Perry Dunlop is a political prisoner. He has spent 155 days in jail – for stepping up to the plate to protect children, and then daring to say he has lost faith in the justice system. This is the institutional response to allegations of childhood sexual abuse.
****
Hearings resume at 0930 hours (9:30 am) this morning, Thursday, 24 July 2008. Archdeacon Gord Bryan will continue his testimony.(I have to get a page togeteher for him – will do so)
I will deal with Claudetter Pilon-Routhier ‘s testimony later.
****
Msgr. Peter Schonenbach testimony of 22 July 2008 was both informative and disturbing. Informative because we scooped up a few more of the inevitable crumbs from under the table; disturbing because it gives us a glimpse at “the Church’s” willingness to remain silent in the face of known or possible criminal activity committed by her clergy.
I was thinking about all of this last night, particularly in light of the hair splitting which has been tolerated when it comes to what has been conveniently categorized as “historical” sexual abuse. In the past I have touched on this. I fail to understood why “authorities” view the crime of sexual abuse as nigh to irrelevant if it is dubbed “historical” because it was committed a year ago, two years ago or twenty years ago. A criminal act is criminal act. Is the man who molests a child today any less a criminal than the man who at the very least was known to have molested a child in the past? The fact that men who molest generally continue molesting aside, should criminals whose crimes have eluded detection for months or years be permitted to elude justice for that very reason? Does that make an ounce of sense?
Do we do the same for murders? Or serial killers? No.
Why then the schizophrenic and irrational tolerance for criminals who prey on and sexually abuse children?
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Those were Christ’s words. Seems to me if Church officials refuse to deal with clerical criminals themselves the very least they can do is turn them over to the state for punishment – render to Caesar. As we know only too well, that has not happened.
Strange isn’t it? There is a duty to report to CAS because children are or may be at risk, but there is no corresponding duty to report a real or alleged criminal to police.
So, in that light, the following points and/or thoughts re Monsignor Schonenbach’s testimony.
A reminder that Schonenbach is a priest with the Archdiocese of Ottawa – it neighbours the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall and is home to Saint Paul University, a seminary/ university where many priests in the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall studied and underwent formation for the priesthood.
I will start with testimony from Monsignor’s cross-examination, and I must say hats off to Frank Horn for eliciting this revealing testimony. I will move on in point format to Schonenbach’s testimony regarding his rather bizarre involvement in the David Silmser allegations against Father Charles MacDonald:
(1) Under cross-examination by Frank Horn Schonenbach showed where he stands when it comes to dealing with “historical” allegations of clerical sexual abuse. Note the Monsignor would have acted immediately and differently if he had been told a priest was currently abusing young people :
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: Well, it seems to me that, you know, you might say that a priest who is charged in any way with a sexual crime, even if that charge is simply a cooked-up story, his credibility is practically out the window. And I think that people realize that one has to be – you know, measure this – the calamity of this, the horribleness of the action, but also realize that there’s another person involved.
And so sometimes it has happened that people have erred a little bit, but the fact remains that we have to realize that this is a very, very important thing and that — yeah, you know, I don’t really see the — because I’m sure you would agree yourself that we — we have to be very careful what we say about people.
MR. HORN: Okay. You’re in Ottawa. There’s something happens here in the Cornwall area and somebody has come to you about a situation that was here, and it was a credible witness — somebody was credible. You felt that there’s something there.
Would you have been allowed to immediately say, “Look, there’s a crime that was committed. I’ll call the police directly without consulting with anybody else”?
Could you have done that?THE COMMISSIONER: Are we talking about a crime dealing with sexual abuse of young people?
MR. HORN: Okay, sexual abuse. You heard — you heard that this is a credible witness.
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: Yeah, yeah.
MR. HORN: This is a credible situation.
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: Yeah, and I —
MR. HORN: He’s gone to Ottawa —
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: There are other things there too, you know. First of all, I think we have to agree with — tell you. I mean, as a member of the Catholic Church and a member of the — of the Diocese of Ottawa, jurisdictions are very clear. I did all that I could to make sure that that jurisdiction would do its work properly and would — and that was all I could do.
If I were to go beyond that, I would have exceeded the responsibility I had.
MR. HORN: So it means that —
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: Now, on the other — let me say one thing. If somebody came to me and said, “This priest in this other diocese is abusing young people now,” well, this would have been another kettle of fish. I mean, I would have immediately been on the phone to the other bishop and we would have in — within that very short time we’d have come up with a solution that would have brought the Children’s Aid into it…
(2) Under cross-examination by Giuseppe Cipriano (Father Charles MacDonald’s lawyer) we heard a little more:
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: …I think that the – – you know, you get into a situation again where you have these — these two particular issues that I tried to show that they are somewhat different. The priest who is abusing and there immediately you pull him out and act on that.
