(April 5 2023)

This is the FINAL DRAFT of questions for Catholic Safeguarding with the CEO of the RLSS, the Catholic Safeguarding agency responsible for Catholic Religious Orders.

I will ask these questions in a VIDEO INTERVIEW with Dani Wardman, the CEO, shortly.

Please add suggested NEW QUESTIONS in Comments below.

I will try and incorporate your new questions into the Interview.

And do say if you think my existing questions could be improved.

The Questions are FAQs that Survivors have raised and not had answered. They are designed to identify the problems and what we’re looking for.

The video interview will be available for viewing on my site and on the RLSS website as a youtube. Comments on the interview will be welcome on the RLSS site, which I hope will form the start of a ‘SURVIVORS DISCUSSION BOARD’ (like Mumsnet)

I’m trying to keep the questions generalized as far as possible and NOT quote specific Religious Orders. Not least because they should apply to all ROs.

Otherwise the RLSS may say the questions are ‘off limits’ as there may be a current investigation.

We will probably have to do this in TWO INTERVIEW SECTIONS in order to do all the subjects justice.

My thanks to CEO Dani Wardman for agreeing to be interviewed by a Survivor.

AFAIK, this is the first time a Survivor has video interviewed a key representative of an organization of the Catholic Church.

I’m hoping other leading Safeguarding officers will follow – which I believe can be a positive, informative and rewarding experience for all of us.



*Brief introductions – who we both are.

Pat: ‘I’m a Survivor of childhood Catholic abuse and I run a blog for Survivors on’

 Dani then explains which Religious Orders the RLSS protect. 

*Viewer comments on this interview can be left on RLSS website XXXX? or on

By agreeing to this interview, Dani, you are proactively supporting Survivors and providing us with valuable information, for which I thank you.


1) If a Survivor has an allegation against a Religious Order, do they go to Diocese Safeguarding (contact email) or the RLSS (contact email)? What’s the procedure?

2) Some Survivors don’t know which Safeguarding agency to go to because their cases involve all the agencies.

For example, in my case – which involves a Catholic Laity organisation– there’s a strong overlap between the RLSS, the CSSA, possibly Diocese Safeguarding, and even the Vatican Dicastery. for the Laity

Although, in fact, Catholic Laity organizations – with the exception of the Dicastery – don’t appear to be officially covered or audited by any Safeguarding agency.

How would you advise myself and other Survivors to proceed?

3)With allegations of abuse against Religious Orders, especially ‘historic’ cases, we Survivors have  hit a big problem:

A)Police are most unlikely to follow up unless abuser is still alive.

B) Legal action is hard work, it’s triggering, it turns Survivors into reluctant detectives, it’s adversarial which many Survivors don’t want, and ‘historic’ cases are open to numerous legal challenges, so it’s not for the faint hearted.

How can the RLSS help us when A) and B) above are so problematic?

4) I hope there are many proactive things RLSS can do to help us and I’d like to discuss some of  them. For example:

Encourage Religious Orders to appoint an independent investigator to look into historic allegations.

This has definitely happened in the past.  

But what are the criteria to launch such an investigation?

5) Ireland has some proactive solutions in responding to issues with Religious Orders.  For example:

Carmelite statement

‘Through the civil legal process we swiftly offer financial compensation to minimize further stress to those abused’

 The Carmelite apology that follows is lengthy and feels sincere to me, and I’ve never seen the equivalent in the UK.

Is it possible for RLSS and its ROs to follow this Carmelite example?

6)  Could the RLSS get us some media support so that  we Survivors have a voice there.  

For example a Catholic media report/interview with the Catholic Herald, the Tablet, or a suitable authoritative Catholic Facebook site?  In which I, and/or another Survivor/s, state our viewpoint, rather thanSafeguarding talking ‘on our behalf’.


In the Tablet, there was:

The Comboni scandal and why the Church must learn from abuse survivors. Bede Mullen, a spokesman for the survivors’ group, said their experience (meeting Pope) has shown that “openness and dialogue does so much” and hoped it would encourage other victims. 

Father Small of the Vatican Safeguarding has indicated indirectly to me that the Comboni resolution may pave the way for resolving Survivors issues with other ROs and I’ve written back and very much welcomed his interest.

So there’s clearly a valuable Survivor-based follow-up media article: ‘After Comboni. The next step?’

7) A key frustration for Survivors is when no action can be taken because of a technicality on the role of the Religious Order.  

An Insider, who is an authority on Religious Order Safeguarding had this to say to me: ‘I saw a report of a case where the Religious Order argued that the Home Office was an abuser’s employer and not the Order, and I think they should be beyond that kind of nitpicking at this stage.’

Your thoughts?

8)  Some Religious Orders have their own Safeguarding Officers. If we can sometimes – where appropriate – communicate with them directly and raise issues with them that would be helpful. Often on relatively simple matters.

For example, two families of abuse victims, now deceased, desperately want to know what happened to their loved ones. I know of two such cases. In one recent case, we found the information the family needed through a Facebook Old Boys site. The Old Boys were fantastic and got in touch with the lay teachers for the family.

But it might have been quicker to have approached the Religious Order direct, but no one knows how.

Is that feasible?

And we British Survivors are envious of the Carmelites:

‘Some victims and survivors of abuse also benefit from face-to-face meetings. Many have met and spoken with our Provincial and DLP for Safeguarding. These conversations are ongoing.’

I would definitely benefit from a face- to-face opportunity – via Zoom – and other Survivors have said the same to me.

Is that feasible?

9) Two related questions in response to my Twitter appeal for questions to ask the RLSS.


Patricia Hamilton



Mar 30

‪Replying to ‬


What commitment do RLSS have from clergy that they will obey the law in regard to mandatory reporting of child sexual , no matter where the information is obtained? There is no “zero tolerance” without total commitment!

Peter Buchanan



Mar 30

Replying to ‪@PatrickEMills‬

Why have they not implemented zero tolerance?

10) The Carmelite case prompted this question on Twitter.

‘Are they (The Carmelites) not vicariously liable for their inaction and turning a blind eye. As liable as MrMcClean (the abuser)’

Today, in Australia, there was a relevant ruling:

Key points:

  • Victoria’s highest court has ruled the Catholic church is vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest
  • An attempt by the church to appeal the ruling was quashed
  • It has been hailed a significant victory for all survivors

What’s the position in the UK?  Is the Church vicariously liable for its clerics and religious order members? In the case I quoted about the Home Office it would seem not.


