and something new grew in its place, those who had once loved their Catholic faith would never return. St. Peter’s Square. A ‘square’ that is not a square, but an oval. Like so much else in the Catholic Church, nothing is quite what it seems. As one ex-seminarian who “lived through hell”, arriving as a young Grade 8 child to Christ the King Seminary full of promise and hope, wrote, “Everything was a lie…” “Everything was a lie” he wrote, “through the watchful eye of a seriously abused and trapped kid.” Nothing was quite what it seemed. Other words shared by different blog readers this week included: “The Diocese of Vancouver, the B.C. Catholic, the seminary and the priests who remain silent – where is the justice?” “Nothing but denial and cover-up.” “No remorse.” Specifically in relation to Christ the King Seminary and Westminster Abbey in Mission, B.C.: “There are many more dark secrets yet uncovered.” “Sick, sad and complete betrayals from men who were supposed to protect the children.” “The fear (felt by the minor seminarians) was so real” “Close the place down. Open the windows. Let clean air blow through the place.” “All the boys will tell you that Shawn pushed the monk to his death.” This last comment was shared by someone I’d not heard from before; but someone who also knew what was going on at the Abbey for years. Dear readers, there are many more comments I could share, and some are very painful indeed. But I wish to continue now from where I left off last week. To this end, I’m particularly grateful to one blog reader and ex-seminarian who wished to share his own experiences of that October 1978 weekend of Fr. Damasus’s death, to include insights from before and after this event. His sharing will offer you greater understanding and perspective and you will likely find yourself asking, what is the real truth of what happened? And you would be right to question that which was not properly questioned or investigated back then. For, as different blog readers independently shared this week, the monks apparently did not allow the police to be involved for fear of what could, and would be, revealed. Namely, a proper investigation of Fr. Damasus death would have revealed the extent of the sexual abuse that was going on at the monastery at the time and which was being covered up by those in roles of leadership. Discovering what Placidus and Shawn Rohrbach were up to, to name but two known abusers, would have yielded a veritable ‘can of worms.’ “They were knowledgeable about his death and said nothing as it would implicate the Abbey. The monks would have had to have had the school closed down.” wrote one blog reader. Allow me now to share the details which Bryan, who has given me permission to use his name, provided. Bryan was a seminarian who attended Christ the King Minor Seminary at the same time as Denis Bruneau and Shawn Rohrbach. Bryan was still a high school student, as was Denis, while Shawn was an older, major seminarian, doing Arts. Upon reaching out to connect with me, Bryan thanked me for covering this story that needed to be aired and shared, and told me that he wished to shed additional light on what he remembers of that weekend but especially, he wished to speak to the ‘confession’ that I alluded to last week. For the purposes of this week’s blog, allow me also to share that Mark O’Neill, ex-seminarian and victim-survivor of Placidus Sander and other abuses at the Abbey has given me permission to identify him. In last week’s blog I had simply referred to him as the ‘December blog reader’. What I share below comes from my conversation with Bryan. Back in the early 1990s when Mark was in the midst of preparing for the upcoming criminal trial of Placidus Sander, he told his friend and fellow ex-seminarian Bryan, that “Shawn Rohrbach killed Damasus.” At the time, Bryan thought that this was a somewhat ‘outrageous’ statement. To Mark it was not outrageous at all, because, for the years he spent at the minor seminary, Mark was victimized and sexually abused by both Placidus and Shawn Rohrbach. He knew Shawn well, both in how Shawn threatened him and treated him, and in how Shawn apparently also spoke of the things he had done, as well as the things he planned to do to younger seminarians, actions some of the monks were aware of but to which they turned a blind eye. It is a curious thing, but a fact noted by many. If you are one of the lucky minor seminarians never preyed upon, you might have been quite oblivious to the threatening world of those who were preyed upon and of the fear they lived with. As one of the lucky ones, you likely would not have seen anything untoward happening. But for those not so lucky, these young boys lived on constant alert and observed every nuance of all the abusive behaviours taking place around them. Upon hearing Mark’s somewhat chilling comment, Bryan subsequently pondered it and for the entire week following something kept niggling at him, something related to a campfire evening that took place 15 years earlier. Trying to recall what was bothering him, it preoccupied him for days, but he had to let it go and figured, that in time, it would come back to him. Then, about a week later, memories came back to him. Bryan and a small group of seminarians had gone on an overnight hike and climb at The Chief in Squamish several months after Fr. Damasus death. The group included Shawn Rohrbach. Bryan, aged 19 by the time, was the second oldest in the group and with this came a certain level of responsibility. There were minors in the group, to include Denis Bruneau, who by then, was now 17. Shawn Rohrbach was in fact the oldest, at 23 years of age. On this particular night they were sitting around the campfire at the end of the day and having a few beers together. When Bryan was tending to something by the side of his parked truck a short distance away from the campfire, one of younger seminarians excitedly came to fetch him, saying, “You’ve got to listen to this. Shawn is saying some weird stuff’. The younger seminarian proceeded to tell Bryan what Shawn was saying, namely: “What if someone fell off a mountain and everyone thought it was an accident, but it wasn’t?” Bryan, upon hearing this went back to the campfire and addressed Shawn. “What is this, Shawn? Are you trying to tell us that you killed Fr. Damasus?” Bryan then scolded him for saying such outlandish things, told him that he was obviously drunk, and that he should go to bed. Almost in an instant, Shawn suddenly clammed up and for the rest of the night, barely spoke another word. This apparently, was most unusual for him. Something strange was up. Whether Shawn had in fact drunk too much or not, is not the point. There is a well-known Latin saying that ‘in vino veritas’, translating to “in wine there is truth.” It is something that I’ve generally observed over the course of my lifetime to be true. Alcohol certainly lowers inhibitions to the point that a person is more likely to speak their hidden thoughts and share more openly and honestly than perhaps they had intended. Next morning, back on The Chief, the group were belaying. From my understanding, this is when someone stands as an anchor by using their body weight with a rope attached around their waist as their partner then rappels down the cliff. Shawn was standing on the top of the cliff and Bryan was about to start his descent when Shawn asked him, “What do you remember of what I said last night?” Bryan shared with me that he had to quickly think on his feet and so, he bluffed it by indicating he didn’t know what Shawn was talking about. “I was so drunk last night I don’t remember anything” Bryan lied, and then quickly jumped over the edge knowing his life was in Shawn’s hands. Brave man. His life, literally, was in Shawn’s hands, but thankfully nothing happened. Several months after that, a few of them got together again for a few drinks. On that occasion, away from sight of others in the group, Shawn picked up a big heavy log, came right up to Bryan and slammed it down, directly in front of him, in what felt to be a threatening action from someone wishing to assert their power and presence. Bryan, as he had done before, pretended not to be concerned and, in his own words, “played dumb as a fox”. Nothing followed but Bryan felt there was untold and unpleasant tension between them. Bryan tells me he has only ever once spoken directly to Denis Bruneau about what happened that fateful day. “I’ve always wondered” he asked of Denis, “When Damasus didn’t show, who went back to look for him? The two of you or just Shawn? “Just Shawn” was Denis’s response. This indeed, was reported by the March 2000 Vancouver Sun article: that only Shawn went back to look for Fr. Damasus. In other words, Shawn was alone when he ‘found’ Damasus. When perhaps, he found him taking photographs and then what? Or when perhaps, he found him ‘missing’ by a cliff edge, and then what? Denis apparently then later added, “I was always curious to know what Shawn’s statement to the police was, compared to mine.” I guess the two, Shawn and Denis that is, never spoke together about what they each told the police - and for whatever reason. Bryan continued to share more. About a year after Fr. Damasus’s death, a small group of seminarians went back to the site of Damasus’s fall to leave a plaque there in his honour. Shawn was with them but was quiet throughout the entire time. Denis had helped locate the exact location and had described where they’d been. The group took a moment of respectful silence and by all accounts, as Bryan shared with me, it was a very moving occasion. Noting the exact location where Fr. Damasus fell that day, Bryan does report however, that “it seemed odd to us that they would leave him there” adding, “It would have been easy to reach him.” After all, Shawn Rohrbach was an experienced and skilled climber. As he was sharing this with me, Bryan remembered that he had not yet spoken to me about how he and a fellow Grade 11 seminarian by the name of Keiron went early on the Sunday morning, October 22, 1978, to get as close as they could to the site of the accident. Fr. Augustine was already there, waiting on the Search and Rescue team to bring down Fr. Damasus’s body. “There’s nothing you can do here. Go home” Fr. Augustine told them. Keiron however, had already gone over to talk to one of the police officers to ask what had happened. “It’s a little strange” the police officer told the boys. “The body has moved from where it had been located last night.” It’s hard to know what prompted this policeman to say this. And indeed, what he meant by this. Was the RCMP officer referring to the location identified by Shawn and Denis earlier the day before as to where Fr. Damasus fell? And that now that the body was found, it was in fact in a slightly different location that perhaps didn’t quite tally? Other thoughts come to mind. Perhaps the police officer could have meant that Fr. Damasus had not died instantly from his fall off the ledge where his watch and glasses were found, and had perhaps tried to move? Though had this been the case, he would surely have shouted and called out. And the boys would have reached him to help him. Or perhaps he meant that animals in the night had been around his body which could possibly account for it being found in a different location? Hmm. Not so likely even if wolverines, bears and even cougars are known to roam these mountains. The Vancouver Sun article of Monday 23 October 1978 reports that a helicopter aided in the search by dropping flares as it got dark and that the search was stopped at 8pm. Eventually Fr. Damasus body was located in the early daylight hours of Sunday morning. The body was then retrieved and brought out by a Search and Rescue ground team, somewhere between the hours of 8am to 9am on Sunday 22 October, this being the time when Bryan and Keiron had also showed up. Bryan reports two further incidences. On one occasion when a small group of seminarians were reminiscing about Fr. Damasus, Shawn spoke up. “Damasus was a back-stabbing two-timer. You didn’t know that guy like I did.” The group were shocked on hearing Shawn speak of their teacher and mountain climbing mentor like this. Bryan then went on to explain to me that Fr. Damasus was Shawn’s confessor. This might indeed account for Shawn’s ‘different’ relationship with this monk. The confessional seal aside, as his spiritual advisor perhaps something Shawn had shared in private with Damasus was, out of a grave concern for the safety of the younger seminarians, shared by Damasus with the Rector or Abbott hence the “backstabbing two-timing” comment? One blog reader had shared during this past week of how a minor seminarian had gone to Fr. Augustine’s office to report what Shawn was doing to him. Fr. Augustine allegedly laughed and then brought Shawn into the room where they both then ridiculed the minor for sharing such things. And so, to those who want to believe