SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH Extended version Part 1

436 Pages·2012·2.53 MB·English

Wim Deetman
Nel Draijer, Pieter Kalbfleisch, Harald Merckelbach, Marit Monteiro, Gerard de Vries

SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

Extended version
Part 1: The inquiry
Content

Preface 3
1 Introduction 5
2 In a nutshell: developments in the Netherlands and in the Roman Catholic
Church in the Netherlands: 1945-2010 22
3 Nature and extent of sexual abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic 35
Church in the Netherlands
4 Abuse as a governance issue 57
5 The dioceses 135
6 Orders and congregations 193
7 The victims 298
8 Findings and recommendations 360

Appendix B
Notes 378
PREFACE

Every story is harrowing. Behind every story there is a victim. Last year I was asked to
investigate the relevant facts, stories and circumstances surrounding the sexual abuse of
minors in the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands in the period from 1945 to 2010. Prior
to 7 March 2010, when I was given the assignment to formulate a proposal for an independent
inquiry, my initial response had been non-committal.

Why should that be? I was born and raised in The Hague. My parents belonged to the Dutch
Reformed Church and I went to a Protestant Christian primary school. I went on to attend a
Protestant Christian secondary school; that was the way of the world in those days. When I left
school, I continued my studies at VU University Amsterdam, another institution with strong
roots in the Protestant tradition. I therefore grew up, went to school and attended university in
an entirely different environment and culture to many of the victims of sexual abuse in the
Roman Catholic Church who, from March 2010, reported their cases to me and later to the
Commission of Inquiry. In letters, and most often in e-mails, they volunteered their stories. In
some cases, their accounts took the form of a brief message but I also received detailed
descriptions of the suffering that had been inflicted on them and of the impact that could often
still be felt on a daily basis. Some of the people — victims — who reported what had happened
to them were my own age; they told me that never in their entire lives had they spoken of their
ordeal to their partner or children. In many other cases, I was only the second person with
whom a victim had chosen to share their life story — sometimes in great depth. Apart from
their partner, I was the first person in whom they had confided. I was moved by this and
continue to be so to this day.

But what could I do? Raised in protestant Christian circles, my initial reaction was one of
surprise when I was asked to lay the foundations for the investigation on which the Commission
of Inquiry is now reporting. In 1980, the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands still had
over five million faithful members, or at least people who were involved in the Roman Catholic
Church to some extent. At the time, I was a Member of the Lower House of the Dutch
Parliament.

As a politician, I had the privilege of learning that there are no barriers when it comes to
engaging with social issues and with people. Especially not given the way our society in the
Netherlands works. If you are called upon to do your bit, you need a very good reason to
refuse. I had no such reason. When on 7 May 2010 I was interviewed by television presenter
Twan Huijs for current affairs programme Nova (now Nieuwsuur), I declined to commit myself on
the subject of whether I would in fact lead this inquiry. The response given by Peter Dijcks, who
had come forward as a victim from the Sint Henricus Institute in Grave, was as follows:
‘Without Deetman as its chairman, this commission will be worthless.’ It seemed I had reached
the point of no return. Now, with hindsight, I can say that this was as it should have been.

These same deliberations also applied to the other members of the Commission of Inquiry.
When I approached them, they were just as surprised as I had been. With one exception, I had
not made their acquaintance before. They too accepted, and for the same reasons. I would like
to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to them, more than I have been able to
express in the past 18 months.

The process that began in March 2010 and — I say this with a certain emphasis — that has
come to an end in this report has not left me unmoved. In March 2010, I watched as my
mailbox filled with dozens, hundreds of messages. Personal stories that made a deep and
lasting impression on me. And that I continue to carry with me. Some of these stories came
from people my own age. And, even more strikingly, from people I knew in the world of politics
and in organizations in whose employ or on whose behalf I had worked. People who began their
e-mail with ‘Dear Wim’. You cannot imagine what I read and the effect it had on me.

