“I had sex with bro Lawrence”

Share Button

First, the court dates:

(1)  Marcel Lalonde

Former teacher and convicted molester Marcel Lalonde has a court date tomorrow morning in Cornwall, Ontario:

29 April 2014:  09:00 am, courtroom #2,”to set date,”  Cornwall, Ontario  courthouse (29 Second St. W.)

It’s hard to know what if anything will happen.  Barring an adjournment for some reason or other there is a good chance a date will be set for something. It will be over in the twinkle of an eye.

I will check on the next date on Wednesday and post.

Please keep the complainant in your prayers.

(2)  Father Charles Picot

28 April 2014:  Case of Former Priest Facing Sex Charges Adjourned


I had my say.

What other profession would put up with these kind of shenanigans?

This has to be so terribly disappointing and frustrating for the complainant.  Please keep him in your prayers

(3)  Father Dan Miller

I finally got the dates for father Dan Miller 🙂 There are two:

15 & 16 September 2014:  10 am, Pre-trial motions (in court and open to the public) Pembroke court house ;

14 & 15 October 2014:  10 am,  TRIAL Pembroke court house  (as with other trials – open to the public)

This is quite amazing.  These charges have moved to trial much more quickly than most in Ontario.  That I am sure is a great relief for the complainant.

Anyway, mark your calendars for the Fall.  And note that both sets of dates are open to the public.

And, as always, please keep the complainant in your prayers


St Mary’s International School

The following comment has been posted for the past ten days on the St. Mary’s International Labor Dispute website.  Several people have drawn it to my attention.  I have been, for a number of reasons, in a bit of a quandry as to whether or not to copy and post the comment on Sylvia’s Site.  I finally decided to proceed.

Here is the comment:

I had sex with bro Lawrence

April 18, 2014 at 4:27 am

Oh dear. I have just been alerted to this site and believed the allegations againstt bro Lawrence pertain to a consensual sexual relationship I had as an SMIS students with Lawrence over a number of years.

I was 14 and was cruising a toilet looking for men to have sex with and Lawrence was there doing the same thing. Lawrence and I had a TOTALLY consensual sex life over a number of years.

I believe that a boy who has past peubity has the ability to decide who he wants to have sex with, male or female. Yes it may be illegal in some countries but this in an antiquated belief. I don’t believe it was illegal at that time in Japan.

I knew I was gay since about 7. My parents now know this. I have a male partner of over 30 years and we have a surrogate daughter. I have no problems with my life and am at the top of my chosen field.

At SMIS my parents did not know that when I went to spend one or two nights at SMIS it was to not only have very intense tutoring in my academic life, but to have sex.

I slept “in my sleeping bag” in Lawrence’s room as far as my parents were concerned. The other bros all new about our love and sex life. Other students did not know.

At SMIS I also always knew Lawrence as a man who was very caring and loving. He would never take advantage of boys. When I was going to Keep bro Lawrence warned me about Lessard and told him in my presence that he was not to touch me. Lawrence was caring, very caring as was bro Marcel who was his old lover and who I often had sex with at SMIS. Marcel too was a loving man who would not force himself on boys I am sure.

Bro Lessard did try and fondle me at Keep, I told Lawrence and Marcel attack Lessard so much so he was limping and away from class recovering.

I have no issues with having had sex with Lawrence or Marcel, and this was totally consensual. I was under the impression Lawrence and Marcel had died. When I left SMIS to go to college we decided never to meet or have any contact.

In January past, I was at my winter house at Whistler and met a former SMIS student I had not seen since school. He was possibly the only one who knew about Lawrence and I

He was told about my partner and our daughter and after discussion he could not be moved from the position that bro Lawrence made me gay. This is utter nonsense of course. He advised that as I am OUT it should happened that I expose the bros for what they “had done to me”. He said that even as it is too long to sue, I should expose them. What a lot of crap,

I believe he has made the allegations which have led to the headmaster’s letter

My thoughts…

First, the writer does not mention the years he attended SMIS.  I was trying to sort that out.   He also claims that he thinks he is the victim referenced in Saburo Kagei‘s 01 February 2014 letter to parents.  That letter specifically references allegations of “sexual misconduct” made “by a former student.”  According to the Kagei letter the “misconduct” occurred in 1965.

