Who will take responsibility and what will change?

Bernadette Howell, Spiritual Health Practitioner - November 6, 2024

Breaking silence. Confronting clergy abuse. 

Last week a blog reader from Scotland reached out to share news of the developments taking place in the Church of England. They noted that the internal messaging coming from within that church it that “it is not a safe institution”. 

Headlines had already spread around the globe about the decision of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, to resign following the publication of the Makin Report. 

The Makin Report detailed the horrendous and brutal abuse of over 130 boys, accessed through boarding schools and camps, by Canadian born John Jackson Smyth. 

For his part, the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Primate of the Church of England, had failed to act when this came to his attention in 2013. Three decades earlier, in 1982, and well before Welby’s time as Primate, there had even been a report about Smyth’s abuses of boys, but no action by any clergy or church leadership had been taken back then either. 

Keith Makin, the lead reviewer of the Makin Report, a consultant in social care and the health sector, and ex Director of Social Services, shared that:

“Despite the efforts of some individuals to bring the abuse to the attention of authorities, the responses by the Church of England and others were wholly ineffective and amounted to a coverup.”

One victim-survivor of John Smyth’s, Andrew Graystone, the author of a book titled ‘Bleeding for Jesus: John Smyth and the Cult of Iwerne Camps’ (2021) spoke to The Tablet on 7 November 2024 and shared: 

“The astonishing thing about this report (the Makin Report) is how many people at the most senior levels of the church knew about John Smyth’s appalling abuse but failed to do anything to stop him. The questions that arise, as ever, is who will take responsibility, and what will change. The answers, at least thus far, are ‘no one’, and ‘nothing’.” 

Things did change later that day—but only somewhat. The Archbishop of Canterbury resigned. He, however, was only doing so on account of public pressure. 

But at least he was doing the right thing. 

What about the Catholic Church? 

When, if ever, will someone at senior level in the Catholic Church do such a thing as admit failure, omission and error? And I don't mean just mouthing or printing the words in apologies but also resigning so as to allow someone else, with better understanding and courage, to take the helm and make the much-needed changes.

The U.K. Independent newspaper reported:

“In a statement on Tuesday announcing his resignation, Mr. Welby repeated his claim that he was informed of the abuse in 2013 but was told at the time that police had already been notified – which later proved not to be the case.” 

In other words, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was notified of allegations eleven years ago and failed to do anything. 

Because of a television documentary exposé on Channel 4 in 2017, a criminal investigation followed after which the Makin Review was then established, finally publishing its findings on November 7, 2024.

The U.K. Independent newspaper goes on to report that, “the independent Makin Review concluded that John Smyth might have been brought to justice had the archbishop formally alerted authorities in 2013.” 

Instead, nothing had been done by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Church of England, and Smyth lived an easy life and continued to abuse, by this time living in South Africa. He died in 2018. 

Smyth subjected all his victims to horrific sadistic and traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual abuse. 

“The impact of that abuse is impossible to overstate” said the Makin Report “and has permanently marked the lives of his victims.” 

As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, he acknowledged last week that he “did not ensure that this was pursued as energetically, as remorselessly as it should have been”, words that sound so very weak in the light of the trauma endured by so many.

Two things stand out for me here apart from the obvious and appalling lack of response or appropriate action to the horrific and sadistic abuse. 

One small thing to note from this reporting coverage is that when clergy in the Church of England have their license removed and no longer act in the capacity of priest, they no longer hold their grand and lofty titles. 

No longer are they “The Most Rev.” or, in the case of Justin Welby, “The Rt Hon. the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury" but are simply known as “Mr.” 

Justin Welby is now to be referred to as Mr. Welby.

Would that the Catholic Church could learn from this. 

Instead, the Catholic Church still insists predator priests, serial child abusers, and pedophiles will always be ‘priests’, with the supposed ‘indelible mark’ forever on their souls, still allowing them, in emergency situations, to perform the eucharist, hear confessions, give last rites etc. if a non-predatory priest cannot be found. 

The second point of note is the far more obvious: “Mr. Welby repeated his claim that he was informed of the abuse in 2013” yet nothing was done. 

Why did it take eleven years? Why such inaction and disregard for human life and justice?

The Church of England is considered the ‘mother church of the worldwide Anglican Communion’ and the British monarch, currently King Charles III, is considered the supreme governor of the Church.

While its official formation and identity are typically thought to have started during the Reformation in England of the 16th century, the Church of England claims to be both Catholic and Reformed, upholding teachings found in early Christian doctrines, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed amongst other things as well as baptism and communion, and it sustains a traditional Catholic order system that includes ordained bishops, priests and deacons.

From what I understand, Pope Paul VI began an ecumenical journey in 1966 following the Second Vatican Council to advance the path of reconciliation by establishing the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission. However, this ecumenical and theological dialogue came across a serious roadblock in 1994 following the Church of England’s decision to ordain women as priests in 1994. 

The question of patriarchy and women—again.

But I say, thank goodness for women priests and women bishops in the Anglican church. 

Two such women now come to mind… 

Firstly, there is Newcastle Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley. 

Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley told the BBC, "I think, rightly, people are asking the question 'Can we really trust the Church of England to keep us safe?' And I think the answer at the moment is 'no.' " She went on to say, that Keith Makin, who authored the report "has blown the lid off of a lot of the dysfunction" within the Church.

She is very clear in her honesty and forthrightness.

Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley made these statements following the signing of a petition set up by three influential members of the General Synod of the Church of England calling on Welby to go. 

After more than 13,000 people had signed this petition, it was she, Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley, who, according to the NCR, “broke from the normally closed ranks of the hierarchy” and intervened to make this bold statement. (Hold onto this thought as I wish to return to the topic of petitions later in this blog….) 

The second woman is Bishop Joanne Grenfell, the Church of England’s lead safeguarding bishop, who, along with the National Director of Safeguarding, Alexander Kubeyinje, wanted to highlight specific comments from the Makin Report.

Speaking to the comment made by a now deceased cleric who was aware, along with others in the 1980s, of the extent of John Smyth’s abuse and who had shared with the Makin review committee: ‘I thought it would do the work of God immense damage if this were public’ Grenfell went on to say:

“We are appalled that any clergy person could believe that covering up abuse was justified in the name of the Gospel, which is about proclaiming Good News to the poor and healing the broken hearted.”

She goes on to say, “It was wrong for a seemingly privileged group from an elite background to decide that the needs of victims should be set aside, and that Smyth’s abuse should not therefore be brought to light.”

In 1982, an investigation had secretly been carried out by the Iwerne Trust, which funded the holiday camps. Called the Ruston Report, and extensively referred to in the Makin Report, John Smyth’s abuses were known to clergy in the Church of England at that time. 

Bishop Joanne Grenfell goes on highlight that, “Every member of the Church is responsible for a culture in which victims are heard, responded to well, and put first: there is never a place for covering up abuse.”

There is never a place for covering up abuse. 

NEVER. 

There is so much more I could share about what is happening within the Church of England, but I want to return to the Catholic Church. It is so easy to be deflected by the abuses that go on elsewhere and within other religious organizations, shocking as it all is. And there will always be the voices to say, ‘see, it happens everywhere’. 

Sadly, it does happen everywhere, but statistics still prove that the level and magnitude of clergy abuse is, and always has been, far higher in Catholic Church.

I wish to echo and add to the words of Bishop Joanne Grenfell above and suggest that:

“Every member of the Catholic Church is also responsible for a culture in which victims are heard, responded to well, and put first: there is never a place for covering up abuse.”

With this in mind, let us return back to Canada. And specifically, to Vancouver as this is where I happen to be based.

Having sat on the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Abuse Review Committee, I’m all too aware of the abuses within this diocese but, and, equally as insidious, is the cover-up that occurs in this diocese. 

You will have read above that a petition was circulated in the U.K, calling for the Archbishop of Canterbury’s resignation. 

Well, here’s an interesting thing…. 

During the past week and in respect of some research I’d previously done on a Vancouver Archdiocese predator priest not named in any Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Update Report, but removed from ministry, I came across something I’d never stumbled on before: a petition.

First, let me share this letter, read out the parishioners of Immaculate Conception Parish from Archbishop Michael Miller, dated December 4, 2020: 

“A thorough investigation carried out by a lawyer independent of the Archdiocese confirmed that a number of accusations of sexual misconduct with an adult by Father (Nelson) Santos were well-founded, along with related inappropriate behaviour and comments. 

As a result, Father Santos is not permitted to exercise any priestly ministry in the Archdiocese, now or in the future. Should he apply to work as a priest elsewhere, the local bishop would be informed of our investigation. He has also been ordered not to meet with members of parishes where he served.”

Since that letter, shared with parishioners but not shared with the wider public, the Archdiocese of Vancouver has produced four Clergy Abuse Update Reports. 

The Vancouver Archdiocese should have in fact produced seven reports since 2020 but inaction, lack of transparency and lack of accountability, amounting to a very sad disrespect for victims and the public, accounts for this. Yet curiously, even in each of the four reports it did produce, no mention is made of Fr. Nelson Santos. 

Back in early 2015 (almost ten years ago) I personally had reported to Archbishop Michael Miller about a very unpleasant and unpastoral encounter I had with this Fr. Nelson Santos at a public meeting (…thankfully not harmful to me…). Soon after, I then became aware, from different sources, of this priest’s intimidating and predatory nature. 

The question remains: if removed from ministry, not allowed to work as a priest elsewhere and ordered not to talk to any of his previous parishioners, why then was nothing made public? 

I have always maintained that in such cases, either the predator priest has some ‘intel’, some secret and potentially harmful information about the Church or its leadership, and that he is blackmailing them with in exchange for the silence and cover-up, or, he is threatening to sue and expose them on some other grounds. 

Another possibility is that wealthy parish donors who do not believe their beloved priest is a predator and who only see the ‘charismatic’ side of their favourite priest, are up in arms at a priest’s possible removal and lobby the bishop, perhaps threatening to withdraw their funding. No diocese wants to lose out on money coming in. 

Then three days ago, out of the blue, I found a petition circulating on Change.Org., a public website for building awareness through petitioning.

Created by someone called Jake Savage and dated 12 December 2020, it is titled “Remove Archbishop Michael Miller from The Vancouver Archdiocese” and it reads:

“Recently it has come to light that Father Nelson Santos from the Vancouver Archdiocese has been asked to step down for alleged sexual misconduct with married women and young women in his congregation. 

Father Nelson was allowed to be a Chaplain at a local Catholic high school despite these allegations. Archbishop Michael Miller is said to have known about these allegations in 2016 but neglected to ask Nelson to step down and expose the alleged abuse until four years later in 2020.

Why did Archbishop Miller go to such lengths to cover it up? Why is he allowing these kinds of alleged disgusting acts to happen to his parishioners? Archbishop Miller needs to step down and relinquish his position, apologize to the Vancouver archdiocese, and have someone new that really cares about their people and truly follows the catholic churches teachings. 

What else does he know? What else is he covering up? 

We can not trust this man to lead us any further. I beg fellow Catholics, and fellow people of faith, sign this petition and help remove this man complicit in alleged sexual misconduct.”

This petition is now already four years old. 

https://www.change.org/p/remove-archbishop-michael-miller-from-the-vancouver-archdiocese

Perhaps it was only circulated to the parishioners of Immaculate Conception Church in Delta just as the notification by Archbishop Miller was only circulated there too, and was not brought to the greater attention of the public?

It notes, “Archbishop Michael Miller is said to have known about these allegations in 2016”. 

Indeed, as a member of the Clergy Abuse Review Committee in 2018/2019, I share with you that the case of Fr. Nelson Santos was not brought to the table in the supposed total of 36 files. 

I recall asking why this priest’s case was not being reviewed, and was backed up by two other members of that committee asking the same question, each of us aware through different sources of this priest's predatory ways. 

I was stunned there was “no file’ as I myself had even recommended that one of his victims get in touch with the archdiocese back in 2016. I suggested they get in touch with Fr. Gary Franken who was Vicar of Priestly Life at that time, and one if not two meetings, did take place. 

Why were there no records of those conversations and meetings?

Indeed, worse still, this victim had already submitted a written complaint to the archdiocese more than a year prior.

Where was the record of this complaint being kept?