11) Survivors I’ve spoken to are unclear about the two organizations set up during and after IICSA. Was it the UK Bishops who initiated the RLSS and the CSSA?  If a Survivor had a complaint about a safeguarding agency, who would they take that to? The Bishops, or another body?

12) I know many members of Safeguarding agencies are not Catholic. Being non-Catholic has huge advantages but also disadvantages, which I think is worth noting – for example, I’m not sure if non-Catholics truly understand the impact of the childhood Oath of Allegiance and the relevance and importance of Canon Law.

So when I was looking for a therapist, I insisted it had to be someone with a Catholic background, otherwise they wouldn’t understand what I was talking about.

How are non-Catholic safeguarding officers fully briefed on detailed Catholic matters, such as the Oath of Allegiance?

13) Next, I’d like to interview the CEO at the CSSA in a similar way to this.

But if the CEO can’t comment on historic matters – as they are only involved with current allegations – would I need to do a similar interview with – say – a Diocese Safeguarding officer as well? 

I’d like both such interviews to be posted on the RLSS site because – as I said earlier –  there’s a tremendous overlap between the three organizations with similar matters of concern.

And Survivors concerns need to be read in one place, prior to our own ‘SURVIVORS DISCUSSION BOARD’

Could you help facilitate this next interview or interviews?

14) I know some Religious Orders have files on key abusers – and other relevant historical records.

Does the RLSS have the authority to contact the Religious Order and ask to see the records on ‘X’ and consider the contents on behalf of the Survivor and what could be appropriate to pass on.

So they still remain confidential but we Survivors know more about the person who harmed us. For instance, the file might disclose and confirm that ‘X’ was a multiple abuser, which Survivors don’t always know.

15)Allowing for the significant drop in numbers of members in Religious Orders, what I have read suggests there are still allegations of Religious Order current abuse cases today.

Without being specific, are you able to talk about the statistics around current RO abuse?

16) It would be encouraging if Survivors were actual members of Safeguarding teams.

I appreciate that information is confidential, but I know that’s something you’re keen on.

And it would be valuable for Survivors if a Safeguarder acknowledged they had a similar background. It would mean we were all on the same page.  This isn’t a question, it’s rather a point that I wanted to raise.

17) I’d just like to return to the Irish Carmelite example we discussed in Part One of this interview.

Following the sentencing of John McClean, ‘Anyone who was abused in a Carmelite school can access support through the Carmelite Safeguarding Office. Counselling and therapy can be arranged through the Towards Healing service. This can be sourced promptly with minimum waiting times and with no costs to the victims and survivors’

Can the RLSS help similar ROs establish a similar quick and free funding therapy service for Survivors?

18) Thanks for your input, Dani. And we both of us really welcome any comments or thoughts on this interview.

In the long run, if this works, there is the potential for a more ambitious Survivors discussion board – such as Mumsnet.

A Survivorsnet would be able to pursue threads with subjects like recollections of particular schools, teachers, and discussions on Canon Law and PTSD therapy systems: what works and what doesn’t. In my case, I would like to start a thread on Recovered Memory, which I have detailed and positive knowledge of and I’d like to share.

In short, a ‘Survivorsnet’ provides information and support to Survivors – whereas at present we’re all isolated

But I know the key question for you, Dani, is… Is such a discussion board what Survivors want and what do they hope it will achieve?

Is there anything you’d like to add here, Dani?

To viewers:

So do please send us your thoughts on whether a future ‘Survivorsnet’ is a good idea. I’m also on Twitter as @PatrickEMills, so you can reach out to me there.

Will the Knights of St Columba Ipswich now be investigated?

According to the latest Vatican information it now seems possible that the Knights of St Columba Ipswich could be investigated.  Because I believe all Knights are recognised by the Holy See.

Here’s the link:, dated March 25 this year:

The relevant text from it is as follows:

Pope Francis promulgates revised ‘Vos estis’ – Here’s what changed

The revised policy
 makes permanent the norms introduced experimentally by Pope Francis in 2019, while broadening the scope of the law to include investigations of lay leaders in international associations of the faithful. 

One significant change to the text of Vos estis lux mundi is the inclusion of lay leaders of international associations recognized by the Holy See, who might now be investigated either for perpetrating abuse themselves, or for failing to investigate or address allegations of abuse or misconduct made in the context of their communities.

The move was likely influenced by revelations which emerged in recent years concerning the spiritual and sexual abuse of prominent Catholic layman Jean Vanier, founder of the international L’Arche community, who died in 2019. While the new norms would not have actually impacted the allegations against Vanier himself, because L’Arche is not recognized as an association by the Holy See, it would apply to other founders of international apostolates, movements, or spiritual associations accused of abuse. 

The revised text of Vos estis lux mundi clarifies that investigations of lay leaders will be undertaken under the aegis of the Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life, which is given legal competence to oversee them.

The text does not make clear how lay leaders might be punished for sexual abuse if the allegations arise after their terms have expired. While clerics can face the penalty of laicization, it is not clear what meaningful sanction might be imposed on a layperson.

Pat’s comment on the above:

Surely the obvious sanction for criminal abuse or concealing or ignoring criminal abuse is court action and penalties according to the law of the land? Or is this another case where Canon Law takes priority?

Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life ?  Another Safeguarding organization?

It does add to the current lack of clarity about Safeguarding which I barely understand, and I’m sure is very confusing to others.

Perhaps this Dicastery is not relevant, but it sounds tailor-made to fill a current gap in Safeguarding.


Is it relevant for the UK? 

Or does Laity abuse fall under the aegis of the CSSA or the RLSS ?  The RLSS because Laity was abusing in collusion with a religious order as I’ve exampled in so many past posts

Currently neither the CSSA or the RLSS (and their predecessor the SCOE) have taken responsibility for looking at these crimes of the Laity which I’ve told them fall within or overlap both their remits

Perhaps the RLSS and the CSSA can explain or pass on my past concerns to the Dicastery.

I would also point out to the Dicastery that the CSSA did not respond to my concerns about Solidarities which may also fall within their Laity remit.

Perhaps the CSSA will pass on my previous post on that subject

For due diligence, the RLSS, the CSSA  and the Dicastery have now been informed via a copy of this post

 And I would repeat for the Dicastery the summary of my numerous past posts – namely:

The Knights of St Columba Ipswich Province were involved in serious ‘historic’ organised child sex abuse crimes. That female Catholic Laity were also involved.  And the De La Salles were in collusion with the Knights. That there are current concerns about the Knights not having DBS checks and that the Colchester Knights ensured that recent serious sexual abuse offences by one of their Knights did not reach the national media. It’s possible Colchester children may still be at risk as there appears to have been no audit after the trial and guilty verdict of the Knight abuser.