I was unable to conceive beforehand that everything, and I do mean everything, connected
with this investigation was so charged with emotion, and continues to be so. The abuse has not
only left scars, but also raw nerves and even open wounds in the lives of many people.
Understandably so.

For the other members of the Commission of Inquiry, these experiences were just as intense. It
was clear to us all that the highest priority should be given to the provision of good quality help
and support. For this reason, we decided to publish an interim report on 9 December 2010. This
paved the way to improving the position of the victims. Their position can still be improved and
still needs to be improved. This point was emphasized by the Commission of Inquiry on 8
November 2011 in a second interim report.

The abuse has also sown the seeds of mistrust. In some cases, this mistrust was directed
towards members of the victim’s own family, who were often unable to believe the accounts of
abuse. Sometimes the mistrust was directed at the healthcare sector. Many victims had and still
have great difficulty putting their trust in experts and qualified care professionals.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that this mistrust also extended to the Commission of Inquiry.
After all, the assignment given to the Commission of Inquiry came from the Conference of
Bishops and the Conference of Religious in the Netherlands. It did not come from the
government or Parliament, but from within the Roman Catholic Church. This lack of trust
among the victims is understandable. Often from a very young age, their trust in others was
betrayed, damaged and unfortunately in many cases irrevocably destroyed. Why should they
now trust a Commission of Inquiry consisting of people unknown to them personally and whom
they certainly had not asked to conduct an investigation?

How did the Commission of Inquiry deal with this mistrust? This inquiry is scientific in nature.
The methods employed come — as it were — from the professional literature. But an
investigation such as this cannot be conducted if the Commission of Inquiry is not in contact
with all those involved: with the responsible authorities, with the offenders and alleged
perpetrators, but also with the victims. The Commission of Inquiry gave priority and devoted its
attention to establishing that contact. Anyone reading the reports submitted by victims was
propelled into feelings of indignation, rage, mistrust, impatience and aversion. The one thing
the Commission of Inquiry could do and indeed had to do was to seek contact with the victims.

All those who had reported abuse to the Commission of Inquiry at the time were invited to two
meetings, held behind closed doors in Utrecht on 29 September 2010 and in Eindhoven on 1
October 2010. These meetings were well attended and emotions ran high. They laid the
foundation for regular contact with victim support groups, but also with victims on an
individual basis. This extensive and intensive contact was not simply a one-way street that
allowed the victims to vent their feelings. On the contrary, it made it clear to the Commission of
Inquiry that the suffering and distress – which in many cases had been inflicted on these victims
so long ago – may well need to be addressed on a permanent basis. In its second interim
advisory report, the Commission of Inquiry returned to this point.

I have spoken with many victims individually, but also with groups of victims on a fairly regular
basis. As individuals, or in groups, they actively approached the Commission of Inquiry
throughout this process. Often in one and the same breath, they sought to encourage the
Commission of Inquiry while firing off mistrustful questions about the outcome of the
investigation. I faced many a challenging situation, yet each meeting followed its own
unorthodox pattern. We gradually reached a position in which the investigation also benefited
from the commitment of victims and their willingness to work with us. When testing the
questionnaires for a large-scale survey, two groups of victims provided comments, suggestions
for improvement and additions. Perhaps this is not of primary importance, but it speaks
volumes about the way in which victims — while they remained critical and mistrustful — still
recognized the importance of this inquiry.

The Commission of Inquiry has now reached its end. Its task has been fulfilled. It has
investigated the nature and the scale of the sexual abuse of minors within the Roman Catholic
Church in the Netherlands from 1945 to 2010. The Commission of Inquiry also had the task of
investigating the circumstances and the administrative responsibilities pertaining to this issue.
An additional question was to investigate how this administrative responsibility was carried
out. This report is the outcome of an investigation that took over one year to complete. It is
possible that this outcome will lead to further scientific study.

The Commission of Inquiry has focused strictly on the sexual abuse of minors in the Roman
Catholic Church. Its findings do not represent a comprehensive answer to the general
phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors and related issues such as the maltreatment of
children, domestic violence, forced prostitution and physical violence in relationships of power
or authority. The quality of our society would be well served if research or further research
were to be devoted to these issues. This applies to society in the broadest sense of the term. It
would enable us to gain a greater insight into the effective action that might be taken to reduce
the impact of these abuses. Where the initiative for such research is concerned, let it be taken
by those who feel called upon to do so.

The Commission of Inquiry has completed its inquiry. It is now up to others to pass judgement
on the work we have done. The Commission of Inquiry will view these judgements with an open
mind.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this report. First of all, the members of
the Commission of Inquiry: Nel Draijer and Marit Monteiro took responsibility for important
sections of this report, with the full approval of the Commission of Inquiry as a whole. The same
is true of Pieter Kalbfleisch, Harald Merckelbach and Gerard de Vries. At key moments, they
took up their pens to produce the final report. Last but not least, I wish to thank Bert Kreemers
for the commitment he showed in the role of secretary. He was literally available day and night,
which made my role as chairman far easier to fulfil. But it is also important to note that this
level of commitment enabled us to build contact with and win the confidence of both victims
and the commissioning parties. I would also like to extend my thanks to all those who worked
as part of the archive team and the administrative support team, under the firm organizational
and expert direction of Meyken Houppermans. Without their invaluable contributions, the
Commission of Inquiry could not have done as much work or uncovered as much information.
The consultative group are deserving of our thanks for their meticulous reading and for their
unflinching critical faculties.

I would like to close by expressing my particular thanks to all those who have reported sexual
abuse to the Commission of Inquiry: the victims, and the families and partners of victims living
and deceased, who often find themselves dealing with the impact of the ordeal suffered by
their nearest and dearest. Without them we could make no claim to recognition, involvement,
dialogue, help, redress, transparency, openness and integrity. This brings me to the
organizations that commissioned this report. I have been pleasantly surprised by their
openness, transparency and willingness to cooperate. They kept the promise made by the
former head of the Conference of Bishops: ‘You will have full and unencumbered access to
everything you need.’ From today, bishops and higher superiors throughout the Netherlands
will have full and unencumbered access to this report.
Wim Deetman
1 INTRODUCTION

