MINNESOTA
Canonical Consultation
Jennifer Haselberger
01/12/2015
‘…when first we practice to deceive’. Or at least so said Sir Walter Scott, writing in ‘Marmion’. The quote is a particularly apt choice to introduce my reflections on today’s release of the personnel file of Father Michael Keating, a priest of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis ‘on leave’ as a result of accusations of sexual misconduct with a minor. Although much of what the file contains was known to me before today, this most recent review of its contents has left me with seven questions that I believe require a response from the Archdiocese. They are as follows:
1). Where is the rest of the file?
Those of you who have read my affidavit in the Doe 1 case know that I testified about the situation of Father Keating, and also listed several documents that demonstrate the extent of the Archdiocese’s knowledge of the accusations of sexual misconduct against him and other clergy prior to my going public in September of 2013. Some of those documents became public with today’s release, including the list of priests identified as requiring monitoring under the POMS [Promotor of Ministerial Standards] program (Keating File, Part 2, pp. 276-277). So, I ask, where are the other documents that named Keating, including John Selvig’s April 2013 list of POMs participants and their offences, and the ‘Assignment List’ created by Judy Delaney? Also, where is the memo from Andy Eisenzimmer to Archbishop Nienstedt regarding Father Keating’s participating in the ‘Rediscover’ initiative, the Archbishop’s response, as well as all the other emails and memos exchanged during the planning for such major events? I would also ask why the file contains some emails and documents regarding Father Keating’s 2011 appointment to the Presbyteral Council, but none whatsoever regarding the 2009-2010 decision not to allow him to serve the remainder of Father Laird’s term as Academic Dean following Laird’s appointment as Vicar General. Finally, where is the preliminary investigative report of Father Talbot, as well as the subsequent weekly reports required by the decree opening the investigation (more on this below)?
2). What punishment has been administered to Father Kevin McDonough?
This question is not the result of self-interest, as I have long believed that the only way that Father McDonough and I will resolve our quarrel is by meeting with pistols at dawn. Rather, I would like to know what punishment has been inflicted upon the former Vicar General and Delegate for Safe Environment for repeatedly undermining the efforts of his Archbishop(s).
The Keating file demonstrates McDonough working against the will of his bishop beginning in 2006, when the Clergy Review Board recommended that Father Keating be enrolled in the POMS monitoring program (Keating File, Part 1, p. 128). Emails between [Bishop] Lee Piche, Father McDonough, and Tim Rourke show that McDonough deliberately delayed taking action until May of 2010, when it could no longer be avoided (Keating File, Part 2, pp. 1-3).
A similar undermining is evident in McDonough’s exchange with Father James Shea of the University of Mary in August of 2012. Although Father Keating was instructed by Archbishop Nienstedt to disclose his history to the University, Father McDonough intervened and presented Father Shea with a significantly rosier account of what had transpired (along with plenty of his own opinions) in contravention of the Archbishop’s order (Keating File, Part 2, pp. 156, 158, 159-161).
Obviously, the University of Saint Thomas took conclusive steps by removing Father McDonough from its Board of Trustees. But has the Archdiocese taken any action against him? His resignation as Delegate was in the works long before I resigned, and at his request. The website for Saint Peter Claver parish in Saint Paul still lists him as pastor, as does this weekend’s bulletin from Incarnation/Sagrado Corazon. Perhaps rumors of an investigation into Father McDonough’s conduct are true, and the Archdiocese is preparing to impose some sort of penalty. Still, it would seem that leaving him in parishes in the meantime (especially given investigations by law enforcement and the questions that have been asked about Father McDonough’s participation) calls into question the Archdiocese’s commitment to its own disciplinary program.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.