Prominent U.S. priest restricted from ministry
The Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, has restricted Monsignor Roger Landry from public ministry after multiple allegations of misconduct. Allegations involve violations of priestly codes of conduct in Fall River and the Archdiocese of New York, with no claims of sexual activity with minors. Landry, 55, serves as national director of the Pontifical Missions Societies and has a background in the Holy See’s diplomatic corps. The diocese says sufficient evidence exists to restrict him pending investigation, while Landry maintains his innocence and seeks a leave of absence. The case is being investigated by the Archdiocese of New York and the Fall River diocese.
20 days ago
Msgr. Roger Landry, a prominent U.S. Catholic priest, has been restricted from public ministry while allegations involving adult conduct and violations of diocesan codes are investigated. The Diocese of Fall River said there are no allegations involving minors; Landry maintains his innocence and says the matter concerns alleged boundary violations rather than sexual activity. 1
The Diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, announced on September 11 that Landry would be restricted from the public exercise of priestly ministry after “multiple individuals” made allegations against him. The diocese said the allegations concern violations of the Codes of Conduct for Priests of both Fall River and the Archdiocese of New York. 1
The decision followed an initial investigation conducted by the Archdiocese of New York, where Landry’s ministry is based. After consulting with the archdiocese and canonical advisers, Fall River officials said they determined that sufficient evidence existed to impose restrictions while the matter is resolved. 1
Although Landry lives and works in New York, he remains a priest of Fall River and is ultimately subject to the authority of its bishop. The diocese said Landry is entitled to the presumption of innocence while the investigation continues. 1
Landry said the allegations, as communicated to him by the diocese, involve alleged violations of prudence, pastoral boundaries and diocesan codes in interactions with adults. He emphasized that there are no allegations of sexual activity or misconduct involving a minor. 1
In a statement circulated privately, Landry characterized the matter as involving “boundary violations between spiritual direction and friendship.” He said his canon lawyer had indicated that the allegations did not appear to constitute a violation of canon law. 1
Landry said he had not been given access to the complaint file or told the identities of his accusers. He maintained his innocence of any canonical violation or crime while also saying that those who raised concerns deserved to be heard. 1
Landry requested a leave of absence from his position as national director of the Pontifical Mission Societies. He said the restrictions include not celebrating public Masses, preaching, hearing confessions or providing spiritual direction, as well as seeking permission to leave the Diocese of Fall River. 1
He said he would be allowed to continue wearing clerical clothing and had been told that the investigative and disciplinary process could last between six months and a year. During that period, he expects to withdraw from previously scheduled public ministries and engagements. 1
Landry, 55, is a priest of the Diocese of Fall River and was ordained in 1999 after studying at Harvard and training at the Pontifical North American College in Rome. He served for seven years as an attaché to the Holy See’s diplomatic corps at its Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations in New York. 1
He became national director of the Pontifical Mission Societies in 2024, when he was also granted the title of monsignor. He has been a regular speaker, media commentator and contributor to Catholic publications on church affairs. 1
The announcement came weeks before Landry was scheduled to play a prominent role in the September 24 beatification of Fulton Sheen in St. Louis. He had been expected to help coordinate the liturgy and provide live television commentary for EWTN. 1
Landry had also been listed as a guest of honor at a Diocese of Peoria gala connected with the 2026 Sheen Awards. His name was subsequently removed from promotional websites. 1*
Examine Church procedures for disciplining priests accused of misconduct
Church discipline of priests accused of misconduct follows a distinction between investigation, precautionary restrictions, and penalties. An accusation does not itself establish guilt: the priest retains the presumption of innocence and the right to defend himself, while the bishop must protect victims, the community, and the integrity of ministry.
When a bishop or competent superior receives credible information of a possible canonical offense, the ordinary normally must initiate a preliminary investigation under canon 1717, personally or through a qualified delegate. Failure to investigate may itself lead to canonical accountability.
The investigation is not yet a trial. Its purpose is to establish the basic facts, circumstances, possible responsibility, number and timing of alleged acts, harm to victims, and any aggravating or mitigating factors. A complete body of courtroom-quality proof is reserved for a later penal process.
The Church should also comply with applicable civil reporting laws and cooperate with civil authorities. Canonical proceedings are generally independent of civil investigations, although practical coordination or temporary suspension may be necessary where civil law requires it.
The bishop may impose precautionary measures under canon 1722. These can include removing a priest from a particular office, prohibiting or limiting public ministry, restricting contact with minors, or requiring residence in a specified place.
Such measures are not penalties and must not be presented as a finding of guilt. They are administrative protections designed to prevent scandal, protect witnesses and possible victims, preserve the investigation, and prevent further harm. They should be modified or revoked if the reasons for them cease, and ordinarily end when the penal process concludes.
This explains why a priest may be restricted from ministry before a final judgment. The restriction can be justified by risk management without implying that the accusation has been proven. Nevertheless, the bishop must exercise prudence: unjustified restrictions can damage the priest’s reputation and rights.
The accused should ordinarily be informed of the accusation and given an opportunity to respond, unless serious reasons make immediate disclosure unsafe or harmful to the investigation. The Church must protect the accused’s good name, privacy, and right of defense.
At the same time, alleged victims should be heard without delay, protected from intimidation or retaliation, informed of relevant procedural rights, and offered pastoral and professional support. Their privacy and personal data must also be safeguarded.
Confidentiality does not mean concealing an accusation from civil authorities or suppressing information necessary to protect others. Nor does it mean that every allegation should be publicly announced before it has been assessed.
For the most serious offenses reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith—especially sexual abuse of minors by clerics—the competent authority must refer the case to that dicastery after the preliminary investigation. The dicastery determines the next procedural steps and may itself intervene in the investigation.
The possible paths include:
The bishop cannot simply impose a permanent penalty such as dismissal from the clerical state by an ordinary extrajudicial decree; ordinarily, such a penalty requires a penal judicial process and the involvement of the Holy See.
If guilt is proven, penalties must correspond to the gravity of the offense. Possible consequences include restrictions on ministry, prohibitions against contact with minors, removal from office, other canonical penalties, or—when warranted—dismissal from the clerical state.
For misconduct that does not meet the threshold of a reserved grave delict, the bishop may still use administrative restrictions, formal warnings and penal remedies under canon 1339, or other appropriate canonical procedures. Improper or imprudent conduct can therefore lead to restrictions even when a specific allegation of child abuse cannot be proven.
The procedure attempts to hold together four obligations:
The supplied materials describe sexual-abuse procedures in particular. They do not provide a complete account of every form of clerical misconduct—such as financial wrongdoing, abuse of office, or serious breaches of priestly discipline—which may follow different canonical procedures.