Our Bishops Have Inflicted Grave Harm on the Priesthood

Pope Francis issued 2019 guidelines for preserving a right of defense for accused priests and limits on publishing their names. Many U.S. bishops just ignored them.

Editor’s Note: The following guest post by Ryan A. MacDonald is an important sequel to his previous post, In the Diocese of Manchester, Transparency and a Hit List.

+ + +

In the above-captioned article at These Stone Walls, I wrote about a decision of The Most Rev. Peter Libasci, Bishop of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, to publish a list of the names of priests “credibly” accused in that state over the past fifty years. At the time the list was published in August 2019, the Bishop and Diocese issued a press release citing ‘transparency” as the reason for publishing it.

The list contained the names of 73 accused priests. More than half are deceased. Only five of the 73 ever had a case for prosecution before any New Hampshire court. None of the claims were current. Most alleged misconduct from three to five decades ago. Virtually all were brought with a financial demand that resulted in a monetary settlement from the diocese.

Bishop Peter Libasci’s published list was generated, not by any semblance of due process, but rather by a one-sided grand jury investigation of the diocese launched in 2002. That investigation treated all claims in civil lawsuits and other demands for settlement as demonstrably true with no standard of evidence whatsoever.

Bishop Libasci’s press release revealed that the claims against all 73 priests were determined to be “credible.” This is a standard that the United States bishops adopted at their Dallas meeting in 2002. “Credible,” as the bishops are applying it, means only “possible.” If it could have happened, it’s credible.

A 2003 grand jury investigation of the Diocese was the source for the recently published list. In that investigation, none of the accused — the few who were still living, anyway — were permitted to appear to offer any defense. That is the nature of a grand jury investigation. It is a strictly prosecutorial affair that is supposed to determine whether indictments and trials should follow. None of the subjects on Bishop Libasci’s list were indicted after the 2003 grand jury report became public.

My article cited above was followed by a related and stunning article by Fr. Gordon MacRae, one of the priests whose name appears on the bishop’s list. His category was unique on the list. It was simply, “convicted.” It was published without nuance by a diocese whose previous bishop told others in secret that he knows Father MacRae to be innocent and unjustly imprisoned. “Transparency,” however, has its limits.

Father MacRae’s article is “A Grand Jury, St. Paul’s School, and the Diocese of Manchester.” Amazingly, from reports I have seen generated by These Stone Walls, the article was heavily read around the world, most notably in Washington D.C., at the Holy See, and throughout Rome. In New Hampshire, it was the most-read article of the year at These Stone Walls.

My article, “In the Diocese of Manchester, Transparency and a Hit List,” focused on injustices behind the scenes in a decision of the Bishop and Diocese to publish that list anew. Father MacRae’s remarkable sequel contrasts the 2003 grand jury investigation of his Diocese with a similar 2018 investigation of a nationally known Concord, New Hampshire academy, St. Paul’s School, with historic ties to the Episcopal church. Fr. MacRae brought to light a judicial ruling that publishing these grand jury reports — and by extension the Bishop’s list of names — is actually forbidden under New Hampshire law.

Grave Injustice in the ‘Live Free or Die’ State

Father MacRae’s article revealed a grave injustice in the Diocese of Manchester and multiple other U.S. dioceses. Fifteen years after the Diocese and Attorney General signed a deal in secret to publish a grand jury report in 2003, New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Richard McNamara ruled that the report, and one involving a 2018 St Paul’s School grand jury investigation, cannot legally be published.

New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald pressed to allow publication of the St. Paul’s School report. He cited the 2003 Diocese of Manchester precedent in which a report and files were published — the source for the names on Bishop Libasci’s list.

Father MacRae revealed that in 2003, the current N.H. Attorney General was part of a legal team representing the Diocese when release of the report was agreed upon in secret. It was the Attorney General’s citing the precedent that triggered Judge McNamara’s 23-page Order dated August 12, 2019, ten days after Bishop Libasci published his list.