Fr. Augustine didn’t know about what Shawn was capable of, think again. This was only one incident reported… there are likely many others. But back to Fr. Damasus... Whether bound by the confessional seal or not, Fr. Damasus was even more determined to catch Shawn in the physical act of abusing a minor and, there were several he allegedly abused. This same information was also independently shared with me by Mark O’Neill when he emailed me just weeks earlier in mid December 2024 to say: “Damasus knew, by being Shawn’s confident in confessional, that Shawn was touching little kids.” He then went on write, “Shawn expressed to me what he was going to do with a particular student and that day, Damasus left to try catch Shawn in the act. This was the third weekend in a row that Damasus was after Rohrbach.” A different blog reader separately reported that just before his death, Fr. Damasus had caught Shawn Rohrbach sexually abusing a minor seminarian in the cabin on the mountainside. For those not familiar, about 500 meters away from Edge Peak is a public cabin. Hikers are known to pitch their tents here or sleep in the cabin. So, yes, maybe Shawn wasn’t so fond of Fr. Damasus because Damasus was on his case? Over the course of our conversation together, Bryan went on to share that the seminarians were frequently allowed to go off hiking in the mountains and on overnight camps. Bryan then recounts how, just two weeks prior to Fr. Damasus’s death that he, Bryan, and a small group of seminarians to include Denis Bruneau and Shawn Rohrbach had gone for a camping weekend up Mount Robie Reid and were due to return to the seminary the next day. Out of the blue, guess who turned up on the ridge at midnight where the boys were camping but Fr. Damasus! “It’s still Sunday” he said jovially, “Still time for Sunday Mass!” and with that, the boys all had to crawl out of their respective tents and shared Mass together. I queried Bryan as to why a monk, or anyone, would go hiking up a mountain in the dark and arrive at their campsite so ridiculously late. It was a crazy late hour to show up. While Bryan reports that it was in fact lovely to celebrate Mass together at midnight on the mountain side, the wind blowing so hard that they all had to keep their hands placed firmly on the linen altar-cloth so as to prevent it from taking off in the wind, he also agreed just how strange and odd it was that Fr. Damasus would appear so late and in the dark, high on the mountainside. In line with what Mark had shared, namely that Damasus was attempting to catch Shawn in the act of perhaps sleeping with a younger minor seminarian, perhaps this was why he surprised them all that night? Or indeed, as Bryan pondered, “Perhaps Fr. Damasus was trying to protect us from Shawn?” This midnight appearance took place just two weeks prior to Fr. Damasus’s “accidental fall”. This begs the question: Did Shawn, the weekend of Fr. Damasus death, go up the mountain alone with Denis to overnight camp together? Just two seminarians together, one with power and influence, and who had a reputation of allegedly sexually abusing young minor seminarians. And the other, six years his junior. As a claim filed with the B.C. Supreme Court notes, Shawn Rohrbach “was a predator skilled at grooming, preying upon and exploiting underage boys to submit to sexual activity after plying them with alcohol.” Did Fr. Damasus, in fact, follow them up? Either late that Friday night or in the small hours of Saturday morning just like he’d turned up so late at night two weeks prior, perhaps checking up on things and intending on potentially catching Shawn in some abusive act with a minor? And, if you will recall, the newspaper reports only refer to the two students staying overnight on the mountain, not Fr. Damasus. And is this why, next day when police were at the scene, the media say Shawn’s age was only 18 and not his true age? Might Fr. Augustine who was Rector at the time and, as ex-seminarians are sharing, was aware of what Shawn was capable of, not wish the media or the public to know that the monks had in fact allowed a 22-year-old go camping overnight with a 16-year-old minor? And thus ensured his age was reported as only being 18 years old? I find myself repeating that, ‘only Denis and Shawn know the truth’ of what really happened that day, a phrase that even Fr. Augustine notes in one of the released documents, but certainly many questions can be raised that beg a fuller and deeper investigation. But then a blog reader wrote, “Why would someone rely on hearing the truth of what really happened from a person who lied about their age?” Or, for that matter, from Fr. Augustine who did not correct the reporting error of Shawn Rohrbach’s age nor believed Placidus was capable of any sexual abuse. I later asked Bryan why he did not report Shawn Rohrbach’s campfire remarks to the police. “Oh, but I did.” he replied. In the early to mid 1990’s and after the memories came back to him, Bryan did report this to the RCMP, telling them the whole story just as he kindly shared it all with me. The response he got was twofold: “Well, most of the records have been destroyed” the police officer told him. This rather surprises me but perhaps if death was deemed ‘accidental’ at the time, and it is now 15 years later, this may well be the case. The police then told Bryan, “Besides, an extradition order is a complicated business.” Bear in mind, Shawn Rohrbach lived and resided in the U.S.A. And this, dear readers, is how the police then finally drew a line underneath it all thirty years ago. The monks too. Given that the bishop has oversight of what happens in his diocese, the archbishop also took it no further. When Mark O’Neill’s hearing took place for his own civil action in 2022, his lawyer at that time brought up this incident of potential foul play. The Abbey’s lawyers, according to Bryan, had apparently never heard this claim before albeit the Abbey’s released documents from 1995 and made public through The Transparency Initiative clearly show Mark O’Neill had brought this information and charge forward to the police, but Fr. Augustine had so readily dismissed this and another claim as “wild allegations”. The Abbey’s current lawyers, having said they had never heard these claims before, subsequently contacted Bryan in 2022 and questioned him about these events. As Mark O’Neill’s case against Westminster Abbey and the Archdiocese of Vancouver ended in a settlement in September 2022, I have no idea what was ‘settled and agreed upon’. Was Mark perhaps asked to never publicly bring up this charge again? Perhaps… But, as I understand it, one of the Abbey’s lawyers was apparently heard to have said “there probably should be a further investigation into all this.” Make of all this what you will. But no matter how you ‘slice it and dice’ it, there is a very unpleasant history associated with Westminster Abbey and Christ the King Seminary with toxic stories of cover-up and resistance to healthy change. As I already shared earlier a blog reader most concerned for the young boys and minor seminarians still residing in isolation with the monks and in this environment at Christ the King Seminary wrote: “Send the young boys home. Close the place down. Open the windows. Let clean air blow through the place.” Perhaps some investigative journalist (or journalists) might wish to get their teeth into all that has been shared these last couple of weeks as well as other stories coming from the Abbey. Golden Ears Provincial Park and Westminster Abbey would provide a visually stunning backdrop for a documentary. One last thing to share. I was reminded by a blog reader of yet another tragic death associated with Westminster Abbey which took place just two years prior to Fr. Damasus’s death: that of a Brother Dennis Gallagher who, according to Pax Regis (Vol. 34) “drowned in Cayoosh Creek near Lillooet.” I recall reading in McCullough’s Vancouver Sun article that the monks owned a cabin close by on Seton Lake. Sadly, according to the Pax Regis, it was not for another two months and “just after the middle of September when a body that had been found in the Fraser River at Silverdale, near Mission, was finally identified…as that of Brother Dennis”. Such tragedy and such unknowns for his family and those at Westminster Abbey. So too in relation to Fr. Damasus’s death. Whatever conclusions you draw for yourself having read this and last week’s blog, there is one thing that IS certain. One thing that has nothing to do with questioning. And this one thing is the reality and truth of the lasting impact on the lives of so many when sexual abuses within seminary settings are allowed to go unchecked, wherever the seminaries may be located. When men disdain others that they consider lesser than themselves, hold power and are given the authority to groom and mould young boys to be like them, and where other abnormal behaviours are considered normal, this only continues to perpetuate what needs to greatly change. This merely continues to support the unhealthy foundations upon which the Church and the Vatican stands. There are those who are aware of this ongoing disease and leave the seminary or priesthood. There are some who attempt to fight it from within albeit is a daunting task. And then there are those who knowingly remain, fearful only for themselves and of what other role they might have in life if not financially supported by the Church that feeds them. Thank you again for reading... Till next week, Bernadette PS: To all you NFL fans, Superbowl Sunday is this coming Sunday, February 9th and will be hosted in New Orleans, home to the Saints team. (My thanks to readers who sent me various links to this story. Globe2Go, the digital newspaper replica of The Globe and Mail)  The Saints are owned by devout Catholic owner Gayle Benson, a long-time friend of the embattled Archbishop Gregory Aymond. Emails just made public show the extent to which the Saints owner and its leadership were behind clergy abuse damage control and even played a part in the known removal of some twenty names from the published list of predator priests, to include two who were criminally charged and convicted. “This is disgusting” said state Representative Mandi Landry, a Democrat from New Orleans. “As a New Orleans resident, taxpayer and Catholic, it doesn’t make any sense to me why the Saints would go to these lengths to protect grown men who raped children . All of them should have been just as horrified at the allegations.” Indeed, I share this same sentiment about for those up at the Abbey and the Archdiocese who protected the likes of Placidus, Shawn Rohrbach and others…

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - January 28, 2025 Breaking silence. Confronting clergy abuse. The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative Dear Readers, I really thought that I’d be moving on this week, putting aside what I find, quite frankly, to be a very toxic story of sexual-abuse and cover-up at Westminster Abbey and Christ the King Seminary. I had wanted to move on and share other news, but alas, there is one more story coming from the Abbey that has surfaced and which I believe needs to be shared. It follows on the heel of two different blog readers comments to me this past week. The first blog reader asked, in connection to the ‘Set Apart’ video, shared in last weeks blog, “What do you think is the purpose of the video?” Good question. I’m not entirely sure but it would appear to have perhaps been made for PR and marketing purposes and to invite interest in vocations to the Benedictine order and to monastery living here in Mission, B.C.? Then a second blog reader commented, “Did you know it was Br. Bruneau’s dad who was out hiking with Fr. Damasus in 1978 when he fell to his death?” No. I did not know this. My thanks to this second blog reader who then forwarded on the relevant Vancouver Sun article that spoke to this event. There are no links to such early newspaper articles, but anyone wishing to get a copy, feel free to email me and I can forward them to you separately: BernadetteHowell@shaw.ca For those not familiar, Fr. Damasus, one of the monks at Westminster Abbey and Christ the King Seminary, tragically fell to his death at Edge Peak in October 1978. He had been hiking with two young seminarians that weekend. Fr. Damasus originally came from Mount Angel in Oregan and finished his training at Christ the King Seminary in Mission, B.C. where he was a seminarian at the same time as Placidus Sander, George Gordon and Dunstan Massey before any of these four men were ordained priests. You may recognize Placidus and George Gordon as being criminally charged predator priests and Dunstan Massey as being named in a currently pending lawsuit. As one blog reader shared who was at the seminary when Placidus was there, “Damasus, as I remember him, was well liked by the boys there. Not dodgy or scary like some of the