All this I’ve gone into in exhaustive detail in past posts.

The Knights are aware of my allegations which can be found on endless Google posts, but they have not officially responded.

Neither have  the RLSS or the CSSA.


Sending these ‘Survivors Forum – concluding thoughts’ on to the RLSS.

Currently, Survivors have no voice. We are treated like lepers or liars or unfortunate collateral damage who should ‘move on’ and forget what happened to them.

Thus it would be impossible for me or another Survivor to currently interview the Catholic Herald editor and ask why our views are never heard in that publication. They would not respond.

The Tablet is exactly the same. I tried.

But an official Forum, backed by the RLSS, could, in time, be listened to by such powerful Catholic entities. I realise that won’t happen overnight, that many of these entities are scared and suspicious of Survivors and will be reluctant to be interviewed (which does not reflect well on them) but with positive examples of successful interviews, they could be persuaded.

This is just one example where the RLSS could be pro-active in the spirit of the Elliott report.  



I do a video interview with a member of the RLSS. Preferably the CEO so it shows we’re being taken seriously. 45 minutes, preferably one hour.  I have interviewed many people professionally and been interviewed countless times.

If the interview gets a positive response from Survivors, we do more interviews.

As we all know, a clipped text reply to painful questions can be misinterpreted. If we’re feeling fragile, a curt text response can be destructive. So that applies to questions and answers on the Forum, too. It’s a danger we have to overcome as far as possible.

But video is different. We can judge the warmth and sincerity of the interviewee and cut them some slack that’s just not possible with text replies.

AFAIK, this has never been done before, so that’s why I feel it has full transparency potential which traditional private phone calls or meetings behind closed doors don’t have.

I can gather questions from Survivors and submit them in advance. This first interview is likely to be ‘general’ and answer the most pressing issues Survivors have – like what happens to historic abuse claims when the abuser is dead? Why there needs to be an alternative to litigation for survivors: e.g. religious orders launch their own investigations and acknowledge the past. They must be pro-active. Why better role models and solutions outside the UK – as in Ireland – could be implemented. How the RLSS could help by supporting and highlighting Survivor concerns in the media.

The RLSS does the interview recording, the tech uploading, and has the opportunity to edit in the most unlikely event that either of us says something untoward or that could be taken out of context.

The resulting podcast video interview is posted prominently on the RLSS site and is also available on a youtube link – so it can be viewed via social media.

As the RLSS CEO has said to me, this would be a good small first step towards a forum.

The subsequent Survivor feedback to the Interview – positive and negative – should also go on the RLSS website. 

It thus forms a proto-Forum.


Subsequent ‘specialised’ interviews, I feel should have the following objectives as far as feasible: Getting the Catholic entity to acknowledge there is an issue that needs wider discussion. Providing Survivors with information. While Survivors recognize that the entity cannot talk about individual cases – because I fear Catholic Insurance would veto the interview. But we can still get around that by talking generally.

I can think of four experienced interviewers (2 female, 2 male) – with specialist Catholic  knowledge -who could be interested. And the RLSS may know some Survivors who would be good interviewers. And I’m keen to do many of the interviews myself initially to get the process underway as quickly as possible.


CEO of CSSA The CEO of the CSSA has admitted to me that the Laity has been overlooked thus far. I know that Laity organizations – with no DBS checks – are still in control of children!! See also Sodalities below.

CHAIR OF CSSA Nazir Afzal. He has turned down at least one interview with a Survivor on an excellent social media Survivors platform and he remains incommunicado. This is unacceptable. He must talk to Survivors on our terms, not his. We are the injured party. Otherwise he is just another example of Clericalism that is rampant in the Catholic Church

FATHER SMALL – Head of Vatican Safeguarding who has expressed a wish to get in touch with myself and De La Salle survivors as part of a conciliation process. So I assume he would agree. I guess I’d do that one.  

A CHURCH REPRESENTATIVE ON CANON LAW – I’d like to do this one, because I’ve collected a series of disturbing aspects of Canon Law that need answering. I would consult a Catholic theologian, so I am fully primed. Canon Law IMHO is  at the heart of Catholic child sex abuse and clericalism. For example: Canon Law is used as mitigation in defiance of the law of the land, there’s the principle of  double effect (‘end justifies the means’) enshrined in Catholic theology via Aquinas, the legitimacy of lying to protect the Church (‘the greater good’) and the various Oaths of Allegiance which prevent Catholics speaking out. These negative elements need public questioning and acknowledgement.

EDITOR CATHOLIC HERALD –  Survivors have to talk to this person who seems to exclude the concerns of  Survivors and the negative aspects of Canon Law from their publication.  We are the elephant in the room. Given that this is the biggest issue for the Catholic Church that has to change.

I can think of six other key interviews with Catholic entities which would be important to me and other Survivors, but I figure let’s see what happens with the above suggestions first.


Other issues:

One concern that came up is Survivors fearing being retraumatised by engaging in a Forum. That’s understandable and the answer is simple – for their own sake, they should stay away from the Forum. Thus I won’t enter a Catholic Church because it always makes me feel angry. So I stay away. But I don’t object to other Survivors entering a Church.

The Beulah Hill Crystal Palace Forum thread is worthy of study to show how it works and if a Survivors’ Forum should be similar.  Crystal Palace is the Forum that the De La Salles claim not to know about – some of the numerous DLS abuse allegations ‘unheard of’ were on this Crystal Palace Forum. 

The Irish solution to Catholic abuse is well worth study. I have three examples I want to look at. They still have problems in Ireland, but they are far ahead of the UK in responding to Survivors.

One area that would benefit from a video airing with someone suitable is Recovered Memory. It’s something I’ve become a reluctant authority on having attended two False Memory UK meetings. ‘False Memory’ has been provably debunked everywhere in the world – with one exception: the UK where powerful lobbies promote it as truth with the active support and questionable connivance of the Guardian and other UK media provably withholding evidence (Father James Porter case). For Survivors to know – apart from a few mentally ill fantasists or charlatans –  FM is a lie would be very reassuring and help their healing process.

SODALITIES. An insider has recently advised me:

‘Those confraternities, sodalities, orders to venerate saints and so on obviously are significant financially plus many of them are international and so offer support systems to people who relocate from one jurisdiction to another, but they haven’t featured in audits of how the Church has handled concerns and allegations about abuse.’


Feedback coming in now on a proposed official Catholic Abuse Survivors Forum – mainly a VERY cautious positive response and, thus far, two survivors who said specifically it was a waste of time. One of them has been through the wringer many times with the Catholic Church so I can understand his exasperation. I think that goes for all of us.

My initial tweet thread was too dry, got a very limited response, so my thanks to my wife Lisa for suggesting a follow-up more ‘tabloid’ tweet which got far more engagement. Given that I write popular culture for a living, you’d really think I’d have realised that!

And the responses, in themselves, amount to important material for a forum and how such a forum would look and the likely responses. Nothing problematic that I could see..

I looked at both the RLSS and CSSA sites and couldn’t find ANY Survivor feedback!

It was all Chiefs and No Indians.

That HAS to change. It’s against everything the Elliott Report stands for. Perhaps Elliott was also at fault for not spelling out how Safeguarding can be pro-active.  Even though to me, and many Survivors, it’s so obvious. 

I think I’ve demonstrated below that there is cautious interest in a Forum. So it’s over to Safgeguarding now.

I’ve also demonstrated it does require social media skills to engage everyone concerned and get Survivors interested.That’s something the Safeguarders must take on board. As I said to Nazir Afzal, the Safeguarding approach is very ‘Daily Telegraph’. It needs to be tabloid to reach and interact with people.

I’ll blog my conclusions separately.

The alternative of doing nothing and endlessly raising concerns for decade after decade, while the Safeguarders and the abusive organisations they’re protecting remain heavily entrenched behind their official positions and are not pro-active is against the spirit of the Elliott report.

We have to move forward.

Anyway, here was the social-media savvy tweet


If you had the chance to speak direct to Catholic Safeguarding and leaders of the Church on an official survivors’ forum, what would you say? That possibility now seems to be on the table. Good idea? Or a waste of time? #CatholicTwitter #CatholicAbuse@CatholicHerald

And this was my follow up tweet:

The burning question I want to ask on a forum is – what happens to Survivors’ claims when they’re not ‘current’ & they don’t want the hassle of legal action. It’s no good saying ‘we don’t know’. I have several sensible pro-active solutions I’d like to share on a forum.

Here were the replies, plus a few replies from my earlier tweets

1)Marilyn Hawes


WASTE OF TIME @RCsurvivors…

its simple don’t listen they don’t change worse still nor do they wish to but they purport to be religious its a joke ! do they read the bible ? I support many victims of abuse I’m sick of the catholic church too many have been harmed even forced adoption Nazareth house sickening

Pat:Thanks, Marilyn. In a couple of weeks time I may well be saying something similar to yourself. Right now, I have to give them the opportunity for ‘due diligence’. I’ve heard harrowing stories about adoption which amounts to trafficking.

2) Rafael Viola

  1. rafael1viola on March 23, 2023 at 2:04 pm said:Edit

Count me in Pat if that’s ok then they can hear our voices


Replying to @PatrickEMills and @CatholicHerald

This is the last chance saloon for me I’ve heard it all before fake apologies broken promises this is my last attempt and that I do promise


Thanks, Rafael. They are running on borrowed time


We need answers and actions right from the start and proper media attention let’s get this out in the open no more bull shit let both parties put their card’s on the table

3) Catholic Survivors England

Think it’s worth a go but wouldn’t enter into it with any expectations so you’re not too disappointed if it doesn’t work out.

Thanks. Good advice! What I’m personally hoping for is video interview to go on a Forum. All those questions Nazir ducked and was’ too busy’ to talk to Andy. It’ll be harder – but not impossible – for them to say ‘no’ to an official forum.

Catholic Survivors:

Sounds like a really good idea – there has to be something to hold them to account. Please continue to share any updates.

4) Survivorstrong

That this is not all about policy & is a lot about culture, that the belief any ill in the church is of demonic influence leads to demonizing those reporting that harm. That continuing to point to LGBTQ+ as the problem is hiding the entitlement granted via toxic theologies.

Pat:Good point. I’m sure priests would see me as demon influenced! Issues around LGBTQ+ should be aired on a forum about RCC’s failings. If it happens, I hope you’d get into that. I know RCC was keen on conversion therapy until it was banned.


That theologies that teach men are naturally violent & women are here for containing male sexual violence, for providing domestic comfort, for reproducing is creating great suffering & harming their stated mission of creating a just & peaceful world connected to the Divine.

Pat:Yeah, I’m personally aware as a survivor of the misogynistic nature of RCC. Specifically by their denigrating Mary Magdalene and promoting passive Virgin Mary. Your similar view needs wide airing.

5)  Jane Chevous

I always think that having honest conversations are a good idea. Have a look at our Charter as a basis for safe working

Thanks, Jane. That charter could well provide a structure where everyone feels safe in airing and receiving views

Jane:Recently they did a survivor survey about engagement. I’ll let you know when it’s published

So the Church of England doesn’t have a survivor forum as such, although there are a significant number of survivors working with them on consultations about policy, practice & training, & some co-production.
Survivor feedback is a good idea. At the moment I suspect most of the feedback comes in the form of complaints

Pat:Yep! And rightly so. But when the RLSS did get DBS checks on Cistercian monks on@caldeyabuse1970 did make a point of saying so. They need encouraging to do the right thing.

Jane: Also, I and 2 other survivor reps sit on their National Safeguarding Panel, which provides independent advice and scrutiny on safeguarding practice. There is a lot to do, but I wouldn’t stay if I didn’t think it made a difference.

6) StJoesCSASurvivor

I would ask why it was suggested there may be a route to access some funding for counselling from DLS and when I asked about that it, wasn’t an option any more or at best was a ‘last resort’ that was never followed up without my jumping through certain hoops first.

Pat:That’s exactly the kind of thing that should be responded to positively on a forum. We’ve both been misled in similar ways in the past. The forum itself needs to be easy access. Crystal Palace (Beulah Hill) site is good xample although I flunked the football question!

St J’s survivor:
I feel that as long as there are church lawyers protecting church interests (as I’m sure the early church had. Not), a forum is just going to be a handy resource for them, isn’t it? Am certain they’re all over our tweets and such.


I’ve been there loads of times. WASTE OF TIME.…

Pat:Thanks, Denis. That’s valuable to know. As I’ve said to RLSS (and they acknowledge) they have to prove themselves before anyone will take them seriously.

Dennis: I would like to meet Zollner face to face,i don’t think he realises what survivors go through on a daily basis.

8)Survivors Hall:

What will it accomplish that the Vatican Abuse summit was supposed to spark? They have more than enough information and data by now and they are not stupid people.