Given the various one-sided grand jury investigations of Catholic dioceses across the U.S., Judge McNamara’s Court Order should give Catholics pause. The judicial findings summarized below cast doubt on the U.S. bishops’ collective decisions to publish lists of names arising from grand jury investigations:

• The OAG [Office of the Attorney General] argues that a common law precedent for such a report does in fact exist because the Hillsborough County [NH] Superior Court [in 2003] authorized an agreement between the OAG and the Diocese of Manchester to waive the secrecy of a grand jury investigation …

• The Hillsborough County Superior Court endorsed the Diocese-OAG Agreement without explanation and without any written Order. This Court respectfully disagrees with the decision to approve the Diocese-OAG Agreement [in 2003].

• The Diocese-OAG Agreement fulfilled none of the traditional purposes of the common law grand jury.

• The Court cannot find that the use of grand jury materials and the breach of grand jury secrecy in order to prepare a report is a practice authorized by New Hampshire common law.

• Rather than investigation of crime, the report is a post hoc summary of information the grand jury considered, but did not indict on. It did not protect the privacy interests of those witnesses and subjects that were never charged with a crime by the grand jury.

• The deficiency of the Diocese-OAG Agreement is cast in bold relief by [a] December 2018 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Pennsylvania has a statute that specifically authorizes investigative grand juries and investigative reports. However, as in most states, the statute contains statutory procedures to provide individuals with due process protections for their reputational rights … the petitioners were entitled to have a report published with redactions of their names in order to protect their right to reputation. [emphasis added]

• A grand jury is not an adversary hearing in which guilt or innocence is established. Rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person.

• Grand jury testimony can involve all sorts of false, damaging, and one-sided information and New Hampshire has no historical or legal basis for releasing such information.

• An allegation of wrongdoing or impropriety, based on half-truths, illegally seized evidence, or rumor, innuendo or hearsay may blight a person’s life indefinitely.

• Mark Twain famously said that a lie is half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. In an internet age, he might have added that the lie will forever outrun the truth as search engines become more efficient.

• Accordingly, the Court DENIES the OAG Motion to Produce and Disclose. The OAG may not produce any report that contains any material characterized as a “Grand Jury Report.”

[Source Order of Judge Richard B. McNamara In Re: Grand Jury No. 217-2018-CV-00382, August 12, 2019.]

Now Comes the Pope

The Court Order should have applied to the Bishop of Manchester as well. He took it upon himself to do what the law forbids the State to do: to prosecute and convict in the public square those who were not indicted, were not tried or convicted, but were merely accused. I find it a disturbing coincidence that Bishop Peter Libasci’s decision to publish a list of the names of 73 accused priests — the vast majority of whom are merely accused — took place just days before the Order by Judge McNamara was issued.

This is ironic, at best, and at worst highly suspect. Had the Order preceded the release of names, the priests involved — those still living, anyway — may have had legal standing to challenge it. But this all pales next to published guidelines of another authority the bishops should be heeding.

On November 12, 2019, Archbishop Christoph Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, addressed the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C. His address emphasized that “The pastoral thrust of this pontificate must reach the American people.” The bishops can fulfill this, he said, with “tangible signs of their communion with the Holy Father.”

Among the “pastoral thrusts” of the pontificate of Pope Francis that might require communion with his bishops was a February 21, 2019 issuance of a set of guidelines that bishops should follow on how allegations of sexual abuse by priests are to be handled. The list included 21 points that Pope Francis asked the bishops to observe. Point Number 14 is as follows:

“The right to defense: the principle of natural and canon law of a presumption of innocence must also be safeguarded until the guilt of the accused is proven. Therefore, it is necessary to prevent the lists of the accused being published, even by dioceses, before the preliminary investigation and a definitive condemnation.”