other monks.” A Vancouver Sun article dated March 4, 2000, and written by Michael McCullough speaks of the tragic event that took place twenty-two years earlier in 1978. McCullough notes the stunning location of Westminster Abbey, surrounded by glorious mountain ranges and peaks, and describing the monastery as being a property that takes in “what has to be the finest view property in the Fraser Valley.” This property, as I reported in my blog of June 11, 2024 (Seminaries, Societies and Scandal) was once owned by a Japanese immigrant by the name of Tashiro Hashizume who came and settled in Canada. By honest means, he purchased this land where he established himself and his family, running a strawberry farm for well over three decades. In 1942 however, his livelihood and his home were confiscated. He and thousands of others were sent off to internment camps. His home and his land were then sold by the government to the Swiss-Benedictine order in 1948 when the monks were looking to buy cheap land. It was a purchase that sadly illustrated the extent to which respect for the property of Japanese Canadians was disregarded by both the government and the Christian religious order of the Benedictines. But back to the Vancouver Sun’s March 4, 2000, article… It notes that Fr. Damasus was “proficient at technical climbing” and, in his own words following a trip to Mount Callaghan near Whistler, and in an account that was subsequently broadcast on CBC Radio, Fr. Damasus shared that being alone on the mountains was “a religious experience like no other”. It seems that this monk had a deep love of nature, out in that place where he found the Holy and the Divine existed the most. This I can most certainly identify with. A free spirit, Fr. Damasus apparently loved hiking and exploring the mountains that were right on his doorstep and mused in his letters that he “might have done a lot more if he’d joined the B.C. Mountaineering Club or the Alpine Club of Canada.” Fr. Damasus “recorded several first ascents of named peaks including Mount St. Benedict near Mission, Mount Duke near Pemberton (after the Vancouver’s Catholic archbishop of the 1930’s and 40’s) and the nearby Mount Rohr (after the first Catholic missionary in Lillooet).” I additionally learned from his obituary that Fr. Damasus also tried to name a peak after Pope John XXIII by naming it “Mount Roncalli”, that particular Pope’s surname, but “the B.C. Surveys and Mapping Branch did not accept the suggestion, preferring names more directly associated with Canada and British Columbia.” To the backdrop of these glorious mountains, the March 2000 article then goes on to note that: “It was there that 16-year-old Denis Bruneau and Séan (Shawn) Rohrbach, 18, sat on the summit of Edge Peak one fateful day in October of 1978, waiting for their trip leader and mountaineering mentor. Father Damasus Payne, 57, had been slower that usual, having just paddled the length of Alouette Lake and bushwacked to the treeline on another peak a week earlier. When he didn’t show up after 20 minutes or so, Rohrbach rappelled down the final pitch to see what was keeping him. A few minutes later Bruneau joined him. They found the priest’s glasses and watch and then realized he had fallen.” The Bruneau ‘father and son’ connection caught me off guard as I read this Vancouver Sun article for the first time last week. That Br. Bruneau, who features in the video “Set Apart” sharing his 24-year-old views of channeling sexuality into a more ‘fruitful’ spiritual realm, is the son of ex-seminarian Denis Bruneau, caused me to pause, consider and wonder. Not just that this father and son are so closely connected to the seminary, but what must that day on the mountain have been like? Incidentally, there are three Bruneau brothers up at the Abbey. Br. Joseph is the eldest of the three, now 36 years of age and the youngest is 25 years of age. As well as the March 2000 article, the Vancouver Sun and the Province newspapers both additionally had reported directly in 1978 following this tragic incident back, and I will refer to both these articles further below. But the thing that caused me deepest concern and sent shivers down my spine upon reading this story for the first time is that Br. Bruneau’s father Denis, then a 16-year-old young boy and minor seminarian, was on the mountainside that fateful day with another seminarian by the name of Shawn Rohrbach. Shawn Rohrbach is a name we have heard of several times, cited and in the public domain for his predatory nature and alleged sexual abuses of younger seminarians. Feel free to refer to the list of known predators from Christ the King Seminary in my blog of March 5, 2024. (From Major Seminary to Minor Cautionary). Yet another case was filed as recently as May 2022 against the Seminary of Christ the King, Westminster Abbey, The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver, Placidus Sander, and, which also includes a claim that alleges Shawn Rohrbach sexually abused younger seminarians. By the way, May 2022, when this claim was filed, coincidentally or not, is also the month Abbott John Braganza suddenly resigned and then disappeared from public view. The following statement speaks for itself: “Rohrbach was a predator skilled at grooming, preying upon and exploiting underage boys to submit to sexual activity after plying them with alcohol,” said the claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court. https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/bc-news/third-man-files-sexual-abuse-case-against-mission-roman-catholic-organizations-5410663 The first thing that arouses suspicion and speculation is that Shawn Rohrbach is reported in the media at the time of Fr. Damasus’s death as being 18 years of age and thus only two years older than young Denis Bruneau. But here’s the thing. Shawn Rohrbach was not 18 years of age. Shawn Rohrbach, on the day of the accident, was in fact a twenty-two year old seminarian and thus six years older than the young sixteen year old Denis Bruneau. That’s quite an age discrepancy and error to make. Was the reporter inaccurate? Or did Shawn Rohrbach perhaps lie about his age? Or, was Shawn Rohrbach perhaps encouraged by someone at the Abbey and when media wanted to meet the boys, to lie about his age? And to say that he was younger? Maybe the boys never spoke directly to the media and perhaps only Fr. Augustine spoke to them? After all, what was a 22-year-old seminarian doing overnight with a minor who was 6 years his junior? The two seminarians had been camping overnight together. We read that Rohrbach was, as the legal claim reports, “a predator skilled at grooming, preying upon and exploiting underage boys to submit to sexual activity”. In line with the blog reader pointing out the connection between Br. Joseph Bruneau’s dad and the story of Fr. Damasus death, I was reminded of a different blog reader who had reached out to me in mid-December, just a few weeks ago, and the day before I was due to head off for a three-week Christmas vacation. The ‘December blog reader’, as I will refer to him going forward, had himself been a victim-survivor of Placidus and had sent me some emails which I promised to address in January when back from my travels. His own legal suit had reached a settlement in September 2022, meaning that alas, there are no public records available for us to explore. But his case was one that most certainly had inspired D.H. to go the route D.H. did, determined to make his own documents public under The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative . https://www.burnabynow.com/highlights/man-alleging-sexual-abuse-at-bc-seminary-wants-former-employee-to-appear-for-discovery-5187387 The ‘December blog reader’ emailed me sharing, “The biggest problem for me has always been the death of Fr. Damasus by Shawn Rohrbach and the monks never dealing with this.” He went on to share that allegedly, Fr. Damasus, as Shawn’s confessor, was aware “that Shawn was touching little kids” and, on a couple of occasions, had apparently attempted to prevent him, determined to physically catch him in the act of doing so. If I am to understand correctly, this victim-survivor believes that Fr. Damasus’s death was not entirely accidental, and that Shawn Rohrbach was somehow involved in foul play. As you can appreciate, such serious claims and allegations are cause for concern. He additionally noted that at some later date, Shawn Rohrbach was then “sent back to Bellingham by the monks”. I am unsure of what was in Bellingham. Perhaps Shawn Rohrbach’s home? My understanding is that Shawn Rohrbach came from somewhere just south of the border in Washington State. Records, to include his own Facebook page, state that he did indeed leave Christ the King Seminary in 1979. Shawn Rohrbach it seems, and with various claims surfacing, was thankfully, not suitable to be accepted for ordination as a monk or priest. As for the police investigation into Fr. Damasus’ death, certainly statements would have been taken. The police concluded it was ‘accidental death’. So, here’s the thing. I was not able to find much on the internet or coming from the Abbey that speaks to this tragic event. The only reference on the Westminster Abbey / Christ the King Seminary website that I could find relating to Fr. Damasus Payne’s was his name, listed on their Alumni Necrology page. This simply notes the details of his birth, ordination and death along with sixty other deceased priests. Neither can I find any statements from his fellow monks in the media about this very difficult and harrowing event. Or, for that matter, any quotes in the media from either seminarian. This struck me as particularly odd because two other teenagers involved that day who aided in going for help (as you will read further below) were quoted quite extensively in the newspapers for the part they played. But nothing from Christ the King Seminary or the two seminarians who could have provided further information. So what facts were ever shared publicly and directly by the monks? The notion of saying little, and that “less is more for now” as Fr. Gary Franken, now bishop, wrote in the released documents when speaking about Placidus’s death, seems standard procedure across the board for Church leaders but sadly, backfires. For this reason and as it pertains to this emerging story there is a large part of me that says, without transparency, speculation exists. How can it not? Given the history at the Abbey of continued cover-up and denial with respect to Placidus and his predatory ways as well as other abuses going on, how can one ever be sure that other things were not also kept quiet, pushed to the side, buried under some carpet or other? Or perhaps stowed in some secret archive? Quite honestly, I cannot say one way or another what to believe. But years of trusting Church leaders in the past has taught me where not to place my trust any more. I read information that I find in the public domain and where facts are established, I usually believe what I read. But when we read things such as Fr. Augustine Kalberer, for example, who reports in the released documents in The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative , that he has “never known him (Placidus) to tell the slightest lie” when in fact Placidus’s whole life was one huge big lie, sexually abusing and raping kids while daily celebrating eucharist as a ‘holy monk’, what is one to believe? And so, what really happened that weekend in October 1978 I cannot say. Allow me however, to share further details about that fateful day back in 1978. The original Vancouver Sun article, produced within 24 hours of the tragic event reports: “The body of Father Damasus was recovered Sunday morning at the 1,700-metre level of Edge Peak in Golden Ears Park near where he had fallen while on an overnight hike with two seminary students. Students Shawn Rohrbach, 18, and Dennis Bruneau,16, had spent Friday night on the mountain and were planning to ascend the West Peak and return home Saturday.” While it was an “overnight hike” and camping trip, it does not actually say that Fr. Damasus also spent the Friday night on the mountain, just that "the two students" had spent Friday night on the mountain. I have been informed that Fr. Damasus was sometimes known to hike later in the day, or even in the very late hours of night to catch up with the boys already on the mountains overnight camping. Perhaps this was one such occasion and he joined them early on Saturday morning? Who can be sure? A Maple Ridge search-master by the name of Larry Walmsley is then reported as saying that “Father Damasus was walking behind the two students and probably stopped to take a photograph at the edge of a cliff at about 1:15pm”. Walmsley goes on to say, "We can only assume that he slipped on a boot-sized patch of black ice and fell” The article goes on to say that upon “realizing that Father Damasus had vanished and had