Diocese of Marquette

DIOCESE OF MARQUETTE
A Complete Accounting
Dana Nessel
Attorney General
October 27, 2022
This report is for informational purposes only. It is a compilation of the information
obtained from the tip line, victim interviews, police investigations, open-source
media, paper documents seized from the Diocese, and electronic documents found on
the diocesan computers as well as reports of allegations disclosed by the Diocese.
This report contains detailed descriptions of allegations of sexual abuse and other
sexual misconduct (including grooming and misuse of authority) against minors and
adults. Should you need assistance please call 855-VOICES4.
A criminal charge is merely an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent

unless and until proven guilty.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ ii
SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... 1
(1) FR. CASIMIR ADASIEWICZ ............................................................................. 6
(2) FR. THOMAS ANDERSON ................................................................................ 7
(3) FR. EMIL BEYER ............................................................................................... 9
(4) FR. JOSEPH CARNE (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.) ............................................................................. 13
(5) FR. LEONARD CORNELIUS, OFM—*ACTIVE MINISTRY* ....................... 19
(6) FR. RICHARD T. CRAIG (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(7) FR. TIMOTHY DESROCHERS ........................................................................ 23
(8) FR. THOMAS DUNLEAVY .............................................................................. 25
(9) FR. GINO FERRARO ....................................................................................... 27
(10) FR. WILBUR GIBBS ........................................................................................ 29
(11) FR. BASIL GOERNER ..................................................................................... 30
(12) FR. MICHAEL HALE ....................................................................................... 32
(13) FR. GERALD HARRINGTON .......................................................................... 36
(14) FR. DONALD HARTMAN (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

SITE.)................................................................................................................. 37
(15) FR. ALOYSIUS HASENBERG (LISTED ON BISHOP

(16) FR. TERRENCE HEALY (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(17) FR. RAYMOND HOEFGEN (LISTED ON BISHOP

ii
(18) FR. JOHN HUGHES ........................................................................................ 53
(19) FR. GARY JACOBS (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(20) FR. ROY JOSEPH (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.)........ 61
(21) FR. NORBERT LACOSSE (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

SITE.)................................................................................................................. 62
(22) FR. FRANK LENZ (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.) ....... 72
(23) FR. CLEMENT LEPINE (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

SITE.)................................................................................................................. 76
(24) FR. MARK MCQUESTEN— * ACTIVE MINISTRY (RETIRED) * ............... 78
(25) FR. JAMES MENAPACE (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(26) FR. PETER MINELLI .................................................................................... 103
(27) FR. ALBERT MLIGO...................................................................................... 108
(28) FR. ROBERT MONROE ................................................................................. 110
(29) FR. AARON NOWICKI (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.) ........................................................................... 112
(30) FR. VINCENT OUELLETTE ......................................................................... 113
(31) FR. WILFRED PELLETIER .......................................................................... 114
(32) FR. ANTHONY POLAKOWSKI ..................................................................... 116
(33) FR. ARMOUR ROBERTS (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

SITE)................................................................................................................ 122
(34) FR. DAVID ROCHELEAU ............................................................................. 126
(35) FR. NELSON DANIEL RUPP ........................................................................ 127
(36) FR. WALTER SHEEDLO ............................................................................... 130
(37) FR. DON SHIRODA........................................................................................ 132
(38) FR. EPHREAM/EPHRAIM SITKO ................................................................ 134
iii
(39) FR. NEIL SMITH ............................................................................................ 136
(40) FR. CHARLES STRELICK............................................................................. 138
(41) FR. JAN SZCZYKOWSKI ............................................................................... 139
(42) FR. GUY THOREN (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.) .... 141
(43) FR. BERNARD VAN DER SCHUEREN, SJ (LISTED ON BISHOP

(44) FR. JAMES WOLF O.F.M. CAP (LISTED ON BISHOP

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 148
iv
SUMMARY
On September 21, 2018, the Michigan Department of Attorney General (AG)
launched an investigation into clergy sexual abuse throughout the State of
Michigan, focusing on the seven Dioceses of Michigan’s Catholic Church. The
Archdiocese is located in Detroit. The remaining Dioceses are located in Lansing,
Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Gaylord, Marquette, and Saginaw. The investigation is
a partnership between the AG and the Michigan State Police (MSP). The purpose
of the investigation is to determine if sexual abuse of minors and adults was being
reported as required by law and to investigate potential criminal charges against
those responsible for the abuse or for covering up sexual abuse. It was intended
that the investigation and its results would be documented in a written report to be
made available to the public. This is the first of what will be seven separate
reports. They have been divided by Diocese. It is our intent to share what was
learned during the investigation as to ensure that any past failure to report sexual
abuse will never happen again.
At the beginning of the investigation, a tip line was created and staffed from 8 am–
5 pm, Monday through Friday, to collect first-hand information on sexual abuse
within the church from the community at large. To date, this tip line has generated
1,015 tips related to abuse. That number is 844-324-3374. We encourage anyone
with information related to sexual abuse to contact the Department.
On October 3, 2018, a search warrant was executed on all seven Dioceses

simultaneously in order to seize any information and records each Diocese had
regarding reports of sexual abuse. A search warrant is an order signed by a judge
that allows for the search and seizure of specified items when probable cause exists
to establish that a crime has occurred and that the place sought to be searched is
likely to yield the information. The search warrant was executed in tandem with
multiple police agencies, which included 42 Michigan State Police Detectives and
Troopers, two Midland Police Officers, two Saginaw Township Police Officers, one
Grand Blanc Police Officer, and 15 Special Agents. It lasted 8 hours and more than
220 boxes of documents were seized. An estimated 1.5 million paper documents
were seized.
In 2019, the Michigan Legislature appropriated $635,000 to partially fund this

investigation. It allotted $400,000 to electronic document management and
$235,000 for victim advocacy. Electronic document management has cost
approximately $479,116.37 to date.
At the outset of the investigation, the AG’s office organized a “core group” of AG
staff and MSP investigators who would work to ensure that a fair and thorough
investigation was conducted into the materials that were seized as a result of a
search warrant. Thoughtful efforts were made to include a variety of experience in
staff. The team also includes attorneys from the Criminal Justice Bureau,
1
including trial prosecutors and appellate specialists. The team includes attorneys
from Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) because offenders sometimes would
also possess a professional license such as counseling. It was determined that, if
appropriate, action would be taken to remove professional licenses in an effort to
keep the community safe.
To ensure communication with the Dioceses, the core team staff meet quarterly
with diocesan lawyers to discuss processes and procedures that will streamline the
investigation. All seven Dioceses have agreed to cooperate with the investigation
and from all accounts are abiding by that agreement.
In an effort to cooperate with the AG’s investigation, the Dioceses have agreed to
provide all reports of sexual abuse that they receive during the course of the
investigation. The Dioceses agreed to allow the AG’s office to conduct a criminal
investigation into the sexual abuse report first, waiting to conduct any internal
investigation until the AG investigation has concluded. Experience indicates that
victims of sexual abuse wait many years before they disclose the abuse to others. In
this investigation, victims continue to report sexual abuse to the Dioceses. The AG
does not wish to interfere in the victim’s spiritual relationship with their church or
the Diocese and encourages victims to cooperate in any subsequent canonical
investigation. Finally, if the victim is interested in counseling services, the AG
victim advocate works to obtain services for the survivor.
In 2002, the Michigan Dioceses implemented their own systems of reporting and
investigating reports of sexual abuse. One of the processes they developed was
intake of abuse reports. To date, the Dioceses all have victim advocate coordinators
(VAC). These VACs are responsible for speaking with people who report sexual
abuse by a priest. To varying degrees, the Dioceses have all developed forms and
systems used to report abuse. To date, we have received 184 referrals from the
Dioceses. Sixteen of the referrals came from the Diocese of Marquette. For those
reports that involve a priest in active ministry, an investigation is initiated
immediately. The Dioceses have agreed to give the AG’s office at least 48 hours to
conduct an initial investigation before alerting the offender priest. This 48-hour
jumpstart provides the investigators an ability to make contact with the victim, and
in some cases the suspect priest. While the Dioceses officially provide 48 hours for
the AG investigation, they have typically withheld notification to the priest until
cleared by AG staff.
The timeframe in which a criminal proceeding can be started is referred to as the

statute of limitations (SOL). Once the SOL has expired, a criminal case can never
be started. Prior to 2001 the SOL for criminal sexual conduct first degree (CSC 1)
was six years from the date of offense, or the victim’s 18th birthday day. In 2001,
the SOL for first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC 1) was eliminated, making it
possible to bring criminal charges at any time. The crime of CSC 1 can be charged
under a number of different theories. The most common theories are when
2
penetration occurred and the victim was under 13 years old, or the victim was
forced/coerced into the sexual activity and the victim suffered from personal injury
including mental anguish. For cases where the allegations of sexual abuse fell
clearly outside the SOL, the AG team members interviewed those who were
reporting sexual abuse and were willing to discuss their victimization using a
trauma-informed interview style. For those cases in which the SOL has not run out
or there is the possibility that the offender priest left the state during the SOL,
thereby tolling the statute, a criminal investigation was conducted. Where
appropriate, criminal charges were brought. For the vast majority of cases, a
criminal prosecution was simply not possible.
For Marquette, the investigation yielded 52 tips. Sixteen of those were provided
directly from the Diocese of Marquette. Of the 220 boxes of paper documents that
were seized, approximately 74,000 documents were reviewed related to the
Marquette Diocese. Of the 2.5 million electronic documents seized, 861,686
documents were reviewed related to the Diocese of Marquette.
Some information contained in this report comes from the website

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/. It defines itself as follows:
BishopAccountability.org is the largest public library of information on

the Catholic clergy abuse crisis. We are a digital collection of
documents, survivor witness, investigative reports, and media
coverage. We also do basic research on abuser histories and church
management, and we maintain definitive databases of persons accused
in the United States, Argentina, Chile, and Ireland, with other
databases in development.
We are not an advocacy organization, and we take no position on

possible remedies for the crisis. We are a library open to everyone
looking to understand the problem of clergy abuse of children.
The materials we have collected also provide insight into child

protection generally and Catholic history beyond the abuse crisis, and
they comprise a unique case study of institutional response to
misconduct and demands for change.
The list of priests for which there were allegations of sexual misconduct against
either children or adults since January 1, 1950, for the Diocese of Marquette is
derived from information gleaned from a search warrant that was executed against
the Diocese of Marquette on October 3, 2018, and from the tip line operated by the
Department of Attorney General since 2018. There are 44 priests on this list; 38
were employed or incardinated by the Diocese of Marquette.
3
The allegations are summarized here, and their inclusion does not reflect a
determination by the Department that the allegations are credible or
otherwise substantiated. The vast majority of reported allegations of sexual
assault or other sexual misconduct (including grooming conduct) were against
either boys or girls under the age of 16 and also under the age of 18, but there were
also allegations against five priests related to adults (18 years or older). A couple of
the claims allege actions by priests against adults in which there is a claim that the
priests relied on their authority to engage in sexual conduct or attempt to do so.
Not all the files that were retrieved by search warrant are complete; as with the
priest list, the information here is a reporting of the allegations either found in the
seized, non-privileged documents or gleaned from the tips received.
For the 44 priests for whom there were record support or tips of allegations, three
were convicted for their conduct: Fr. Terrence Healy was convicted of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct against a minor in 1987 for his conduct that occurred while
operating as a priest in the Diocese of Lansing; Fr. Norbert LaCosse was convicted
of criminal sexual misconduct in 1991 against a minor; and Fr. Gary Jacobs was
convicted of five counts of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct in 2022
against five victims for the crimes he committed in the 1980s. The Department of
Attorney General prosecuted Fr. Jacobs for his crimes. For a fourth priest, Fr. Roy
Joseph, there are first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges pending against him
filed in 2019. The Department is currently seeking to extradite him from India.
And a fifth priest, Fr. Aaron Nowicki, was charged by the Chippewa County
prosecutor with four felony counts for events that allegedly occurred in 2021, two
years after the Diocese removed him from ministry: possession of criminal sexual
abuse material (child pornography), accosting a child for immoral purposes, and two
counts of using a computer to commit a crime. These charges are pending. As to
the other allegations, in virtually all of the cases either the statute of limitations
had run, or the priest had died prior to the start of the Department’s investigation.
Few of the allegations were examined by law enforcement officials during the time
in which the statute of limitations would have allowed for a charge if warranted.
Also, in the vast majority of the cases, the allegations were brought to diocesan
officials only after the statute of limitations had run or after the priest had died.
The Department investigated the allegations against Fr. James Menapace before
his death, but the complainant was not prepared to move forward.
For the 44 priests of whom 38 were incardinated in the Diocese of Marquette, the
Diocese lists six diocesan priests who have “substantiated claims against them of
sexual abuse” as follows: (1) Rev. Aaron Nowicki, (2) Rev. Joseph D. Carne, (3) Rev.
Richard Craig, (4) Rev. James Menapace, (5) Terrence Healy, and (6) Gary A.
Jacobs. For non-diocesan priests, there are two listed: (7) Rev. Juvenal Pfalzer,
OFM and (8) Rev. Roman Pfalzer, OFM. 1 According to this diocesan report, Fr.
1 https://www.Dioceseofmarquette.org/statusreport (Accessed on October 26, 2022).
4
Nowicki was removed in 2019 for having an improper relationship with a
vulnerable adult; Nowicki was charged with criminal offenses against minors (child
pornography) for events in 2021 after his removal from ministry. The Department’s
report includes allegations against six of the eight priests listed on the diocesan
report, but it has no information about Frs. Juvenal and Roman Pfalzer.
The bishop accountability list of credibly accused priests—which includes
allegations against children and adults—identifies the same first six priests as the
Diocese, but also includes an additional eleven priests, nine for the Diocese of
Marquette: (1) Fr. Donald Hartman, (2) Fr. Aloysius Hasenberg, (3) Fr. Raymond
Hoefgen, (4) Fr. Roy Joseph, (5) Fr. Norbert LaCosse, (6) Fr. Frank Lenz, (7) Fr.
Clement LePine, (8) Armour Roberts (Bismarck), (9) Fr. Guy Thoren, (10) Fr.
Bernard Van der Schueren, and (11) Fr. James Wolf (Detroit). 2 The Department’s
list also includes these eleven priests.
For the 44 priests, 32 are known or presumed to be dead. For the 12 who are living
or presumed to be living, two are retired but remain in active ministry, one for the
Diocese of Marquette, Fr. Mark McQuesten, and the other for the Byzantine
Eparchy of Pittsburgh, Fr. Leonard Cornelius, OFM. The allegations against these
two priests related to complainants who were 16 years old.
In June 2002, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops instituted the “Charter for
the Protection of Children and Young People.” In this Charter, the Dioceses and
Eparchies in the United States pledged to protect children from sexual abuse. 3 As one of
the principles in Article 5 of the Charter, “Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for
even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or
established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or
deacon is to be permanently removed from ministry and, if warranted, dismissed from
the clerical state.” (Charter, p 11.) Related to this point, “[i]f the allegation is deemed
not substantiated, every step possible is to be taken to restore his good name, should it
have been harmed.” (Id.) Also, in Article 4, “Dioceses/eparchies are to report an
allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities with due
regard for the seal of the Sacrament of Penance.” (Charter, p 10.)
For the 44 priests, the vast majority of sexual misconduct was alleged to have occurred
before 2002, except for four, all of whom are alive and one for whom the allegation
related to children: Fr. Nowicki for child pornography and accosting a child in 2021
while removed from ministry, who is charged in Chippewa County as noted above.
2See https://www.bishop-accountability.org/dioceses/usa-mi-marquette/ (Last

accessed October 26, 2022.)
3Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People | USCCB (Last accessed
October 26, 2022).
5
(1) FR. CASIMIR ADASIEWICZ
Died in 1981.
In 2008, Jane Doe1 reported to the Diocese of Marquette that when she was seven
years old, around 1965, she was “molested and raped” by Fr. Casimir Adasiewicz
after being sent from school to the rectory at Sacred Heart Church in L’anse
(Baraga County). (App’x CA#1, Note dated November 6, 2008.) According to her
report, Fr. Adasiewicz told her that her brother would die if she ever reported the
sexual abuse. (Id.) She further reported she believed there were “lots of kids” that
were victimized by him. (Id.)
In an earlier letter dated October 10, 2008, Doe1 wrote a letter to Bishop Alexander
Sample after having shared her story with him at a retreat for survivors of sexual
abuse by clergy. (App’x CA#2, Letter from Doe1, October 10, 2008.) Bishop Sample
acknowledged this letter in a response. (App’x CA#3, Letter from Bishop Sample,
October 24, 2008.)
6
(2) FR. THOMAS ANDERSON
Died in 1981.
In April 2002, John Doe1 wrote to the Diocese, stating that he was sexually abused
by Fr. Thomas Anderson from 1963–67 while he was in elementary school, grades
first through fifth, at St. Agnes School in Iron River, Michigan. (App’x TA#1, Letter
from Doe1, dated April 30, 2002.) While acting as an altar server, he indicated that
he was “fondled and eventually sodomized” by Fr. Anderson. (Id.) When Doe1
disclosed the sexual abuse to his teacher, he noted that he was called a “liar.” (Id.)
He further explained in the letter that the following year he was not allowed to
return to the school for Sixth Grade, and his parents were provided no explanation
as to why. (Id.)
That same year (in 2002), the report was sent to the Review Board for the Diocese,
which indicated that Fr. Anderson died in 1981 and that it was taking no further
action:
The Board was unable to validate this allegation as the information is

sketchy. The alleged victim has been very difficult to contact, and no
other allegations have surfaced.
We have written back to him each time he has contacted us. [App’x
TA#2, Review Board Data Sheet, undated.]
In 2008, Doe1 wrote the Diocese a second time, when reports were made public
against Fr. Aloysius Hasenberg, see entry below No. 15, also a priest assigned to St.
Agnes Church in Iron River. (App’x TA#3, Letter from Doe1, dated October 31,
2008.) Records indicate that Fr. Anderson was transferred from St. Agnes Church
to St. Mary Queen of Peace Church on June 11, 1968, having served at St. Agnes
since his appointment on June 27, 1961. (App’x TA#4, Letter from Bishop Thomas
Noa, dated June 5, 1961, but unsigned; record of appointments.)
On January 6, 2020, the Department of Attorney General received a letter from the
Archdiocese of Detroit that was sent by John Doe2. (App’x TA#5, Letter from
Archdiocese of Detroit, dated January 6, 2020, with five-page Allegation Intake
Form.) The interviewer receiving the allegation noted Doe2 reported that “he was
abused when he was nine by Father Anderson in Kingsford, MI, but [Doe2] doesn’t
stay on that topic moving instead to the School for the Blind and his relationships
there.” (See id. attachment, p 3.) The interviewer also noted Doe2’s next
statement: “When [Doe2] became a teenager, he went to a summer retreat. From
the age of 14–17 (1974–76) at N. Fox Island. He believes that this camp was
7
organized by Frank Sheldon and it was called Bay Cliff Health Camp 4 at North Fox
Island. 5 Somehow he references Grand Marie Island and Dollar Bay but that’s all
he’s doing. He says that [at the camp] they [the campers] were shown pornography,
given wine to drink and that he was penetrated sexually, and made to perform
fellatio on the men who were [p]riests, lawyers, doctors, senators, and
Congressmen. He states and can name many of the children who were there and
who were later taken by the Oakland County child killer.” 6 (Id.)
4Bay Cliff Health Camp is a camp for people with disabilities located in Big Bay, in
Marquette County, Michigan. https://baycliff.org/ (Last accessed October 26, 2022.)
5North Fox Island is an uninhabited island in Lake Michigan near the Leelanau
Peninsula in Leelanau County, Michigan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Islands_(Lake_Michigan) (Last accessed October
26, 2022.)
6All are elements of a conspiracy theory from 1977 related to the “Oakland County
Child Killer” and North Fox Island. See https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/conspiracy-
north-fox-island-the-oakland-county-child-killer-part-1/. (Last accessed October 26,
2022) and see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_County_Child_Killer. (Last
8
(3) FR. EMIL BEYER
Died in 2003.
On October 29, 1997, John Doe3 called the Diocese to report a claim of sexual abuse
by Fr. Emil Beyer. (App’x EB#1, Report with dates from October 29, 1997, through
November 17, 1997, with handwritten notes, p 1.) Doe3 was placed in Holy Family
Orphanage in Marquette in 1944 after the death of his father. (Id.) Doe3 lived in
the orphanage from 1944–1956, leaving when he was fourteen years old. (Id.) He
reported that he was sexually abused by Fr. Beyer until he left. (Id.) Doe3
indicated that as he got older, he attempted to fight Fr. Beyer off and classified the
assaults as “rape.” (Id.) Doe3 reported that he never told anyone of the sexual
abuse except his wife, but he did not share details with her. (Id.) For years, he said
he thought he was the only person sexually abused until he attended a family
reunion, and he explained that he learned that two of his family members were also
abused. (Id.) Doe3 was one of seven children and two of the last to leave the
orphanage. (Id.)
The Holy Family Orphanage opened in Marquette in 1915 and was in operation
until its closure in 1965. 7
On October 30, 1997, the day after receiving the report on October 29, 1997, the
diocesan officials note they met with Fr. Beyer when he was 85 years old, more than
40 years after the allegations, and concluded as follows:
[Fr. Beyer] convincingly denied the allegations and says the man is
lying. He recalls the family and their name. [App’x EB#1, Report, pp
2, 3.]
On November 3, 1997, Bishop James Garland met with Doe3 and his wife for nearly
two hours. They discussed compensation, which Doe3 requested to help sexually
abused children, and counseling, which Doe3 declined. (App’x EB#1, p 4.)
The records further indicated the Diocese followed up with the family. From a
phone conversation with Doe3’s brother, Doe4, on November 17, 1997, Doe4 also
stated that he was sexually abused by Fr. Beyer, this memory having come from
flashbacks. (See App’x EB#1, Report, p 5) (“The [c]ounselor put him under hypnosis
where he revealed the sexual abuse . . . He does not have memory of but a few
events at the orphanage and nothing of the sexual abuse. He knows the abuse only
because the [t]herapist told him that he said so under hypnosis.”) According to a
sister, Doe4 told her that he received counseling but did “not want to pursue the
matter but let it die.” (Id. at p 3.) She also said that Doe4, too, believed he was the
7See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Family_Orphanage (Last accessed October

26, 2022).
9
only one being abused. (Id. at p 4.) Doe4 said that Doe3 “learned of Doe4’s abuse
shortly before the reunion through [a family member].” (Id. at p 5.) In speaking
with Doe3, the sister stated that he told her that after meeting with Diocesan staff,
Doe3 felt “believed and relieved. He has carried this burden for years and now has
never felt better for years.” (Id. at p 3.)
On November 17, 1997, at a meeting of the Diocesan “Assessment Team,” the Team
determined that “after discussing the matter [it] felt that the story [of Doe3] was
believable.” (App’x EB#3, Assessment Team Meeting Minutes, dated November 17,
1997.) Also, the Team determined that Fr. Beyer be sent to the St. Luke Institute
for “counseling” and noted “[t]he priest’s faculties may also be removed.” (Id.) The
Team determined more follow up should occur with the victim and counseling would
be offered at diocesan expense. (Id.)
In a letter dated December 8, 1997, Bishop James Garland indicated to Doe3 that
he found his allegation “possibly well founded according to our policy.” (App’x
EB#2, Letter from Bishop James Garland to Doe3, dated December 8, 1997, p 1.)
In Bishop Garland’s December 8, 1997 letter, Doe3 was told that Fr. Beyer was not
allowed to have any contact with minors, that he was to obtain a health evaluation,
and that his faculties for priestly ministry were restricted from all public ministry
except to concelebrate Mass with the other priests in the Home for the Aged where
he was living. (App’x EB#2, Bishop’s Letter, p 2.) Fr. Beyer was also allowed to
administer the sacraments for the dying when no other priest was available. (Id.)
Counseling services were offered, to which Doe3 availed himself. (Id.)
In a letter dated December 30, 1997, Bishop Garland informed Fr. Beyer that he
rescinded the November 21, 1997 precept, and thus “all restrictions on your
ministry are removed.” (App’x EB#4, Letter of Bishop Garland to Fr. Beyer, dated
December 30, 1997.) The letter indicated that this determination was consistent
with the recommendations from St. Luke Institute that arose from Fr. Beyer’s
counseling. (Id.) Bishop Garland also indicated that the “rescindment of the
Precept” was to remain “confidential” due to “possible negative reactions
detrimental to you and the Diocese by those making the allegations.” (Id.) He also
apologized to Fr. Beyer for the “pain and embarrassment” that the allegations
caused. (Id.)
In October 2000, the attorney for Doe3, John Burcham, sent a letter to the Diocese,
identifying eleven names, eight women and three men, who might have information
about Fr. Beyer’s “inappropriate behavior” related to the claims that Fr. Beyer
engaged in the “sexual molestation” of young boys at the orphanage. (App’x EB#5,
Letter from Burcham to Darrell Dettmann, dated October 26, 2000.)
10
On August 1, 2001, after negotiations to reach a settlement between Burcham and
the Diocese stalled, the Diocesan Director of Communications made the following
public statement:
(App’x EB#6, Diocesan Press Statement, dated Aug 1, 2001.) The central point of
the statement provided as follows:
No other complaint of this nature has surfaced to us over the course of

Father Beyer’s many years of ministry. Our investigation has led us to
confirm Father Beyer’s denial of the allegations. [Id.]
11
The statement did not address the accusation levelled against Fr. Beyer by the
brother of Doe3, Doe4, which was known to the Diocese. (Id.) The press release
names the complainant and indicates that his claim was unsubstantiated. (Id.)
The public statement does not address the report of 11 additional people who may
have had information related to the allegations of Fr. Beyer’s sexual abuse of minor
boys.
In 2002, Doe3 filed a lawsuit against the Diocese, which was dismissed as violating
the statute of limitations. (App’x EB#7, Letter from Bishop Garland to the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated December 2, 2002.)
Also, in a letter dated December 2, 2002, Bishop James Garland wrote to the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome in response to a petition that
Doe3 filed against Fr. Beyer, indicating that the diocesan investigation “led us to
confirm Father Beyer’s denial of the allegations.” (App’x EB#7, Letter from Bishop
Garland to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated December 2, 2002.)
In a letter dated February 15, 2003, the Congregation informed Bishop Garland
that it was “disposed to take note” of the Diocese’s investigation in which it
“confirm[ed] the denial of the allegation” by Doe3. (App’x EB#8, Letter from the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, dated February 15, 2002.)
12
(4) FR. JOSEPH CARNE
(LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.)
Died May 13, 2019.
Removed from priestly ministry in 2002.
On April 24, 1985, Bishop Mark Schmitt apparently received a letter from a woman
stating, “3 yrs [a]go my son was being given first confession instruction by Fr. Joe
Carne. It was during a lesson in the rectory that Carne did the following to my son.
He would place his arm around my son, put his hand on his upper thigh. He told
my son his parents didn’t really care for him or love him. My son was 9 at the time.
My son didn’t reveal this incident to me [un]til last fall when he was ill.” (App’x
JC#1, “History Concerning Allegations of Sexual Misconduct by Rev. Carne,” author
and creation date unknown, p 1.) The woman said the family left the parish shortly
after the above incident “because of the numerous problems and even without
knowing of the incident,” the woman “had a sense that Carne was attracted to her
son.” (Id.) The woman ended: “I trust that this information be kept confidential
between you and I. Please do not contact me.” (Id.) Reportedly, the woman
contacted the Michigan State Police regarding the allegation, but the “boy was
afraid to talk about it.” (App’x JC#1, p 8.)
In March 1995, a complaint issued against Fr. Carne alleging sexual misconduct
with a Michigan Technological University student pertaining to sexual involvement
at his cabin. (App’x JC#1, p 2.) The following was contained in the notes about the
allegation:
Sexual involvement at his cabin. Sauna, naked, massage and oral sex
(Fr. Carne said by the boy on him. He tried to reciprocate but found it
disgusting). Fr. Carne pointed out most of the blame on the student
for initiating and pushing for contact and sexual activity. Some ‘phone
sex’. There were sexually obscene phone calls made from St. Ignatius
Rectory to the answering machine of their home, directed to the boy.
Isaac Ray Center (Chicago) assessment: Fr. Carne abused by an older

brother sexually at age 9 and by a priest at age 12. [App’x JC#1, p 1.]8
In March of 2002, John Doe5 reported to the Diocese that he had been sexually
abused by Fr. Carne from July 1975 to August 1976 when he was 16–17 years old.
(App’x JC#2, Doe5’s narrative description of his experiences with Fr. Carne, p 1.)
Doe5 says he attended St. Michael Church and school until 6th grade. (App’x JC#2,
8 Although there was no name connected to the above note about the sauna
incident, it may be connected to incidents reported by both John Doe4 and his
parents. See pp [14, 16] below.
13
p 1.) According to him, when he was 16, he sought Fr. Carne out for counseling and
guidance regarding sexual experiences with his then 18-year-old girlfriend. (App’x
JC#2, p 1.) He explained that, after one such spiritual guidance session, Fr. Carne
invited Doe5 to his apartment in the rectory at St. Michael’s, where he then showed
Doe5 copies of Penthouse magazine while talking to him about masturbation. (Id.,
p 2.) Doe5 recounted their discussion about masturbation, during which Fr. Carne
told him it was natural and all men did it, including himself. (Id.) Doe5 said they
drank wine and he felt “special” for receiving this attention. (Id.) Doe5 remembers
Fr. Carne telling him he “should not tell anyone about those times together, because
they might be misunderstood.” (Id.)
As a part of his report in March 2002, Doe5 said that during the summer of 1976,
Fr. Carne took him to the Villa St. Joseph, a cottage that was owned by St.
Michael’s. (App’x JC#2, p 2.)
Doe5 went on to explain that the two ended up naked in the sauna with Fr. Carne
giving Doe5 a massage while Doe5 laid naked on his stomach. (Id.) According to
Doe5, Fr. Carne used lotion and spent a long time rubbing Doe5’s buttocks. (Id.)
Doe5 stated that when he (Doe5) rolled over, Fr. Carne was semi-erect. (Id.) Doe5
recounted being “frightened and shocked” and having simply frozen. (Id.) He also
said that in the days, weeks, and years that followed the event in the sauna, he had
recurring dreams of Fr. Carne performing oral sex on him, although he is not sure
whether this actually happened and he repressed it. (Id., p 3.) Doe5 told no one
until he told his wife in 1997. (Id.) Doe5 stated that, in the aftermath, he cut all
ties with Fr. Carne and quit going to church. (Id.)
On April 6, 2002, the Diocese informed parish leaders and staff at St. Sebastian
Parish in Bessemer that Fr. Carne “had resigned as pastor” and was “on a health
leave of absence from active priestly ministry.” (App’x JC#3, Public statement from
Diocesan Dir. of Communication Loreene Zeno Koskey.) According to the Dioceses’
public statement, “These actions follow an allegation of sexual activity arising from
the early years of Father Carne’s service as a priest.” (Id.)
On April 13, 2002, a former diocesan staffer, was interviewed by Fr. Alexander
Sample. (App’x JC#1, p 6.) She reported that Fr. Carne took advantage of her
family’s vulnerability. (Id.) She proceeded to recount some relevant history. She
explained that her 17-year-old son had accidentally shot and killed her 14-year-old
son. (Id.) She said that Fr. Carne began counseling the 17-year-old and provided
him open access to the liquor cabinet. (Id., p 7.) According to the former staffer, Fr.
Carne would hug her too long, making her uncomfortable. (Id., p 8.) She said her
son also told her that Fr. Carne tried to forcibly kiss her 16 to 17-year- old daughter
during her confession. (Id.) She explained that when the older son eventually
moved into his own place, Fr. Carne would often “hang out” there, which bothered
the son. (Id.) At a certain point, the son apparently told his mother that Fr. Carne
14
would not be a problem for him because he had told Fr. Carne, “If you ever touch me
again, I’ll deck you.” (Id.)
Also from this interview on April 13, 2002, she says that during the time of her
employment she witnessed many things done by Fr. Carne. (App’x JC#1, p 7.)
According to her, Fr. Carne told her, “What goes on in the rectory is confidential”
and “she was never to talk about it.” (Id.) The former staffer reported that boys
often came to the rectory and Fr. Carne would supply them with alcohol. (Id.) She
further explained that usually it was individual boys, but sometimes in groups of 2
or 3, and sometimes they would stay overnight. (Id.) She said these boys were
often foster children who were “troubled.” (Id.) She added that Fr. Carne would tell
the foster parents he had a right to do this because he was the local priest, and he
was their pastor. (Id.) She stated that one mother confided to her that she did not
know how to stop Fr. Carne since he was using his authority as a priest. (Id.) The
former staffer says this was reported to the Department of Health and Human
Services, and apparently Fr. Carne was not allowed to have further contact with the
foster boys. (Id. at 8.) She indicated that Fr. Carne threatened her if she spoke
about what was going on in the rectory. (Id.) She also reported that Fr. Carne had
asked one teenager if he had been circumcised, and the teenager, being afraid Fr.
Carne would ask to see it, left in fear. (Id.) She also talked about an eight-year-old
boy who had been in Fr. Carne’s First Holy Communion class; she explained that
after an individual meeting with Fr. Carne in connection with the Holy Communion
preparation, the boy was afraid of Fr. Carne. (Id.) She continued to explain that
several years later the boy told his parents that Fr. Carne had put his hand on the
boy’s thigh, left it here, and told him his parents did not love him but that he (Fr.
Carne) loved him and that he could come to the rectory whenever he wanted. (Id.)
(Note: This appears to refer to the April 24, 1985 letter to Bishop Schmitt
referenced above.)
The former staffer indicated that she relayed all this information to Bishop Schmitt
in 1981–82 and believed he would take action. (App’x JC#1, p 9.) She said that
there were several meetings and she reported what she knew, but Fr. Carne rallied
supporters to stand by him. (Id.) A “fact-finding committee” met on November 4,
1982, and held a hearing, talking to parishioners who were critical of Fr. Carne,
parishioners who were supportive of Fr. Carne, and Fr. Carne himself. (App’x
JC#4, Bishop Schmitt February 8, 1983 memorandum.) The committee determined
that Fr. Carne was not “totally at fault in the situation” and should remain pastor
but was “in need of psychiatric help.” (Id.) Bishop Schmitt communicated these
findings and recommendation to “the people of Rockland and Doe20” and indicated
that he did not receive any negative comments. (App’x JC#3.) Fr. Carne began
psychiatric counseling. (App’x JC#4.)
On April 24, 2002, another mother reported to her priest that her sons were
sexually abused from 1976–78 while Fr. Carne was Associate Pastor at St. Anne’s in
15
Escanaba. (App’x JC#1, p 11.) She indicated that since there was no father around
or “male role model” involved in her boys’ lives, she thought Fr. Carne would be a
“good influence on her sons.” (Id.) But much later, with the news of Fr. Carne’s
departure from the parish in Bessemer, she said her son told her that Fr. Carne was
a “bad priest and a bad man.” (Id.) According to her, her son explained that when
he was 11 to 13 years of age, Fr. Carne took him to his cottage in Dollar Bay and
fondled his bare genitals while giving instructions on sexuality. (Id.) She also said
her second son told her that when he was between the ages of 14 and 16, Fr. Carne
was showing him parts of the penis and touched his genitals. (Id.) And she said her
third son told her that when he was between the ages of 12 and 14, Fr. Carne gave
him a backrub. (Id.) The mother of these boys told Father Sample that Fr. Carne
was “ ‘famous’ for the sauna experiences with minor boys.” (Id.)
On July 18, 2002, a precept was issued that restricted Fr. Carne from any contact
with Doe5 and his mother and members of the family. (App’x JC#5, Precept dated
July 18, 2002, p 1.) The precept also obligated Fr. Carne to refrain from public
priestly ministry, from all contact with college fraternities, and from “presenting
himself publicly as a priest in any way.” (Id.) The precept indicated that Fr. Carne
had “engaged in immoral sexual activities with minors that violate the obligations
of clerical celibacy” and caused scandal among the faithful. (Id., pp 1–2.)
On December 3, 2002, John Doe6 sent Bishop Garland an email indicating he

wanted to discuss sexual abuse he had suffered at the hands of one of the Diocese’s
priests. (App’x JC#1, p 4.) Fr. Sample followed up with Doe6. (Id.) Fr. Sample’s
report stated that, according to Doe6, he was a student at Michigan Technological
University from the fall of 1989 until the spring of 1993 and was about 19 when he
met Fr. Carne. (Id.) He explained that he had pledged a fraternity to which Fr.
Carne was fraternity advisor and indicated that Fr. Carne “took advantage” of the
young men in the fraternity, often inviting them in small groups to his cottage at
Dollar Bay and supplying them with alcohol. (Id.) Doe6 said they would have
dinner and go in the sauna—with their swim trunks on. (Id.) But Doe6 further
explained that, at one point, Fr. Carne invited Doe6 over by himself, supplied him
with beer, which Doe6 says “lowered his inhibitions,” and they both went into the
sauna naked. (Id.) Doe6’s visits to the cottage became regular. (Id.) According to
Doe6, they would “wash each other in the sauna,” “began touching each other
sexually,” and “would give each other massages.” (Id.) Doe6 said that eventually
they had “mutual oral sex.” (Id.) He said this greatly affected how he developed
psycho-sexually—that it “screwed up” his life and temporarily destroyed his faith.
(Id.) Also noted in the report: “[Doe6] intimated that when his parents brought the
complaint to the Diocese, all the Diocese did was move Fr. C. to Bessemer. Fr.
Sample told [Doe6] that more followed his move to Bessemer – other action was
taken.” (Id.)
On April 28, 2004, Debbie Gardiner went to Fr. Marcotte regarding Fr. Carne’s
continued involvement with the fraternity brothers at Michigan Technological
16
University. (App’x JC#6, Notes from telephone conversation between Gardiner and
Fr. Alexander Sample.) Gardiner explained that her nephew was a member of Beta
Sigma Phi fraternity and that Fr. Carne had invited him and other members of the
fraternity to his home for Easter dinner. (Id.) She said they had a ham dinner and
were invited to come back during the summer to jet ski. (Id.) Gardiner was
concerned that Fr. Carne continued to represent himself as “Father,” in violation of
the restrictions that has been placed on him. (Id.)
On May 24, 2004, Fr. Alexander Sample and Steve Lynott, MSW, Clergy Support
Services, met with Fr. Carne, and Fr. Carne “did admit to the violation of his
precept.” (App’x JC#7, May 24, 2004 email from Fr. Sample to Bishop Garland.) At
that meeting, Fr. Carne requested that he be allowed to celebrate Mass with his
family, including the children of his brothers/sisters, as there no longer were any
minor children in the family. (Id.) On December 21, 2004, Bishop Garland wrote to
Fr. Carne’s brother indicating that Fr. Carne was now allowed to celebrate Mass
with his “brothers, their spouses and their sons and daughters.” (App’x JC#8,
Letter dated December 21, 2004, from Bishop Garland to Fr. Carne.)
On January 7, 2005, “Tom” emailed St. Michael’s Church indicating that he was a
former member of Beta Sigma Theta at Michigan Technological University. (App’x
JC#9, Email dated January 7, 2005 email from Tom to St. Michael parish.) In his
email, Tom asked if Fr. Carne was “allowed to have contact with the students”
because “if he’s not, please make it clear to him.” (Id.) Fr. Sample printed the
email January 12, 2005, and mailed it to Fr. Carne with a handwritten note stating:
“I trust you are fully abiding by your precept in this regard. This truly is for your
own good.” (Id.)
On June 11, 2012, Bishop Sample assured Fr. Carne and his family that Fr. Carne
could have his funeral Mass at Fr. Carne’s home parish, St. Ignatius Loyola in
Houghton, Michigan—an exception to the policy that “no ‘chartered’ priest could be
buried from a parish where he had served.” (App’x JC#10, June 11, 2012 Memo to
File re: Fr. Carne.) It was noted that the exception was made “because St. Ignatius
is his home parish and it means a great deal to his family.” (Id.) Furthermore, it
was noted that the “allegations do not stem from his time of service at St. Ignatius.”
(Id.)
In July of 2013, a woman apparently reported to her priest, Fr. Ryan, that while in
high school she went to camp where Fr. Carne was present. (App’x JC#11, Memo
from Fr. Ryan to Kevin Branson, Director of Ministry Personnel and Counsel to the
Diocesan Administrator, p 1.) She said Fr. Carne made sexual comments to many
of the teens, both boys and girls. (Id.) She recounted that, while at camp, she
walked into a room one evening and found Fr. Carne and some of the boys “having
sex with themselves.” (Id.) Father Ryan presumed this meant she witnessed them
masturbating, although he did not ask her to go into further detail. (Id.)
17
She said that in 2007 or 2008 she told this to the Diocese of Marquette and was
interviewed by Rosalind Groves, the diocesan contact person for sexual abuse cases.
(Id.) At that time, according to her, she was assured that counseling would be paid
for by the Diocese. (Id.) However, she said that by the time she requested
counseling, Groves no longer worked for the Diocese, she was told there was no
record of her conversation with Groves, and that no counseling services would be
provided. (Id., pp 1–2.) The file notes indicate that Fr. Ryan believed her and, in a
conversation he had with Kevin Branson, Director of Ministry Personnel and
Counsel to the Diocesan Administrator in 2013, asked the Diocese of Marquette to
pay for her counseling. (Id., p 2.)
On July 18, 2013, diocesan staff met with Marquette Prosecuting Attorney Matt
Weise to discuss the alleged camp incident involving Fr. Carne. (App’x JC#12,
Email dated July 22, 2013, from Branson to Prosecutor Wiese.) No charges were
issued against Fr. Carne (id.), likely because the actions were outside the statute of
limitations. During this time, the statute of limitations was only six years for
charges to be filed against a criminal defendant for sexual criminal conduct.
On February 3, 2014, Fr. Carne reported to Stephen Lynott, during a personal visit,
that Michigan Technological University fraternity students sometimes helped him
“with chores around his house,” with one even staying the night to help him recover
from heart surgery. (App’x, JC#13, Lynott notes to Fr. Carne file.) Fr. Carne also
reported that he heard confessions of Michigan Technological University students
when they requested it of him. (Id.) When asked whether he heard these
confessions at his house, he apparently responded that he heard the confessions “in
his car.” (Id.) Knowing this was against his precept, Fr. Carne indicated “he was
old enough he did not care what Marquette was telling him to do.” (Id.) He further
indicated that “his pension could not be taken away” as “it was guaranteed,” and
that he didn’t care if he was laicized. (Id.)
On November 3, 2016, Bishop Garland updated Fr. Carne’s precept and included
additional restrictions. (App’x JC#16, Precept.)
Fr. Carne indicated he had been sexually abused by Fr. Hale (see entry below No.
12.) (App’x JC#14, Review Board Data Sheet on Hale.)
Digital document review located a letter to Mr. and Mrs. John Doe7 from Bishop
Doerfler dated September 11, 2018, indicating, “I have received your prayer request
card, and I wish to assure you of my prayers for healing. I am saddened to hear
that you were sexually abused by Joseph Carne. On behalf of the Church, please
accept my apology. I would like to extend an offer to meet with me, and I pledge to
listen to you with an open heart. In addition, I wish to offer you counseling, if that
would be helpful for you.” (App’x JC#15, Letter dated September 11, 2018, from
Bishop Doerfler to Doe7, p 2.)
18
(5) FR. LEONARD CORNELIUS, OFM—*ACTIVE MINISTRY*
Fr. Cornelius is presumed to be alive and working in active ministry in the

