BishopAccountability.org
 
 

On Leave Pending Review?

By Jennifer Haselberger
Canonical Consultation
December 8, 2015

http://canonicalconsultation.com/blog.html

Yesterday, it was announced that the US Supreme Court had declined to hear the appeal of Father Christopher Wenthe, a priest of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis who in 2011 was convicted of third degree criminal sexual conduct under a Minnesota law that makes it a felony for a member of the clergy to engage in sexual conduct with a person to whom he or she is providing spiritual care. Wenthe has long admitted to the sexual relationship with the victim; the dispute is over whether that sexual relationship occurred simultaneous to his providing her with religious comfort or support.

None of this is news. The Wenthe case first appeared in the newspapers in February of 2011, when he was arrested from his offices at the Delano Catholic Community (the Churches of St. Joseph and St. Peter). The charges dated back to 2003, when Wenthe was the newly-ordained associate priest at the Church of the Nativity of Our Lord in Saint Paul. The Archdiocese first learned of the relationship shortly after it ended, and both Wenthe and the victim received counseling and other services from the Archdiocese. Then, Wenthe was returned to ministry, first as an associate priest in Stillwater and then as pastor in Delano. The female victim became an employee of the Archdiocese, working in the Office of Marriage and Family Life.

The victim only reported the matter to police in 2010, after learning that Wenthe had been appointed pastor and given spiritual charge of a parish community. According to the Star Tribune, Ramsey County prosecutors argued in court that ' the "final straw" for the victim was when the archdiocese appointed Wenthe as a pastor in Delano, and Archbishop John Nienstedt wrote a letter to her saying that she should trust the shepherds of the church.' The paper also reported the victim as testifying, 'I felt [then] the burden fell on me to ensure that all the details were known to the public.'

With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case, it seems that the long legal battle over the relationship between Wenthe and the victim is finally at an end. But, what about Father Wenthe's status as a priest? Clearly, both the Church and the civil authorities investigated this matter years ago (the Church in the early 2000s, and the police for an extended period in 2010-2011). Wenthe was convicted of the criminal charges in 2011, served time until 2012, then was released and placed on probation. Canon law allows penalties to be applied against a priest who has violated his obligation of celibacy, but the canonical statute of limitations for those incidents (unlike for the crime of sexual abuse of a minor) is capped at five years following the occurrence of the behavior and (again unlike cases of sexual abuse of minors) penalties can't be applied once that five year period has expired.

This is what makes the Archdiocese's statement yesterday surprising. Asked about Wenthe's future as a priest of the Archdiocese, Archdiocesan Director of Ministerial Standards Tim O'Malley is quoted as saying that Wenthe will remain on leave pending an internal review of his actions. According to the Pioneer Press, O'Malley said in a statement, 'In accordance with our normal protocols, the internal review process begins only after completion of any criminal investigation and judicial process so as to not interfere with either.'

Wait, what? The Wenthe case was internally reviewed a decade ago, and the decision was made at that time to return him to active ministry and appoint him pastor. The criminal investigation was resolved with his sentencing in 2011, and the judicial process has only continued because of appeals generated by Wenthe with the financial backing of the Archdiocese. Furthermore, the delay in action on the part of the Archdiocese has already ensured that no canonical penalties can be applied. So, either Father Wenthe has committed additional acts of misconduct that require internal review (which I think is extremely unlikely) or the Archdiocese has made a false statement with the intention of deceiving the public about its ability and willingness to penalize errant clergy. Again.

 

 

 

 

 




.

 
 

Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.