The Minor Seminary Transparency Initiative-Final Debrief, Part 3

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

Read More

Abuse claims against N.L. archdiocese swells to $121M following successful appeal by victims

By Outrage Canada • April 2, 2025
CBC Lite - April 1, 2025 St. John's, NL - A Newfoundland court has increased the total liability of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John’s to $121 million after a successful appeal by 59 victims of sexual abuse. These victims, previously excluded from compensation, were awarded $15.3 million in addition to the $104-million settlement approved in 2024 for nearly 300 victims. The case involves abuse by the Christian Brothers at Mount Cashel orphanage and other Catholic institutions in Newfoundland and British Columbia. Despite selling over 100 properties, the corporation has only raised $40 million—far short of the required funds. A previous $22 million was distributed to victims, but insurance coverage was denied. The provincial government may also face legal pressure to contribute to compensation. Justice Garrett Handrigan ruled that the corporation remains liable, reversing decisions that denied compensation to some victims. This includes 12 claimants in British Columbia, where church officials knowingly transferred abusive clergy from Newfoundland. However, past settlements will be deducted from new awards. The court will finalize this latest settlement after May 1.

The month of March has come and gone...

By Outrage Canada • April 2, 2025
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
More Posts
Share by: