Q. I am going to ask you some questions about the Rule of St Benedict and, madam, that has been set out in those issues that have been granted. I have asked the evidence handler to put up on the screen the Rule of St Benedict. Can we please go to rule or chapter 23 which our  evidence handler will find at page 18 of the Rule of St Benedict. Dom Richard, have you got the Rule of St Benedict coming up on your screen?
A. I do, yes. 
Q. I'm grateful. You're referring to something else. What is that you have in your hand?
A. The rule.
Q. So you have it both in hard copy form and on the screen? 
A. Correct.
Q. Help us, please, understand this. The Rule of St Benedict is the basic rule of life -- is that a fair way of putting it? -- that is followed by Benedictine monks?
A. Correct.
Q. In particular, it is the rule of life followed by English Benedictine monks within the congregation; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. We are going to be looking at the particular rules that are set out first of all, page 18, chapter 23. The first one sets out the question of excommunication for faults if a brother is found to be stubborn or disobedient or proud. It goes on to talk about that monk if he grumbles or in any way despises the Holy Rule and defies the orders of his seniors. It then sets out, as we understand the disciplinary procedure, he should be warned twice privately by the seniors. Would a senior in a monastery be a dean?
A. It means one of the senior -- one of the older monks. 
Q. So he should be warned twice privately by a senior in the way you describe in accord with Our Lord's injunction and there is then a biblical reference. Is that correct? 
A. Correct.
Q. "If he does not amend, he must be rebuked publicly in the presence of everyone. But if, even then, he does not reform, let him be excommunicated, provided that he understands the nature of this punishment. If, however, he lacks understanding, let him undergo corporal punishment." Is that still a current rule of the Rule of St Benedict?
A. The Rule of St Benedict was written in the 6th century,  so it is still part of the rule.
Q. Right.
A. But it doesn't follow that the precise material prescriptions of the rule are followed today.
Q. We are going to deal in a minute with the question of what is applied or not. I'm just going to go through some rules. Can I take you then to chapter 29, page 20 of the rule. This deals with readmission of brothers who leave the monastery, and it says: "If a brother, following his own evil ways, leaves the monastery but then wishes to return, he must first promise to make full amends for leaving." Then it says: "Let him be received back ..." I think the maximum number of times he can be received back, it looks like four times, "no more than three"; is that correct?
A. Three.
Q. Help us, please, understand that. Would that apply as an example to a child abuser monk?
A. No.
Q. Help us, please, where it says that within these rules? 
A. Because this belongs to a section, 23 to 30, which we normally call "The disciplinary code". That section of the rule contains wise spiritual advice, particularly, I would say, on excommunication, which is a different idea to modern ideas of excommunication, and also mercy, which you will find, above all, in chapter 27. Chapter 27 is a very valuable guidance for an abbot, how to deal with a brother who is misbehaving. So the spirit of the rule applies, but in the 21st century a lot of the material prescriptions which are suitable for the 6th century are clearly inapplicable.
Q. Help us, please, a little bit further with page 20, chapter 30. This particular chapter 30 refers to the manner of reproving boys. In relation to, it seems,  some misdeed of a boy, the rule states that "they should be subjected to severe fasts or checked with sharp strokes so that they may be healed". Help us, please, in relation to the applicability of that particular rule, as an example, being got rid of from the rules?
A. Again, you cannot get rid of it in the sense that you cannot amend the text which has been written in the 6th century, but that is one of the provisions which was presumably suitable for the 6th century and totally inappropriate for the 21st century, so it is not applied.
Q. Chapter 45, "Mistakes in the oratory". Page 28, please. This particular one sets out mistakes in the oratory: "Should anyone make a mistake in a psalm, responsory, refrain or reading, he must make satisfaction there before all." 5 Then it goes on to talk about the question of, "If he does not use this occasion to humble himself, he will be subjected to more severe punishment for failing to correct by humility the wrong committed through negligence. Children, however, are to be whipped for such a fault." Are you going to tell us that that is again a matter for the 16th century and not to be applied now. Is that what you are going to say?
