Francis accepts resignation of Crookston, MN bishop

In the wake of accusations that Crookston, MN Bishop Michael Hoeppner mishandled accusations of sexual abuse against his clergy, Pope Francis has accepted Hoeppner's resignation.

National Catholic Reporter's Joshua HJ. McElwee reports:

VATICAN CITY — Pope Francis on April 13 accepted the resignation of Crookston, Minnesota, Bishop Michael Hoeppner, who had been under investigation for more than a year over allegations of mishandling cases of clergy sexual abuse.

Although the announcement in the Vatican's daily bulletin did not say whether the move came as a result of the inquiry, a statement from the Crookston Diocese a few hours later said Francis had "asked for" Hoeppner's resignation.

Hoeppner, aged 71, had been subject to an investigation, initially conducted by St. Paul-Minneapolis Archbishop Bernard Hebda, since September 2019. 

After sending an initial report to Rome that fall, Hebda was later asked by the Vatican in February 2020 to investigate further. 

The normal retirement age for a bishop is 75.

McElwee explains that Hoeppner's resignation comes in the wake of an investigation conducted according to procedures which Francis put in place two years ago.  These procedures, applicable worldwide, are intended to hold bishops accountable for mishandling abuse allegations in their dioceses, or for personally committing abuse:

The investigation of Hoeppner had followed a new procedure for bishops accused of abuse or cover-up. Outlined in the May 2019 'motu proprio' Vos Estis Lux Mundi ("You Are The Light Of The World"), the procedure involves the empowering of archbishops to conduct investigations of prelates accused in their local regions.

We took a look at those procedures here at NewGathering in 2019.   

McElwee and others who have reported on Hoeppner's resignation refer to mishandled "cases" - in the plural.  The case which these news reports have highlighted is that of victim Ron Vasek.  Here is Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter Jean Hopfensperger's summary of Vasek's case:

Hoeppner, 71, was accused of pressuring a former deacon candidate to recant his statement that he was sexually abused as a teen by the Rev. Roger Grundhaus, a popular diocesan priest. Grundhaus has denied the abuse and Hoeppner has denied he tried to cover up the abuse claim ...

Hoeppner allegedly pressured deacon candidate Ron Vasek not to mention his allegation against Grundhaus, even coercing Vasek to sign a letter indicating the abuse did not happen.

Vasek said he was coerced to sign the letter in 2015, and later that year the diocese was court-ordered to reveal a list of priests facing allegations of sexual misconduct. Grundhaus' name did not appear on the list.

A local television station reported Vasek's reaction to the news of Hoeppner's resignation:

“Truthfully his resigning is a double-edged sword for me,” said Ron Vasek, the man alleging the Bishop tried to hide his sexual abuse accusations. “The good part of it is that justice was finally done.” ...

“I was hoping first off the people responsible for the wrongdoing that they did would publicly own up to it, instead of getting “I resign,” he said.

He also says amends were never attempted to be made.

“There’s never been an apology to me directly. Not that I need it, but I would think for the sake of the soul of the diocese that they would like to hear some contrition from the people that are responsible.”

According to McElwee at NCR, Hoeppner is the first American bishop to "lose his job" as a result of Francis's procedures.  Anne Barrett Doyle of BishopAccountability informed the Star-Tribune's Hopfensperger that Hoeppner is one of at least four American bishops being investigated. 

Does Hoeppner's resignation illustrate that Francis's procedures work?  Perhaps.

Those procedures call for a decentralized model of investigation, with an accused bishop's metropolitan (the archbishop who heads the local ecclesial province) given responsibility for investigating allegations against bishops in his province.  That procedure was followed in this case, with Minneapolis Archbishop Bernard Hebda investigating the allegations against Hoeppner.

But the process has garnered mixed reviews from victim advocates, who question the trustworthiness of bishops investigating bishops.  And Rita Ferrone wrote a devastating critique in Commonweal a couple of years ago, citing the Michael Bransfield case.  Bransfield was the bishop of Wheeling, West Virginia.  He was accused of engaging both in sexual and financial improprieties.  His metropolitan was Baltimore Archbishop William Lori.  The investigation revealed that among the church officials who were recipients of Bransfield's ethically questionable largesse was Lori himself.  That embarrassment was compounded when it came to light that Lori had his name redacted from the official report.  

The Bransfield investigation illustrated that archbishops can have prior relationships and/or common history with the bishops in their province, which could raise questions of investigative objectivity and conflicts of interest.  While Archbishop Hebda's investigation of Hoeppner seems to have come to a successful conclusion, it may be too early to deem Francis's procedures a consistently reliable mechanism for achieving justice.