Archeparchy of Pittsburgh.
The information comes from an undated Diocese of Marquette Review Board Data
Sheet. It indicates the following: “sexual arousal [unintelligible] 16-year-old male.”
(App’x LC#1.) Under remarks, it states the following:
Fr. Cornelius was chaplain at the Carmelite Monastery in Iron

Mountain when the abuse, which happened in the 80’s, was revealed.
The Franciscans removed him from ministry, got treatment and placed
him in a different assignment out of our Diocese. [App’x LC#1.]
There is no reported victim name nor a date the information was received to the
Diocese. Fr. Cornelius celebrated his 50th year in ministry in June 2019. 9
As of October 1, 2022, he is listed as a “homilist” for the Byzantine Catholic Church

in Pittsburgh. 10
9https://www.facebook.com/Franciscanfriars/posts/congratulations-to-fr-leonard-
cornelius-ofm-who-celebrates-50-years-as-a-francis/2848902545126787/ (Last
accessed October 26, 2022).
10See https://www.archpitt.org/organizer/rev-leonard- cornelius-ofm-homilist/ (Last
19
(6) FR. RICHARD T. CRAIG
Alive.
On leave of absence from all priestly ministry status from the Diocese.
According to a hand-written internal review conducted by the Diocese in 1994, a

twelve-year old boy, John Doe8, was referred to Catholic Social Services for
counseling by his grandparents in April 1991 because of “behavioral problems.”
(App’x RC#1, Internal Review, undated document, p 1.) This document further
indicated that on June 4, 1991, Doe8 was interviewed by Gerald Wiater, M.A., who
was concerned because the “boy reveal[ed] that he has been sleeping in same bed as
Fr. Craig” and that he had gone on fall and winter “overnight camping trips” with
him. (Id.) According to the internal review, Wiater informed Bishop Mark Schmitt
of these allegations of “questionable behavior” and, on June 10, 1991, the bishop
asked Fr. Craig to meet with Wiater for counseling. (Id.)
During Fr. Craig’s interview with Wiater on June 10, 1991, the internal review
document recorded that Fr. Craig revealed “damaging information” and the
following day, June 11, 1991, agreed to waive confidentiality. (App’x RC#1, p 1;
RC#2, Letter from Fr. Craig waiving his right to confidentiality.) On June 12, 1991,
Catholic Social Services then informed Child Protective Services of Fr. Craig’s
conduct. (App’x RC#1, p 2.)
On June 13, 1991, Wiater met with the diocesan “sex abuse team” including Bishop
Schmitt, and the internal review report indicated that he informed them that Fr.
Craig made the following admissions regarding Doe8:
1. Gave Zimas to the boy;
2. Toweled off the boy after baths;
3. Slept in the same bed as the boy;
4. Kissed the boy on the lips and hugged him in bed;
5. Has the boy refer to him as “Daddy”;
6. Talked about other teens that he was close to in the past.
7. Had no other sexual contact with the boy – “never sexually touched him.”
20
[App’x RC#1, p 2.] The “sex abuse team” decided Fr. Craig would be sent to St.
Luke Institute for assessment, and file notes indicate Fr. Craig was at St. Luke’s
June 16–21, 1991. (App’x RC#1, pp 2–3.)
On June 13, 1991, Catholic Social Services referred the matter to law enforcement
(id. at 3), but the prosecutor’s investigation was closed without criminal charges.
(App’x RC#3, Letter from Gregor MacGregor to diocesan attorney John Weber,
dated August 23, 1991) (“prosecutor’s office has concluded its investigation.”).
On June 26, 1991, Fr. Craig requested a leave of absence from the Diocese for
“personal reasons.” (App’x RC#4, Letter from Fr. Craig, dated June 26, 1991.)
Bishop Schmitt granted the leave of absence for an indefinite period of time,
“effective immediately.” (App’x RC#5, Letter from Bishop Schmitt, dated June 26,
1991.)
On September 17, 1991, Fr. Craig was admitted to Rogers Memorial Hospital for
further treatment, which continued through October 30, 1991. (App’x RC#1, p 3.)
On October 31, 1991, after Fr. Craig’s discharge from the hospital, Bishop Schmitt
sent a letter to Fr. Craig, asking for three separate commitments during his period
of “medical leave”: (1) no contact with the Doe8 family; (2) “no contact whatsoever
with children”; and (3) reside in the Marygrove Retreat Center in Garden, Michigan
during the medical leave. (App’x RC#6, Letter to Fr. Craig, dated October 31, 1991,
and signed by Fr. Craig agreeing to the conditions outlined in the letter.)
In January 1992 and July 1992, Fr. Craig attended aftercare treatment sessions at
St. Barnabas Center in Wisconsin. (App’x RC#1, pp 6–7.)
In December 1992, according to the internal review report, the Diocese learned from
a published newspaper report that Fr. Craig did not follow the order of his
commitment by planning to celebrate the funeral Mass for a member of the Doe8
family with whom he was not to have contact and that Fr. Craig did in fact spend
time with the family at their home following the funeral. (App’x RC#1, p 8.)
Fr. Craig was also a chaplain in the Air Force Reserves. In 1992, Bishop Schmitt
requested he resign because of the “recommendations of the treatment centers.”
(App’x RC#7, Letter from Bishop Schmitt to Fr. Craig, dated November 10, 1992.)
On September 2, 1993, based on additional information that the sex abuse team
learned about Doe8, i.e., that Doe8 stated that “Craig touched him on penis during
camping trip,” the internal review report indicated that it “unanimously”
recommended that “Craig be asked to resign.” (App’x RC#1, pp 8–9.)
On September 4, 1993, according to the internal review report, Bishop James

Garland met with Fr. Craig to ask for his resignation and agreement to laicization.
(App’x RC#1, p 9.) On September 7, 1993, the successor to Bishop Schmitt, Bishop
21
James Garland wrote him a letter memorializing their September 4, 1993 meeting,
“placing [him] on a leave of absence from active priestly ministry for a period of two
months” and asking him to resign from the priesthood and seek laicization. (App’x
RC#8, Letter to Fr. Craig dated September 7, 1993.) On September 20, 1993, Fr.
Craig responded to this letter, in which he claimed his innocence (“[t]here has been
no immoral or criminal action on my part”), relying on the fact that there were no
criminal charges brought against him. (App’x RC#9, Letter to Bishop Garland,
dated September 20, 1993.)
On September 27, 1993, Bishop Garland sent a reply to Fr. Craig, indicating that
because he did not “accept my action as justified,” that he would issue a “penal
precept.” (App’x RC#10, Letter to Fr. Craig dated September 27, 1993.) In that
precept, Bishop Garland admonished Fr. Craig “to avoid any contact with minors”
and “to refrain from all exercise of priestly ministry and from publicly identifying
himself as a priest” under threat of “immediate suspension.” (App’x RC#11,
Precept, dated September 27, 1993.)
On May 10, 2018, Bishop John Doerfler wrote to Fr. Craig, inviting him to seek
voluntary laicization. (App’x RC#12, Letter from Bishop Doerfler to Fr. Craig.) The
letter also informed him the Diocese now listed him among those priests for whom
there is a substantiated claim of sexual misconduct with a minor. (Id.)
22
(7) FR. TIMOTHY DESROCHERS
Died January 2, 2020.
On October 2, 2003, John Doe9 was a man in his 20s who reported to Fr. Alexander
Sample and Fr. Ben Paris that as an adult, when he went to confession, Fr. Timothy
Desrochers had hugged and “massaged his buttocks” during confession. (App’x
TD#1, Minutes of October 2, 2003 meeting, p 2.) According to the minutes of the
meeting, Doe9 was “very upset” by this, and Doe9 said that Fr. Desrochers told him
he was sorry and that “there had been others” and that it was his “struggle as well.”
(Id.) Doe9 indicated at that time that he had not gone to confession since the
assault and “never will.” (Id.)
On October 10, 2003, Fr. Alexander Sample confronted Fr. Desrochers with the
accusation, and Fr. Desrochers “flatly denied” the claim. (Id. at 3.) On November
11, 2003, Fr. Sample informed Doe9 of Fr. Desrochers’ denial, making clear that the
claim had not been “substantiat[ed],” and he also indicated that a separate
allegation against another priest could not be substantiated because he was
deceased, but that the Diocese would agree to pay for Doe9’s counseling with regard
to that claim by giving him “the benefit of the doubt.” (Id. at 4.)
On July 8, 2007, the Diocese received an email containing five nude photos of Fr.
Desrochers, which had been posted to silverdaddies.com, a website designed to
facilitate liaisons between older men seeking younger men. (App’x TD#2, Minutes
of July 16, 2007 meeting with Fr. Desrochers, p 1.) The pictures appeared to have
been taken during an extended annual vacation to Puerto Rico. When confronted
with the photographs and website, Fr. Desrochers did not deny that the pictures
were of him but claimed to have been framed or set up. Fr. Desrochers did admit to
posting the photographs, but his reasoning was that it was normal and “not a big
deal.” (Id.)
By way of letter dated July 17, 2007, Bishop Sample issued a precept dated July 16,
2007, to Fr. Desrochers restricting his exercise of priestly ministry based on his
conduct related to the website and the nude pictures. (App’x TD#3, Letter to Fr.
Desrochers from Bishop Sample, dated July 17, 2007; App’x TD#4, Decree of
Singular Precept, dated July 16, 2007.) The precept directed him “[t]o cease until
further notice any priestly ministry” among other limitations. (App’x TD#4,
Precept.)
In October 2011, Bishop Sample wrote to Fr. Desrochers that information had come
to him in May 2010 from the sheriff of Schoolcraft County in regard to “your
inappropriate and scandalous behavior and relationship with a prisoner housed
23
there at the jail.” (App’x TD#5, Letter to Fr. Desrochers from Bishop Sample dated
October 17, 2011.)
In the October 2011 letter, Bishop Sample indicated he had in his possession a
recording of a phone conversation between Fr. Desrochers and the prisoner. (Id.)
The prisoner had entered a guilty plea but wanted Fr. Desrochers’ help at the
sentencing hearing, hoping for a more lenient sentence. (Id.) According to the
letter, Fr. Desrochers asked the inmate, “Well what’s it worth to you” and then
suggests, “A few blow jobs?” and the prisoner agreed to “quite a few.” (Id.) A copy
of the recording was provided to the Diocese.
Fr. Desrochers remained a priest without faculties until his death on January 2,
2020.
24
(8) FR. THOMAS DUNLEAVY
Died on January 30, 2002.
On April 22, 2002, Jane Doe2 wrote to the Diocese reporting that she was molested
by Fr. Thomas Dunleavy while she was attending St. Joseph’s Elementary School in
Sault Ste. Marie in the early 1950s. (App’x TDU#1, Letter to Diocese.) While in the
6th or 7th grade, she played the organ for the choir and sang. (Id.) In her letter,
she stated that Fr. Dunleavy assaulted her at the bottom of the stairs going to the
choir approximately three or four times. (Id.) When she reported the assaults to
the nun who was the principal, after realizing two other girls her age told her that
they had been sexually abused, she said that they were interviewed separately.
(Id.) According to the letter, they were all interviewed a second time by a priest,
who was also assigned to St. Joseph Church. The letter then stated that Fr.
Thomas Dunleavy was “suddenly transferred.” (Id.)
In April 2002, Bishop Garland wrote to Doe2 and indicated:
I have no personal knowledge that these occurrences happened nor is

there any evidence in our files that any incidents similar to those you
mentioned occurred. [App’x TDU#2, Bishop Garland’s Letter, dated
April 25, 2002.]
On July 1, 2002, Jane Doe3 called the Diocese and reported that she and her sister
were sexually abused by Fr. Thomas Dunleavy in the 1960s while attending St.
Williams Parish in Menominee. (App’x TDU#3, “Allegation of Sexual Abuse,” dated
July 1, 2002.) The report indicated that they were ages 11 and 14. (Id.) She
indicated the sexual abuse occurred in the sacristy, the basement, the rectory, and
the school. (Id.) According to this allegation, Fr. Dunleavy would come to the home
requesting “help.” (Id.) The priest who recorded this allegation confirmed that “I
have personal memories of this family . . . and [Doe3’s] mother and father.” (Id.)
Doe3 said that they were made to go to the rectory by their mother. (Id.) When she
returned, she said her mother asked if anything had happened and made her
promise to never tell her father “out of fear that he would attempt to kill Father
Dunleavy.” (Id.) The report indicated that she said that her mother protected the
girls from that point on. (Id.) In the 1980s, she said that disclosed the sexual abuse
to a priest of the Diocese, who she said told her to “forget about it.” (Id.) Doe3
indicated that the priest said he told Bishop Schmitt about the sexual abuse. (Id.)
The diocesan records confirm that Fr. Dunleavy served at St. Joseph’s Church in
Sault Ste Marie and requested a change in September 1954 based on the
recommendations of his physician needing a lighter workload. (App’x TDU#4,
Letter from Bishop to Fr. Thomas Dunleavy, dated September 23, 1954, but
unsigned.) According to this letter, Fr. Dunleavy was transferred to St. Williams
25
parish in Menominee effective October 5, 1954 (id. at 2), which coincides as a
matter of timing with the reports by both women of abuse.
On October 22, 2018, Jane Doe4 called the tip line to report her sexual abuse by Fr.
Thomas Dunleavy. (App’x TDU#5, Tip Line # 168, #442.) On May 15, 2022, she
again called. Id. She reported that she attended St. William’s Parish in Menominee
and Marinette Catholic Central School in Wisconsin. She said that in 8th grade,
she was sexually abused by Fr. Thomas Dunleavy, in Menominee. She stated that
the sexual abuse occurred in the late 1960s. (Id.) According to this tip, when in 8th
grade, the caller went to Fr. Dunleavy’s house, “who hugged [her] tightly with very
red face,” and “hands behind.” (Id.) She said that her sister was also sexually
abused at the rectory, with Fr. Dunleavy placing his “hands in [the] wrong places.”
(Id.) She said that Fr. Dunleavy was shortly thereafter transferred to Bark River.
(Id.) She said that she first reported to church authorities in Peoria, Illinois in the
1990s. (Id.)
26
(9) FR. GINO FERRARO
Died 1976.
On April 15, 2008, Stephen Lynott received a report of sexual abuse of Jane Doe5
from a third party, stating she disclosed that she had been “molested (fondled) by
my parish priest from the time I was eight until about 17 years old.” (App’x GF#1,
Jane Doe5 application to EMI dated April 15, 2008, essay attachment, p 1.) The
report did not name the priest. (App’x GF#2, undated, handwritten note to Lynott.)
Apparently, Doe5 was living in Nadeau and attended St. Bruno’s Parish during the
late 1950s and early 1960s. (Id.) At the time, Lynott followed up with Bishop
Alexander Sample via email, telling the Bishop that he had spoken with Doe5 and
that she was “very coherent and logical.” (App’x GF#3, May 9, 2008 email from
Lynott to Bishop Sample.) Lynott said Doe5 told him that there were others in her
hometown who had been sexually abused as well. (Id.) Lynott also recounted that
Doe5 said she first told Fr. Raymond Hoefgen (see entry No. 17 below) in confession
about the sexual abuse. (Id.) According to Doe5, Fr. Hoefgen’s response was, “oh,
no, Fr. Gino would never have done that.” (Id.) Doe5 said she then told another
priest, who said, “that couldn’t have happened.” (Id.) She indicated she later talked
to a third priest at Marygrove, and he said that there was not anything in Fr. Gino’s
file that would support her claim. (Id.) Doe5 said that this priest said he would get
her some materials (Lynott theorized that perhaps he might have meant reporting
guidelines) but “did not follow through.” (Id.) Lynott sent her the diocesan
reporting guidelines and offered to meet with her. (Id.)
In this 2008 report, Doe5 provided additional details in a written narrative of her
memories. She remembered that he was “very intimate and loving” to her “in the
dark of the confessional.” (App’x GF#4, May 2, 2008 “Memories of Gino S. Ferraro”
by Doe5, p 1.) While on a three-day trip to Houghton with him and others, she also
stated that she “vaguely remember[ed] him touching my breasts and saying
something about how I was ‘developing.’ ” (Id.) And she remembered that when she
went on car trips with him and others, she always had to “sit right next to him in
the front seat” while he drove, and he would touch her knees and thighs. (Id.) She
described how he “loved luxury and the best for himself. He got a new fancy big car
every year. He smoked cigarettes and his fingers on his right hand were yellow, the
right hand that molested me while he was driving.” (Id., p 3.) Lynott emailed Doe5,
indicating he would be taking her report before the Review Board. (App’x GF#5,
May 22, 2005 email from Lynott to Doe5.) There is a Review Board Data Sheet
indicating, “victim seeks no assistance or damages.” (App’x GF#6, Review Board
Data Sheet.)
On September 8, 2008, Bishop Alexander Sample wrote the following to Doe5:
I would like to begin with an apology for the difficulties you

encountered when first attempting to report your allegations of
27
childhood sexual abuse by one of our now deceased priests. Having
said that, please know that the Diocese of Marquette maintains its
offer to provide you with therapeutic counseling services should you
request counseling. In addition, if you desire, I would be happy to
meet with you to personally apologize and listen to your story. [App’x
GF#7, Letter from Bishop Sample dated September 8, 2008, to Doe5.]
28
(10) FR. WILBUR GIBBS
Died April 22, 1988.
On April 25, 2002, the spouse of John Doe10, PhD, emailed Bishop James Garland
reporting her late husband’s disclosure of sexual abuse to her. (App’x WG#1, Email
dated April 25, 2002, to Bishop Garland.) She reported that he was a Cuban
refugee who had been sponsored by the Diocese of Marquette and housed at an old
orphanage in Marquette. (Id.) It was her understanding, it was common
knowledge amongst her husband and other Cuban refugees that Monsignor Gibbs,
who acted as a “houseparent . . . , sexually molested them.” (Id.) According to the
email, Gibbs would ask the boys to expose their penises under the pretense of
checking to see if they were circumcised. (Id.)
Msgr. Gibbs was assigned to the Holy Family Home in Marquette from June 1958 to
January 1964, when he requested a leave of absence. (App’x WG#2, Msgr. Gibbs’
List of Assignments.) This date range relates to the spouse’s statement to Bishop
Garland that she married her husband after graduating from high school in 1964.
(App’x WG#1.)
29
(11) FR. BASIL GOERNER
Removed from public ministry in 2002.
Basil Goerner became a priest later in life after having a family. He was ordained
in 1993 at age 61.
In 1994, the year after his ordination, Jane Doe7, age 40, reported to the Diocese
that before he became a priest, he had sexually abused her when she was 18 in the
early 1970s. (App’x BG#1, Notes from March 1, 1994 call from Doe7 to William
Richards, p 1.) The was the first time Doe7 reported the sexual abuse to anyone.
(Id.)
Also in 1994, Doe7 reported that Fr. Goerner had sexually abused Jane Doe8, when
Doe8 was 14 years old, also before he became a priest and also in the timeframe of
the early 1970s. (Id.; App’x BG#1, p 1.)
Fr. Goerner was sent for a complete evaluation at the Servants of the Paraclete, St.
Michael’s Community, in New Mexico (App’x BG#2, Letter from April 5, 1994, from
Servants of the Paraclete to Bishop James Garland, p 1.) After this evaluation, Fr.
Goerner began Spiritual Direction with Sr. Jean Junak in Ishpeming. (App’x BG#3,
Letter dated May 12, 1994, from Fr. Goerner to Bishop Garland.) Fr. Goerner
apologized for the “work and concern I caused you and others involved.” (Id.)
On May 1, 2002, Fr. Goerner wrote to Bishop Garland indicating he would no longer
accept requests for fill-in replacement work “under the circumstances,” noting that
“[s]uccessful evaluation and/or treatment however will probably no longer suffice
under the current level of criticism and distrust.” (App’x BG#4, Letter dated May 1,
2002, Fr. Goerner to Bishop Garland.) In the same letter, Fr. Goerner told the
Bishop: “I was pleased to see your comment in the UP [upper peninsula of
Michigan] Catholic several months ago that there were no priests on assignment in
the Diocese against whom there were allegations of abuse.” (App’x BG#4.)
As of May 11, 2002, however, Bishop Garland placed Fr. Goerner under a precept
that “permitted [him] to celebrate Mass on Sundays in a parish where another
priest is present, such that he would not be alone with minors” and to concelebrate
30
the Diocesan Chrism Mass and the Mass of Christian Burial for priests of the
Diocese of Marquette. (App’x BG#5, Precept dated May 11, 2002.)
On May 30, 2002, the May 11, 2002 precept was superseded by a subsequent
precept. (App’x BG#8, Letter dated May 30, 2002, from Bishop Garland to Fr.
Goerner with accompanying precept dated May 30, 2002.) On May 31, 2002, Fr.
Goerner wrote to Bishop Garland with a request to conduct weddings and funerals
for family. (App’x BG#6 p 1.) He was granted this exception to the precept. (Id.)
On the same day, Fr. Goerner wrote a separate letter reminding the Bishop that
“my fault of inappropriate female adolescent touching was over 20 years before my
ordination” and it occurred “as a married layperson,” suggesting that it would not
be “fair or accurate” to count his “sin” in statistics “against the ordained celibate
priests of the Marquette Diocese or of the United States.” (App’x BG#7, Letter dated
May 31, 2002, from Fr. Goerner to Bishop Garland.)
On August 11, 2002, Fr. Goerner was removed from all public ministry (App’x
BG#9, Letter dated August 12, 2002, from Bishop Garland to Fr. Goerner with
accompanying precept dated August 11, 2002.) Bishop Garland explained in the
letter that accompanied the precept: “After the approval of the ‘Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People’ by the U.S. Catholic Bishops, I consulted
with our local committee regarding the Charter’s application to the situations of
sexual abuse involving our clergy. It is our intent to apply the Charter uniformly
with fairness and equity to all cases. This now prohibits the exceptions I had
specified in the last precept to you. This also recognizes that child sexual abuse
likely stems from a disorder which often precipitates additional acts of abuse.
Hence, the restrictions in the precept in order to make occasions of sexual abuse
remote and to ensure the protection of children.” (Id.)
31
(12) FR. MICHAEL HALE
Died 1975.
On August 26, 1955, on letterhead from the Diocese of Marquette, Monsignor

Joseph Zryd wrote the following to Bishop Thomas Noa: “I am very sorry to advise
you that a complaint has been filed with the police against Father Hale.
Apparently, it is a recurrence of his old problem.” (App’x MH#1, Letter dated
August 26, 1955, from Msgr. Zyrd to Bishop Noa.) The letter did not clearly
indicate what the “old problem” was; although the primary focus of the letter was to
advise the Bishop about an allegation that Fr. Hale “accost[ed] a hitchhiker,” the
letter also mentions past automobile accidents. (Id.) The letter stated that
“according to Father Drengacz and Father Bourgeois, the police will probably hush
up the matter, if Father Hale leaves the area.” (Id.) At that time, Fr. Hale was
assigned to the orphanage in Marquette. (App’x MH#1.) A follow-up letter from Fr.
Hale to the Bishop mentioned “the charges against me,” referring to them as
“renew[ing] old sores,” tells the Bishop he is “sorry for any scandal I may have
caused by any lack of prudence on my part,” but also tells the Bishop he was
“shocked” to hear the charges against him. (App’x MH#2, Letter from Fr. Hale
dated September 24, 1955, to Bishop Noa.)
An undated memo in Fr. Hale’s personnel file, which appears to be related to the
August 26, 1955 letter, recounts that John Doe11, age 15, from Calumet was
hitchhiking when Hale picked him up and told him, “A man gets hot pants once in a
while and wants to jack off.” (App’x MH#3, Note in Fr. Hale file.) According to the
memo, Fr. Hale dropped him at home and asked the child if he wanted to go for a
boat ride. (Id.) The memo states that the child told Fr. Hale “yes,” but that when
Fr. Hale drove back the next day for the boat ride, Doe11 said “no.” (Id.) The memo
relates that Doe11 told his parents what happened. (Id.) The memo notes that the
“parents are not held in very high repute in the community as they are quite heavy
drinkers.” (Id.) It was further noted that no formal complaint was made, nor was
there “any record on the police files.” (Id.)
According to a letter dated March 3, 1965, the parents of two Catholic boys of St.
Joseph’s parish in Hancock—John Doe12, age 18, and John Doe13, age 16—
approached Father Kenneth Bretl concerning what they viewed as inappropriate
incidents involving Fr. Hale related to events from 1956. (App’x MH#4, Letter
dated March 3,1965 from Fr. Drengacz to Bishop Noa.) After talking with the
parents, Fr. Drengacz “put them both under oath” and took their testimony on
March 3, 1956. (Id.) The boys indicated that they, along with some other boys,
went for a number of boat rides with Father Hale, and each time “beer was served.”
(Id., Attached testimony to March 3, 1956 letter from Fr. Drengacz to Bishop Noa.)
Doe13 indicated that, on one such occasion after a boat ride, Fr. Hale propositioned
him sexually when Fr. Hale drove Doe13 home and the two were alone. (Id.) Doe13
said he rebuffed the advance. (Id.) Doe13 recounted a separate occasion where,
32
when Fr. Hale invited him to the Escanaba fair, the two stayed overnight in a one-
bed cabin and slept together. (Id.) According to Doe13, Fr. Hale again
propositioned him but he again refused. (Id.)
Related to this report about the events from 1956, Fr. Drengacz recounted that,
according to the boys, on a different occasion Doe13 and another boy, John Doe14,
went to the rectory to help Fr. Hale lay linoleum in the kitchen. (App’x MH#4, p 2.)
The boys said they each drank approximately seven beers, Fr. Hale told sexy jokes,
and they watched television; Fr. Hale then made them coffee and the boys went
home around 11:30 p.m. (Id.) When this all came out, the parents demanded an
explanation. (Id.)
In response in 1956, Fr. Hale apparently denied having any boys to the rectory at
all. (Id.) On March 8, 1956, Fr. Hale wrote the following to Bishop Noa: “I am very
sorry to have brought you so much trouble; you have been most kind and
considerate to me in the past and I can readily understand how disgusted you must
be with me now.” (App’x MH#5, Letter dated March 8, 1956, from Fr. Hale to
Bishop Noa.)
In 1956, Fr. Hale was sent to Via Coeli, Monastery of the Servants of the Paraclete,
in Jemez Springs, New Mexico for treatment. (App’x MH#6, Letter dated March 15,
1956, from Msgr. Robert Chisolm to Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, sP, Via Coeli; App’x
MH#7, Letter dated March 29, 1956, from Fr. Fitzgerald, sP, to Msgr. Chisolm.)
While at Via Coeli, Fr. Hale wrote to Bishop Noa, stating that a “basic factor to
account for any past mistakes was my indulging in alcoholic beverages.” (App’x
MH#8, Letter dated August 8, 1956, from Fr. Hale to Bishop Noa.) Fr. Hale
promised to never drink alcohol again, other than the Sacred Species received at
Mass. ((App’x MH#9, Fr. Hale pledge.) Shortly thereafter, Fr. Hale was
recommended for a return to limited duty and was given a parish assignment—at
St. Cecelia’s Church in Caspian, Michigan. (App’x MH#10, Letter dated September
1, 1956, from Msgr. Chisolm to Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, sP.)
By 1968, Fr. Hale had again been accused of sexual impropriety with a minor boy
while he was assigned to St. Rita’s Church in Trenary. (App’x MH#11, Letter dated
May 20, 1968, from Fr. Hale to Bishop Charles Salatka in response to interview
with Bishop Salatka.) Fr. Hale claimed that he was the victim of false rumors and
jealousy. (Id.) On June 21, 1968, Fr. Hale again promised to not use alcoholic
beverages as a condition of his appointment as pastor of St. Cecilia’s Parish in
Hubbell. (App’x MH#12, Letter dated June 21,1968 from Fr. Hale to Bishop
Salatka with attached pledge, p 3; App’x MH#13, Letter dated June 24, 1968, from
Bishop Salatka to Fr. Hale.)
Apparently in 1972, based on file notes, a father wrote a letter to Bishop Charles
Salatka, which referenced “liberties” Fr. Hale had taken with the man’s son John
33
Doe14. (App’x MH#14, Letter from father of Doe14 to Bishop Salatka.) The father
of Doe14 let Bishop Salatka know he had told Fr. Hale that he would not report him
if Fr. Hale agreed to stop taking young boys to his camp. (Id.) The father of Doe14
said he found out that Fr. Hale had continued taking young boys to the camp, and
he said the following to Bishop Salatka about Fr. Hale: “the man is sick. I don’t
want anything to hurt him, but he needs help. He should never have a parish of his
own where he can come in contact with boys.” (Id.)
In December 2004, John Doe16 reported that, while a teenager, he had been
sexually abused by Fr. Hale. (App’x MH#19, Review Board Data Sheet.)
In 2004, Fr. Carne (see above entry No. 4 for Fr. Carne) wrote to the bishop, noting
the following: “Having been a victim of a priest (Mike Hale) myself I can tell you
first hand of the lifelong troubles it caused me.” (App’x MH#20, Letter dated
December 27, 2004, from Fr. Carne to Bishop James Garland.)
By way of letter sent to the Diocese on May 14, 2007, John Doe17 reported that he
had been abused by Father Hale. (App’x MH#21, Letter dated May 14, 2007, from
Doe17 to Diocese, pp 1–2; App’x MH#22, Review Board Data Sheet.) Doe17
indicated that, many years ago when he attended Holy Rosary, he interviewed Fr.
Hale for an assignment on career study. (App’x MH#21, p 1.) Doe17 said Fr. Hale
offered him a job creating a lawn where trees had been removed—a several-day
project that led to Doe17 sleeping at the rectory. (Id.) According to Doe17, after he
went to bed, Fr. Hale climbed into bed with him and started talking and “feeling up”
his chest and penis. (Id., p 2.) Doe17 said he turned away but that Fr. Hale
continued touching Doe17’s penis until he ejaculated. (Id.) Doe17 also said Fr.
Hale attempted to make him touch his (Fr. Hale’s) penis. (Id.) Doe17 said that
when he would not do so, Fr. Hale masturbated until he ejaculated in the bed next
to him and then left. (Id.) Doe17 indicated that the next morning he (Doe17)
packed up his belongings and walked 12 miles home. (Id.) He explained that when
he arrived home, his father forced him to return to Fr. Hale’s rectory. (Id.) Doe17
believes that Fr. Hale recognized his advantage and recounts that he made Doe17
sleep in his (Fr. Hale’s) bed that night. (Id.) According to Doe17, Fr. Hale touched
Doe17’s penis and performed fellatio on him. (Id.) Doe17 also said that Fr. Hale
attempted to force him to perform fellatio on him, but that he refused, although he
did he kiss Fr. Hale’s penis and masturbated Hale. (Id.) Doe17 reported that Fr.
Hale drove him home the next morning. (Id.)
Apparently in May 2007, the Diocese committed to finding counseling resources and
to forward those to Doe17, in addition to paying for this counseling. (MH#23, Letter
(unsigned) dated May 21, 2007, from Lynott to Doe17, p 1.) The Diocese also gave
Doe17 a pamphlet describing the Diocese’s policies and procedures for victim
assistance. (Id.) Bishop Sample apologized for the “harm done to Doe17 so many
years ago.” (Id.) Stephen Lynott, Director of Ministry Personnel Services, wrote to
Doe17 to apologize for “all that transpired because of the immoral and illegal
34
behavior of . . . Fr. Hale,” noted that Fr. Hale was assigned to the parishes within
the timeframes Doe17 had mentioned, and said that the diocesan files, although
“skimpy and quite old,” contained “indirect indicators that point to difficulties in
[Fr. Hale’s] assignments, although not with any of the detail you were able to
provide in your letter.” (Id.)
On September 27, 2007, Doe17 requested and received a reconciliation meeting with
Bishop Alexander Sample and Stephen Lynott, Director of Ministry Personnel.
(App’x MH#24, Notes from September 27, 2007 meeting with Doe17, Bishop
Sample, Steve Lynott.)
In 2009, in a later correspondence to Doe17, Lynott told him that the “Bishop with
his Review Board, find your account and your motivation to be credible, believable,
and we choose to accept your version as substantially what happened.” (App’x
MH#25, Email dated January 23, 2009, from Lynott to Doe17.)
35
(13) FR. GERALD HARRINGTON
Died 1962.
On March 25, 2019, the attorney for the Diocese, Laura Reilly, informed the
Department of Attorney General that Fr. Gerald Harrington (who died in 1962) has
a reported victim who was more than 80 years old. No further information was
reported by the Diocese.
36
(14) FR. DONALD HARTMAN
(LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.)
Died November 15, 1999.
On January 3, 1992, Bishop Mark Schmitt wrote a letter to Fr. Donald Hartman
stating that “in view of the recent allegation against you by John Doe18 in regard to
sexual abuse, I hereby direct you to enter into an assessment program at Saint
Luke Institute in Suitland, Maryland.” (App’x DH#1, Letter dated January 3, 1992,
from Bishop Schmitt to Doe18.) The letter noted that until the assessment was
completed, Fr. Hartman was not to “engage in any public ministry.” (Id.)
It is unclear whether the Bishop’s letter was prompted by a legal complaint filed
against Fr. Hartman and Fr. Norbert LaCosse (see entry below, No. 21) in the
Dickinson County Circuit Court, but the lawsuit does coincide with Fr. Hartman’s
leaving priestly ministry. (See App’x DH#2, Amended Complaint filed in Dickinson
County Circuit Court on December 19, 1991.) The lawsuit alleged that Fr. Hartman
“sexually assaulted” a minor plaintiff (named in the complaint simply as John Doe
but identified as a then-12-year-old altar boy at American Martyrs Church) at the
Diocesan Retirement Home located in Escanaba. (Id., ¶ 19.)
On March 27, 2002, John Doe19 emailed the Diocese, reporting to Bishop James
Garland that Hartman “was pedophilic.” (App’x DH#3, Email dated March 27,
2002, from Doe19 to Bishop Garland.) Doe19 stated that he had been an altar boy
at St. Ignatius Loyola Parish in St. Ignace during the late 1950s. (Id.) The Bishop
responded, “I did not know many particulars of Fr. Hartman as he had left active
ministry and was living in New York when I came to the Diocese in 1992. . . . If
there is anything I can do for you please let me know.” (App’x DH#4, Email dated
March 27, 2002, from Bishop Garland to Doe19.)
On April 22, 2004, John Doe20 met with Fr. Alexander Sample at St. Charles
Borromeo Parish in Rapid River and reported being sexually abused by Fr.
Hartman when Fr. Hartman was an associate at St. Michael Parish. (App’x DH#5,
Act of the Preliminary Investigation, Interview dated April 22, 2004, with Doe20,
p 1.) As Doe20 recounted, Fr. Hartman was a “drinking buddy” of Doe20’s father
and would take Doe20 and his brothers on outings. (Id.) When he was 14 or 15-
years old, they arrived back at Doe20’s home after seeing a movie when Fr.
Hartman told the other boys he needed to talk to Doe20 alone. (Id.) Once he was
alone with Doe20, Doe20 said that Fr. Hartman began to fondle Doe20 and said
something to the effect of “I need this.” (Id.) Doe20 explained that this progressed
to Fr. Hartman performing fellatio on Doe20; Fr. Hartman tried to get Doe20 to
touch him but Doe20 refused. (Id.) And he said that Fr. Hartman told him not to
tell anyone what happened. (Id.) Approximately one year later, Doe20 said that Fr.
37
Hartman sexually abused him again, fondling him and performing fellatio on him.
(Id., p 2.) In this interview, Doe20 said that he told Fr. Hartman if it happened
again, he would disclose the sexual abuse, and that after that, it stopped. (Id.) This
took place in approximately 1953–54. (Id., p 1.)
In this 2004 interview, Doe20 remembered that Fr. Hartman was arrested for
sexually abusing young boys while he was working in the Champion, Republic,
Michigamme area. (Id., p 2.) When that was made public, Doe20 said his father
asked all his boys if Fr. Hartman had ever “touched any of them in an abusive way.”
(Id.) They all denied it, fearful that their father would cause Fr. Hartman bodily
injury. (Id.)
Also in this 2004 interview, Doe20 admitted to never having formally made a
complaint against Fr. Hartman until 2004. (Id, p 3.) But he said that many times
over the years he mentioned the sexual abuse by Fr. Hartman during confessions
and was never advised to make a report to the Bishop. (Id.) Doe20 reported that he
had “a lot of anger toward the Church.” (Id.) The file indicates that Fr. Alexander
Sample, who investigated the allegations, apologized to Doe20 for what happened,
advised him that the matter would go before the Diocesan Review Board, and
offered counseling. (Id.) Doe20 appears not to have been satisfied with these
measures. (App’x DH#6, Letter dated February 27, 2006, from Doe20 to Bishop
Sample.)
On September 5, 2005, Fr. Alexander Sample received a call from John Doe21
reporting that Fr. Hartman had sexually abused him. (App’x DH#7, Notes from
phone call of September 2, 2005, from Doe21 to Fr. Sample.) Doe21 indicated that
the abuse occurred during 1960–61 when he attended St. Ignatius Loyola in St.
Ignace and was serving as an altar boy, stating that he was abused approximately
2-to-4 times. (Id.) Doe21 said was 11 or 12 years old at the time. (Id.) Fr.
Hartman was apparently associate pastor there at the time. (Id.) Doe21 reported
that, after Mass, Hartman would isolate him, get him on his lap, and fondle his
genitals, which were exposed. (Id.) Doe21 said he disclosed the abuse to a cousin,
who told Doe21’s parents. (Id.) The parents apparently confronted Fr. Hartman.
(Id.) Doe21 said that the pastor at the time, became involved and had him talk to a
priest whom Doe21 identified as Fr. Walters. (Id.) Shortly after, Doe21 said, Fr.
Hartman was moved from the parish. (Id.) Doe21 disclosed that he was aware of
two other victims who told him of the exact same abuse by Fr. Hartman, but he felt
he could not give their names. (Id.)
According to a diocesan Review Board Data Sheet, an unknown victim reported that
he was sexually abused by Fr. Hartman when the boy was 11 years old and was
serving as an altar boy in the 1960s. (App’x DH#8, Review Board Data Sheet.) The
Review Board “validated” the allegation as it was “consistent with other reports.”
(Id.) Further it was noted that “the priest is deceased and victim requested no
further action.” (Id.)
38
On December 6, 2010, John Doe22 was called by the Diocese to discuss possible
sexual abuse by Fr. Hartman in 1963 at Sacred Heart Parish in Champion. (App’x
DH#9, Note dated December 6, 2010, from Fr. Ronald Browne to Bishop Sample, p
1.) Doe22 recalled that he came into contact with Fr. Hartman at around age 9 or
10 when he began cutting grass and doing other chores at the church and rectory in
1962. (Id., p 1.) He recounted that on one such occasion Fr. Hartman took him into
the rectory, kissed him on the lips, and then unzipped his own pants and made
Doe22 put his hand on Fr. Hartman’s penis and masturbate him to ejaculation.
(Id.) Doe22 said Fr. Hartman took off his [Doe22’s] pants and fondled his genitals.
(Id.) According to Doe22, similar instances occurred over the course of a year, at
various locations including in the rectory, in the basement of the church, in the car,
and on a beach at camp. (Id.) Doe22 said that on one occasion Fr. Hartman
attempted anal intercourse, but Doe22 objected. (Id.) Doe22 said Fr. Hartman paid
him for the chores he did, but also paid him extra money—a $1 or $1.50 extra—
when there was sexual abuse. (Id.) Doe22 indicated that after the first incident, he
did not want to return to the church to continue working, but his mother told him
he should because he was getting paid and it was “good money.” (Id.) Doe22 did
not tell his mother about the sexual abuse. (Id.)
Also in December 2010, Doe22 reported that in 1963 Fr. Hartman was sexually
abusing him in the basement of the church and a woman walked by the window and
observed the sexual abuse. (App’x DH#9, p 1.) According to Doe22, the woman
recognized him and called his mother, and they reported the sexual abuse to the
police. (Id.) Doe22 was apparently brought before a judge—not in a courtroom
setting but rather in the judge’s personal home—and he told the judge what
happened. (Id.) Doe22 cannot remember talking to the police or even if there was a
court reporter present when he told the judge what had happened.) Doe22 reported
that after meeting with the judge, Fr. Hartman was moved from the parish. (Id.,
p 2.)
On December 16, 2010, Bishop Sample and Fr. Ronald Browne met with Doe22 and
a friend of his at the diocesan office. (App’x DH#10, Addendum to Doe22 file, entry
dated December 16, 2010.) The Bishop stated that he had “no reason to doubt
[Doe22’s’] story and that he was very sorry for what happened.” (Id.) They
discussed providing counseling for Doe22 and also paying for some type of re-
training for a new job or work (id.), although it is not clear whether either occurred.
On February 9, 2011, the attorney for the Diocese reported Doe22’s allegations to
Marquette County prosecutor Gary Walker. (App’x DH#12.)
On February 16, 2019, Witness1 emailed the tip line to report that Doe22 was his
family member and he was reporting that Fr. Hartman sexually abused his family
member when Doe22 was 10 or 11 years old at Champion Catholic Church. (App’x
DH#11, tip line entry # 284.) He said the police were involved so there should be a
record from Marquette County. (Id.) Witness1 also said his family member needs
39
assistance for the trauma he still deals with today and is interested in counseling
but there is very little available in Marquette County. (Id.) The Michigan Attorney
General Victim Advocate followed up with both the family member and Doe22.
On August 13, 2019, Doe22 called Diocese of Marquette Victim Assistance

Coordinator Stephen Lynott to make the allegations again. Lynott noted: “I told
him I would inform the Diocese about his allegation, which seems very credible to
me, and see if there might be some ways we could help him. I also told him that
Bishop Doerfler would be willing to meet with him, and perhaps offer spiritual
comfort as well. He liked that.” (App’x DH#13, Lynott Notes.)
40
(15) FR. ALOYSIUS HASENBERG
Died on January 24, 2016.
He was removed from public ministry in 2008 and permanently removed from
ministry on January 25, 2010.
In 1997, while serving as pastor at St. Agnes in Iron River, Bishop James Garland
was alerted to rumors that Fr. Hasenberg was inviting men into the rectory for
sexual activity in exchange for money. (App’x AH#1, Case history attachment to
Letter dated January 24, 2003, from Fr. James Ziminski to St. Luke Institute, p 1.)
Fr. Hasenberg admitted to having men into the rectory, but denied that it was for a
sexual purpose, instead claiming it was to offer “charity assistance.” (Id.) Allegedly
for reasons of his age at the time (75 years old), Fr. Hasenberg resigned his position
at St. Agnes and retired. (Id.; App’x AH#2, Letter dated April 16, 1997, from Fr.
Hasenberg to Bishop Garland.) He then moved into an empty rectory in
Watersmeet. (App’x AH#1, case history, p 1; App’x AH#3, Letter dated April 21,
1997, from Bishop Garland to Fr. Hasenberg.) Fr. Hasenberg was permitted to
celebrate daily Mass at Immaculate Conception Parish in Watersmeet and to hear
confessions. (App’x AH#4, Agreement dated July 1, 1997, related to housing
arrangements and limited ecclesiastical service.)
In December 2002, Fr. Alexander Sample was advised of a criminal investigation

that had been referred to the Diocese regarding Fr. Hasenberg. (App’x AH#1, p 1.)
The Chief of Police for the Lax Vieux Desert Tribal Police (Watersmeet) called,
describing a report made to him by John Doe24, who described a sexual encounter
he had with Fr. Hasenberg and characterized it as “rape.” (Id.) According to the
tribal police report, which was provided to Fr. Sample, on December 9, 2002 (id;
App’x AH#5, Police Report), the complainant left a bar and went to the rectory to
get money in exchange for consenting to sexual activity. (App’x AH#1, December
31, 2002 entry.) The complainant was allegedly paid $20 to allow Fr. Hasenberg to
touch his buttocks, fondle his penis, rub groins together, and masturbate Doe24 to
ejaculation. (Id.) Doe24 indicated this had been happening for at least three years,
always in the rectory, and that he was always paid between $20–40. (Id.)
According to the report to the tribal police from December 2002, Doe24 had
previously disclosed the sexual activity to his mental health worker, who provided
the police documentation supporting allegations of sexual activity for money dating
back to August of 1998. (Id.) According to the same report, Doe24 listed four other
41
men who had the same arrangement with Fr. Hasenberg. (Id.) A local police officer
named an additional three men rumored to have this same arrangement. (Id.) The
file notes indicate that the police believed Doe24 to be cognitively impaired, but
nevertheless found his allegations to be “substantive and credible.” (Id., January
2003 entry.) According to the file notes, the police investigation ultimately deemed
the events “consensual” and closed their investigation, notifying the Diocese of the
investigation and result. (Id.)
Following receipt of the police report, the Diocese conducted its own internal
investigation of Father Hasenberg, resulting in a five-page report, dated December
31, 2002. (App’x AH#1). On February 2, 2003, the Diocese sent Fr. Hasenberg to
St. Luke Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, for evaluation and treatment based
on these activities with adult men. (Id.)
Four years later, on May 25, 2007, then Chief of Police in Marensco Township and
the former Police Supervisor/Criminal Investigator for the Federal Indian
Reservation at Lac Vieux Desert in Watersmeet, Bruce Mahler, wrote to Bishop
Sample and said the following:
We have never met but I did speak extensively approximately 4–5

years ago when I was the Police Supervisor/Criminal Investigator for
the Federal Indian Reservation at Lac Vieux Desert in Watersmeet,
MI, regarding an allegation of sexual assault by a retired priest
against a developmentally disabled Indian male. At that time I could
have charged the priest with solicitation and the Indian male with
prostitution. Instead, I referred the matter to the Diocese for
resolution. To this day I regret that decision! The resolution was
totally inadequate and never resolved the issue with the pour soul who
was the Victim. Since that time, I have had some serious issues with
this Diocese. [App’x AH#6, Letter dated May 25, 2007, from Mahler to
Bishop Sample.]
Apparently in 2002 or 2003 around the same time as the investigation in relation to
Doe24 was ongoing, diocesan staff member Steve Lynott reported having lunch with
a friend who wished to remain anonymous and did not make a formal complaint but
indicated that he was from Iron River and had been an altar server for Fr.
Hasenberg. (App’x AH#14, p 2 of January 2003 entry.) This friend told Lynott that
Fr. Hasenberg would “touch the boy servers inappropriately about the arms and
chest” and “rub against them.” (Id.)
When confronted by Bishop Garland, Fr. James Ziminski, and Fr. Alexander
Sample on December 31, 2002, Fr. Hasenberg denied the allegations by Doe24, but
later in the conversation “gradually admitted to the details of the allegation, but not
to his responsibility in it.” (Id., p 3 of January 2003 entry.) The Diocese’s initial
assessment was that it “appears likely that these allegations are true because:
42
• The allegations are identical to past allegations.
• The victim reported the allegation over a long period of time to case workers.
• The new victim does not appear to be associated with the past allegation.”
[Id.]
In April of 2005, John Doe25 reported that he was sexually abused during the
winter months of 1948 or 1949 while serving as an altar boy at St. Anne Parish in
Menominee. (App’x AH#7, handwritten notes dated April 20, 2005; App’x AH#8,
Letter marked “confidential” and unsigned from Lynott to Doe25 dated April 28,
2005, p 1.) Doe25 indicated that the priest would rub up against him until he (the
priest) “climaxed.” (Id.) The Diocese determined that Fr. Hasenberg was one of two
priests serving St. Anne’s during the time that Doe25 reported being sexually
abused. However, Doe25 was unable to identify the abusive priest as Fr.
Hasenberg, and file notes indicate that Doe25 thought “the perpetrator had a name
of Irish derivation, resembled something like Conner, or O’Conner or O’Connell.”
(Id.) This caused Lynott to conclude, in his letter to Doe25: “You knew of these
priests [including Hasenberg] but they did not fit the recall that you have of the
incidents. It is possible that a priest from Jordon Seminary may have been filling in
on a temporary basis, but we have no way of verifying that.” (Id.; App’x AH#9,
Handwritten notes from Lynott dated May 27, 2009; App’x AH#10, Handwritten file
notes, date and author unclear, p 1.) The allegation was reviewed by the diocesan
Review Board, which was unable determine that the priest reported by Doe25 was
actually Fr. Hasenberg. (App’x AH#11, Review Board Data Sheet.)
In September 2008, a father reported to the Diocese that his son, John Doe23, had
been sexually abused by Fr. Aloysius Hasenberg 35-to-40 times while he was
serving as an altar boy at St. Agnes in Iron River. (App’x AH#12, Lynott notes
regarding abuse report, entry dated September 13, “2009,” [sic, 2008].) The Review
Board met and determined that the allegation had merit “based on the sincerity and
credibility of the family making the allegation” and based on previous reports “we
have had of a similar nature with Fr. H, but in that case the victim was an adult.”
(App’x AH#12, Entry dated September 15, 2008.) The file notes indicate that Fr.
Hasenberg was “sent to St. Luke’s for that incident [with the adult] and no mention
was made by SLI [St. Luke Institute] of possible abuse of minors.” (Id.)
In October 2008, when Stephen Lynott interviewed Doe23, Doe23 confirmed that he
was sexually abused 35-to-40 times between the ages of 9 and 13, usually before or
after serving Mass for Fr. Hasenberg and one time at an altar boy picnic. (App’x
AH#12, Lynott notes, entry dated October 8, 2008; App’x AH#13, handwritten notes
from Lynott dated October 8, 2008, p 1.) Doe23 indicated that Fr. Hasenberg would
come up behind him, grab him tightly, lean into him, and “begin rubbing back and
forth against him.” (Id.) Doe23 said he did not have a “clear memory of Fr. H
ejaculating because of the multiple robes and vestments he wore.” (Id.) Doe23
43
remembered this as having occurred from approximately 1987 until 1991 or 1992.
(Id.) Stephon Lynott, Ministry Personnel Director, told Doe23 that the Diocese “had
a similar story [from 1950 in Menominee, Michigan] but could not verify” it. (Id., p
2.) When confronted, Fr. Hasenberg denied the allegation. (App’x AH#14, Lynott
notes dated October 14, 2008, of a call with Doe23’s father.)
On October 20, 2008, Bishop Alexander Sample wrote a letter to Doe23 expressing
his “heartfelt sorrow over everything you have suffered at the hands of one you were
taught to trust.” Bishop Sample offered Doe23 counseling and spiritual support
provided by the Diocese. (App’x AH 15, Letter dated October 20, 2008, from Bishop
Sample to Doe23, p 1.)
An October 27, 2008 diocesan news release stated that Fr. Hasenberg had been
temporarily removed from priestly ministry and his residence at the rectory of
Immaculate Conception Parish in Watersmeet, where he had been living since his
retirement in 1997. (App’x AH#16, News Release, Diocese of Marquette dated
October 27, 2008, p 1.) The news release also stated the following:
After a preliminary investigation and consultation with the Diocesan

Review Board for the Protection of Children and Young People, Bishop
Sample determined that there is sufficient evidence that sexual abuse
of a male minor had occurred. The allegation of sexual misconduct
against Father Hasenberg dates back a number of years. [App’x
AH#16, p 1.]
The news release also indicated that the bishop had referred the matter to the civil
authorities, consistent with the Dioceses’ Policy on Sexual misconduct in Ministry.
(Id.) In a letter dated October 9, 2008, diocesan attorney Darrell Dettmann wrote to
Iron County prosecutor Melissa Weston, copied to Gogebic County prosecutor
Richard Adams, reporting the allegations. (App’x AH#29, Letter dated October 9,
2008, from Dettmann to Weston.) Bishop Sample also notified the Bishop of
Superior, Wisconsin, of the restrictions that had been placed on Fr. Hasenberg –
although noting that no guilt had yet been established – since it was known that Fr.
Hasenberg had taken up residence in the private home of friends in the Diocese of
Superior. (App’x AH#17, Letter dated October 29, 2008, from Bishop Sample to
Bishop Christensen.)
In 2009, the report was validated by the Review Board in 2009, and Fr. Hasenberg
was removed from all pastoral ministry. (App’x AH#18, Review Board Data Sheet.)
The case was ultimately sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. (App’x
AH#19, Letter from Bishop Sample to Immaculate Conception Parish, Watersmeet;
App’x AH#9, Case to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, submitted by
Bishop Sample on December 18, 2008.) On December 11, 2009, after careful review
of the materials submitted by the Diocese, the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith
directed Bishop Sample to impose disciplinary measures on Fr. Hasenberg, among
44
them that “Reverend Hasenberg is not allowed to exercise priestly ministry in
public.” (App’x AH#21, Letter dated December 11, 2009, from the Congregation for
the Doctrine of Faith to Bishop Sample.) The Congregation also directed the Bishop
to notify the Bishop of Doe20 Green Bay, Wisconsin, where Fr. Hasenberg was then
in residence. (Id.) By decree and precept dated January 20, 2010, Bishop Sample
decreed, among other things, that Fr. Hasenberg was not to exercise any public
ministry and was to refrain from public celebration of the Sacraments and public
exercise of ecclesiastical ministry, refrain from wearing ecclesiastical/clerical garb,
refrain from representing himself as a priest to those unknown to him or as an
agent of the Diocese, and refrain from contact with persons under the age of 18.
(App’x AH#22, Decree and Precept dated January 20, 2010.) That same day, Fr.
Hasenberg sent Bishop Sample a letter stating, “I find it almost impossible to
assure you than I am innocent of this accusation.” (App’x AH#23, Letter dated
October 25, 2010, from Fr. Hasenberg to Bishop Sample.)
In 2010, Fr. Hasenberg appealed the decision of the Congregation in all respects—
“the underlying determination that he has done the things of which he has been
accused and the restriction of his priestly duties which resulted from this
determination.” (App’x AH#24, Letter dated January 30, 2010, to Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith from Tara Gill Alfonso, Fr. Hasenberg’s
canon lawyer.) There is no indication in the file that this appeal was successful.
In July of 2009, Dolly Stafford reported that her son Mike saw Fr. Hasenberg
wearing his Roman collar on July 16, 2009, at a restaurant in Iron River, contrary
to his precept. (App’x AH#25, Notes from Lynott dated July 21, 2009, regarding call
from Stafford.) She also reported that others claimed to have seen him wearing his
Roman collar in public in Eagle River, in Land O Lakes, and in Rhinelander. (Id.)
Stafford was upset because there was a public dinner celebrating Fr. Hasenberg’s
60th Jubilee at a restaurant in Land O Lakes and sending out invitations in the
mail. (Id.) The Diocese was unaware of the event and did not sanction it. (Id.;
App’x 26, photocopy of invitation.)
Fr. Ronald Browne, Moderator of the Curia for the Diocese, called Dolly Stafford on
August 24, 2009, in response to her complaint, and explained that the Diocese has
“followed up on what she has reported, and that the Bishop is doing all he can
under Church law at this time.” (App’x AH#25.) Fr. Browne wrote Fr. Hasenberg
notifying him of reports that he had worn his clerical collar in public in various
locations. (App’x AH#27, Letter dated August 24, 2009, from Fr. Browne to Fr.
Hasenberg.) He reminded Fr. Hasenberg that wearing the clerical collar in public
would be a violation of the Precept issued by Bishop Sample concerning Fr.
Hasenberg’s ministry. (Id.)
Fr. Hasenberg denied all the reports of sexual abuse against him until his death in
2016.
45
(16) FR. TERRENCE HEALY
Died in January 2019. Removed from public ministry in 1987.
On June 1, 1968, Fr. Terrence Healy was ordained to the priesthood and given his
first assignment for the Diocese of Marquette. (App’x TH#1, Appointments since
ordination.) By June 20, 1968, Fr. Healy was assigned to Sacred Heart in L’Anse
where he remained until July 10, 1969, when he was transferred to St. Joseph’s in
Sault Ste. Marie. (Id.) He transferred again to St. Ignatius Loyola Parish in
Houghton and Mission of St. Mary in Atlantic Mine on July 25, 1974. (Id.) On
November 30, 1977, Fr. Healy was relieved of his duties at Mission of St. Mary.
(Id.)
In the mid-1970s, Fr. Healy had opened a foster home for boys. (App’x TH#2, Letter
dated May 18, 1976 of Gallagher Bassett.) Officials within the Diocese recognized
that Fr. Healy went into a substantial amount of personal debt to open and
maintain this foster home, which initially was not affiliated with the Church.
(App’x TH#3, Memorandum dated January 28, 1977, to Bishop Charles Salatka.)
Moreover, the bishop has expressed “surprise at Fr. Healy’s ministry with foster
children given the fact that he was not to be engaged in that type of work.” (App’x
TH#4, Memorandum dated February 29, 1988, to Chancellor Fr. John Shiverski.)
On November 21, 1977, Bishop Charles Salatka issued a memorandum regarding a

conversation with a psychologist from the House of Affirmation, recommending in-
patient treatment for Healy because, among other things, he was “very lonely,”
“insecure,” and “sexually immature.” (App’x TH#4, Memorandum dated February
29, 1988, to Chancellor Fr. Shiverski.)
On December 21, 1982, Fr. Healy applied for Incardination in the Diocese of
Lansing, which his assignment record at Marquette indicates was “accepted”.
(App’x TH#1.) On May 7, 1985, he was Excardinated from the Diocese of
Marquette. (Id.)
In an article dated September 26, 1987, the Detroit Free Press reported that Fr.
Healy, who was then the pastor of St. John Catholic Church near Hartland, was
charged with four counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexual abuse
against a 15-year-old boy in Livingston County. (App’x TH#5, Free Press article
dated September 26, 1987.) The paper noted that “Shiawassee County Sheriff Jim
LaJoye said the Shiawassee investigation of Father Healy had been referred to the
county prosecutor David McClernan for further action.” (Id.) Fr. Healy was
convicted of second-degree CSC and served four-and-a-half years in prison.
(Lansing State Journal, Churches Take Steps to Prevent Sex Abuse, dated March 8,
2002.)
46
Fr. Healy was removed from ministry in 1987, and he was laicized in 1992. (App’x
TH#1.)
A handwritten note dated September 7, 1990, indicated that Fr. Healy was paid by
the Diocese of Marquette:
[Diocese] paid his salary up until he went to prison – out of Diocese

disability plan (self-insured). Continue to set aside $300–350/month
during time in prison – putting the money into a reserve account – Fr.
Healy draws it out as needed – Nest egg when get outs out. [App’x
TH#6, Notes dated September 7, 1990.]
In 1993, Bishop James Garland and Father Peter Oberto met with John Doe26
regarding his report of sexual abuse by Fr. Healy after Doe26 called to describe
being sexually abused by Fr. Healy 20 years prior. (App’x TH#7, Handwritten notes
dated May 3, 1993; Handwritten notes dated May 24, 1993.) Doe26 reported he was
sexually abused at a motel in Marquette after he asked Fr. Healy to counsel him.
He was 19 years old at the time. (Id.) The Diocese paid for counseling for Doe26,
offered an apology from the Church, and told him to encourage his counselor to
apprise the Diocese of any additional counseling needed. (Id.) He advised Bishop
Garland of three additional victims of Fr. Healy’s sexual abuse. (App’x TH#8,
Letter dated June 4, 1993, from Doe26 to Bishop Garland.)
In June 1996, John Doe27 reported being sexually abused by Fr. Healy when he
was an altar boy sometime between June 1968 and July 1969. (App’x TH#9, Case
history dated November 7, 2002.) Doe27 said the sexual abuse occurred when he
was attending Sacred Heart parish in L’Anse. (Id.) In 2000, Doe27 wrote a letter to
Bishop Garland expressing the depth of the travesty, that Fr. Healy “took away my
innocence”:
He took away my virginity, purity, and normal sexual development.

He took away my ability to have normal healthy relationships with
girls, and then women. He left me to blame, me to be ashamed. [App’x
TH#10, Letter dated September 5, 2000, from Doe27 to Bishop
Garland.]
Doe27 wrote that “he stuck a knife in my soul the wound from which I have never
recovered.” (Id.) From May 1999 through October 2002, the Diocese paid
counseling bills for Doe27 and his wife related to the sexual abuse perpetrated by
Fr. Healy. (App’x TH#9, Case history dated November 7, 2002.) Bishop Garland
wrote repeated letters to Doe27 beginning in 1997 apologizing on behalf of the
Church and checking in on the progress of Doe27’s counseling. (App’x TH#17,
Letters dated December 31, 1997, June 12, 2000, September 25, 2000.)
47
In the 2010s, the Diocese of Lansing received reports on Fr. Healy with further
allegations of sexual abuse. A memo from Fr. Ronald Browne dated July 23, 2012,
states as follows:
On July 11, 2012, Msgr Steven Raica, the Chancellor for the Diocese of
Lansing [reported] that the Lansing Diocese had received two reports
of sexual abuse by Father Terrence Healy (a priest of the Diocese of
Marquette); when he was serving in the Lansing Diocese.... On July
23, 2012, I [Fr. Browne] spoke with Msgr. Raica by telephone.... A Mr.
[John Doe28] and a Mr. [John Doe29] have told the Lansing Diocese
that they were abused by Father Healy when they were minors.... In
conversations with Msgr. Raica Terry Healy admits to having had sex
with 18 boys, the youngest being 14 years of age.... Terry Healy was
removed from priestly ministry in 1985.... Lansing is providing
counseling for Mr. [Doe28]. [App’x TH#11, Memorandum dated July
23, 2012.]
Handwritten notes on Fr. Browne’s memo corrected the date Fr. Healy was removed
from ministry as September 1987. (Id.)
The Department of Attorney General received several additional tips from

individuals alleging sexual abuse by Fr. Healy:
On October 1, 2019, John Doe30 called the tip line to report his sexual abuse.
Doe30 reported that he lived with Fr. Healy while trying to get int: a state funded
home for foster children, in 1971–73. (App’x TH#12, tip #582.) According to the
caller, many children were abused by Fr. Healy when they were required to reside
there for two weeks before moving to the transition housing. (Id.) He said that Fr.
Healy would “nibble” on their ear, press up against them, and offer the men to sleep
with him while naked. (Id.)
On October 9, 2019, John Doe31 emailed the tip line to report that he was
sexually abused by Fr. Healy when he was in high school. (App’x TH#13, tip #595.)
On September 24, 2018, the Department received an anonymous tip that in the
1980s John Doe32 was a ward of the state living in the Marquette area. (App’x
TH#14, tip # 57.) He said he was hitch-hiking and was picked up by Fr. Healy, who
molested him in his bed where he forced him to sleep. (Id.)
On December 20, 2018, John Doe33 emailed the tip line and indicated that “he
was sexually abused by a priest when he was 16 years old in 1976. We lived in
Houghton, Michigan. I was put in placement. The priest’s name was Terry Heelie.”
(App’x TH#15, tip #225.)
48
On April 30th, 2020, Department of the Attorney General Victim Advocate Paul
Carbini spoke with John Doe34 who had reached out in September of 2018 to report
his experience with Fr. Healy.
[Doe34] stated that he grew up in a difficult home environment. He
had seven brothers and sisters, his mother was a waitress, and his
father was an alcoholic who would beat them. [Doe34]’s mother
divorced his father, but things were difficult with 8 children to take
care of and [Doe34] ended up becoming a ward of the state. Towards
the end of 1977, [Doe34] was moved to a boys home in Houghton at the
age of 15. This is where [Doe34] met Healy because Healy ran a group
home next to the boys’ home.
[Doe34] stated that Healy was always trying to befriend the boys.
[Doe34] remembers Healy often coming to the boys home to hang out,
taking boys for rides in his big car, getting them ice cream, letting
them play with his Saint Bernard, and taking them to his house.
[Doe34] stated that Healy would often give them gifts, especially if it
was when he was trying to get boys to go spend time at his house.
[Doe34] stated that Fr. Healy was a very “touchy-feely” guy and made
him uncomfortable, but he did like hanging out with the other boys
and receiving gifts so he continued to spend time with Fr. Healy.
[Doe34] stated that Healy would touch him in a couple of ways. A
common thing Healy would do was to hug [Doe34] very tightly for a
long period of time. . . .
The other thing Healy would do to Doe34 was pull him in close by
grabbing him from the neck or put him in a headlock. Doe34 stated
that during these hugs and tussles Fr. Healy’s hands would often touch
or grab Doe34’s butt, penis, or testicles. [Doe34] stated that it never
went beyond this and his hands never went under [Doe34]’s clothes.
[Doe34] stated that while he and other boys would spend the night at
Healy’s house, [Doe34] never slept in Fr. Healy’s bedroom. Doe34
stated that other boys would sleep in Fr. Healy’s bedroom with Fr.
Healy and would usually become quiet and act very different
afterwards.
[Doe34] never told anyone because he felt there wasn’t anyone to tell
and while the boys didn’t talk about it, he had the sense that the other
boys knew it was happening and were also experiencing it. [Doe34]
stated that he continued to be touched by Healy until [Doe34] was sent
to a different home at the end of the summer of 1978. [Doe34] believes
the touching altered how he dealt with people; he stated that he began
to dislike socializing with people, felt insecure with himself and
relationships, and then never finished high school. [App’x TH#16,
Interview.]
49
(17) FR. RAYMOND HOEFGEN
Removed from all priestly ministry on July 2, 2002, by Bishop James Garland by
precept. (App’x RH#1, Precept.)
On July 28, 1994, Bishop James Garland met with Father Peter Oberto, Father Bill
Richards, John Weber, Loreen Koskey, Father John Shiverski, and Richard (Rick)
Schaefer (Diocesan Director of Administration and Finance) regarding an allegation
of sexual abuse against Fr. Raymond Hoefgen. (App’x RH#2, Response Team
Minutes.) The minutes stated:
Discussed an allegation of sexual abuse against Fr. Ray Hoefgen. The

incident apparently took place 25 years ago in either Sault Ste. Marie
or St. Ignace. The allegation came up during a counseling session with
CSS counselor Anne Arthur. Anne Arthur is to be contacted in order to
try and obtain a release so that the Bishop can talk to the claimant so
that an investigation can be undertaken. The team will meet again
when further information is received. [Id.]
Also on July 28, 1994, Jane Doe8, reported to Richard (Rick) Schaefer (Diocesan
Director of Administration and Finance), that she was then 35 years old and was 8
or 9 years old at the time she was sexually abused. (App’x RH#3, Telephone
Conversation Notes.) She explained that Fr. Hoefgen was a friend of the family and
would come to the home. (Id.) She described that Fr. Hoefgen would wrestle with
her and her siblings and during the wrestling, Fr. Hoefgen would slip his hand up
her shirt and touch her. (Id.) This happened five or six times over less than a year
period. (Id.) She reported that it also happened to her sister on one occasion. (Id.)
Further in this July 1994 conversation, Doe8 explained that a few years prior to the
report in 1994, she and her sister disclosed the sexual abuse to their mother, who
advised her to forget it because Fr. Hoefgen was out of the area now. (Id.) Mr.
Schaefer offered to assist Doe8 with her counseling bills, and apologized for what
happened to Doe8 and her sister. Mr. Schaefer also told Doe8 to tell her sister to
feel free to call him if she too wished to make a report. (Id.)
On March 4, 2002, Doe8 sent a letter to Bishop Garland in response to an article he

wrote for the U.P. Catholic titled “Child Sexual Abuse and the Church” where he
50
wrote that “there is no priest known to me who has committed abuse of a minor who
is holding assignment in the Diocese of Marquette.” (App’x RH#4, Letter dated
March 4, 2002.) Doe8 said, “as a victim of child sexual abuse by a priest still
holding a pastoral position in this Diocese, I was deeply offended and worse yet,
disillusioned once again by the Catholic Church and its response to perpetrators of
sexual abuse.” (Id.)
Bishop Garland wrote a letter back to Doe8, apologizing for his “faulty recollection.”
(App’x RH#5, Letter dated March 13, 2002.) He told her that Fr. Hoefgen’s abuse
was “not covered up” but rather “dealt with it directly” by requiring a “psychiatric
evaluation” of Fr. Hoefgen and having him spend five months in residential
treatment. (Id.) Fr. Hoefgen then attended four more continuing care workshops
over the course of two years. (Id.) Bishop Garland spoke with the therapist and
psychologist, who assured him that they found no indication of pedophilia and they
saw no reason for restricting his ministry, nor did they consider him a danger to
others. (Id.)
On April 24, 2002, Jane Doe9, sister to Jane Doe8, emailed the Diocese to report
that when she was young, she attended Catholic school in Sault Ste Marie and her
devout Catholic mother invited Fr. Hoefgen to dinner. (App’x RH#6.) She reported
that she was in the basement family room sitting on the couch next to Fr. Hoefgen.
(Id.) She remembered she was 11 and still wearing her school uniform of a plaid
skirt and white blouse. (Id.) She said Fr. Hoefgen unbuttoned her shirt and groped
her breasts. (Id.) The record began to skip on the record player so she used that as
an excuse to slip away from Fr. Hoefgen. (Id.) She indicated that two years later
she found out that Fr. Hoefgen had sexually abused her then-nine-year-old sister
and reported it to their mother. (Id.)
On April 29, 2002, Bishop Garland, Fr. Alexander Sample and Stephen Lynott met
with Fr. Hoefgen in the bishop’s office to discuss Doe8 and Doe9’s reports of sexual
abuse. (App’x RH#7, Handwritten notes dated April 29, 2002.) They inquired if
there were other instances of sexual misconduct. (Id.) Fr. Hoefgen responded that
he himself had been sexually abused by a priest while attending the seminary. (Id.)
He confessed as follows:
[I]n addition to the abuse of the two sisters above, he mentioned their
friend, as they did, and touching his niece in the car with her father
present. [Id.]
It was agreed that he would take a leave of absence to attend St. Luke in Silver
Springs, MD on June 2, 2002, for an assessment. (Id.)
In April 2002, a Review Board Data Sheet indicates that sisters aged 11 and 9 at
the time of the sexual abuse reported they had been sexually assaulted by Fr.
Hoefgen. (App’x RH#8, Review Board Data Sheet.) They reported they were
51
sexually abused in the 1960s in Sault Ste. Marie. (Id.) They reported “fondling.”
(Id.) The Review Board “validated” the report. (Id.) In response, in 2002 Fr.
Hoefgen was removed from all pastoral ministry and placed under a canonical
administrative precept by Bishop Garland. (Id.) Under remarks, the sheet states,
“Fr. Ray admitted to the abuse voluntarily and went to SLI for an evaluation. Out-
patient therapy was recommended. Fr. Ray went into retired, senior priest status
with the Charter restrictions placed on him.” (Id.)
In a letter dated June 25, 2002, to Bishop Garland, Fr. Hoefgen offered words of
sorrow: “Most of all I am sorry for the hurts I’ve caused to the victims.” (App’x
RH#9, Letter dated June 25, 2002.) He concluded by requesting permission to
retire from active ministry. (Id.)
In July 2002, Fr. Hoefgen at least twice violated the precept issued that he was to
abstain from public appearances in parishes where he served and was not to
celebrate Mass publicly. (App’x RH#10, Letter dated January 9, 2003, from Bishop
Garland to Fr. Hoefgen.) In January 2003, Fr. Hoefgen was warned that if he did
not conform his behavior, Bishop Garland would seek further canonical action. (Id.)
52
(18) FR. JOHN HUGHES
Died in 1979.
In a letter dated February 12, 1965, eighteen-year-old John Doe35 wrote to Bishop
Thomas Noa. (App’x JH#1, Letter dated February 12, 1965; App’x JH#2, Summary
of Meeting on May 30, 2007, with Doe35.) Doe35 referenced having earlier written
Bishop Noa a letter detailing the sexual abuse he suffered while a student in
Kingsford. (App’x JH#1.)
The sexual abuse reportedly occurred during the late 1950s and 1960s and in
Kingsford, at the American Martyrs School and Church. (App’x JH#3, Review
Board Data Sheet dated June 17, 2007.) Doe35 indicated that Father Hughes made
Doe35 touch him and perform other “sick sex acts.” (App’x JH#1.) Doe35 wrote,
“How could this happen to me, why has the Lord forsaken me? What did I do wrong
to make this happen? Please help me and keep Father Hughes away from other
children.” (Id.) In addition, he wrote, “If I could only stop feeling dirty, guilty of
what I did.” (Id.) There is no evidence that Bishop Noa responded to the letter. In
2007, Doe35 described years later that when Doe35 confronted Bishop Noa in
person, Bishop Noa said “he could not have people saying these terrible things
about a priest” and “dismissed” Doe35. (App’x JH#2, Summary of Meeting on May
30, 2007, with Doe35.)
In June 2007, Doe35 reached out to the Diocese of LaCrosse in Wisconsin to report
his sexual abuse by Fr. Hughes. (App’x JH#4, Letter dated March 9, 2007, from
Diocese of La Crosse.) Doe35 was interviewed by the diocesan victim advocate and
reported the following:
The abuse started when he was in fifth grade. He would go to

confession. Afterward Hughes asked him to stay and talk. Father
would ask [him] about girls, how he felt about girls, what he thought
about. Father would hold [him] on his lap and coddle him. He would
tell him that he shouldn’t be thinking those thoughts. He would tell
him he was a bad boy, a dirty boy.
***
The suggestive probing conversations went on for about a year,

becoming more sexually explicit as time went on. Then the priest
started fondling him.
One day [Doe35] confessed a sexual act. After confession he was

sitting in a pew. The priest asked him to go to the back of the church.
He asked him questions. They talked about masturbating. The priest
53
asked him to show him and he did. Father fondled his penis. The
abuse escalated as time went on.
One day Father asked him to bend over. He put a candle up his anus.
He would drip hot wax on his penis and his butt. He would burn
incense to cover up the smell. He would touch him and rub him. It
escalated and became more and more perverse. The priest would
sodomize [Doe35] and he had [Doe35] sodomize him He said that was
enough detail for today. [Doe35] repeated several times over the
course of the interview that the abuse was more perverse, but he didn’t
want to discuss it in any more detail. [App’x JH#2, p 1 (paragraph
break added).]
Doe35 stated that the sexual abuse started in fifth grade and continued through his
junior year in high school. (App’x JH#2, p 1.)
Upon receiving the letter from Doe35 and the interview with the Diocese of
LaCrosse victim advocate, the LaCrosse Diocese reported the sexual abuse to
Diocese of Marquette which completed an investigation as described on a Review
Board Data Sheet. There were multiple communications between Bishop Sample
and Doe35. (App’x JH#4, Review Board Data Sheet.) In one letter by Bishop
Sample to Doe35, he stated: “I would like to reiterate my deep dismay and my
sincere apology for all that you have suffered. I continue to be especially distressed
over the rejection you received when you tried to bring this to Bishop Noa’s
attention so many years ago. . . . If there were some way that I could make it so
that none of this had ever happened to you, I would do it.” (App’x JH#5, Letter
dated November 24, 2008, from Bishop Sample.) In the letter Bishop Sample
apologized, offered to meet, and made an offer of counseling, stating: “Our outreach
and counseling services are available to you at diocesan expense, and include
professional therapy, pastoral outreach and spiritual direction, as needed and as
requested.” (Id.) The allegation was validated by the Review Board on June 17,
2007. (App’x JH#3.)
54
(19) FR. GARY JACOBS
Alive – in MDOC custody, serving concurrent 8-to-15-year sentences for five plea-
based convictions of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct. His earliest
release date is November 16, 2026, and his maximum release date is July 28, 2032.
Removed from priestly ministry in 1989. Laicized in 2010.
In 2020, Fr. Francis Dobrzenski testified he found Polaroid photographs of Fr.

Jacobs giving and receiving oral sex from John Doe36, and a nude picture of John
Doe37. (App’x GJ#7, Supplemental Police Report dated November 29, 2019, p 2.)
He found the pictures in 1982 when Fr. Dobrzenski was looking through Jacobs’
belongings in the rectory in Ewen. (Id.) The boys were approximately 11 and 14.
(App’x GJ#8, Police report dated December 13, 2019, p 2; App’x GJ#9, Supplement
police report dated December 16, 2019, pp 1–2.) He did not report the photographs
until 1988 after Fr. Jacobs was placed on leave and sent for treatment for alcohol
abuse. (App’x GJ#1, Notification Packet, dated July 15, 2004, p 5.)
After Fr. Dobrzenski’s report was made to the Diocese in 1988, the same year Fr.
Jacobs resigned from the pastorate at Immaculate Conception Church in Iron
Mountain. (App’x GJ#1, p 4.) The Diocese sent Jacobs for evaluation and
treatment at Servants of the Paraclete in Jemez Springs, New Mexico. (Id.) A
letter dated June 20, 1989, by Bishop Schmitt to Jacobs indicated the status of
Jacobs' leave in New Mexico was for him to have a “year of discernment as a leave
of absence in which you were to live as a lay person.” (App’x GJ#10, Letter from
Mark Schmitt to Gary Jacobs, dated June 20, 1989, p 1.)
In 1990, Bishop Schmitt asked Fr. Jacobs to seek voluntary laicization and he did
not. (App’x GJ#1, p 4.)
In a letter dated June 22, 1990, Bishop Schmitt ordered Jacobs: “In regard to your
request for a three year extension of your leave of absence for further discernment, I
am fully in accord with that request . . . As your Bishop, I order you not to function
as a priest in any public capacity or present yourself as a priest in any way
including dress. This instruction to you is to remain in effect indefinitely unless
rescinded in writing by the Bishop of Marquette.” (App’x GJ#11, Letter from Mark
Schmitt to Gary Jacobs, dated June 22, 1990.)
55
Jacobs never responded to this letter, and he never returned from New Mexico.
(App’x GJ#1, p 9.) The Diocese considered Jacobs to have “abandoned priestly
ministry” and designated Jacobs “absent without leave”. (Id., p 4.)
In 2004, the Diocese petitioned the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in
Rome to dismiss Jacobs from the clerical state (laicization), which was granted in
August 2010. (App’x GJ#12, Letter from Luis Ladaria to Alexander King, dated
August.)
Criminal charges were brought against Jacobs for the abuse of Doe36 and Doe37 in
Ewen, Michigan. Jacobs pleaded guilty to one count each of first-degree criminal
conduct in these cases. Fr. Dobrzenski testified at the preliminary examination for
the charges issued for assaults against John Doe38.
Jacobs was charged with criminal sexual conduct in the second degree for sexual
assaults against Doe38.
Received eight tips related to sexual abuse included here:
February 27, 2019 – A family member called the tip line to report that her brother
was sexually abused in Iron Mountain. (App’x GJ#2, tip 350) The alleged abusing
priest, Fr. Gary Jacobs, was defrocked. (Id.) She wanted advice on how to help her
brother. (Id.) Fr. Jacobs reportedly sexually abused her brother in the 1970s and
Fr. Jacobs was not defrocked until 2010. (Id.) A police report was generated
related to this tip. John Doe38 was actually sexually abused in the 1980s and as a
result of this tip, Jacobs was charged criminally, pleaded guilty, and was convicted
of one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for the sexual abuse to Doe38
in Iron Mountain. (Dickinson Cir Ct No 20-5839-FH.)
January 21, 2020 – John Doe40 called to report he was sexually abused by Fr.
Jacobs. (App’x GJ#2, tip #655.) Following an investigation, Jacobs was charged
and bound over, and pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree criminal sexual
conduct for his sexual abuse of Doe 40. (Ontonagon Cir Ct No 20-14-FH.)
January 21, 2020 – John Doe41 called to report he was sexually abused by Fr.
Jacobs on several occasions in Escanaba and in Ewen. (App’x GJ#2, tip #654.)
Following an investigation, Jacobs was charged and bound over, and pleaded guilty
to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for his sexual abuse of Doe 41.
(Ontonagon Cir Ct No 20-13-FH.)
January 22, 2020 – A man emailed the tip line and reported the following: “Fr
Gary Jacobs molested two of my classmates in 1977 in 7th grade. [John Doe42] and
[John Doe43]. [Doe43] is now deceased, but his brother [John Doe44] was a witness
to the crime.” During this investigation, Doe44 was interviewed by Det. Sgt.
Bracket, and he indicated he was sexually abused during 1974–78. (App’x GJ#4,
56
Police Report, dated June 1, 2020, pp 1–2.) This sexual abuse reported by Doe44
was outside the statute of limitations and could not be charged criminally. The
statute of limitations at that time was only six years. Other cases that occurred in
later years were able to be charged because when Jacobs left the state of Michigan,
his leaving tolled the statute and allowed charges to be brought against him.
Doe44 was able to speak at sentencing and tell the court how Fr. Jacobs’ sexual
abuse impacted him.
January 22, 2020 – John Doe45 called the tip line to report the following: While
Doe45 was getting ready to serve as an altar boy, Fr. Gary Jacobs called him over
and “smoothed my front.” (App’x GJ#2, tip #651.) Doe45 told him to stop, threw the
robe at him and never went back to a Catholic Church. (Id.) Doe45’s brother is
John Doe46 (below). Doe45 told a nun right away, and she said a “man of God
would never do that.” (Id.) Doe45 confirmed Fr. Jacobs rubbed his genitals over the
clothes. (Id.)
A police interview was conducted by Det. Lt. Croley. (App’x GJ#5, Police Report,
dated March 3, 2020, p 2.) On March 3, 2020, Croley interviewed John Doe45 via
telephone regarding Jacobs. (Id.) Doe45 reported the following to Lt. Croley in the
interview:
[Doe45] stated that he attended the Dickinson Area Catholic School

located in Iron Mountain during grade school. [Doe45] said that he
was 11 or 12 years old when the sexual abuse occurred. [Doe45] said it
was in 1977 or 1978[, but] he was unsure on the exact date and time.
[Doe45] said that the sexual abuse happened and shortly after that is
when Father Jacobs left the Iron Mountain area. [Doe45] said that he
was an altar boy at the St. Mary & St. Joseph Church located in Iron
Mountain during that time. On the day that it occurred, Father Jacobs
was the priest for that Mass. The sexual abuse occurred one time
between Father Jacobs and him.
[Doe45] said that one day before Mass, Father Jacobs and he were
getting ready in the backroom/side room of the church. [Doe45] said
that it was the room that altar boys got their robes on before Mass.
[Doe45] said that they were alone in the room. [Doe45] put his robe
and belt/rope on, and Father Jacobs said, “Come here, you’re all
crooked.” [Doe45] went by Father Jacobs and Father Jacobs tried to
fix his robe/belt. Father Jacobs began to swipe or rub [Doe45]’s
genitals. [Doe45] said that Father Jacobs rubbed his genitals three
times. [Doe45] knew what Father Jacobs was doing was wrong.
[Doe45] took off his robe and then left the room. [Doe45] stated that he
told [a nun] (principal) and she said, “Father Jacobs would not do that,
he is a man of God.” [Id.]
57
January 22, 2020 – John Doe46 emailed the tip line to report being sexually
abused by Fr. Jacobs. (App’x GJ#2, tip #650.) A police interview was conducted,
and he indicated the following:
[Doe46] stated that he was a victim of Father Gary Jacobs in 1975.

[Doe46] stated that he ([Doe46]) attended the Dickinson Area Catholic
School located in Iron Mountain from his kindergarten year to his
eighth-grade year. In sixth, seventh, and eighth grade, one of the
requirements while attending the school was being an altar boy at the
St. Mary and St. Joseph Church located in Iron Mountain.
[Doe46] recalled one day in 1975, when he was 11–12 years old, he was
an altar boy at the St. Mary and St. Joseph Church. Father Jacobs
was the priest at Mass that day. Father Jacobs was the “fill-in
priest/under priest” for that church. [Doe46] stated that Father James
Donnelly was the main priest at that time, but he was not at Mass that
day.
Once Mass was over, everyone left the church except for Father Jacobs
and him. Father Jacobs asked [Doe46] to go upstairs into the balcony
with him. The balcony was located at the back of the church that
overlooked the front of the church. Once they were up in the balcony,
[Doe46] said that they were facing each other. All of the sudden,
Father Jacobs unzipped [Doe46]’s pants and began to masturbate
[Doe46]. Father Jacobs was fully clothed at the time and used his
hand to masturbate [Doe46]. Once [Doe46] ejaculated, Father Jacobs
wiped his hand off and wiped [Doe46]’s penis off. [Doe46] said that he
went home and never told anyone.
[Doe46] said that it happened only that one time, Father Jacobs did
not attempt to sexually abuse him again. Before the incident, [Doe46]
stated that Father Jacobs was a “touchy-feely” kind of priest.
January 23, 2020 – Doe47 called the tip line to report his sexual abuse by Fr.
Jacobs. (App’x GJ#2, tip #653.) He reported that when he was around 16 or 17
years old (maybe older), he had an experience with Fr. Gary Jacobs in Ewen before
the Sacred Heart Church in Ewen was remodeled during the summer. (Id.) Fr.
Jacobs said he could not raise his hands over his head; Doe47 said “ok,” and Jacobs
said he needed his hair washed. Doe47 agreed, “no big deal.” (Id.) They went into
the bathroom, and Doe47 reported that Fr. Jacobs said Doe47 needed to take off his
clothes and get in the shower with him to wash his hair. (Id.) Doe47 refused, and,
as Doe47 explained, Fr. Jacobs stripped down naked, Doe47 washed his hair and
left. (Id.) Doe47 reported that another time, Fr. Jacobs locked the gate to his yard,
and they needed to get something from the church. (Id.) Fr. Jacobs allegedly put a
towel on and explained he had to suntan naked because of a “rash on his butt.” (Id.)
58
He would reportedly always invite young boys over to watch HBO movies and
record VHS tapes and exchange tapes. (Id.) They were rated “R” and Doe47
thought this was inappropriate. (Id.) Fr. Jacobs always dressed in blue jeans and
button- ups; it was rare to see him in the Catholic collar. (Id.)
A police interview was conducted on April 16, 2020. (App’x GJ#6, Police Report,
dated April 16, 2020, pp 2–3.) Lt. Croley interviewed Doe47 via telephone. (Id.,
p 2.) Doe47 gave the following statements:
[Doe47] stated that while he grew up, he was an altar boy at the
Sacred Heart Parish located in Ewen. [Doe47] stated that he was
approximately 10 years old when he was an altar boy. [Doe47] stated
that he was never sexual[ly] abused by Father Jacobs, but he believed
that Father Jacobs was grooming him or trying to sexually abuse him.
[Doe47] did not have an exact age, he said 17,18, or 19 years old the
above incidents occurred. It was between 1980 and 1984.
[Doe47] said that Father Jacobs did get naked in the tub when he
wanted his hair washed. Father Jacobs wanted [Doe47] to also get
naked and take a shower with him. [Doe47] said “No.” [Doe47] did
help Father Jacobs wash his hair and then he left.
On another occasion, [Doe47] went to the church and noticed Father

Jacobs sun tanning naked behind the Ewen church. Father Jacobs
was in a fenced in area. Father Jacobs asked [Doe47] to put suntan
lotion on his back. [Doe47] did, and then Father Jacobs asked [Doe47]
to put suntan lotion on his legs and butt. [Doe47] said “No” and left.
If Father Jacobs put his hand on [Doe47]’s shoulder, [Doe47] would

push it off. Father Jacobs would ask [Doe47] to sleep over and said
they could watch movies, but [Doe47] never would.
[Doe47] stated on one occasion Father Jacobs had [Doe47] sit on an

antique tripod chair. Father Jacobs said that it was used for birthing
children, and it spreads a person’s legs apart. While [Doe47] was
sitting on the chair, Father Jacobs put his hand on his shoulder.
[Doe47] knocked Father Jacob’s hand off his shoulder.
[Doe47] said that he “outsmarted” or was too tough of a kid to fall for
Father Jacobs tricks. [Doe47] said that he did not know the exact
amount of times Father Jacobs attempted to groom [Doe47]. [Doe47]
said that he did not know of anyone else being victimized by Father
Jacobs during that time period. [Doe47] recalls Father Jacobs had
several “R” rated movies and GQ magazines around the rectory. [Id.,
pp 2–3.]
59
February 7, 2020 – A father called to report that his son was “raped” by Jacobs in
1987 when he was 17. (App’x GJ#2, tip #657.) The father had previously reported
the assault to the Diocese when he learned it had occurred. (Id.) Follow-up was
conducted where his son indicated he was not raped but that the sex was
consensual.
60
(20) FR. ROY JOSEPH
Alive – living in India – Criminally charged – Awaiting Extradition.
Redacted.
61
(21) FR. NORBERT LACOSSE
Died on July 14, 2014.
Removed from public ministry on July 24, 1990.
On July 23, 1990, Fr. Charles Strelick (see entry No. 40) received a phone call from
attorney Jeff Paupore regarding an allegation of sexual abuse by of John Doe48 by
Fr. Norbert LaCosse. (App’x NL#1, Undated document from the “Diocesan
Pedophilia Team,” p 1.) According to this report, the attorney and the Doe48’s
family decided to attempt to get proof of the sexual abuse by wiring Doe48 up and
sending him to meet with Fr. LaCosse. (Id. at 2.) The attorney reported that the
tape purportedly contained an admission by Fr. LaCosse of the sexual abuse as well
as “graphic and specific details.” (Id.) The attorney said that after obtaining the
tape, Doe48 “did not stay with Fr. LaCosse, but returned to Escanaba with his
parents.” (Id.)
On July 24, 1990, Bishop Mark Schmitt sent a letter to Fr. LaCosse placing him on
“administrative leave” as pastor of American Martyrs Parish in Kingsford for an
unspecified reason. (App’x NL#2, Bishop Schmitt’s Letter to Fr. LaCosse.) The
bishop further indicated to Fr. LaCosse that he was “happy about [his] willingness
to go to St. Luke Institute for an assessment.” (Id.) “Saint Luke Institute is an
independent, international Catholic education and treatment center dedicated to
healthy life and ministry for priests, deacons, and religious. We bring the healing
ministry of Christ to those we serve through integrated psychological and spiritual
treatment and education.” 11 From the bishop’s memorandum to file, Bishop
Schmitt “immediately placed [him] on administrative leave” “in accord with []
diocesan policy” in light of the allegations of sexual abuse by Doe48. (App’x NL#3,
Memo to File.) When confronted with having sexually abused Doe48 for the past
three years, the bishop’s memorandum indicated that Fr. LaCosse “expressed
surprise”: “He indicated he knew the boy well and his whole family. The boy had
been a guest at his camp as well as many other boys on a number of occasions.”
(Id.) Bishop Schmitt also told Fr. LaCosse to “vacate the rectory upon his return to
11 Https://sli.org (Last accessed on October 26, 2022.)
62
Kingsford and not to engage in any public liturgy or pastoral activity until further
notice.” (Id.)
On the same day Fr. LaCosse was removed from ministry on July 24, 1990, the
Diocese also reported him to the civil authorities and cooperated with the
subsequent police investigation. (App’x NL#20.)
On July 25, 1990, Bishop Schmitt met with Doe48’ family including Doe48 as well
as the family attorney, Jeff Paupore, and Richard (Rick) Schaefer, Diocesan Director
of Administration and Finance, regarding the sexual abuse allegation. (App’x
NL#4, Notes from Meeting.) Mr. Schaefer took notes of what transpired in his view.
(Id.) The family indicated that the sexual abuse started in 1987 when they moved
and that it “was almost immediate and consistent.” (Id.) Also according to these
notes, the family requested a “written confession from Fr. LaCosse and wanted him
to list the other families and boys” that he sexually abused. (Id.) The notes
continue: “The Bishop indicated that would be entirely up to Father LaCosse and
Jeff Paupore [the family attorney] agreed it would be.” (Id.) “Bishop indicated he
would pass that on to Father LaCosse along with the family’s concern for him.” (Id.)
In the notes, Mr. Schaefer indicated, “They [the family] also expressed concern for
Father LaCosse and indicated he had been like a family member.” (Id.) Further
stated in the notes: “The family expressed their appreciation for our [the Diocese’s]
prompt response to this incident.” (Id.) Additionally: “The family wanted the
Bishop to contact Father Ronald Skufca regarding this matter so that the family
could later go to him for counseling.” (Id.) Mr. Schaefer ended the notes with the
statement that “We did not indicate to the family that we had had any contact with
the prosecutor regarding the matter.” (Id.)
During this meeting, according to Mr. Schaefer’s notes, Doe48’s mother also
expressed concern with Fr Donald Hartman, who “at one time also had some
involvement with Doe48 and [she] wanted us to check out if he too was having any
problems.” (Id.) (See Fr. Donald Hartman’s entry above, No. 14.)
In a redacted police report dated July 26, 1990, Doe48 detailed in this report the
sexual abuse that Fr. LaCosse committed, including mutual masturbation, fellatio,
attempted anal sex, and anal-digital penetration. (App’x NL#5, Kingsford Public
Safety Police Report, dated July 26, 1990, p 3.) When the parents learned of the
claims of sexual abuse, they hired an attorney who suggested that Doe48 wear a
wire. (Id. at 4.) Doe48 agreed and met with Fr. LaCosse, who verbally confirmed
that the sexual abuse had happened many times, explaining all the different sexual
abuses. (Id. at 4–5.) According to the police report’s review of the recording, Fr.
LaCosse also admitted there are other victims – “there have been others” – and
described it as them “enjoy[ing] each other for a couple of years” before they move
on. (Id. at 5.) Fr. LaCosse told Doe48 that it was not really sexual abuse, as “a girl
is going to come along” and “this whole thing is going to change.” Id.
63
On October 18, 1990, Loreene Zeno Koskey, Director of Communications wrote to
Bishop Schmitt that the Diocese received its first media inquiry regarding Fr.
LaCosse after the diocesan news release announcing the appointment of Fr. Joseph
Gouin as parochial administrator of American Martyrs Parish. “I told the Daily
News reporter that Fr. LaCosse was on leave.” (App’x NL#6, Memorandum dated
October 18, 1990.) An undated marked-up document in the file reflects what
appears to be a prepared statement from the Diocese (reflecting the handwritten
edits):
As soon as the Diocese learned of the charges against Father LaCosse,

Bishop Mark Schmitt followed diocesan policy and took immediate
action. Father LaCosse was required to leave his assignment as pastor
of American Martyrs Parish in Kingsford to come under the direct
supervision of the Bishop. We are very concerned about the person
described as the victim and the family, and the Diocese has extended
its offer of pastoral, spiritual, and psychological assistance to them.
If asked to comment in any way about the case, we would say:
The matter is in the hands of the civil authorities and we

are cooperating completely with them.
If asked to respond to any comments from the family, we would say:
The church understands that this is a tragedy for

everyone concerned. [App’x NL#7, Diocese of Marquette,
Office of Communication (underscore in original).]
In a memo to file dated October 26, 1990, the secretary to the bishop, Pat Peterson,
recorded that she had received a phone call from Fr. Joseph Gouin, in which Fr.
Goiun informed Bishop Schmitt that he learned that Fr. LaCosse was planning to
plead guilty to third-degree sexual assault after which he would return to St. Luke
Institute for treatment and would be sentenced at a later date. (App’x NL#8, Memo
to File, dated October 26, 1990.) The memo further indicated as follows:
Since speaking to the Bishop, Fr. Gouin has been informed that Fr.
[Arnold] Thompson had relayed this information to Judge Jack Payant
(off the record) to seek his advice as to what to expect. Judge Payant
spoke to the Prosecuting Attorney (off the record) and he informed
Judge Payant there was no hearing scheduled at this time – he would
not touch it before election. Nothing is pending. [Id.]
On or about December 15, 1990, according to local newspaper articles Fr. LaCosse
was charged with four counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor by Dickinson
County Prosecutor Mike Kusz. (App’x NL#9, Milwaukee Sentinel article.) The
64
article indicates “he was charged with assaulting a minor from 1987 to 1990.” (Id.)
On December 21, 1990, an article ran indicating that Fr. LaCosse was charged in
Menominee County by Prosecutor Daniel Haas of one first-degree, two second-
degree, and one third-degree sexual conduct charges “involving an altar boy.”
(App’x NL#10, newspaper article dated December 21, 1990.) This article further
identified charges from Delta County: “On Tuesday, Delta County prosecutors filed
warrants accusing LaCosse of three counts of second degree criminal sexual conduct
with a boy in the fall of 1988 to May 1990.” (Id.)
In February 1991, according to the newspaper account from the Escanaba Daily
Press, Fr. LaCosse pled guilty to two counts of criminal sexual conduct in
Menominee County before Judge Francis Brouillette. (App’x NL#11, Escanaba
Daily News, “Priest enters four guilty pleas.”) Further, he pled guilty to one charge
of second degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of third degree criminal
sexual conduct in Dickinson County. (Id.) All charges in Delta County were
dismissed as a global resolution with all three prosecutors. (App’x NL#12, Iron
Mountain Daily News, “Catholic priest going to prison.”) In addition, according to
press accounts, the investigation that had begun in Brown County, Wisconsin would
not proceed. (App’x NL#13, Iron Mountain Daily News, “Diocese plans no penalty
for priest.”)
On February 15, 1990, for the plea taken before Judge Brouillette in Menominee
County, while having sworn to tell the truth, Fr. LaCosse answered the question
“tell me in your own words what you did” as follows: “I allowed him to put his penis
in my mouth, your honor.” (App’x NL#14, Plea transcript dated February 15, 1990,
p 14.) As to the criminal sexual conduct second-degree criminal sexual conduct
count, Fr. LaCosse indicated “I fondled his genitals.” (Id. at 11.) And Fr. LaCrosse
agreed that that person was under 13 years of age. (Id.)
On March 12, 1991, Bishop Schmitt wrote a letter to Fr. LaCosse indicating support
of him in advance of his sentencing:
I will be very pleased to write to Judge Brouillette on your behalf. I

hope it will help to temper his judgment in the matter. There are
many positive things I can say on your behalf. [App’x NL#15, Letter to
Fr. LaCosse.]
On April 1, 1990, Fr. LaCosse was sentenced to 3-to-15 years in prison for his
sexual abuse against Doe48, who was 12-years old at the time of the crime. (App’x
NL#12, Iron Mountain Daily News, “Catholic priest going to prison.”) A civil suit on
behalf of Doe48 was filed by his attorney Jeffrey Paupore. On April 16, 1999, that
case resulted in a monetary settlement of $215,000 being paid to Doe48 and his
family. (App’x NL#16, Release and Settlement, dated April 12, 1992, p 1.)
65
On February 15, 1991, John Doe49 wrote to Bishop Schmitt indicating that Fr.
LaCosse had made sexual advances toward him but that he was able to resist those
advances. (App’x NC#20, Letter from Bishop Schmitt to Doe49, dated February 21,
1991.) In response, Bishop Schmitt explained that he had “absolutely no knowledge
of such activity on the part of Father LaCosse until the allegation which surfaced in
July 1990” and that based on the diocesan policy he was removed as pastor “within
twenty-four hours.” (Id.) He acknowledged that as a “young lad, I am sure it was a
very traumatic and disappointing episode.” (Id.)
On April 8, 1993, Bishop James Garland wrote the Michigan Parole Board
regarding Fr. LaCosse, stating that “in the event of Father LaCosse’s release from
the State Prison, to maintain a supportive relationship with him that would provide
means and urge his compliance with a regimen of psychological treatment, physical
and spiritual exercises and periodic accountability” to him. (App’x NC#17, Letter to
Parole Board, dated April 8, 1993.) His parole was denied.
On February 27, 1995, Bishop Garland again wrote to the Parole Board indicating
the same post-release plan as stated in his 1993 letter. (App’x NC#18, Letter to
Parole Board, dated February 27, 1995.) Fr. LaCosse was paroled and released
from prison on September 1, 1995. (App’x NC#19, Memo titled “Fr. LaCosse’s
parole.”) The Parole Board placed Fr. LaCosse under at least twelve significant
restrictions, including no physical, verbal, or written contact with any child under
16; enter a program for sexual offenders; no possession of sexually explicit
materials; and no presence within 500 feet of a school, park, playground, arcade or
any place where children could be present. (Id.)
On August 14, 2000, in a memo to Fr. LaCosse’s file with a handwritten mark
“secret archive,” the memorandum states that the Diocese received a phone call
from a priest in California. (App’x NL#21, Memo to file, dated August 14, 2000.)
The memorandum indicated that the priest knew Fr. LaCosse and that he
vacationed in Mexico. (Id.) According to this memorandum, the priest reported
that Fr. LaCosse was in “serious danger of relapse and therefore acting out with
minors. He needs to control situations to avoid relapse and prevent it by removing
occasions.” (Id.) The priest explained that Fr. LaCosse’s trips to Acapulco were not
safe because of the “ready availability of boys on the street and male prostitutes.”
(Id.)
“He is alone and not monitored and in a foreign county.” (Id.) This priest further
asked Bishop Garland not to allow Fr. LaCosse to travel to Mexico. (Id.) The priest
wished to remain anonymous but provided enough information to enable Bishop
Garland to note, “I spoke with the vicar general who verified the reliability and
truthfulness of the priest and was aware that he was calling me.” (Id.) Bishop
Garland followed up by contacting Catherine Turner at St. Luke Institute where Fr.
LaCosse was in group therapy, who recommended Bishop Garland contact the other
members of the support group to help reinforce the need for Fr. LaCosse to avoid
66
traveling to Mexico. (Id.) Bishop Garland did so, and noted: “I spoke with all but
one member and asked for their support for Norbert avoiding vacationing in Mexico.
Most of them seemed willing and saw the reasonableness of my request to Norbert.
Norbert indicated his intent to bring up this issue at the next meeting, which occurs
later in August.” (Id.)
On July 12, 2002, Bishop James Garland issued a “precept” against Fr. LaCosse,
binding on him six different limitations consistent with the “Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People.” (App’x NL#22, Precept, dated July 12,
2002.) As noted, the Charter was established by the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops in June 2002. 12 The limitations listed in the precept were as follows:
1. To refrain from all contact with the Doe48 family, their son Doe48, and
any others who may have been objects of sexual abuse by Father
LaCosse;
2. To cease until further notice any priestly ministry. This means that all
of his diocesan and provincial faculties are hereby removed. He is
permitted, however, to celebrate Mass in private. These private Masses
may be attended only by members of his immediate family, namely his
siblings. No other persons (including spouses of his siblings and their
children) may be present;
3. To refrain from presenting himself publicly as a priest in any way;
4. To refrain from wearing clerical garb under any circumstances;
5. To avoid all places and situations that, from past experience, have been
occasions of serious temptation in the area of sexual morality. This
would include, but is not to, being alone with minors, without the direct
supervision of their parents.
6. To finally avoid any public appearances in parishes where he has

previously served, or gatherings of parishioners from those parishes
designed to show public support for his predicament. [App’x NL#22, p 1,
identified as “42” in the document.]
12See https://www.usccb.org/offices/child-and-youth-protection/charter-protection-
children-and-young-people#:~:text=The%20Charter%20for%20the%20
Protection%20of%20Children%20and,accountability%2C%20and%20prevention%20
of%20future%20acts%20of%20abuse. (Last accessed October 26, 2022).
67
The precept noted that it would become effective upon receipt and replace the
former precept issued to Fr. LaCosse dated September 8, 1995. (Id. at 2, identified
as “43” in the document.)
In an undated, handwritten note in the file was found related to allegations of

sexual abuse against Fr. LaCosse indicated the following:
[John Doe50] from Mil. Abused by LaCosse in Iron River, Assumption

Parish, 1958. 10 years old swimming at a cottage. Grooming only.
Took overnight trip w/LaCosse in a motel. Fondled him to ejaculation

and then ejaculated himself. Told parents. Dad called LaCosse –
chewed him out. Has called prosecutor in Marquette County. [App’x
NL#23, undated handwritten note.]
On April 16, 2004, John Doe51 was interviewed by Fr. Alexander Sample and
reported the following:
[Doe51] is one of [] brothers in his family. All were altar boys at St.
Michael Parish in Marquette, MI. . . .
The [Doe51]’s family had an “open door” policy at their home when it
came to priests. They were always welcome in their home, and their
home was like “Grand Central Station” when it came to priests visiting
them.
Among those priests who frequently visited were Reverend Norbert P.

LaCosse and Reverend Donald P. Hartman. [See above entry, No. 14.]
On Christmas Eve, 1957 Reverend LaCosse was at the [Doe51] home

and invited [Doe51] to go for a ride in his new 1958 Buick. It was after
Midnight Mass at the parish. [Doe51] was 15 years old at the time. . . .
Reverend LaCosse drove [Doe51] out to the Harlow Lake Road, north
of Marquette, MI. There he parked the car and sexually assaulted
[Doe51]. He put his hands down [Doe51]’s pants and began fondling
him. He opened [Doe51]’s pants and performed oral sex on [Doe51].
Reverend LaCosse then opened his own pants and tried to get [Doe51]
to perform oral sex on him. [Doe51] refused.
When they left the area, Reverend LaCosse let [Doe51] drive the car.
As [Doe51] drove, Reverend LaCosse continued to molest [Doe51].
Somehow, they ended up on the four-lane highway near Negaunee, MI.
[Doe51] made some mistake with the turn signal and the police
stopped them. Reverend LaCosse and [Doe51] had to get out of the
car. [Doe51] was very embarrassed and was trying to close his
68
trousers. The police let them go, and let [Doe51] drive the car back to
the [] home since Reverend LaCosse was intoxicated.
During the following days, Reverend Hartman called Doe51 and told
him that he had heard about what had happened in the car. He asked
Doe51, “Did you enjoy it?” It was clear to Doe51 that Reverend
LaCosse had shared the events of that night with Reverend Hartman.
Reverend Hartman had a practice of kissing the boys and hugging

them, and then giving the boy a dollar. He was flirtatious.
From this point on, Doe51 stayed away from Reverends LaCosse and
Hartman. He simply avoided them. There was no further abuse of
Doe51. [App’x NL#24, Act of the Preliminary Investigation, dated
April 17, 2004, pp 1–2.]
Doe 51 further reported that at the time of these events in 1957 or 1958, he
confessed to a priest “in the Sacrament of Penance what had happened.” (Id. at 2.)
The report noted that the priest told Doe51 “not to tell anyone about it,” leaving
Doe51 feeling like he had “nowhere to turn” and “no one to talk to about what had
happened.” (Id.) Father Sample indicated to Doe51 that “if he ever thought he
might benefit from some professional counseling, the Church would stand ready to
help with that.” (Id.) Fr. Sample also told Doe51 to let his other brothers know the
Church would be willing to hear any other reports they had. (Id.)
Related to the April 17, 2004 report, on August 27, 2004, the Diocese received a
complaint from Doe52, one of the brothers of Doe51. (App’x NL#25, Receipt of
Complaint, dated August 27, 2004.) Doe52 indicated that Fr. LaCosse “molested
him on two separate occasions in approximately 1955 when he was 15 years old.”
(Id.) He had joined the Junior Knights of Columbus (Columbian Squires) and
during his time as a member, he stated that “he went on two trips with Reverend
LaCosse.” (Id.) The report notes that on both of those trips, “Reverend LaCosse
performed oral sex on him.” It added that “Reverend LaCosse asked him to perform
oral sex on him,” but that Doe52 refused to do so. (Id.)
On September 17, 2004, Bishop James Garland wrote a letter to memorialize a

meeting that occurred on September 17, 2004. It noted that the Diocese had
“received two new allegations against [Fr. LaCosse] of sexual abuse of minor males.”
(App’x NL#26, Letter to Fr. LaCosse, dated September 17, 2004, p 1, identified as
“84” in the document.)
In the September 17, 2004 letter, Bishop Garland noted that he opened “a
preliminary investigation” in response to the first complaint, and after receiving the
report and consulting with the Diocesan Review Board for the Protection of
Children and Young People, “I determined that the allegation is neither manifestly
69
false nor frivolous.” (Id.) The letter then informed Fr. LaCosse that he would
inform the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (Id.) The letter further
noted that the second complaint was received on August 27, 2004. Like the first
complaint, the bishop indicated that he found the second allegation “is neither
manifestly false nor frivolous.” (Id. at 2, identified as “85.”) The bishop then asked
whether Fr. LaCosse would “voluntarily seek laicization.” (Id.) He also asked that
Fr. LaCosse respond in writing to the allegations after providing a summary of the
substance of the claims from the Does51 and 52 brothers. (Id.)
In 2004 or 2005, Bishop Garland moved to have Fr. LaCosse dismissed from the
clerical state. (App’x NL#27, Letter from Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith,
dated August 3, 2005.) In response, the Secretary to the Congregation of the Faith,
Archbishop Angelo Amato, SBD, denied imposing the sanction:
I wish to inform you that this Congregation, while sharing the position
expressed in Your Excellency’s Votum and recognizing the grave
nature of the cleric’s past offences, has nevertheless taken into
consideration the cleric’s age, the fact that he is already in retirement
and that the matters of which he is accused have fallen into
prescription. This Dicastery has therefore decreed that it will not be
necessary to present this case to the Holy Father for dismissal from the
clerical state ex officio. [Id.]
On August 30, 2005, Bishop Garland issued a “Praeceptum poenale,” a penal

precept, in light of the response of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
(NL#28, Praceptum Poenale, dated August 30, 2005.) In this precept, he directed
Fr. LaCosse to “a life of prayer and penance,” allowing the celebration of Mass
privately. (Id.) The precept also required him to live in the City of Marquette and
cease any further travel to Mexico: “In recognition of the fact that it places
Reverend LaCosse at risk for relapse into previous sinful behavior and in order to
protect the faithful, he is directed to cease any further trips to Mexico.” (Id.) These
obligations were “in addition” to the Precept, dated July 12, 2002, and in the letter
dated September 17, 2004. (Id.)
On August 29, 2007, the Diocese received a letter from John Doe53 indicating that
when he attended Loretto Catholic Center High School in Sault Ste. Marie in the
early 1960s he was befriended by Fr. LaCosse. (NL#29, Letter to Bishop Alexander
Sample, dated Aug 29, 2007.) According to this letter, Fr. LaCosse took a “special
interest in him” and they became friends. (Id.) He reported Fr. LaCosse’s conduct:
I traveled with him on many occasions often overnight and out of state.
We spent a great deal of time together. . . . I was young and very
impressionable. At one point, Father’s activities became disordered. I
was shocked and drew away from such a close association with him.
(Id.)
70
On September 7, 2007, Bishop Sample responded to the letter of Doe53 by
apologizing for any harm that Fr. LaCosse had done to him. (App’x NL#30, Letter
dated September 7, 2007) (“I am profoundly sorry for what you have endured.”)
Bishop Sample also offered Doe53 to meet with him and refer him to the Diocese
victim assistance coordinator for outreach. (Id.) On September 11, 2007, Doe53
wrote a second letter indicating “it serves no purpose for me to come forward at this
point, as his conduct has been exposed and dealt with appropriately.” (App’x
NL#31, Letter dated September 11, 2007.) Doe53 stated that “I lost 40 years using
bad memories as an excuse to hate God and His Church.” (Id.) By 2011, Doe53
emailed the Diocese asking to be notified when Fr. LaCosse died as this “will offer
closure in some way and I need closure.” (App’x NL#32, Email dated April 28,
2011.) As of 2014, Doe53 was more willing to share limited details of his sexual
abuse indicating that Fr. LaCosse befriended him and had him over to the rectory,
served him cocktails, took him to dinner, and let him drive his car. (App’x NL#33,
Phone Conversation notes dated April 30, 2014.) The notes were taken by the
victim assistance coordinator, Stephen Lynott. (Id. at 2.) According to this
conversation, Doe53 indicated that he “would often pass out” and thinks that
“LaCosse molested him at that time.” He explained that “most of the time he
resisted LaCosse when he was sober.” (Id. at 1.)
On July 25, 2018, Bishop John Doerfler wrote a letter to a witness. (In the letter,
Bishop Doerfler acknowledged that the witnesses’ family member was sexually
abused by LaCosse, stating “[i]n addition, you shared that your brother had been
molested by Father LaCosse many years ago.” The bishop then offered an apology
and an opportunity for counseling: “On behalf of the Church, I wish to offer you a
sincere apology. If it would help you to talk to someone about this, I would invite
you to contact one of our victim assistance coordinators. I am confident that you
would find in them a warm heart open to listen.”
71
(22) FR. FRANK LENZ
Alive. Remains in ministry within “strict limitations” as a retired priest, as he may

not engage in priestly ministry in parishes and schools. 13
On March 30, 2018, the victim advocate coordinator, Stephen Lynott, met with Jane
Doe11, who claimed that Fr. Frank Lenz had “sexually abused” her in the early
1970s. (App’x FL#1, “Report on meeting,” dated March 30, 2018.) Fr. Lenz was 76
years old at the time of the accusation. The following information was provided:
In a subdued voice she told me that when she was in the 3rd through
5th grade at St. Peter’s she, and several other girls (4–5) would be
taken by Fr. Frank Lenz to Willow Farms, in Chocolay Township, to
ride horses. Fr. Frank was known to keep horses as a hobby during
the first 15 years or so of his ordained priesthood. [Doe11], who is now
in mid-life, said that Fr. Frank would take her to the horse stalls, lay
her in the straw and “lay on (her).” He would touch her “skin on skin”
and arouse her and rub himself on her. She remembers a “sash” of
some kind falling down on her when she was in the prone position.
She does not remember any other people around her. She never did
ride any horses.
When he would drive her home he would tell her that this was “just
between the two of us.” He never threatened her. When she got out of
the car, still aroused, she would rub herself on the metal fences at
Fisher School until she found relief, and then went home. She told no
one.
She said that this happened 10–12 times over a two-[year] period and
that the same thing would happen to her friends. She named one as
[Jane Doe12], who to his day she “cannot look in the face.” Another of
the girls developed a drug addiction in her adult years and died of an
13See https://www.uppermichiganssource.com/2020/10/20/church-tribunal-finds-
accusation-of-sexual-misconduct-by-marquette-priest-inconclusive/ (Last accessed
October 26, 2022.)
72
overdose. [Doe11] said all of them changed and become shy, isolated
and “scared.” [Id. at 1.]
The same day, on March 30, 2018, the attorneys for the Diocese sent a letter to the
Marquette County Prosecutor, Matt Wiese, informing him of the allegations. (App’x
FL#2, Letter to Prosecutor, dated March 30, 2018.) In the letter, the attorney noted
that the “Diocese will place Fr. Lenz on administrative leave during the
investigation.” (Id.)
On April 2, 2018, the officials from the Diocese met with Fr. Frank Lenz regarding
these allegations. (App’x FL#3, “Meeting w/ Fr. Frank Lenz,” dated Monday, April
2, 2018.) There were two other priests present from the Diocese, Fr. Larry Van
Damme and Monsignor Michael Steber. (Id. at 1.) According to these handwritten
notes, Fr. Lenz “categorically” denied the allegation, asserted that the diocesan
planned response “implies guilt,” asked whether he may “personally face my
accuser,” and stated that he would “never again” get back my “reputation.” (Id. at
1.)
On April 2, 2018, Bishop John Doerfler issued a decree in which he opened a

“preliminary investigation” under Canon Law regarding the March 30, 2018
allegation. (App’x FL#3, Decree dated April 2, 2018.) In the decree, he noted that
the allegation was one of “sexual abuse” for a minor under the age of 16 years for
which he found that it carried “the semblance of truth”: 14
Following an initial review of the allegation, I have found that it is

neither manifestly frivolous nor false. Rather, I have determined that
the allegation carries with [it] the semblance of truth. [Id.]
On that same day, April 2, 2018, Bishop John Doerfler issued a precept in which Fr.
Lenz was bound to the following specific obligations:
1. To refrain from contact with minors;
2. To refrain from contact with the person who has lodged the above
mentioned complaint, with members of her family, and with all persons
who might serve as a witness to the matter; and to refrain in any other
way from obstructing the preliminary investigation itself;
3. To reside at your current residence in, Marquette, Michigan;
14 “Semblance of truth” is a term in Canon Law proceedings used to evaluate

the strength of evidence against a priest. (See https://www.vatican.va
/resources/resources_glossary-terms_en.html.)
73
4. To refrain from public celebration of the sacraments. You are permitted,
however, to celebrate Mass in private without any other person present.
5. To refrain from presenting yourself publicly as a priest in any way;
6. To refrain from wearing clerical garb under any circumstance. [App’x