— Guidelines of Pope Francis, February 19, 2019

Rev. Msgr. Thomas G. Guarino, Professor of Systematic Theology and a prolific author, has published what I consider to be a landmark article entitled “The Dark Side of the Dallas Charter (First Things, October 2, 2019). Father Guarino characterized the 2002 Dallas Charter — the operable document under which accused priests are removed from all ministry:

“The harried bishops, with their Dallas Charter of 2002… passed Draconian norms that come close to venturing beyond Catholic teaching. The American bishops decreed ‘zero tolerance’ for priests accused of sexual abuse, a norm that, as Cardinal Avery Dulles acknowledged in 2002, violates equitable treatment for priests. Dulles added, ‘Having been so severely criticized for exercising poor judgment in the past, the bishops apparently wanted to avoid making any judgments in these cases’”

Father Guarino’s article points out that Pope Francis has been reluctant to invoke the term “zero-tolerance.”  The Wall Street Journal  reported that of the twenty countries in the world with the largest Catholic populations, only the Bishops of the United States have invoked a policy of “zero tolerance.”

In 2000, the U.S. bishops issued a pastoral document critical of the American criminal justice system. The bishops rejected terms such as “zero tolerance” and “three-strikes” in the application of punishments in the criminal justice system. They urged lawmakers to focus on rehabilitation and restorative justice while imposing sentences.

But two years later, at Dallas in 2002, under the harsh glare of the news media and victim advocates such as S.N.A.P. (who were directly invited by the bishops) the U.S. bishops inflicted the same panic-driven one-size-fits-all policy on their priests that they asked the justice system NOT to inflict on all other U.S. citizens. Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote in rebuttal in 2004:

“The Church must protect the community from harm, but it must also protect the human rights of each individual who may face an accusation… Some of the measures adopted [at Dallas] went far beyond the protection of children… [Bishops] undermined the morale of their priests and inflicted a serious blow to the credibility of the Church as a mirror of justice.”

— Avery Cardinal Dulles, “The Rights of Accused Priests,” America 2004

The Dark Side of the Dallas Charter

As Father Gordon MacRae exposed in “A Grand Jury, St. Paul’s School, and the Diocese of Manchester,” the late Father Richard John Neuhaus interviewed an American prelate who was one of the unnamed principal architects of the U.S. Bishops’ Dallas Charter. Father Neuhaus quoted him in a First Things  article: “It may be necessary for some innocent priests to suffer for the good of the Church.” That prelate, according to Father MacRae, was Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

As Father Guarino points out in “The Dark Side of the Dallas Charter,” a significant problem with the Bishops’ policy is that most accused priests have not actually been found guilty of abuse. Of the 73 priests, both living and deceased, on Bishop Peter Libasci’s published list, only five ever had due process in any court of law. Three of those were by plea deals, and one, as Bishop Libasci’s predecessor has acknowledged in secret, is wrongfully convicted.

For all the other names on the Diocese of Manchester list — and for the vast majority of the hundreds of American priests who have been removed from ministry, the allegations against them were only considered “credible,” meaning only that it is possible that they happened. If any other American citizens from any walk of life were subjected to such a standard before being shamed in the public square, libel and slander lawsuits would flood the courts.

Perhaps the greatest insult to Catholics in the pews is the statement of Bishop Libasci — and other bishops who have published lists of names of the accused — that this is done for the purpose of “transparency.” I have personally attempted to review the required canonical investigations of Father MacRae that a previous official of the Diocese of Manchester insisted were carried out. I was told that these investigations are confidential.

I have requested to see the list of settlements meted out to the accusers in his case which have been called into question by The Wall Street Journal  and other interested parties. I was told that these settlements are confidential.

Father MacRae himself requested of a previous bishop, the Most Rev. John McCormack, that he be permitted to see the canonical investigation that the bishop claimed was forwarded to the Holy See. Father MacRae was reportedly told that this, too, is confidential. He was later told by another official of the Diocese that no required canonical investigation ever took place. This was before MacRae learned from a New Hampshire attorney and a PBS producer that Bishop McCormack revealed, after requesting secrecy, that “I firmly believe Father MacRae is innocent and should not be in prison.”