probably fallen off the cliff, the students asked two young teenagers, Ron and Carla to go for help while they tried to find him. They were unsuccessful in their search.” The newspaper article reports that Ron and Carla Zwaal, a brother and sister, aged 16 and 14 respectively, were sent by the seminarians to go for help while the two seminarians continued their own search for Fr. Damasus. This brother and sister, Ron and Carla, apparently ran down the rugged mountain for well over an hour, passing by several groups of hikers who ignored their pleas for help until eventually they came across a park official who then contacted a Search and Rescue Team. As it got dark, a helicopter aided in the Search and Rescue by dropping flares to help the ground team. Fr. Damasus body was located in the early hours of Sunday morning when the search resumed. The body was then retrieved and brought out by the Search and Rescue ground team, somewhere between the hours of 8am to 9am, Sunday 22 October. It is unclear to me as to who the two young teenagers were that the seminarians sent off to find help. The Province newspaper picks up the same story on Monday 23 October 1978, and it notes that the teenager brother and sister were from Maple Ridge, and “were hiking on a trial in Golden Ears Provincial Park Saturday when two climbers told them there had been an accident on Edge Mountain and asked them to raise the alarm.” Where they a part of a larger overnight camping and hiking group? Who were they that they were without a parent or adult so high up on that isolated mountainside when sent to look urgently for help? Additionally, I am appalled that several groups of adult hikers ignored the young teenagers who were so anxiously and desperately seeking help. I cannot imagine what that must have felt like. Westminster Abbey spokesman, a monk by the name of Father John Chrysostom Brost is reported as saying on Sunday 22 October 1978 that: "Nobody knows exactly what happened, but Father Damasus was a keen photographer and may well have fallen over the edge of the cliff as he was trying to take photographs.” No reference in the media was made to finding his camera. I did however subsequently note in Fr. Damasus’s obituary in the ‘Pax Regis’ a few months later, that Fr. Boniface wrote, “His broken camera revealed three black and white prints of the very spot on which he was to fall to his death”. Aside from this reference, the only two other mentions of that day in his obituary simply say that Fr. Damasus “fell to his death while climbing Edge Peak” and that, “he would not miss Mass except on that final day when he was planning to celebrate it with his two companions on top of Edge Peak.” Denis Bruneau is referred to by Fr. Boniface as one of his “two companions”. He was a minor at the time—a minor seminarian. I am then left to wonder how Shawn Rohrbach and young Denis Bruneau were subsequently supported and taken care of in the days and weeks following? Such a shocking and tragic event is something that likely will always remain as a day one can never forget. The community of monks must also have been utterly devastated and left grieving and mourning this terrible event that involved not just a monk, but a minor in their care. I can’t but help wonder how this tragic news was then shared with all the other young boys and seminarians and how they were supported and helped to grieve this sudden loss? The newspaper reported that Fr. Damasus taught Social Studies. As to my ‘December blog reader’ who still is disturbed by the events of that weekend and his concerns over foul play, over four and a half decades later, my heart goes out to him also. After he shared what he did with me this past December, I could not help but then go back on the released documents published in December. Fr. Augustine Kalberer had typed up some notes in 1995 ( Page 19, Volume 7, Criminal Proceedings ). I did not quite make the connection, but upon re-reading these documents again the other day, I now understand a bit more clearly what Fr. Augustine Kalberer was referring to. Fr. Augustine Kalberer uses the heading ‘Wild Allegations’ under which he notes that Constable Clary of the RCMP brought forward the charges of sexual assault to him on behalf of a victim-survivor. This police officer then also mentions two other claims and charges that this victim-survivor was bringing forward, namely that of foul play by (name redacted but with initials S.R.) in the death of Fr. Damasus and, that Brother Emeric had broken this victim-survivor’s arm in a fight in the scullery. Sexual assault by Placidus, foul play in a monk’s death, and a broken arm resulting from a physical struggle with a monk....were they really all such "wild allegations"? With respect to the claim of foul play, Fr. Augustine dismissal of this and how he goes out of his way to highlight the mental health and actions of this victim-survivor bringing these claims forward may have persuaded the police that such a claim did not need to be pursued. Fr. Augustine Kalberer then records under the heading ‘Paranoid Action’ that this victim-survivor, “apparently has Father Placidus and the Seminary as a constant preoccupation.” Well, small wonder! This victim-survivor suffered sexual, physical, emotional and spiritual trauma as a minor seminarian at Christ the King Seminary and by Placidus Sander. How would he not be preoccupied? This victim-survivor was being forced (along with two others) to go through a stressful legal process so as to bring their abuses to light. Two of the three plaintiffs in the Placidus's criminal trial had to go through the entire legal process yet again, twenty-five and twenty seven years later in 2022 and 2024 respectively, so as to finally obtain respect and justice for themselves. Tragically, the third plaintiff died sometime after the trial and is no longer alive. https://www.nsnews.com/highlights/bc-man-reaches-settlement-over-priest-sex-abuse-allegations-5856317 and https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-sexual-abuse-victim-makes-history-with-church-promise-to-publish-all-details-of-civil-case Any person forced in such appalling ways to deal with sexual and spiritual trauma that they had endured as a young child and a minor would, almost certainly, find themselves “preoccupied” and likely also, at some point in time, struggle with compromised mental health in later life till such time as the truth is finally in the open. To have your disclosures referred to as “wild allegations” and “paranoid actions” I personally find to be incredibly belittling and humiliating. To then suggest that this victim-survivor’s statements “seem to be the statements of someone whose imagination is out of control” is to be dismissive of an abused and traumatized ex-seminarian so haunted in his later years that he is still wanting to ensure the truth comes to light. Instead, as I pointed out in documents shared in last week’s blog, Fr. Augustine had complete belief and faith in his fellow brother priest, Placidus, of whom he writes “I have never known him to tell the slightest lie”. He additionally was fully prepared to accept and believe that Placidus’s reported one incident of “genital homosexual contact” with a young seminarian was the “only genital homosexual contact he had”. And so, readers, I simply share the facts with you today as I have received them: from information made available to me through the media, through the released documents on the The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative website and as shared by the ‘December blog reader’, a victim-survivor of both Placidus and other abuses at Christ the King Seminary. I additionally understand that on that October weekend in 1978, two concerned seminarians returned to the site of Fr. Damasus's fall in the early hours of the Sunday morning. There, apparently, “they talked to the RCMP on site who expressed that something wasn’t right with the scenario.” I have not yet been able to clarify what was meant by this, but perhaps only Denis Bruneau and Shawn Rohrbach can be deemed to be reliable sources of what happened on that fateful day? But to this end, allow me to share one last piece of information that was shared with me in December. Namely, that Shawn Rohrbach apparently "confessed while camping shortly after Damasus’s death.” This ‘confession’, whatever was shared, was not however shared directly by Shawn Rohrbach with my ‘December blog reader’ but to someone else. Shawn Rohrbach allegedly shared some concerning and potentially incriminating words with a different ex-minor seminarian. If subsequently not shared with the police nor verified by them, then we will never know what really happened that day. As I say, I do find the stories of sexual-abuse and cover-up at Westminster Abbey and Christ the King Seminary to be very toxic and nothing would surprise me anymore. Before I sign off, I share one more story. Bear with me on this. You may enjoy this one! This is a story of fiction, written and published by an American author of four fiction and non-fiction books by the name of Brian Payton. It is called “Hail Mary Corner” (Dundurn Press, Oct. 16, 2001) and it was Brian Payton’s debut novel, coincidentally published just three years after the conclusion of Placidus’s criminal trial. Described as a book focusing on two young minor seminarians, it is a story that takes place “inside the walls of their Benedictine seminary (where) they inhabit a medieval world steeped in ritual and discipline— a place where black-robed monks move like shadows between doubt and faith.” Elsewhere, we read that the main character “discovers two secrets that trigger an event that may haunt him for the rest of his life.” Here’s an interesting fact: Brian Payton was a minor seminarian who attended Christ the King Seminary in Mission B.C. Born in 1966, I am guessing he may have attended Christ the King Minor Seminary in and around the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. This ex-seminarian then produces a tale about the life as a young minor seminarian in a ‘fictional’ Benedictine seminary, set in a ‘fictional’ location on Vancouver Island where Payton now lives. I was told by one blog reader who alerted me to this book that the author allegedly “combines Fr. Placidus and Fr. Augustine” into one of his main monk characters! Not wishing to give away too many spoiler-alerts, Brian Payton’s fictional story includes mention of a seminarian who took his own life and also incorporates the rage of a monk, apparently suffering from depression and on medications who, when driving his van one dark night, runs a seminarian off the road, ultimately leading to the death of the young boy. Dear readers, I couldn’t help but then notice one online reviewer in Goodreads who wrote: “Love how Brian fictionalized a true story here.” True story, fact or fiction? Who can know which parts are real and which parts are creative license? There is so much that lies in that unknown realm where fact and fiction are intertwined. Readers, I’ve already run out of space in this week’s blog. But, allow me to share that I've just been contacted by yet another ex-seminarian wishing to share his recollections of that fateful weekend and related events, both prior and after. I anticipate that next week’s blog will most certainly continue on with this story. Perhaps think of it as Part 2. Till next week, Bernadette 