A. 6th century, yes.
Q. And not applied now?
A. Indeed.
Q. Help us with these references to corporal punishment in relation to monks, first of all. Within the monastery of which you were part, was corporal punishment still used in relation to monks?
A. It wasn't, and it hasn't been used for several hundred 22 years.
Q. What about other monasteries?
A. I have a pretty wide knowledge of monasteries throughout the world, and I think I can be quite certain in saying that it is not applied anywhere.
Q. In relation to children, corporal punishment, when did that stop?
A. In this country, it has been illegal now for something like 20/30 years. I think -- I couldn't say for certain when it finished in each individual school, but it finished well before it became unlawful.
Q. Right. So you're saying the 6th century rules are no longer followed; in particular, the disciplinary system is to be regarded as a part of old rules not to be applied. Is that what you are saying?
A. I didn't say the disciplinary system. I said that these material applications. I'm saying the spirit of the rule is still important. The concept of excommunication, which is depriving a person of community life, and the concept of the abbot as a wise physician who knows how to cure spiritual ills, that is something which is very valuable, but I am saying that the material -- the provisions about corporal punishment, which you mentioned, are clearly inappropriate for today.
Q. Where are the modern rules that deal with the current disciplinary system in relation to monks? Where are they set out?
A. Above all, they would be in the customary of the monastery.
Q. So each of the customary of the monasteries, is this correct, contains a modern-day, up-to-date, as far as it can be done, disciplinary system for monks? Is that what you are saying?
A. I'm saying that -- for example, at the end you mentioned chapter 45 of the rule, what happens if you come late. I think must customaries will say, and if the customary doesn't say, the custom, the unwritten custom of the monastery does say what way a monk should do penance for arriving late.
Q. Arriving late for what?
A. For the oratory.
Q. For a reading; is that correct?
A. For a service in the church.
Q. What about more serious infractions of any particular rule, so a monk abusing children, as an example? Where is the disciplinary system set out in any rule that we can find, read, graph, talk to you about? Where is it set out?
A. That would be superseded by the law of the land.
Q. So is the answer to my question that there is no disciplinary system set out within a coherent written text for monks today? Is that the answer?
A. I think, as I have tried to say before, we find value in elements of chapters 23 to 30. I gave a series of talks about this to a group of nuns a couple of years ago, and was able to, I think, talk for about -- give at least three talks on the subject. There is a lot of spiritual value there. But if you are talking about a modern code of discipline, that's not the way a monastery today works.
Q. Is your answer that there is no written code of discipline that is applicable to EBC monks?
A. I'm saying that each individual monastery may have its customary and it may -- it will say some things about discipline, but it won't be a systematic disciplinary code in the way that you might have in civil legislation.
Q. When you were the Abbot President, did you enquire into these customaries, these disciplinary rules, to consider whether they were adequate?
A. We issued, in 2009, some guidance for the writing of a customary. Whether it spoke specifically of disciplinary matters, I cannot remember. But, again, it will have been the responsibility of each monastery to compose its own customary after considering the model which the congregation had given.
Q. So is, again, the answer that you, as Abbot President, did not look into the question of individual disciplinary codes written into the customaries within 2 monasteries?
A. I encouraged monasteries to write customaries. Customaries were often given to me at the time of visitations and I occasionally made a comment on them.

Q. You have answered questions about the presence or nonpresence of a disciplinary code. You seem to describe the Rule of St Benedict to be genius. That's in your statement at paragraph 29, page 8. You describe the rule to be genius, or a genius rule.
A. I think what I said is I spoke of the genius of the rule, which is a slightly different thing from saying the rule is genius.
Q. I will read it out: "Inevitably, much of this detail suited to life in the 6th century is outdated today. But part of its genius is its flexibility which has enabled monks and nuns of different cultures, as well as different centuries, to use it as a guide to monastic living."  Do you stand by that?