It bears repeating this again. Fr, Nelson Santos name was not brought to the Vancouver Archdiocese Clergy Abuse Review Committee in the 36 files we were to review. It was only upon our mentioning it, that the Chair, the Vancouver Archdiocese’s lawyer at that time, then ‘dug deeper’ so that this case could be discussed. 

Only because of our mentioning it was a “thorough investigation carried out by a lawyer independent of the archdiocese”, the one mentioned by Archbishop Michael Miller of in his letter to IC Delta parishioners.

Another example of cover-up relates to the case of Fr. James Comey and his alleged abuses of anonymized victim-survivor A.B., a case still in progress and still to be brought before the courts. Neither was this case included in the 36 files we were to review. Yet Fr. Gary Franken, by this time, now the Vicar General, and someone very well aware of this case because of his own personal involvement in ‘allegedly silencing the victim’, was sitting at that very committee table, never mentioning a word about this case.

What about other names and files we didn’t know back then to ask about? And to this day, being covered-up?

Cover-up and known stories of abuse being swept under the carpet is not just happening in the high-profile stories we read about in the media, such as the failure, omissions and errors made by the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

It’s happening on our own doorstep.

Echoing the words on the Change.Org petition, and whether directed at Archbishop Miller as they are on that petition, or whether at other Catholic Church leaders: 

“What else does he know? What else is he covering up?”

Justin Welby at least publicly acknowledged his errors. 

“It’s very clear that I must take personal and institutional responsibility for the long and retraumatizing period between 2013 and 2024. The last few days have renewed my long felt and profound sense of shame at the historic safeguarding failures of the Church of England.” 

He then went on to add “As I step down, I do so in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse.” 

Despite his massive failure and that of fellow leaders along with the retraumatizing this causes so many victim-survivors, I at least appreciate that Justin Welby acknowledges that he must take personal and institutional responsibility. 

We have yet to have anyone in the Catholic Church be as contrite.

Allow me to divert a little bit here and share something a blog reader wrote to me this week. 

Having read last week’s blog (The Church as Perpetrator: License to Abuse) and noting the high statistic of homosexual priests in the Catholic Church, this blog reader wrote:

“If the majority of priests are homosexual as the studies you cite have found them to be, and as ordinary life experience suggests, then Christ the King’s Minor Seminary is similar to an isolated boarding school for adolescent girls run mainly by heterosexual men. Worrisome.”

The reader then went on to say:     

“If you think about the ontological theory, the brainwashing, the idea of the priest as the stand-in for Christ far above the rest of us, and that at least one monk there for decades having visited unspeakable horror on little children with impunity, and was praised in his obituary, then this is more than worrisome, it is terrifying.”

It is terrifying…. 

And yet no one in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, which has overall responsibility for this minor seminary still being in existence, is taking responsibility to do anything about this. 

Another blog reader, also commenting on the high number of homosexual priests wrote: 

“The Church is obviously attracting them. Nothing wrong with being gay or bi, but then you add their sexual immaturity—trouble, trouble, trouble’.” 

Children and young teen boys at Christ the King Minor Seminary continue to be a major concern and are at risk, highly vulnerable in this isolated setting. 

Let the Makin Report speak to you all of the dangers of such isolated cloistered environments, added to by the risk of men, many likely dealing with repressed homosexuality, and in some cases, repressed heterosexual needs.

The Makin Report published on November 7, 2024 makes for very sobering reading. 

Keith Makin was supported, along with others, by the clinical findings of Dr. Elly Hanson, an independent clinical psychologist with extensive expertise in sexual trauma, to include consultation, research, training, and assessments, working across criminal justice, education, child protection and voluntary sectors as well as national organizations.

The Makin Report notes:

“Of note in Dr Hanson’s analysis is reference to boarding school culture and practices, in which she describes how often very young children are separated from their families for long periods of time and therefore “come to lack strong, secure attachments and an understanding of healthy relationships. This can make them more vulnerable” to exploitation and abuse, “especially when perpetrated by someone in the guise of a ‘father figure’.” 

