'No news' isn't always good news.

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
April 8, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

Over the weekend I had a conversation about the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis that left me more than a little despondent. My conversational partner was someone whom I can generally trust to have a fairly good read of the state of things in the Roman Curia, which is why the information he had to impart troubled me more than most of what I hear. For, after speaking for a while about the different personas of Pope Francis- the much-loved public persona as opposed to the actual man himself- the person I was speaking with assured me that the 'real Francis' was extremely unlikely to take any action regarding the situation in Saint Paul. In other words, barring some unforeseen development, Archbishop Nienstedt was here to stay.

For months journalists have been telling me that the 'unforeseen development' has to be for Nienstedt's accusers to make public their sworn affidavits (something I think we have all realized that the Archdiocese, despite its claims of transparency, is extremely unlikely to do). Proponents of this argument will point out that the difference between Saint Paul and both Scotland and Chile is that in the other scenarios the victims had gone public with their claims. That is, of course, true, but I am adamantly opposed to the idea that the cure for what ails us must rest on the shoulders of those whom have already suffered. Those men- whether there are ten or twenty of them- offered sworn statements at considerable risk to themselves. In response, at least some of them have been harassed by the Archdiocese and its never-ending pool of lawyers, who apparently have been tasked with discrediting them. We cannot ask anything more of those men.

But we can ask for quite a bit more from another group of people with a stake in the outcome of the investigation into the conduct of the Archbishop, as well as in the broader troubles plaguing the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. This group is our clergy, and most specifically our Archdiocesan priests. To be fair, many of these men are not in a position to provide any assistance to the cause beyond minor acts of rebellion, and we should also recognize that there are many priests who fall into this category and who have demonstrated through means large and small their opposition to the current holder of the See and his methods of governance. At the same time, I have not heard of any letters signed by a majority of the presbyterate calling for the Archbishop's resignation and removal (as was done in Chile), although back in 2003 more than 100 of them were willing to sign a letter calling for a discussion of mandatory celibacy [Fr Michael Byron would like it noted that, contrary to what is stated in the linked article, he did not sign the letter], and in 2006 nearly thirty signed a letter to Archbishop Flynn promising to oppose any attempts to pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. 

Then again, perhaps it is not necessary for the entire presbyterate to engage in open rebellion (at least not yet). If what is necessary is for information about the investigation of Nienstedt to become public, than all it would take is for one or two priests to muster their courage and break ranks with the Chancery, possibly redeeming themselves in the process. After all, it was a diocesan priest- and not Bishop Piche- who acted as the liaison between Greene Espel and the Archdiocese, just as it was another diocesan priest who was tasked with making my report known to the person or persons conducting the investigation.

\Who are these priests, you ask? Well, they are no other than Fathers Daniel Griffith (pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes in Minneapolis) and Ralph Talbot (pastor of Saint Mary of the Lake in White Bear). Two priests who, as I wrote in my affidavit in the Doe 1 case, I originally considered to be allies in the battle to create a safer environment for children and the vulnerable in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. My opinion on that matter, and of the two men themselves, has diminished significantly since the fall of 2013, when they both chose to align themselves with the Chancery in Saint Paul. Father Dan Griffith became the Delegate for Safe Environment following the departure of Father McDonough, while Father Talbot became an erstwhile supporter of Archbishop Nienstedt despite his role as an 'independent' investigator and board member. 

Between the two of them, Fathers Griffith and Talbot could undoubtedly provide the 'unforeseen developments' necessary to land the W.D.O.E back on the Roman radar. After all, Father Griffith has the information gathered by Greene Espel, and Father Talbot has everything else (Father Talbot was also the Review Board member with whom I shared all the incriminating documents so that that the knowledge would not be lost when my employment ended). One would assume that both men, as men of God if not as civil attorneys, would have shared their information with law enforcement, internal consultative bodies like the Safe Environment and Ministerial Standards Task Force, or even with the media who have struggled to bring these issues to the attention of the public. However, I have it on good authority that neither have been willing to add their names to anything of the kind.


Perhaps it is time for their brother priests to attempt a little 'fraternal correction', and persuade these two to put self-interest aside? Or, perhaps their parishioners, or even the broader community, should consider trying to exert pressure upon them in the hopes that they can be made to see the light? Having been so bitterly disappointed by them once before, I have to admit that I don't hold out much hope. Then again, the alternative is one that I don't think any of us want to contemplate.