Diocese had doubts on claim

Church official felt details were withheld or forgotten

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

28 June 2008

Posted By BY TREVOR PRITCHARD

Church officials left a 1993 meeting with serious doubts about David Silmser's sexual abuse allegations against a local Roman Catholic priest, the Cornwall Public Inquiry heard Friday.

"We felt that some details were not given possibly because he didn't want to or that they had slipped his mind or that perhaps many things had been dreamed up," Rev. Denis Vaillancourt wrote in a September 1993 letter to the Children's Aid Society.

Vaillancourt, the chancellor for the Alexandria-Cornwall Roman Catholic Diocese, met with Silmser and two other church officials at the diocese's Cornwall office in January 1993.

Silmser had gone to police a month earlier and accused Rev. Charles MacDonald of sexually abusing him when he was an altar boy at St. Columban's Church in the 1960s and 1970s.

The meeting -which included church lawyer Jacques Leduc and Msgr. Donald MacDougald -came about after Silmser complained to an Ottawa priest, who forwarded his allegations on to the local diocese, said Vaillancourt.

Testifying in French, Vaillancourt said Friday he was only a "witness" at the meeting, and that it was Leduc who asked most of the questions.

In his letter to the CAS, Vaillancourt wrote that Silmser made four separate allegations against MacDonald, but seemed to be holding back specific details.

The church offered to provide Silmser with psychological help, but all he wanted was MacDonald to write an apology and send it to his mother, Vaillancourt wrote. Silmser also refused a meeting with MacDonald, he added.

Inquiry lawyer Pierre Dumais asked Vaillancourt why he had doubts about Silmser's story.

"The seriousness of the allegations was such that the accused should be able to describe the incident in some detail," Vaillancourt said.

"He (Silmser) refused to give us any details."

The diocese later negotiated a $32,000 settlement with Silmser in exchange for him not pursuing criminal or civil charges against MacDonald.

In June 2000, Vaillancourt gave a statement to investigators with Project Truth, a four-year provincial police probe into allegations an orchestrated pedophile ring was operating in the Cornwall area.

Vaillancourt told the OPP it was his understanding the diocese arranged the payout in order to "save the reputation of Father MacDonald and not cover up."

Dumais asked Vaillancourt what he meant by that statement.

"(Det. Const. Joe) Dupuis asked me if there had been any meeting to cover things up," said Vaillancourt. "I said no. And then I explained my own personal version of the events."

Vaillancourt added he never helped craft the $32,000 settlement. His only other involvement with Silmser, he said, came in 1996, when Silmser called him to talk about MacDonald.

"I promised nothing," Vaillancourt said. "I suggested nothing."

The OPP charged MacDonald in 1996 with more than a dozen sex-related charges. They were stayed in 2002 after a judge ruled the former priest's right to a timely trial had been infringed upon.

Leduc was also charged by the Project Truth investigators in 1998 with offences involving young boys. Like MacDonald, Leduc had his charges stayed in 2004.

Vaillancourt is the first of 10 diocesan witnesses expected to be called at the inquiry, which is probing how institutions reacted when faced with allegations of historical sexual abuse. He was part of the diocese's presbyterial council in the early 1980s when allegations surfaced against Rev. Gilles Deslauriers.

Vaillancourt said he spoke with Benoit Brisson and Claude Thibault, both of whom have testified at the inquiry about abuse they suffered at Deslauriers' hands, before meeting with then-bishop Eugene LaRocque in February 1986.

"He was completely distraught," said Vaillancourt. "He said that we had to act."

Vaillancourt said they went to meet Deslauriers, and LaRocque suggested Deslauriers enroll in a spiritual therapy course in Quebec.

Deslauriers refused the offer, said Vaillancourt. He pleaded guilty in November 1986 to four counts of gross indecency involving young men aged 17 to 19.

He was sentenced to two years of probation under the care of the Diocese of Gatineau-Hull.

Vaillancourt is scheduled to be cross-examined when the inquiry resumes July 2.

RE: “Cornwall Standard-Freeholder” article posted online, entitled, “Landry Sr., priest cases in “different ballpark”: Repa”, by “Trevor Pritchard”, dated June 27, 2008 and attached “comments” by “readers, contributors”.

From my perspective regarding this matter, I would suggest no further disclosures by anyone about this matter online. However, I also believe, all contributors have their right to do as they wish.

I urge anyone intending to file a “complaint”, as implied by some contributors, to avoid replying to questions such as the one posed in “post#22” of the June 27, 2008 article,
i.e.: “what were we misled about?”

I urge contributors who intend to file complaints, to review “articles” and “comments” over the past several months, including comments where contributors have expressed fear and written, 1-“they” know who we are, 2-admission by at least one contributor, they knew who other contributors were (this in a world of billions and access to the internet),
3-attempts by some contributors, “the regular ones” to dispel thoughts of “conspiracy” (their words) and rationalize “concern”, with “cyber glitch”, type justifications.

Or, if you have noticed some regular contributors, who no longer contribute; note them, with their last comments.

IF you have already recorded this over the past several months, good, if not, it can be retrieved easily. Also, one way to retrieve information is to contact an “I.T.”, specialist or other professional, at your local college, university or private sector business, for free advice and/or referral.

As has unfolded in many “articles” posted, it is my opinion “post#22”, has nothing to do with commenting on the “story”, but rather, attempts to “interrogate” contributors, control, influence and even, intimidate some contributors.

Subsequent to my initial review, inquiry and consultation regarding this matter and related matters, I have been advised, this issue generated enough concern, that it requires further investigation.

I urge contributors to be careful.

For me, this is simply another “log, thrown onto the pile”. I have nothing to fear and nothing to hide.

Unfortunate, isn’t it, “the lengths people have gone. Desperate people, places and things, will take desperate measures.” Be calm people, but careful.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #1 By JAMES "SPEAK OUT",

 If the church felt that Mr. Silmer was not being truthfull why did they pay him? Who is not being truthfull now and I assume that all these millions they have paid out world wide for charges that have been proven aginst priests are all false as well, check the history books priests have ben offenders for centuries, how can this priest sit there and make such statments.

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By what justice,