This 2011 Dutch video says about itself (translated):
This presentation was made on the occasion of a reunion in November 2008. The still living classmates of the minor seminary in Weert – graduating class 1964 – sent photographs and other material to Ad van Zeeland for that purpose. He made a comprehensive presentation of all of this that paints an extensive picture of learning and becoming a priest some 45 years ago. In the meantime it has become clear that sexual abuse has also taken place at this seminary and this is now mentioned in the film.
Translated from Dutch NOS TV today:
Victims of abuse at Minor Seminary in Weert heard
by Bas de Vries
The court case of a victim of abuse against the Minor Seminary of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit under the protection of the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary in Weert will continue this fall. At the beginning of this year, his civil lawsuit against the boarding school seemed to get stuck when the court in Roermond determined that the case was barred.
The Court of Appeal in Den Bosch has since ruled that Arnold-Jan Prinsen may hear various witnesses before the examining magistrate. Those witnesses may confirm the essence of his reproach: that the congregation leadership knew that one of the fathers was a pedosexual, but did nothing to protect children like Prinsen. “For the first time, there is now a judicial investigation into abuse in the Roman Catholic Church“, says his lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld.
The now 66-year-old man says he was abused in 1964 [when he was 11 years old] by a priest in Weert. Only in 2015 did he find out that the boarding school was already aware in 1961 of another abuse case by the same clergyman. According to Zegveld, the usual barring period of 30 years should therefore not apply in this case.
Prinsen got psychological problems four years ago due to his discovery and that, according to him, cost him hundreds of thousands of euros in his dental practice. He holds the congregation in Weert responsible for this. They no longer contradict the facts, as is apparent from the ruling by the court, but they invoke the barring period.