Deposition of Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Raymond E. Goedert The deposition of Auxiliary Bishop Emeritus Raymond E. Goedert of Chicago was taken by Jeffrey Anderson on November 13, 2007 and was released on July 21, 2009 to meet a nonmonetary demand of the survivors who settled with the archdiocese on August 11, 2008. The Goedert deposition complements the deposition of Cardinal Francis E. George OMI, which was released when the settlement was announced on August 12, 2008. Below we provide the Master's Opinion by Retired Judge Stuart Nudelman, which explains the terms and background of the Goedert deposition release. Then we offer a table of contents, a linked list of the deposition exhibits, and the text of the Goedert deposition itself. See also a collection of articles on the settlement that achieved the release of this deposition, as well as the companion deposition of Cardinal Francis E. George OMI.

MASTER'S OPINION

The attorneys representing the claimants and the Archdiocese in the above titled matter appeared before me on July 10, 2009 to review the parties' positions as to the publication of the deposition of Bishop Raymond E. Goedert taken in connection with the mediation of certain claims.

Background

The parties entered into a Mediation Agreement on September 23, 2006. The purpose of the Agreement was to establish a process whereby certain claims would be resolved through negotiation and mediation, rather than through litigation or a trial. Thomas F. Gibbons serves as the mediator and the undersigned serves as a Master to decide certain issues related to the sharing of information. To aid and facilitate the settlement of certain claims, Jeffrey R. Anderson took the deposition of Bishop Goedert on November 13, 2007 pursuant to provisions in the Agreement relating to the sharing of information. Bishop Goedert served as the Vicar for Priests in the Archdiocese from July 1, 1987 through September, 1991. As Vicar for Priests, his responsibilities included dealing with allegations that certain priests sexually abused minors. Many of the claims at issue have now been settled.

The claimants' attorneys have expressed an interest in disseminating Bishop Goedert's deposition. The Archdiocese expressed certain concerns regarding publication. Those concerns are addressed in this opinion.

The Archdiocese's Concerns

Both the Archdiocese and the claimants have expressed concern for the privacy of certain people who are identified in the original transcript and exhibits of the deposition. These people may be those who brought forward allegations or others who were not directly involved with the {page 2 begins} allegations. They are either identified by name or by other circumstances that are described. Both the Archdiocese and the claimants agree that the names and identifying information of these third parties should not be disclosed.

In addition, the Archdiocese is concerned about how its observance of mandatory mental health confidentiality laws impacts the description of Bishop Goedert's efforts to respond to allegations of clergy misconduct. Bishop Goedert testified that it was the Archdiocese's regular practice to obtain a full forensic psychiatric evaluation of accused clergy from institutions that specialized in evaluation and treatment of sexual offenders and to rely on those evaluations. Bishop Goedert testified that he would not have recommended that any cleric remain in ministry where forensic psychiatrists identified a risk to children. The Archdiocese is concerned that without the disclosure of information about these opinions, Bishop Goedert's actions may appear arbitrary or unwarranted. The Archdiocese maintains that the professional advice it received cannot be disclosed because the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act prohibits the disclosure of confidential mental health information. While the claimants disagree regarding the application and scope of the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act under these circumstances, in an abundance of caution, all references to accused clergy receiving psychiatric evaluations or treatment have been redacted from the deposition transcript and exhibits. For the same reason, all of the advice and/or recommendations Bishop Goedert or the Archdiocese received from forensic psychiatrists concerning the suitability of accused clergy for any form of ministry have been redacted.

Finally, the Archdiocese expressed a concern that publication of Bishop Goedert's deposition may be confusing because Bishop Goedert's testimony describes practices prior to 1992. Joseph Cardinal Bernardin appointed a Special Commission in 1992 to review those {page 3 begins} practices as part of an effort to improve the Archdiocese's response to allegations of sexual abuse of minors. As a result of the Special Commission's report, the Archdiocese adopted and promulgated new policies and procedures on September 21, 1992. From time to time since then, the Archdiocese has made changes intended to strengthen and improve those policies. These new policies and procedures have been in effect for more than sixteen years. Among other things, the policies create a nine-person review board (the majority of whom are lay people) to consider allegations that a priest sexually abused a minor. The policies also provide for a lay staff person to assist the Review Board. The lay staff person receives allegations on behalf of the Review Board and promptly reports them to the public authorities. A complete statement of the policies can be found on the Archdiocese's website at:

http://policy.archchicago.org/policies/bk2ttl3chptlnuml100.pdf.

Thus, the Archdiocese believes that readers of the transcript should be reminded that Bishop Goedert's testimony describes an approach that has not been in place since 1992.

The Claimants' Response

As mentioned above, the claimants share the Archdiocese privacy concerns for other victims and third parties. However, the claimants do not believe that the Archdiocese's other concerns create any particular problems for the disclosure of the deposition transcript and, in any event, believe that any concerns can be addressed by reasonable redactions or other means.

The Parties' Agreement

Because of this disagreement, the parties met with the Mediator, Thomas F. Gibbons, to review the deposition transcript and exhibits. They have agreed to delete or black out certain words from the deposition to help address the Archdiocese's concerns. Those deletions are sometimes called "redactions." The purpose of the redactions is to protect the privacy of those {page 4 begins} bringing forward allegations as well as of persons who are not directly involved in these cases, and to protect information that the Archdiocese believes must be kept confidential by law. In the exhibits, the vast majority of the redactions protect the privacy of those bringing allegations. As a result of this mediation, the parties have agreed to publication of the deposition with these redactions.