A. Yes.
Q. You also say that monks spend a good deal of time studying the rule and that we, yourself included as a monk, have all been formed by the rule?
A. Yes.
Q. That's within your statement at paragraph; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Help us, please, understand the situation with a monk: where is it set out for a monk which chapters, which rules, within the Rule of St Benedict should be followed or not be followed?
A. It isn't, because we don't talk about not following rules -- not following individual chapters. We are talking about chapters which are -- where the material provisions are outdated and not applied, but nevertheless the context and the spiritual value is still there:
Q. You have worked -- "worked" may be the wrong description, but you have been the Abbot President of the EBC; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have served on the Cumberlege Commission; is that also correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You are currently a representative of the Catholic Council, the body that's designed to support this inquiry; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You have worked as an adviser to the Conference of the Religious; is that also right?
A. Correct.
Q. Are you also a member of the NCSC?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Right. Have you been?
A. No, never.
Q. Have you been in the past?
A. No.
Q. In relation to your senior roles within those organisations, what steps have you taken to advise, as an example, the NCSC, of deficiencies in the Rule of St Benedict?
A. I don't believe there are deficiencies in the Rule of St Benedict, so I haven't taken any advice -- any steps to inform the NCSC about them.
Q. You have mentioned in your evidence this afternoon that there is guidance that's been given to monasteries in relation to disciplinary matters. You said that already. Have you discussed that with the NCSC, as an example?
A. No:
Q. Did you discuss that with the Nolan Commission?
A. No.
Q. The Cumberlege Commission?
A. No.
Q. Now -- A. Mr Stein, maybe I can help you by reminding you of what I said in answer to one of Ms Karmy-Jones' questions, that the constitution to the congregation consists of two parts. The first part is the declarations on the rule which complement the rule and which, in many cases, describe the way in which the monastic life is lived today. Therefore, areas where the rule is clearly anachronistic will be complemented by what is written in the declarations.
Q. Is our understanding correct that there was a reapproval by the Holy See of the English Benedictine Congregation's constitutions in 2013?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there, first of all, a discussion about the disciplinary procedures in relation to monks' misbehaviour when the Holy See revisited the EBC constitutions in 2013?
A. Yes, because there was discussion of the way in which we should incorporate safeguarding into the constitutions and, following the discussion, matters about safeguarding were introduced into the constitutions.
Q. That's safeguarding. What about the disciplinary measures for monks who may, as an example, have abused 23 children? What discussion was conducted with the Holy See about the disciplinary measures that relate to those monks in the 2013 reapproval of the constitution?
A. That would not come into the constitutions. As I said before, that is largely superseded by national policies and procedures on safeguarding, and also by the rules set out by the CDF as regards the punishment of abusers.
Q. Do you accept that the English Benedictine Congregation bears a moral responsibility to those people that have been abused by its monks?
A. I accept that the monasteries of the English Benedictine Congregation have a responsibility which is both moral and in many cases may be legal. The Congregation as a whole, as I have said, regrets, is sorry for and is ashamed of abuse which has been committed in any monastery.
Q. Why don't you say that the EBC has a moral responsibility for the survivors of abuse? Why do you give an answer which says that, "Well, we are very sorry, but don't accept moral responsibility"?
A. Because I think that the primary responsibility must be with the individual monastery, and survivors must go to,  in the first -- well, I would advise survivors to go to the abbot of their monastery, of the monastery where they were abused. Now, as Ms Gallafent said yesterday, the Abbot President is very willing to hear any complainants who come to him. He has invited them to come to him. And I am sure he would express his sorrow at any abuse. But I think he would probably refer the matter eventually to the individual monastery where the abuse was suffered. I'm not certain that saying the EBC accepts moral responsibility -- I'm not certain what that means.
Q. You, Abbot President ex of the EBC, are saying that you don't understand what the words "moral responsibility" mean? Are you saying that?