FL#4, Precept dated April 2, 2018.]
The precept noted that it “should in no way be construed as a judg[]ment of guilt

concerning the allegation.” “Rather, the precept is a temporary measure intended
to protect the rights and reputations of all involved, as well as to avoid any scandal
to the Christian faithful.” (Id.)
Also on April 2, 2018, in the diocesan press release, the Diocese stated that it placed
Fr. Lenz on “administrative leave effective immediately,” as a result of a “recently-
made credible allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor dating back to the
1970s.” (App’x FL#5, News Release, dated April 2, 2018.) It further noted that Fr.
Lenz denied the allegation. (Id.)
The Diocese obtained a copy of the Chocolay Township Police Department’s

investigatory documents. (App’x FL#6, Chocolay Twp Police Report.) In the police
report, the reporting officer recorded the substance of the complainant’s allegations
against Fr. Lenz, which included allegations of vaginal penetration with his fingers
and that he “orally licked her exposed vagina.” (Id. at p 6 of 13.) She told the
reporting officer that this occurred 10 to 15 times over a one-year time period. (Id.)
On August 3, 2018, the attorney for the Diocese received a letter from the
Marquette County Prosecutor’s Office, which indicated that the Chocolay Police
Department “submitted the police report with a request for a charge of Criminal
Sexual Conduct First Degree,” but that “no charges were authorized” because the
allegations occurred “well over the time allowed by the statute of limitations.”
(App’x FL#7, Letter from Marquette County.) It should be noted that at the time of
the reported sexual abuse the statute of limitations was only six years.
On August 16, 2018, Bishop John Doerfler issued an additional precept to Fr. Lenz
in light of “unauthorized statements” made to the news media, “[i]n order to protect
the accused, the accuser, the witnesses, and the integrity of the canonical process
that is being conducted and to allow the investigation to be conducted promptly and
objectively.” (App’x FL#8, Precept dated August 16, 2018.) The precept directed Fr.
Lenz to discuss the case “privately,” requiring him to remove “any and all social
media posts,” and obliging him “not to discuss the case publicly.” (Id.)
In September 2018, Fr. Lenz prepared a five-page written statement addressing the
allegations raised by Doe11. (App’x FL#9, “My response to false accusations of
sexual abuse of a minor.”) In this written statement, Fr. Lenz “categorically,
74
completely and unequivocally den[ied] all of her charges, without reservation or
exception.” (Id. at 1.) Regarding the police investigation and the police interview of
witnesses, Fr. Lenz stated that “[n]ot one of them reported any kind of misconduct
by me; most all of them had positive things to say about their memories of me, and
even about their ongoing, present impression of my overall decency. No one
corroborated a single memory of the accuser’s charges against me.” (Id.)
On March 14, 2019, the attorney for the Diocese requested from the Department of
Attorney General, that it may commence its canonical review of these allegations
given that the statute of limitations had run on any possible criminal conduct.
(App’x FL#10, Email from Attorney.) The Diocese agreed to suspend any dual
investigation during the time that the Department was conducting its own
investigations. Once the Department concluded an investigation, the Diocese was
informed so it could move forward with its own investigation. Here, the
Department agreed that the statute of limitations had expired.
On October 20, 2020, according to news accounts, the church tribunal reviewing the
allegation determined that the evidence was “inconclusive,” and that it was “unable
to establish guilt or innocence to the standard of moral certainty in the case.”
(App’x FL#11, “Church tribunal finds accusation of sexual misconduct by Marquette
priest ‘inconclusive.’ ”) As a result, according to the article, “Father Lenz is
returned to ministry with strict limitations in place by Bishop John Doerfler, which
include prohibiting him from priestly ministry in parishes and schools.” (Id.)
75
(23) FR. CLEMENT LEPINE
In letter dated February 2, 2005, Jane Doe13 wrote a letter reporting sexual abuse
by Clement LePine as early as 1969. (App’x CL#1, Doe13 Letter.) Fr. LePine lived
near her family. (Id.) The family attended St. Joseph’s parish. (Id.) According to
this letter, Fr. LePine would sit on his doorstep and call to the children, luring them
with candy, games, and toys. (Id.) The favorite game was jumping on his bed. (Id.)
Doe13 reported that he would get the other kids busy with a game and take one
child to his bedroom where he would help the child “flip upside down” while tickling
their bare skin. (Id.) By the age of 7 or 8, Doe13 said she was invited to Fr.
LePine’s home to jump on the bed—she explained that this was a treat because her
own mother would have a “fit” if she jumped on the bed. (Id.) She jumped until
tired and flopped on the bed on her stomach. (Id.) Doe13 reported that Fr. LePine
then pulled her shorts and underwear down and rubbed his fingers into her body,
sliding his fingers into her butt and vagina. (Id.) She said she remembered hearing
a screen door slam and Fr. LePine yelled at her to “get out of here right now” and
hoisted her up by the shorts. (Id.) She noticed the anger on his face and that his
pants were undone. (Id.) She remembered being wet between the legs and believed
then that Fr. LePine was angry with her because she had “peed in his bed.” (Id.)
Doe13 reported that this type of sexual abuse did not happen again to her but
stated that her brother was also sexually abused by Fr. LePine. (Id.) Sometime
later, Doe13 discussed the sexual abuse with her friend, and they contemplated
speaking to law enforcement but believed they would be ridiculed and slandered.
(Id.) Eventually, she did tell her mother of the sexual abuse. (Id.)
In a letter dated May 19, 2005, Jane Doe14 wrote a letter to the Diocese to report
her sexual abuse from 1969 to 1972 when she was around the ages of 5 to 8 years
old. (App’x CL#2, Letter.) She reported that Fr. LePine would “tickle” her and
fondle her genitals many times during the three-year period. (Id.) She said that Fr.
LePine would teach her new ways to use the toilet where she would squat on the
toilet seat without underwear, and he would touch and penetrate her vagina and
anal opening with his fingers. (Id.) Fr. LePine would let her jump on his bed and
touch and penetrate her genitals. (Id.) On one occasion, Doe14 reported, Fr. LePine
forced Doe14 to perform fellatio on him when she was 8 years old. (Id.) In order to
ensure Doe14 kept quiet about the sexual abuse, according to Doe14 Fr. LePine told
her that God would come and burn her house down and burn up her family in the
middle of the night. (Id.) She said that he took her to the basement and forced her
near the hot furnace, threatening to throw her in and burn her up. (Id.)
Also in this May 2005 letter, Doe14 stated that in 1981 or 1982 she reported Fr.
LePine’s abuse to Sue Feldhusen at Catholic Social Services, a counselor in
Marquette. (Id.) Doe14 observed a young girl hanging around Fr. LePine’s home,
and Doe14 wanted to make sure the young girl was not being abused. (Id.)
76
Feldhusen scheduled a meeting with diocesan officials. (Id.) Doe14 remembered
this as being very traumatic. (Id.) She recounted the meeting:
One of the priests in the meeting told me he was a counselor for

priests. The counselor asked me to describe what happened to me.
First, I told him about the tickling and inappropriate fondling. His
response was very skeptical and demeaning, and he asked me a
number of questions, including “is that all that happened,” “what were
you doing at his house” “are you sure you’re not making this up?” I
then tried to talk about the toilet incidents and he again in a skeptical
tone, fired questions and comments at me including a comment that
what happened to me didn’t sound “that bad.” [Id. (underscore in
original).]
The 1981/1982 meeting concluded with Doe14 feeling as if she had not been believed
and she indicated that if she saw that young girl again at Fr. LePine’s home she
would call the police. (Id.)
In 2005, the Diocese conducted its own investigation for the benefit of the Review
Board by speaking with Susan Feldhusen. (App’x CL#3, Conversation with Susan
Feldhusen.) She recalled Doe14 telling her she was sexually abused by a priest who
lured her with candy into his house where the sexual abuse occurred. (Id.)
Further, Doe14 said she was concerned about another little girl around the priest’s
house and that she referred Doe14 to Fr. Peter Minelli (see entry No. 26 below)
because he was the “spiritual director for priests.” (Id.) Review of Fr. Minelli’s file
revealed that he was the “Vicar for Priestly Life” from November of 1979 to October
of 1981. (Id.)
The reports were deemed credible and were validated. (App’x CL#4, News Release
on August 22, 2005.) The Diocese agreed to reimburse Doe14 for the cost of
counseling support services. (App’x CL#5, Release dated November 26, 2007.)
Doe14’s attorney signed a release of all claims that in any way “arise out of or are
alleged to have arisen out of the actions and conduct of Father LePine” in exchange
for $112,000. (Id.)
At the request of the victims, in 2005 the Diocese made a public announcement that
Fr. LePine had been credibly accused, that his name be removed from the St.
Joseph Parish Hall, and that his photograph be removed from the church vestibule.
Bishop James Garland wrote to Doe13, offered to pay for her counseling, and
indicated the following, “You know that the Board and I have recognized your
allegations as credible. The picture of the former pastor has been removed from the
church entrance and the parish hall is now called St. Joseph Parish Hall. . . . I
renew my apology and sorrow to you for the distress you have suffered because of
Father LePine’s actions.” (App’x CL#6.)
77
(24) FR. MARK MCQUESTEN—
* ACTIVE MINISTRY (RETIRED) *
Alive in active ministry as a retired priest.
In a note dated December 18, 2003, for the personnel file of Fr. Mark McQuesten,
Bishop James Garland indicates the following:
In a letter from Donald J. Giesen dated December 15, 2003, the

information was provided to me that members of the ‘French Choir
Boys’ stayed three nights in the rectory of St. Mary Parish, Norway.
Father Alex Sample, Director of Priest Personnel, spoke with Father
McQuesten about this allegation. It is true that the pastor did have
some of the 17–18 year olds at the rectory with adults also present.
Father Sample strongly and clearly reminded Father McQuesten that

this was in violation of our policy and that no minors are allowed in the
living quarters, let alone overnight, and that this was a serious matter.
Father McQuesten accepted the rebuke. [App’x MM#1, Memo to File.]
John Doe54 contacted the Victim Assistance Coordinator of the Diocese of

Marquette on January 19, 2018, to report alleged sexual misconduct by Fr.
McQuesten in the 1980s, when Fr. McQuesten was in the seminary. (App’x MM#2,
Investigative Report, dated January 26, 2018, p 1.) The Diocese engaged Diocesan
Assistance Coordinator (DAC) John Flannery, 15 from the Diocese of Green Bay,
Wisconsin, to conduct an investigatory interview with Doe54 on January 26, 2018.
(Id.) Vicar for Clergy of the Diocese of Marquette, Fr. Larry Van Damme, was also
present. (Id.) Flannery reported the following based on this interview:
• In 1986–87, while attending high school, [Doe54] and his brothers [Witness1
and Witness2] were invited by [s]eminarian Mark McQuesten to accompany
him down to [Florida] for [a] wedding[.]
***
• [Doe54] claims that the group stayed in Miami Beach at a “dive motel” (he
does not remember the name). 2 rooms were obtained. The brothers were
forced to choose who had to stay with McQuesten by drawing straws. [Doe54]
15According to 2021 materials on the website of the Diocese of Green Bay, John
Flannery is a law enforcement executive; a former sensitive crimes instructor in
policy academy; and a member of the Wisconsin Office of [Crime] Victim Services
working committee. (https://www.gbdioc.org/docman/safe-environment/848-
members-of-the-independent-review-board/file, last accessed October 26, 2022).
78
stated, “I drew the short straw.” The other brothers stayed at a room down
the hallway from [Doe54] and the priest.
***
• [Doe54] described what happened. McQuesten had gone to bed and was lying
on one side with his back to [Doe54.] [Doe54] was sitting on the edge of the
bed and turned on the television set. Both were fully clothed. [Doe54] found
the Playboy channel and watched it for a period of time. . . [Doe54] claims he
then turned the channel off and went up onto the bed, lying on his back. At
this point, [Doe54] alleges that McQuesten turned and his right hand fell into
[Doe54]’s lap, on or near the genital area. [Doe54] immediately turned to the
left so that the hand came up onto his right hip. McQuesten is alleged to slip
his hand down onto the buttock region and then to the small of the back.
[Doe54] claims that McQuesten then proceeded to rub his back a few times
with his right hand. [Doe54] jumped out of bed and yelled, “Mark stop it,” at
which point McQuesten made some sort of sound in acknowledgement. . . . .
• DAC asked [Doe 54] if McQuesten knew that he was watching the Playboy
channel given his statement about exposing a child to pornography. [Doe54]
responded, “I feel like he had to know.” [Doe54] admitted that McQuesten
did not turn on the [Playboy] channel, express to [Doe54] that he was in favor
of [Doe54] watching it, or turn over and see what was going on. [Doe54] also
admitted keeping the volume down. DAC inquired from [Doe54] if it was
possible that McQuesten was sleeping. [Doe54] acknowledged that it was
possible, but he felt McQuesten “had to know what was going on” and was
“only pretending to sleep.” However, [Doe54] has no evidence to back this
claim, just his “feelings.”
• DAC asked [Doe54] to describe the positions of both he and McQuesten on the
bed. For some reason, this was an involved process; [Doe54] using DAC’s
desk to orientate himself to the situation. DAC asked twice if McQuesten
had his back to [Doe54] [in bed]. . . . [Doe54] answer[ed] affirmatively. When
asked how he knew that McQuesten used his right hand to rub his back,
[Doe54] stated he “simply knew” even though he had his back to McQuesten.
• DAC asked if [Doe54] was aroused and had an erect penis when McQuesten
allegedly placed his hand on or near [Doe54’s] genitals. [Doe54] immediately
responded. “Absolutely not.” DAC inquired if McQuesten squeezed, rubbed
or attempted to open his pants to gain access to his penis. [Doe54] stated
none of this happened. [Doe54] also admitted that McQuesten did not say
anything at this time, and he cannot definitively state that McQuesten was
awake during the episode, though he “feels Mark had to know what he was
doing.” [Doe54] did not look at McQuesten’s face during the incident, turning
over right away.
79
• DAC asked [Doe54] what he did after jumping out of bed and telling
McQuesten to stop. . . . [Doe54] appeared to be perplexed by this question.
He does not remember what he did after. . . . [Doe54] did advise that he
never told his siblings about the incident until years later.
• DAC made the comment that the details were not that clear, which elicited a
response from [Doe54] that “the story is mine to tell” (?) . . . [Doe54]
explained that he can’t be completely clear on all that happened; all he can do
is tell how it made him feel. [App’x MM#2, pp 3–4 (emphasis in original).]
In his report of the interview, Flannery noted several “concerns” about the truth of
the information relayed by Doe 54:
Concern #3 – DAC has a number of concerns over this recall of the

alleged incident. The first is [Doe54]’s having attributed abusive
behavior by McQuesten to [Doe54]’s own actions. [Doe54]
acknowledges having found the Playboy channel on the television set
and watched it for a period of time. During which, he claims that
McQuesten may have been sleeping. Though McQuesten did not give
permission for [Doe54] to watch it, McQuesten did not turn it on and
force [Doe54] to sit through it, and he did not turn over and witness
what was happening – [Doe54] still blames McQuesten for his exposure
to the program. This makes no logical sense, but does call into
question for DAC what [Doe54]’s true motives are. . . .
[Another concern is] [Doe54]’s failure to recall what happened next

after the alleged abuse…DAC questions how given the trauma of what
[Doe54] claims occurred, he can’t remember the next day? If
victimized, many [trauma victims] will avoid the abuser or even if
acting ‘normal’ will acknowledge the uncomfortable feelings being with
the abuser the rest of the trip . . . but [Doe54] can’t recall that morning
how he or McQuesten acted. DAC believes this can occur for only one
of two reasons – either it was not perceived to be abuse by [Doe54] at
the time or [Doe54] is lying. [App’x MM#2, pp 4–5 (emphasis in
original).]
On February 1, 2018, as a follow-up to the interview with Doe54, Flannery reviewed

several of the allegations that Doe54 advanced in the prior meeting. (App’x MM#3,
Investigative Supplement, dated February 1, 2018.) According to this report,
despite Doe54’s earlier claim that he was a firefighter, “he was found not be a
certified firefighter in the State of Wisconsin.” (Id. at 2.) Also, the report indicated
that “[r]ecords were found to confirm” that he traveled down to Florida in 1986 for a
wedding. (Id.) Finally, the report noted that Doe54’s prior relationship to Life
Church, was adverse, as Flannery spoke with two members of that community who
indicated that Doe54 had begun to “exhibit odd and bizarre behavior” and “on more
80
than one occasion was found to be exaggerating or untruthful with what he told
members.” (Id. at 3.)
Flannery talked to Doe54’s brothers, Witness1 and Witness2; Flannery also spoke
with McQuesten on two occasions. (App’x MM#4, Investigative Summary dated
May 14, 2018, p 1.)
In the introduction to his report of May 14, 2018, Flannery summarized his prior
interviews with [Doe54]:
“This DAC has many years of training and experience in interviewing

both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault, and the interview was
to aid in establishing the validity of the allegation being brough t
forward. The interview of [Doe54] did raise a number of concerns for
the DAC. There was a lack of consistency in the information between
what had been told to the Diocese of Marquette DAC and what was
told on the date of the interview. . . . Further, he was reluctant to
state unequivocally that the behavior attributed to Fr. Mark was
intentional, and acknowledged [it] may simply have been
misinterpreted on his part.” [App’x MM#4, Investigative Summary,
dated May 14, 2018, p 1.]
On March 31, 2018, Witness1 was interviewed and provided information relative to
the trip to Florida. (App’x MM#4, Investigative Summary dated May 14, 2018, pp
4–6.) Witness1 provided the following information:
• [Witness1] recalls the trip down to Florida with Fr. Mark for the
wedding. [Witness1] believes that Fr. Mark is homosexual and
he has always had an “eye for his brother [Witness2].”
***
• [Witness1] stated that the morning after the first night, he

sensed something was wrong with [Doe54,] but he didn’t think
anything of it. He could not provide details just that this always
stuck in his mind for some reason.
• [Witness1] stated that a few years after the trip [Doe54] told his
brothers that when staying in the room, Fr. Mark did something
inappropriate. He has since spoken to [Doe54] and now
understands that Fr. Mark tried to touch him. . . .
• [Witness1] recalls that Fr. Mark always “hugged too much” with
his brothers and the group of young men that were friends of the
[brothers’ family]. Fr. Mark never abused anyone to his
knowledge but he “crossed boundaries way too often.”
81
[Witness1] describes his hugs as “too long” and would always
press his whole body up against someone in the embrace.
• [Witness2] came back from the trip out west and told his
brothers that Fr. Mark disrobed in front of him and [Witness3].
He also told their circle of friends. [Witness1] alleges that when
Fr. Mark learned that [Witness2] had spoken to everyone about
it, he allegedly told [Witness2] to stop and stated, “No one,
including your own parents, will believe you.” [App’x MM#4, pp
5–6.]
On May 14, 2018, Witness2 was interviewed by phone from his home. (App’x
MM#4, Investigative Summary dated May 14, 2018, pp 6–9.) Flannery noted that
“[Witness2] came across credible” and “told this DAC he is not seeking anything
from the Diocese.” (Id. at 6.) Witness2 provided the following information:
• [Witness2] affirmed that on the trip to Florida, for the wedding

of Fr. Mark’s brother, the [] brothers and the priest had obtained
two rooms – one for [Witness2] and [Witness1], and one for
[Doe54] and Fr. Mark. [Witness2] who by this time had grown
frustrated and “felt creeped out by Fr. Mark’s behavior” refused
to stay in the room with the priest. The brothers drew straws to
determine who would stay with Fr. Mark, and it turned out to be
[Doe54.] [Witness2] advised that he didn’t notice anything out of
the ordinary with [Doe54] the next morning, and it was only a
few years later that [Doe54] told the brothers what happened.
[Witness2] claims that [Doe54] told them that during the night,
he woke up to find Fr. Mark rubbing his back. This DAC
pressed [Witness2] on this point – did [Doe54] describe anything
else? [Witness2] claims he did not, though he admits that his
response to this information was to say to [Doe54] – “That was
it?” He believes that maybe this might have shut [Doe54] down,
but he doesn’t know.
***
• [Witness2] told this DAC that Fr. Mark was a friend of his
parents and he first met him when he was 12–13 years old. Fr.
Mark was a seminarian and assisted at a church in Norway, MI.
Fr. Mark paid attention to [Witness2]. . . . Fr. Mark took him
and his friends fishing at Strawberry Lake in Norway.
[Witness2] also recalls that Fr. Mark often had “pizza night”
with [Witness2] and his friends. Fr. Mark allowed them to sleep
over at the rectory after watching movies and having pizza. Fr.
82
Mark didn’t abuse him, or to his knowledge his friends, but he
was always “hugging too much with teenagers.”
• [Witness2] recalls one time when fishing, that Fr. Mark told him
to take off his shirt because it was hot out. [Witness2] recalls
this incident vividly. Fr. Mark would always have his shirt off
and request that [Witness2] and his friends to rub suntan lotion
on his back and chest. [Witness2] refused to take his shirt off
that time and Fr. Mark got extremely upset over it. . . .
• [Witness2] mentioned that [Witness3] and he were in Fr. Mark’s

apartment in the rectory above the living quarters of Fr.
Bares(?) on more than one occasion. Fr. Mark was an associate
pastor at the time. In one instance, [Witness2] and [Witness3]
found a copy of the magazine Play Girl in the bathroom. They
thought it was funny and brought it up to Fr. Mark. He too
thought it was funny, and downplayed the incident. The boys
asked him why he had the magazine, but he never gave them a
straight answer. It was at this point they both suspected that
Fr. Mark was gay.
• When [Witness2] turned 13–14, his parents sent the [] brothers

to [a high school seminary in] Wisconsin. Fr. Mark stayed in
touch with [Witness2] and often wrote him letters. [Witness2]
first began to get really concerned about the priest’s behavior
when he received these letters. They were written similar in
style (according to [Witness2]) to “love letters.” Fr. Mark would
tell [Witness2] he missed him, loved him, and would say things
that in his opinion, only people in intimate relationships
express. He can’t recall all that was written. [Witness2] burned
some of the letters out of concern that others in his dorm might
find them and believe that [Witness2] was homosexual. Events
became more concerning for [Witness2], he claims, when Fr.
Mark would visit him and they would go out to see a movie or
for dinner. Often the conversation focused on [Witness2] and his
sex life with his girlfriend. He distinctly recalls one
conversation in which he was asked by Fr. Mark if his girlfriend
gave him “good hand and blow jobs.” [Witness2] stated this
“freaked him out” and he began to avoid meeting up with Fr.
Mark on weekends or evenings.
• During his sophomore year, at summer break, Fr. Mark asked

his parents if [Witness2] would be interested in accompanying
him on a road trip out West. His parents thought this was a
good idea[;] [Witness2] did not. [Witness2] convinced Fr. Mark
83
and his parents that [Witness3] should also go. Fr. Mark was
extremely upset, but [Witness2] advised them he would not go
without [Witness3]. . . .
• Fr. Mark often purchased wine for the three of them and they
would drink it together. At one park in British Columbia
(Canada), Fr. Mark asked [Witness2] to take a walk with him.
Once they were away from [Witness3], Fr. Mark confronted
[Witness2] and asked him why he doesn’t say he “loves him
anymore.” Fr. Mark actually began to cry over this. [Witness2]
told Fr. Mark that that when he was younger, they all stated
they “loved each other, like Jesus would with his disciples.”
[Witness2] got the impression that Fr. Mark perceived this
differently – yet, it was Fr. Mark that recommended using that
phrase in this context. [Witness2] was extremely uncomfortable
and immediately walked back to where [Witness3] was by the
vehicle.
• [Witness2] related that he and [Witness3] were taken to the

sand dunes in Oregon, and upon arriving Fr. Mark disrobed and
stood naked in front of both of them. Fr. Mark advised that he
was going sunbathing and suggested they do the same.
[Witness2] and [Witness3] were extremely uncomfortable and
walked back to the vehicle to wait for Fr. Mark to be done. No
one else was around at the time. [Witness2] does not recall
where this was.
• [Witness2] did recall that the three of them – at Fr. Mark’s

insistence – traveled to a nudist beach in California. However
by the time they arrived, it was dark, cold and no one was
there. . . .
• [Witness2] advised this DAC that the road trip was awkward,
and as the trip went on, [Witness2] was feeling more and more
uncomfortable. It was obvious to him that Fr. Mark had wanted
to be alone with [Witness2] on the trip. [Witness2] convinced Fr.
Mark to travel down to Arizona where [Witness2]’s [relatives]
resided. Fr. Mark did not want to, but [Witness2] insisted.
Eventually they traveled down there and [Witness2] asked his
[relatives] if he could stay with them and not continue with the
trip. He believes that his [relatives] may have sensed
something, because they agreed to this. [Witness2] described
Fr. Mark as extremely angry and upset with him. However, the
relatives insisted with Fr. Mark. [Witness2] believes that it was
84
only a matter of time before Fr. Mark would have done
something inappropriate.
• [Witness2] explained that Fr. Mark never tried anything sexual

with him, but he believes that much of what Fr. Mark did was
grooming behavior. . . [App’x MM#4, pp 6–9.]
On March 6, 2018, Flannery spoke with their friend, Witness3. (Id. at 3–4.)
Witness3 reported the following:
• [Witness3] and his wife are very good friends with Fr. Mark.
• [Witness3] did accompany [Witness2] and Fr. Mark on a road

trip out West. He does not recall what year this was stating,
“That was over 30 years ago.” [Witness3] did confirm that both
were teenagers at the time.
• [Witness3] denied that they were taken to an actual nudist

camp, he stated. “We went to a beach where . . . I think clothes
may have been optional. But no one else was around.” He
stated that there were no signs or other indications that this
was a nudist beach, camp, etc.
• [Witness3] did confirm that Fr. Mark began to disrobe in front of

the boys. He was hesitant to describe this in more detail stating
that he recalls Fr. Mark took off his pants and shirt. When
asked if Fr. Mark was naked, he responded, “I don’t remember.”
• This DAC asked if he felt Fr. Mark was attempting to seduce the
boys. [Witness3] responded with, “I wouldn’t know . . . it did
make us uncomfortable. I am not willing to say that though.”
This DAC then requested to know if it was possible that Fr.
Mark was taking his clothes off to go swimming (being at a
beach) or even to sunbathe. [Witness3] stated, “I really don’t
know.”
• [Witness3] did tell this DAC that what Fr. Mark did was
inappropriate. He repeated this numerous times. [Witness3]
does not recall if Fr. Mark said anything to the boys. [Witness3]
claims that and [Witness2] simply left because they were
uncomfortable. [App’x MM#4, pp 3–4 (emphasis in original).]
The report also indicated that “[Witness3] did tell this DAC that he accompanied
[Witness2] and Fr. Mark on the trip at the request of [Witness2].” (Id. at 4.) He
further stated that Fr. Mark always “had a shine for [Witness2]” and that he does
know that [Witness2] did not wish to go alone with Fr. Mark on the trip. (Id.)
85
Fr. McQuesten was interviewed by Flannery on two separate occasions, on
February 23, 2018, and again on June 22, 2018. (App’x MM#5, Investigative
Supplement, dated February 23, 2018; App’x MM#6, Second Interview of Fr. Mark
McQuesten, dated June 22, 2018.)
On February 23, 2018, Fr. McQuesten was interviewed and asked about travelling
to Florida for a wedding in the late 1980s. (App’x MM#5, p 1.) “When asked who he
went down with, he stated the “brothers.” (Id.) Fr. McQuesten then provided the
following information:
• Father was told of the allegation – that he was accused of having

placed his hand on the genital area of one of the brothers as they
slept in bed with him. Father’s first response was, “That is hard
to believe.” DAC responded with, “But you are not denying it.”
Father immediately stated “I absolutely deny it. I would never
do that to anyone.” During this exchange, Father still maintained
open body language, he looked DAC in the eyes and maintained
his composure. DAC then responded, so this individual is lying?
Father firmly responded back with, “Yes, he is lying.” At various
times during the interview, Father was unequivocal in again
stating that he did not touch or abuse any one of the brothers.
• DAC asked Father if it was possible that he may have been
sleeping with one of the brothers and when in sleep, flailed his arm
towards the accuser who in turn may be misinterpreting what
happened. . . . However Father responded that this was not
possible because he slept alone and no one joined him in the bed.
***
• DAC inquired if Father may have done something else that
would be construed as inappropriate now but that was not
considered to be so back then in the 1980’s. DAC listed,
“Walking with your underwear on, changing in front of the boys,
etc.” Father caught what DAC said, responding with another
denial that he touched any of the boys and also denied having
done anything inappropriate at all. In fact, he stated that both
he and the boys changed separately in the bathroom. Further,
the only thing he can think of is that he “gave hugs to people,”
but these were not inappropriate in any way. [Id. at 2–3.]
Flannery stated regarding his February 23, 2018 interview with Fr. McQuesten: “It
should be remembered that the incident occurred over 30 years ago. However, in
light of no physical evidence and given the concerns noted during the interview of
[Doe54], this DAC cannot attest to the fact that clear, satisfactory, and convincing
evidence suggests that Fr. Mark touched or attempted to touch [Doe 54] in a sexual
manner.” (App’x MM#4, p 2 (emphasis in original).)
86
On June 22, 2018, Fr. McQuesten was interviewed a second time, this interview
referring to comments by Witness2. (App’x MM#6, Second Interview of Fr.
McQuesten, dated June 22, 2018, p 1.) In response, Fr. McQuesten provided the
following information:
• Fr. Mark does not specifically recall taking [Witness2] fishing in

Norway [Michigan], but stated “It is possible” since he did many
activities with the [] brothers.
• Fr. Mark did affirm that he was an associate pastor in Norway
and resided in an apartment at the rectory above a Fr. Elmer
Bares. When asked if he kept a Play Girl magazine in his
bathroom, Fr. Mark laughed, and continued to laugh over this
without responding. DAC asked him, “So what is your answer,
yes or no?” Fr. Mark stated that he never had a magazine such
as this in his apartment. . . . DAC stated that [Witness2] and
[Witness3] were reported to have this in his bathroom. Fr. Mark
stated, “I don’t think so.” . . .
***
• DAC brought up stopping with [Witness2] and [Witness3] at
various sites out West . . . DAC brought up the allegation of
stopping at a nudist beach in California, Fr. Mark immediately
stated, “No that was on the Columbia River. There was a public
swimming area that had a sign that read, ‘Clothing Optional’; it
was not a nudist camp.” DAC asked what the difference was
between that type of beach and a nudist beach. Fr. Mark
responded that he had taken the group to a beach to go
swimming and did not know that the beach chosen allowed
clothing to be optional. He did not seek out a “nudist beach.”
*NOTE – The mention of a sign that stated, ‘Clothing Optional’
are the same words used by [Witness3] during his interview.
DAC did some research on this. . . . to access the ‘clothing
optional’ beach, a member of the public must pay to enter the
park and pass through the ‘clothing required’ areas, past signs
that outline the nature of the beach and prohibit anyone
younger than 18 from entering. DAC finds this recollection by
Fr. Mark to be somewhat disingenuous. He presents the
scenario that the group simply came upon or stumbled into a
‘clothing optional’ beach. The parks researched by DAC are
designed to limit or restrict access. . . .
***
• Fr. Mark acknowledged that during the trip the group did
sunbathe. . . . After going back and forth on this subject, DAC
asked if Fr. Mark sunbathed without his shirt on. He stated he
87
was sure that he did. How about in the nude? DAC then related
what [Witness2] alleged of Fr. Mark being nude and [Witness3]
corroborating that Fr. Mark was observed taking his clothes off.
Fr. Mark responded, “That is not possible.” DAC asked why. Fr.
Mark responded “Because I don’t do that.” When asked if
[Witness3] was lying, Fr. Mark did not have an answer.
• DAC brought up the subject of the letters sent to [Witness2] at
[the high school seminary]. DAC explained that [Witness2]
alleges that the letters were very intimate in nature and made
[Witness2] uncomfortable. Fr. Mark immediately stated he
understands the reason for [Witness2] bringing this up, given
that he often signed his letters, “With love or I love you.” DAC
inquired of Fr. Mark his thoughts on addressing these letters in
this fashion when speaking to teenage boys – did he really feel it
was appropriate? Further, [Witness2] explained that the letters
took on a tone of intimacy that one shows for a lover. Fr. Mark
responded, “I would doubt that.” He further stated that if the
letters are read, even today, the worst part of the
correspondence is the use of the word “love.” . . .
• DAC was very explicit and open with Fr. Mark regarding the
allegation that Fr. Mark had spoken with [Witness2] about
sexual activities/matters during his visits down in [Wisconsin].
Fr. Mark confirmed that on occasion, he had visited [Witness2]
in high school and had taken him to movies or out for dinner.
Fr. Mark responded that he recalls [Witness2] initiating
conversations about sex, and the pressure he felt from his peers
in being sexually active. However, these conversations took
place on [] Road, when talking with [Witness2] near the family’s
home. When asked what was discussed or if it was possible that
this subject came up – say at dinner – Fr. Mark did not recall.
[App’x MM#6, pp 2–4.]
At the conclusion of this chronicling, Flannery reached the conclusion that he
“cannot unequivocally stated that Fr. Mark is lying”:
• All in all, DAC cannot unequivocally state that Fr. Mark is lying.
DAC does not have the ability to corroborate his responses with
what has been alleged to independent evidence (the event took
place over 30 years ago). However, it is this DAC’s professional
opinion that this subject matter is causing him distress and
anxiety for some reason. [Id. at 5.]
The Review Board of the Diocese of Marquette considered the investigation reports
submitted by Flannery and ultimately concluded the allegations of sexual abuse
made by [Doe54] were not “verified by the investigation.” (App’x MM#8, Letter by
88
L. Reilly to Doe54 dated December 13, 2018.) Thus, the Review Board
recommended that no further action be taken regarding these allegations. (Id.)
On June 27, 2018, Fr. Brad Sjoquist wrote to Bishop Doerfler that he was concerned
“regarding the behavior” of Fr. McQuesten with respect to person named ERS.
(App’x MM#7, Email from Brad Sjoquist to John Doerfler, dated June 27, 2018.) He
wrote the following in an email:
In the past I’ve written you about concerns regarding the behavior of
my pastor with respect to an individual named [ERS] (he goes by [a
nickname]). I am grateful for your interventions and Fr. Larry [Van
Damme’s] interventions in some of the more problematic situations.
I wanted you to know that [ERS] has been hanging around the parish
again. I saw him walking around before the Sunday 7:30 am Mass at
Holy Spirit, and my secretary told me that he was down in Fr. Mark’s
apartment for awhile today. I suspect Fr. Mark has been providing
him with occasional transportation as well. My understanding was
that Fr. Mark was to break off all contact with him. I do believe he did
for a time, but he seems to be getting drawn into this relationship
again. This is consistent with what has happened in the past.
As you know, in the past, Fr. Mark has made decisions with respect to
[ERS] that have caused potential liability issues for the parish and
distress among staff members. There are two seminarians in residence
at Holy Spirit this summer, and I don’t want the situation to escalate
to a point where they run into problems. I have been, in many ways,
the de facto boundary keeper, and when I am gone, I can foresee an
escalation in the situation.
I know you are going on vacation soon, but as Fr. Larry is wrapping up
his Vicar for Clergy ministry, I thought I should contact you as the
primary person in this matter.
I am reporting what staff members have told me and my personal
suspicions. I have not done any kind of exhaustive investigation into
these matters. If he remains non-compliant, I would strongly advise
the reassignment of the seminarians. [Id.]
89
According to the parish bulletin of St. Joseph of Sault Ste. Marie of August 29,
2021, Fr. Mark McQuesten is a “retired priest.” 16 He also serves on St. Joseph
Association as a senior priest for the Diocese, his term expiring in December 2023. 17
16See https://container.parishesonline.com/bulletins/01/1125/20210829B.pdf (Last

accessed October 26, 2022).
17See https://Dioceseofmarquette.org/councils-boards (Last accessed October 26,
2022.)
90
(25) FR. JAMES MENAPACE
Died February 3, 2022.
Removed from public ministry on July 12, 2002, but the precept was prepared and
mailed to him on April 19, 2002.
According to a January 22, 1985 report prepared by Richard Sexton,

Superintendent of Catholic Education (App’x JM#1, Sexton Report dated January
22, 1985), under the heading “Sexually Inappropriate Behavior” in relation to Fr.
James Menapace:
Recently I was informed that 4 years ago while at a party where he

was drinking heavily he placed his hand on the breast of a Sister and
attempted to fondle it. This event was seen by others present. [Id.,
p 3.]
The report indicated that Fr. Menapace was noted to constantly joke with teenagers
about “pocket pool” and they in turn joke that Fr. Menapace plays “pocket pool”
with himself. (Id.) Additionally, “[o]ne teenage boy made an allusion to a staff
member that he would never again be left alone with Fr. Jim. This boy was asked
whether he was sexually abused by the pastor and he refused to respond.” (Id.)
In July 2000, John Doe55 and John Doe56 reported to the Diocese that they were
sexually abused by Fr. Menapace when they were 13 to 14 years old. (App’x JM#2,
Notes of July 2000 meeting of Fr. Alexander Sample, p 1.)
On July 5, 2000, Fr. Norman Clish advised Bishop James Garland that he had
received a call from the mother of Does 55 and 56 to report the sexual abuse of her
sons. (App’x JM#3a, Memorandum dated July 5, 2000.) Bishop Garland placed a
memo in Fr. Menapace’s confidential file. (Id.) In that same memo: “There was a
report from a [family member] as I recall, of suspicious sexual conduct and drinking
beer with him when a minor, that occurred when Fr. M was campus minister at
NMU. I spoke to Menapace about it and he said it was a indiscretion of no
consequence sexually and that he has never had any problem of this nature.” (Id.)
On July 11, 2000, Fr. Alexander Sample met with the boys at St. Agnes Parish in
Iron River. (App’x JM#2, July 2000 Meeting Notes of Fr. Alexander Sample.) They
91
reported the sexual abuse occurred when they were 13 and 14 years old during the
summers of 1996 and 1997. (Id., p 1.) According to the boys, the sexual abuse
happened at Fr. Menapace’s Gulliver Lake cottage. (Id.) The boys were there to
spend time with Fr. Menapace and to do some work for him. (Id.) The boys stated
that the sexual abuse occurred on four extended visits. (Id.) They advised that
alcohol consumption by Fr. Menapace often preceded the sexual abuse. (Id.) The
sexual abuse was reported as follows:
• In the sauna – all were nude. Fr. Menapace would touch their
genitals. Doe55 was made to touch Fr. Menapace’s genitals.
They were encouraged to masturbate themselves in his
presence. (Id.)
• In the living room of the cottage – sometimes the genital

touchings would be under their clothing, at other times on top of
their clothing. (Id.)
• In the bedrooms – while alone, the victims would be touched by

Fr. Menapace on their genitals but they both would not be
present. (Id., p 2.)
• They denied oral or anal sex. (Id.)
• Doe55 reported having one orgasm. (Id.)
• Fr. Menapace also enjoyed talking to the boys in sexually

explicit ways, “Are you still using Vaseline?” (Id.)
• Fr. Menapace reassured the boys that what was going on was
his problem and that he would “take care of it.” (Id.)
A few days later on July 14, 2000, Fr. Sample also interviewed the mother who
indicated that “[e]veryone wants to keep it quiet, although [Doe55] is angry and
wants to see Fr. Men[a]pace put away,” but that “[t]he family is satisfied with what
Bp. Garland might do.” (Id., p 3.)
On July 14, 2000, in a conversation between Steve Lynott, the Victim Assistant
Coordinator (VAC) and Father Sample, “Steve Lynott was asked by Father Sample
if he could recommend a counselor for [the mother] in the Iron Mountain area. Very
general and cryptic information was given about the case.” (Id.) Further down the
report:
[Doe55] was asked about the reporting responsibility. If a counselor

comes to know of abuse, he or she would be required to report it to the
police.
92
The only option would be for the mother to refuse to give the name of
the perpetrator to the counselor, in which case there could be no name
to report. But a good counselor would try to move the person to report
the abuse to the authorities as part of the “healing” process. Handling
it within the Church may not satisfied the therapeutic need to bring
the abuser to justice.
This is a tough call. You want the person to get help, but if they
genuinely want to keep it quiet, then a counselor would be able to
respect that. [Id. at 3.]
On July 18, 2000, the Diocesan response team met regarding the report of sexual
abuse by Doe55 and 56. (App’x JM#4, Response Team meeting minutes dated July
18, 2000.) The team concluded that after in relation to the meeting “with the boys
and their mother” that “the story seems credible.” (Id.) The minutes noted that
“[t]he family does not want to have the matter turned over to the authorities.” (Id.)
Also, “[t]he committee decided that the priest needs to be met with and confronted
with the allegations” and that “a psychological assessment of the priest needs to be
made.” (Id.) The post-script to the meeting noted that there had been an earlier
allegation against Fr. Menapace:
[I]n 1994 an allegation similar in nature was made by a cousin of the

priest as a result of his receiving counseling. The misconduct occurred
when the [family member] was a minor (13) when the priest was a
seminarian. Drinking 4 beer occurred (with) this single episode.
When confronted by Bp. Garland the priest admitted the incident and
passed it off as a youthful indiscretion and that he has had no trouble
of this nature ever since.
+JHG [James H. Garland] [Id. (handwritten notes).]
Also in July 2000, Fr. Menapace did admit to “inappropriate behavior” in response
to Doe55 and Doe56 but he did not agree with their details. (App’x JM#6,
Notification Packet, p 9.) In August of that year, Fr. Menapace was sent to St. Luke
Institute and was returned to limited ministry in March of 2001. (Id.)
A formal precept was issued by Bishop Garland in 2000 restricting Fr. Menapace
from ministry with minors. (App’x JM#6, Notification Packet, p 4.)
On June 15, 2001, another meeting occurred with Fr. Menapace. (App’x JM#5,
Meeting notes dated June 15, 2001.) The following notes were recorded at the
beginning of the entry, apparently in relation to the allegations of misconduct:
93
• Your complaint was taken seriously
• Fr. Jim went for assessment end of summer 2000
• Fr. Jim entered a residential care facility August 2000
• The course of treatment was August to March [Id.]
Either as a continuation of this meeting’s notes or separate from the meeting, the
following was recorded:
Apologize for Jim’s misconduct
Thank her for bringing the allegation to light (It was courageous)
It was my understanding that the family didn’t want it to be public.