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - January 14, 2025 Breaking silence. Confronting clergy abuse. The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative Thank you once again to all who connected and reached out this past week. This will be the third and final debrief dedicated to the The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative website and on the documents that D.H. fought so hard for to be made public. In this week’s blog I also share an interesting video clip which I found when doing some research. I appreciate that the debriefing of these documents these last three weeks has been detailed and lengthy but many of you have affirmed the importance and the need for this. It is my intent to continue the ongoing work of speaking and exposing the truth but with the promise of shorter blogs going forwards! I know you've heard this from me before but prepare to be surprised! Allow me in this final debrief to take the opportunity to acknowledge and honour D.H.’s courage in making sure these documents are now public. And to acknowledge his vulnerability in sharing his own witness statement when interviewed by the RCMP thirty years ago in October 1995. I am humbled by his bravery, courage and determination in sharing all that he has done for the sake truth and justice. On behalf of myself and readers, thank you, D.H…. There are many documents I could refer to in this last debrief. Firstly, allow me to point out the ongoing disagreement and what is described as “considerable dissatisfaction” with respect to the running of the seminary. It appears to not just be a problem that was experienced through the 1960’s, as noted by Bishop Sabatini ( page 104 Volume 3, RCAV ), but which continues on into the 1970’s and 1980’s. We can see this from documents going back and forth between Fr Augustine Kalberer and Archbishop Carney. In addition to documents which testify to this “dissatisfaction”, there are many of us here in British Columbia who know that priests such as Fr. Gary Franken and his good friend Fr. Mark Hagomoen, as well as Fr. Stephen Jenson, all now bishops, were sent to attend St. Peter’s Seminary in Ontario and not sent locally to Christ the King Seminary in Mission. My own sense, which is merely a personal opinion albeit opinion shared by others, is that such sentiments of discord between the Abbey and the Archdiocese likely still continue to this day. There appear to be some territorial issues relating to where a “young lad” came from. If a young boy came from a parish that was run by a religious order, was this boy to be groomed to become a priest of that particular religious order or was he to be groomed as a diocesan priest? On page 84, Volume 3, Roman Catholic Archdiocese , we note that in 1974, the Rector, Augustine Kalberer writes to Archbishop Carney and reports that “currently there are 12 students from the Archdiocese at the seminary.” He goes on to note that there had been 14 students, but two returned home due to “homesickness”. I remind you of Placidus’s notes for the Serra Club Luncheon nine years earlier, namely that a minor seminary “…takes a lad from his home and parents during his adolescence, a time during which he needs both home and parents.” How I wish folk had been more responsible back then. And indeed, now. But back to Kalberer’s letter and his mid-year report. He notes, in this document, that out of seven young lads possibly still interested in priesthood, five wish to go ahead and study to be a priest for the Vancouver Archdiocese and two are undecided, one wishing to “remain independent” while the other “undecided” young lad “has an uncle a religious and thinks mostly that way”. For the record, that “uncle” also went to Christ the King Minor Seminary and was ordained in 1951. Who can say, but that young Grade 10 student surely and most likely never knew that his ‘uncle priest’ was already sexually abusing altar boys when working as a priest at Holy Rosary Cathedral in Vancouver and would eventually be criminally convicted and sent to jail. Sadly, although it was well known this ‘uncle’ was abusing young boys at the Cathedral, this predator priest was simply moved and recycled to be a pastor out in the Hope, then Coquitlam and then Guardian Angels parishes where he continued to abuse children. He “got away very lightly” as one victim-survivor noted on Sylvia’s Site: “I was abused by this man in the late fifties in Port Coquitlam. Others were also abused and when he was found out, he was just transferred to another church. I left the church as soon as I was old enough and still live with the fact that the Catholic Church was complicit in this vile act by not acting.” https://www.theinquiry.ca/wordpress/accused/charged/gordon-father-george-gordon/ I concur. It is sad and troubling that the Catholic Church remains “complicit in the vile act of not acting” —both back in the 1950s and still now, 75 years later. That Grade 10-year-old student did in fact choose to remain at Christ the King Seminary to become a priest, and ultimately a bishop, while his uncle, Fr. George Gordon, would eventually be convicted in Vancouver’s Supreme Court in 1992. We notice from these back-and-forth documents that the Vancouver Archdiocese also helps fund fees for a couple of the students whose families could not meet the financial requirements. This is certainly a generous gesture though I can’t help but wonder if I was a 13 or 14-year-old that had expressed a desire to join the nuns, and the nuns had arranged with my parents to pay for my residential schooling and education, what pressures and influence would this have had on me, and my parents, to make sure I stayed the course to become a nun? Reading through the documents this week, I was looking out for hints of who at the Abbey or at the Vancouver Archdiocese was actually attempting to do the right thing and there are two documents I want to draw your attention to. The first is a memo from Fr. Gary Franken who was, it seems, appointed to speak to the boys at the seminary following the removal of Placidus’s teaching license by the Ministry of Education. The removal of Placidus's license was something the Abbott objected to but which thankfully, was overruled. And the second is correspondence between the Abbott and the Archbishop referring to one of the teachers at the seminary who was personally spreading the word and encouraging victims of Placidus to come forward and seek support. The first document is a two pager, dated February 12, 1998 (Volume 4, Harold Vincent Sander, pages 175 and 176) and is a summary of Fr. Gary Franken’s discussion with the young minor seminarians. At the time, Fr, Gary Franken was the Vocations Director for the Archdiocese of Vancouver (1997 to 1999). I applaud Fr. Gary Franken for at least noting in his report that: "It seemed to them ( the minor seminarians ) that Father Sander’s admission of sexual impropriety was, from the institution’s perspective, a non-event.” Well done Fr. Gary Franken for noticing that the Abbey was brushing aside such heinous behaviour such as kissing seminarians on the lips and having “homosexual genital contact” as a “non-event”. And for remarking on it. And while I like to believe this particular comment and his report was expressing the reality of the situation, it somewhat lacks bravery and boldness on the part of Fr. Gary Franken. What action followed? Did he even lobby and persuade Archbishop Exner to rectify and deal with this awful attitude coming from the ‘institution”? There don't seem to be any such recommendations in his report. Instead, it would appear, Fr. Gary Franken, in his allegiance to the brotherhood and fraternity of priests he belongs to had already learned that behaviours such as “sexual impropriety” are “non-events” and are best dealt with by ‘quietly putting them to bed’. This after all, was what he allegedly did five years earlier in 1993 to A.B., the victim-survivor who has filed a suit against Fr. James Comey. Fr. Gary Franken was working for Archbishop Exner at that time, and as the legal filing suggests, made a phone-call to the victim-survivor to “intimidate her and ensure her silence.” Sadly, this lack of bravery and courage was also reflected during the Clergy Abuse Review Committee meetings in 2018/2019 when Fr. Gary Franken failed to mention any involvement whatsoever that he had with regard to the Placidus’s file or being sent to interview the seminarians after the trial had concluded. Indeed, it surfaced again in his brief email upon Placidus’s death in 2021 in which he merely says, as it relates to what should be published, (Volume 4, Harold Vincent Sander, page 235 ) that, “less is more for now.” Placidus’s death was an opportunity when the Archdiocese could have honoured and supported his victims by acknowledging the harm done but instead, the then Vicar General chose the easy route of ‘let’s say nothing’. As it pertains to the second document I refer to, (Volume 4, Harold Vincent Sander, page 251 ) and in contrast, I note the feistiness and bravery of a teacher wishing to support victims and who, in his anger was, “taking it upon himself to contact the seminarians he has taught in the past and to spread the news”. This teacher had apparently met with the Abbott on September 10, 2018 to discuss the impact of sexual abuse on potential victims of Placidus. He had requested that either the Abbot, John Braganza, or Fr. Placidus himself make a public apology. He wanted all victims to know that there was help available to them. The teacher’s name was not redacted from the released files and is noted as Raphael (Ray) Donnelly. Kudos to Ray Donnelly for bringing this to the light and wanting to take action albeit the released documents on the website and his actions appear to have caused concern to the Abbott who then alerts the Archbishop. To help put the pieces together, Ray Donnelly who taught at the seminary (I am unsure if he is still on staff or not…) is a “a retired criminal prosecutor and led a Sexual Assault Division which specialized in Child Sexual Assault and Adult Rape.” My recollection is that this prior work took place somewhere south of the border in the U.S. Ray himself was “a victim of sexual abuse at a minor seminary” (this information is in the public domain) and, at the time of the publication of the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Abuse Review Committee Report, he was “an instructor at the Archdiocese of Vancouver’s Seminary College of Christ the King, Mission, BC.” My own guess, and it is just a guess, is that in September 2018 and upon being appointed to the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Sexual Abuse Review Committee, Ray Donnelly along with two other lawyers, was allowed access to go through some of the predator priests’ files which were being pulled and prepared for the incoming committee. This included the file of Placidus Sander. The Clergy Sexual Abuse Review Committee was due to convene in October 2018 and Ray Donnelly was likely incensed by what he found as it related to sexual abuse of minor seminarians in the very seminary where he was teaching. My guess is that he then approached the ex-Abbott John Braganza to address this and in turn, Braganza alerted Archbishop Michael Miller. Just to clarify for those not familiar, three lawyers were allowed access to purportedly “probe the files” in advance of the review committee convening. All three, including Ray Donnelly, were Catholic. There was a fourth lawyer on the committee who was not Catholic. He was the one token non-Catholic committee member out of thirteen of us until, along with one other person, we advocated for the presence of a trauma specialist, who in turn was not Catholic. The fourth lawyer I mention here introduced himself on day one as a “very good friend of the bishop” but he was not given access to the files or tasked to report on contents. Mary-Margaret McKinnon, the Archdiocesan lawyer was noted as “a lawyer in private practice who advises the Archdiocese of Vancouver”; Kenneth Beatch, was listed as “a defense lawyer with over thirty-years expertise in criminal law” and who, according to the Archbishop’s Delegate for Operations, had done work for the Vancouver Archdiocese and Ray Donnelly, employed and teaching at Christ the King Seminary at Mission. What we do know about Ray Donnelly is that he knew the horrors of abuse and rape both from his own experience as a minor seminarian (not at Christ the King Seminary but a different minor seminary) and also through his work leading the Sexual Assault Division which specialized in Child Sexual Assault and Adult Rape. He would have understood the lifelong impacts something like that has on a person. Moving on, in response to last week’s debrief blog, one blog reader reached out and asked: “Where did Braganza go? Do you know?” No was my answer for I do not know. But their question prompted me to do some research and to see what I could find. To my surprise, I found this little video clip which I now share with you. It is titled “Set Apart” and is a twelve-minute documentary about four monks at the Abbey and seminary, produced in 2012 by someone called James Penco. https://vimeo.com/85189200 It makes for interesting viewing as it focuses on four individuals, namely, Br. Joseph Bruneau, Frater Caesarius Marple, Fr. Anthony Nguyen who is the current Rector of the Minor Seminary since Fr. Peter Nygren was removed from ministry last year, and Fr. John Braganza, the ex-Abbott / monk who resigned two years before that. Curiously, I note, that both John Braganza and Peter Nygren entered the seminary at the same time and trained together for eleven years as seminarians in Christ the King Seminary between 1982 and 1993. They then lived together for almost another thirty years after which they then both left the monastery, each under vague, undisclosed circumstances and within two years of each other. “Set Apart” is a nicely produced video. Allow me to share some of my comments below, bearing in mind that these comments are merely my own personal opinion. I was somewhat unsure about Br. Joseph Bruneau’s views on sexuality. He speaks of how, generally speaking, people seem to view celibacy as: “A shutting down of all sexuality.” “But it isn’t” says this then 24-year-old, who goes on to add, “You see, its actually about becoming more fruitful in your sexuality…”. Hmm. I personally find this a curious, and somewhat dubious turn of phrase to describe the abstinence of