A. I'm saying that I'm not certain what the EBC accepting moral responsibility implies.
MR STEIN: Madam, I'm aware that I have perhaps stretched the limit of the time. I accept that. May I just say, for those people who are listening to the question-and-answer sessions that are being conducted, that there is a limitation that is placed upon, if you like, more general cross-examination without leave. So for the purposes of those people who are listening, I am not allowed at this stage to go any further

I appear on behalf of F12, a Scottish survivor of the English Benedictine Congregation. I also represent 12 core participant survivors of the Comboni Missionary Order and F44, a survivor of the Christian Brothers. Together, they represent 20 per cent of the victim/survivor core participants in this latest  investigation in a very long line of investigations into the Roman Catholic Church, but of course they are not a mere percentage, they are individual humans imbued  with dignity, bravery and fortitude. They, like the other core participants in this investigation, hope and pray that this is the last time a public inquiry will have to be called into the Catholic Church. I echo counsel to the inquiry's submissions: there are almost a million children in Britain who are educated in institutions run by or in which a church is significantly involved, and, therefore, this inquiry must determine what has been and what is the scale of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in Britain; are there cultural inhibitors in the Catholic Church that prevent effective child safeguarding; are there structural inhibitors in the Catholic Church and its separate law that prevent effective child safeguarding? A line must finally be drawn, and this inquiry must answer the question: can children be safe in the care of the Catholic Church?

Those I represent are men who were, and in some  cases still are, devout Catholics. It is very difficult to explain to someone not brought up in a Catholic community the power and depth of influence the Catholic Church exerts over its members. Counsel to the investigation has alluded to this, and it is a chilling aspect of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church that the abusers are not only men in positions of trust who wielded authority over children, they are also seen by the abused and their families as being spokesmen for the God they worship, men who are supposed to be the shepherds of their souls, men who hold the very keys to heaven. It is hard to imagine a greater hold that a child abuser could have over its victim. F13 was abused at his Catholic primary school by Catholic brothers. He was abused by members of the English Benedictine Congregation at Pluscarden and Fort Augustus Abbey. We have heard of the movement of a paedophile from England to Fort Augustus this morning from counsel to the inquiry and Mr Scorer. On 8 November 2017, this November, the National Crime Agency's Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Unit issued a conclusive grounds decision finding that F13 had been a victim of modern-day slavery. This finding by the National Crime Agency in relation to participant F13 demonstrates the seriousness of the issues before this inquiry. Two days after the National Crime Agency issued this finding, the inquiry's first witness, Dom Richard Yeo, visited F13 at his home, along with Bishop John Keenan. We would hope that counsel to the investigation will  explore with Dom Yeo the reason for his visits to F13's  home in the wake of this finding and the immediate  run-up to this hearing and, indeed, what the English  Benedictines hope to do for F13 to bring him comfort and closure.