“Zero Tolerance” is an insult to Catholic theology and to our priests who are disenfranchised from their priesthood, and from their civil rights as citizens, on the whim of a bishop after being accused.

“Transparency,” however, is an insult to all the rest of us who have waited under shrouds of duplicity for our bishops to reflect the mirror of justice that this world needs the Church to be.

+ + +

Editor’s Note: Please share this important post with the priests and Catholic laity you know. You are also invited to Subscribe to These Stone Walls  and to Follow on Facebook some inspiring related graphic presentations of these posts.

You may learn more on the story of Catholic priests falsely accused from these relevant articles:

• In the Diocese of Manchester, Transparency and a Hit List by Ryan A. MacDonald

• The Prison of Father MacRae: A Conspiracy of Silence by Ryan A. MacDonald

• Bishops, Priests and Weapons of Mass Destruction by Father Stuart A. MacDonald, JCL

• The Trials of Father MacRae by Dorothy Rabinowitz, The Wall Street Journal

Grand Jury, St Paul’s School and the Diocese of Manchester

Blocking a grand jury report on sex abuse at an elite NH prep school, a judge ruled that an NH Catholic diocese defamed its priests without due process of law.

October 23, 2019 (updated December 27, 2021)

“Did my bishop throw his priests under the bus illegally?”

This post is by necessity contentious, so it must begin with a disclaimer. The current Bishop of the Diocese of Manchester is not in any way complicit with the events described herein with one exception: his recent publication of a list of priests who have been “credibly” accused. Ryan MacDonald wrote of this in his latest guest post, “In the Diocese of Manchester, Transparency and a Hit List.”

The term “credibly” accused has serious due process problems which even some bishops now acknowledge, but only because the standard is now also being applied to them. I described this affront to justice in “The Credibility of Bishops on Credibly Accused Priests.” Now there is a new and stunning development in this story. Saint Paul’s School in Concord, New Hampshire, with historic ties to the Episcopal church, has a long and storied history as a prestigious American prep school. Its distinguished alumni list reads like a Who’s Who of Washington political insiders. It includes congressmen and senators, ambassadors and Secretaries of State, and the children and grandchildren of U.S. presidents.

Graduates of St. Paul’s include Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, Former “Russia Probe” Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, and Democratic Senators John Kerry (MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI). In 2011, Princeton University Press published Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St Paul’s School by Shamus Khan.

In recent years, St. Paul’s School has been embroiled in a sexual abuse controversy. In 2015, former student Owen Labrie was tried and convicted for the statutory rape of a 15-year-old freshman while in his senior year, a story reportedly connected to an unsanctioned school custom called “Senior Salute.”

In 2017, St. Paul’s School was the subject of a sexual misconduct investigation led by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger. His investigation included allegations over a forty year period from 1948 to 1988.

In July, 2017, New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald convened a grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse at the school. The grand jury completed its investigation late in 2018 at which point a plea deal was signed between the Attorney General and St Paul’s School administration.

The plea deal was nearly identical to one arranged in 2002-2003 by the New Hampshire Attorney General with Bishop John McCormack, former Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Manchester, and his Chief Compliance Officer, Rev. Edward J. Arsenault. Both deals allowed their respective targets — St Paul School and the Diocese of Manchester — to squash a possible misdemeanor charge of endangering the welfare of minors in exchange for a five year plan of staff training and improved monitoring.

A central tenet of both deals was that the prestigious school and the Catholic diocese would waive grand jury confidentiality so the respective reports and documents could be published. Officials of both the Diocese of Manchester in 2003 and St Paul’s School in 2018 signed these waivers. In the case of the Diocese, the grand jury report and related files were published with massive local and regional media coverage in March, 2003.

This is why Ryan MacDonald published “In the Diocese of Manchester, Transparency and a Hit List,” a well-researched report of how this closed-door deal and its behind-the-scenes manipulation by some central staff of the Diocesan Chancery Office sabotaged due process rights for me and other priests.