Pat:A forum could raise general media awareness of Survivors. And i have a raft of questions I want to ask various RCC bodies that I and other Survivors need answers to. It could also put Survivors in touch with each other and exchange info and support.

9) Joanna

Video is where it’s at.

10)Insider’s View (an expert on Catholic Religious Order child sex abuse)

Seriously, I think that a survivors’ forum would be good. The Church needs to stop pretending that “audits” of dioceses and religious orders are enough. It needs to recognize the role of the laity, both in covering up for abuse in the past and in preventing it in the present.


Hand over Vatican records to the police.‬

12) Raven

I get too strong and emotional at meetings to speak it’s probably best with my level of rage to do a loud protest somewhere. But my level of emotion and strength could show to people How deeply wounded you are by Catholic sex abuse.


The RLSS responded positively to the idea of a Catholic Survivors Forum. Catholics generally, not just religious orders. So I recently tweeted about it as below. My own feeling is that, handled right, it could be an opportunity to video interview key Catholic figures about the issues raised by Survivors And put up the videos on the Forum. I can think of several people who could do these interviews  and I’d certainly like the chance. It would be better and more general and useful than a video Victim Impact Statement.

We might even prsuade the De La Salles to come out of their cave and talk to Survivors.

 I’ll get into it on a later blog, but wanted to see what everyone felt.

I know the Crystal Palace site was brilliant for highlighting  De La Salle abuse at St J’s Beulah Hill. It was also very measured, not abusive, and didn’t fall into any of the traps some forums do.

The De La Salles claimed the many abuse claims on the Crystal Palace site were unheard of. That’s why I feel it need a video interview slot on a Forum so they can hear us. It’s ludicrous that they are currently only communicating through the intermediary of the RLSS

Do let me know your thoughts and feedback. That’s what the RLSS need to go forward.


RLSS (religious order Safeguarding) have asked for feedback on a forum. I’m going to do a blog post covering it in detail, but I thought I’d pass on RLSS info here and my personal opinion in a series of tweets.

My first thought is it shouldn’t just be an echo chamber of Survivors letting off steam, useful as that can be. It lays itself open to the valid criticism here that it would just be a waste of time and could wrongly raise Survivors hopes and retraumatise some.

That said, on Twitter, AFAIK, we are largely ignored by Safeguarding and people like De La Salles, Zollner and Nazir. On a forum, we would be read by Safeguarding and – if it’s handled right – by the media. And some may respond.

I know an experienced and trusted Moderator volunteer who could represent Survivor’s side. It should not be one sided. And it should be wider than just religious orders. ALL Catholic abuse issues, priests etc.

But the biggest challenge is for the RLSS to be pro-active. e.g. If we raise a concern about Zollner or Nazir, if the RLSS goes to him for comment that’s pro-active. If he chooses to ignore it will be exposed on a forum seen by the media. So Nazir will talk!

Anyway- here’s what the RLSS said to me: ‘My key question for the forum is what you would like it to achieve. Is it a place where Survivors can feel heard could you pose the question … to see if we can find some consensus and then we can take it forward from there.’

‘My key concern is ensuring the power imbalance which is inherent when dealing with the Church has been thought about and addressed so this forum isn’t another structure which Survivors are retraumatised by their interaction with it from the lack of power they feel.’

‘This is also the reason I want to agree its purpose and be really transparent about it so Survivors do not think the forum can deliver something which it fundamentally can’t and once again feel like they aren’t being taken seriously.’

‘More is needed but this is a good first step & getting structure right is key. If you wouldn’t mind asking that question to those who commented & I will also pose it to other Survivor groups … let’s see if we can agree a basic structure & purpose so we can take it forward

So that’s the gist of RLSS view. If I can persuade them to be pro-active in the way I’ve described I’d be for it. If the RLSS inform the media we could get some interaction – e.g. Catholic Herald, Guardian etc. Anyway, welcome everyone’s thoughts – good & bad – I’ll pass on!


Stephen Ashley, CEO of the CSSA, has admitted to me that the Laity has been overlooked thus far.  Now it looks like more Catholic Laity escape scrutiny.

The Laity – in the form of Knights of St Columba – was/is intimately connected with the De La Salles.  And a Colchester Knight’s current and horrifying abuse of children was provably concealed from the national press. So his fellow Knights really need auditing to ensure he acted alone.

They haven’t been.

The CEO’s response was rather relaxed to this real and present danger to children.  He said:

I agree with you over this issue around abuse by the laity does seem to be largely ignored and certainly has given me some pause for thought. I think that in our future audit and review processes we need to give this more consideration.

How do the Laity get away with it? Well, the Knights organized a cover-up of priest abuse (one insider source), as well as De La Salles abuse (a second insider source). And I’m sure it’s widespread, so I guess the Church owes the Knights for their protection.

I believe that’s why they’re off limits to the CSSA.

But it’s not just the Knights of St Columba and similar organisations who are let loose on children with no audits and no DBS checks.

An insider has just advised me:

‘Those confraternities, sodalities, orders to venerate saints and so on obviously are significant financially plus many of them are international and so offer support systems to people who relocate from one jurisdiction to another, but they haven’t featured in audits of how the Church has handled concerns and allegations about abuse.’

So children are at risk from these organizations, apart from the fact they are also mentally abusing kids. I looked one sodality up and was horrified to see its current ‘humility’ message to girls.  My wife Lisa described it as ‘toxic, sinister and intrusive.’

Another female source noted the Virgin Mary ‘meekness and subservience’ role model promoted by such sodalities was problematic. ‘It creates a lot of repressed anger and aggression that gets taken out on children and other women who don’t fit the mould.’

I know that from first hand as a kid.

It’s this female Catholic obsession with obedience (‘humility’) and purity that led to my being abused by intelligent and sophisticated Catholic women – probably from a similar sodality and/or the Catholic Women’s League –  obsessed with a neurotic hatred of the body and sexuality.

Such women don’t just screw up girls, they needed to work out their perverted, Church-approved neuroses on boys in the form of criminal aversion therapy I’ve described previously.

So it’s alarming to think that similar Catholic women – with an identical dangerous mindset and identical language I remember from my childhood – are still unleashed on today’s children.

Someone needs to monitor these individuals and thus far they seem to have slipped under the radar, just like the Knights of St Columba.

I know from first hand experience the unpaid diocese safeguarders  are a joke, and they don’t care what abusive poison the sodalities inject into children’s minds as their brainwashing has been approved by the Church. So it’s okay. In fact, many diocese safeguarders could well be members.