OPINION

The parties have asked the Master to review the Archdiocese's concerns and the agreed upon redactions and render an opinion about these matters. The Master has carefully done so. However, it should be noted that the parties did not request and the Master has not provided a legal opinion regarding the applicability or scope of any legal privilege. Rather, the Master acknowledges the Archdiocese's concerns and the Claimants' response, approves the parties' agreed upon redactions and the attachment of this opinion to Bishop Goedert's deposition as means to address those concerns. In addition, the Master points out the following important facts about the deposition:

1. The purpose of the deposition was to allow the claimants' attorney, Jeffrey R. Anderson, to ask Bishop Goedert questions to assist in resolving certain claims fairly and promptly.

2. At a deposition, only the witness provides testimony under oath. The words of the attorneys are not testimony. The attorney taking the deposition asks questions that he or she chooses. Accordingly, a deposition is not meant to provide a full view of a case. In addition, Illinois law provides for discovery depositions, which are not intended to be used as evidence, and evidence depositions that require stricter standards. Bishop Goedert's deposition was a discovery deposition and therefore contains hearsay and other testimony that may or may not be admissible in evidence.

3. The attorney taking a deposition also has wide latitude in the use of documents. He or she can present documents from the witness files or other documents that the witness may not have seen, and that may or may not be accurate. Documents created by attorneys and statements made by attorneys are not evidence.

This opinion shall be attached to Bishop Goedert's deposition whenever it is published. {page 5 begins}

Based upon the information the Master has been supplied thus far, this ruling shall issue.

I wish to thank the parties and their attorneys for the professional and cooperative way in which they addressed the difficult questions presented by the dissemination of this deposition.

	Entered July 15, 2009
	Hon. Stuart Nudelman (Ret.)   Master

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Introductions  4
• Preliminaries  5
• Goedert's Biography  6
• Celibacy and Training in Sexuality  7

• Sexual Abuse Became a Prominent Issue in Chicago in about 1985  8
• Chicago Priests with Substantiated Allegations  10
• Mayer Was the First Accused Priest Whom Goedert Dealt with As Vicar for Priests  10
• Goedert Would Rather Not Guess the Total Complaints He Worked On  13
• Goedert's Preparation for the Deposition  14
• Files Maintained by Goedert and the Archdiocese  15

• Goedert's Chancery Positions  19
• Cardinal Bernardin's Primary Advisors  21
• Goedert's Responsibilities As Vicar for Priests  22
• Goedert Consulted Legal Advisors But Did Not Report Abuse to Law Enforcement or Civil Authorities  24
• Mandated Reporting and the Organization of the Archdiocesan School System  25
• Protocol That Mandated Initial Consultation with Legal Advisors  30
• Goedert and Various Chancellors Who Worked on Abuse Cases  33
• Archdiocesan Practice When an Allegation Was Received  34
• Goedert's Relevant Training  40
• Involvement of Bowman, Lago, Paprocki, and Kealy in Abuse Cases  41
• Goedert's Training to Interview Accused Priests and His Purpose  45

• Substantiated Allegations, Admissions, and Not Reporting to Law Enforcement  47
• Dealing with Sexual Abuse Internally  49
• Connection between Archdiocese and States Attorney  51
• Example of the Holihan Case  52
• Sexual Abuse As a Crime, But Allegations Not Turned over to Law Enforcement  54

• Catholic Practice to Handle Abuse Cases Secretly or Confidentially  56
• Goedert, Canon Law, and Sexual Abuse  57
• Example of the Strand Case  62
• Avoiding Scandal  63
• Internal Forum (e.g., Confession) and Allegations of Abuse  66
Example of the Holihan Case  68
• Goedert's Assignment History  79

Chronological Discussion of Documents
• Mayer and John Doe 1  82
• Holihan File and File Procedure Generally  89
• Confidentiality of Conversations with Accused Priests and Judge Fitzgerald  92
• Mayer and Mom Doe 2  101
• Mom Doe 2's Meeting with Goedert about Mayer's Continuing in Ministry  106

• Goedert's Conversations with Accused Priests: Admission and Denial  114
• Admissions by Priests before Mayer  116
• Reason Why Przybylo Was Not Incardinated in 1986  121
• Goedert's Knowledge of Becker Allegations  122
• Goedert's Knowledge of Ruge Allegations and Monitoring  127

• Goedert's Awareness of the McCaffrey Allegations  129
• Monitoring of McCaffrey  131
• Prior McCaffrey Allegations  137

