Many Questions, but Few Answers...

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
June 17, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

As many of you know by now, the announcement that Archbishop Nienstedt and Bishop Piche had resigned their offices as Archbishop/Auxiliary of Saint Paul and Minneapolis was made on a day when two other things of possible significance were scheduled to occur. One of those things was my second interview with investigators from the Ramsey County Attorney's Office. The other was the biannual assembly of the priests of the Archdiocese.

When Ramsey County investigators called me to schedule Monday's interview, they were very clear about what they wanted to talk about. They informed me that they were still working towards a determination of whether Archbishop John Nienstedt, Bishop Lee Piche, and perhaps other Chancery officials would be criminally charged as individuals for their role in abuse committed by Curtis Wehmeyer. To that end, they wanted to know what I had been asked when I was interviewed for the Greene Espel investigation, and what information I had provided.

The County Attorney's Office is not alone in being interested in that investigation. Many priests, lay Catholics, and journalists have called for a public release of the investigative report. However, I think it is important to point out that my impression is that the County Attorney's interest in the investigation's conclusions are different from your and my interest, that of the general public, or even that of the Church. To be blunt, I believe the County Attorney is not interested in whether Archbishop Nienstedt is homosexual, heterosexual or, like Miley Cyrus, 'open to anything'. I don't think he is interested in whether Archbishop Nienstedt was faithful to his promise of celibacy or his obligation of chastity. He is not- as far as I can tell- particularly interested in what may or may not have occurred in Detroit, Rome, or New Ulm. His interest is purely in how the Archbishop's personal conduct impacted his decision making when it came to Curtis Wehmeyer and the safety of children and young people in this Archdiocese.

This was also a concern of Greene Espel, and something that I believe they investigated as thoroughly as they were able. In fact, when I was originally approached by the firm's investigators for an interview in the spring of 2014 the specific reason for the request was to discuss what I knew or might know about the relationship between Nienstedt and Wehmeyer. Of course, the Greene Espel ambit was not as limited as that of the County Attorney. Nienstedt's January 29, 2014, letter authorizing the investigation (which I was shown at the time of my interview) stated the mandate was to 'investigate allegations in my [Nienstedt's] past'. That same letter instructed Bishop Piche to see that the results of the investigation were provided to the Archdiocese and to Nienstedt himself.

Having zero trust in the Archdiocese and its processes, I cooperated in the Greene Espel investigation but also took copious notes about my interviews. As such, I was able to review these notes and share my recollections with Ramsey County, along with other information that I received following the news of the investigation becoming public in July of 2014 (I also provided them with some recent recordings of high-ranking Chancery officials discussing the Greene Espel investigation...). And, I was able to share with investigators some additional impressions that may be relevant to their inquiry. For instance, at the conclusion of my first interview with Greene Espel I asked how much time I had to get back to the investigators with the follow-up information that had been requested. They replied that there was no specific timeline for the conclusion of the investigation (something I found extremely strange and unusual for a quasi-canonical investigation) but that they would prefer the response sooner rather than later as there was a concern that the Archdiocese could prematurely end the investigation at any time.

I mention this because I think it is important that we acknowledge that, should any information about the Greene Espel investigation or its conclusions become public, the damage is likely not going to be solely attributable to the salacious and scandalous conduct of the former Archbishop (although from what I know, that will be bad enough). I have every reason to believe that the Greene Espel report- if one even was received by the Archdiocese- would demonstrate that current Chancery officials and others sought to obstruct or discredit the investigation, that fear and intimidation was used against witnesses and potential witnesses, that Archbishop Flynn was informed of at least some of the allegations either prior to or immediately following Nienstedt's appointment as coadjutor Archbishop and may even have spoken with some of those who later provided sworn statements for the G&E investigation, and that the definition of 'past' (as in 'allegations in my past') did not have the broad historical connotation that the Archbishop's public statements sought to suggest, but most definitely included his behavior after his assuming the role of Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis in May of 2008 and continuing through 2013. Finally, I think it is an open question how, why, and when the Greene and Espel investigation ended. Did the Archdiocese prematurely end the contract, as was feared and as some have alleged? Or, did Greene Espel terminate the relationship because of obstruction emanating from the Archdiocese and its agents?

The facts that can answer these questions being lost in a fog of privilege claims and apparent institutional amnesia, my interview with Ramsey County went ahead as scheduled, despite the news of the resignations of Archbishop Nienstedt and Bishop Piche. And, before that interview was concluded the Ramsey County Attorney's Office had issued a statement noting that the resignations, while a potential step forward, did not impact its ongoing work to investigate and prosecute the Archdiocese and possibly some individuals for the crimes that are alleged. I was also left with the distinct impression that the County Attorney's Office had come to the conclusion that 'there are more ways than one to skin a cat'. In other words, if the Archdiocese was not going to be forthcoming regarding the Greene Espel investigation and its report, then Ramsey County would supply for this deficiency by recreating the investigation with a goal of reaching its own conclusions. To that end they intend to speak with anyone that was interviewed by Greene Espel, or anyone of whom an interview was requested. If you would like to call them before they call you, the number is 651-266-3102.

The fact that I had been interviewed about the Greene Espel investigation was public knowledge by early Monday afternoon, and so there was an opportunity for the Archdiocese and its representatives to speak honestly to the priests about what they could expect in the coming days, months, and weeks when they gathered for the Q&A session of the presbyteral assembly that evening. Perhaps not surprisingly, a question about the Greene Espel investigation and its report was asked, and it was even suggested by one priest that the Archdiocese should get that 'settled' so that the other shoe doesn't drop in a few weeks. The same priest pointed out that if there was bad news in the report, it was better to come out and say it now rather than have to deal with it later.

In responding to these points, Bishop Cozzens chose not to share the facts of my interview, of the ongoing investigations, the possible if not likely criminal charges against individuals, or even the interest of the Ramsey County Attorney in the Greene Espel report. He simply told the priests that he agreed with the sentiments, but that it was a matter of what could be done, and something they still needed to figure out.

Most importantly, he did not mention or discuss whether law enforcement had recently executed a search warrant or similar court order at the Chancery in connection with the investigation. This was also a missed opportunity, given that priests are incredibly concerned about the information in their personnel files and what might become of it. I would think the priests would have welcomed the opportunity to inquire if and when such a warrant was sought and/or executed, what might have been searched in the process and what might have been seized, where that information is now, and what the Archdiocese intends to do about it.

Unfortunately, transparency, it appears, is still not an attribute of Archdiocesan leadership. Nor, it would seem, is the division between the priests and the Chancery likely to lessen any time soon.