The Saint Paul Witch Trials, Part Ii: the Tape

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
March 9, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

On December 12, 2013, Archbishop Nienstedt met with the priests of one of the geographic deaneries in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The purpose of the meeting was for the priests to be able to share with the Archbishop their thoughts on what was then a blossoming sexual abuse crisis in the Archdiocese. Unbeknownst to the Archbishop, or to Bishop Piche (who accompanied him to the meeting), the conversation was being secretly recorded. Within days the recording had made its way to the news media and to law enforcement, and the unguarded statements of the two bishops would become important pieces of information as various organizations attempted to put together who knew what and when. To this day, neither the transcript nor the full recording of that meeting has been made public.

Perhaps not surprising, one of the first questions that was raised by a member of the deanery at the meeting with the Archbishop had to do with the Kinsale file review. Priests, even at that particular moment, questioned what Kinsale was looking for in the files, and wanted to know what the mandate of the review team was. They also wanted to know what standards were being applied in terms of the credibility of accusations and the types of incidents that would be identified as concerns.

After defending the decision to hire Kinsale, the Archbishop made the following statement:

'In terms of what they’re looking for, they have an eye for misconduct, and I think, I can’t say for sure because I do rely on Susan Mulharen and Joe Kueppers in terms of the kind of levels of misconduct they would be looking at, but my understanding is that anything that really stood out, they would bring that to my attention and I would have to weigh that. If it seems substantial, and I would be weighing that with Bishop Piche and Bishop Cozzens and Father Lachowitzer, and if it was of substance, then we would have to talk to the priest about it. If it had something to do with the Charter [for the Protection of Children and Young People], and I don’t believe that there... I think you saw the people who have violated the Charter in the disclosure that we did last week. If it had to do with other kind of misconduct, that would go to the Ministerial Standards Board which has been formed now. And then we would allow them to make a recommendation to me. But certainly the priest--. I mean, I am, I am on your side. And it hurts me whenever we have to take steps against a priest because I, like you, hold the priesthood in such esteem, but we’re just living in this atmosphere now that it’s, I think in order to re-establish credibility, we have to be able to say we don’t have anyone in ministry who is a danger to children or to vulnerable adults.'

When I first heard this statement, I hoped that it would become public much earlier than this, because it is the epitome of what I was dealing with during all my years as Chancellor. On December 12, 2013, the Archbishop was still in denial that there were priests that were credibly accused of sexual abuse of minors beyond the 33 whose names had been provided in court filings in 2009. This was a mere week after the original list was published. By the month's end, Nienstedt would have to remove the faculties of an additional priest who was still exercising ministry, Reverend Ken LaVan, and at least two more priests would be publicly placed on leaves of absence for concerns related to their conduct with minors. By February, the Archdiocese would disclose the names of nine more priests it had found to be credibly accused. In May of 2014, an additional five names would be published. Other removals occurred more quietly.

What strikes me now, however, is the lack of clarity even then as to who was in charge of the file review, what their responsibilities were, and how any concerns identified were going to be evaluated. Substantial? Substance? This is hardly the explanation owing to priests who had quite legitimate concerns. And, these issues would become increasingly important in the coming months, as the Archdiocese came to learn, through news reports, that the secret recording had been made.

The Archdiocese would come to learn of the tape before the end of January, when MPR reported its existence as part of a story on church finances. However, it was not clear at that point that the Archbishop had been recorded. That was not discovered until the end of February, when the Archbishop's comments were incorporated into a story about the victims of Curtis Wehmeyer.

While the Archdiocese's public response to the recording was its typical blustering about comments being taken out of context, unlike its response to clerical sexual misconduct the Archdiocese took swift action to discover who had made the secret recording and to try and obtain a copy of the audio. The charge, if you will, was led by none other than Father Ralph Talbot, the host of the deanery meeting, a member of the Clergy Review Board and, we would later learn, a designated investigator under the Nienstedt regime. Within days he had forced a confession from the priest responsible for the recording and reported his findings back to the Chancery.

So far, none of this is really that surprising. The questionable nature of the file review and the potential exploitation of its results only became apparent after Father Talbot made his report, on Ash Wednesday of 2014 (March 5). That afternoon, the priest who had made the recording of the Archbishop, and who had refused to provide a copy to Father Talbot, was notified by phone that his file had been flagged during the Kinsale review due to an accusation involving a minor from decades ago.

I can't even begin to describe the emotional state of that priest when he called and told me what had occurred. And, unfortunately, my assurance that I was familiar with his file and it did not contain any accusations of sexual abuse of a minor did not do much to comfort him. With the assistance of supportive petitioners he was able to retain a criminal defense attorney. In the meantime, I suggested that he call the Chancery back and ask them who they were sending to offer his Ash Wednesday services. After all, per their own policy if they had a credible accusation of sexual abuse of a minor, the priest would have to be immediately removed from ministry and placed on leave.

Needless to say, no replacement minister was sent. However, that didn't mean that their baseless persecution of the priest came to an end. Instead, the priest was ordered come to a meeting with Bishop Piche at the Chancery the next day, with 'the nature of the claim involving a minor' used as an argument as to why the meeting could not be delayed until the priest could retain a lawyer and have him present. The priest politely declined the invitation which, thankfully, prompted further communication by Father Daniel Griffith, Delegate for Safe Environment, via email, meaning that this particular priest is one of the few that has received any written indication of what it is claimed has been alleged against him.

With the priest lawyered up, and having seriously overplayed their hand, Chancery officials have more or less left this particular priest alone (in his parish) for the last year. He has never been removed, he has not gone before any review board, and, in fact, Chancery officials have had to acknowledge that no claim of sexual abuse of a minor had ever been made against him. Other priests, however, have not been so lucky.

And, the Archdiocese did find a small way to 'get even' with the priest responsible for making the secret recording of the Archbishop. The stress of being told (falsely) that he was accused of sexual abuse of minor, coupled with the uncertainty of his status in the days and weeks following, has certainly taken its toll. To add insult to injury, the Archdiocese has refused to reimburse the priest for the expenses of his legal representation. Citing 'archdiocesan policy', the same Chancery that provided an extra $900 a month in retirement income to Father Robert Kapoun in part to cover legal expenses incurred during his trials for sexual abuse refused to pay less than $2000 to cover the retainer paid to an attorney for a priest who was threatened with a non-existent accusation in an attempt to strong arm him into providing information on the secret recording he had made.

While the situation of this priest is somewhat unique, this is only one example of the abuse of power that is taking place under the guise of the so-called file review. There are other priests who have not gotten off so easily, but who remain out of ministry despite the absence of any type of accusation involving sexual misconduct, minors or otherwise. A personal tragedy for them, it is also a spiritual travesty for us. At least once a week the Archdiocese sends out a 'Locations in Need' email, listing those places that do not have priests to cover Masses or hear confessions. Frequently that list includes the Holy Family Residence run by the Little Sisters of the Poor, in addition to parishes and other institutions. It is unclear to me how the Archdiocese can justify denying the sacraments to the elderly and disabled- who cannot travel to receive them elsewhere- simply in order to act out personal vendettas against otherwise capable, unpenalized priests. Such a thing should not be tolerated.

What is clear, however, is that-internally at least- the Archdiocese's file review has become a red herring. No longer about creating a safe environment (the situation with Father Stolzman put to rest that argument), it has become instead a way for certain individuals to try and turn attention away from their failures by focusing attention on what is, in many cases, the comparatively trivial complaints that naturally make their way into every priest's personnel file. Who are these 'certain individuals'?