sex. That not procreating, which the Catholic Church constantly teaches us is what sex is for, is in fact “more fruitful”? My head space could not help but go back to the disturbing homily given by another Christ the King trained seminarian and now ordained priest, Fr. Richard Conlin. He informed the congregation he was preaching to, that women cannot become priests because: “priesthood has everything to do with men’s ability to produce sperm and become fathers.” He then waxed lyrically about the ‘fruitfulness’ of priesthood being related to the spiritual “seeds” that are sown (men “produce sperm and become fathers”) with women merely the receptacles. I still shiver as I recall this! But back to the young 24-year-old Br. Joseph Bruneau who goes on to speak of how celibacy is not about “crushing” or repressing one’s sexuality but it’s about “actually taking the power of sexuality and guiding it to a spiritual level.” While I can, in theory, identify with this altruistic sentiment and ‘heavenly’ aspiration, it is one that is not without major obstacles. Christianity, of all religions, is incarnational. Bodies matter. To deny, repress or attempt to channel such basic human body functions only into the spiritual realm is asking for trouble. God didn’t request celibacy or make it a law. Nor did Jesus. Paul suggested it in some of his letters, but it didn’t exactly appeal or catch like wildfire! Give or take a margin on this, it took another thousand years. Choosing only celibate men for priestly ordination became norm around the time of the Second Lateran Council in 1139 and, even then, not with great success. For several hundred years following this, some priests and popes continued to marry, have children, or simply continued to engage in sexual relationships. Times have not greatly changed in the year 2025. Just giving examples here in British Columbia, Monsignor Brown, a Christ the King trained seminarian, priest and then a monsignor lived a double life with his wife until she went public and sued him. At the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Abuse Review Committee, we discussed the cases of three active priests moved in recent times from the Vancouver Archdiocese to the Kamloops Diocese who have fathered children. Maybe it was hoped their secrets wouldn’t travel with them. Then we have Placidus. He, for example, guided his power as a priest and monk (supposedly a ‘holy man’ living a celibate life…) as well as guiding his power of sexuality and inflicted his perversions on little children and minor seminarians. We know that Fr. Peter Nygren was removed from ministry because of breaching “appropriate ministerial boundaries with adults.” Richard Sipe reported that the percentage of priests believed to practice celibacy throughout their entire lives is only 2 percent. “Taking the power of sexuality and guiding it to a spiritual level” does not have an altogether successful history. I additionally find Br. Joseph Bruneau’s continued interpretation of sexuality to be somewhat concerning. He shares: “Sexuality is meant to ‘give’ and the misunderstanding we get is that sexuality is meant to ‘take’.” He goes on to say, “Maybe this is what people have a hard time understanding ( referring to celibacy ) …is, how can you possibly live without trying to take all the pleasure out of somebody else that you possibly can?” “But…” he then continues to say by way of answering this question often asked of him, “I’m not trying to the take the pleasure out of somebody else. I’m trying to give my whole self. My sexuality is giving myself wholly to God and to the Church.” Hmm… I’m not quite sure where Br. Joseph has learned that sexuality is about either ‘giving’ or ‘taking’ the pleasure out of someone else? Or that married people and those who enjoy sexual intimacy with a partner are wanting to “ take all the pleasure out of that person— as much as they possibly can .” Maybe I live on a different planet, but my understanding and experience of sexuality is that it is the expression of one’s sexual nature. It is a means of physically communicating and expressing oneself with another. That expression, generally speaking, is an expression of love and is an act that invokes passion, for it arouses the physical, the emotional and indeed, the spiritual in us. It also, in simple terms, arouses our ‘God given’ erogenous zones thus instigating a physical bodily sexual response. But it’s not about trying to the take all the pleasure out of somebody else. Maybe Br. Joseph and I should sit down and have a two way conversation about this, but I have never wanted to “take all the pleasure” out of my husband. On the other hand, I do know a man, a predator priest, who took all the pleasure out of my life as he groomed, manipulated and guided his power and the power of his sexuality into sexually assaulting me. As far as I am concerned, I have always wanted to simply enjoy all the pleasures of my relationship with my husband and across all its variations of expression. But never to take as much as I possibly can. Such pleasures are invariably mixed in with the natural enjoyments and obstacles of life, such as sharing responsibilities raising our kids and finding ways to pay the mortgage (things monks don’t need to worry about), collaborating together on our finances, enjoying our hobbies, cooking dinner or watching a movie together, falling in and out of arguments, enjoying and communicating through sex, and always supporting each other in sickness and in health. And all of this is done through the myriad of ups and the downs of life. But I have never wanted to just “take” all the “pleasure”. Indeed, married life for those of faith is ALL about giving oneself wholly to God through love of others. Who has the right to say married people are not giving themselves wholly to God through their chosen vocation? Or that they are not as spiritually “fruitful” because they engage in sex? I invite you to notice in this video documentary what ex-Abbott John Braganza then says at 3.35 minutes as he refers to his life as a ‘celibate monk’: "Marriage and family life is a beautiful thing but in truth there is something better, something that reflects the eternal life of God." Really?? And so, to all married people out there and those in family life, you’re doing a “beautiful thing” but according to the ex-Abbott, you are not “reflecting the eternal life of God”. And you could be doing so much better if only you had made different choices such as opting for celibacy and becoming a monk. Apparently only those choosing celibacy are the ones to reflect the “eternal life of God.” Sadly, the ex-Abbott’s sentiments demonstrate the clericalist mindset, and they are in line with an article he wrote for the Pax Regis titled “Sexual Abuse Crisis” (Vol. 78, Number 1, December 2018) in which he stirred a lot of anger at the time. He claimed that: “Married couples and families, that is the laity, who make up 99 percent of the church must ask themselves about how their very own grave public failure in the areas of marriage and divorce, contraception and abortion and suicide have influenced ecclesial life. Has the married life of Catholic couples played no part in this crisis?" As one blog reader and ex-seminarian shared and summed up, “According to Braganza, monastic life "reflects the eternal life of God" and "married couples and families must ask themselves about their grave public failure ..." All this said, allow me to finish off by sharing that young 24-year-old Br. Joseph Bruneau (this was his age at the time of the making of the documentary) reports that he is truly inspired by the monks who “radiate joy” adding that: “They really live a happy life”. I’m glad to hear this. And for the record, I do too! Before I leave you this week, I wish to bring to your attention one last document. It is a document drawn up and compiled by Fr. Mark Dumont at the Abbey in which he lists all 212 priests who passed through Christ the King Seminary and were ordained, up to and including March 2008. He notes, on March 6, 2008, that “we are proud of most of our alumni priests.” I share my observations. The list of 212 priests (pages 136 – 142, Volume 4, Harold Vincent Sander) includes nine predator priests criminally convicted or credibly accused, one priest (monsignor) living a double life and sued by his common-law wife, two currently pending trial for involvement in sexual abuse and/or cover up of sexual abuse, two whose names I recognize from the Clergy Abuse Review Committee for concerns relating to ‘sexual misconduct’ but whose names are not in the public domain, twenty-nine who have been laicized, two who have been exclaustrated and one simply ‘left active ministry’. Additionally, there is one who has very dubious financial and abuse connections with the St. John Society in South America but who then made his way to the UK and joined the Benedictines there. And then the latest two, of whom one was ‘removed from ministry’ and the other resigned and disappeared. For the record those criminally convicted and / or credibly accused are: · Fr. John Kilty · Fr. George Gordon · Fr. Paul Blancard · Fr. John Eason · Fr. Duncan Goguillot · Fr. Johannes Holzapfel · Fr. Leonard Buckley · Fr. Herbert Bourne · Fr. Placidus Sander Others include: · Fr. James Comey (named as a defendant and pending trial) · Fr. Dunstan Massey (named as a defendant and pending trial) · Fr. John Edward Brown (not a convicted offender against children but who lived a double and duplicitous life for years until sued by his common-law wife). This list only goes up until March 2008. Who else between 2008 and 2025, an additional period of 17 years, might appear on such a list? Given that the Vancouver Archdiocese STILL hasn’t produced its updated Clergy Abuse Update Report promised last July by the Archbishops’ Delegate for Operations as being available in “a few weeks time” but with STILL nothing on the horizon, maybe we will find more predator priests from that list who came through Christ the King Seminary. But twenty-nine laicized priests? That’s a LOT of laicized priests! And two exclaustrated with one additionally choosing to simply leave active ministry. For those unfamiliar with the term ‘exclaustration’ my understanding is that there are different types of exclaustration but typically it is for priests "experiencing a vocational crisis or have grown weary of priestly life and who have requested a “reduction” to the lay state while still maintaining some ties to their religious community”. Sadly, this term, “reduction” clearly shows the Catholic Church’s view of clerical life as superior versus married life as inferior and lesser. At the expense of repeating myself, I share it again. What amazes me is the number of priests ordained after training in Christ the King Seminary who are laicized. So, laicization, it would appear, is easy enough to achieve through Rome! Alas, not however, if you are a pedophile and predator priest or are a bishop covering up heinous crimes and abuses… Some things are utterly back to front. Dear readers, thank you for reading and digesting all this information. I do appreciate your patience and your readership, and I am well aware that these last three weeks of debrief have been ‘dense and intense.’ As one blog reader put it, “the story you knitted together from the released documents is both epic and damning.” Exposing the truth continues to be important work amidst the ongoing actions of the Catholic Church who still, and very unfortunately so, withhold information, sadly believing and taking the opinion that “less is more for now”. Till next week, Bernadette 