So, he must have been at SMIS in 1965.  He also mentions attending Camp KEEP.  Brother Lessard took his Grade 6 class to KEEP for sex ed classes in the 70s.  My understanding is that Camp KEEP was not a Lessard destination until the 70s?  I have spoken to and been in touch with former students who attended SMIS in the 60s who say there were no Lessard/Grade 6 trips to Camp KEEP in the 60s.

Were there trips to KEEP in the late 60s?

Still, it isn’t making sense.  He believes he is the victim who was molested by Brother  Lawrence in 1965.  And he claims his “consensual” sexual relationship with Brother Lawrence began when he, the writer, was 14.

Well, by age 14 he was beyond – or should have been? – Grade 6.  And I can assure all that in or before 1965 there definitely were no trips to Camp KEEP.

Not only that, the Kagei letter is very explicit :  “an allegation of sexual misconduct has been made against Br. Lawrence Lambert by a former student.” (emphasis added)

It is not a third-hand allegation.  It is an allegation made by the victim himself.  What makes this man think for a moment that this is referring to him?

That aside, I can tell you in all honesty that I have had some problems with the above comments and hence my hesitation in posting them here.  I felt there was something about them which didn’t ring true.  I have read and re-read the comment numerous times and can’t quite put my finger on what it is that unsettles me. Yes, of course, I am deeply troubled that anyone believes that a 14-year-old boy can engage in a “consenusal” sexual sexual relationship with a male teacher – all the more so when that teacher is a Roman Catholic Brother who is  bound by Church teaching regarding all manner of pre-marital sex.

My initial thought was that whoever penned this sounds for all the world like someone from an organization such as NAMBLA pushing the ‘man-boy love’ agenda.

I have difficulty with the notion that Brother Lawrence presumably was fine with having a sexual relationship with the student, and that Brother Lawrence was fine with the boy having a sexual relationship with Brother Marcel, but that Brother Lawrence physically attacked Brother Lessard for trying  something sexual with this boy at Camp KEEP.  Perhaps just a plain case of jealousy?  I don’t know.  But, if as the writer says, a 14-year-old has the right to decide with who he has sex then, using that flawed reasoning, why would he have not, if he wanted to do so, been entitled to have a sexual tryst with Brother Lessard?  Why should the ‘loving and caring’ Brother Lawrence have dictate to him with whom who he (the boy) should or should not have a sexual relationship?  That doesn’t make sense, at least not to me.  But, he seems just fine with that.

Re Brother Lawrence we are told that:  “He would never take advantage of boys.”  If that’s not an oxymoron I don’t know what is.   Brother Lawrence, a Roman Catholic Brother, adult and school teacher engaging in sex with a 14-year-old student is not taking advantage of the boy?  Really?    Brother Lawrence must have been about 40 then.

A 40 year -old religious – called to be chaste – having sex with a 14-year-old boy?

He really thinks that’s okay?  that this man is not taking advantage of the boy?

Again, that sounds like the thinking of an advocate of “man-boy-love.”  Scary really.

I have trouble too with the idea that, when the young lad left SMIS and headed off to college, there was an agreement to cease all contact.  If both Brothers Lawrence and Marcel were so loving and caring, why not stay in touch with the odd letter, or at the very least an annual Christmas card?  Was it just all about sex, and if there was no possibility of sex then all  ‘loving and caring’ came to a grinding halt?  I don’t understand. Where is the “love”?

Do I think it’s possible that this man did have a sexual relationship with Brothers Lawrence and Marcel?  Yes.  It’s possible.  But, there’s still something about that whole comment which doesn’t sit right with me.  What is it?  Or, is it just me?

Finally, if there are logical explanations for all of the above, the question which keeps running through my mind is this:  What is the purpose of this very public expose?