Now Comes Judge Richard McNamara

Ryan MacDonald’s article laid out the closed-door duplicity at work at the time the deal was carried out. My defense file and a vast amount of exculpatory material were requested by the Bishop’s Chief Compliance Officer, Rev. Edward Arsenault, under the false pretense of securing legal counsel for me. Once obtained, the confidential files were turned over to state prosecutors to be selectively published after the removal of exculpatory material.

The deal allowed the diocese to arrange for each accused priest to have a ten-day review to challenge in court any material deemed to be confidential. I was the only priest of this diocese to be denied that right. In the end, as Ryan reports, I protested the deal between my bishop and the state because of its blatant sabotage and misuse of privileged files.

My protest was sent to Bishop John McCormack’s appointed Delegate, Father Edward Arsenault, who seemed to be behind most of the suppression of rights. Like all other attempts to address this with my diocese, my multiple letters were met with silence.

I then wrote directly to Bishop McCormack who responded that the diocese tried in good faith, but without success, to prevent release and publication of confidential materials. He claimed that the Attorney General issued a subpoena to take indiscriminate custody of the priests’ files with no opportunity to challenge their publication.

In contrast, Assistant Attorney General Neals-Erik William Delker wrote in a letter to me that under New Hampshire law, grand jury investigations, reports, and files are confidential. For the report and related documents to be published, he wrote, the Bishop of Manchester had to waive confidentiality, and did waive confidentiality, on behalf of all parties involved.

Now, sixteen years later in a stunning development, New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Richard McNamara has denied publication of the grand jury report and investigation files in the case of St Paul’ School. In his 23-page order, Judge McNamara dropped a bombshell that should shake the earth beneath the feet of Catholic bishops and their lawyers across the land. In denying the Attorney General’s Motion to publish, he wrote:

“For hundreds of years, the grand jury has been a buffer between the power of the state and the citizen. Confidentiality of witness and cooperator information has been an essential part of how the grand jury works since colonial times.”

Making this development more stunning still, the Attorney General argued that there is in fact a precedent in New Hampshire for publishing grand jury reports: The 2003 Agreement with the Diocese of Manchester. It is easy to see why the current Attorney General cited this precedent. In 2003 he was an attorney representing the Diocese of Manchester in the matter of negotiating settlements.

Judge: “All Sorts of False, Damaging, One-Sided Information”

The following are excerpts from Judge NcNamara’s 23-page Court Order denying the Attorney General’s motion to publish the St Paul’s School report using the precedent of the 2003 Diocese of Manchester Grand Jury Report:

“The OAG [Office of the Attorney General] argues that a common law precedent for such a report does in fact exist because the Hillsborough County Superior Court authorized an agreement between the OAG and the Diocese of Manchester to waive the secrecy of a grand jury investigation … and to authorize the release of sealed subpoenas, pleadings, and orders related to the grand jury investigation … The Hillsborough County Superior Court endorsed the Diocese-OAG Agreement without explanation and without any written order.”

“The Court respectfully disagrees with the decision of the Hillsborough County Superior Court to approve the Diocese-OAG Agreement. The Agreement … fulfilled none of the traditional purposes of the common law grand jury. Rather than investigation of crime, the report is a post hoc summary of information the grand jury considered but did not indict on. It did not protect the privacy interests of those witnesses and subjects that were never charged with a crime by the grand jury.”

Judge McNamara explained that he is blocking publication of the St Paul’s School grand jury report for the same reasons that the Diocese of Manchester report and files should have been blocked in 2003. He wrote that grand jury testimony can involve “all sorts of false, damaging and one-sided information.” In holding that the Diocese of Manchester Report did not protect the privacy rights of those named, Judge McNamara concluded:

“Mark Twain famously said that a lie is halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. In an internet age, he might have added that the lie will forever outrun the truth as search engines become ever more efficient.”

It is for these reasons, Judge McNamara ordered, that grand jury investigations in New Hampshire are confidential. As a reporter for the New Hampshire Union Leader observed, “His ruling decided a case that had been argued in secret” (see Mark Hayward, “Judge blocks release of St Paul’s grand jury info,” New Hampshire Union Leader, Oct 1, 2019).

Transparency in the Diocese of Manchester

There are some alarming questions that arise from the handling of these reports, the potential for conflicts of interest, and the apparent absence of effective judicial oversight of the Diocese of Manchester grand jury report in 2003.

Publication of that report sabotaged the due process rights of many priests and placed damning information in public view resulting in condemnation without trial. The content from this report was then absorbed by the toxic site, Bishop-Accountability which was established for a singular purpose: to foster new accusations against priests with no effort to corroborate any of the claims gathered and published there.

Judge McNamara’s Order explains that a grand jury is seated for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting crime. In the cases of the Diocese of Manchester in 2003 and St Paul’s School in 2018, no indictments were issued. The Judge wrote:

“Grand jury reports that criticize individuals are extremely controversial. A grand jury report that does not result in an indictment but references supposed misconduct results in a quasi-official accusation of wrongdoing drawn from secret ex-parte proceedings in which there is no opportunity available or presented for a formal defense. The Florida Supreme Court described [such] a grand jury report as ‘not far removed from … and no less repugnant to traditions of fair play than lynch law.’”

The respective “deals” contain a hint of extortion. A misdemeanor criminal charge could be avoided if the administrations of the two institutions agreed to waive grand jury confidentiality and allow the reports to be published. The threat of prosecution weighed heavily on Bishop John McCormack who wrote in a December 10, 2002 letter to priests:

“The substance of the [grand jury’s] conclusion was to weave 40 years of history into one moment, and based on some rather complicated legal understanding of knowledge and intention, they concluded that they had enough evidence to indict the Diocese of Manchester for the endangerment of the welfare of children…”

“I agreed with the Attorney General that it was in the best interest of the Church and the people of the State to resolve this matter by a public Agreement between the Diocese of Manchester and the State of New Hampshire… Let me assure you that no archival material regarding any priest, other than those against whom we have had a credible accusation … was submitted to the Office of the Attorney General.”

— (December 10, 2002 letter to priests of the Diocese of Manchester sent to every priest except Fr. Gordon MacRae.)

But was the threat of prosecution against either St. Paul’s School or the diocese even realistic? Louisiana State University Law Professor John S. Baker had doubts. Writing for the Boston College Law Review in 2004 Professor Baker revealed that the New Hampshire Attorney General admitted in 2004 that the theory of law behind the threat of such a charge was “novel” at best, and highly unlikely.  The statute of limitations for a misdemeanor child endangerment charge is one year while the time period of the grand jury report dated back forty years or more. The report unveiled not a single contemporary case. So why did Bishop McCormack sign such an agreement? The question remains unanswered, but it set a dangerous precedent for the Catholic Church in America. Prof. Baker wrote:

“The Church should recognize the New Hampshire settlement for what it potentially is: the camel’s nose inside the tent.’… This intrusion by a state prosecutor into the jurisdiction of the Church may encourage and be the basis for actions by other state prosecutors… The decision by the Diocese to enter into this agreement represents a dangerous capitulation by one diocese that may have created a serious threat to the other dioceses in the United States.”

— John S. Baker, “Prosecuting Dioceses and Bishops,” Boston College Law Review, 1061, 2004

The claims of transparency in the Diocese of Manchester are highly selective. There is much related to this matter that is far from transparent. It would be difficult to believe that Edward Arsenault — who would later be charged, convicted, imprisoned and dismissed from the clerical state for his embezzlement of $300,000 from the Diocese and other sources — was not involved in the Kafkaesque diocesan affairs of 2003. He has since changed his name and is now officially known as Edward J. Bolognini.