(She is free to bring it to the authorities)
Thank her for not bringing scandal to the church or priesthood. Why
haven’t we spoken before regarding Jim’s treatment: Jim has been
guarded—he doesn’t want people to know
If people knew he was in treatment, the fear is that it would get out I
contacted Norm in January to see if we could follow-up in any way.
I am glad that she raised her concern now. It made the opportunity for
us to talk about it.
I didn’t know Jim being in Crystal Falls would [a]ffect her, because I
wasn’t in on the initial interviews. Apologize for not being sensitive.
Fr. Jim doesn’t have to do weekend helpout at Crystal Falls. If it

creates too much of a hardship, I will ask him to refuse helpout.
However, he may be coming for funerals, family visits, etc.
For July, he is scheduled. Can he come this year? His cancellation

would create a hardship at this late date.
How is her family? [Id., p 2.]
In a document entitled “Documentation of Request for Confidentiality in the

Menapace case,” there were eight entries running from July 11, 2000, to April 27,
2004, regarding the family’s wish not to disclose the allegations to civil authorities
and the response of the Diocese. (App’x 3c.)
94
August 2000 – July 18, 2002
Through repeated contacts with Fr. James Ziminski, [the mother] is

repeatedly told that the family always retains [the] right to report the
abuse. It is repeatedly the family’s choice not to make it public.
June 15, 2001
Fr. Ziminiski speaks with [the mother] and reestablishes that it is the
family’s wish not to make the abuse public. He reminds her that the
family is free to bring it to the authorities. [App’x 3c, Document
regarding confidentiality, p 1.]
In April 2002, Bishop James Garland issued an updated precept against Fr.
Menapace that allowed him to serve in public ministry, but he had to concelebrate
with another priest present and he was allowed to help with retreats at the
diocesan retreat center – provided there were no minors present. (App’x JM#6,
Notification Packet, p 9.) By July 2002, Fr. Menapace was restricted from all public
ministry. (Id. at 10.) “[Fr.] Menapace was very unhappy with this precept.” (Id.)
On July 18, 2002, according to the document on confidentiality Fr. Ziminski writes
a letter to the mother, confirming that “we are respecting the family’s wishes not to
make the abuse public or report it to the authorities.” (App’x 3c, Document on
confidentiality, p 1.) The document indicates that “if she or her sons ever wanted to
report this to civil authorities, we would certainly assist and cooperate.” (Id.)
On April 26, 2004, the document on confidentiality indicated that Fr. Alexander
Sample met with Doe55, who did not want the sexual abuse reported to the civil
authorities:
Fr. Alex Sample met with [Doe55] in Crystal Falls. He told [Doe55]
that the Diocese of Marquette would like to cooperate with the civil
authorities in the case involving them and help report the abuse since
the statute of limitations had not expired on the crime. We also
wanted, however, to honor the victim’s wishes. [Doe55] made it very
clear that he did not wish to make the allegation public and drag the
whole thing into court. He was content with the way the Church
handled the case. [App’x 3c, Document on confidentiality, pp 1–2.]
On April 27, 2004, the document on confidentiality indicated that Fr. Alexander
Sample met with Doe56, who also wished the matter not be turned over to the civil
authorities:
Fr. Alex Sample met with [Doe56] in Marquette. He told [Doe56] that
the Diocese of Marquette would like to cooperate with the civil
authorities in the case involving them and help report the abuse since
95
the statute of limitations had not expired on the crime. We also
wanted, however, to honor the victim’s wishes. [Doe56] made it very
clear that he did not wish to make the allegation public and report to
the authorities. [App’x 3c, Document on confidentiality, p 2.]
On August 13, 2007, the mother called the Diocese, noting her “fear and anxiety”
over the conduct of her sons, reported that Doe55 was overheard complaining that
he was sexually abused by a priest and is thinking of “blowing off my [f---ing] head.”
(App’x JM#10, Telephone notes dated August 13, 2007.) The mother had never
been told the details of the sexual abuse as her sons would not share that
information with her. (Id.) (App’x JM#10, Telephone notes dated August 13, 2007.)
In August 2008, the mother reported to now Bishop Sample and Fr. Norman Clish
that she was concerned by Fr. Menapace’s conduct toward her by asking “How are
my boys doing?,” expressing the sentiment that the boys were “looking for
attention.” He also asked her “are you sorry for what you did to me?” (App’x JM#6,
Notification Packet, p 21; App’x JM#7, Meeting notes dated August 13, 2008.)
On April 26, 2010, John Doe57 fatally shot himself in the head. (App’x JM#12,
Letter from Jane Doe16 to Stephen Lynott with Attachments, pp 1–2.) He left
behind a note. (Id.) This is the note in full:
Last will and testament To Whom It May Concern
This is hard to write, but we will try and finish it. Never dreamed
things would get so bad. I was living the dream I thought but thing’s
went bad quick. I want everyone to know I did love helping other’s but
as of late I lost my will or desire to help. There is to[o] much hate in
this area no one forgives. I hate prejudice, [ignorance], [arrogance] and
[complacency]. Not sure who is mad or why, but I can’t deal with it no
more. I have all that was important to me. So when you get this I
want no funeral. No [memorial] service. Just burn my body and spread
the ashes somewhere.
The same Catholic Church that got my dad, got my sister, got me. The
guy that got my sister, got me. . . . What was suppose to be private
quickly ran rampant to folks in county. So much for a [juvenile] record.
I have lived with this guilt for to[o] long. I seek a way out. I hurt and
maybe some others along the way. I am deeply sorry. Tell everyone I
do love them. All I was after was forgiveness.
Something NO ONE gave me. I want my stuff to go towards the dumb

college loan the Stihl chainsaw needs to go back to home Ralieghs Ace
Hardware. My home radio gear to Courage Center. (handiham.org).
96
I have my old truck at [Name1] and [Name2]. They can have that and
my old car trailer. Make them buy my toolbox about 8 grand worth of
stuff down there. My golfcart is at [Name3’s]. He can have that. I will
not need it.
God Bless. [John Doe57]
There is a box of stuff on little couch for Big Island Rendezvous. Sorry
all. Everyone can have some peace now.
[Name4]. [Name5.] Salvation Army.
Can you call my folks [name of parents] [Name4] best friend
I need to have peace.
Same Catholic Church got my dad & me. . . . I lived with it long
enough!
I miss [grandmother], [uncle], my brother []and my first collie dog [].

[Id., pp 2–6.]
This document was maintained by the Diocese in Fr. Menapace’s file. 18
By October 2011, Fr. Menapace was issued a canonical warning for conducting
burials. (App’x JM#6, Notification Packet, p 10.) In April 2014, Fr. Menapace
disregarded his obligations by celebrating Mass in a family home. (Id.)
On January 8, 2014, Fr. Francis Dobrzenski opened a “preliminary investigation”

against Fr. Menapace regarding the allegations against him because there had been
no previous “penal trial.” (Id. at 7).
On February 10, 2014, the Diocesan lawyer Darrell Dettmann penned a letter to
Schoolcraft County Prosecutor Tim Noble reporting the sexual assaults that the
letter alleged to have occurred in the summers of 1996 and 1997 in Schoolcraft
County. (App’x JM#13, Letter from Darrell Dettmann to Tim Noble dated February
10, 2014.) Attached was a document that detailed the allegations. (App’x JM#14,
Fr. Daniel Moll’s Summary.) This document was prepared by Fr. Daniel Moll, the
Diocesan Canonist. (Id.)
In the February 10, 2014 letter, the Diocese indicated that the allegations of sexual
abuse was first reported to Bishop Garland in 2000. (App’x JM#13, Letter from
18On January 2, 2015, Jane Doe16 reported the sexual abuse by Fr. Menapace she
alluded to in her brother’s suicide notes. (Id., p 1.)
97
Darrell Dettmann to Tim Noble dated February 10, 2014, p 1.) The letter addressed
the timing of the disclosure:
The allegations were first reported to Bishop Garland in 2000, and at

the time of that reporting the victims were no longer minors, and the
disclosure occurred before Michigan’s Child Protection Law was
amended to add clergy as mandatory reporters (2003). During that
time subsequent to the report, the Diocese offered support to its
victims through counseling and they were encouraged to report the
matter to civil authorities. However, the victims requested of the
Diocese that the matter remain private, and the Diocese respect their
wishes in that regard.
Periodically the Diocese would contact the victims, as well as the

victims’ mother to request that they allow the Diocese to report this
matter civilly. During those subsequent contacts, the victims and their
mother requested that the Diocese not report the matter.
The Diocese determined recently that the Diocese no longer felt that
withholding this matter from reporting was appropriate, and again
approached the victims expressing a strong desire on the part of the
Diocese to report this matter. The victims and their mother, indicated
that they were willing to allow the Diocese to make a civil reporting,
and hence my letter to you. One of the victims is willing to have you
contact him and speak with him. If you are interested, please contact
me and I will obtain the necessary contact information for you. [Id.]
Finally, the letter indicated that as of July 12, 2002, the Diocese imposed a
restriction against Fr. Menapace that he could no longer perform public ministry,
was not to wear clerical garb, and not appear in public as a priest. (Id.) The letter
also noted “because this matter was not handled by the Diocese in the usual
fashion, no public announcement of this was made.” (Id., p 2.) The letter concludes
that “I am requesting that this information be held confidentially by you in your
capacity as prosecuting attorney.” (Id.)
At the time of this 2014 letter from the Diocese, more than ten years had elapsed,
and the statute of limitations expired.
On June 22, 2014, Stephen Lynott wrote a memorandum to Fr. Menapace’s file
indicating that he received a phone call from another mother. (App’x JM#15a,
Memorandum dated June 22, 2014.) The mother called him to report that her son
was sexually abused by Fr. Menapace on numerous occasions in the late 1990s at
his cabin on Gulliver Lake. (Id.) The mother is a relative of Fr. Menapace. (Id.)
Her son, John Doe58, was between the ages of 7 and 9 at the time of the alleged
sexual abuse. (Id.) He disclosed the alleged sexual abuse to his mother in
98
approximately 2010. (Id.) She explained that a recent incident moved her to call
the Diocese. (Id.) She reported that Doe58 was reluctant to discuss the details of
the abuse but indicated he reported it happened multiple times over a 2-to-3 year
period in the sauna, or while he was sleeping in bed with Fr. Menapace. (Id.)
Also, in this June 2014 memorandum, it noted that the mother was angry because
Fr. Menapace celebrated a private Mass in a family home on April 27, 2014,
attended by approximately 10-to-15 of her relatives including minor children. (Id.)
She was not present but understood that as part of his precept, Fr. Menapace was
not allowed to do this type of ministry. (Id.)
On June 30, 2014, the Diocese sent a letter to the Schoolcraft County Prosecutor,
Tim Noble, outlining the report from Doe58’s mother. (JM#15b, Letter from Darrell
Dettmann to Tim Noble, dated June 30, 2014.) In the letter, the attorney Darrell
Dettmann noted that “[t]he Diocese believes that this is a credible allegation based
upon a prior incident report to you” in reference to the February 2014 letter. (Id.)
A law enforcement investigation was later attempted by the Michigan State Police.
Apparently, Doe58 did not respond to attempts by law enforcement to interview
him.
In September 2014, the Diocese issued a public announcement about Fr. Menapace.
(App’x JM#16, Memorandum dated September 23, 2014.)
On September 23, 2014, Steve Lynott received two phone calls, the first being from
Witness1. (App’x JM#16, Memorandum, dated September 23, 2014.) Witness1
indicated he read a news article about Fr. Menapace being accused of sexual abuse.
(Id.) He was currently living in New York and wanted to share an incident that
occurred when he lived in the Sault Ste Marie area. (Id.) He said that he and his
brother along with another youth named John Doe61 were befriended by Fr.
Menapace who was stationed in a parish there in the mid-1960s. (Id.) According to
diocesan record, Fr. Menapace was the parochial vicar at Holy Name of Mary Parish
in Sault Ste Marie in 1965. (JM#6, p 3.) He reported that Fr. Menapace took them
camping and they would all sleep together in a small camper. ((App’x JM#16,
Memorandum, dated September 23, 2014.) Nothing happened when they were all
together. (Id.)
In this September 2014 call, Witness1 said that one time, Fr. Menapace took only
Doe61 with him and Doe61 reported to Witness1 that during the sleep-over in the
camper Fr. Menapace touched him. (Id.) Witness1 said he did not believe it at the
time but believes it now. (Id.) He wanted the Diocese to know that Fr. Menapace’s
sexual abuse went further back in his career, and he wanted to back Doe61 up
should he choose to share this incident with the Diocese. (Id.)
For this second call from September 2014, John Doe62 reported to Lynott that when
he was living in Marquette Fr. Menapace befriended him and two other boys, John
99
Doe63 and John Doe64 from St. Michael’s Parish in Marquette. (Id.) According to
diocesan records, Fr. Menapace was the parochial vicar of St. Michael’s in 1963.
(App’x JM#6, p 3.) In this call, Doe62 said the boys were 16 at the time and Fr.
Menapace joined them swimming. (App’x JM#16, Memorandum, dated September
23, 2014.) He reported that Fr. Menapace stripped off all this clothes and invited
the boys to do the same, which he said they did. (Id.) Doe62 is a teacher now and
realizes how inappropriate this behavior was; however, he did not realize anything
was amiss at the time. (Id.) In addition, Doe62 reported that Fr. Menapace served
them alcohol in the rectory at St. Michael’s. (Id.)
On September 25, 2014, Diane Tryan (Victims’ Assistance Coordinator) received a

phone call from John Doe59. (App’x JM#17, Memorandum dated September 26,
2014.) He reported that when he was a young man in 1983 or 1984 he went with
some other boys to Fr. Menapace’s cottage. (Id.) Fr. Menapace allegedly gave them
alcohol and showed them he was not circumcised. (Id.) According to this report,
Doe59 and other another boy were in the sauna, and Fr. Menapace allegedly
grabbed his friend’s penis. (Id.) Doe59 reported that his friend punched Fr.
Menapace and they both left the sauna. (Id.) They never returned to the cottage
after this incident. (Id.) He told his mother “that man is f . . . ing queer.” (Id.)
(excision in original).
Further, Doe59 stated, “It changed my life.” (Id.) He explained that he was
reporting because he wanted the Diocese to be aware that Fr. Menapace’s sexual
abuse was not limited to the 90s but that he was sexually abusive before then. (Id.)
On October 16, 2014, Diane Tryan received a phone call from a man initially
wishing to remain anonymous. (App’x JM#19, Memorandum dated October 16,
2014.) His parents were very close to Fr. Menapace, using the word “worshipped” to
describe how they felt about him. (Id.) He said that he knew that it would crush
his mother (who was still alive at the time of the report) to learn of the sexual abuse
but that he wanted to add credibility to the voices of those who had come forward.
(Id.) He reported that when he was 8 or 9 years old, Fr. Menapace took him and
two other boys on a camping trip. (Id.) He alleged that he was forced to sleep with
Fr. Menapace and was sexually abused the entire first night. (Id.) He said that he
asked to go home but Fr. Menapace would not take him. (Id.) He was allowed to
sleep in his own bed the next night. (Id.) He said that when he was asked to return
to Deer Lake he refused and threw a fit. (Id.) He said his confused parents did not
understand his reaction. (Id.) At the time of the report, he felt that he could never
tell anyone in [town] because it was such a tight-knit community. (Id.) His mother
was very involved at the church and was part of a group of families whose lives
revolved around the church. (Id.) According to the diocesan records, Fr. Menapace
was the pastor of St. Francis Xavier Parish in Brimley beginning in 1967. (App’x
JM#6, p 3.) Per the caller, the sexual abuse would have occurred around 1969.
(App’x JM#19, Memorandum dated October 16, 2014.) He eventually shared his
name as John Doe60, but he did not want the information made public. (Id.)
100
On October 17, 2014, the Diocese sent a letter to the Chippewa County Prosecutor,
Brian Peppler, regarding the allegations by Doe60 against Fr. Menapace. (App’x
JM#19b, Letter from Darrell Dettmann to Chippewa County, Brian Peppler, dated
October 17, 2014.) In the letter, the attorney for the Diocese noted that the
“individual who requested that he remain anonymous” but that “there have been
other victims for which I have made reports to other prosecuting attorneys
regarding Father James Menapace.” (Id.) Regarding this specific claim, the letter
noted that “[w]e are in the very early stages of investigating this matter, but given
the fact that there are more than one victim making allegations against this
particular priest, the Diocese has very early on determined that this is likely a
credible allegation.” (Id.)
On October 26, 2014, Jane Doe16 spoke with Lynott and indicated that Fr.
Menapace had sexually abused her family and it was kept secret. (App’x JM#20,
Memorandum, dated October 2014, p 1.) She indicated that when she was 9 years
old she walked in on him abusing her brother John Doe57, then 11 years old, and
John Doe65, then 7, in the sacristy in Crystal Falls. (Id.) The boys were altar
servers. (Id.) She said that the boys were both naked and performing fellatio on Fr.
Menapace. (Id.) When Jane Doe16 was older, her father disclosed to her that he
and his brother (her uncle) were abused by Fr. Menapace in the 1950s. (Id.) It
appeared this would have been when he was a seminarian. (Id., pp 1–2.) Her
father and uncle were also altar servers. (Id., p 2.)
As a part of this report from October 2014, Jane Doe16 explained the depth of harm
Fr. Menapace’s sexual abuse had caused her family: “Her father became alcoholic as
an adult and was physically abusive to her mother. . . . Jane Doe16’s brothers . . .
sexually abused her later in life.” (Id.) And she advised the suicide of her brother
John Doe57 at 39 years old (see pp 96–97, Doe57’s suicide note above; see also App’x
JM#12, Letter from Jane Doe16) was related to Fr. Menapace’s sexual abuse of him.
(Id.) Finally, she said that she was told of Fr. Menapace’s sexual abuse of the boys
in 1989 and that the boys were 7 or 8 years old. (Id.) She remembered because she
was pregnant with one of her children and was quite clear about it. (Id.) She says
that Fr. Menapace was told to stay away from Crystal Falls and that many were
upset by his return for a family reunion in 2011. (Id.) Fr. Menapace is related to
Jane Doe16 and John Does 55 and 56. (Id., p 1.)
On October 31, 2014, Bishop John Doerfler sought the advice of the Review Board
as whether the reports were credible. (App’x JM#6, Notification Packet, p 17.)
There was a unanimous finding that the reports were indeed credible. (Id.)
When confronted on March 2, 2015, regarding Does55 and 56, Fr. Menapace denied
having touched the boys, merely teaching them how to masturbate and indicating
that he too was sexually abused by a “monsignor” when he was 14 or 15 years old.
(App’x JM#6, Notification Packet, p 21.)
101
On June 8, 2015, a family member spoke with Diane Tryan to report that her
brother confided in her many years ago that when they were attending Lake
Superior State University as students, Fr. Menapace, who was ministering at the
Newman Center, approached him and propositioned him. (App’x JM#18,
Memorandum dated June 8, 2015.) Her brother was a teenager at the time, and
they believed that Fr. Menapace was using the Center to patrol for victims. (Id.)
Her brother killed himself at the age of 31. (Id.)
On August 13, 2015, Bishop Doerfler prepared a notification to the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the reports of sexual abuse against a minor for
Fr. Menapace. (Id.)
On September 10, 2015, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instructed
Bishop Doerfler to impose a penal precept upon Menapace, restricting his public
exercise of ministry and instructing him to a life of prayer and penance. (App’x
JM#21, Letter dated September 10, 2015, from Archbishop Augustine Di Noia to
Bishop John Doerfler.)
A final letter dated March 11, 2016, indicates that “Menapace, a priest incardinated
in the Diocese of Marquette, who was accused of having offended contra sextum
decalogi proeceptum cum minore (cf. can. 1395 sect 2 CIC). He was also accused of
having offended contra sextum with an adult woman which resulted in her
becoming pregnant.” (App’x JM#22, Letter dated March 11, 2016, from Archbishop
Augustine Di Noia to John Doerfler.) The letter was signed by Archbishop
Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Adjunct Secretary. (Id.) 19
19There is no other information in the files related to Fr. Menapace impregnating

an adult woman.
102
(26) FR. PETER MINELLI
Restricted from ministry in 2002, and removed from priestly ministry in 2014.
On March 24, 1982, a memorandum was placed in Fr. Peter Minelli’s file indicating
that a brief meeting was held on February 24, 1982, that included Bishop Mark
Schmitt and Fr. Charles Strelick (see entry No. 40 below) where they informed Fr.
Minelli that he was to move from the residence on Rock Street no later than March
1, 1982. (App’x PM#4, Memorandum dated March 24, 1982, p 1.) His diocesan
duties and appointment were to cease on March 1, 1982. (Id.) Fr. Minelli was to
report to the Center for Human Development in Washington, D.C. the first week of
March 1982. (Id.) According to this memorandum, Fr. Minelli’s readmission to the
Diocese would depend on his obedience to the above directives of the bishop; his
failure to comply with any of these directives would result in suspension of his
Diocese faculties on March 8, 1982. (Id.) It is not clear from the file what Fr.
Minelli had done to warrant such directives.
In 1993, John Doe66 reported to Bishop James Garland that while meeting with Fr.
Peter Minelli as his “counselor,” Fr. Minelli lured him into anal penetration and
fondling. (App’x PM#1, Letter from Doe66 to James Garland, pp 1–2; App’x PM#2,
Letter to Peter Minelli, pp 1–2.) Fr. Minelli was sent to St Luke Institute. (App’x
PM#3, Letter from Stephen Lynott dated July 13, 2001, to Michelle Short, p 1.)
In the previous year, on November 2, 1992, an anonymous letter was received,

written to Fr. Minelli, reading in part:
It’s been a long letter over due to tell you how I feel about what you did
to me. I have had a real difficult time dealing with you and what you
did to me. I feel so angry that I left you touch me. I trusted you
because you are a priest, a man of God. I put all my trust in your
hands. And you betrayed me. You sexually played with me and it was
wrong. You were wrong. I came to you because I needed help.
I was confused and needed your help. You said you would counsel me.
And I believed you. [App’x PM#2, Letter to Fr. Peter Minelli, p 1.]
103
The letter goes on for an additional page and is signed “Z” above the same mailing
address that appears on letters sent by Doe66. (Compare App’x PM#2, 1992 Letter
to Peter Minelli, p 2, to App’x PM#5, Letter from Doe66 to Bishop James Garland.)
This letter was therefore likely written by Doe66.
A second letter, postmarked December 18, 1992, was sent to Bishop Garland.
(App’x PM#1, Letter from Doe66 to Bishop James Garland.) The handwriting is
similar to that signed by “Z.” (Compare App’x PM#2, Letter to Fr. Peter Minelli, to
App’x PM#1, Letter from Doe66 to Bishop James Garland), but this one was signed
by Doe66. Doe66 indicates that “10 years ago Father Minelli used to play with me.
I went to him for counseling after a nervous (partial) breakdown.” (App’x PM#1,
Letter from Doe66 to James Garland, p 1.) Doe66 goes on to say that Fr. Minelli
“said that this was part of the healing process. I believed him because he is a
priest. I trusted him. I put all my trust in him and he fucked me over.” (Id.)
In late 1992, Rick Schaefer interviewed Doe66, who indicated he was 38 at the time
of the interview. (App’x PM#10, Doe66 Interview Notes, p 1.) Doe66 stated that he
was sexually abused in 1982 or 1983, making him around 28 years old at the time of
the abuse. (Id.) According to Doe66, Fr. Minelli began counseling at his office and
eventually had him come to his home. (Id.)
Doe66 explained that Fr. Minelli gained his trust by saying that he had gone
through the same type of traumatic experience. (Id.) He further described that Fr.
Minelli would have him lie on the bed with the lights off, he would remove Doe66’s
pants and touch his penis. (Id.) Doe66 said that Fr. Minelli would also touch Doe66
with his own penis. (Id.) This occurred approximately twelve times over a few-
month period he said. (Id.) Doe66 acknowledged that he wrote a letter to Fr.
Minelli approximately six weeks earlier, but said he never got a response. (Id., p 2.)
Doe66 said that he was mostly concerned with making sure Fr. Minelli did not do
this to others. (Id.) The interview notes state that Mr. Schaefer assured Doe66 that
there were processes in place to deal with Fr. Minelli. (Id., p 3.)
In June of 1993, Doe66 indicated he had put the matter behind him (App’x PM#13,
Annotated Letter from Peter Oberto to Doe66 dated June 16, 1993), but in 1994, he
wrote again to the Diocese concerned that Fr. Minelli had adopted a son. (App’x
PM#12, Annotated Letter from Doe66 to Bishop James Garland dated August 31,
1994.) In a telephone call on August 31, 1994, Bishop Garland noted the following
“points of [his] response”: “(1) no laws against it; court study, judge decision[,] (2)
person is adult; away in school, [and] (3) professional advice: healthy and not
harmful relationship.” (Id.) Bishop Garland added the following as indicated by his
initials, “[Doe66] received an anonymous typed letter asking if he knew Fr. Minelli
adopted a son. He wanted to make sure this was not a situation that he was put
in.” (Id.)
104
In 1997, it was allegedly discovered that Fr. Minelli was “indulging in Internet
pornography, had ‘unusual’ counseling relationships with males.” (App’x PM#3,
Letter from Stephen Lynott dated July 13, 2001, to Michelle Short, p 1.) He was
reprimanded for this behavior, given restrictions to his ministry, and reassigned
parishes. (Id.)
In July 2001, Fr. Minelli’s computer crashed. The repair man reported that he
found a “great deal of pornography.” (Id., p 2; App’x PM#6, Intervention Notes,
dated July 11, 2001, p 1.)
On April 11, 2002, the brother of Doe67 reported to Bishop Garland that Doe67 was
propositioned by Fr. Minelli in the mid to late 1970s while a student at Northern
Michigan University. (App’x PM#7, Meeting Notes dated May 20, 2002, pp 1–2.)
Fr. Minelli claimed to have no recollection of this incident. (Id., p 2.)
On April 15, 2002, John Doe68 reported that when he was 14 years old when
Minelli fondled him, and he was made to touch Minelli. (Id., p 1.) Doe68 and Fr.
Minelli were childhood friends, with Fr. Minelli being 3 to 4 years older than Doe68
and attending seminary at the time of the assault. (Id.) When confronted about
this incident, Fr. Minelli claimed to not remember the incident, but did not deny it
either. (Id.)
On May 20, 2002, a meeting was held with Fr. Minelli in relation to the sexual
abuse reports with Frs. Desrochers (see entry No. 7 above), Alexander Sample, and
James Ziminski in attendance. (Id.) The following was detailed under
“observations” about the author’s conclusions that Fr. Minelli’s “made no sense”:
As Fr. Minelli addressed several of the situations of misconduct

presented to him, his responses contained either a misrepresentation
or a skewing of the facts. Either he was lying or he is not in complete
touch with reality. Fr. Minelli claimed that his doctor told him he was
dying (When his doctor was contacted by Mr. Lynott, the Dr. Urban
denied it). Fr. Minelli claimed that he always admits to his bad
behavior (Fr. Ziminski has personally caught him in lies and denials.)
Fr. Minelli stated that he never tried anything sexual with his adopted
son (his adopted son got into an altercation with the parish janitor at
St. Ann Parish in which he claimed Fr. Minelli attempted to abuse him
on a vacation). When Fr. Ziminski mentioned this, Fr. Minelli tried to
explain the incident with a muddled logic and excuse: “He was just
mad at the janitor because the janitor was supportive of me.” It made
no sense. [Id., p 2.]
On August 20, 2002, Bishop Garland imposed a precept on Fr. Minelli that his
ministry was restricted. (App’x PM#11, Letter from Bishop John Doerfler to Fr.
Peter Minelli, dated December 23, 2014, p 1.) He was not to engage in counseling,
105
private talks, missions, or retreat work. (Id.) He was not allowed to hear
confessions unless asked by an individual. (Id.)
On November 21, 2013, John Doe69 reported to Fr. Francis Dobrzenski and Kevin
Branson that he was sexually abused by Fr. Minelli. (App’x PM#8, Meeting Notes
dated November 21, 2013, p 1.) Doe69 stated he was coming forward then because
he saw an article about a dead Jesuit priest and saw Fr. Minelli on a plane recently,
which led him to come forward. (Id.)
In this 2013 meeting, Doe69 reported that he came to visit his sister in 1981. (Id.)
She was a staffer for St. Peter’s/St. Michael’s and was involved in the Cathedral
charismatic prayer group. (Id.) Fr. Minelli went to dinner with Doe69. (Id.) After
dinner, Fr. Minelli asked Doe69 if he wanted to see the chapel and pray with him.
(Id.) Doe69 agreed. (Id.) According to Doe69, while they were on the kneelers in
the upper chapel of the Cathedral, Fr. Minelli kissed his face, put his tongue in his
mouth, and told Doe69 that he reminded him of Jesus. (Id.) Doe69 also said that
Fr. Minelli groped him with his hands and wanted him to unzip his pants. (Id.)
Doe69 said he refused. (Id.)
Attached to its response to a survey from the Center for Applied Research in the
Apostolate, the Diocese of Marquette attached a document entitled Receipt of the
Complaint. (App’x PM#9, Survey Response, p 7.) It was unsigned but had the
names of Reverend Francis Dobrzenski, Diocesan Administrator, Diocese of
Marquette and Father Daniel Moll, Ecclesiastical Notary, Diocese of Marquette.
(Id.) It stated in relation to the interview with Doe69:
On 21 November, 2013, I, the undersigned Administrator for the

Diocese of Marquette, received a complaint against the Reverend Peter
A Minelli, a priest of this Diocese, alleging that he had committed an
act of sexual abuse of a person above the age of majority and in the
presence of the Most Blessed Sacrament, in violation of CIC, c, 1395
section 2 and c. 1389.
I received the complaint from [Doe69], the victim of the alleged abuse,
in person, with the Director of Ministry Personnel, in the Bishop
Baraga Room at the chancery in Marquette.
[Doe69] alleges that Reverend Minelli sexually abused him in 1981,

when he was 24 years old. The alleged abuse occurred on only one
occasion. The alleged abuse occurred in the chapel, in the presence of
the Most Blessed Sacrament at Reverend Minelli’s residence near the
Cathedral of St. Peter in Marquette.
106
The alleged abuse included the following acts: forced kissing, groping
of his genitals, and a request that he unzip his pants in Reverend
Minelli’s chapel. [Id.]
By late 2014, Bishop John Doerfler amended the 2002 precept and restricted Fr.
Minelli’s ministry even further by not letting him practice any public ministry.
(App’x PM#11, p 2.) Prior to the amendment to his precept, Fr. Minelli was allowed
to concelebrate Mass so long as another priest was present. (Id.)
107
(27) FR. ALBERT MLIGO
Presumed alive.
On March 26, 2014, Jane Doe17 called Steve Lynott, who is the victim assistance
coordinator for the Diocese to report an act of sexual misconduct by Fr. Mligo.
(App’x AM#2, Report on “Abuse Allegation.”) Doe17 was an employee at St. Joseph
Parish in Ishpeming. On April 1, 2014, Doe17 came to the diocesan office to report
the act in person indicating that she had previously discussed the matter with Fr.
Greg Heikkala. (Id.) Lynott noted that Doe17 seemed “clear in her memory,
rational and believable.” (Id. at 1.) Doe17 reported that Fr. Mligo was visiting from
Tanzania in East Africa, and she said that he pressured her on three occasions to
have dinner in her home. (Id.) She felt it was inappropriate as she is a single
woman and refused or ignored his requests. (Id.)
According to the report, on the day of the incident, she explained that Fr. Mligo
came into her office at the parish and asked for something to eat. (Id.) They were
alone and when she got him a snack from the refrigerator and he thanked her.
When she turned away, she described that “he gave her a very forceful slap on her
rear.” (Id.) Moreover, according to the report, her response was to be speechless
and very surprised; saying nothing, she left the room. (Id.) The report further
indicated that she later disclosed the slap to two parish families. She also said that
she disclosed it to “Fr. Jim,” referring to Fr. James Challancin, who was sick at the
time and subsequently died in February 2013. 20 The report noted that Fr.
Challancin later advised her that “We had a talk with Fr. Mligo.” (Id., at 2.) Doe17
said that she later disclosed the abuse to the Diocese because she was concerned Fr.
Mligo would return to the parish. (Id.) On April 2, 2014, the report noted that “in a
phone call to Fr. Greg Heikkala he verified the events as told to me by Doe17, and
he asserted that she is a credible person, that he believes the account of her incident
with Fr. Mligo.” (Id.)
On May 6, 2014, Bishop John Doerfler informed the clergy of he “received a credible
allegation of misconduct against Reverend Albert Mligo” from the Diocese of Mbeya
in Tanzania from a 2011 trip. (App’x AM#3, Memorandum dated May 6, 2014.) The
memorandum noted that “[t]he allegation involves inappropriate and uninvited
physical contact with an adult parish employee.” (Id.) The memorandum further
noted that “Father Mligo no longer has permission to enter and practice priestly
ministry with the Diocese of Marquette.” (Id.)
On May 19, 2014, Bishop Doerfler also wrote the bishop of Mbeya, Bishop Evaristo
Marc Chengula, IMC, noting that he “had received a credible allegation of
misconduct against Reverend Albert Mligo” and that he “no longer has permission
20See https://www.miningjournal.net/obituaries/2013/02/rev-fr-james-p-challancin/
(Last accessed October 26, 2022).
108
to enter and practice priestly ministry with the Diocese of Marquette.” (App’x
AM#4, Letter to Bishop of Mbeya.)
On June 18, 2014, Bishop Doerfler notified the General Secretary of the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops, Monsignor Ronny Jenkins, that it has received “a
credible allegation of misconduct” against Fr. Alberto Mligo of the Diocese of Mbeya
(Tanzania). (App’x AM#5, Letter to NCCB.) The letter indicated that the
misconduct occurred during a fundraising trip to the Diocese of Marquette in 2011,
when Fr. Mligo was purportedly raising funds for a mission parish and hospital in
Matamba, Tanzania. (Id.) The letter also stated that there were questions that
arose relating to the fundraising practices used by Fr. Mligo. Thus, Bishop Doerfler
advised Msgr. Jenkins that Fr. Mligo “no longer has permission to enter into and
practice priestly ministry” within the Diocese, and that the Diocese no longer able to
provide support to the mission parish and hospital in Matamba to which Fr. Mligo’s
fundraising activities related. (Id.)
The Diocese reported Fr. Mligo to the Michigan State Police. Michigan State Police
troopers reached out the Doe17 to interview her in an attempt initiate a criminal
investigation. Doe17 indicated she believed the Diocese handled the matter and
was not interested in participating in a criminal investigation.
109
(28) FR. ROBERT MONROE
Died September 16, 1980.
On June 5, 2002, Catholic Social Services (CSS) reported to the Diocese that, a CSS
manager met with John Doe70 at the offices to report sexual abuse by Fr. Robert
Monroe in the mid 1960s while Doe70 was attending St. Mary’s parish in Sault Ste.
Marie. (App’x RM#1, Notes from “secret archive,” dated June 10, 2002.) According
to Doe70, while he was between the ages of 5 and 7 years old, he and several other
boys were sexually abused by Fr. Monroe in a small room in the back of the church.
(Id.) Doe70 said the sexual abuse involved masturbating Fr. Monroe and orally
stimulating Fr. Monroe’s finger while Fr. Monroe masturbated himself. (Id.)
On October 21, 2005, Jane Doe18 reported that she was sexually abused by Fr.
Monroe during 1968–69 when she was four years old. (App’x RM#2, Archdiocese of
Detroit Allegation Intake Form, p 1.) She indicated that Fr. Monroe was a frequent
visitor in her home because her father was a coach and teacher at the Catholic
school. (Id., p 2.) Doe18 recounted that once while Fr. Monroe was visiting, he had
her in his lap “to tickle her”; Doe18 explained that this was her euphemism for
masturbation, and he stuck his finger inside her vagina. (Id.) As she described it,
Fr. Monroe suddenly jammed his finger up inside of her, causing her to jump up,
yell, and shake her finger at him, saying, “You can tickle me, but you can’t put your
finger in me—that hurt.” (Id.) Her mother took her into the kitchen and saw a spot
of blood in her underwear. (Id.) Her mother got angry, to which Fr. Monroe said, “I
think I’m going to leave now.” (Id.) Doe18 said the sexual abuse occurred
approximately ten times. (Id.) She indicated that as she grew older her friend Jane
Doe19 in 6th grade told her that she too was “tickled” by Fr. Monroe. (Id., p 3.)
Monsignor Ricardo Bass of the Archdiocese of Detroit responded to Doe18 and let
her know that he had contact Fr. Sample, Chancellor of the Marquette Diocese,
about her report and that the Marquette Diocese was willing to assist her in any
needed therapy. (App’x RM#3, Letter dated November 1, 2005, from Msgr. Bass to
Doe18 with a copy to Fr. Alexander Sample.) On October 27, 2005, Thomas Van
Dusen reported this sexual abuse allegation to attorney Darrell Dettman. (App’x
RM#4, Letter dated October 27, 2005, from Van Dusen to Dettmann.)
On May 9, 2009, Sr. Ellen Enright, Campus Minister at MTU received an email
from Jane Doe18, a student she knew from the late 1960s when Sr. Ellen was
“assigned to the Soo” (Sault Ste. Marie) and served under Fr. Monroe at St. Mary’s
Parish. (App’x RM#5, Notes dated May 13, 2009, from Stephen Lynott, Director of
Ministry Personnel Services.) Doe18 said she reported this sexual abuse to the
Archdiocese of Detroit in 2005 and provided three detailed and emotional
interviews. (Id.) She was very angry that she would have to “report” again, which
is why she had not reported it again until this email to Sr. Enright. (Id.) Sr.
Enright contacted Steve Lynott to report these allegations and her contact with
Doe18. (Id.)
110
In 2009, the Review Board Data Sheet indicates that John Doe70 and Jane Doe 18’s
reports were “validated” by the Board. (App’x RM#6, Review Board Data Sheet.)
Under remarks it noted, “Two similar allegations against Fr. Monroe, unrelated in
any way make a case for validation of the claim.” (Id.)
On August 13, 2018, Stephen Lynott received a phone call from Jane Doe21, who at
the time was approximately 48 years old and the mother of six children. (App’x
RM#7, Abuse Allegation Report submitted by Lynott on August 13, 2008.) Doe21
stated that when she was 10 years old and living in Sault Ste. Marie, Fr. Monroe
recruited her to be an altar server at Nativity Parish. (Id.) She indicated that on
two occasions he forcibly kissed her mouth, which she found to be very upsetting.
(Id.) She now believes he was grooming her. (Id.) She reported believing that God
saved her when Fr. Monroe became gravely ill and died a few months later. (Id.)
Stephen Lynott recounted that when Doe21 was told there were other victims,
“[s]he had a very strong emotional reaction. There was great relief to know that she
was not his only victim, that none of this was her fault, that he had treated a
number of boys and girls in the same fashion or worse.” (Id.)
On July 11, 2019, Doe18 emailed the tip line to report that Fr. Monroe had sexually
abused her. (App’x RM#8, tip #527.) She reported the following:
I was sexually molested by Father Robert Monroe (deceased) of St.

