Share Button

This morning (Monday 15 Nov. ’10)  the Bathurst Diocese will try to convince the court to allow it to utilize the Trust fund for seminarians to finance the diocesean-Bastarche compensation package for victims of clerical sexual abuse.

The hearing will be held in the Bathurst courthouse.  Unfortunately I don’t know what time the hearing commences.  If anyone knows would you please post a comment or send me an email at cornwall@theinquiry.ca

As we already know a judge denied the request of the bishop/diocese that the hearing be held behind closed doors and the file be sealed.  In and of itself that is both intriguing and disturbing.  However all of that aside I must say that I don’t understand why the diocese turned to the civil court in the first place.  I would have thought it could all be handled within the Church.  It has me puzzled.  Perhaps someone out there with a canon law background could enlighten us all?

Finally, I hope that those in the Bathurst area who are free to do so will pop in to watch and listen to the proceedings.  Let us know what went on, or post a link to any media coverage as soon as it’s out.


As I said earlier, an excellent article in today’s Toronto Star by Mary Ormsby:

14 November 2010:  Tales of abuse link clerics again – after 47 years

First, note that there are now 16 complainants, all men alleging they suffered sexual abuse as young boys at the hands of Father William Hodgson Marshall csb.  Sixteen!!

Now, look at the information regarding the crossing of paths between Father Marshall and Bishop Ronald Fabbro csb.

This is uncanny, is it not?

Anyway, some questions:

(1) Did Fabbro, as Superior General of the Basilians, report the 1996 sex abuse allegations against Father Marshall to the CAS?  If not, why not?

(2)  And, a question answered.  I had wondered how the Basilians became aware of Holland’s allegations against Marshall.  Apparently Holland’s psychiatrist contacted the Basilians.  It was after that contact that a Basilian landed on Holland’s door step offering him money.  Fabbro was Superior General at the time

Now another question.  According to media accounts, in this latter incident the Basilians gave Ted Holland $30,000 for counselling services.  If other media accounts are accurate, why then did Fabbro, as Superior General, ensure that Holland, upon receiving the counselling fees, was obliged to sign an agreement that he, Holland, would not pursuer the matter in court?

 And, again, did the fact that Marhsall was a personal and family friend influence Fabbro’s response to the allegations?

(3) Did the fact that Marshall was a close personal and family friend in any way influence Fabbro’s response to the allegations?

(3)  Did Fabbro also teach with Father Leo Campbell csb while at St. Mary’s in Sault Ste Marie?  It looks to me as though he did.

(4)   While he was Superior General, did Fabbro receive/ handle any sex abuse allegations Father Campbell?

If yes,what action if any was taken?

(5)  Regarding the Sudbury police, will there be an investigation of any sort conducted by anyone to determine the veracity of allegations by three men that the Sudbury police failed to act on their sex abuse allegations against Hod Marshall?

I have said in the past and will say again, I really must put together a chart showing where Basilian Fathers Robert Whyte, Leo Campbell and Hod Marshall were and when, and who was Superior General of the Order at the time, and who was bishop of the diocese.  I for  one am forever flipping back and forth to get it straight in my mind.  It would be so much simpler to have a simple chart.  I will put that on my to do list for this week 🙂 I also have six more names I overloked which belong on the Accused list – will get that taken care of too.

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Basilians, Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Scandal and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Uncanny?

  1. Sylvia says:

    Good eye Lina. I now have it posted here

    Not good news. Another victory for cover-up: a defeat for transparency.

    Dare we guess what the ruling will be from this afternoon’s session?

  2. prima facie says:

    ..ahhhh, forget it, I’m not going to post…well, then again…”stick it up your nose” New Brunswick courts. Gee, I guess the conspiracy theorists from “all sides” will have fun “spinning the yarn-down east”….and here too.
    And “the Pearheads” say, they wonder why?

    You see, it is times like this that the “victims, families, supporters and similar” could come out screaming…NO!! NO!! We aren’t going to take this anymore. WE want complete disclosure……….but then again, they are probably constrained and restrained—–thanks to the stipulations.

    Yes, I suppose, “Another victory for cover-up and another defeat for transparency” is quite fitting Sylvia.
    What’s the score…100-0 for cover-up?

  3. Sylvia says:

    Amen to that prima facie!

    Any news from anyone on the outcome of the afternoon session? I don’t see anything yet

Leave a Reply