This introductory chapter describes the setting up, the assignment, the approach, the importance
and the questions pertaining to the inquiry into the sexual abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic
Church in the Netherlands.
1.1 Setting up the Commission of Inquiry into the sexual abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic
Church
1.1.1. The background
In early 2010, the extensive media coverage of the sexual abuse of minors came as a surprise to the
Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands. With a few exceptions, this was the message
communicated by all bishops and auxiliary bishops (past and present), higher superiors and other
figures of authority within the Roman Catholic Church in their interviews with the commission
investigating the sexual abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic Church (hereafter referred to as the
Commission of Inquiry).
The public outcry about the sexual abuse of minors has spread from continent to continent and
country to country over the past twenty years. Ten years ago there was a flood of reports about
abuse in the United States of America.1 This was preceded by a torrent of reports about abuse in
Ireland. Later the public outcry spread to Austria and Germany. In February 2010, the same
phenomenon took hold in the Netherlands, although there had previously been sporadic media
reports regarding the sexual abuse of minors in the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands.
One report followed another in rapid succession, focusing on the abuse itself and on the failure of
the authorities within the Roman Catholic Church to deal with the issue openly. The present-day
authorities and holders of office within the Roman Catholic Church were unable to answer many of
the questions asked. These questions were diverse in nature. What did the relevant authorities know
of the abuse? How widespread was the abuse? How were the complaints of the victims and their
parents handled? Why was no help offered at the time when the abuse was taking place? The call for
answers to all of these questions grew steadily louder in the first months of 2010.
1.1.2. The initial response from the Conference of Bishops and the Conference of Religious in the
Netherlands
On Tuesday, 9 March 2010 the bishops assembled for their monthly conference. On this occasion the
bishops were joined by the deputy chair of the Conference of Religious in the Netherlands
(Konferentie Nederlandse Religieuzen, KNR), Sister T. Sonder, and two board members of Hulp &
Recht (the body set up by the Roman Catholic Church to deal with allegations of sexual abuse within
its ranks; its name translates literally as Help & Justice). At that point, Hulp & Recht had received 350
reports of the abuse of minors dating from the 1950s and 1960s. Eighty per cent of these reports
concerned children between the ages of eight and fifteen ‘being brought up under religious
leadership’.2 This mainly involved congregations of priests and religious brothers, spread over
congregations established by pontifical and diocesan right. According to Professor P.J.E. Chatelion
Counet, the Secretary-General of the Conference of Religious in the Netherlands, this meant that
responsibility was shared by the Conference of Religious and the bishops.
The Conference of Religious in the Netherlands and the Conference of Bishops identified three
problems. The first problem was the help and support provided to victims, the responsibility for
which was initially given to the higher superiors. The second problem concerned the handling of the
complaints, for which Hulp & Recht was the appropriate authority. The third problem encompassed
three questions: who should carry out the inquiry, what should the inquiry focus on and should it be
an inquiry established jointly by the bishops and the Conference of Religious in the Netherlands?
In the first instance, the bishops who met to discuss this matter extra omnes (in closed session) were
in favour of holding two inquiries. One was to be an independent inquiry by the Conference of
Religious in the Netherlands looking into the reports and the abuse in boarding schools run by
religious orders and congregations. A second inquiry, also independent, was to be conducted by the
bishops ‘on the basis of their overarching responsibility towards the faithful, education and social
commitment’.
The Conference of Religious in the Netherlands was opposed to the idea of two inquiries and
emphasized the collective responsibility. The complaints not only concerned seminaries run by
congregations of pontifical and diocesan right, but also seminaries that came under the jurisdiction
of the bishops.
The question of who should carry out the inquiries or one single overarching inquiry (and how this
should be done) was left unanswered. An initial decision was made to examine how the approach to
the independent inquiry should be worked out in greater detail. In the words of the decision, Mr W.J.
(Wim) Deetman was asked ‘to supervise the process with the aim of arriving at an inquiry’.3
1.1.3. Setting up the inquiry
On 12 March 2010, Wim Deetman announced in a press conference that he would ‘in the coming
weeks, carry out preparatory work with a view to an independent inquiry’.4 This work consisted of
formulating the questions to be addressed by the inquiry, establishing the methods and field of
research, the staffing of a proposed commission of inquiry, establishing a time frame and
determining safeguards to ensure an independent, painstaking and transparent inquiry. This work
was expected to take between six and eight weeks. Lastly, an announcement was made to the effect
that everyone who wished to contribute information or to report an instance of sexual abuse could
do so at the following e-mail address: [email protected]
1.1.4. The Conference of Bishops on 13 April 2010
At the meeting of the Conference of Bishops on 13 April 2010, the Bishop of Groningen-Leeuwarden,
Monsignor G.J.N. de Korte, stated that in the first week of May 2010, an ‘inquiry proposal’ would be
presented: ‘Mr Deetman will not allow the bishops to reject any part of the proposal, but they will
have the opportunity to make additions.’6 Monsignor De Korte pointed out that ‘Mr Deetman is in
charge of setting up the inquiry: he will seek out the people to serve on the commission and define
their tasks, and will probably specify the information that the commission needs to have at its
disposal. He will leave the task of setting the agenda to the commission itself. If the bishops accept
his inquiry proposal, he will consider the possibility of chairing the commission himself.’
With regard to the further stages of the inquiry, Mr J.C.G.M. Bakker, a close associate of the
chairman of the Conference of Bishops, informed Monsignor A.H. van Luyn that ‘there will be no
comprehensive revision in consultation with the bishops. This is to ensure the independent nature of
the inquiry. Society at large, including the bishops, will be able to respond to the report.’
1.1.5. The presentation of the inquiry proposal
The proposal for the inquiry was ready at the end of April. Mr Deetman consulted a great many
people on this subject, including five individuals whom he later asked to become members of the
Commission of Inquiry.7 These five people were Dr P.J. (Nel) Draijer, Mr P. (Pieter) Kalbfleisch,
Professor H.L.G.J. (Harald) Merckelbach, Professor M.E. (Marit) Monteiro and Professor G. H.
(Gerard) de Vries.
On 7 May 2010, the chairman presented his proposal for the inquiry. At this stage, he was
accompanied by the members of the Commission of Inquiry.8 This proposal gave priority to
examining and advising on the performance of Hulp & Recht and the help it provided. At the time
Hulp & Recht was the name of the organization that dealt with the issue of sexual abuse within the
Roman Catholic Church. From the end of September 2011, this role was taken over by a new
organization, the Agency for Reports of Sexual Abuse in the Roman Catholic Church (Meldpunt
Seksueel Misbruik in de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk).
When inviting individuals to serve as members of the Commission of Inquiry, the chairman
ascertained their academic integrity and independence. None of the members had a Roman Catholic
background, with the exception of Professor H.L.G.J. (Harald) Merckelbach.
1.1.6. The decision-making process with regard to setting up the inquiry and the composition of the
Commission of Inquiry
On 11 May 2010, another meeting of the Conference of Bishops was held. The board of the
Conference of Religious in the Netherlands was not represented, but had already given its full
backing to the inquiry proposal.9
For the Conference of Bishops, accepting the proposal was not simply a formality. The composition of
the Commission of Inquiry was a point of discussion. The bishops were of the opinion that the
Commission lacked an expert in the field of canon law. They also expressed the wish that two such
experts and a diocesan archivist should be included in the inquiry’s administrative support team. The
chairman of the Commission did not adopt these suggestions, with a view to safeguarding the
independent nature of the Commission of Inquiry. However, it was agreed that advice in this field
could be sought if necessary.
Another point of discussion was access to church archives. The bishops were willing to open their
archives ‘insofar as this served the needs of the inquiry’. They insisted that access only be given to
‘relevant documents’. The Commission’s chairman Wim Deetman explained that the complex nature
of the inquiry made it impossible to determine in advance which documents may or may not be
relevant. It was therefore a requirement that access be granted to all archives under the auspices of
the commissioning bodies, and without any restrictions. The Commission of Inquiry gives an account
of its approach to the archive research in Appendix A.
In addition, the bishops asked for attention to be paid to ‘sociopathic personality disorders in
paedosexuals’ and asked for a budget proposal to be drawn up.10 The Conference of Bishops also had
its own perspective on the installation of the Commission of Inquiry. They thought that the chairs of
the Conference of Bishops and the Conference of Religious in the Netherlands should be present,
along with Monsignor De Korte.
The decision of the Conference of Bishops was that ‘the commission under the chairmanship of Mr
Deetman [may] proceed with the proposed inquiry.’11 This was confirmed in a press release issued
jointly with the Conference of Religious in the Netherlands: ‘The plan for an inquiry in its present
form has the full support of the bishops and the board of the Conference of Religious in the
Netherlands. They pledge their fullest cooperation and will undertake to make all relevant
information available to the Commission of Inquiry.’12
The commissioning bodies agreed to the proposal put forward by the Commission of Inquiry that
