MINNESOTA
Canonical Consultation
06/17/2015
Jennifer Haselberger
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.
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.