# External Review Board *Review board of St. John's Abbey, Collegeville, Minnesota; named in one at-issue pair (the abbey's abuse-file disclosure).* The External Review Board was a review body of St. John's Abbey, a monastery in Collegeville, [[Minnesota]]. It appears in the record through a single episode. The abbey released files on eighteen monks accused of abusing children, in a disclosure that the National Catholic Reporter put at fifteen thousand pages.[^1][^2] A man who had sat on the abbey's own External Review Board then said publicly that the abbey's list was incomplete.[^3] The sources cited here are news reports. They do not set out the board's founding instrument, its membership rules, or its reporting duties. They also do not establish that it was a public body, or that any Minnesota statute governed it. The record shows two things: the institution's own account of its disclosure, and a former board member's public statement disputing that the account was complete. It does not show which account is correct.[^1][^3] ## Who - Patrick Marker sat on the abbey's External Review Board from 2003 to 2006, according to Bring Me The News. He publicly raised the question of whether the abbey's disclosure was complete.[^3] ## What - St. John's Abbey released files on eighteen monks accused of abusing children.[^2][^3] - The National Catholic Reporter describes the release as a 15,000-page disclosure.[^1] - According to that report, the abbey stated that seven of the monks remained on campus under monitored safety plans. It stated that nine had died and two had left monastic life.[^1] ## How many - Monks whose files were released: eighteen.[^1][^3] - Pages in the disclosure: 15,000, as reported.[^1] - Of the eighteen, as the abbey stated: seven remained on campus under monitored safety plans, nine had died, and two had left monastic life.[^1] - Years of Marker's service on the External Review Board, as reported: 2003 to 2006.[^3] ## In the at-issue record - **St. John's Abbey, Collegeville (AI-Stearns-009).** This pair sets two accounts against each other. The first is the abbey's own: its release of files on eighteen monks and its accounting of where those monks were.[^1][^2] The second is the public statement of a former member of the abbey's External Review Board that the list was incomplete.[^3] The record establishes that both accounts were made public. It does not establish which is correct, and it records no finding about any person's state of mind. ## Notes [^1]: National Catholic Reporter, *Sexual abuse at St. John's Abbey revealed in 15,000-page disclosure* (undated in the record) — the disclosure covered files on eighteen monks; the abbey stated that seven remained on campus under monitored safety plans, nine had died, and two had left monastic life. https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/sexual-abuse-st-johns-abbey-revealed-15000-page-disclosure [^2]: Star Tribune, *In a landmark move, St. John's Abbey releases files on accused-of-abuse monks* (undated in the record) — the abbey's release of the files. https://www.startribune.com/in-a-landmark-move-st-john-s-abbey-releases-files-on-accused-of-abuse-monks/365821711 [^3]: Bring Me The News, *St. John's Abbey releases files on 18 monks accused of abusing children* (undated in the record) — the release of files on eighteen monks; the completeness dispute raised by Patrick Marker, a member of the abbey's External Review Board from 2003 to 2006. https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/st-johns-abbey-releases-files-on-18-monks-accused-of-abusing-children