The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis  released a statement with their most recent disclosures:

Certain clergy members who we have made known to the public through press releases or who have been the subject of media reports over the past many months are not included in this disclosure. They remain under investigation. If claims against them are substantiated, their names will be added to our website. Similarly, if the claims against them are not substantiated, that too will be made known.

I read this to say a number of things:

1) They have more names.

2) If they find more are credibly accused, those names will be released.

3)   If they find that the claims are not credible, “that too will be made known.”

The first one is suspected and there are other names out there. The second is a no brainier and the sooner the better.   The third is the one that I stopped and reread a couple of times.   It seems to say that they will finally come out with the names that they have been told about ,  but who through whatever standards they are using they found to not be names for the list.  However, it claims that they will stop hiding those names.

They have files that they are using for these investigations and it is imperative that disclosure involves the release of those files.  This statement is promising, but their actions seem contrary to the openness that they promise:

Why the Church Can Not Make the Disclosure Decisions

Can The Bishop Duck a Deposition?

Headline Week for Archbishop John Nienstedt

What is a Crime to the Church?

The lists are the start.   The files need to be disclosed  and those involved need to be questioned.

Abuse of children and the continued silence by the offenders needs to be prevented. If you suffered, saw, or suspected such events, it is important to know that there is help out there.




  1. Gravatar for Jeb Barrett

    Of course they have lists and knowledge that has not been proactively disclosed in the kind of transparency that was promised by US Bishops more than a decade ago. Every diocese does. Any release of documents that has taken place has happened only after legal battles by diocesan attorneys, hired specifically to hide the dirty laundry evidence of what survivors and advocates have been brave and bold enough to persistently take to civil authorities. Blessed are those who do so! Jeb Barrett, Colorado SNAP Director

  2. Mike: You are too kind. As you know, I am someone who has handled these cases and fought the Church, tooth and nail for information and simple justice for my clients. The Catholic Church has been an organization that seems to go to great lengths to protect the guilty and punish the innocent, most often the youngest members of the Church. In my cases, I encountered lies, cover ups, legal maneuvers, posturing, you name it, to avoid responsibility and remuneration for damages. Unbelievably, the organization would even transfer perpetrators to out-of-town parishes, without disclosure to new parishioners, and permit access to a whole new crop of unsuspecting children and parents. So here are my questions: 1. Who is conducting these investigations you write about? 2. If it is the diocese, itself, how can we trust them given their past, dubious, behavior? Someone should appoint a "special prosecutor" type individual and the diocese should agree to full disclosure and access, perhaps, a suspension of the rules of evidence, so that this appointee can get to the truth. Without something like this, I would find it nearly impossible to trust the process. Thanks for bringing this to the public's attention. This scandal is occurring all over the world; it is not limited to Minnesota. Parents: Wherever you live, keep a watchful eye on your children when placing them in these situations.

  3. "It is an ongoing battle". Why? Why shouldn't the Church want the same things you do. They should cheer trial lawyers for being in the forefront of cleaning out a dangerous menace from their midst. Instead, it is more delay, deny, confuse, refuse. Here, this behavior is disguised as an "investigation".

Comments are closed.

Of Interest