Michael Mazza, an adjunct professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee at the Sacred Heart Seminary and School of Theology in Hales Corner, Wisconsin, wrote the piece. He represents accused priests and helps dioceses and religious orders follow canon law.
According to Mazza, while it is common for dioceses that are filing bankruptcy mostly due to claims of clergy sexual abuse of minors to make non-financial commitments, the ones that the Archdiocese of New Orleans made in its July 15 agreements – Exhibit E (part 8 of the filings “the Non-Monetary Plan Provisions”) – “should cause every member of the faithful there grave concern — especially priests, seminarians, and their families and friends.” He said he hopes Catholics can notify Archbishop Gregory Michael Aymond of concerns regarding the promises.
He wrote that what is “perhaps the most troubling” is the lawyers’ pledge on the archdiocese’s behalf that it will prominently place a remembrance memorial for sexual abuse survivors at its chancery and hold a dedication ceremony, which the archbishop must attend.
According to page 32 of Exhibit E, this “Place of Remembrance” — which the diocese will design with consultation from the Settlement Trust Advisory Committee — will be at the chancery’s entrance and the ceremony “will not include any Eucharistic liturgy, celebration of the Mass, or religious discourse (such as a sermon or homily).”
“This gag order prevents the Church from accomplishing the very work entrusted to it by Christ Himself,” he wrote.
The archdiocese must publish notice of the ceremony in each of its publications, which, according to page 1 of that exhibit, include all of its social media accounts, all of its websites, and in its official newspaper between 15 and 30 days before the ceremony. It must also issue a press release.
In addition, the archdiocese promised to publicize documents regarding any claim of sexual abuse included in the bankruptcy filings, including accused clergy members’ personnel files.
“Thus included are the deliberations of the Archdiocesan ‘Independent Review Board’ (IRB) that consider these claims, any documents they review, and even the Archbishop’s own’ determination as to any discipline arising from’ the claim (p. 4, App. E),” Mazza writes.
Section D (pages 24 through 30) of Exhibit E details the archdiocese’s commitments to transparency. The archdiocese, according to the document, will arrange with a college or university that it and the Creditors’ Committee find acceptable to post eligible documents on the archivist’s website, which the archdiocese’s website would link to. The documents include sexual abuse proofs of claim in which archdiocese “actors identified as perpetrators” are currently, or in the future, added to the report regarding clergy abuse or whom at least three child sexual abuse proofs of claim identify as a perpetrator. Identifying information of survivors and anyone who is identified as a perpetrator who is not included in the report regarding clergy abuse will be redacted. Anyone who filed a sexual abuse proof of claim can have the claim excluded from publication.
He stated that he believes that that commitment, in all likelihood, will violate canon law regarding confidentiality and the Norms for Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela.
“Violating such rules is a canonical crime that can be punished by the loss of one’s office,” he wrote. “Are the civil lawyers representing the Archdiocese aware of the predicament in which they have placed their clients? Are these lawyers sufficiently familiar with canon law requirements so as to assert privilege consistently and insistently?”
Mazza noted that a claim of sexual abuse is simply an assertion filed by the lawyer of someone who says they are a victim, and the archdiocese’s IRB determines whether the claims are credible.
He posed two questions in cases when the accused died before the accusation occurred, which left the accused unable to defend himself: “(W)hat does it say about the community they served — a Church ostensibly dedicated to truth and justice, not to mention charity and mercy — that they have been deprived of due process in the name of expediency? And what conclusions will be drawn by the living, whether by Catholic or non-Catholic observers, in the face of such radical aversion to risk on the part of the leadership of the Church founded upon the blood of the martyrs?”
Clergy members who are alive when they are accused won’t be able to defend themselves, according to Mazza. “How will anyone protect his good name when his own Archdiocese has pledged itself to follow the non-judicial process in front of the IRB and to ongoing public disclosure of lists of accused (p. 29)?” he asks.
As CatholicVote recently reported, the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, in a September 2024 letter, urged dioceses not to publish names of “credibly accused clerics” because that would violate the right to reputation and presumption of innocence.
The archdiocese also promised, on page 34 of Exhibit E, not to “lobby, support, or advocate” for any weakening of existing Louisiana mandatory child abuse reporting requirements, such as a statute of limitation. In his article, Mazza argues that this promise could make it impossible for any future archbishop to “fight against a future shake-down of the Church” and wonders whether future attorneys for the archdiocese will know and be able to protect justly confidential communications to clergy.
Mazza also asked how the archdiocese could control future employees’ actions, especially if their free speech rights are involved.