Laicized Wisconsin priest arrested over new grooming charges, bail jumping
Former Wisconsin priest Andrew Showers was arrested Aug. 20 2026 on bail‑jumping and new sexual‑offense charges linked to an undercover police investigation. The criminal complaint alleges Showers attempted to groom a child, with the suspect actually a police officer posing as a 15‑year‑old girl on Reddit. Showers had already been laicized by Pope Leo XIV in June 2026 and was barred from public ministry since his initial arrest last summer. The Diocese of Madison confirmed the allegations, expressed distress, and noted the investigation is ongoing. If convicted, Showers faces up to 50 years in prison for the new offenses.
29 days ago
A former Wisconsin priest, Andrew Showers, was arrested on August 20 2026 for attempted grooming of a minor and for violating bail conditions, bringing renewed scrutiny to his prior 2025 arrest and to the Diocese of Madison’s handling of abuse allegations. 1
Showers was taken into custody after a warrant was issued for his arrest; the complaint stems from an online undercover operation in which a police officer posed as a 15‑year‑old girl. 1
Prosecutors allege he sent lewd photographs and explicit messages to the undercover officer on Reddit, believing she was a 14‑year‑old, and later attempted to meet her in person. 1
If convicted, Showers faces a potential sentence of up to 50 years in prison. 1
The August 2026 arrest also includes a charge of bail jumping, as Showers allegedly violated the conditions of his bail from the 2025 case almost exactly one year earlier. 1
In June 2026, Bishop Donald Hying announced that Showers had petitioned Pope Leo XIV for a dispensation from the clerical state, which the pope granted, effectively laicizing him. 1
The dispensation, requested by Showers, differs legally from a dismissal but carries the same practical effect of removing him from priestly obligations. 1
The diocese described the new allegations as “incredibly disturbing” and reiterated that Showers had been barred from public ministry since his initial arrest. 1
It also noted that a prior complaint in 2021—concerning Showers asking a middle‑school student about “sexual sins” during confession—was investigated and determined not to constitute misconduct. 1
Showers, ordained in 2017, faced charges in August 2025 for attempted child enticement, attempted second‑degree sexual assault of a child, and attempted use of a computer to facilitate a sex crime after an undercover officer posed as a teen on Reddit. 1
Following that arrest, Bishop Hying placed Showers on a complete restriction from all public ministry while investigations continued. 1
Both civil and canonical processes remain active; while the laicization was granted, the criminal case proceeds, and the diocese continues to cooperate with law‑enforcement investigations. 1
Investigate canon law’s response to laicized clergy sexual misconduct
Laicization does not erase a cleric’s responsibility for sexual misconduct committed while he was a cleric. Canon law separates three questions: the underlying delict, the person’s current canonical status, and the measures needed to protect victims and the Church.
Canon law treats sexual misconduct not merely as a private moral failure but as conduct that can constitute a canonical delict and cause scandal. Canon 1395 addresses offenses against the Sixth Commandment committed by clerics, including public offenses, abuse of authority, coercion, and forced sexual acts. Its penalties may include suspension and, when the case warrants it, dismissal from the clerical state.
The canonical rationale is both juridical and pastoral. Pope Paul VI described canon law as ordered to the Church’s common good and ultimately to the salus animarum—“the salvation of souls.” He also emphasized that ecclesiastical authority must protect the dignity and rights of persons while exercising its responsibility to preserve order and peace in the Church.
This means that the Church’s response must hold together:
Astigueta similarly identifies the principal canonical concerns as the act itself, the offender, the victims, prevention, and the rights-related difficulties arising in the application of the norms.
A cleric who has been laicized—or who has lost the clerical state through another canonical process—no longer holds the rights and obligations proper to the clerical state. In particular, he is prohibited from exercising the power of orders. Redemptionis Sacramentum states that a person who has lost the clerical state may not celebrate the sacraments except in the exceptional case permitted by law; he may not preach the homily or undertake an office or duty in the sacred liturgy. The faithful are likewise not to seek his services for sacramental celebration.
Thus, laicization ordinarily prevents the person from:
Laicization is therefore a powerful canonical restriction, but it is not itself a finding that every allegation against the person has been proven. Nor does it automatically resolve every question concerning a prior delict.
The decisive rule is that responsibility for a delict committed while the person was a cleric remains juridically relevant even if he later loses the clerical state.
The DDF’s Vademecum states:
“What matters is that the accused was a cleric at the time of the alleged delict, not at the time of the proceeding.”
Accordingly, if a cleric is laicized after an allegation or during an investigation, the loss of clerical status does not necessarily terminate the canonical case. If the penal process has already begun, it can be brought to completion in order to determine responsibility and, where appropriate, impose further penalties.