• Goedert's Awareness of Fitzharris Case, Conviction, and Monitoring  139
• Goedert and Ventura Meet in 1987 on Mayer's Continuing in Ministry  145
• Ruge Outing with Boys and Adult Chaperones  150
• Goedert's Limited Sharing of Info on Restricted Priests  152
• Special Restrictions on Mayer and Boys in Rectory  155
• Warning Parishioners Too Late: Mayer, Holihan, and Strand  159
• Reassigning Mayer with Restrictions  165
• Two Allegations Regarding Hagan, One Deemed Unfounded by DCFS  167
• Mayer Assigned to Troubled St. Dionysius in 1988: Concern about Scandal  169
• Preparations for Mayer's 1990 Transfer to St. Odilo's  170
• More about Mayer's 1988 Assignment to St. Dionysius  172
• Goedert's Knowledge of Woman's 1989 Allegation of Abuse by Kissane  174
• Goedert Not Involved in Decision to Grant Maday a 1988 Sabbatical  176
• Allegation of Propositioning and Goedert's Decision to Move McCaffrey from St. Josephat's in 1989  177
• Were the Priests at St. Jude's in South Holland Warned That Maday Shouldn't Have Boys in His Room?  179
• Craig's Letter to Bernardin between the 1989 and 1990 Allegations  184
• Goedert's Concern for Scandal Generally and if Mayer Went to St. Odilo's in 1990  185
• Maday with Kids and a 1990 Allegation of Abuse in 1988  188
• Timing Mayer's Appointment As Pastor of St. Odilo's to Avoid Scandal  189
• Goedert Handles Allegation That Craig Has Molested a Young Man  189
• Goedert Arranges On-Site Supervision of Craig  190
• Goedert Meets with a Man Who Alleges Mayer Abused Him As a Boy  193
• Priest Alleges That Ruge Abused Him As a Boy  195
• Goedert Delays Ruge's Promotion to Pastor  196
• Goedert Hears about Mayer's Association with Boys at St. Odilo's  196
• Mayer's Removal from St. Odilo's in 1991
      - Draft of Bernardin's Statement to Mayer  198
      - Agenda for Bernardin's Meeting with Mayer  200
      - Description of Bernardin's Meeting with Mayer  201
      - Bernardin's Untruthful Letter to Parishioners  203
      - Minutes of Meeting with Parish Leadership  212
• Ruge's New Pastor Not Informed of Ruge's Prior Allegations  218
• Only Pastor Knew of Cloutier's Allegations, Until Anderson Filed Suit  219
• Completely Redacted Exchanges between Anderson and Goedert about:
      - Allegation in 1992 of Abuse by Maday  (see Ex. 52)
      - Archdiocese's 1992 Insistence That Maday Avoid Publicity  (see Ex. 55)
      - Restriction against Maday's Wearing Clerical Garb Lifted by Bernardin  (see Ex. 60)
      - Maday's Fear That Treatment in Prison Will Generate Information and Hurt His Appeal  (see Ex. 70)
      - Victim's Mother's Anger That Hagan Was Promoted after 1988 Allegation  (see Ex. 71)
      - Bernardin's Promise to Maday in 1996 That He wouldn't Defrock Him  (see Ex. 77)
      - Goedert and Craig's Disagreement about a List  (see Ex. 80)
• Cardinal George and Goedert Declare That the Archdiocese Is Not Liable for the Harm Mayer Caused  235
• Was the Archdiocese Liable for Cloutier, Fitzharris, and Holihan?  238
• List of Accused Priests Whom Goedert Recalls Knowing about As Vicar for Priests  240

LIST OF EXHIBITS

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS: COUNTY OF C O O K ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION JOHN DOES AND WOES, ) Plaintiffs, ) vs.

) ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO, ) Defendant. videotaped deposition of RAYMOND GOEDERT, taken in the above-entitled cause, before SUSAN HASELKAMP, Certified Shorthand Reporter for the State of Illinois, on the 13th day of November, 2007, at the hour of 9:43 a.m. at 330 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to notice. Reported by: Susan Haselkamp, CSR License No.: 084-004022
APPEARANCES: MR. JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES, P.A., by MR. JEFF ANDERSON, E-1000 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (651) 227-9990
Representing the Plaintiffs; KERNS, FROST & PEARLMAN, LLC, by MR. MARC J. PEARLMAN, Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street, Suite 5350 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 261-4554
Representing the Plaintiffs; BURKE, WARREN, MACKAY & SERRITELLA PC, by MR. JAMES C. GEOLY, and MR. JAY S. DOBRUTSKY, One IBM Plaza 330 N. Wabash Ave., 22nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60611-3607 (312) 840-7000
Representing the Defendant; SONNENSCHEIN, NATH & ROSENTHAL, by MR. JAMES A. KLENK, 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 8000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 876-8000
Representing the Defendant. ALSO PRESENT: Jessica Arbour
Anthony Micheletto, Videographer

I N D E X WITNESS

EXAMINATION RAYMOND GOEDERT By Mr. Anderson

4 By Mr. Pearlman

239
E X H I B I T S NUMBER

MARKED FOR ID Goedert Deposition Exhibit No. 1

4 No. 4-10

4 No. 12-13

4 No. 15-18

4 No. 20

4 No. 22-23

4 No. 25

4 No. 27-36

4 No. 38-41

4 No. 43

4 No. 45

4 No. 52

4 No. 55

4 No. 60

4 No. 70-71

4 No. 77

4 No. 80

4 No. 85

4 No. 100

4 No. 100A

4 {page 4 begins here}

(Whereupon, Goedert Deposition
Exhibit Nos. 1, 4-10, 12-13,
15-18, 20, 22-23, 25, 27-36,
38-41, 43, 45, 52, 55, 60,
70-71, 77, 80, 85, 100 and 100A
were marked for
identification.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is Anthony Micheletto in association with McCorkle Court Reporters, 200 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. I am the operator of this camera. We are on the record on November 13, 2007. The time is 9:43 a.m. as indicated on the video screen. This is the videotaped deposition of Bishop Raymond Goedert and it is being taken pursuant to local rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the plaintiffs. We are at 330 North Wabash, Chicago, Illinois. This case is captioned to John Does and Roes versus Archdiocese of Chicago. Will the attorneys please identify themselves for the video record. MR. ANDERSON: Representing several plaintiffs, Jeff Anderson. {page 5 begins here}

