Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Does it matter whether Archbishop John Nienstedt is gay?

Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis/David Hrbacek
Former Archbishop John Nienstedt

When allegations of a sex-abuse coverup began to leak out of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis a couple years ago, they were always accompanied by another, seemingly unrelated set of accusations: the bumbling attempts of Archbishop John Nienstedt, then the leader of the archdiocese, to have sex with men. 

“The archbishop has been known to go ‘cruising’ (and I am not referring to the type of cruising one does on a ship in the Caribbean) and, on one occasion, purchased ‘poppers’ (and not the exploding candy preferred by elementary school students) and followed another gentleman to his car for, well, the type of activity that men purchase ‘poppers’ for…,” wrote Jennifer Haselberger, the whistleblower whose allegations prompted Nienstedt’s resignation last summer. On her website, Haselberger helpfully links to Wikipedia’s entry on poppers: basically disco-era sex drugs.

In late July, more stories of Nienstedt’s “promiscuous gay lifestyle,” as a fellow priest put it, were released by prosecutors. Most relate to his time in Detroit, where he moved up the clerical ladder in the late 1970s and ’80s. He’s said to have frequented a gay bar just across the border in Canada, whimsically called the Happy Tap.

But even if the allegations are true, it doesn’t mean that Nienstedt is sympathetic to sexual abuse — a link between homosexuality and priestly pederasty is as unproven as it is enduring. Nor does it mark Nienstedt as unusual. Catholic researchers estimate that as many as 58 percent of priests are homosexuals. To confirm that he desired men would be like discovering that the pope is Catholic.

But Nienstedt is not just any priest, of course. He staked his tenure in Minnesota fighting marriage equality — and using church money to do so. No other archbishop in the country has gone so far as to condemn the families and friends of gays and lesbians for abetting “a grave evil.” 

Nienstedt, who now lives in California, writing and editing for a Catholic institute, has publicly denied that he is gay. He recently declared, as no straight guy ever has: “I am a heterosexual man who has been celibate my entire life.”

For gay Catholics, if Nienstedt does share their desires, the deceit would be heartbreaking, “a sickening level of hypocrisy,” as one described it. It may also help explain why Nienstedt not only neglected the sins of priests, but covered them up, a pattern of denial that would be hard to fathom if it were not so deeply personal.  

A different era

When gay Catholics in the Twin Cities first came together, in the late 1970s, they asked to meet with then-Archbishop John Roach. They were looking for compassion and understanding, if not acceptance — and to a remarkable degree they got it. 

With Roach’s blessing, the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) — an independent group of local Catholics based in St. Paul — introduced a sort of sensitivity training in parishes and in nine of the 11 local Catholic high schools. It was intended to help priests, teachers, and administrators better serve gays and lesbians, and it lasted for nearly 20 years. 

“During the peak of our work,” one of the group’s co-founders told me several years ago, “we became almost mainstream.” In 1989, the archdiocese awarded its Archbishop John Ireland Award to another CPCSM co-founder for his social-justice activism on behalf of gays and lesbians. 

The efforts paid off: “If it was okay to bash someone in the past, it isn’t now,” reported the director of Catholic Education and Formation Ministries in 1998. “We’re trying to teach kids what’s right.” When conservative activists objected that same year, the archdiocese defended the Safe Schools initiative. 

Michael Bayly, a gay Catholic who until last year headed up the CPCSM, began compiling this history in 2009, shortly after Nienstedt became archbishop. He worried at the time that “there are some who would like to downplay or even deny such a relationship.”

But the church’s openness wasn’t limited to the Twin Cities. Bayly recalls that in 1994, when he moved to Minnesota, a bishop from Detroit came to talk with gay and lesbian Catholics on how — to quote the advertisement for the dialogue — a “wholeness in sexual expression” can be “deeply human and truly spiritual.”

In fact, Detroit was known as one of the most open-minded districts of the church. And as Nienstedt was starting out there, he was imbued with its liberal spirit. 

Promoted and protected 

In 1977, as the era of disco and poppers was in full swing, Nienstedt was 30, a newly minted priest in Detroit, and he became the secretary to Cardinal John Dearden, characterized by the New York Times as a “leading liberal voice in the Church.” Nienstedt himself described his mentor’s views to the Times as aligned “with the mind of the Church.” 

But something changed after Dearden’s retirement in 1980, when Nienstedt went to work and study in the Vatican, which was shifting toward the neo-conservatism of the new Pope John Paul II. As a leading critic of Nienstedt has noted, the ambitious young priest saw first-hand “the changes John Paul II sought in the church and the kind of bishops whom he wanted.” When he returned to Detroit in 1985, Nienstedt’s new boss was a favorite of the pope, and, sure enough, in time Nienstedt adopted his views. 

For pushing back on gays in the church, among other issues, Nienstedt would be promoted and promoted and promoted again. He would also be protected: Among the revelations in the documents unsealed last month is that the Vatican envoy to the United States quashed an investigation into Nienstedt’s homosexual activity and ordered evidence destroyed.

The evidence that exists, in the form of corroborated witness accounts, suggests that Nienstedt spent his time in Minnesota, from 2001 to 2015, living a precarious double life: indulging his homosexual tendencies, even as he railed against them.

Haselberger, who worked closely with Nienstedt in the archdiocese office as an adviser on church law, believes his proclivities help explain why he coddled abusive priests — he may have been attracted to them. And the so-called Delegate for Safe Environment, a priest overseeing child-abuse prevention in the archdiocese, came to the same conclusion about Nienstedt two years ago: being gay “affected his judgment.” 