But I suspect these sodalities – who have the authority to teach children Catholic ‘values’ – have also not had DBS checks and they clearly have not been audited.

In short, the entire Catholic Laity  can currently do what they like to children with no audits, no supervision, and no dbs checks, to prevent current sexual assaults.

Never mind their mental assaults on children’s minds  – which are intimately connected, the one leading to the other –  and which the CSSA will say is none of their business.

I can assure the CEO of CSSA that one day soon this is going to come out and his lack of action – when children are in danger now – within his remit – is noted and will be added to the charges against the Church and Safeguarding.


I wrote to the RLSS as follows:

It’s a pity there is no forum for Catholic Survivors to air their grievances and get a response.

The Tablet, the Catholic Herald and the two Catholic Safeguarding agencies ensure they are carefully cloistered from the reality of survivors anguish.

Consequently, we use social media and we are making some progress – not least in advising each other when we’ve been duped by the Church.  Sooner or later we’ll find a national media to highlight the shame of the Catholic Church of which your organisation is part.

The RLSS responded:

I would like to hear your ideas on how such a forum might work to see if there is anything I can take forward with this

Thank you for all you are doing to hold the Church to account.

Dani Wardman

I found that positive, so I thought I would share my ideas for a Forum here which Survivors can add to. It’s a discussion document and I’m thinking off the top of my head, but of course it’s possible. What do others think?

1)Naturally legally ongoing or potentially pending cases couldn’t be discussed, but there’s still potential for general debate.

The Catholic Church has cruelly and willfully shut itself off from survivors and that has to stop.

I’d guess if the RLSS set it up, it would need two or three moderators and very open access.  

The moderators can say something like ‘The views expressed by moderators or others on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Catholic Church’

So moderators are protected and can say what they want – good or bad.

The cost is peanuts. If the Catholic Church can’t fund that, then it really is beyond words. I’ve spent thousands of pounds in therapy and I’m sure other Survivors are the same.

Don’t tell me they can’t afford it.

And limiting the Forum to just religious orders subject would be impossible.  There’s too much overlap.  Survivors would find it too frustrating.

2) The biggest concern for Survivors is PR exercises. Avoiding being love-bombed with platitudes or photo opportunities. Thus the Church has a cruel, cynical and BAD track record like smiling and shaking hands with a Survivor, promising results, then effing off and never seen again. That was a con trick in which the Tablet played a dubious role.

We won’t be fooled again.

So a forum needs to demonstrate its credibility in the knowledge that Survivors are now very cynical.

That’s inevitable after past confidence tricks.

3) A discussion subject that should be talked about is one I brought up with Zollner ( Vatican Safeguarding) yesterday:

In Britain, as you may be aware, there is now no coverage of survivors of past Catholic and clerical abuse. The various agencies either don’t cover past abuse, or have reneged on promises in writing, or pass it to police who can do nothing. Comment?

I suspect he’ll ignore me as he usually does.

This can all be talked about openly without legal constraints because it’s general. It’s not specific.

4) It needs interaction to give it appeal – so a moderator might say, ‘We reached out to Nazir Afzal for comment and he said xyz…’

Even if we don’t like what Nazir says, at least he’s communicating in a forum.

Currently Nazir throws a grenade over the parapet – mitigating child sexual abuse in a shocking tweet which will eventually lead to his resignation – and then is heard of no more.

5) I’d personally like to see Catholic Herald, The Tablet, Knights of St Columba, Catenians, & other leading Catholics respond to Survivors. Even the Brit equivalent of Bill Donahue (An aggressive Irish American, head of the Catholic League).

Currently, to me, they are all the enemy. And I’m darn sure leading Catholics see Survivors like me as the enemy,too. In their arrogance they want us to be meek and mild or  broken alcoholics or drug addicts.

They’re not used to people standing up to them which is happening more and more post IICSA which we all know was a waste of time (another valuable forum subject).

6) Catholics may choose to pass on really valuable information which currently I’m having to play detective to discover. E.G. Clarifying the complex role of Safeguarding and ADMITTING the diocese Safeguarding is useless. Or prove me wrong with some of the latest figures.

I’d love to know they were getting results. But I doubt it.

Many Survivors are completely baffled by the confusing dimensions of Safeguarding and if the RLSS are different we’ll start worrying, ‘When are the Catholic Church going to dump the RLSS and  replace it by a new bs organization?’

That’s a genuine fear for many of us.

The RLSS could PROVE its credibility now by telling us all why the SCOE shut down. I know it was sort of in response to IICSA, but I think we’d all appreciate a bit more detail.

Currently it feels a bit odd to me.

We are starved of information which has resulted in many of us becoming detectives and gathering important info for ourselves and other Survivors.

That’s unfair, it’s not our job, and the Church must provide hard information. I know they’ve been secret for 2K years, but they can’t go on like that.

7) There’s a strong theory which blackens every aspect of the Catholic Church seeing it as a sinister organization like the Mafia or a religious cult or far worse. There’s considerable evidence to support this theory. For example, the first fifteen years of my life I experienced organized Catholic male AND female abuse which I can prove to my satisfaction.

Other commentators have similar evidence of organized  Catholic crime.

Thus I believe the principle of ‘double effect’ – embedded in Catholic theology via Aquinas – allowed Catholic abusers to do anything they wanted in the past.

‘The end justifies the means.’

I fear that’s still the case.

That could be aired on a forum and Catholics could respond with counter-arguments and show me if I’m wrong.That’s fine with me.  The Truth can take it.

Or, alternatively, acknowledge the Church’s crimes.

But Catholics usually just retreat into their hidey-holes and NEVER engage in open debate with their critics.

8) I would hope that debate if the Church is genuine ( and that’s a huge IF) will lead to remorse and understanding.

For instance, I talked to a leading Catholic theologian about my childhood, in a very casual way, and I was startled to see the tears streaming down his face.

Unlike Cardinal Nichols who had the most transparently fake expression of remorse on his face after IICSA. I’m a lousy actor, but I could have done better.

Or Pell with his hulking aggressive response to accusations.

Neither of them looked remotely holy.

But if priests are following in the footsteps of Jesus, they should surely welcome this ‘humiliation’ which their founder embraced.

As Survivors we want to see penance/remorse/call it what you like. Not ‘Here’s some money,we don’t admit anything, now can you eff off.’

Zollner (Vatican Safeguarding) is a good current example. He exuded passive aggression. He quoted in a clumsy tweet how some Survivor was pleased that dealing with his abuse would help the wounds of Mother Church.

Survivors, understandably, said that Survivor was in a minority – what about OUR wounds? There was a pile-on on Twitter.

Zollner just kept repeating the same message several times and we wondered if he was actually employing AI which is now feasible.

It’s noteworthy that, despite the pile on, NO Survivor was  abusive and Jeez, have we got reason to be! An irony there, given we are Survivors of abuse.

This is the kind of thing that could be handled so well  in a Forum but it means Zollner would need to leave his obvious contempt for his critics at the door.

9) Those are my opening thoughts. 

I think the Catholic Church won’t allow the RLSS to proceed with a Forum – because it’s a cowardly organization. Cowardly because it’s guilty of past and ongoing current crimes.

And it’s desperately afraid of what might happen.  Because it’s not following the Truth.

It’s also suffering from the arrogance of clericalism – Zollner being a good example – and doesn’t want to lose its status.

I would appeal to them ‘The Truth will set you free’ – even though I know their reaction (from observing priests close up in recent years) will be ‘How dare you tell me what to do? I am a Man of God with a divine mission. And you are nothing.’

That dynamic of clericalism needs reversing. The Church needs to come to us as penitents.

If the Apartheid regime and N.Ireland factions can respond to Truth and Reconciliation, who knows?

In the case of the Catholic Church it would be more like a denazification process after WW2.

A Forum would be an important step in that direction. AFAIK there is no such arena of honest debate at the moment.

That also speaks volumes.

Maybe if the RLSS had a twitter account and responded to Survivors there it would be a positive small first step.


I was prompted by a recent letter from a St Joseph’s Old Boy to take another look at Catholic Knights and their Dirty Money, specifically the Ipswich province of the Knights of St Columba.

The Old Boy advised me:

I was at St Joseph’s in Ipswich from 12 to 16, funded by the church to then go on to a minor seminary to train to become a priest.

The mysterious phrase ‘The Church’ is often used to explain funding. No one seems to know how that actually works in practice and I doubt the Old Boy in question knew. When I asked my aunt, she said the same thing to me: ‘The Church paid your school fees.’ When I asked what that meant and why the Church would do that, she didn’t know and quickly changed the subject.  But I know the answer now. In Ipswich ‘the Church’ was the Knights of St Columba and they were the writers of the cheques.  This is proved by my own recollections and those of another Survivor whose testimony has been previously covered on this site.  Elsewhere, it might be the Catenians, Catholic Women’s League and so forth.

The source of the Knights’ money I would assume comes from a number of sources:  fund raising, donations by wealthy Knights, and, I would guess, a significant allocation from the diocese itself. So it can rightly be called the Church’s money.

The diocese would need considerable confidence in these Knights to leave them to manage their affairs. It’s a confidence that would be misplaced were the diocese not equally culpable for the actions I’m about to relate.

It’s what that money is spent on by the Knights that is relevant both in the past and today. And that’s what makes it dirty money.  

1)Paying  St Joseph’s school fees for children to go on to be priests as in the example above.  As I know from my own experience, it can bring strong psychological pressure on a child to fulfill the demands and agendas of adults, but I would assume that did not apply in the case above.

2) Paying St Joseph’s school fees as a reward for silence on a serious sexual assault by De La Salle Brother James Ryan.

I’ve related the details previously. That account, by another Old Boy, proves the Knights of St Columba were guilty of corruption and covering up a violent paedophile crime.

And not for the first time.

Something similar also happened to me.

3)Paying St Joseph’s school fees for my brother and I for a total of nine years.

For two of those nine years the fees were paid by the Knights to prepare me for the priesthood. They intended to send me to that same junior seminary at age 15.  It was also to silence me. Instead, I bailed.

But that still leaves seven years unaccounted for. What possible reason would the Knights pay two boys’ school fees for seven years? My explanation is below. If you, or a Knight reading this, can shed any further or alternative light, I’d love to hear from you.

But I believe there’s more than enough evidence to back my explanation.

                                                THE KNIGHTS’ MOTIVES

All organizations need to recruit for their next generation and that’s particularly true for the Knights.

My family consisted of my devout Irish Catholic widowed mother and her two sons. She had great aspirations for her sons but no financial resources, no job and serious mental health problems.  The Church was her whole life and could do no wrong.

There is no way she could afford to send her children to an expensive grammar school for seven years.

Her vulnerability made my brother and I a prime target for the Knights, under their benign guise of caring for and taking a special, charitable interest in widows and children.

We were perfect assets for the Knights.

In effect, my mother abdicated her authority and passed it over to these ‘protectors of children’.  I doubt there were other recruiting opportunities quite this good.

Also, a paternity DNA test I took recently strongly indicates that a Knight was probably my biological father, rather than my legal father. Bearing this out, the Knights also acted ‘in loco parentis’ assuming a paternal role over me which – because they were sick abusers –  I rejected.

But, even without that DNA connection, I think the Knights had enough incentive.

So what did recruiting involve?  Today we would call it grooming and the form it took varied amongst the four to seven Knights involved over my childhood. Some were pleasant, some were aggressive and one was life threatening.

So my brother was given a brand new bike by a Knight who was also a Catholic priest (Canon Burrows).  I was similarly given a brand new bike to silence me about abuse by Brother James.

I was present at several of their misogynistic ceremonies which were closer to a rugby club night or a frat initiation than Eyes Wide Shut.  They seemed designed to be rites of passage experiences, presumably conditioning me to be a future Knight. Pedophilia was an important element at these events.

I assume pedophilia was part of some twisted bonding process and also the price for admission. At the same time, they were instilling conservative Catholic values in me. It’s a contradiction in behavior that’s commonplace in the Catholic religion.

So, in summary, the Knights of St Columba  (aka ‘The Church’) used their money, power and psycho-coercion to recruit children to the priesthood, to buy the silence of victims, and to corrupt, sexually abuse and recruit future members.

                                    THE KNIGHTS TODAY

If even half of what I’m alleging is correct, these individuals and their successors should never be allowed near children.  Because the  Knights are provably transgenerational.  

Consider the following:

In 2016, in Colchester, Ronald Smith, a Knight of St Columba, was found guilty of sexual abuse crimes on eight children, some under ten years old, carried out while he was taking advantage of his position as a Knight, ‘organizing parish family events’. He was given a 19 – 25 years prison sentence: That’s an incredibly long sentence, yet, astonishingly, the story never made the national press. The Knights killed it. So no one knew Smith was already a convicted sex offender in 1973. Or that there were three reports to the police about him since 1973 which were never acted upon.

I also know from an insider and from the Ronald Smith case that some Knights, at least, have not had DBS checks.  Otherwise Smith would never have been allowed near children. Yet they have sworn an oath to ‘develop young people in their journey of faith’.

Catholic Safeguarding were not interested when I brought this current danger to children to their attention numerous times.

                                    CATHOLIC SAFEGUARDING

There are two Catholic safeguarding organizations and both are relevant. The CSSA which are mainly part timers and are only interested in current cases, no more than two years old, and auditing unpaid diocesan safeguarders. They supposedly investigate but I know from personal experience they don’t. They simply dump cases on the police. The CSSA replaced COPCA

And there’s the RLSS – hired by religious orders, like the De La Salles, to protect them from Survivors. It’s meant to be a sub-division of the CSSA, but it seems  autonomous and the CSSA have never shown any interest in religious orders abuse. The RLSS has some supposed investigative powers and recently replaced the SCOE. Why the SCOE became mysteriously defunct has never been explained.  Important records from the SCOE where the DLS were concerned were never passed onto their successors the RLSS. Instead, I had to brief the RLSS. The DLS didn’t seem able to or chose not to help, even though they were central to the issues and had all the information.

Then there are the De La Salles own safeguarding officers who only speak to the press when they are cornered after many phone calls.

There is also a different Catholic Safeguarding set-up  for Scotland.

If you’re wondering about the confusing and frequently changing names, you are right to be concerned.  It’s an ingenious technique used by the Church as noted here:… Safeguarding in the churches does not work, as all recruitments are done by & within the perpetrator networks that regroup in ever changing charities & positions of trust that they abuse to ensure supply chain & cover ups…

I suspect in a few years, as Catholic scandals grow as usual, the CSSA and RLSS will mysteriously become defunct and be replaced by ‘dynamic new organisations’ to reassure the Catholic faithful that something is being done, even though it’s not.  

So the situation is now worse than before IICSA.  

Consider the laconic response of the CEO of the CSSA to my concerns about the Knights:

I agree with you over this issue around abuse by the laity does seem to be largely ignored and certainly has given me some pause for thought. I think that in our future audit and review processes we need to give this more consideration.

He seems quite relaxed about it, doesn’t he?  He didn’t know about it before?  Until I told him? It took me about two years to confirm – with hard evidence – that the Catholic laity was involved in organized sexual abuse. Yet safeguarders have access to far more information on this subject than myself and they don’t know?! And they don’t want to consider the past to identify the pattern of a Catholic laity pedophile ring as run by the Knights?

Whatever else you may agree or disagree with my analysis, I think you’d have to recognize all this shows a shocking lack of transparency. This is classic Catholic ‘smoke and mirrors’ at its worst.

Both the heads of the CSSA and RLSS are ex-cops but I do not find that impressive or reassuring, despite their protestations that this surely proves their sincere characters and their supposed value to Survivors.  In practice, both are provably useless but some Survivors have drawn a more sinister conclusion. Namely that their policing skills are being used to effectively block the truth getting out.

Given the way the Knights have behaved (and there’s much more to relate on these gentlemen) I think anything is possible.  

But the RLSS have a responsibility to look at the connection between the abuser Knights and their paymasters the De La Salles.

As a survivor of this joint abuse by Knights and De La Salles, I have a right to know when their criminal relationship ended. If it did.

It’s there on the long list of things the RLSS have done absolutely nothing about, despite their promises to the contrary.   

An ex-FBI agent said that if you found paedophiles in an organisation and it didn’t deal with them then it was effectively a paedophile network.

The RLSS has not dealt with the issue it was supposedly set up for. The RLSS have admitted to me that their paymasters, the De La Salles, have the final say and their hands are tied and this is confirmed by the RLSS broken promises.

In my view this amounts to worse than negligence.

It’s collusion.

Fortunately, this site is read by national journalists and the leader of at least one most relevant organization.  So the head of the RLSS might want to reflect on this and how he will eventually be called upon to explain his actions.

Or his lack of action.

Hopefully before the next enquiry and before he’s had a chance to escape responsibility for his betrayal of De La Salle Survivors.


Just as there seem to be two Brother Kierans, so there were two – or maybe three – Brother James at Beulah Hill.

The brother J in this photo is definitely not Brother James Ryan (ex-Ipswich) who has been previously definitely identified on this site.

But the photos of Beulah Hill teachers may be of interest to Old Boys.


Possible new information on Brother Kieran (Brother Kiern). There’s a link below to the original allegation which described Brother K as ‘The worst abuser’. Many De La Salle Brothers could be described in this way, but this man does seem particularly monstrous.

Looking at the dates, if he came to Oak Hill in the mid 80s that would fit.

But he was described as much younger, ‘perhaps 30 in the mid 80’s.’ That doesn’t fit.

The younger Brother K interested me because it meant he could still be alive. Memories can be hazy and in other respects the character below fits. However, it won’t be the first time that two De La Salle abusers have the same name. Brother James, for example.

So I rather feel there are two brother K’s – the Oz Brother K and the younger Brother K.

Certainly the Oz Brother K returned to the UK and died in London in 1997 and, given his Oz cv, children would have been at risk from him, too.

If the younger Brother K is still out there, this criminal needs bringing to book.

No help from the De La Salles or their Safeguarding protectors, of course, even though I have brought it to their attention.

It’s a very blurred photo of Kieran on the first page of the newspaper link below. But enough to recognise him perhaps.

Also, worthy of note: His death detailed on the first link. There is a painting at the top of two De La Salle Brothers holding up Jesus at the crucifixion while other DLS urge children towards the scene.

I have to say I found it the most arrogant and bad taste image of the crucifixion I have ever come across.. It’s quite sick.

Anyway – here’s the update and many thanks to my source for bringing this to our attention.

Your Br Keirn is almost certainly Kieran Rush, who spent nearly his whole career here in Australia, but was originally from Antrim. He passed away in 1997 as detailed here:

He came to Australia after graduating the novitiate in the mid 50s.  He was one of the founding brothers of DLS Revesby in 1960.  There are legal firms currently investigating his conduct there amid abuse allegations. 

Kieran left after a year to co-found Boystown in Queensland. This was by far the worst DLS school anywhere for abuse. The stories are endless. Brothers are still being nabbed for their crimes at the place. For example:

He was a senior man there for approx 25yrs until he went back to UK/Ireland.  No doubt nude swimming was the norm in rural Queensland.

There is a picture of him down this page: