Cardinal McElroy and the Laicization of a Whistleblower Priest

The Archdiocese of Washington has been thrown into controversy once again. Cardinal Robert McElroy, recently installed as Archbishop of Washington, is moving to laicize Father Michael Briese, a diocesan priest who has spent years pressing allegations of sexual misconduct and cover-up involving senior clergy. At stake are not merely one priest’s future but the credibility of episcopal governance, the balance of conscience and obedience, and the unresolved legacy of clerical abuse in the United States.

The McElroy Letter
According to correspondence reported by LifeSiteNews, McElroy wrote to Briese on August 12, 2025, informing him that he had petitioned the Dicastery for the Clergy for his dismissal from the clerical state. The letter accused Briese of “defamatory” writings on his personal Substack against himself, his predecessor Cardinal Wilton Gregory, and two priests in good standing, Fathers Adam Park and Carter Griffin. McElroy claimed Briese had threatened to “bring down the Church” unless the allegations were addressed. He offered a compromise—continued limited ministry if Briese would retract his writings—but, when refused, pressed forward with laicization proceedings. Crucially, McElroy did not refute the underlying accusations of misconduct or cover-up, relying instead on charges of disobedience and defamation¹.

The Earlier Penal Process
This is not the first time the Archdiocese has moved against Briese. A defense brief circulated online confirms that in January 2024, under Cardinal Gregory, an administrative penal process was opened against him. The cited delicts included inciting animosity against the Ordinary (canon 1373), harming reputations (canon 1390 §2), and disobedience of a legitimate precept (canon 1371 §1)². McElroy’s escalation from this diocesan process to a petition for dismissal shows continuity of strategy: treating Briese’s whistleblowing as disobedience rather than as a call for investigation.

The Allegations Against Clergy: Briese’s accusations focus on two priests

Fr. Adam Park, former vice rector of the Pontifical North American College (NAC) in Rome, was named in a 2021 civil lawsuit by ex-seminarian Anthony Gorgia alleging harassment and predatory behavior. Park quietly stepped down from the NAC in 2021 but remained in good standing in Washington. The civil case was dismissed in 2022 for jurisdictional reasons, leaving the allegations legally unresolved³.

Fr. Carter Griffin, now rector of the Saint John Paul II Seminary, was accused in letters sent to the papal nuncio in November 2019 of sexually harassing a seminarian during his tenure as vice rector. Griffin reportedly defended himself with the assertion that “people in my position don’t do things like that.” The letters were made public online but have never been acted upon by the archdiocese⁴.

Briese insists that both Cardinals Gregory and McElroy ignored his attempts to raise these matters privately. His decision to publish was, he argues, compelled by conscience and by the Church’s own Safe Environment policies, which prohibit the concealment of abuse allegations.

Canonical Framework
The laicization of a priest can occur in three ways under canons 290–293: by declaration of invalid ordination, by penal dismissal, or by papal rescript. Dismissal from the clerical state is an expiatory penalty under canon 1336 §1, 5°, reserved for grave cases. Such penalties require a canonical process: a preliminary investigation (c. 1717) and either a judicial trial or an administrative penal process (c. 1720). The Holy See must confirm dismissal, and the Dicastery for the Clergy is competent in non-reserved cases. By contrast, crimes of sexual abuse by clerics are reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith⁵.

The charges against Briese—defamation, disobedience, incitement of animosity—fall under canons 1371, 1373, and 1390. Each allows penalties ranging from censures to dismissal. Past precedent shows the dicastery does act: the 2022 dismissal of Fr. Frank Pavone for persistent disobedience was handled by the same office⁶.

Whistleblower Protections
Yet Church law since Vos estis lux mundi (2019, revised 2023) complicates matters. Article 4 §2 prohibits retaliation against those who report abuse, and §3 forbids imposing silence on victims or witnesses. Reports against bishops are explicitly within its scope. On paper, Briese should be protected for reporting allegations of cover-up. At the same time, canon 220 safeguards the right to a good reputation, and a March 2025 note from the Dicastery for Legislative Texts cautioned against publishing names of accused clerics without legitimate reason. The Briese case sits at this fault line: between transparency demanded by Vos estis and the reputational protections invoked by bishops against public accusations⁷.

McElroy and Gregory’s Record
The broader context heightens the tension. Cardinal Gregory previously faced criticism for his response to abuse in Washington, and his tenure was preceded by the fall of Cardinal Donald Wuerl amid the McCarrick scandal. McElroy, a leading progressive voice, was translated from San Diego to Washington in 2025 and elevated to cardinal by Francis. Both Gregory and McElroy are known for their pro-LGBT initiatives, celebrating Masses for dissident groups and calling for sacramental access for those living in objectively sinful states. Briese has publicly asked whether such stances reflect complicity with a broader homosexual subculture in the clergy. Neither prelate has answered his pointed questions⁸.

Implications
If the Dicastery for the Clergy upholds McElroy’s petition, Briese will be dismissed from the clerical state. Ontologically, ordination is indelible, but juridically he would lose the right to exercise ministry except in danger of death. Unless a papal dispensation is added, he would remain bound by the obligation of celibacy.

For the faithful, the optics are stark: the hierarchy appears to move swiftly against a whistleblower while leaving accused clergy in good standing. Briese himself has urged fellow priests to publish threatening episcopal letters and refuse to suffer in silence: “The public deserves the truth.” His case will test not only the application of canon law but the Church’s credibility in keeping the promises of reform made after McCarrick.

Conclusion
The confrontation between Cardinal McElroy and Fr. Briese embodies the unresolved crisis of clerical abuse and episcopal accountability. It pits obedience against conscience, secrecy against transparency, and institutional protection against the faithful’s right to know. Whether Rome sides with McElroy or Briese, the case exposes the tension at the heart of the post-McCarrick Church: has reform produced a culture of truth, or merely a system better able to silence its critics?

¹ LifeSiteNews, “Cardinal McElroy asks Vatican to laicize whistleblower priest,” Sept. 3, 2025.
² Defense brief, Archdiocese of Washington administrative penal process, Jan. 2024.
³ Civil complaint Gorgia v. NAC, dismissed Jan. 2022, New York court records.
⁴ Letters to Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Nov. 2019, alleging misconduct by Fr. Carter Griffin.
⁵ Code of Canon Law, cc. 290–293, 1336 §1, 5°; see also Praedicate Evangelium; Dicastery for the Clergy, Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
⁶ Vatican Press Office, Dec. 2022, dismissal of Fr. Frank Pavone.
⁷ Vos estis lux mundi (2019; revised 2023), arts. 1, 4; Dicastery for Legislative Texts, note on canon 220, Mar. 2025.
⁸ Public record of Cardinals Gregory and McElroy’s statements on LGBT initiatives, ADW and San Diego diocesan reports.