In his published resume, which has been removed from public view, Arsenault identified himself as “Chief Operating Officer / Chief Compliance Officer” for the Diocese of Manchester from 2000 to 2009. He was thus at the center of all that Ryan MacDonald wrote about in his report, “In the Diocese of Manchester, Transparency and a Hit List.” The resume went on to describe Arsenault’s role:

“[To] provide advice and counsel to the Bishop of Manchester for pastoral governance, strategic management, and operational oversight of the Diocese of Manchester including but not limited to the successful settlement of over 250 civil claims associated with sexual abuse.”

In the strangest twist, the lawyer retained by staff and former staff, of St Paul’s School who successfully challenged publication of the grand jury report was Attorney David Vicinanzo, the same lawyer who Father Arsenault claimed was retained by the Diocese to represent me at the time Father Arsenault obtained my defense files under false pretense. Neither Arsenault nor Mr. Vicinanzo ever responded to my multiple requests for explanation in 2003 or after.

Strangely, in December of 2003, nine months after the grand jury report and files exploded in the press, Arsenault wrote in a letter to me: “I have not yet had a chance to discuss with Attorney Vicinanzo the matters we previously discussed.” I never heard from Arsenault again.

In his successful blocking of the 2018 grand jury report on St. Paul’s School, Attorney Vicinanzo was quoted in the news media. He called Judge McNamara’s Order “a full-throated defense of the grand jury as an institution.”

Judge McNamara issued his Order stating that the 2003 grand jury report on the Diocese of Manchester should not have been published because it failed to protect the privacy rights of those involved. Just a few days previously, Bishop Peter A. Libasci, the current Bishop of Manchester, published a list of all 73 priests of his diocese who have been “credibly” accused. He did this, he says, for transparency.

There is much more to come on the murkiness that is now called “transparency.”

+ + +

Postscript: An Update on This Story

December 27, 2021

Now Bishop Peter A. Libasci has himself been “credibly accused.” On July 22, 2021, the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper, in an article by Mark Hayward, reported, “NH Bishop accused of sexual abuse by an altar boy decades ago.” Whatever differences I have had with Bishop Peter Libasci and his published list, I was and am deeply saddened by this development. The accusation stems from 1983, the same year as the accusations against me. The lawsuit, filed in Suffolk County, New York, alleges that then Father Peter Libasci sexually assaulted a boy aged 12 to 13 “on numerous occasions” at a parish and Catholic school in Deer Park in the Diocese of Rockville Center, New York.

Unlike the cases of any similarly accused Catholic priest, Bishop Libasci has to date faced no restrictions on his ministry. This matter contains none of the transparency that Bishop Libasci cited as his singular motive for publishing a list of 73 priests accused — merely accused — and in the same manner in which he himself has now been accused. For this complete story see “Bishop Peter A. Libasci Was Set Up by Governor Andrew Cuomo”

+ + +

Note from Father Gordon MacRae: David F. Pierre Jr. of The Media. Report has an excellent brief analysis of the above along with some links to how it connects to and impacts my own situation. See TheMediaReport.com (October 9, 2019): “Stunner: New Hampshire Judge Says 2003 Diocese of Manchester Grand Jury Report Never Should Have Been Released.”

You may also wish to read and share

In the Diocese of Manchester, Transparency and a Hit List

and these related articles from some very accomplished writers:

Justice & a Priest’s Right of Defense in the Diocese of Manchester by Ryan A MacDonald at A Ram in the Thicket

Journalism Outside the Box: Wall St. Journal Bravely Profiles Stunning Case of Wrongfully Convicted Priest by David F. Pierre, Jr. at The Media Report

The Ordeal of Father MacRae by Catholic League President Bill Donohue

Spotlight Oscar Hangover: Why ‘Spotlight’ Is a Terrible Film by JoAnn Wypijewski in CounterPunch

+ + +

“In the course of my 1994 trial, and while sentenced to life in prison, and during State and habeas corpus appeals I have never been allowed to utter a single word in my own defense. In 2011 a two-part documentary video was made of my testimony. It went missing for several years and has just turned up.”

— Fr. Gordon MacRae