F1 to F12 are 12 core participant survivors of the Comboni Missionary Order. They attended a Catholic  seminary school in Mirfield in Yorkshire run by that order, an order that specialises in missionary education  around the world. They are a striking group of men, highly educated and articulate. They include among their number  a retired senior officer of our armed forces, a retired executive of an international PLC, teachers, academics, businessmen and a highly regarded classical performer. Those men, or boys, as they were then, were   hand-selected as some of the brightest and most devout  children of their communities. They were selected also  because, as 10- and 11-year-olds, they dreamed of  becoming missionary priests. Quite a number went a long  way down the road to taking religious orders. One, F3, became a brother of the Comboni religious order and  undertook missionary work in the most difficult circumstances of Idi Amin's Uganda. All were abused by Catholic priests and brothers. In most cases, they were abused repeatedly over many months and, in a number of cases, years. They had led very sheltered lives in the Catholic families and communities they came from. They had no understanding of sex other than it was wrong, it was dirty, it was a sin. The culture of their school, their church and their faith was of obedience and, in particular, obedience to Holy Fathers. Over time, and as abuse continued, and as they grew, they came to have doubts. But as F6 explained his childhood dilemma to me, and he has flown a very long way to be here today, how could the hands that held the host, the body of Christ, aloft every morning in mass possibly do wrong? His words. F4 could also not bring himself to accept that the kindly Italian priest who tended to boys when they were ill could possibly do something wrong. He just couldn't accept it. F4 described this to me, with tears in his eyes, how, as an adult, he would watch old-fashioned war films and the hero would be captured and subjected to torture and, gritting his teeth and taking his mind to another place, he would endure. F4 told me that every time he saw a scene like that, he was catapulted back in time to the infirmary at St Peter Claver Seminary College. Other members of this group and F44 have similar accounts of how they were abused again and again and the terrible dilemmas and conflicts of their mind they suffered: how can this be happening if this holy man is doing it? These bright boys grew and so did their doubts and they began to speak up and, when they did, they did not stop speaking up. It is incredible the number of times these boys spoke up seeking support and protection, not just for themselves, but often to try to protect younger boys in the seminary college. It is incredible, also, the responses they received. After years of systematic abuse, F4 took a delegation of boys to see the college's spiritual adviser and told him of the sexual abuse. The other boys were crying during that interview, but F4 was angry and he spoke out. The spiritual adviser stated he accepted the accounts of abuse were true. He told the boys he would look into the matter. He then swore them to secrecy and told them never to speak of it again. He did nothing. As F4 and the other boys turned to leave his room, the spiritual adviser stopped them and he reminded them that their abuser, this prolific abuser, may have availed himself of the sacrament of confession and, if he did, his sins were washed away and they, as good Catholics, must accept that. F8 also reported the abuse he was suffering at the hands of the seminary's vice rector to the seminary college's spiritual adviser. The spiritual adviser told F8 to forget about the incidents and not discuss it anymore. F4 also went to a priest he trusted and admired. They went for a walk in the playground. He began to open his heart and, as soon as he did, that priest, his friend, told him, "Stop there" and would hear no more. F12 was also abused by the vice rector of St Peter Claver College. He told the father rector of the seminary about the abuse. The father rector asked no questions and took no action. F6, who I have already mentioned, who has come a long way to be here today, attended the seminary college. Priests of the school abused him repeatedly as a young boy. Despite this, he was bright, he had a deep faith, he excelled and became the school captain, the head boy of the seminary school. When he was appointed to that position, he felt a huge sense of responsibility for the other boys, particularly the younger boys at the seminary, whom he knew were being abused just as he was being abused, and he felt, as school captain, he must act. So, once again, he led a delegation of older boys to see the spiritual adviser to tell him that the younger boys were being abused and that he felt a duty to protect them. The spiritual adviser did not take up the complaint on their behalf but he told the delegation of children that "You must go away, you must gather statements from the younger boys, you must take them to the Father Rector, but don't tell him I told you to do this". This priest, this spiritual adviser, sent a boy to do a man's job, his job, but the boy he sent was up to it. F6 gathered the statements of the abused boys and presented them to the Father Rector of the seminary. The Father Rector said that he would deal with the prolific abuser. He did not call the police. He did not launch an investigation. He did not inform the parents of the abused boys. He simply moved the abuser from the school and sent him to the oldest provincial house in London. From there, he was sent to Uganda,  where he worked as the bishop's secretary and was then  appointed as the chaplain to secondary schools in Northern Uganda and became Scout Commissioner for Northern Uganda. The Father Rector to whom this report was made currently lives in the order's house in Glasgow, he is in his 80s and is mentally well. F5 was abused by a lay teacher employed at St Peter Claver Seminary College. It is believed this teacher was previously employed at Ampleforth. That teacher was removed from the school by the priest who was then the rector and who is now the financial director of a London province of the Comboni order and who lives in London. F3 was repeatedly abused by another priest of the order. Despite this, he became a brother himself. But was always troubled by the abuse he and others had suffered. He raised it again and again with the order nationally and internationally. In legal correspondence, the order made clear admissions as to that abuse. Despite this admission, this priest was permitted to return to active ministry. When F3 challenged this fact with the Wrexham diocesan safeguarding officer and the Comboni Order's safeguarding officer, he was assured the priest would  not be allowed access to children but remained in the order's other house looking after the sick and dying. However, the evidence shows this priest continued to work with children until as recently as 2014.  Later in life, these 12 men repeatedly sought to engage the Catholic Church over the abuse they had suffered and feared that children might still be suffering. They contacted and spoke to the most senior members of the order, all of whom had been at St Peter Claver College with them as fellow seminarians and as teachers. On one occasion, F4 was invited to the order's provincial mother house in London for a meeting. He was told by one of the senior order members who had been at the school at the time when they were being abused that the abusing priests had hurt the Catholic Church as much as they had hurt the children. No, they did not.