MR. GEOLY: For the Catholic Bishop of Chicago and for the witness, James Geoly. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Our court reporter today is Susan Haselkamp also with McCorkle Court Reporters in Chicago, Illinois. Please swear in the witness.
(Whereupon, the witness was duly
sworn.)
RAYMOND GOEDERT, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. ANDERSON:

Q. Bishop, would you please state your full name for the record and we'd also ask you to spell your last name.
A. My name is Raymond Goedert, G-O-E-D-E-R-T.

Q. Bishop, we met this morning and you understand that the testimony that you are giving today is being recorded both by videotape and transcription?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Have you ever sat for or given a {page 6 begins here} deposition in any other matter prior to today?
A. Yes.

Q. How many times have you?
A. Once.

Q. In what kind of matter was that, Bishop?
A. That was a case in which -- I have to be careful. I can't use names here.

Q. You can use -- was that in the matter involving Father Lutz?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That's L-U-T-Z?
A. Right.

Q. Yes. We have a paper that we have agreed that when we use the names of some victims or possible victims or their family members, we'll use an index where we'll write their names and then refer to them as Jane or John Does, okay?
A. Sure.

Q. If for any reason, Bishop, you don't understand any question that I ask you today, just let me know and I'll try to make it clearer to you. By my calculation, it looks like you
{page 7 begins here} have been working as a priest to the Archdiocese of Chicago now for over 55 years.
A. Right.

Q. And in that time, you have served in a number of capacities and worked for the Archdiocese as an Associate Pastor, as a Pastor, as a Vicar General, as an administrator, as a Vicar For Clergy among other things, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And it's also correct to say that at all times as a priest of the Archdiocese, you worked under a promise of obedience to your superior the Cardinal Archbishop?
A. Yes.

Q. And you also operate under a promise of celibate chastity, do you not?
A. Yes.

Q. What does celibate chastity mean?
A. Celibate chastity would indicate that I've accepted the responsibility of never engaging in any type of sexual activity with anyone else and would never marry.

Q. In your training to become a priest or since having become one in the Archdiocese, did {page 8 begins here} you receive any training in how to manage your own sexuality and abide by the promise of celibate chastity?
A. Yes.

Q. When did you first get training of that sort?
A. It would have been in the years that I was in theology. So that would be roughly '48, '49 to '52. In that area.

Q. Any training since then?
A. Only the same training that all of us have received from time to time, particularly since the sexual abuse issue became so prominent, the diocese would sponsor days in which this would be discussed.

Q. In your view, when did the issue of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese become so prominent?
A. I would put it probably in the area of 1985, '86. When I became Vicar For Priests in '87, it was -- I don't know whether prominent is the word. But it was certainly very much on the minds of all of us.

Q. What event or circumstances caused it {page 9 begins here} to be on the minds of you or as you say, all of us in the Archdiocese?
A. Well, for me, personally, it became prominent because I became Vicar For Priests and my responsibility was to deal with it.

Q. And when is the first time as a priest of the Archdiocese you had to or did deal with the issue of sexual abuse by one of the clergy?
A. The first time I had to deal with it would have been sometime in 1987 when I became Vicar For Priests.

Q. Okay. And thinking to 1987, in that timeframe, what priest would that have been that you first became involved in having to deal with that issue?
MR. GEOLY: I think we have to at this point establish whether this is somebody who -- whose name is among the list of priests that have been acknowledged. I'm going to use a word that's not a term of art, my word, a substantiated case. If it's not, perhaps there's a way we could use your same list and refer to the person anonymously for now and then figure out later if that's a name that has been {page 10 begins here} or should be disclosed.
     There's no problem at all if it's somebody that's already on the list of substantiated cases.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Yeah. Why don't -- I'm going to hand you what we have marked as Exhibit 100, Bishop. And this is a posting that has been made by the Archdiocese of Chicago as priests who have been identified in which there has been substantiated allegation made? MR. GEOLY: And just so we're clear, we'll use that word for our common understanding today. That may not necessarily be the standard for the process used to evaluate these cases.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Right. And I think the document itself, if you look at the top of it, it says, Archdiocesan Priests With Substantiated Allegations of Sexual Misconduct With Minors. Do you see that at the top, Bishop?
A. I do.

Q. Okay. So looking at that exhibit, do you see the name of the priest who you first had {page 11 begins here} to deal with as it pertains to sexual abuse?
A. The difficulty I have, Jeff, is I honestly don't remember who was the first, you know. I could guess, but I don't want to guess to answer your question.

Q. Right. And let's just think back to that moment in time, then. Why don't you, without identifying the name of the priest because you're not able to remember that at the moment -- and if you do, Bishop, during the deposition, just let me know I do remember who it is now and then you can identify that person. But --
A. Could I ask --

Q. Sure.
A. -- to get a clear understanding of your question? Are you really concerned? I mean, who literally was the very first one that I dealt with or -- in other words, I can remember dealing with different ones. But whether they were the very first, I would have a hard time.

Q. I understand. And I think what we'll try to do is try to get your best recollection. If -- you know, if it's one of the earliest or {page 12 begins here] one of the earliest that might suffice and I'll give you an opportunity to clarify that.
A. Okay. I could answer it that way.

Q. Okay. So thinking back to the instance in -- in or about 1987 where you had your first experience where you dealt with an allegation of sexual abuse by one of the clergy, what do you remember about how that information came to you, Bishop?
A. Now, I'm going to have to ask you to help me to understand. The difficulty I'm having is I was trying to understand who was literally the first case I handled. I can -- in the case that is coming to my mind now, the allegation came to me through previous information that was already in the file. And a new allegation had been made anonymously. And it was at that point that I became Vicar For Priests. So I never really received myself an allegation that wasn't already in process.

Q. All right. And so do you remember now the name of that priest or not? You just remember --
A. Oh, no, I remember it. It's just was {page 13 begins here} he the first.

Q. Okay.
A. There might have been another one before that I don't remember.

Q. Okay. With that qualification, let's talk about that priest then.
A. It was certainly early on.

Q. Okay. And who was that priest?
A. I'm able to say it? Father Mayer, Robert Mayer.

Q. In your best estimate, how many different times have you become involved in the handling of complaints or the receiving of reports or something having to do with the dealing with any allegation of sexual abuse by one of the clergy while you have worked as a priest of the Archdiocese? Do you have any way of making an estimate of that?
A. I really couldn't give you a number. You know, it's -- it would be pretty difficult. I wasn't keeping tally or anything.

Q. I understand. It's fair to say that there have been many times where allegations have been made and you have become involved in {page 14 begins here} some capacity, either as a priest, as Vicar For Clergy, as a Vicar in General or as an Auxiliary Bishop, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you able to make a gross number or a gross estimate of what that number may have been or would you have become involved in some capacity? Less than 100, more than 100?
A. I would rather not guess. I never kept track of the numbers and, you know, I could easily be off.

Q. Fair enough. In preparation for today, Bishop, did you have an opportunity or did you review any materials?
A. With our attorneys I did review some of the cases.

Q. Okay. And I'm not interested what was said between you and your attorneys. But I am interested in what materials, if any, you actually reviewed or looked at in preparation for today.
MR. GEOLY: I'm going to -- go ahead.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Would you -- {page 15 begins here}
MR. GEOLY: Let me let you finish first.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay. What would that have been?
MR. GEOLY: I'm just going to ask to caution the Bishop. If you've reviewed materials on your own, that is fine to disclose that. I would caution the Bishop not to disclose specific items that your attorney may have shown you for the purposes of preparation.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. With that caution and with the question before you, if you could answer it, good luck.
A. Ask it once more.

Q. Yeah, let's ask it this way. I trust you reviewed some materials, some priest files?
A. Again, with my attorney. I don't have any files no, so --

Q. Okay. Let me -- let me ask you. That leads to the next question I was going to ask you. Have you ever maintained any of your own files and/or records in connection with any investigation or reports or activity that you have undertaken responsive to a report of sexual {page 16 begins here] abuse?
A. If your question is have I ever in the past retained records, yes, I did, all the time that I was Vicar For Priests and frequently after. Because I continued to assist even as Vicar General. But I no longer have those records.

Q. And the records that you did recreate as Vicar For Priests in that connection, where would they be today?
A. I presume in the Vicar For Priests file.

Q. Okay. Did you ever create records, notes or files that didn't go into some file, be it the priest file or the subsecretal file?
MR. GEOLY: Could we hear that question, again, please?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Did you ever create any notes or records concerning allegations of sexual abuse that didn't go into the priest file or the subsecretal file?
MR. GEOLY: We haven't established that there is a subsecretal file. {page 17 begins here}

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Is there a subsecretal file maintained by the Archdiocese under Canon 49?
A. If there is, I don't know where it is.

Q. There was, was there not?
A. At one time years and years ago.

Q. Okay. How many years ago?
A. When I started working at the Chancery Office, that would have been 1956, I was aware that there was. I never knew the contents, but I knew that there was supposedly such a file. But I'm not aware of any.

Q. Okay. And you are aware that under canon law and specifically Canon 49 under the 83 Code, there is a requirement that the ordinary keep any material deemed to be scandalous in a subsecretal file to be accessed only by him and his designee called the subsecretal file; is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And as far as you know, Bishop, how long was a subsecretal file maintained by the Archdiocese of Chicago?
A. I wouldn't be able to answer that. {page 18 begins here}

Q. Okay. So let's go back to the question about your own records or files. Are there any records, files, notes that you made pertaining to allegations of sexual abuse that would not have made their way into the Archdiocesan files, for example, you kept on your own or destroyed?
A. I hear your question asking me if it's anything I made. Is that --

Q. Yes.
A. The answer is no.

Q. Okay. Are you aware of any records having been made by any employee, clergy or official of the Archdiocese that pertained to sexual abuse that were destroyed for some reason --
A. No.

Q. -- purposefully or inadvertently?
A. No.

Q. So as far as you know, Bishop, are all of the files, reports, complaints, at least those documented and of which you're aware, still in the existence and somewhere maintained in the files of the Archdiocese?
A. I would presume so. {page 19 begins here}

Q. Okay. Are you aware of any practice in this Archdiocese -- because there is in some dioceses across the country of a routine purging of the priest files after a period of time, for example, after death or after the passage of a designated period of time where parts of files are destroyed or all the files are destroyed?
A. I'm really not aware of any instance of this. It was never anything I would be responsible for. But I can't say that it hasn't happened, particularly not in these kinds of cases. But the ordinary priest file where the priest dies, they may purge it of some of the data, the appointments. That, I don't know.

Q. Okay. Are you aware of any instances where any clergy or officials of the Archdiocese have removed and/or destroyed files pertaining to sexual abuse for the purpose of avoiding scandal?
A. I'm not aware of that, no.

Q. Okay. It would appear that you were first appointed Vicar For Clergy did you say in 1987?
A. Yes. {page 20 begins here}

Q. And you also have served as Vicar General for a number of years, it looks like by my calculation, over 13 years in total. Does that sound right?
A. Well, February of '95 to September of '03. And then for maybe three or four months in '04 when Bishop Conway died.

Q. Okay. So that would be closer to nine years, I guess.
A. As far as I know, yeah.

Q. And you have worked as Auxiliary Bishop and was actually appointed and installed as Auxiliary Bishop in 1991; were you not?
A. Yes.

Q. So that would be 16 years in that capacity?
A. Yes.

Q. As Auxiliary Bishop, do you have responsibility for a given vicariate or do you have responsibility over the entire geographic Archdiocese?
A. As Auxiliary Bishop, we had responsibility for a particular vicariate.

Q. And in the 16 or so years that you have {page 21 begins here} been Auxiliary Bishop, have you had a particular vicariate?
A. Yes, but only until 1995.

Q. Okay. And then what changed in '95?
A. In February of 1995, Cardinal Bernardin appointed me Vicar General.

Q. Okay. And once appointed Vicar General, is it fair to say that at least the time you were appointed by Cardinal Bernardin and worked under him that the Vicar General was kind of the right-hand man to the Archbishop Cardinal?
A. We don't use that word. But I guess you would say that, yeah.

Q. Who would have been the primary consultor in your view and experience to Cardinal Bernardin at least after you were appointed Vicar General?
A. Say that, again, please, Jeff?

Q. Who do you believe to have been the primary advisor to Cardinal Bernardin, at least after the time you were appointed the Vicar General by him?
A. Are you asking in all matters? {page 22 begins here}

Q. Yeah. There's usually somebody that they look to more than anybody else. And I appreciate in this Archdiocese, given its size, there's six auxiliary bishops and a number of officials. But in general, who more than anybody else would have been Cardinal Bernardin's primary advisor?
A. Well, in the time that I was Vicar General, which was from '95 until he died in November of '96, I would say the principal advisor was Sister Brian Costello.

Q. And where is she now?
A. She's retired.

Q. And what was her title during that time?
A. I think it was Chief of Staff.

Q. During that time, who was the Moderator of the Curia?
A. While I was Vicar General? The Moderator of the Curia was initially Father Kevin Spiess and subsequently Father Peter Bowman.

Q. As Vicar For Clergy and during the time that you served as Vicar For Clergy, would it be {page 23 begins here} fair to say that one of your primary responsibilities was to deal with any problems that surfaced pertaining to clergy in the Archdiocese?
A. On paper, that probably wouldn't appear as so. In reality, yes.

Q. Ultimately, all the priests answer to the Cardinal Archbishop, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And so as Vicar For Clergy, you are effectively appointed to deal with those problems. And when they arise, bring them to the Cardinal in his office. Is that a fair description?
A. If you're saying the Cardinal in his office, yes.

Q. Or is it more correct to say just to the Cardinal?
A. No. More correct, his office. Because the person to whom I reported directly, was the Vicar General.

Q. In terms of allegations of sexual abuse by clergy in the Archdiocese and when a complaint or report would arise, is it fair to {page 24 begins here} say that that is the kind of matter that is to be handled ultimately by the presiding ordinary, the Cardinal Archbishop?
A. I would not say yes to that if you mean that he would have to handle it personally. It would be utterly impossible for him. And so he delegates. That's what a Vicar For Priests was, a delegate by the Cardinal.

Q. So it's fair to say that the Vicar For Priests, as you understood the position while you had it, was the Cardinal's delegate to deal with sexual abuse issues when they arose by clergy?
A. Among his other responsibilities, yes.

Q. And ultimately report those to the Cardinal?
A. Yes. But ordinarily through his Vicar General.

Q. Bishop, how many times, if any, have you personally reported suspicions of sexual abuse of minors by clergy to law enforcement authorities?
A. How many times have I personally reported to the civil authorities? {page 25 begins here]

Q. Yes.
A. None.

Q. How many times, if any, have you delegated the responsibility to someone in the Archdiocese in which that individual has reported suspicions of sexual abuse by minors -- by clergy of minors to law enforcement authorities?
A. I would have to say none. But only because you used the word delegated. And I did not delegate anyone. Our usual practice was when an allegation came in, I would consult with our legal advisors.
     And if there was any need for the matter to be reported, they would see to it that it was reported. If it was in a school issue, they'd have whoever discovered it in the school would make the report and so on if it hadn't been made already. But that would be an automatic thing that we would -- I would discuss it with the legal advisors and ask them to take whatever action was necessary.

Q. When you referred to the usual practice, why is it that it was to go to the {page 26 begins here} legal advisors for the Archdiocese first before to law enforcement?
A. At that time, as you know, the clergy were not mandated reporters. And so we would not -- you know, unless apart from my role if I had heard it when I was pastor or something like that, it would be a different story. But this was our usual practice that -- I don't know the civil law. I'm not a civil lawyer. So I would refer to them. They would know whether or not it should be reported.

Q. When do you believe, if at all, you became a mandated reporter, that is, somebody required to report suspicions of sexual abuse to law enforcement?
A. I'm pretty sure the law was just passed in Illinois maybe a year or so ago that clergy became mandated reporters. It might be two years. I don't know.

Q. Is it correct to say that the Archdiocese runs and owns and operates several schools?
A. Yes.

Q. So is it also correct to say that the {page 27 begins here} cardinal and his delegates, including the Auxiliary Bishops oversee the operation of those schools?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it also correct to say that the Cardinal and his Bishops are, in fact, the shepherds of the flock of the Archdiocese?
A. Yes.

Q. And in that flock, that includes parishioners and their children?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it also correct to say that -- that the Bishop is the head of schools?
A. Not to my way of thinking. We don't talk that way.

Q. When in your understanding, Bishop, were teachers required to be reporters, mandated reporters of suspicions of sexual abuse?
A. As far as I knew, they were mandated reporters at the time I became Vicar For Priests. They probably were mandated before that. But I don't remember when the law came into effect.

Q. When in time do you believe principals {page 28 begins here} of the parochial schools operated by the Archdiocese were required to be reporters mandated by law to report suspicions of abuse?
A. Again, I would say I was aware of it when I became Vicar For Priests because I had to deal with it. Prior to that, I might have been aware of it, but it wasn't, you know, something that I thought about.

Q. And in a parochial school system in the Archdiocese above the principals, there are superintendents of schools, are there not?
A. Yes.

Q. When in time do you believe the superintendents of schools were required to make mandated reports?
A. I'd have to say the same.

Q. And who is the -- oversees the superintendent of schools, the parochial schools in the Archdiocese of Chicago?
A. He would report to the Cardinal.

Q. And in any given vicariate, a school, a superintendent of school would also report to the Bishop in charge of that particular vicariate who then in turn reports to the {page 29 begins here} Cardinal, correct?
A. I don't think it works that way. But I'm not -- I'm not totally sure if he reports -- but his primary reporting would be to the Cardinal. He certainly would consult with the vicar of the area if -- whatever the situation was required it.

Q. Certainly the Cardinal can't individually hire and supervise all the principals, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And it is correct to say that the superintendents of schools are required to participate in hiring and the supervision of the principals, correct?
A. Only -- I believe only recently does the contract with the principal require the superintendent's signature. Prior to that, I don't think he would have anything to do about the hiring. But I'm not really sure of that.

Q. Who in your view or experience supervises the superintendent of schools, then?
A. The primary person would be the Cardinal. {page 30 begins here}

Q. Okay. Going back to what you described as the usual practice. You indicated that it had been the usual practice to consult with legal advisors, if needed, when an allegation of sexual abuse arose.
     What policy or protocol, if there is one in writing, that required or mandated that you or other clergy would consult with legal advisors first when a suspicion of sexual abuse arose?
MR. GEOLY: You're asking if there's a written protocol?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
THE WITNESS: At the time that I became Vicar For Priests?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Yes.
A. I'm not aware of any written protocol. And I don't think it's fair to say that the first ones we consulted were the legal advisors for this reason. At that time, I wouldn't know how to work a conference call with all these machines.
     When I became Vicar For Priests, I felt {page 31 begins here} the need to have people with whom I could consult in order to make sure that I was making appropriate decisions. Not in every case. In some cases it was so clear, it was -- but I felt it was important to have a group. And I began to develop -- I don't recall what we -- I think we called it just a task force at the beginning. If I could have reached all five or so at the same time, I would have done it.
     But I would usually call our legal advisor because he did have the capacity for plugging in others. And one of the others would be a mental health person. Because we usually arranged for an assessment and so on. And as time went on, others were added.
     So it isn't like we were looking to the legal advisor to be the key decision maker. He was one of a group that participated.

Q. And you mentioned a mental health professional as being a member of that group, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Somebody that would look at the priest to see whether they were fit or dangerous or the {page 32 begins here} like?
A. Well, initially, we just wanted to know what do we do. We needed to get an assessment and so on. We wanted to find out is this person really a danger to children. Are children at risk. And so that would be our --

Q. Is that mental health professional that you looked to most frequently Dr. Cavanough of Cavanough and Associates?
A. At that time it was.

Q. What time are you referring to?
A. '87 to '91.

Q. And then after that, who would have been the mental health professional looked to by the Archdiocese, after '91?
A. I really can't answer because I was no longer working with the cases.

