Joe Soucheray: Nienstedt Allegation Is Difficult to Believe
By Joe Soucheray
It was an additional and surprising revelation that the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis was not cooperating with St. Paul police concerning investigations into alleged sexual improprieties by clergy, but now they are. Rather than send only lawyers into the front parlor to meet with investigators, the archdiocese this past week sent its vicar general, the Rev. Charles Lachowitzer, to meet with police. Yes. Lachowitzer was accompanied by one of the lawyers, but at least there was a high-ranking collar in the room. That is progress. Progress seems to have been jump-started by the allegation made last week by an unnamed male that Archbishop John Nienstedt inappropriately touched the fellow on the butt during a photo session following a confirmation ceremony in 2009. Confirmations are, in their aftermaths, clamorous affairs because everybody has a camera these days and everybody wants a chance to get a photo or a bit of video stream with an archbishop posed with a new young soldier of the faith. It might be foolhardy to say that I am not buying it -- the alleged touching -- because we have been surprised at nearly every turn, including Nienstedt's apology last week when he delivered sermons at Our Lady of Grace in Edina. Here, again, we simply had a failure of modern public relations. Nienstedt said he failed to pay close enough attention because he said he was told upon his arrival as archbishop in 2008 that sexual abuse by clergy had been contained and taken care of. That was a ridiculous position for him to take. It wasn't exactly a non-apology apology, so common today in America's cultural swoon, but it did not meet the standards expected of a boss. No less ridiculous is the suggestion that Nienstedt did what he is alleged to have done. Come forward, young man, and tell us exactly what you mean when you charge that the archbishop inappropriately touched you. What exactly is an inappropriate touching of the butt -- a pat, a slap, a brushing against? A brushing against is entirely plausible giving the clamorous nature of the post-confirmation excitement. This nebulous idea of touching elevated to an actionable sexual deviancy would mean that the pope, who has been hugging people right and left, is committing a foul every time he takes the face of the deformed in his loving hands and gives them a kiss. Good Lord, the pope has been holding children. The new spirit of cooperation between the police and the archdiocese would appear to be a distinct development from the new allegation. It might have inspired the cooperation, which we thought was already taking place, but it is coincidental. Progress is being made even as a new threat comes in over the transom. Nienstedt might not be everybody's cup of tea, especially in this day of cafeteria picking and choosing among canonical truths. He has not exactly wandered the streets as a man of the people. But neither does he deserve this inelegant and quite possibly preposterous charge made against him in the days before Christmas. By all accounts he has no record of such behavior, certainly denies this charge, and he immediately took himself out of service to get this squared away. To get it squared away will require the accuser to come forward and tell the archbishop what happened, real or imagined. There might be legitimate reasons to question Nienstedt's ability to lead an archdiocese in crisis, but to send him packing, to humiliate him, on this slimmest and most conveniently timed allegation, smacks of piling on, shooting fish in a barrel or whatever you want to call it. If somehow the touching of another is a crime, then there are people in all walks of life who will hang side by side. Contact: jsoucheray@pioneerpress.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.