The priests at the Catholic Church abused my clients, caused them wounds that never healed. They have never healed because the Catholic Church never admitted what happened fully, never apologised truly and never atoned. Of course it must be remembered, and it has been  touched on today, that the abuse of my clients along with many of the other victims of abuse by Catholic priests was widely known of because they were reporting it regularly in the confessional, as indeed were the abusers. Why, then, was no action taken by the Catholic Church in relation to regular reports of abuse that were being given in the confessional and presumably still are?

The sacrament of confession is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church. It is fundamental to the practice of the faith. Catholic priests are also required under Canon law to undertake confession. The Australian Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse recently recommended that persons could be charged if they know, suspect or should have suspected that members -- that a child is being abused. That recommendation included members of the clergy. The Archbishop of Melbourne was asked about this and if he would go to gaol rather than disclose matters disclosed to him in confession and he said,  "I have said I would go to gaol. I believe this is an absolutely sacrosanct communication of a high order". Why would the archbishop say he would go to gaol rather than reveal matters including child sexual abuse? Because, again, it is the law of the Catholic Church  that he cannot. The Canon law states very clearly that a priest is wholly forbidden to use knowledge acquired in confession to the detriment of the penitent. That is to say, the sinner or the abuser. Furthermore, matters revealed in confession, including child abuse, cannot be used for the purposes of governance. Again, Canon law directs this. A person who is in authority may not in any way, for the purposes of external governance, use the knowledge about sins which has come to him during the confession. One could not think of a more serious example of a structural obstacle embedded in the law of the Catholic Church to child protection. There have been many public inquiries here, in Australia, America, Ireland, Scotland, and it demonstrates that the Catholic Church has a modus operandi. It fails to report or record child abuse. It often shields abusers and simply moves them to another place. Often, the evidence has shown that this permits abuse to continue again. We have heard of this today in relation to Nicholas White. My clients seek truth, justice and accountability. But most importantly, they want to know that children in Catholic institutions now and in the future are safe from abuse. So in conclusion, I return to the three questions that we and counsel to the inquiry say this inquiry must seek answers to: first, how big is the problem? Currently, we do not know, because the church  has not, will not or possibly is not capable of providing us with that information. However, in order to fulfil the terms of reference of this inquiry, the church must be compelled to produce the fullest picture possible.  Secondly, are there structural inhibitors to child protection in the church? The answer to this appears to be yes. The refusal to divulge or act upon reports of child abuse in the confessional is an obvious example of a most serious structural inhibitor to child protection. But there are others. Finally, is the Catholic Church capable of enforcing good governance and high uniform standards of child protection? The answer appears to be: no. The Catholic Church is so opaque, so disparate, so full of  separate bodies who are not answerable to any central authority, it is hard to see how, without huge reform, it can provide good governance and the high uniform standards of child protection. So the question this inquiry must answer is: can the many strands of the Catholic Church, culturally, structurally and inherently, provide a safe place for children in Britain? Thank you.