Mary’s Pro Cathedral in Sault Ste. Marie in 1968–1969. [Bishop]
Charles Salatka (deceased) was bishop at the time and was made
aware of the allegations in early 1969. My mother caught Fr in the act
just before 5th birthday.” [Id.]
111
(29) FR. AARON NOWICKI
Alive.
Redacted.
112
(30) FR. VINCENT OUELLETTE
Died 1998.
On July 19, 2004, John Doe71 reported to the Diocese that his family member Fr.
Vincent Ouellette had sexually abused him when he was 13 years old on a trip to
Minnesota while sleeping in the same bed. (App’x VO#1, Memorandum of Bishop
James Garland dated January 19, 2004, to File.) It is noted in the report that this
was the third time Doe71 had attempted to meeting with Bishop James Garland,
but fear had deterred him in the past. (Id.) Doe71 reported to Bishop Garland that
he had “never told anyone in his family and doesn’t want anyone to know of this.”
(Id.) Further, Doe71 reported having confronted Fr. Ouellette at the time of his
marriage and the family member said he “did not remember it.” (Id.) Doe71 asked
Bishop Garland to hear his confession and bless his camper to which he obliged;
Bishop Garland noted that “[Doe71] left with a sense of ebullience and well-being.”
(Id.)
113
(31) FR. WILFRED PELLETIER
Died December 20, 1973.
Fr. Wilfred Pelletier was Administrator at St. Edward in Alpha from 1957 to 1960.
(App’x WP#1, Handwritten History.) He took when he took a leave of absence in
1960, went to Jemez Springs, N.M. in 1961, and again took a leave of absence in
1965. (Id.) By 1971, he began serving at Bishop Noa’s Home and served as the
pastor at St. Ann Catholic Church in Chasselle. (Id.)
The notes document several instances of concerns expressed internally at the

Diocese. The source of these notations is unclear:
• “Letter of Aug 23, 1950 Fr. Dengfelder to Bishop Noa – some

expression of moral concerns.”
• “References to unpriestly conduct – 1950.”
• “1956 concern over drinking and association with minors.”
• “July 1957 – supplying alcohol to an 18 yr old boy (Naubinway

[Village]).”
• “1962 – while at Jemez Springs – word of an arrest warrant for

contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Reference to H.S.
exacerbated by drinking.” [Id.]
On November 3, 2005, John Doe72 reported to Father Alexander Sample that he

was sexually abused by Fr. Pelletier in the late 50s and early 60s and that a friend
of his experienced like abuse. (App’x WP#2, Phone Call Notes.) He reported he was
16 or 17 years old and that the recent report of Fr. Clement LePine (see entry No.
23 above) encouraged him to come forward now. (Id.) Doe72 reported the sexual
abuse occurred in Alpha when he was living with his grandparents. (Id.) Fr.
Pelletier was a heavy drinker, according to Doe72, which is consistent with other
notes in Fr. Pelletier’s file. (Id.; App’x WP#1, Handwritten History.) According to
this report, Fr. Pelletier would supply Doe72 and his friend with alcohol. (App’x
WP#2, Phone Call Notes.)
114
In this 2005 report, Doe72 explained that Fr. Pelletier would take them fishing,
hunting, and gave them money. (Id.) Doe72 said the sexual abuse mostly occurred
in the rectory for approximately two years. (Id.) The notes indicate: “They were
molested quite a bit.” (Id.) The notes indicated that the sexual abuse involved
genital activity, “including oral sex performed by Fr. Pelletier on [Doe72] and his
friend.” (Id.) Doe72 stated “they were so young, and he was supplying them with
money and alcohol, so they went along.” (Id.) Doe72 reported that he and his friend
got caught by the police in a cabin with two girls. (Id.) The police asked them
where they got the beer and they told the police is was Fr. Pelletier. (Id.) The police
asked if Pelletier “had done anything to them.” (Id.) The boys denied it. (Id.)
Doe72 said the police interviewed Fr. Pelletier and shortly after he was removed
from his parish in Alpha. (Id.)
The report was “validated” by the Review Board of the Diocese. (App’x WP#3,
Review Board Data Sheet.) Under remarks, it states, “Victim just wants the report
‘on the record’ with no other request for services.” (Id.) The Diocesan file indicates
that Fr. Pelletier was removed from his parish in Alpha in an “untimely fashion.”
(Id.)
115
(32) FR. ANTHONY POLAKOWSKI
Died in 1978. Killed in car crash.
On January 29, 2004, a family member sent a letter to Bishop James Garland
informing him that Jane Doe22 was sexually abused by “Fr. Tony,” referring to Fr.
Anthony Polakowski, when she was 12 or 13 years old when Fr. Polakawski was at
St. Stanislaus Kosta. (App’x AP#1, Letter dated January 29, 2004, from the family
of JaneDoe22 to Bishop Garland.) Shortly thereafter, Father Alexander Sample
met with the Doe22 to formally receive the allegation. (App’x AP#2, Notes from
meeting between the Doe22 and Fr. Alexander Sample, p 1.) Doe22 indicated that
they had lived in Goetzville, Michigan all their lives. (Id.) At the time they made
the report, Doe22 was working at for the Diocese. (Id.) Doe22 advised that she has
HPV (human papillomavirus, which can cause cervical cancer in women) and stated
that she got it from Fr. Polakowski. (Id.)
In this 2004 meeting, Doe22 reported that in she was in the 6th grade when the
sexual abuse began and that it lasted for approximately one year. (App’x AP#2, p
1.) According to Doe22, Fr. Polakowski would take her horseback riding, boating, to
the beach, snowmobiling, etc. (Id.) She said the sexual abuse would take place on
these outings as well as in the rectory, where Doe22 helped out. (Id.) She indicated
that Fr. Polakowski would fondle her breasts and her genitals under her clothing,
and that he would also “push himself up against her” in a sexual way. (Id.) She
also indicated that on two occasions he tried “to go further” but she resisted and he
did not push it. (Id., p 2.) She said Fr. Polakowski once told her to “wait until you
are 16.” (Id.) He also bought her a bracelet and ring from Poland. (Id.)
Also in this 2004 meeting, Doe22 related that Fr. Polakowski had a playboy
reputation in the community because he had lots of “toys” (horses, motorcycle,
snowmobile, corvette and drove a hearse.) (Id.) Often word was spread of a party
at “Fr. Tony’s” (Id.) Doe22 explained that these parties were held in the basement
of the rectory, where he had a game room with pool table and pinball machine. (Id.)
They would have dances there, and according to Doe22, it was known among the
young people that Fr. Polakowski was a source of marijuana and alcohol. (Id.) The
file notes indicate that Fr. Sample toured the space (presumably after the meeting
with the Doe22, although no time frame was given) and found a “hidden” room that
was made into a “firepit” with shag carpet. (Id.) Off this room was another wood-
paneled room with orange shag carpet and a mattress. (Id.)
On April 4, 2018, John Doe73, then age 63, called to report that he was sexually
abused by a priest in the early to mid-1970s. (App’x AP#3, Notes dated April 6,
2018, from Diane Tryan regarding call from Doe73.) He reported that he and one of
his friends used to go to the home of a priest in Gatesville. (Id.) The priest had a
party room and would let them drink alcohol. (Id.) On one of these occasions,
Doe73 said that the priest performed fellatio on him and fondled him. (Id.) Doe73
116
was somewhere around 15 to 17 years old at the time. (Id.) He could not remember
the name of the priest but recalled that he drove a “fancy car.” (Id.) According to
Doe73, the abusive priest was discovered and transferred to Marquette. (Id.) The
person who took Doe73’s call, Diane Tryan, indicated that she had a subsequent
conversation with Fr. Larry Van Damme, Vicar for Clergy, who stated that the
priest was likely Fr. Polakowski. Fr. Polakowski died in an accident while driving
his Corvette in the fall of 1978. (Id.)
The diocesan records reflect the following:
• There is no “confidential file” on Fr. Polakowski;
• He was in Goetzville from August 1970–August 1976;
• There is a police report in the file dated February 9, 1976, in

which [Fr. Polakowksi] is accused of supplying alcohol to minors.
Beer to minor boys. Reference is made in the report to rumors of
parties in the parish house where alcohol and marijuana are
provided by the priest. 21
• Letters to the Bishop from parishioners reference Fr.

Polakowski causing scandal in the community.
• At Republic-Champion, there were complaints about Fr.

Polakowski’s “high lifestyle,” being out late at night with non-
Catholic boys, and having been seen outside a concert holding
hands and kissing a young lady.
• There is a photograph in Fr. Polakowski’s file of him vested for

Mass; it is signed “Doe22” on the back. [App’x AP#4, Undated
“Review of File for Fr. Anthony J. Polakowksi.”)
The file notes also indicate the following: “[Fr. Polakowksi] was killed in a car
accident at age 41. He killed himself and 2 older ladies from Wisconsin. It occurred
at 10:30 pm on a Saturday night five miles south of Iron River (heading north).
There was a 16-year-old girl in the car who was critically injured.” (App’x AP#4.)
The Diocesan Review Board met on March 19, 2004, and it deemed the report by
Doe22 as credible. (App’x AP#5, Letter dated March 26, 2004, from Fr. Sample to
Doe22.) The Diocese sent her a check for $5,155.48 to cover the cost of medical
expenses already paid for treatment related to her HPV and cervical dysplasia and
encouraged her to get counseling. (App’x AP#6, Check dated November 24, 2004,
and itemization; App’x AP#7, Letter unsigned and dated November 16, 2004, from
21 The police report could not be located in the file.
117
Fr. Sample to the Doe22’s family p 1.) The Diocese was “[not] able to definitively
link” Doe22’s HPV diagnosis as having come from Fr. Polakowski; however, the
letter continued, “the Review Board and the Bishop still want to reach out to
[Doe22] and help a person who has suffered much. We have decided that we will
cover the cost of [Doe22’s] past treatment.” (App’x AP#7, p 1.)
Additionally, the “party room” at the rectory was dismantled. (App’x AP#8, Letter
dated September 2, 2004, from Fr. Sample to the Doe22’s family.)
On March 21, 2006, Bishop Sample wrote a letter to Jane Doe23 in response to a
communication he received via the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, which
had received a letter from Doe23 regarding sexual abuse she said she suffered by
Fr. Polakowski when she was 15. (App’x AP#9, Letter dated March 21, 2006, from
Bishop Sample to Doe23.) The Diocese requested she meet in person with Steve
Lynott in the Twin Cities area. (Id.) The two had a face-to-face meeting in
Minnesota on April 27, 2006. (App’x AP#10, Lynott notes from April 17, 2006
meeting.) Eventually the Diocese deemed her report credible and sent her a check
for $33,390 to cover the cost of past expenses related to her sexual abuse, and a
second check for a smaller amount. (App’x AP#11, Letter from Bishop Sample to
Doe23, date unclear; App’x AP#12, Victim impact letter dated May 22, 2006, from
Doe23 to Review Panel, among other things itemizing costs related to her sexual
abuse, pp 2–3; App’x AP#13, Review Board Data Sheet.)
On April 24, 2020, Attorney General Victim Advocate Rebekah Snyder spoke with
Doe23. Doe23 originally reached out to the Michigan Department of Attorney
General to report her experience with Fr. Anthony Polakowski (Tony) in October of
2018. (App’x AP#14, Snyder Report.) She reported her experience from 1976 to
1977 when she was 15 to 16 years old. (Id.) At the time, Fr. Polakowski was the
pastor of St. Augustine in Republic, Sacred Heart in Champion, and St. Mary’s in
Michigamme. (Id.) Advocate Snyder recounted her conversation with Doe23 as
follows:
[Doe23] remembers that one day he announced he was creating a

youth group, but he hand-picked the participants. She remembers
there being about 7 people chosen. She was the only female; he was a
predator. She remembers various things like playing ice breaker
games, but she doesn’t ever remember speaking about religious things
in the group. On one outing Fr. Polakowski took them all out for beer
and pizza. She thinks this was in Michigamme. This was the first
time he was inappropriate. She remembers he let one of the other kids
drive so he could sit in the back with her. He began kissing and
touching her and she just froze. [Doe23]’s home life was abusive
physically and sexually, so when Fr. Tony began to abuse her, she just
remembers repeating in her head “I’m fucked.” She had thought of the
youth group as a safe outlet and she was wrong. She specifically
118
remembers thinking “Oh, God. Here too.” She saw the youth group as
her last hope of getting help at home and then when she was abused,
she realized she couldn’t escape it. [Doe23] now believes he was
attracted to the boys in the youth group and used her as a way to get to
them. After this event, her brother [] came home from an outing,
around Christmas time, and reported that Fr. Tony tried to get him
drunk and kiss him. She believes there was more than her brother
was willing to disclose at that time. She believes this due to the way
her brother reacted when she told him she was reporting her
experience to the Diocese in 2007. There was another youth group
outing she remembered where they all went cross-country skiing and
[Doe23] developed frost bite on her fingers and Fr. Tony thought this
was very funny. That was the last time she wanted “anything to do
with him.”
[Doe23] reported her brother’s experience with Fr. Tony to her teacher
[] back in the 70s. She did not report her own experience with Fr. Tony
because she didn’t think he’d believe her. She thought this because
she had previously reported one of her brothers sexually abusing her to
her parents and they blamed her for the abuse and did nothing to help
her. She believed this would happen again and no one would believe
her. Therefore, she reported only what her brother had disclosed to
her. [Her teacher] believed her and reported Fr. Tony to the higher
authorities and Fr. Tony was transferred to another parish the next
day.
I asked [Doe23] if she remembers seeing anything specifically during

the abuse, she stated she remembers seeing car lights that night in the
car. She remembers being very familiar with the road they were on,
she remembers knowing where they were. She remembers being able
to smell his after-shave lotion. She remembers hearing the Beatles
playing on the stereo. She also remembers him saying “you’re mine.
You can’t go around this world like a little butterfly because you’re
mine.”
At the time of the abuse [Doe23] was developing a relationship with a

young man. They were going steady and she really liked him. A few
weeks into their relationship the young man called her and broke up
with her; she asked him why and he stated that it wasn’t going to work
out. She remembers Fr. Tony saying, “[The young man] can’t have
you, you’re mine” and she believes Fr. Tony had something to do with
their relationship ending.
119
I asked [Doe23] if she remembers feeling anything and she said her
senses were extremely heightened. She was aware of what was
happening but feeling frozen even though she wasn’t frozen. She
remembers feeling extremely uncomfortable and asking herself
whether she caused this to happen. “I did this to myself so I need to
take the consequences.”
She stated she will never forget the disappointment. She remembers
thinking she was reaching out to God, as a 16-year old, “touching the
face of God but the face of God is touching my crotch.” She remembers
self-deprecating and asking herself repeatedly “how did you let this
happen?” She reported that Fr. Tony was very good at what he did. He
always turned the blame onto her. She remembers sitting in the back
of the car realizing he messed with her relationship and realizing how
“terribly powerful he is”; she was afraid. She was fearful of what
would happen next and that she wouldn’t be able to escape it. She
believed she created the abuse because she was the one who wanted to
be a part of this youth group. She stated she still can’t listen to the
Beatles, can’t go to a Catholic Church, still struggles with feelings of
guilt and shame. She remembers his black garment and his White
Corvette he’d drive to impress the kids.
In 2007, [Doe23] reported her experience to the Diocese of Marquette;

they agreed to pay for some of her therapy expenses after she was able
to address the board of directors at the church. She is a recovering
alcoholic and one of the steps to recovery is finding a “power greater
than yourself.” [Doe23] thought that was God, but she is terrified of
God. She thought God hated her. So, the hardest part has been
finding something to believe in. The first few years of AA she turned
the word “GOD” into “DOG” so she could sit comfortably in the room.
She knew what had happened and thought she had done something
wrong and had caused it all. She still can’t say what the higher power
is but she can say what it isn’t. She finally found a church she’s
comfortable with 1 year ago, they believe God could be many things
(like a mother). Not taking her children to church has added feelings
of guilt.
Fr. Tony was moved to another area of the Upper Peninsula of

Michigan, and a year later he was killed in a car accident with a young
man in his Corvette. He also killed two women in that accident. She
shares a sense of guilt for this too, if she had only “kept my mouth shut
she could have managed” the abuse and left at 18 years old. Those
people would still be alive. She’s accrued about $30,000 in therapy
bills. She feels guilty about this too, but she has realized it isn’t
enough; she still doesn’t feel better the pain hasn’t disappeared.
120
She wants Fr. Tony to be publicly named as an abusive priest. She
believes this will allow others who were harmed by him to begin their
healing process—a process she doesn’t believe can happen until he’s
publicly named. Last year the Diocese released more names of credibly
accused priests, he still wasn’t on there. Doe23 believes there are
many more victims than her. [App’x AP#14, Victim Advocate notes.]
121
(33) FR. ARMOUR ROBERTS
(LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE)
Died December 8, 1989. Listed on the Diocese of Bismark, North Dakota’s list of
substantiated claims of sexual abuse.
In April 1965, Bishop Thomas Noa received a letter from Bishop Adolph Marx, DD,
Administrator “sede vacante” (vacant see) of the Diocese of Corpus Christi, Texas
indicating he had received a letter from Fr. Roberts “who was advised to leave your
Diocese and to seek admission in another Diocese.” (App’x AR#2, Letter dated April
19, 1965.) Bishop Marx stated, “While we do need priests, we do not wish to load
ourselves down another problem,” and asked the nature of the issue. (Id.)
On April 22, 1965, Bishop Noa responded that Fr. Roberts was asked to leave the
Diocese as a “matter of morals charges and you can readily guess what the nature of
these charges could be.” (App’x AR#3, Letter dated April 29, 1965.) He further
indicates that “despite my great wish to help Father Roberts and to ask other
Bishops to do so also, I am not inclined to go along this way. I would not want to
have Father Roberts doing priestly work in my Diocese. I would be very
apprehensive about his psychological sickness which makes him scarcely fit for
priestly work.” (Id.)
Also on April 22, 1965, Bishop Noa received a similar letter from Rt. Rev. Patrick
Gillespie, Vicar General for the Diocese of Baton Rouge in Louisiana seeking
information about Fr. Roberts and the reason for leaving the Diocese of Marquette.
(App’x AR#4, Letter dated April 22, 1965.) In his response, Bishop Noa indicated
that Fr. Roberts “became involved in a morals charge and the police were after
him.” (Id.) Bishop Noa again refused to recommend Fr. Roberts for priestly work
given the fear of “scandal that could ensue from his actions.” (Id.)
On April 23, 1965, Bishop Noa received another letter from Very Rev. Msgr.
Thomas Tschoepe, Vicar General from the Diocese of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas,
seeking information on Fr. Roberts. (App’x AR#5, Letter dated April 23, 1965.)
With an identical letter to that sent to Baton Rouge, Bishop Noa again responded
that Roberts was not fit for priestly assignments. (App’x AR#6, Letter.) 22
22In Fr. Roberts’ file, a letter from May 1965 was discovered from Bishop Noa to
Bishop Patrick Gillespie that indicated the following: “In connection with this, I do
have another priest who get out of this area, Father Ephream Sitko. In his case I
would give a more favorable report. If there were not the danger of scandal from
Divorce proceedings, I would like to find a place for him to work in the Diocese.”
(App’x AR#7, Letter dated May 9, 1965.) (See entry No. 38 below for Fr. Ephream
Sitko.)
122
In December 1965, Bishop Noa received a letter from Fr. Roberts indicating that Fr.
Roberts had recently spoken with Bishop Hilary Hacker of the Bismark, North
Dakota Diocese. (App’x AR#8, Letter dated December 20, 1965.) Bishop Hacker
sought information about why Fr. Roberts was looking for a new Diocese. Bishop
Noa wrote to Bishop Hacker the following: “I do not suppose it is necessary for me to
go into details about the nature of the aberration with which Father Roberts is
afflicted. Father Roberts did very commendable and praiseworthy parish work
wherever he acted as assistant. Evidence of his aberration came as a surprise.
Under the circumstances, we cannot use his services in this area.” (App’x AR#8,
Letter dated December 28, 1965.)
Following up, in January 1966, Bishop Noa wrote to Bishop Hacker: Father Roberts
first got into trouble when he was Assistant at St. Mary’s, Norway in 1961. There
was the usual talk among the faithful. Father Roberts was not very strong in his
denials.
After this he was appointed for work as Assistant in L’anse and his record was all
right. He then had several other temporary appointments and continued to keep
his record clear. Then in the early part of 1965 while he was stationed at St.
Joseph’s, Sault Ste. Marie, he was again involved in difficulties. Because the
persons were connected with the armed forces, the Air Base near there, the FBI
entered the scene.
At this time, on his own choice Father Roberts immediately placed himself under
psychiatric care in Detroit. Our knowledge of his contact and treatment in Detroit
with the psychiatrist is very limited.
You may well assume what my own attitude is. I entertain the hope that he might
have the opportunity to work in the priesthood. At the same time as Bishop I do not
have too much confidence. I hope that Father Roberts will fill you in on details that
are needed. [App’x AR#9, Letter dated January 10, 1966.]
Presumably, after this exchange, Fr. Roberts went on to Bismarck to serve the
Diocese in North Dakota where he is currently listed on its credibly accused list. An
October 13, 1966 letter in the file indicates that Fr. Roberts had been serving at St.
Luke’s Hospital in Crosby, North Dakota. (App’x AR#10.) The allegations from the
Diocese of Bismarck against Fr. Roberts related to events that occurred in the late
1960s and early 1970s. See https://www.bishop-accountability.org/accused/roberts-
armour-r-1955/ (“In the late 1960s or early ’70s [Fr. Roberts] took three boys, who
were high school freshmen, to visit Rev. John Owens in New Leipzig. The two
priests allegedly plied the boys with alcohol and sexually abused them.”) (Last
123
Nearly 40 years later, in a letter dated August 21, 2002, John Doe74 wrote to
“Whom It May Concern” that he too was a victim of sexual abuse by Fr. Roberts.
(App’x AR#11a.) He reported in “1960, I was one of two teenagers from Norway who
made a complaint against Father Armour Roberts, who was then assistant pastor of
St. Mary’s Church in Norway.” (Id.) Doe74 writes as follows: “I have never had any
ill will towards Fr. Roberts. My mother explained to me at the time that he had
serious emotional problems and that he deserved to be pitied, and hopefully helped,
rather than hated. I have always believed this, and believe it to this day.” (Id.)
In this 2002 letter, Doe74 detailed Fr. Robert’s misconduct—including supplying

several minors with alcohol, having several of them sleep in the bed with him in the
rectory, “numerous other incidents” at a hunting camp, summer cottage, and
camping trips. (Id.) Doe74 expressed that his anger was largely at the way he was
treated by the Church and how he was never offered counseling, confidentiality was
brutally erased leaving him to fend for himself as a 16-year old. (Id.) Doe74
reported that he and a friend had confided in a Monsignor Pelessier in Wisconsin of
Fr. Roberts misconduct, but Doe74 stated that Fr. Roberts was quickly moved to
another parish and word spread that 16-year-old Doe74 had “turned [Fr. Roberts]
in,” rendering him an outcast in this community. (Id.) Doe74 spoke of his mistaken
belief that Fr. Roberts committed suicide, causing him guilt for over 40 years. (Id.)
In May of 2014, Doe74 wrote a letter to Erycca Manninen of the Diocese to again
report his sexual abuse. (App’x AR#11b, Letter dated May 30, 2014, from Doe74.)
He indicated that in the late 1950s he and others were sexually abused by Fr.
Roberts when he was the assistant pastor at St. Mary’s Church in Norway. He
indicated that there were regular “booze fests” followed by sexual contact by Fr.
Roberts, “often with nearly unconscious individuals.” (Id.)
In this letter from 2014, Doe74 reiterated that he reported the sexually abuse first
to another priest and then was interviewed by Monsignor Pelissier in Iron
Mountain. (Id.) He was assured absolute confidentiality, but he said that Msgr.
Pelessier told others of the sexual abuse to the point that at his five-year reunion
from his high school graduation he was identified as Roberts’ accuser and directly
blamed for Fr. Roberts’ subsequent supposed suicide. (Id.) Doe74 indicated that
the breach of confidentiality had a large negative impact on his life, resulting in
Doe74 cutting ties with everyone in his hometown. (Id.)
Also in this 2014 letter, Doe74 reported that approximately 15 years prior he spoke
with Bishop Sample who “successfully dissuaded me from taking any type of legal
action at that time” but had assured him that “in the event of severe need,
especially with regard to medical expenses, that the Diocese would be there for me.”
(Id.)
124
Finally in the 2014 letter, Doe74 sought a measure of compensation for the way he
was treated when he disclosed the sexual abuse by Fr. Roberts many years ago, as
well as for the abuse itself. (Id.)
In September 2014, when he had no response to his letter, Doe74 sent an email to
Manninen threatening legal action. (App’x AR#12, Email dated September 2, 2014.)
A few days later, a meeting was set up with Victim Assistance Coordinator Stephen
Lynott. (App’x AR#13, Lynott typed notes dated September 8, 2014, and September
11, 2014.) On September 11, 2014, Stephen Lynott met with Doe74 at his home in
Wisconsin. (Id.) Doe74 reported the sexual abuse by Fr. Roberts and explained his
guilt over his suicide. (Id.) Lynott informed Doe74 that Fr. Roberts died of natural
causes in 1981 [sic – 1989] at the age of 61. (Id.) This was stunning to Doe74. (Id.)
On October 10, 2014, Lynott visited with Doe74 at his home a second time as
directed by Bishop John Doerfler and Fr. Daniel Moll. (App’x AR#14, Lynott notes
of “Home visit with Doe74.”) According to Doe74, a request for financial assistance
was made of Bishop Sample several years ago and was promised. (Id.) Doe74
believes he was also the victim of a serious breach of confidentiality by Monsignor
Pelessier. (Id.) Doe74 requested $30,000 to help him live out the remaining days of
his life; he had operable prostate cancer that came with expensive medical bills.
(Id.)
An undated (but found among documents dating to 1965) and unattributed

document in the file designated for Monsignor Chisholm discusses interviews with
Doe74 related to drinking by an unnamed priest who provided the alcohol and
sexually abused young men. (App’x AR#15, Undated Letter.) Doe74 was deemed
credible and having come from a wonderful family. (Id.) The report of sexual abuse
“came from a father, that his son John Doe75 had been molested by the defendant
in this case.” (Id.) The father of Doe75 was a city employee who called the
unnamed writer of the document. (Id.) The document also identified “another
report” that a John Doe76 “fell asleep on the floor and there before the television
was awakened by molestation” by Fr. Roberts. (Id.)
Later, Doe74 was paid $30,000 in two installments of $15,000 for the sexual abuse
that was committed against him by Fr. Armour Roberts in 1960. The Release was
executed on December 9, 2014. (App’x AR#16, Release.)
On September 27, 2007, Bishop Alexander Sample and Steve Lynott met with John
Doe77 stated that approximately 47 years prior he had been sexually abused by
Roberts. (App’x AR#17, Meeting Notes.) Doe77 indicated that “he was motivated
by curiosity and some peer pressure to have sex with the priest.” (Id.) He also
described being sexually abused by Fr. Hale: “it was much more evil and uninvited.”
(See Entry for Father Hale above, No. 12.)
Under remarks it indicated, “See Fr. Michael Hale report. Victim was offered but
did not seek counseling or outreach.” (App’x AR#18.)
125
(34) FR. DAVID ROCHELEAU
Died in 1984.
On April 10, 2002, John Doe78, then 53 years old, called to report being sexually
abused by Fr. David Rocheleau. (App’x DR#1, Report of Sexual Abuse, p 1.) He
spoke with Fr. Alexander Sample and stated that he was not suing anyone and had
no intentions of filing any lawsuit, but he simply wanted to make sure that the
priest who had tried to sexual abuse him could not abuse anyone else. (Id.) Doe78
did not provide the name of the priest but provided enough identifying information
that Fr. Sample was able to identify Fr. Rocheleau as the offender. (Id.) Doe78
described his abuser as “short, bald, hair lip, Fr. David (French last name),
transferred to L’Anse in 1965 or so”). Doe78 reported being between 10 to 13 years
old when the priest made a clear sexual advance on him. (Id.) He said he was able
to refuse the priest but know that if he had not resisted, he would have been
sexually abused. (Id.) Fr. Sample was able to determine without a doubt that it
was Fr. David Rocheleau who had served at Holy Family in Ontonagon from 1964–
65. (Id.) Knowing that Fr. Rocheleau was dead brought Doe78 closure, and he did
not need any further action taken. (Id.)
126
(35) FR. NELSON DANIEL RUPP
Presumed alive.
This priest is listed on leave of absence from public priestly ministry status by the
Diocese of Marquette, apparently after he resigned as a pastor in 1996.
It is not clear where Fr. Daniel Rupp is now. A handwritten diocesan priest
spreadsheet indicates that in 2014 Fr. Rupp was in California, and the Review
Board Data Sheet indicated that he was in California in 2007. (App’x DR#1,
Diocesan spreadsheet on priests accused of sexually abusing minors, dated March 5,
2014, p 4; App’x DR#2, Review Board Data Sheet.)
In 1982, review of the diocesan records indicates that, Fr. Rupp was “relieved of
duties as liaison to the Charismatic Renewal.” (App’x DR#3, Diocesan fact sheet on
Fr. Rupp, p 2.)
On October 22, 1991, Witness1 and Witness2 voiced to the Diocese concerns they
had about Fr. Rupp’s behavior. (App’x DR#4, Notes from meeting on October 22,
1991, with the Witness1 and Witness2.) They reported that on a sleepover Fr. Rupp
was walking around with only a t-shirt on, with his genitals exposed, apparently
seen by Witness1 (age 15) and Witness3 (age 14 or 15). (Id., p 1.) They also
reported that Fr. Rupp was going to the bathroom (bowel movement) with the door
open, apparently noted by Witness4 (age 16). (Id.) Witness1 and Witness2 said
that Fr. Rupp was giving beer to Witness1 (age 15), Witness3 (age 16), and another
boy (age 15) “while on trip to house in Marquette last fall.” (Id.) During a
sleepover, Fr. Rupp become “very upset (angry) when Witness1 went into his
bedroom and locked the door to get undressed. Fr. Rupp pounded on the door till
Witness2 opened it. He told Witness2 that locked doors were not permitted.” (Id.)
In 1995, Fr. Rupp was assigned to a new parish and shortly thereafter his staff
began complaining to the bishop’s office. The bishop’s notes from March 1996
reflect that Fr. James Ziminksi took the sworn deposition of Norma Semashko, a
youth minister and Fr. Rupp’s housekeeper at the rectory. (App’x DR#5, Notes from
the bishop from March 1996, dated March 5, 1996; App’x DR#16, deposition record.)
Semashko said she had received five or six anonymous calls about Fr. Rupp, several
telling her to “watch the laundry and watch his relationship with server boys.”
(App’x DR#5; App’x DR#6, p 2.) This woman reported that in Fr. Rupp’s laundry
she had “found more youth garments [sic] underwear and a size 18 shirt. One piece
of underwear was heavily soiled.” (App’x DR#5; App’x DR#6, p 3.) When confronted
by Bishop James Garland, Fr. Rupp denied any inappropriate sexual contact.
(App’x DR#5, Note dated March 7, 1996.)
127
On April 12, 1996, Bishop Garland issued Fr. Rupp a precept that admonished him
to not be alone with minors and to avoid all situations that “have been occasions of
serious temptations in the area of sexual morality.” (App’x DR#7, Precept dated
April 12, 1996.) As of May 22, 1996, Fr. Rupp resigned from the office of pastor of
All Saints Parish. (App’x DR#8, Letter dated May 30, 1996, from Bishop Garland, p
3.) On May 30, 1996, Fr. Rupp was sent to the St. Luke Institute for evaluation.
(Id.) Bishop James Garland made it clear to Fr. Rupp that he would not be given an
assignment until he received residential treatment. (App’x DR#9, Memorandum
dated April 4, 1996, from Bishop Garland to Fr. Alexander Sample; App’x DR#10,
Agreement for Personal Leave dated November 6, 1996.) The parishioners at All
Saints Parish in Gladstone were notified that Fr. Rupp had been granted a
“temporary leave of absence for health reasons” and that Fr. Joseph Polakowski had
been assigned as Temporary Administrator “until a permanent pastor is appointed.”
(App’x DR#11, Letter dated May 22, 1996, from Bishop Garland to Fr. Joseph
Polakowski.)
In a letter dated June 26, 1997, Bishop Garland rescinded Fr. Rupp’s April 12, 1996
Precept and renewed his Agreement for Personal Leave, noting, “I deeply regret
that you are unable to accept the recommendations for treatment from the Saint
Luke Institute. Especially now since two years will have passed without addressing
the problem effectively through residential treatment.” (App’x DR#12, Letter from
Bishop Garland to Fr. Rupp dated June 26, 1997.) Fr. Rupp agreed not to exercise
his priestly functions while on extended leave. (App’x DR#13, Letter from Fr. Rupp
to Bishop Garland dated November 6, 1998.) There is no indication that Fr. Rupp
ever returned to active ministry.
In April 2007, the Diocese Review Board Data Sheet indicates that the Diocese
received a report of sexual abuse that occurred sometime between 1985 and 1987.
(App’x DR#2.) According to the report, the sexual abuser was Fr. Rupp, and the
alleged abuse occurred at the priest’s camp in Alger or Marquette County. (App’x
DR#14, Notes dated April 16, 2007, from Stephen Lynott regarding phone call with
former county prosecuting attorney for Delta County Steve Parks.) The report
indicated that the complainant was an altar server at Holy Family Parish. (Id.;
App’x DR#15, Noted dated April 16, 2007, handwritten and author unidentified.)
The report also stated that Fr. Rupp took the complainant and other boys to the
camp, supplied them with liquor, and then sexually abused them. (Id.) The report
did not reveal the type or extent of the abuse. (Id.) The report came from Steve
Parks, the Delta County Prosecutor. (Id.; App’x DR#16, Note April 13, 2007, to
Lynott.) Parks indicated that the complainant reported to him but had never
disclosed the sexual abuse to anyone else. (App’x DR#15.) The complainant
indicated that Fr. Rupp may have been serving at Holy Trinity in Flat Rock or All
Saints in Gladstone at the time of the abuse (App’x DR#6; App’x DR#7.) The notes
from the phone call with Parks indicated that the complainant came from a
128
“ ‘button-downed’ loyal Catholic family” and that the Diocese would pay for
counseling. (App’x DR#15.)
In 2007, Rupp was managing real estate in California. (App’x DR#2.) As of

November 1996, Rupp owned a camp on Middle Island Pointe in Marquette.
(App’x DR#17.)
129
(36) FR. WALTER SHEEDLO
Presumed alive.
Removed from public ministry in September 2009. Retired at least since 2013.
Listed as on leave of absence from priestly ministry status by the Diocese.
On August 27, 1997, Bishop James Garland interviewed Mr. and Mrs. John Doe81
of St. Anne Parish in Escanaba. (App’x WS#1, Memorandum to file, dated August
27, 1997.) Doe81 disclosed that when he was in the 6th grade and was between the
ages of 10 and 11 in 1979, he attended a school retreat for Holy Name School at the
Marygrove Retreat Center. (Id.)
During this 1997 interview, Doe81 said that attended a church-related event with
Fr. Walter Sheedlo. (Id.) Afterward, Doe81 said he began seeing Fr. Sheedlo on a
regular basis. (Id.) Doe81 reported that they would sit before the fireplace, cross-
legged style with their foreheads touching. (Id.) According to Doe81, Fr. Sheedlo
spoke to him about the bond of love that can exists with men and “is greater than
any other as a father and son but never genital.” (Id.) They met every two weeks
until approximately 1992 or 1993. (Id.)
In this 1997 interview, Doe81 disclosed that in August 1996 he was hospitalized on
two separate occasions for suicidal ideation and attempted suicide. (Id.) He began
seeing Fr. Sheedlo again. (Id.) During one of these meetings, Doe81 reported, Fr.
Sheedlo hugged Doe81 and told Doe81 that he noticed he had an erection during
one of the hugs. (Id.) Doe81 explained that he let the remark pass as he knew it
was not true. (Id.) They would meet in the evenings as Fr. Sheedlo said the
secretaries “would not understand what they were doing.” (Id.)
At this 1997 interview, Doe81 recounted one such meeting. He said that Fr.
Sheedlo took him upstairs to an office with a couch. (Id.) He had Doe81 lie down
with his head in Fr. Sheedlo’s lap. (Id.) He reported that on November 6, 1996, Fr.
Sheedlo caressed his chest and rubbed the skin under his shirt on his back and
chest. (Id.) When Fr. Sheedlo put his hand on Doe81’s thigh, Doe81 broke away
and went home. (Id.) Fr. Sheedlo asked him to stay the night, saying that “it would
be great to wake up in the morning in each other’s arms.” (Id.)
In the 1997 interview, Doe81 noted that he broke off the counseling with Fr.
Sheedlo. (Id.) Bishop Garland noted that Doe81 “excuses Fr. Sheedlo and admires
his ministry and powerful preaching. He asked twice that I convey to Fr. Sheedlo
he forgives him, prays for him and wants him to receive help and healing.” (Id.)
Doe81 noted that because the unwanted sexual advances occurred happened to him
on two occasions, he cannot help but feel responsible for their actions. (Id.) Bishop
Garland explained that he was not responsible for the actions of Fr. Sheedlo. (Id.)
130
In response, in November 1997, the Diocese sent Fr. Sheedlo to Shalom Center in
Texas for treatment. (App’x WS#2, Letter dated January 5, 1998.) In January
1998, Bishop Garland wrote to Sister Gina Marie of the Shalom Center that a
“former seminarian from St. Ambrose Parish in Ironwood where Father Sheedlo
was stationed as an Associate” reported “in 1974 he shared a double bed with Fr.
Sheedlo and experienced some sexual advances from him, which were rebuffed.”
(Id.) The seminarian was 18 years old at the time. (Id.) According to this 1998
letter, in 1978 Fr. Sheedlo visited the seminarian who was studying in Rome and
advances were made again when Fr. Sheedlo attempted to remove the seminarian’s
pants. (Id.)
In September 1999 and on March 8, 2000, Bishop Garland wrote to Fr. Sheedlo
asking that he take one year of leave from priestly ministry and requested that
Sheedlo sign and return a Memorandum of Agreement. (App’x WS#3–5, Letters
dated September 10, 1999, September 24, 1999, and March 8, 2000.) The
Memorandum stated: “The only information that will be communicated to the
presbyterate and others who inquire is that Father Sheedlo is taking a personal
leave for prayer and discernment.” (App’x WS#6, Memorandum dated August 24,
1999.) Fr. Sheedlo appears not to have responded to the bishop’s requests. (See
App’x WS#5, Letter dated March 8, 2000.)
In December 2009, Bishop Alexander Sample wrote to Fr. Sheedlo and enclosed a
newspaper clipping showing that Fr. Sheedlo performed a funeral service in
violation of instructions to not exercise any priestly functions except in danger of a
death situation. (App’x WS#7, Letter dated December 22, 2009.) Because Fr.
Sheedlo violated that condition, Bishop Sample ordered a precept where Fr. Sheedlo
was not allowed to exercise any priestly functions, and he was forbidden from
presenting himself as a priest or wearing clerical garb. (Id.)
131
(37) FR. DON SHIRODA
Died 2011.
In a letter dated September 25, 2007, Doe24 wrote to Stephen Lynott describing
Doe24’s later relationship with Fr. Don Shiroda:
I worked with Father Donald Shiroda after he was assigned to St.