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - January 14, 2025 Breaking silence. Confronting clergy abuse. The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative Based on comments received last week, and for which, thank you, I’m choosing again this week to debrief some more on certain documents found on The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative website. As I debrief, you may wish to make that extra cup of coffee! This blog is filled with important information and for some, it will feel ‘dense’. But the intent is to help you decipher the story behind some of the documents; to understand what was happening and also, what was known. It sadly has bearing on how victims were ignored in favour of priests and monks being protected instead. It is the proven reality of the sexual abuse that has occurred over the years at the seminary, and which has been so consistently and intentionally concealed. Before proceeding much further, there is one thing I need to point out and correct from last week. The victim-survivor who I referred to in last week’s blog as the “1993” victim-survivor and who wrote, “My greatest disappointment is that you have someone I confided in, Monsignor Gregory Smith on your review panel, and I smell another rat” I need, for the record, to rename as the “1992” victim-survivor. While in his email he refers to events that took place in 1993, his disclosure was in fact made known to the Vancouver Archdiocese in 1992, thus in advance of, and separate to, the three complainants who ended up testifying in the later criminal trial. Consequently, for the record, I wish to correct this and hereafter, refer to him as the “1992” victim-survivor. If you refer to Volume 4, Harold Vincent Sander, page 156, you will find a letter from someone called Mimi Dent of Catholic Family Services, dated 11thDecember 1992, writing to Archbishop Exner and bringing this victim survivor’s disclosure forward to the attention of the Vancouver Archbishop: “(Name redacted) attended Westminster Abbey from 1990 – 1993 (Mimi Dent later corrects herself on page 159 in a memo to Louise Murphy, Secretary to the Archbishop to clarify that those dates should have read “from 1980 – 1983”). He was a minor seminarian attending grade 8,9 and 10. (Name redacted) recalls that Father Placidus would pay special attention to him, would take special notice of him. (Name redacted) would receive hugs. By the end of the second year, grade 9, the hugs escalated to kisses on the month that felt “inappropriate”. Further down on page 158, this social worker goes on to say: “To the question, “what would you hope Archbishop Exner could do for you.” (Name redacted) paused and stated, “Possibly I would want to meet with him. Archbishop Exner is an incredible pastor”. I affirmed him in his statement. He paused and stated, “the suspension of a priest is not a bad idea… I would also hope something would be done to get Father Placidus some counselling.” This is followed by some barely decipherable handwritten notes on page 160. It is Archbishop Exner’s handwriting, making notes on this disclosure, albeit sparse ones. In part you can read: “…confided in his friend, an ex-seminarian who reminded him of rumours about others who apparently had similar problems.” And the last sentence: “….again stated he had no ( ‘intention of pursuing’?) ...legal charges”. And so, not only did Archbishop Exner receive this complaint and disclosure from a social worker/counsellor providing support to this victim-survivor, but he was aware that there were rumours about others who apparently had similar problems - to the point he made a note of this on his own files. So, in 1992 and before the three known plaintiffs went to the RCMP to press charges, Archbishop Exner was already aware of two very serious and separate complaints received over the span of the previous five years: 1. Firstly in 1987, a group of seminarians wrote to the Papal Nuncio and to the Abbott about Placidus’s “homosexual activity” with the seminarians. 2. Then in 1992, Catholic Family Services alerted the archbishop to a specific individual who they were counselling: What, if anything, did Archbishop Exner do to redress Placidus’s heinous behaviours? Why do we not see any following files relating to actions Archbishop Exner took? One can only come to the conclusion that little, or no action was taken. It is common knowledge that Church leaders and the Benedictine community of monks were well pleased that Placidus’ was later acquitted in the criminal trial, despite his own admissions in court of a sexual genital encounter with a minor seminarian and kissing the lips of another. To receive complaints and disclosures but to then ignore them or downplay them is appalling. It is also symptomatic of a group of men who believe themselves superior and above the law. Take for example, the letter from the “Former Seminarians’ to the Papal Nuncio Volume 4, Harold Placidus Sander, page 47. This is yet another example of cover-up. Why was this letter not brought to the attention of the Clergy Abuse Review Committee in 2018 and shared with us? You will see that the former seminarians who wrote this letter were concerned about doing the right thing and were very conscious that they were dealing with a serious and delicate matter. I can well understand their desire back then to not reveal their own names and identities for fear of repercussions. They refer on several occasions to raising this “sensitive issue” and they even apologize, saying that “if this offends you or your confreres we apologize”. But these courageous seminarians are very clear with what they are sharing and disclosing, adding that “these accusations are not unfounded, and we make them with the utmost sincerity.” I truly applaud the honesty, courage and upright actions these men took, whoever they were, in doing the right thing and wishing to address the concerning behaviours that they were aware of. THEY saw and understood that what was taking place was utterly wrong. Why did the monks, the Abbott, the Papal Nuncio and the Archbishop not see it? Why did the monks, the Abbott, the Papal Nuncio and the Archbishop not have the honesty, courage and upright concern to act on this? Indeed, up to and including more recent times, why did the monks, the Abbott and the Archbishop not do the right thing and admit they were aware of these concerning behaviours for decades? Instead, we find denial and talk of false accusations; blind allegiance to a monk and priest in favour of what lay people were bringing to their attention. Not only this, these behaviours were to be followed some years later by the celebration of an ‘acquittal’ when the accused admitted a sexual genital encounter with a minor seminarian and the kissing the lips of another. This is sheer willful denial of horrendous behaviour. It was disturbing to read in Volume 8, Post Trial Documents page 11 that, for example, the monk named Augustine Kalberer, says, “In his verdict, the judge said he believed Fr. Placidus but not the complainants”. How words can be twisted. He did not say that at all. The judge said: “The evidence was unreliable” and so “did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt” — but he did not say that he didn’t believe the complainants but believed Placidus! This monk then goes on to speak of how the community has already suffered enough with the “false charges” in the media. Good lord. People with their heads in the sand. Or is that people choosing to put their heads in the sand? Let me move on to another document. In Volume 4, Harold Placidus Sander, page 99, you will see a letter from the Abbott John Braganza, written in 2008 and noting that “Father Sander is a person of good moral character.” It is a reference letter and testimonial for suitability for ministry, and speaks to Placidus’s character, The letter concludes: “The Benedicts of Westminster Abbey agree to indemnify and hold harmless any diocese in which Father serves, for any loss, damage and liability of any kind in the event that any of the representations in this Testimonial are incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate”. Can YOU see anywhere in this letter and testimonial reference letter written by Abbott John Braganza for this “person of good moral character and reputation” and who has “nothing in his background” any mention about his being prohibited from being in the presence of minors such as was mandated by the court of law in this country? Not one single mention is made referencing Placidus’s restriction and this caveat that indeed is a huge part of his “moral character” and “reputation”. I’m not sure about you, but I find this most irresponsible of the then Abbott to be so willfully hiding the truth. But then, we do know that this Abbott himself, John Braganza, suddenly resigned and disappeared completely from Westminster Abbey in 2022 following concerns “regarding his interpersonal relations.” Curiously, and whether there is any connection or not, this sudden departure all happened in and around the time that all these damning documents were going back and forth between D.H.’s lawyers and the Church’s lawyers. Another document that poses a question for me relates to why was it, in November 2019, that Archbishop Michael Miller and the then Abbott John Braganza agree together not to publish Placidus’s name in the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Sexual Abuse Report? Why did they withhold this announcement and publication from both the general public and from victim-survivors and their loved ones, already hurting from their lifelong experiences? The document that I refer to appears in Volume 4, Harold Vincent Sanders, on page 222 and again in Volume 8, Post Criminal Proceedings, on page 67. In this document Abbott John Braganza emails Archbishop Michael Miller on the topic of the publication of Placidus’s name for the Clergy Sexual Abuse Report being made public in November 2019. Abbott John Braganza writes: “Atter having spoken to you on your way back from the Priests’ Study Day I had a chance to speak to the community about the publication of names. Their advice to me was against the publication of his (Placidus) name for the reasons we have outlined in the attachment I have enclosed.” The Abbott speaks to the community of monks and “their advice was against the publication of his name.” Why? And where is the document and attachment that John Braganza mentions that is “enclosed” and which outlines those reasons? Nothing was shared that I can see. Is anyone else able to find the reasons? If you can find anything in among the website documents as to why Placidus’s name was not published until after he died, please do let me know. Maybe I am just not seeing it… Why are the community of monks at Westminster Abbey and the Archbishop so keen to continue to keep the name of Placidus and his heinous acts out of the light? So much for the quote on the current website that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and the desire to now shine a light on things… Instead, the Archbishop and the Abbott insisted on keeping things in the dark, waiting two and a half years more until Placidus is finally dead and six feet under before acknowledging the horrible crimes this predator priest and monk was enacting on children. The men who now talk with such ‘gracious words” (as one blog reader names it) on the current website about transparency and who choose to purportedly pay tribute to victim-survivors with flowery words had only so very recently and with calculated precision chosen to keep things in the dark and prolong the agony for Placidus’s victim-survivors, family members, loved ones and those who may have benefitted from knowing sooner. To this point, and how the community of monks and the archdiocese wished to continue to protect Placidus and not the children, another blog reader this past week shared that: “While they say Placidus had no involvement with the minor seminary, several documents listed under Harold Vincent Sander make me question that statement. Check out Volume 4, Harold Vincent Sander and check out page 77. It’s all about the monks at the Abbey and it says that. “Fr. Placidus the talented choirmaster of the Abbey, also works in the gardens spread across the Abbey grounds. He is also active in both the guest house and the monastery kitchen.” This reader goes on to note, “I thought the minor seminarians often had chores in the kitchen and also had times for free time in the garden. Were the students informed to not go near him?” Good question dear reader. I doubt it very much that any young minor seminarians were informed not to go near him given that the Abbott Maurus Macrae wanted to reinstate Placidus as a teacher to the minor seminarians very soon after the trial was over, if you can believe this. And that Abbot John Braganza appointed him as Postulant Master in 2014, thus in charge of young seminarians even though he was publicly known to have had “genital sexual contact” with a young seminarian as well as kissing another on the lips. The leadership at the Abbey obviously took Placidus’s predatory sexual actions with a ‘pinch of salt’, effectively condoning such behaviours. One document written more recently by the now current Rector of the Minor Seminary, Anthony Nguyen I find to be very telling and epitomizes the continued lack of understanding of sexual abuse. In Volume 4, Harold Placidus Sanders, page 248 Fr. Anthony Nguyen writes: “With regards to his appointment as Postulant Master, Fr. Abbot considered the matter and did not think* that he was no longer a threat given his evidence of conversion after many years after the incident.” (*grammatical error of a double negative. I believe Anthony Nguyen meant to say that “he did not think that he was a threat any longer…”) But what the dickens does “evidence of conversion” mean? And after “the” incident as if there really was one on incident of abusive sexual activity on Placidus’s part? The current Rector of the Minor Seminary, Anthony Nguyen is providing Archbishop Michael Miller with Placidus’s CV and summarizing what historically happened when it came to light that Placidus had had a “homosexual” encounter (sexual abuse) with a high school