MINNESOTA
St. John’s Abbey
Questions and Answers regarding release of files by Attorney Jeff Anderson, November 25, 2015
Q: Why are the files of these monks being released now?
A: The Abbey voluntarily gave the files to the law firm of Jeff Anderson and Associates some time ago. Anderson and Associates are releasing these materials now in batches—this is the first. The materials to be published include the monks’ work histories, the accusations made against them and personal correspondence. The monks whose files are being released all have been publicly identified by Saint John’s Abbey years ago.
Q: Does the release of files reflect new allegations against the monks?
A: No. The allegations involve incidents that occurred 20-50 years ago. Minnesota media have reported that Anderson is releasing the files now to encourage those who feel they may have claims against the monks to come forward before the May 2016 expiration of the Minnesota Child Victims Act, the legislation that suspended the statute of limitations for such cases.
Q: Mr. Anderson alleged that some monks may have been involved in hundreds of incidents. If true, how did all this occur without the Abbey taking action?
A: Every instance of abuse is a tragedy. Every allegation the Abbey received involving abuse of a minor was dealt with thoughtfully, with respect for the victims and with the intention of holding abusers accountable. Mr. Anderson’s press conference statements and the follow-up media coverage make it easy for the public to infer that there were hundreds of cases involving minors, that some cases of abuse are recent and that the Abbey willfully overlooked these actions. None of that is true. Here are the facts:
First, the Abbey received a single allegation of abuse of a minor involving Father Finian McDonald. The allegation received prompt attention and was a major factor for the increasing restrictions placed on Father McDonald. Beyond that, though, it is clear that Father McDonald had a secret life involving illicit behavior during his travels. This secret life only came to light because of the Abbey’s pursuit of the truth and its determination to get Father McDonald into further treatment. The Abbey was not covering up for Father McDonald, it was responsible for revealing to Mr. Anderson and others the extent of his actions.
Second, Mr. Anderson implies that every student who accompanied Father Richard Eckroth to his lake cabin was the victim of abuse. Again, that claim is not supported by the facts, including the accounts of the vast majority of those who were at the cabin with Father Eckroth. Every case of abuse is a tragedy and this is not to minimize what those who claimed to have been victimized experienced. But it also is unfair to stigmatize everyone who was with Father Eckroth as Mr. Anderson’s implications do.
Third, Mr. Anderson in his press conference seemed to intentionally use recent dates and extreme numbers of incidents to suggest that abuse of minors is current, that the Abbey was negligent in its efforts to uncover the facts and that vulnerable people, including children, remained vulnerable to those against whom there were credible allegations of abuse. None of that is true. As the news media reported, Mr. Anderson’s goal in his press conference was to encourage people who want to file a claim to come forward before the May 2016 expiration of the extended statute of limitations. There is no question that some monks’ actions were inexcusable, but some of Mr. Anderson’s claims simply don’t stand up to scrutiny.
Q: Mr. Anderson said the Abbey paid “hush” money in return for some monks’ agreement to leave the Abbey. Is this true?
A: This claim is outrageous. Because monks do not receive a salary or accrue benefits while they are members of the Abbey, monks who leave the order for any reason are provided some funds in lieu of any retirement benefits, financial support, health care benefits and other compensation.
Q. Why weren’t these monks criminally prosecuted at the time they allegedly committed the violations?
A: Monks who are accused of illegal behavior are subject to criminal investigation and prosecution under state and federal laws, exactly the same as everyone else is. Monks do not get any special protection or immunity from criminal charges or jail sentences.
When the Abbey receives a report of any suspected abuse of a child, we report it to law enforcement authorities as required by law. Law enforcement makes the decision as to what to investigate and the State decides what to prosecute.
None of the accused monks have ever been found guilty of criminal sexual abuse.
Criminal charges were brought against one of the former monks whose file is being released today, Francis Hoefgen. He was investigated by law enforcement in Dakota County related to an allegation of sexual abuse. Hoefgen denied the allegation and during a full criminal trial last spring, the jury found him “not guilty” on all charges.
Q: Do the files show any cover-up by the Abbey?
A: No. The files reflect the Abbey’s on-going efforts to deal directly with the issues and the monks involved and that the Abbey did not try to cover up allegations. Saint John’s Abbey has been and is proactive in dealing with problems of child sexual abuse, and the Abbey is voluntarily sharing these documents (with the permission of the accused monks) out of a sincere desire to achieve transparency and in furtherance of healing for victims.
Q: Will other files be released?
A: Yes. This is just the first batch. Anderson’s law firm has files of all monks against whom there have been credible allegations of misconduct involving minors and it is likely that some or all will be released in the coming weeks or months prior to the expiration of the Child Victims Act. While the Anderson law firm controls the timing of the release, the Abbey has urged that all information on the monks be released simultaneously.
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.