Does the writer think for a single moment that his words will put the mind of anyone at the school – parents, students past and present – at ease?

Does he, for that matter,  think for one moment his expose paints these two Brothers of the Christian Instruction, Brothers Lawrence and Marcel, in a positive light?  (Brother Lessard too I suppose?  and, for that matter, every Brother who was at the school because, he claims, they all knew about his “consensual” sexual dalliances with their confreres? )

I am both puzzled and skeptical.  I finally decided to post these comments because people are contacting me about them

Any insight on this strange expose welcome.

(A reminder too that these Brothers are Canadian)

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Canada, Clerical sexual predators, Cornwall, Non clerical RC sexual predators, Scandal, Trials and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “I had sex with bro Lawrence”

  1. JG says:

    It doesn’t ring true as this end either; contrived, fabricated with what is already known from this site and other media…Similar view from one entry on the Lessard page…It is all good, we should be thankful…. The good outweighs/justifies the bad!!!! …”Think” you can spot it?…
    By claiming to have not had any contacts with Marcel or Lawrence, he doesn’t need to know or explain anything else than what was already on this site or known to date. An easy out for him in case he is revealed. Don’t remember reading that Marcel and Lawrence were sexual partners before this…
    He is at the “top of his field”, as he claims, well educated but manages several spelling errors…and he writes with an “accent”.
    Might even be brotherly disinformation!
    Just my opinion, of course.

  2. Sylvia says:

    Thanks for your observations JG.

    It may well be, as you say, “brotherly disinformation.” And true enough it may well be a pre-emptive strike.

    I have been told that some of the boys at SMIS were molesting fellow students. Would the author of “I had sex with Bro Lawrence” condemn or approve such behavior?

    • Barol Shinjyuku says:

      I was made to regularly provide this nasty service (hand job) to a Titan 4 years older than me for 3 years starting from my 5 th grade. I am sure it is the influence of Bro. Lessard.

      • Sylvia says:

        I am so sorry to hear that Barol.

        I have heard stories that some of younger boys at SMIS were sexually abused by some of older boys so what you say does not surprise me at all, It saddnes me, but unfortunately does not surprise me.

        And, yes, it could I be the influence of Bro. Lessard. It could however be the influence of any of the other predatory brothers at SMIS.

  3. B says:

    I share your doubts, and JG’s, about this letter. It seems too pat and convenient. It attempts to brush the whole scandal under the table by suggesting it was a misunderstanding of only this one “relationship”, then carefully makes that out to be ideal: consensual, of the legal age, loving, and miraculously emotionally non-scarring.

    In other words, it sounds exactly like what pedophilia apologists describe as their fantasy relationships with children. There is also a telling lack of interest or empathy towards actual victims.

    The allegation, “The other bros all new about our love and sex life. Other students did not know” seems highly suspect. How could the other students suspect nothing, and not notice that “Bro Lawrence” treated this one student differently–because people do treat their lovers differently–if he was the sort of man to tell everything about his “love and sex life” to all his peers? Just as they never wondered why Marcel supposedly attacked Lessard? Children notice so much, and they gossip.

    Moreover, if Brother Lawrence was so kind and caring, why did he only try to protect this one boy (2 years before they supposedly encountered one another cruising the same toilet??) at Camp Keep, while letting other students be molested? Where is the kindness and caring in that?

  4. JG says:

    What struck me most is that he seems to cover all or most of the “talking points” we have been fed by the apologists/protectors/perpetrators/Church over the last few years: the sexuality of a 7 year old, the relationship with a teenager who portrays himself as another/equal predator smacks of the comments we have heard several times before that the priest or clergy was seduced by the child. The description of his “status” or career an obvious effort to mitigate the effects of the perverse relationship.
    Different sales pitch promoting the same defective product.
    “Oh dear!”….phony!

    “Just another thinker”, 20 feb2014, under the Lessard page seems to write with similar ink… “Everything is fine! Just move on!” seems to be the message. All the good compensates for the bad…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *