Three Boys Told Priest in Confession about Sexual Abuse
By Barb Sweet
Three agreed statements of facts were submitted to the Mount Cashel civil trial Monday from 1950s-era residents who told their parish priest during confession they were sexual abused by Christian Brothers. Episcopal Corp. of St. John's lawyer Susan Adam Metzler speaks with Father Frank Puddister and Archbishop Martin Currie (left) at the Mount Cashel civil trial Monday. Puddister is testifying Tuesday. — Photo by Barb Sweet/The Telegram Those statements and some 1990 videotape from the Hughes Inquiry formed a short day as the trial resumed after a roughly one-month break. It was the 14th non-consecutive day of testimony in this trial — a John Doe lawsuit against the RC Episcopal Corp. of St. John’s seeks compensation and involves four test cases that claim the church should be held liable for the physical and sexual abuse of boys at the orphanage by certain Christian Brothers during the period late 1940s to early 1960s. The test cases represent about 60 claimants in the case being pursued by Budden and Associates. The church contends it did not run the orphanage, therefore is not responsible for actions of the lay order Christian Brothers there. Confession is sacred under canonical law and priests cannot breach its confidentiality. The three statements entered Monday were all from former orphanage residents, but they are not among the test cases who have already testify. Among the statements, one man is a claimant in the larger pool of plaintiffs, another man had his case settled previously and the third man hasn't commenced legal action, the court was told by lawyer Geoff Budden. None of the former residents can be named. One man's statement – he was an orphanage resident from 1956-59 — said he had been both physically abused, as well as sexually abused by two Christian Brothers. He said he told the St. Raphael parish priest about the sexual abuse by one Brother in confession in 1956. St. Raphael was on the Mount Cashel property in what is now east-end St. John's. As the court previously heard from a canonical lawyer, a priest risks ex-communication if he divulges what was said to him in confession. But according to the statement, the former resident, while he knew confession was confidential, understood the priest would find a way to speak to the Brother accused of the abuse. However the witness told lawyers the abuse continued until the Brother left the orphanage in 1957. The witness said he was given penance, but there was no followup with the parish priest and he told no one else, other than referring to the orphanage as a rough place to his mother. Another statement concerned the physical and sexual abuse reported by a man who was a resident from 1954-61. He said he told the same parish priest in confession in 1956 that he committed a sin with a Christian Brother, and was given penance. There was no follow up and he told no one else about abuse, The same priest heard another boy's confession about abuse in 1956 or 57. This boy – now a man – told lawyers in the agreed statement of facts that he told the priest during confession that he was sexually abused by two Brothers. This boy was also given penance and there was no followup. Like the two statements, there was no further followup with the priest. He said he was physically abused by a number of Brothers and sexually abused by three Brothers during his time there and sexual abuse continued until he left the orphanage in 1958. The court also travelled back in time Monday to 1990 when the Hughes Inquiry was on, examining what failed in the Justice, police and social systems surrounding abuse of boys at the orphanage by Christian Brothers primarily in a different era – the 1970s and ’80s. In the testimony, a priest now deceased — who also cannot be named due to a publication ban — was questioned about what happened following a visit by a employee who had been let go from the orphanage for stealing eggs. The archbishop of the era was away in Rome at the time. As the civil trial has already heard, the employee reported that another man employed by the orphanage was abusing a boy. (It was also indicated a report was made to the RCMP at the time, but the boy denied it.) According to the priest at Hughes, he left a report on the visit on the archbishop's desk, but did not know what occurred afterward. He said he assumed the archbishop felt it had been handled because the employee accused of the sexual abuse was told to stay away from the orphanage. The priest had also said that major abuses were something to be dealt with by the archbishop. “Do you know why the civilian … came to The Palace rather than reporting to a member of the lay religious at Mount Cashel about the matter because the allegation did not in any way relate to a Christian Brother, it related to another civilian working at Mount Cashel? Do you know why he would have come to the Palace instead of spoken to the Christian Brothers about the matter?” inquiry lawyer David Day asked the priest at the Hughes Inquiry. “I would presume that he wanted to go to the top, to the archbishop who had some authority at least over every Catholic institution, you know in the diocese,” the priest replied. “Some authority over?” asked Day. “But limited,” said the priest. “To the extent that the archbishop had some authority over the papal institute the Christian Brothers, what was that authority?” David asked. “Well, I can only say roughly because I need to study it — because I am rusty on all these things — but generally it would only be in regard to major abuses or such things like that, evident abuses the archbishop would step in, you know,” the priest replied. “Because ordinarily (the Brothers’) own superiors would handle it.” If there was a major abuse that the Brothers couldn’t handle, they had an obligation to report it to the archbishop, the priest agreed during the questioning, but he said he was not aware of that happening. Episcopal Corp. vicar general Father Frank Puddister is to testify Tuesday, as well as a sister of one of the men who are the test case plaintiffs. Contact: bsweet@thetelegram.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.