The Saint Paul Witch Trials, Part II: The Tape

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
March 09, 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.