MINNESOTA
Canonical Consultation
06/10/2015
Jennifer Haselberger
Back in June of 2012, when the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis learned of the abuse committed by then-Father Curtis Wehmeyer, chancery officials, clergy, and other interested parties in the Archdiocese were forced to choose sides. Each individual had to choose if they would stand with the boys that had been harmed (along with all of the other individuals who had been hurt by acts of sexual abuse by clergy) or stand with the corrupt, unholy bureaucracy that the Chancery had become. The side one chose dictated one’s actions. You either pursued accountability and an almost revolutionary change in the system, or you tried to hide the administrative acts and omissions that led to the abuse. The decision was not academic, and it was not amoral. Siding with the ‘church’, if you will, meant ignoring or disregarding the suffering of the boys that had been harmed (and their family) and causing additional harm to them by forcing them to substantiate their allegations without support, leaving them without the resources necessary for their ongoing care, and reinforcing the idea that they had somehow deserved or otherwise been responsible for their own abuse.
For some of us, the June 2012 revelations marked a line drawn in the sand. Although convinced long before that the Archdiocese’s child protection efforts were a sham, without additional victims (victims that couldn’t be deemed ‘ not credible’, that is) those efforts couldn’t be called a failure. In June of 2012, however, the failure became obvious to everyone at 226 Summit, the corruption was palpable, and therefore continuing down the same path was no longer an option.
That line in the sand still exists, as does the need to choose sides. You either stand with the boys who have been harmed, or you stand with the Archdiocese. There is no middle road. If you don’t believe me, listen to the audio of last week’s press conference by the Ramsey County Attorney. At around the 7-minute mark the County Attorney praises those clergy and laity who ‘chose to reveal the truth despite its implications’…those who spoke about their knowledge of what occurred, and sadly what has been occurring for many years. The County Attorney spoke of the consequences those individuals could face, and their courage in coming forward. Implicit was a critique of those who have not cooperated, or who have responded to summons or requests for interviews with subterfuge and half-truths.
A close reading of the criminal complaint makes it obvious to those ‘in the know’ just who these individuals are. It also makes it obvious that the Chancery itself, while claiming to be cooperating, is only doing so in half measures. They might produce a memo or two, but then the third of the series will be missing. They might turn over one page of an email, but the other two pages (including that identifying the recipient) are claimed to be ‘privileged’ and not disclosed. And, it appears that they have not given investigators the Greene Espel report on the investigation into the Archbishop’s conduct. That report would be particularly relevant to the ongoing investigation, especially considering the information it contains regarding the history of Nienstedt’s relationship with Curtis Wehmeyer. Certainly had that document been produced it would have been referenced in the complaint.
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.