Dr Hanson goes on to explain the vulnerability and needs of those that were targeted by John Smyth “… needs that are especially acute during adolescence and become more so when children are placed in boarding school - and furthermore it appears that John Smyth targeted those that he perceived as having deeper unmet needs (in other words particular vulnerabilities)”. This explanation correlates to the experiences of several victims who described describe vulnerability because of family relationship breakdown and/or boarding school attendance. “

A very worrying, nay, terrifying danger, exists as our local Catholic Church refuses to acknowledge the dangers of such a small and intimate minor seminary “where needs are especially acute during adolescence”, where “children are separated from their families for long periods of time and therefore come to lack strong, secure attachments and an understanding of healthy relationships”. 

The Iwerne camps, where John Smyth had access to so many victims, were run from a private boarding school premises in Iwerne Minster, a village in Dorset. They were run entirely by men, with women being present only as “lady helpers”. 

Dr Hanson reports that “A key feature of the Iwerne camps was that women were only involved often in subsidiary roles only, with this having a direct impact on the thinking and the development of the boys and young men attending the camps”.

Does this not sound very like how Christ the King Seminary—and indeed, how any minor or major seminary operates? Run entirely by celibate men, some and potentially many, with repressed sexual needs?

Through the horrific abuses of John Smyth, one has to also acknowledge the incredible damage that arises from the notion of ‘sexuality as sin’.

Smyth was obsessed by the ‘sin of masturbation’ as too is the Catholic Church. 

The Makin Report notes that “John Smyth expressed disapproval of homosexuality, treating this as a sin and a ‘justification’ for the abuse.”. Yet his own “expression of homophobia may have helped him to hide his abuse in plain sight.”

John Smyth, it turns out, apparently applied for ordination on at least one occasion in 1981, but his application was refused. No detailed records exist to explain this rejection. 

I hope in a future blog to dive deeper in why certain people are refused ordination and what measures are taken to report unhealthy behaviours to appropriate authorities as to why. 

Consider, Christopher Paul Neil, better known as ‘Mr. Swirl Face’—convicted child molester who attended Christ the King Seminary but who did not receive the necessary approval to enter the priesthood. 

Allow me, before I take my leave this week, to share a new word I have since come across, shared by an ex-seminarian of Christ the King Seminary. 

Having attended school there, this blog reader described the seminary with this phrase: “It’s a boneyard” he wrote.

I thought perhaps he was referring to the seminary as now also housing a cemetery containing the bones of predator priest, Placidus Sanders. 

But then I discovered that ‘boneyard’ is urban slang. 

It’s where one finds, according to the Urban Dictionary, “a large group of men experiencing the sexual condition of a boner.” To those raised in families where slang was not permitted, a boner is an erection. Mind you, my Catholic upbringing was such that I was never taught what this was either...

I’m not sure I want this new slang word in my vocabulary. 

But if we are to confront clergy sexual abuse and break the silence, and we can by no means forget the many females who have suffered and experienced clergy abuse (and we are more in number than you think…), we all need to truly understand what so many male victim-survivors of clergy have suffered. And even if some attending Christ the King Seminary did not suffer directly, or those for example in Holy Trinity Parish who were altar boys but mercifully, were not themselves molested, many suffered vicariously through what they witnessed and lived with as young teens. 

When those who attended Christ the King Seminary and other seminaries and boarding schools share about their experiences, acknowledging sometimes that they themselves were not sexually harmed (and some of you have shared with me and wish to specifically emphasize that you were not), one needs to understand that clearly, vicarious trauma was and continues to remain present.

To end on a more lighthearted note and for those of you wondering, the disco-pop group Boney M who never actually sang, but lip-synced to session performers singing "Daddy Cool", "Sunny", "Ma Baker”, “Rivers of Babylon", "Brown Girl in the Ring", "Mary's Boy Child" and “Rasputin” (to name just some of their hits) had no such connection with the slang term 'boner' or 'boneyard'.. 

Boney M was in fact named after an Australian television character called Boney, who in turn was called after Napoleon Bonaparte! 

Allow me to sing you out to the music and lines of…

“Ra-ra-Rasputin

It was a shame how he carried on

But when his drinking and lusting
And his hunger for power
Became known to more and more people
The demands to do something
About this outrageous man
Became louder and louder

Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey

"This man's just got to go"

Till next week,

Bernadette