But the — where you have the historic-type accusations, well, then I think it’s a matter often of finding what can be the best way of solving this situation; pulling him out of active ministry, sending him for counselling, seeing what else and perhaps — I mean, sometimes a priest can be — and some bishops have found backroom jobs for people where they function very well.
Yes indeed, “back room jobs” – as canon lawyers, hospital chaplains, prison chaplains or nestled away in convents. Still priests.
How this prevents clerical abusers from abusing is beyond me!
(3) Cipriano raised the question of re-integrating priests who have been falsely accused. Schonenbach replied with reference to what has become the typical clerical example of a “false” allegation of clerical same-sex sexual abuse, specifically that of a Steve Cook against Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Bernardin, both now deceased:
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that — you know, I can’t think of an example right now because usually the accusations that have been made prove to be serious, but it’s conceivable, and then I think that justice has to — well, no, a good example, right, there’s an example.
Bishop — he was one of the — one of the American bishops was accused by someone of having abused him. He maintained his innocence for months and eventually the person indicated that it had been a fabrication.
In Catholic circles the actual facts circulating about Cooke, Bernardin and a young girl named Agnes are voluminous. For example, check:
http://www.rcf.org/pdfs/AMDGSpringSummer2000.pdf ( Scroll to The beginning of The End of The Bernardin Legacy, Introduction by Stephen Brady)
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/060818
http://www.rcf.org/pdfs/12-03_AMDG.pdf (Scroll to Joseph Bernardin: A Double Life Prince of the Church and “Lavender Mafia” Don By Joe Kellenyi)
(4) Now to Schonebach’s involvement with David Silmser.
First I must say that poor Dave was bounced about within “the Church” like a hot potato. From Ottawa to Cornwall. From Cornwall to Ottawa. From Ottawa back to Cornwall. Disgusting!
Anyway, here is what I garnered of Schonebach’s involvement:
(a) Sometime in 1992 David Silmser contacted Guy Levac, secretary to Ottawa’s Archbishop Marcel Gervais;
(b) Levac directed Dave to the Alexandria Cornwall diocese. Dave called Levac back – apparently said a Father Guindon said “What do you expect me to do”;
© Levac called Schonenbach. Schonenbach called Dave Silmser and then called Levac –told him the situation was rather serious;
(d) On 09 December 1992 Schonenbach called Alexandria-Cornwall Chancellor, Denis Vaillancourt. Schonenbach found out the contact person for problems of this nature was Msgr. Donald McDougald;
(e) Schonenbach called McDougald. He felt that McDougald didn’t seem too happy and decided that to help out he, Schoenbach, would call and talk to David Silmser and would give a report;
(f) Either McDougald or Vaillancourt told Schonebach it was impossible that Dave’s allegations were true because Charlie was such a wonderful priest.
(g) Schonenbach met Dave at the Ottawa diocesan centre on 10 December 1992 – he took notes but they are now non-existent.
(h) At the meeting Dave talked about his allegations against both Father Charles MacDonald and probation Ken Seguin.
(i) Dave told Schonenbach he was dealing with this at that time because he wanted to lose the label of being a bad person – and he specifically wanted a letter from Father Charles MacDonald acknowledging the abuse so he could show it to his mother.
(This has been what Dave has repeatedly said. He desperately wanted his mother to know it wasn’t her fault – he wanted her to understand what had happened to him as young boy that had changed him. His mother could not understand what had happened to him – he went from being a “good” boy with good grades to a child who was in trouble with law and doing poorly in school.)
(j) On 11 December 1992 Sconenbach sent a letter regarding the meeting to Bishop Larocque and McDougald. The letter did not go into details. I understood there was no mention made in the letter to the fact that Dave had talked of his allegations against probation officer Ken Seguin.
Schonenbach testified he wanted to ensure McDougald would meet with Dave. He copied the letter to Guy Levac.
(k) Schonenbach received a letter dated 21 December 1992 from Malcolm MacDonald (Charlie’s lawyer). According to the letter Schonenbach and Malcolm had previously talked on the phone. Schonenbach does not recall the conversation but thinks he was happy to see that something was being done.
(l) Another letter of 21 December 1992 went from Malcolm to McDougald. Malcolm indicated that he spoke to Schonebach that morning. Malcolm suggests the need for detailed statement from Dave and suggested that his comments be relayed to Schonenbach;
(m) Schonenbach believes it was Malcolm who asked him to facilitate a meeting with Dave. Schonenbach sent a fax saying no;
(n) There was further communication from McDougald in January 1993 asking Schonebach to arrange a meeting with Dave;
(o) Schonebach’s last contact with Dave was 29 December 1992;
(p) There was no further contact between Malcolm and Schonenbach after the fax of 29 December 1992;
(q) There was communication between Pat Hall (Project Truth officer) and Schonenbach in July 2001. Hall it seems was looking for information related to something which transpired at a Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops plenary before Schonenbach was General Secretary to the CCCB. Schonenbach replied and attached the front page of 26 August 1993 minutes from the CCCB plenary. Larocque was indicated as being present ( we have since learned that Larocque discussed the allegations against Charlie with the bishops at the plenary in an in camera session. I actually attended that plenary as media – when I find time I must see if I can find any notes );
® Schonenbach was summonsed to appear at Father Charles MacDonald trial. He was later called and told to forget about it;
(s) Schonebach never gave any formal statement. He was not interviewed by police in any of the so-called police investigations, nor by any of the rotating Crown’s regarding his early involvement and contact with David Silmser;
(t) Schonenbach believed Dave’s allegations were credible
(u) Schonenbach testified he never met or corresponded with Charlie.
(v) Schonenbach testified that there can be “reconciliation” worked out in what he termed “abusive” situations involving priests and adults. This was in response to Cipriano’s question about rehabilitation related to allegations which are not “criminal”:
MR. CIPRIANO: … There is a — there is this aspect of rehabilitation though?
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: Rehabilitation, absolutely.
MR. CIPRIANO: And the accusation may not be one that is a “criminal” accusation but it could lead to a canon law consequence?
MSGR. SCHONENBACH: Yeah, there can be situations also where we’re dealing with certain abusive situations which deal with adults and where sometimes some reconciliation can be operated between the victim and the perpetrator — sometimes. And I’ve seen some very good results come out of that.
So, there it is. A Roman Catholic priest in a neighbouring diocese hears of allegations of clerical sexual abuse in Alexandria-Cornwall, finds the witness credible and I would say by logical extension that a crime has been committed, recognizes that officials in Alexandria-Cornwall are not keen or swift to act, is aware that for some reason lawyers and clergy are trying to use him to orchestrate contact with the “alleged” victim and, even though then bows out of the picture – because the allegations are “historical”!
Good enough that Msgr. Schonenbach at least got the ball rolling, but I must say I find his involvement bizarre. Seems to me something doesn’t add up.
It’s interesting on hind sight that at the same time Schonenbach was dealing with David Silmser the Archdiocese of Ottawa was dealing with its own clerical sex abuse allegations against a popular local priest Father Ken Keeler. In that instance the victims testified that they had initially gone to Archbishop Gervais and were eventually summarily dismissed when Gervais said “We have no reason to believe what you guys are saying and that’s it” and that Father Keeler had a drinking problem and that was it.
(Gervais denies the victims sworn account of the meeting.)
The victims turned to police, charges were laid, and Keeler went to trial. He entered a plea of Not Gulity.
On 13 January 1993, on day three of his trial, Keeler had a change of heart and entered a guilty plea. The testimony of the preceding day entailed accounts of drugs, booze and boys barricading themselves in their room at St. Brigid’s summer camp to keep Ottawa’s Bishop Beehan from getting at them, and eye-witness accounts of Beehan and Keeler engaged in a sexual tryst on the balcony of a cabin at the camp.
The camp in Low Quebec was founded by Father Keeler, for needy children. It was frequented by a number of politicians.
Keeler’s lawyer was Bill Carroll, the same Bill Carroll now representing the Ontario Provincial Police Association at the inquiry. The Crown was Andre Morin, the same Andre Marin who is now Ontario ombudsman.
Keeler was sentenced to eight months in jail and two years probation. In a mere eight weeks he was out and about.
That’s what was happening in Schonenbach’s backyard in late 1992 and early 1993.
As for Bishop Beehan, he died before standing trial on sex abuse allegations against young boys. I recall a now deceased priest canon lawyer I once knew well angrily blaming Beehan’s death of Mike Gibbons, a Roman Catholic teacher who brought allegations of clerical sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Ottawa to light. Gibbpns suffered greatly, professionally and personally and has since left the Church.
Enough for now,
Sylvia