‘priority will be given to advice on the help and support provided to the victims. While help and
support are already under way through the procedures of Hulp & Recht or in the form of dialogues
between victims and confidential counsellors in dioceses, orders and congregations, the bishops and
religious superiors attach great importance to hearing from the Commission of Inquiry in the short
term in what respects it may be desirable to supplement the provision of help and support and how
existing procedures can be optimized, where needed.’
1.1.7. The first step in the implementation
The inquiry conducted by the Commission of Inquiry was required to meet all possible criteria for
academic integrity, thoroughness and also independence. In seeking out administrative support for
the inquiry, the Commission of Inquiry turned to the Centrum Arbeidsvoorwaardenoverleg
Overheidspersoneel (CAOP), a leading knowledge and service centre for the labour market and labour
relations within the public domain. The CAOP took care of financial management for the Commission
of Inquiry, as well as security, documentation and support for the inquiry’s administrative team.
The Samson Commission, which is carrying out an independent inquiry into the sexual abuse of
minors in state care who were placed in institutions or in foster homes, later based itself at the same
location as the Commission of Inquiry. This made it possible for the chairs, members and
administrative support teams to consult each other and coordinate on a regular basis.
The chairman of the Commission of Inquiry received approximately 100 unsolicited applications from
individuals who wished to be of service to the Commission of Inquiry in one way or another. For a list
of the staff of the Commission of Inquiry’s administrative support team and the archive team, see
Appendix B. They were under the authority of the Secretary of the Commission of Inquiry, Dr H.P.M.
(Bert) Kreemers.
On 24 August 2010, an introductory meeting took place between the Commission of Inquiry and the
commissioning bodies. Since the Commission of Inquiry had decided not to hold any formal
installation ceremony, this introductory meeting marked the formal start of the Commission of
Inquiry’s work.
1.2 The assignment
1.2.1. The assignment for an independent inquiry
The Conference of Bishops and the Conference of Religious in the Netherlands commissioned an
independent inquiry into the facts and circumstances regarding the sexual abuse of minors whose
welfare was entrusted to the responsibility of institutions and parishes within the Roman Catholic
Church in the Netherlands, including the orders and congregations which are members of the
Conference of Religious in the Netherlands.
The inquiry focused on the scale and the nature of the sexual abuse of minors, in addition to the
sphere of responsibility within which this abuse was allowed to take place. Priority was given to the
help and support offered to victims and advice was given on this matter.13
In this inquiry, the following strict definition of sexual abuse was used:
The term sexual abuse refers to sexual contact by representatives of the Roman Catholic
Church in the Netherlands — priests, members of a religious order or congregation, pastoral
workers in the employ of the church, laypersons and volunteers working for the church —
with a child or young person under the age of 1814 entrusted to the responsibility of the
above-mentioned representatives, without the child or young person feeling able to refuse
this sexual contact, as a result of physical dominance or abuse of a position of authority,
emotional pressure, compulsion or force.
Abuse of a position of authority refers to an inequality in the balance of power (e.g. adult-
minor, teacher-pupil, team leader-youth member).The term sexual contact is defined as all
physical sexual contact, from touching or making another person touch breasts and genitals,
and kissing with sexual intent to sexual intercourse (vaginal, oral or anal) or penetration of
the vagina or rectum using objects or fingers.
What victims regard as sexual abuse covers a wide range of behaviour: from spying on someone and
less invasive forms of contact, to fondling under clothing and penetration.
Numerous cases of sexual abuse involve physical violence or psychological pressure, including threats
and blackmail. This is done to break the will of the victim and accordingly fits into a pattern that
precedes sexual abuse. But in some cases compulsion consists only of the suggestion or assumption
of such a connection.
The inquiry covers the period from 1945 to May 2010. The victims are minors who were under the
responsibility of persons working in the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands: priests, members
of a religious order or congregation, pastoral workers employed by the church and laypersons.
The inquiry spans a lengthy period in which the Netherlands in general, and the Roman Catholic
Church in the Netherlands in particular, underwent numerous and far-reaching changes. It is
therefore important to have a sound appreciation of these changes in order to arrive at a proper
interpretation of the findings as regards the occurrence and explanation of the sexual abuse. Placing
the findings in the perspective of a given time in order to arrive at a balanced view of what took
place should not, however, be taken to imply that a description of the socio-cultural and historic
context legitimizes abuses.