But Nienstedt’s silence protected far more priests than he could have known or been attracted to — dozens across Minnesota. And aside from suspicions of a relationship with one of the most notorious, Curtis Wehmeyer, his intervention — or lack of it — appears less about personal favor and more about institutional preservation. He saw sin, and looked the other way. 

Instead, the deal that Nienstedt long ago made for the benefit of his career — to follow the church into conservatism — now seems a kind of ecclesiastical quid pro quo: if he covered for the sins of the church, the church would cover for his. The internal investigation of him, reportedly quashed by the Vatican, had been his idea — he was that confident that his name would be cleared. 

But the deal may also have been a trap. By closing the door to homosexuality, marking its expression as the work of Satan and the most aberrant of sins, Nienstedt had nowhere to go with his own desires. He left himself no way out.  

At the end, as multiple investigations closed in, Nienstedt still stuck to the pattern, claiming both that he was unaware of abusers under his watch and that any accusations of homosexuality were merely retaliation for his anti-gay policies. He had no choice but to double down on denial.  

Comments (5)

  1. Submitted by Allan Wilson on 08/19/2016 - 04:43 pm.


    For an Archbishop to espouse, pontificate and spend money on an anti-gay marriage campaign when you are gay yourself is to me the very definition of what it means to be a hypocrite. While this Archbishop sat in his throne, one could feel the growing discomfort, anger and dismay with his embarrrasing efforts to pubicly identify those members of the Church deemed not worthy of receiving Communion. The damage from this one person will take a long time to heal.

  2. Submitted by Joel Stegner on 08/20/2016 - 07:03 am.

    Priests as moral examples

    How can the leadership of the Catholic Church tell people, including non-members, that being gay is deeply sinful when a very large percentage of priests are gay, and active homosexuals are part of their leadership? That is hypocritical – classic do as I say, not as I do. How can the church presume to be a moral authority on matters sexual when it’s leaders cannot follow the church’s most fundamental rules themselves?

    From a non-Catholic perspective, stop pretending. Rebuild the church to offer the same unconditional love that Jesus Christ modeled. Allow married priests, including women, divorce and contraception. Let homosexuals be honest about their nature. Make the priesthood appealing to a broader range of people, and rid the church of people who prey on the vulnerable – children – that adult women who seek their help as counsellors.

    Then issues where the church considers morally most important, it will have more legitimacy.

  3. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 08/20/2016 - 07:05 am.

    Yes and No

    Nienstedt’s sexual orientation is irrelevant save for two things:

    1) He had taken a vow of celibacy.
    2) He fought the emergence of same sex marriage rights claiming that such unions are codified sin.

    This makes him a liar and a hypocrite which wouldn’t be a big deal if he didn’t also claim to have the moral authority to render judgement’s regarding the sinful nature of others.

    Unfortunately this has become a familiar pattern for conservative movements, damaged personalities ascend to positions of power and the more loudly they denounce the behavior of others the more likely they are to be engaged in that behavior themselves.

    I don’t care what the mans sexual orientation is but he landed in a position of power wherein he tried to inflict harm on members of my community (When I say “community” I’m speaking in larger terms, I myself am not gay). The prohibition against same sex marriage was needlessly harmful for gay couples and Nienstedt went out of his way to promote that harm. Niendstedt could be expected to defend or enforce the Church’s position within the church, but he went out into the secular community at large and attempted to establish religious dogma as secular law; at that point the persons character and integrity becomes a legitimate issue.

    Regarding the sexual abuse and attending conspiracies, I see that as a product of toxic leadership regardless of sexual orientation. In Nienstedt’s case the additional dishonesty and hypocrisy simply drags the whole thing down into a deeper realm of ugly.

  4. Submitted by James Hamilton on 08/22/2016 - 01:35 pm.

    And the point of this piece is


    While I’m neither a fan of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) or John Nienstedt, all I see here is the meaningless beating of a drum calling people to arms against a man long since departed and no longer in any position to influence events in Minnesota.

    A few questions for the author:

    How do you define gay? Is it romantic attraction or sexual activity?

    What was the point of this piece in your mind? While you position it as a “what if?” and ” does it matter if he is?” you clearly have decided he is gay and that this dictated certain of his actions.

    Life is more complicated than you propose.

    Assuming that Nienstedt has sex with men and/or is romantically attracted to men, it’s certainly possible that he felt a tremendous guilt for those activities and/or feelings, given the teachings of the RCC. Acting in accordance with one’s beliefs and against one’s human instincts is neither uncommon nor considered hypocritical in many other areas of our lives. Yet, in a case of a presumed conflict between a man’s sexuality and his religion, you immediately condemn him as a fraud and hypocrite without considering alternative explanations.

    MP should review its publication standards and consider whether it wishes to run articles that are little more than click-bait.

    • Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 08/23/2016 - 09:06 am.


      “Acting in accordance with one’s beliefs and against one’s human instincts is neither uncommon nor considered hypocritical in many other areas of our lives.”

      Niensteadt’s conduct was clearly contrary to his stated beliefs not in accordance with them. His conduct was also contrary to the dogma he’s supposedly promotes and defends. I don’t know how common that is but it’s wrong and hypocritical. And as a church leader isn’t he supposed to be held to a higher standard? The man certainly acted as if he was a superior moral actor with more authority than you’re average Joe or Jolene.

      I think we’re talking about this because some new information has recently come to light in the media and there was a recent decision to forego criminal charges.

Leave a Reply