The New Orleans Saints, a celebrated NFL franchise, found themselves embroiled in a controversy far removed from the football field, offering extensive public relations assistance to the Archdiocese of New Orleans as it grappled with the fallout from a burgeoning clergy sexual abuse scandal. Internal emails obtained by the Associated Press revealed a concerted effort by top Saints executives, including team president Dennis Lauscha and senior vice president of communications Greg Bensel, to manage the crisis and mitigate damage to the Church’s image. This intervention went far beyond the “minimal” assistance the Saints publicly claimed to have provided, painting a picture of a deep, behind-the-scenes partnership driven by the team owner’s devout Catholicism and close relationship with the archbishop.
The emails detailed a multi-pronged PR strategy orchestrated by the Saints. Executives were privy to the list of credibly accused clergy even before its public release, and a team spokesman briefed Lauscha on a call with the district attorney just hours before the list was made public, a call that purportedly resulted in the removal of certain names. Lauscha himself drafted questions for Archbishop Gregory Aymond to prepare him for media inquiries, while Bensel provided real-time updates on Aymond’s interviews, emphasizing the alignment between the team’s and the Church’s messaging. This level of involvement contradicted previous assurances from the Saints, raising serious questions about the extent of their influence and the potential motivations behind their actions.
The Saints’ involvement extended beyond internal strategizing. Bensel actively engaged with local media outlets, leveraging his relationships to shape the narrative surrounding the scandal. He urged editorial boards to support the archbishop and cautioned against critical coverage, reminding them of the Saints’ own positive relationship with the press. He even contacted a newspaper editor, advocating for the removal of an online notice urging abuse victims to come forward. This direct intervention in media coverage underscores the Saints’ determination to control the flow of information and protect the Church’s reputation.
This close collaboration between the Saints and the Archdiocese raised concerns about the potential conflicts of interest and the blurring of lines between sports and a sensitive societal issue. The timing of the Saints’ intervention coincided with the Church’s efforts to maintain public trust and financial support amid mounting litigation and the threat of bankruptcy. The involvement of other local institutions, including a federal judge who later ruled against a law that would have benefited abuse survivors, further complicated the situation. This coalescence of powerful entities around the Church created an environment that potentially shielded the institution from full accountability.
The revelations from the emails sparked outrage among survivors of clergy abuse, who felt betrayed by the Saints’ actions. Their involvement was seen as prioritizing the protection of the Church over the well-being of victims. The Saints’ denial of influencing the list of accused priests and their characterization of their efforts as “well-intentioned” did little to assuage the anger and distrust. The emails instead painted a picture of an organization deeply invested in managing the crisis, raising questions about what other information might have been withheld and what other actions were taken to mitigate the damage to the Church.
The emails documented a period of intense crisis management for both the Saints and the Archdiocese. While the Saints maintained their efforts were aimed at supporting the community and promoting healing, the extent of their involvement and the specific actions revealed in the emails suggested a more complex and potentially problematic relationship. The fallout from the scandal continued, with multiple clergy members facing criminal charges in the years following the Saints’ intervention. The team’s foray into the clergy abuse crisis left a lasting impact on their public image, raising questions about their ethical responsibilities and the potential consequences of aligning with an institution facing such serious allegations.