seminarian. And he is reporting what the monks are calling ‘evidence of conversion’. But bear in mind that Placidus only confessed to this particular event (and there were many others), WHEN confronted! No conversion or confession was involved, but instead what essentially was a forced admission. Placidus was smart. Had he said nothing, but further complaints were to be received for Placidus knew just how many others he was actively abusing, his game would be up. Best to admit to this one encounter and deflect attention. Check out Volume 4, Harold Placidus Sander, page 178 in notes produced and signed by the monk Augustine Kalberer’s dated December 17, 1997, after the criminal proceedings have concluded. Augustine recounts that back in 1983/1984 a minor seminarian reported to him about unwanted sexual advances but did not name the monk and priest who perpetrated this behaviour. Augustine, then the Rector of the minor seminary at the time, shares this with his Vice-Rector, Placidus, who then in turn actually admits it was, in fact, himself who the seminarian was referring to. He would never have mentioned it had he not been outed. Roll forward fifteen years to 1997 when Augustine is actually writing up this particular report and he says “I spoke to Father Placidus again in more detail today. He told me that it was the only genital homosexual contact he has ever had.” And then Augustine adds “His truthfulness in admitting the event is impressive” Really? Augustine believed him, simply because he said so, and because he was a priest and a friend? It would be amusing if it were not so tragic, but Augustine goes on to say: “To my mind, truthfulness is one of Father’s special virtues. In the fifty years I have known him— and during many of them I worked closely with him— I have never known him to tell the slightest lie.” Hmmm. How can anyone say that of anyone else, that they’ve never told a single lie and be so sure? We can never know such things. And then all the monks were so keen to believe it was a one-off? And that Placidus had had a “conversion’? To this I would say, please, please, please, Mr. Archbishop in charge of the seminary, can you make sure ALL priests and educators and monks and anyone claiming to be representatives of God working and living in this archdiocese be FULLY understanding about the nature of grooming, of sexual abuse, of manipulation, of lying, of hiding one’s actions, and above all of the inability of predator priests to actually believe they are doing anything wrong. Predator priests are consummate con artists. And, something that has been proven over and over again through research, that if there is one incidence of sexual abuse, there are always others that will be found if one is bothered to look and investigate. But wait….I catch myself just minutes after writing ‘Mr. Archbishop in charge of the seminary’ as this leads me to point you to further documents. If you go to Volume 3, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver, page 72, you will find a very interesting and telling document. It is written by a Cardinal (Giuseppe) Pizzardo from the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries end Universities in Rome, and is addressed to the Vancouver Archbishop, then Martin Michael Johnson. It is a letter in response to Rome’s receipt of the bishop’s mandatory Quinquennial Report. The Quinquennial Report, if I remember correctly from my theology days, is a report the bishop must submit to Rome every five years in line with their “ad limina” visit when they meet with the Pope and report on the state of their diocese. This particular letter from Rome to the Vancouver Archbishop is dated June 11, 1965. Cardinal Pizzardo (note some additional information about this Cardinal which I share at the end of this blog) writes: “We did not fail to see the difficulties arising out of the fact that the Seminary belongs to the Benedictine Fathers, who hold the right of ownership and administration. For instance, Your Excellency has informed us that, e.g. “the Deputies cannot carry out their duties satisfactorily and as they should according to the principles of Can. 1359 C.J.C.” (etc.) and that “the Religious do not look upon the seminary as the seminary of the Archdiocese of Vancouver even though this is clearly stated in the Contract of August 25th, 1949.” The Cardinal goes on to say that: “In view of all these circumstances, we ask Your Grace confidentially to indicate to us in a brotherly way what you feel should be done about the administration of the seminary. Indeed this Sacred Congregation is most anxious that Your Excellency should be able to exercise complete authority over the life of this Pious Institute; therefore we would ask you kindly to indicate to this Sacred Office—what are the major difficulties, so that, aided by your good counsel we can find a fitting solution that will preserve and the rights of the local Ordinary.” To those unfamiliar, the “local Ordinary” here means the bishop. It appears that there were lots of differences and challenges between the Archbishop and the Abbey; with the Abbey ‘doing its own thing’ and the Archbishop not in full control of it as he should be. This is further endorsed by a document later on, at page 101 and titled “Bishop Sabatini”. In this document, Bishop Sabatini, Auxiliary Bishop of Vancouver from 1978 – 1982, reports that the final contract with the Benedictines establishing a seminary was signed in 1949 and, on the advice of the Holy See, was to be for 12 years but that, at the time of writing (sometime between 1978 and 1982) “there is no documentary evidence in the archives that this time was ever extended.” Bishop Sabatini, more interestingly notes: “There was considerable dissatisfaction with the training given to the seminarians in the 1960s, and Archbishop Duke formed a committee comprised of Fathers J.M.Stewart, J.E.Kilty and J. Hanrahan to discuss the problems and try to remove the difficulties.” Putting two and two together, this leads one to question: Why, in 1965 when Cardinal Pizzardo and the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries end Universities were most concerned about how the seminary was being run, was Pladicus, who was Rector of the seminary for the previous ten years found to no longer be in charge? Why, in 1965, was Placidus taken out of leadership of the seminary and found located in Missouri, auditing some courses? We see a handwritten letter that Placidus written from Conception Abbey in Missouri, that same year, in which he writes to the Abbott: Volume 4, Placidus Harold Sander) page 42. In this letter, Placidus refers to “the news of Father Maurus’ appointment” and says, “It’s a relief, and at the same time strange to think of a new situation.” Hmm. He then goes on to say “I am only sorry that the past year was – or if I made it – harder for you and I will try to see the present and work with it as ‘the living now’!” Away and in Missouri on some kind of sabbatical, one wonders why? And only when away does Placidus learn of the appointment of Father Maurus Macrae as Rector of the Minor Seminary? Also, why is this “a relief” yet Placidus says at the same time it is “strange” as though it was not what he had wanted or hoped for, for himself. Lastly why, and for what, does Placidus apologize for, acknowledging that he made the past year so hard? So many questions and no documents provided to help us understand. But what we do know is that both Rome, the local Vancouver Archbishop and, it would appear, many others, were not happy with how the seminary was being run. One blog reader asked about a document which details typed notes that Placidus had made for a Vancouver Serra Club luncheon he was due to address on October 17, 1963. See Volume 4 Placidus Harold Sander page 36-41. Under “Objections to Minor Seminary in general” it ‘appears’ that Placidus is saying things like: “A lad of 13-17 years of age is too young, doesn’t know his own mind yet. He should see the world first and then decide what he wants to be” and that “It takes a lad from his home and parents during his adolescence, a time during which he most needs both home and parents.” ALL SO VERY TRUE! As far as I can make out, these were notes made by Placidus in advance of an address he was due to give whereby he is listing all the objections received from the public, locally and elsewhere. It appears he lists all the objections so that when he speaks at the luncheon, he can then address each of these issues and counteract them instead with words ‘delineated or deployed by Pope John XXXIII in his addresses and letters” which takes up the next four pages of his typing. In other words, the objections were not Placidus's personal ones but certainly ones that had been received and noted. It is not known if Placidus actually shared all these things, but I encourage you to read the “Criticism of the Minor Seminary at Mission in particular.” Read all sixteen of them and feel free to comment back to me as I will likely visit this document again next week. And so, dear readers, having read the details of this week’s blog debrief, do you still believe the children up at the Abbey and Christ the King Seminary are safe? In response to the suspiciously generous and gracious sounding words to be found on The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative website and written, we assume, by the current Benedictine monks and Church leadership, allow me to borrow words shared by the “1992” victim-survivor. We learn from his email that he “lives on the other side of the world and is no longer living in Canada” but who writes with obvious feeling and intent: “I truly hope that those who have been damaged by the church with abuse that this is not just another ruse to make those believe that the church cares. I believed in it, and it grossly failed me. Don’t do this to others as well.” I echo these words. Let us hope the promises and words found on the website is not just another ruse to make people believe that the Catholic Church cares. I too believed in it, and it grossly failed me. Don’t do this to others as well. Before I draw to a close this week, allow me share something about that Cardinal Pizzardo who wrote to the Vancouver Archbishop in 1965, concerned about the lack of control the bishop had over the seminary. Archives opened to the public in 2024 show that Cardinal Pizzardo defended the notorious sex-offender, Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Maciel was a priest known to the Vatican as a drug addict and sexual abuser of seminarians and someone who, under Pope John Paul II, enjoyed the Vatican's favor and the Pope’s friendship for decades. His money and success provided him with protection and influence from his colleagues at the Vatican. Back in 1956, Pizzardo intervened and prevented much needed measures being put in place by the then “No. 3 in the Vatican’s office for religious orders” a Cardinal Giovanni Battista Scapinelli. Maciel, under Scapinelli’s instructions and for all his known abusive behaviours, was “to be barred from having contact with young seminarians or be at risk of being suspended from priestly ministry altogether.” But, as the opened archives in 2024 found, later documents that same year revealed that Cardinal Pizzardo, who at that time was the “No. 2 in the Vatican’s office for religious orders”, effectively ruled over and edited those measures. Instead, Pizzardo lifted the prohibition against contact with seminarians and Maciel was allowed to continue to do what he wanted. It took a further fifty years before Pope Benedict XVI finally removed Maciel from active ministry, based on the results of an investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in April 2005. After Maciel’s death in 2008 “it came to light that he had also maintained sexual relationships with at least four women, one of whom was a minor at the time. He fathered as many as six children, two of whom he is alleged to have sexually abused.” And all this was allowed to happen thanks to the network of strong ties Maciel built with many of the Church’s most influential conservative leaders and thus, the protection he received. Are we to really believe things have changed in this day an age? Gene Thomas Gomulka, an ex-priest of 29 years who was also raised to the title of Monsignor by Pope John Paul II, regularly writes his own blog and speaks a lot about the homosexual networks found within the Catholic Church. I found these words to be very telling. He writes: “Many seminarians who were groomed in the seminary are often ordained to see the seminary priest faculty member who introduced them to gay sex be made a bishop. Those bishops often make the men they groomed their secretaries, vocation directors, seminary rectors, and vicar generals.” It’s all about the network. The priestly network of clericalism and cronyism, but sadly also the network of abuse and coverup. Till next week, Bernadette