The canonical consequences can therefore include:
The Vademecum allows the Ordinary to assess whether continuing a preliminary investigation remains suitable when the cleric loses canonical status before the investigation is completed. That assessment must consider both pastoral charity and the demands of justice toward alleged victims. This is not permission to disregard allegations automatically; it is a procedural judgment requiring attention to the circumstances and to the legitimate interests of victims and the Church.
The sources distinguish between sexual misconduct generally and sexual abuse of minors. Astigueta notes that some ecclesiastical norms use a broad category of sexual abuse, while others specifically address abuse of minors or “pedophilia.” The broader category can include verbal, nonverbal, or bodily sexual conduct that violates human dignity, especially where freedom, consent, or a pastoral relationship is abused.
For abuse of minors, the canonical response is especially severe. The American Essential Norms, discussed by Jenkins, provided that when even one act of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is admitted or established after an appropriate canonical process, the offender is to be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry.
That rule illustrates an important distinction:
A laicized former cleric is already prohibited from exercising clerical ministry. A cleric who has not been laicized may nevertheless be permanently removed from active ministry because the Church judges him unsuitable or dangerous for ministry.
Yes, in principle, when the alleged delict was committed while he was a cleric and the canonical process permits a determination of responsibility. The DDF expressly states that a penal process may continue after loss of clerical status so that responsibility can be established and potential penalties imposed.
The practical effect depends on what remains legally possible. If the person has already been dismissed from the clerical state, a penalty whose purpose is to remove him from the clerical state may have little or no additional practical effect. Nevertheless, other canonical consequences or formal findings may remain significant, particularly for:
The sources do not provide a complete catalogue of every penalty that may be imposed after laicization. Therefore, the precise legal consequences depend on the procedural posture of the case, the applicable universal and particular law, the nature of the delict, and the competent ecclesiastical authority.
A laicized former cleric is no longer prosecuted under every canon that applies specifically to a cleric merely because he was once ordained. The canonical classification of conduct committed after laicization must take account of his current canonical status and of the particular circumstances.
Nevertheless, laicization does not make later misconduct canonically irrelevant. The Church may still need to address:
The sources supplied here directly establish the prohibition against the laicized person exercising the power of orders, celebrating the sacraments under ordinary circumstances, preaching, or undertaking liturgical office. They do not, however, provide the specific current canon numbers governing every possible offense committed by a laicized person after dismissal. It would therefore be unsound to assign a single canonical penalty to all post-laicization misconduct.
The Church must distinguish between an allegation, an administrative precaution, and a proven delict. Jenkins notes that some policies were criticized because their practical application could produce consequences even on the basis of an allegation, raising concerns about whether the presumption of innocence was being adequately respected.
This distinction is particularly important when a cleric is laicized before an investigation is complete. Loss of canonical status may justify evaluating whether the investigation should continue, but it does not by itself establish guilt. The DDF’s position preserves both considerations:
Precautionary restrictions can be necessary to protect persons and prevent scandal, but they should not be confused with a definitive penal judgment.
Canon 1395 §3 specifically addresses sexual offenses committed through force, threats, or abuse of authority, and subjects them to the penalties associated with the more serious offenses described in §2. This is significant because clerical misconduct often involves a pastoral relationship in which one person depends upon or trusts the other.
Astigueta observes that ecclesiastical norms may treat sexual conduct within a pastoral relationship as an abuse of power when the person seeking counsel, assistance, or pastoral care is dependent upon the pastoral agent. The canonical concern is therefore not limited to physical force. Manipulation, exploitation of trust, and misuse of spiritual or pastoral authority may aggravate the wrongdoing.
Canonical penalties are not merely bureaucratic sanctions. They protect the integrity of the Church’s mission and the dignity of those harmed. Paul VI taught that ecclesiastical law should defend the rights and dignity of persons and serve the Church’s supernatural common good.
Yañez’s moral analysis adds that sexual morality is ordered to the protection of the person and of interpersonal relationships, whereas sexual exploitation reduces the person to an object. This explains why abuse by clergy is especially grave: it violates the victim’s personal dignity while also corrupting a relationship meant to communicate pastoral care, truth, and the grace of Christ.
Mercy, in this context, cannot mean restoring an offender to ministry without regard to safety, justice, or scandal. Nor does punishment eliminate the need for concern for the offender’s conversion and human dignity. The canonical response must be both protective and just.
Canon law’s response to a laicized cleric’s sexual misconduct can be summarized as follows:
The central canonical principle is that the Church must protect the vulnerable, establish responsibility through a just process, and prevent a laicized offender from exploiting clerical identity or ministry again.