John’s Parish (Marquette) as Associate Pastor or resident and Vocation
Director. I do not have the date of this assignment but know that I
helped to promote retreats to Marygrove beginning in middle school (I
graduated from St. John’s Parochial grade school in 1963) in
conjunction with the Ladies’ Altar Society. As a student, Father
Shiroda and I traveled together to Catholic schools in the Diocese
giving talks to Catholic school children to promote vocations for
married, single, and religious life.” [App’x DS#1, Letter dated
September 25, 2007, from Doe24 to Lynott.]
The letter continued, “Father Shiroda and the sisters were well known to my family
and accompanying us to family outings at my parents farm, campouts, and church-
related events. Father Shiroda was a close friend of the family and even after he
was assigned over parishes, he was in and out of our home for meals, celebrated
Mass, and counseled the family as we were growing up.” (Id.)
In January 2009, Doe24 wrote a letter to Fr. Shiroda. (App’x DS#2, Letter dated
January 29, 2009, from Doe24 to Fr. Shiroda, p 1.) She told him that she had
traveled to the Sault to confront him about “manipulating and sexually abusing
me,” but she learned that Fr. Shiroda was gravely ill, so she decided not to try to
talk with him at that time (Id.) Doe24’s letter to Fr. Shiroda stated:
I feel that you betrayed the trust and friendship that my family and I
extended to you. You used the help and support we gave you in your
vocation and retreat work to take advantage of me… It seemed natural
and safe to me and was supported by my family to seek counsel and
pastoral direction from you when I was struggling with my first
marriage. However, instead of offering hope and clarity, you wined,
dined and tried to have sexual intercourse with me. [Id.]
Fr. Shiroda did write back to Doe24, indicating “we are all sinners. I am glad you
can forgive me – this is a mark – you can forgive others and yourself. A plus in your
favor.” (App’x DS#3, Undated, handwritten letter to Doe24 from Fr. Shiroda.) Fr.
Shiroda’s response went on to reminisce about the kindness of Doe24’s parents and
he wished her “my best to them and you.” (Id.)
132
In 2013 or 2014, the Diocese had the Review Board hear her case (App’x DS#4,
Draft Letter of 2014 from Fr. Daniel Moll to Fran Waters, DCSW), and it paid for
extensive counseling over a period of at least seven years, (id.; App’x DS#5, Letter
dated December 9, 2013, from Lynott to Fran Waters, LMSW.)
In July 2015, Fr. Larry Van Damme, Director of Ministry Personnel & Episcopal
Vicar for Clergy, notified Doe24 that the Diocese would be willing to pay for up to
four more one-hour sessions in that month and the next and then “[a]lthough the
Diocese will not pay for any counseling for you afterword, we have issued the
enclosed check to you in the amount of one-thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Perhaps
you will use this money for further counseling if you wish to pursue it.” (App’x
DS#6, Letter dated July 23, 2015, from Fr. Van Damme to Doe24.) Doe24 does not
appear to have cashed the $1,000.00 check. (App’x DS#7, Letter dated August 27,
2015, from Fr. Van Damme to Doe24; App’x DS#8, Letter dated September 3, 2015,
from Fr. Van Damme to Doe24.) And on September 28, 2015, she wrote the
following to the Diocese: “I have not received a clear explanation as to why the
Diocese is offering me a check in the amount of $1,000.00.” (App’x DS#9, Letter
dated September 28, 2015, from Doe24 to Fr. Van Damme with a copy to Bishop
John Doerfler and her therapist.)
133
(38) FR. EPHREAM/EPHRAIM SITKO
On February 21, 2019, Jane Doe25 emailed the tip line to report an incident related
to Fr. Ephream Sitko. (App’x ES#1, tip #309.) She reported:
1963. I attended St. Ignatius Loyola School. I was a victim of Father

Sitko who was a[n] assistant priest from Munising. He used to make
me sit on his lap and wrap me under his long robe. I would hide from
him, but he always would find me.
One day he was no longer there. Thank you for giving me the courage
to move forward with this. Befriended her sister as well. [Id.]
On April 9, 2020, Attorney General Victim Advocate Paul Carbini spoke with
Doe25.
In 1963, Doe25 was 8 years old and in 3rd grade at St. Ignatius Loyola
School in St. Ignace, Michigan. (App’x ES#2, Interview.) According to
her interview, Doe25 remembers being physically small for her age and
that in school they were taught that priests were “like gods.” (Id.)
Doe25 remembered Fr. Sitko coming to school at recess when she was
in 3rd grade and that he always wore a cassock and big black cape.
(Id.)
In her interview, Doe25 said that she remembered that she was on the swings the
first time Fr. Sitko “targeted her.” (Id.) Doe25 stated that Fr. Sitko “unexpectedly
came up behind her and grabbed her into a hug, bringing her inside of his cape.”
(Id.) She said that he then sat down on the swing with her on his lap, his arms
wrapped around her waist, and his cape around them both. (Id.) Doe25 stated that
she squirmed and pleaded for Fr. Sitko to let her go, but he just held her tighter and
laughed. (Id.) She explained that this incident ended once Fr. Sitko decided to let
her go. (Id.)
Also in her interview, Doe25 stated that after this she would always try to run and
hide whenever she saw Fr. Sitko. (Id.) Doe25 remembered there being trees and a
red garage on the edge of the school’s property, and she tried hiding there, but Fr.
Sitko “found her and grabbed her into a hug inside of his cloak once again.” (Id.)
Doe25 remembers seeing the other kids playing baseball while this was going on
and wondering why no one is see them or “what is happening to her.” (Id.) Doe25
stated that Fr. Sitko would grab her in a hug and force her to sit on his lap on the
swings every lunch time recess, and that “this only ended when he stopped coming
to her school.” (Id.) She had heard that he had been transferred to Engadine,
Michigan. (Id.)
134
Doe25 stated that she could not remember if he ever touched her anywhere else, or
feeling him having an erect penis. (Id.) Doe25 stated that during these incidents
she was focused on trying to wiggle free, seeing the other kids playing, how Fr.
Sitko “would whisper and laugh in her left ear, and how terrible his breath
smelled.” (Id.) Doe25 believes the smell of his breath was possibly alcohol. (Id.)
Doe25 stated she did not know the smell of alcohol, but as an adult she always feels
“revolted and nauseated” when she smells alcohol on someone’s breath. (Id.) Doe25
also does not remember what Fr. Sitko would whisper while holding her on his lap;
she only remembers the feeling of him whispering in her left ear. (Id.) Doe25
stated that “since these incidents she cannot stand anyone touching around her ears
or whispering to her.” (Id.)
The interview report concluded as follows:
[Doe25] told me that she never told anyone that this was occurring or
had happened when she was younger because Fr. Sitko had befriended
her older sister and her sister’s friends, so [Doe25] didn’t think anyone
would believe her. [Doe25] also said that in her 40s and 50s she had
reoccurring nightmares about these incidents and would pray to God
for the nightmares not to come. [Doe25] stated that she has had
trouble with men her entire life and believes it is associated with these
experiences. She is looking to start counseling to looking to try to heal.
[Id.]
On April 15, 2020, the Department sent the report of Doe25 to the Diocese of
Marquette for follow-up. The Diocese reports that upon receipt, a Victim Advocate
for the Diocese contacted Doe25 and offered to pay for counseling expenses for her,
which she accepted and which are currently ongoing.
135
(39) FR. NEIL SMITH
Died 2007.
On April 22, 2004, Bishop James Garland spoke with John Doe82, who reported
that Fr. Neil Smith sexually abused him in 1951 or 52 when he was 14 or 15 years
old. (App’x NS#1–2, Receipt of Complaint, Memorandum to File.) Fr. Smith was
assigned to the parish of Sacred Heart in Munising as parochial vicar from 1952 to
1957. (App’x NS#3, Summary Report.) Doe82 stated that the sexual abuse, which
he described as involved Fr. Smith fondling Doe82’s genitals, occurred
approximately four or five times, including in Fr. Smith’s car while Doe82
accompanied him from Munising to Marquette for a movie, and separately in the
movie theater in Marquette. (App’x NS#1–2, Receipt of Complaint, Memo to File.)
Doe82 did not want to be publicly identified or further action to be taken regarding
Fr. Smith. (App’x NS#1–3.) Bishop Garland “determined that the allegation carries
with it the semblance of truth” and opened a preliminary investigation. (App’x
NS#3, Summary Report dated June 10, 2004.) The Review Board agreed that the
allegation carried “the semblance of truth.” (Id.) The Board agreed with Bishop
Garland’s recommendation to communicate the matter to the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith. (Id.)
On August 19, 2004, Fr. Smith, who was then in his mid-80s, was confronted with
the report to which he indicated he “could not remember the incidents” but did
remember Doe82. (App’x NS#4, Response of Smith dated August 23, 2004.)
Further, he indicated, “ ‘it could have happened,’ ‘it’s possible that it happened,’ and
‘I guess where there’s smoke, there’s fire.’ ” (Id.) When pressed for more details Fr.
Smith stated, “Let’s just say I admit it and be done with it.” (Id.) When asked if he
remembered more details Smith indicated that he was teased mercilessly for the
small size of his genitals and since that time “he has noticed and been interested in
the bulge in the pants of other boys.” (Id.)
On February 9, 2005, Archbishop Angelo Amato, SDB, Secretary to the

Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to Bishop Garland indicating “that
it will not be necessary to take any penal action against the cleric” given Fr. Smith’s
advanced age, infirmity, and current retirement status. (App’x NS#5, Letter dated
February 9, 2005.) Bishop Garland requested to impose restrictions called for by
the Essential Norms, but the Congregation determined that was not necessary.
(Id.)
On November 7, 2018, an anonymous caller reported to the tip line that he was
sexually abused by Fr. Smith. (App’x NS#6, tip # 191.) He reported the following:
He attended Sacred Heart of Jesus in Munising where Fr. Smith was the parish
priest.
136
In 1954–55, Fr. Smith once offered caller (age 14 or 15 years old) a ride home and
he said that Fr. Smith put his hand on caller’s crotch. Fr. Smith soon after
transferred to Holy Rosary Parish in Grand Marais. The incident was never
reported.
137
(40) FR. CHARLES STRELICK
Died April 7, 2017.
Retired from active ministry in 1995.
On August 7, 2020, the attorney for the Diocese, Laura Reilly, forwarded a reported
allegation of sexual misconduct against Fr. Charles Strelick. (App’x CS#1, Email
from Laura Reilly to the Department of Attorney General, dated August 7, 2020.)
According to this August 7, 2020 letter sent via email, on July 31, 2020, Stephen
Lynott who is the Victim Advocate Coordinator “took a report of alleged abuse from
a 33-year-old man,” John Doe89, who stated that “he was sexually abused one time
when he was 8 years old, in July 1991, by Fr. Charles Strelick, who was then pastor
at St. John the Evangelist Church in Ishpeming.” (Id.) Doe89 said that he went to
confession with Fr. Strelick and was describing the conduct of two older boys who
had sexually abused him, and Doe89 said that “after that Fr. Strelick touched him
and made him perform oral sex in the confessional.” (Id.) Doe89 also stated that
afterward Fr. Strelick “did other weird things” and “washed out [his] mouth with
holy water.” (Id.) According to the letter from the Diocese, Doe89 “states he has
had therapy and has been treated for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. He also
states [he] has reported this matter to the State Police and to the Ishpeming City
Police.” (Id.) It also noted: “In have reviewed the priest personnel file of Fr.
Strelick . . . [t]here is no record of any prior allegations of abuse regarding Fr.
Strelick.” (Id.)
138
(41) FR. JAN SZCZYKOWSKI
Unknown if dead or alive.

Returned to Poland in 1998.
Fr. Szczykowski was ordained in May 1988 by the Society of Christ for Polonia
Abroad in Poznan, Poland, and served in ministry in Iraq, Kuwait, Germany,
Hungary, and Poland. (App’x JS#3, Untitled Document dated September 1995, p 2.)
He entered the United States for service in the Diocese of Marquette in September
1995. (Id.)
In a meeting on December 20, 1997, Bishop James Garland and Fr. Alexander
Sample met with Fr. Jan Szczykowski. (JS#1, Memorandum to the file, dated
January 22, 1998, p 3.) According to the memorandum, Fr. Szczykowski had
returned from a four and half month trip to Poland. (Id.) He had been absent from
the parish at Engadine. (Id.) Fr. Szczykowski reported that in 1995 before coming
to the Diocese he had a sexual relationship with a young woman in the parish in
which he was serving, claiming that it was on “one occasion only.” (Id.) She was
one of his former students. (Id.) He explained that he had sex with her, and she
became pregnant. (Id.) At the time of the meeting the child was two years old and
living in Poland. (Id.) Fr. Szczykowski had worked an arrangement with the
woman’s parents to pay $150.00 per month and he would not be publicly named or
expected to be a part of the child’s life. (Id.) Fr. Szczykowski also explained that
during his recent trip to Poland he had attended a two-month inpatient treatment
program for alcoholism, and had caused an automobile accident after which he was
arrested for driving while intoxicated and owed money damages to the other driver.
(Id.) At the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Garland agreed to work with Fr.
Szczykowski and continue his priestly ministry within the Diocese, however “[t]he
following plan was insisted upon by the Bishop, and Fr. [Szczykowski] agreed to
abide by it: 1. [He] must never leave the Diocese without first informing the Bishop
and discussing it with him[;] 2. [He] must join an AA group…[;] 3. [He will meet
with Fr. Sample and Rick Schaefer to straighten out his financial situation…[; and]
4. An attempt should be made to get an agreement in writing with the family of the
mother of [his] child concerning child support.” (Id. at 4.)
On January 14, 1998, Fr. Szczykowski wrote to Bishop Garland, indicating that he
decided to return to Europe. (JS#2, Letter from Fr. Szczykowski to Bishop Garland,
dated January 14, 1998.)
The Polish order to which Fr. Szczykowski belonged, the Society of Christ for
Polonia Abroad (also known as the Society of Christ Fathers for Poles Living
Abroad) maintains a website, which includes the order’s policies for the protection
139
and security of minors. 23 A search for Fr. Szczykowski on the website does not list
him among currently serving priests. 24
23(https://www.chrystusowcy.pl/ochrona-dzieci-i-mlodziezy (“Protection of children

and youth”), last accessed October 26, 2022.)
24(https://www.chrystusowcy.pl/prowincje-zagraniczne (“Foreign provinces”);
https://www.chrystusowcy.pl/parafie-w-polsce (“Parishes in Poland”), (last accessed
October 26, 2022.)
140
(42) FR. GUY THOREN
On June 6, 2002, a woman called Fr. Alexander Sample and reported that Fr. Guy
Thoren had sexually abused her son, John Doe83. (App’x GT#1, Notes dated June
6, 2002, of telephone conversation with Fr. Sample, p 1.) She said that Doe83 was
an altar boy and a student and basketball player at St. Peter/St. John School. (Id.)
She also said that Doe83 had never reported the abuse to anyone, but that he told
her that he was “molested” in the 7th and 8th grade. (Id.) According to the woman,
Fr. Thoren used to spend a lot of time with her son, picking him up and taking him
places such as camping. (Id.) Doe83 told his mother that some of the sexual abuse
occurred in the basement of their house, where there was a sauna. (Id.) Doe83
himself apparently disclosed to someone in in the Diocese that the sexual abuse
occurred 30 to 50 times between 1977 and 1979. (App’x GT#2, Notes to Fr. Thoren
secret archive, entry dated June 6, 2002.) And Doe83 said Fr. Thoren played with
his (Doe83’s) genitals. (Id.) “He came to the house and did it in a downstairs room.
He took me to places and did stuff to me.” (Id.) A social worker who was active in
the Church told Doe83 to call the Diocese. (App’x GT#2, Notes to file, entry dated
June 6, 2002.) The woman also called the Diocese to see where Fr. Thoren was
currently assigned, learning he had recently been transferred to Bessemer. (Id.)
In response to this report, the Diocese was able to confirm that Fr. Thoren was
assigned to St. Peter’s Cathedral from 1975 to 1977 when he was moved to Norway
at St. Mary and then to Mackinaw Island in 1978 through 1986. (Id.; App’x GT#3,
List of Fr. Thoren Appointments since ordination, p 2.) Fr. Thoren was confronted
with these allegations, and he said that the reports were “partially true” in that
“the boy initiated the touching and masturbation.” (App’x GT#2, entry dated June
10, 2002.)
In June 2002, based on these allegations, Fr. Thoren was placed on a leave of
absence and was sent to St. Luke Institute for assessment in June of 2002. (App’x
GT#4, Noted dated June 11, 2002, from Sexual Misconduct Assessment Team
141
Meeting; App’x GT#5, Letter dated June 12, 2002, from Stephen Lynott to St. Luke
Institute office manager, p 1.)
On June 26, 2002, Witness1, a Jesuit brother who was a high school teacher and
worked on the island in the summer months, informed Steve Lynott that he had
heard things about Fr. Thoren that he needed to share. (App’x GT#6, Notes from
Lynott dated June 26, 2002). He told Lynott said that when he was 17 to 18 years
old he worked for Fr. Thoren during the summers and stayed at the rectory. (Id.)
He said he would go skinny dipping with Fr. Thoren and several times slept with
him in a tent in the yard. (Id.) He said nothing happened. (Id.) After being
warned by his parents about Fr. Thoren, Witness1 stopped sleeping in the tent.
(Id.) Witness1 then said that Fr. Thoren would attempt to massage Witness1 and
want him to reciprocate, which Witness1 refused to do. (Id.) He said that on an
overnight trip to Drummond Island, there was only one bed, and Fr. Thoren
“insisted” that they could sleep together, but Witness1 refused, sleeping on the floor
instead. (Id.) Witness1 said that although he was not sexually abused, Fr. Thoren
pressured him to do things that could have led to abuse and that these sorts of
boundary violations between a 35–40-year old priest and a 17–18-year old he said
were “disturbing.” (Id.)
Also in this 2002 report, Witness1 said that in 1991 his friend, John Doe84, had
called him and told him that while on a trip to L’Anse to visit Fr. Thoren, Fr.
Thoren invited him into a sauna and then attacked him aggressively, grabbing him
in a sexual manner. (Id.) Doe84 told Witness1 he was able to stop the assault and
then left the rectory in the middle of the night. Witness1 confronted Fr. Thoren
about the attack. (Id.) According to Witness1, Fr. Thoren said “nothing happened”
and denied having a problem. (Id.) Additionally, Witness1 reported that a young
boy, approximately 16, often stayed overnight at the rectory. Witness1 observed
that the young boy often appeared high on drugs or alcohol, and he noted that the
16 year old later died of a drug overdose in approximately 1996. (Id.)
On July 22, 2002, Fr. James Ziminski spoke with John Doe85. (App’x GT#7, Notes
of Fr. Ziminski of July 22, 2002 phone conversation with Doe85, p 1.) Doe85
recounted that the previous week he had been at work and had read an article
related to the “sexual misconduct case of Thoren.” (Id.) Doe85 reported being so
troubled he had to leave work, stated that he too had been sexually abused by Fr.
Thoren. (Id.) He said he went right home and told his wife. (Id.) He said he had
never shared this information before. (Id.)
In this July 2002 conversation, Doe85 gave more details. He reported that in June
1974, when he was 15-years old and had just received his driving permit, Fr.
Thoren stopped over to his family home in Menominee because he was a close
family friend. (Id.) According to Doe85, Fr. Thoren invited Doe85 to drive him
downstate for a conference so he could “get some practice.” (Id.) His parents
thought this was a great idea. Doe85 described how, during the drive, Fr. Thoren
142
began playing a guessing game. “Guess what I think would be a good idea for us to
do tonight?” (Id.) Doe85 thought he meant go to a movie, but he said that Father
Thoren believed they should give each other massages. (Id.) Doe85 said they
stopped at a roadside motel on the first night. (Id.) Doe85 indicated he did not
know what to do when what started as a massage became “intrusive and sexual.”
(Id.) Doe85 indicated that “I was in big trouble and didn’t know what to do.” (Id.)
Doe85 says it led to “genital fondling, groping and some masturbation.” (Id.) He
recounted how Fr. Thoren tried to make him sleep in the bed but Doe85 was so
disturbed by what happened that he refused. (Id.) He also said that Fr. Thoren
told him, “You mother would never understand a friendship like ours.” (Id.) Doe85
said this made him feel guilty and he decided that night he would never tell anyone
what happened until his mother died. (Id.) The next day while driving, he said
that Fr. Thoren would pretend to be asleep, and he would touch Doe85’s genitals.
(Id.) Again, Doe85 said he did not know what to do. (Id.)
Also in this July 2002 conversation, Doe85 recounted the events of the second night
of the trip. He said he and Fr. Thoren stopped at a Chalet-type motel near Traverse
City and again Fr, Thoren tried to get Doe85 to sleep in his bed. (Id.) Doe85 said
he refused because of what had happened the night before. (Id.) Doe85 further
indicated that, on the way home, Fr. Thoren made attempts to convince Doe85 to go
“skinny dipping,” which Doe85 refused. (Id.) And he said that once back home, Fr.
Thoren made repeated offers for Doe85 to come and do things with him, which he
refused. (Id.)
Finally in this July 2002 conversation, Doe85 reported that his mother died four
years ago, and while he was standing at her casket all he could think about was
what Fr. Thoren had done to him. (Id.) He realized that although his mother was
deceased and he could tell what happened to him, he did not want to because he
was ashamed. (Id.) He decided not to tell until his father died, and he died in
December 2001. (Id.) Doe85 described feeling very hurt and angry that Fr. Thoren
brought his mother into the situation at all by saying she would never understand.
(Id.)
In response, Fr. Ziminski told Doe85 he “believed his story.” (Id.) Fr. Ziminiski
apologized to Doe85 “for the priests and the Church” and “told him this was not his
fault.” (Id.) He also told Doe85 that Fr. Thoren was no longer allowed to minister
as a priest, that he could no longer wear a roman collar, and could no longer present
himself publicly as a priest. (Id.) Doe85 requested that Fr. Thoren be confronted.
(Id.) Fr. Ziminski promised that he and the bishop would speak to Fr. Thoren. (Id.)
On July 25, 2002, Bishop Garland, Steve Lynott and Fr. Ziminski met with Fr.
Thoren, at which time they confronted him with the reports of abuse. (GT#8, Notes
dated July 25, 2002, of conversation with Fr. Thoren.) As to the allegations by
Doe85 in 1974 in Menominee, Fr. Thoren indicated he knew him but had no
memory of a trip to a conference or the abuse. (Id.) Later in the conversation, Fr.
143
Thoren stated, “We didn’t have rules against that back then, so no one had told him
he couldn’t do it.” (Id.) When confronted with the abuse report of Doe84, Fr.
Thoren denied it. (Id.)
On July 25, 2002, at the request of Father Ziminski, Fr. Thoren resigned as the
pastor of St. Sebastian Parish in Bessemer. (App’x GT#9, Notes to file, dated July
25, 2002.) Stephen Lynott accepted his resignation in writing. (Id.) On that same
date, Bishop James Garland issued a precept was against Fr. Thoren. (Id.; App’x
GT#10, Precept.) He was restricted in the following ways:
• No contact with Doe83 or Doe85 and their families.

• No priestly ministry of any kind.
• No public appearance as a priest including wearing clerical garb.
• Avoid those places that have been a serious temptation in the
area of sexual morality including being alone with minors.
• No public appearances in the parishes which he previously
served. [Id.]
He was urged to lead a life of prayer and penance. (Id.)
On November 20, 2008, Bishop Alexander Sample was advised of a complaint made
against Fr. Thoren by John Doe86. (App’x GT#11, “Receipt of Complaint” authored
by Bishop Sample, pp 1–3.) Doe86 walked into the Chancery in Marquette and
reported that in the early 1970s, when he was 13 or 14 years old, Fr. Thoren
sexually abused him. (Id., p 1.) Doe86 grew up at St. Peter Cathedral and was part
of a large family. (Id.) He indicated that Fr. Thoren “engaged with him in mutual
fondling of the genitals on 5 or 6 occasions,” and that the abuse occurred at the
“Suoumi Sauna in south Marquette.” (Id.) He said that he and Fr. Thoren “would
‘wash each other down,’ with particular attention paid to the genital area.” (Id.)
Doe86 also reported abuse by Fr. James Wolf (see entry No. 44 below). (Id. at pp 1–
2.) Bishop Sample told Doe86 he had no reason to doubt his story and that it was
“somewhat confirmed by the other substantiated allegations against Fr. Thoren.”
(Id., p 2.) The bishop apologized on behalf of the Church for what Doe86 had
suffered, and offered help with therapy and spiritual assistance. (Id.) The Diocese
of Marquette paid Doe86 $40,000, which included $5,000 from the Capuchins for the
abuse he suffered by Fr. Wolf. (App’x GT#12, Agreement and Release for Doe86
claim; App’x GT#13, $5,000 check from Capuchin Order.)
144
(43) FR. BERNARD VAN DER SCHUEREN, SJ
Died July 25, 2009.
On August 26, 2013, John Doe87 reported to the Diocese that he was sexually
abused by Fr. Bernard Van der Schueren in the summer of 1987 and 1988 between
second and third grade when he was 10 or 11 years old at St. Michael’s Parish.
(App’x BV#1, Handwritten notes dated August 26, 2013, p 1.) The timeline for Fr.
Van der Scheuren listed him as in St. Michael Church in Marquette in July of 1989.
(App’x BV#2, Timeline.) According to these notes, Doe87 explained that Fr. Van der
Schueren “fondled his genitalia” and also “fondled him on the buttocks.” (App’x
BV#1, Notes, p 2.) Fr. Van der Schueren was apparently visiting from Belgium as a
member of the Jesuit order. (Id. at 1.)
On August 26, 2013, Doe87 was interviewed by Kevin Branson, Director of Ministry
Personnel and Counsel to the Diocesan Administrator Diocese of Marquette. (App’x
BV#3, “Interview.”) Doe87 reported that Fr. Van der Schueren visited Doe87’s home
and asked for “a tour of the home.” (Id. at 1.) Once in the basement, according to
this interview, Fr. Van der Schueren told Doe87 he wanted to do an artwork
“sculpture” of him. (Id.) Doe87 said he dropped his pants, and Fr. Van der
Schueren then “fondled” his butt and penis, referring to it as “sculpting.” (Id.) Fr.
Van der Schueren had died four years before this report, in July 2009. (App’x BV#4,
Letter from Chicago-Detroit Province of the Society of Jesus, dated September 5,
2013.)
On August 29, 2013, attorney Darrell Dettmann on behalf of the Diocese reported
the allegations of Doe87 to Marquette County prosecutor Matt Wiese. (App’x BV#5,
Letter from Diocese to Marquette County Prosecuting Attorney, dated August 29,
2013.)
In August 29, 2013, the Diocese also reported the abuse to the Chicago-Detroit
Province of the Society of Jesus for investigation and notified the Belgian
authorities. (App’x BV#4.) Fr. Van der Schueren was a member of the North
Belgian S.J. Province that is headquartered in Brussels. (Id.)
145
(44) FR. JAMES WOLF O.F.M. CAP
Alive.
Listed as Retired/Restricted in Ministry, 2005–present 25
Served in Diocese of Marquette from 1963 to 1976.
In 1995, Fr. James Wolf, OFM Cap, was accused in a civil lawsuit of having
sexually abused a 17-year-old boy while pastor of Detroit St. John Evangelist
Church. The boy was living with Capuchins while considering entering the
priesthood. (JW#1, Detroit Free Press, February 11, 1995). The civil suit alleged
that Fr. Wolf and two other Capuchins, Jim Buser and Gale Leifeld, molested the
17-year-old while he was a student at a Capuchin run high school and after
graduation. (Id.) The complainant later became a counselor for men abused by
clergy and claimed he experienced flashbacks during therapy in 1992. (Id.) The
case was tried in 1995, but the jury found it was not filed within the statute of
limitations. (App’x JW#5, Detroit Free Press, March 29, 1995.) Two priests
admitted abusing other boys, but not the plaintiff in that case. (Id.)
In November 2008, Stephen Lynott and Bishop Alexander Sample met with Doe86,
who reported he was abused by Fr. Guy Thoren (see entry No. 42 above) and Fr.
Wolf. (App’x JW#2, Lynott Report dated January 27, 2009, p 1.) Doe86 reported
that Fr. Wolf asked him to mow the lawn and shovel the snow at St. Peter
Cathedral in Marquette. (Id., p 2.) This was in the 1970s when Doe86 was
approximately 11 to 12 years old. (Id.) Fr. Wolf allegedly took him into the Friary
and gave him beer and small gifts. (Id.) Over a two-year period, Fr. Wolf allegedly
fondled him and performed fellatio on him. (Id.) On April 18, 2009, the Diocese
paid Doe86 $40,000, which included $5,000 from the Capuchins for the abuse he
stated that he suffered from Fr. Wolf. (App’x JW#3, Review Board Data Sheet.)
In May 2011, John Doe88 reported to Fr. Ronald Browne that he was abused by Fr.
Wolf in 1971–1972. (App’x JW#4, Memorandum to Bishop Alexander Sample dated
April 27, 2011, pp 1–2.) Doe88 reported that he grew up in Marquette and attended
St. Peter Cathedral Parish. (Id., p 1.) He was approximately 20 years old when he
was allegedly sexually abused. (Id., p 2.) In the first instance, Doe88 reported they
were staying at a Holiday Inn in Marquette. (Id.) He reported that they were in
the sauna when Fr. Wolf grabbed his genitals. (Id.) On the second occasion, he said
that Fr. Wolf reportedly masturbated him in the kitchen of the Bishop Baraga
Association offices. (Id.) Doe88 reported that in 1993 he was contacted by Fr.
25“List of friars with substantiated accusations”, Capuchin Franciscan Province of

St. Joseph, https://safeguard.thecapuchins.org/list-of-friars.html (Last accessed
October 26, 2022.)
146
Martin Pable, a Capuchin who was investigating reports of sexual abuse. (Id.)
Doe88 spent three hours talking with Fr. Pable about the sexual abuse he claimed
he suffered at the hands of Wolf. (Id.) There was no follow-up from Fr. Pable. (Id.)
He further reported that in 1994 he was contacted by a lawyer who was suing Fr.
Wolf and wanted him to testify at the trial. (Id.) Doe88 refused to testify. (Id.)
On June 2, 2011, Fr. Browne spoke with Bishop Alexander Sample and was
instructed to contact the Capuchins. (Id., p 3.) Fr. Browne emailed Fr. John
Celichowski, the Provincial Superior of the Capuchins. (Id.) Fr. Browne was
informed that Fr. Wolf did serve in the Marquette Diocese from January 1963 to
May 1976. (Id.) Fr. Browne was further instructed to contact Br. Mark Carrico,
Director of Office of Pastoral Care and Conciliation; which he did. (Id.)
147
CONCLUSION
The AG work on the clergy abuse investigation continues. All paper documents
have been reviewed. Of the 5 million documents to review, there remain
approximately 135,882 electronic documents related to the Archdiocese of Detroit.
There are approximately 100 investigations that are outstanding.
To date, eleven cases have been brought for all seven dioceses. Seven have resolved
with convictions. Of these eleven cases, two related to priests ministering in the
Diocese of Marquette, one resulting in a conviction (Fr. Jacobs) and the other
remains pending (Fr. Joseph).
1. People v. Vincent DeLorenzo – scheduled for pretrial on November 21, 2022,

in the 7th Circuit Court, Genesee County before the Hon. K Beam. T
2. People v. Joseph “Jack” Baker – He was found guilty at a jury trial of one
count of criminal sexual conduct first degree and is scheduled for sentencing
on November 2, 2022, before the Hon. Bridget Hathaway.
3. People v. Neil Kalina – He was found guilty at jury trial of 2 counts of

criminal sexual conduct in the second degree in June 2022. He was
sentenced to 7–15 years in the Michigan Department of Corrections.
4. People v. Gary Berthiaume – In October of 2021, he pled guilty to two counts

of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree and no contest to one count of
gross indecency. He was sentenced in January 2022 to 17 months – 15 years
and 17 months – 5 years to be served concurrently in the Michigan
Department of Corrections.
5. People v. Gary Jacobs – April of 2021 he pled guilty to one count on each of
his four Ontonagon County cases, with a total of three counts of criminal
sexual conduct first degree and one count of criminal sexual conduct second
degree. He was sentenced on these cases to 8–15 years in the Michigan
Department of Corrections, along with lifetime sex offender registration and
counseling. In Dickinson County, in May 2021, Jacobs pled guilty criminal
sexual conduct second degree. He was sentenced on this case in July 2021 to
8–15 years in prison, with lifetime sex offender registration to be served
concurrently.
6. People v. Joseph Comperchio – In June 2021 he pled plead guilty to one count
of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree and three counts of criminal
sexual conduct in the second degree. These represented complaints made by
148
four separate victims. He was sentenced to 10–20 years in the Michigan
Department of Corrections.
7. People v. Brian Stanley – He pled guilty to attempt false imprisonment and

in January 2020 was sentenced to 60 days in jail, probation and sex offender
registration.
8. People v. Patrick Casey – He was charged with one count of criminal sexual
conduct in the third degree. While a jury was deliberating, he pled guilty to
aggravated assault. In November 2019 he was sentenced to 45 days in the
Wayne County Jail and one year of probation.
9. People v. Timothy Crowley – A preliminary examination was held in this

matter in October 2019. After the close of proofs, the case was dismissed by
the court. Ultimately, the Michigan Court of Appeals re-instated 3 of the
counts. Application for leave to appeal has been filed by the defense in the
Michigan Supreme Court.
10. People v. Roy Joseph – Charged in January 2020 with one count of criminal
sexual conduct first degree. He is awaiting extradition from India.
11. People v. Jacob Vellian – Charged in May 2019 with two counts of rape under
the old criminal sexual conduct statute. He is awaiting extradition from
India.
It should be noted that a criminal complaint is merely an allegation unless and

until the defendant is found guilty.
149

Diocese of Marquette - FINAL REPORT - Oct - 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diocese of Marquette - FINAL REPORT - Oct - 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Diocese of Marquette - FINAL REPORT - Oct - 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A criminal charge is merely an allegation, and the defendant is presumed innocent

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ ii

(1) FR. CASIMIR ADASIEWICZ ............................................................................. 6

(2) FR. THOMAS ANDERSON ................................................................................ 7

(3) FR. EMIL BEYER ............................................................................................... 9

(4) FR. JOSEPH CARNE (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(5) FR. LEONARD CORNELIUS, OFM—*ACTIVE MINISTRY* ....................... 19

(6) FR. RICHARD T. CRAIG (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(7) FR. TIMOTHY DESROCHERS ........................................................................ 23

(8) FR. THOMAS DUNLEAVY .............................................................................. 25

(9) FR. GINO FERRARO ....................................................................................... 27

(10) FR. WILBUR GIBBS ........................................................................................ 29

(11) FR. BASIL GOERNER ..................................................................................... 30

(12) FR. MICHAEL HALE ....................................................................................... 32

(13) FR. GERALD HARRINGTON .......................................................................... 36

(14) FR. DONALD HARTMAN (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

(15) FR. ALOYSIUS HASENBERG (LISTED ON BISHOP

(16) FR. TERRENCE HEALY (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(17) FR. RAYMOND HOEFGEN (LISTED ON BISHOP

(19) FR. GARY JACOBS (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(20) FR. ROY JOSEPH (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.)........ 61

(21) FR. NORBERT LACOSSE (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

(22) FR. FRANK LENZ (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY SITE.) ....... 72

(23) FR. CLEMENT LEPINE (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

(24) FR. MARK MCQUESTEN— * ACTIVE MINISTRY (RETIRED) * ............... 78

(25) FR. JAMES MENAPACE (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(26) FR. PETER MINELLI .................................................................................... 103

(27) FR. ALBERT MLIGO...................................................................................... 108

(28) FR. ROBERT MONROE ................................................................................. 110

(29) FR. AARON NOWICKI (LISTED ON DIOCESE AND BISHOP

(30) FR. VINCENT OUELLETTE ......................................................................... 113

(31) FR. WILFRED PELLETIER .......................................................................... 114

(32) FR. ANTHONY POLAKOWSKI ..................................................................... 116

(33) FR. ARMOUR ROBERTS (LISTED ON BISHOP ACCOUNTABILITY

(34) FR. DAVID ROCHELEAU ............................................................................. 126

(35) FR. NELSON DANIEL RUPP ........................................................................ 127

(36) FR. WALTER SHEEDLO ............................................................................... 130

(37) FR. DON SHIRODA........................................................................................ 132

(38) FR. EPHREAM/EPHRAIM SITKO ................................................................ 134

(40) FR. CHARLES STRELICK............................................................................. 138

(41) FR. JAN SZCZYKOWSKI ............................................................................... 139

(43) FR. BERNARD VAN DER SCHUEREN, SJ (LISTED ON BISHOP

(44) FR. JAMES WOLF O.F.M. CAP (LISTED ON BISHOP

On October 3, 2018, a search warrant was executed on all seven Dioceses

In 2019, the Michigan Legislature appropriated $635,000 to partially fund this

The timeframe in which a criminal proceeding can be started is referred to as the

Some information contained in this report comes from the website

BishopAccountability.org is the largest public library of information on

We are not an advocacy organization, and we take no position on

The materials we have collected also provide insight into child

1 https://www.Dioceseofmarquette.org/statusreport (Accessed on October 26, 2022).

2See https://www.bishop-accountability.org/dioceses/usa-mi-marquette/ (Last

The Board was unable to validate this allegation as the information is

7See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Family_Orphanage (Last accessed October

No other complaint of this nature has surfaced to us over the course of

Died May 13, 2019.

Removed from priestly ministry in 2002.

Isaac Ray Center (Chicago) assessment: Fr. Carne abused by an older

(5) FR. LEONARD CORNELIUS, OFM—ACTIVE MINISTRY ....................... 19