Q. Okay. You did maintain some involvement in your capacity as Vicar General, did you not?
A. Yes. At that time, what I called the task force before had developed into a regular group. I think we called it -- well, the initials are PCAC. I'd have to think what they {page 33 begins here} stand for. Professional committee or something. And I was asked to stay on because I had experience with those kinds of cases. And so I stayed as a member of that committee.

Q. Is it fair to say that of all of the people in the Archdiocese, you're the one that's probably had more experience dealing with allegations of sexual abuse than any other individual in the Archdiocese in Chicago at least since 1970?
A. I have no idea, Jeff. I don't keep tabs of those things.

Q. Well, you know, thinking -- I know you don't and I wouldn't expect you to. But when you think about it and reflect on it for a moment, which I'm asking you to do, I mean, is there anybody else that you can think of that has had to deal with this issue more often or longer than you?
A. Well, I would think Jimmy Lago has probably had much more certainly in recent years in dealing with the issue.

Q. And he became Chancellor approximately -- I've got it here somewhere, but {page 34 begins here} do you know?
A. Jeff, I'm 80-years old.

Q. Well, I tell you, you're doing pretty darn good. And I'm not going to expect you to remember. But I have a chart, Bishop, and --
A. What does it show?

Q. And according to my chart it says that in 2000, he was appointed Chancellor. And his predecessor was a Father and now Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki. Does that sound right?
A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And then the predecessor to Bishop Paprocki as Chancellor would have been Robert Kealy, K-E-A-L-Y. Is he still alive?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Where is he now?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. You had referred to the usual practice in the Archdiocese. And when -- particularly during the time where you have been involved with allegations of sexual abuse, is it fair to say that the usual practice in this Archdiocese had been that when an allegation was made, that after legal advisors were consulted, {page 35 begins here} that the priest was sent to treatment or evaluation?
A. Do you mind phrasing that question, again, Jeff? Because --

Q. Sure. Is it fair to say that -- you had referred to the usual practice when allegations arose. And is it fair to say that the usual practice in this Archdiocese has been that when an allegation was made in the past against a priest, that after consulting with legal advisors, the priest was sent to treatment or evaluation?
MR. GEOLY: Are we talking about when Bishop Goedert was Vicar For Priests or other times?

MR. ANDERSON: We could limit it to certain -- let's talk about before Jimmy Lago who is a lay person, so we call him Jimmy, became Chancellor in 2000.
MR. GEOLY: I'm a little unclear of the scope of the question. I'm not trying to make you work harder. But could we make it clearer? Either read it back or just say it one more time? {page 36 begins here}

MR. ANDERSON: Sure. I'll take another run at it.
MR. GEOLY: Thank you.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Bishop, is it fair to say that the usual practice of the Archdiocese has been when an allegation of abuse surfaced after consulting to legal -- after consulting with legal advisors, to refer the priest to treatment or for evaluation?
A. The way I understand your question, Jeff, the answer is no.

Q. What have -- what would have been the usual practice as you understood it before 2000 and particularly while you worked as Vicar For Clergy and on the committee?
A. My usually --

MR. GEOLY: Do you need to break that down into different time frames?
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think so in order to -- I'm trying to answer his question. And the reason I said no was because I thought there was something missing in what you said about -- {page 37 begins here}

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. What was missing? What would have been -- what would have been the usual practice?
A. Well, the usual practice that I would have had, I would interview the victim and receive the allegation from him or her. I would then interview the accused and receive his response. And that was almost like the same day. There was hardly any time lag.
     And then I would consult with our team, which would include legal advisors, mental health experts and so on. And on the basis of that conversation, we would decide whether or not assessments should be made at one place or another and so on. Do you see --

Q. I got it.
A. Okay.

Q. I'm just making some notes because I was listening carefully. And if I heard you correctly, your response to the usual practice that you employed was first to interview the victim, second step was to interview the accused cleric or employee, whoever it was.
A. Well, I didn't deal -- {page 38 begins here}

Q. Just the cleric?
A. Yeah, I didn't deal with lay people.

Q. Second, accused cleric. The third would be to consult with the team that you already referred to. And the fourth step then would be to make a decision to send them to assessment or evaluation?
A. Yes.

Q. And then when we're talking about the usual practices after they were sent to -- for assessment or evaluation, what would have then been the next step in employing the usual practice paradigm? What happened?
A. One of the first things that we would do after receiving the allegation from the victim would be to see whether or not the victim was under treatment or counseling. And if they were, we would indicate that the Archdiocese would cover the cost of that. If they did not have anyone, we would have them talk with -- if they had an attorney and have him arrange someone for them.
     With regard to the accused, it would depend on what the assessment showed, if it {page 39 begins here} required inpatient treatment, we would arrange for that. The same with if it was outpatient, we would arrange for that.

Q. And is it also correct to say that more often than not, after assessment, the accused was returned to ministry in some form with some kind of monitoring?
A. If the assessment showed he needed treatment, that would have to take place before he would be returned to any form of ministry.

Q. So is it correct to say that you and the team that was created to deal with this relied heavy on the mental health professionals that did the assessment to determine whether or not an accused was fit for ministry and to continue in it?
A. Well, that kind of matter is not my expertise and it's not the lawyers' expertise. So we did rely on those who were expert in this and particularly locally, we had a group that was highly regarded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a few others. The courts used them and we thought, you know, that was the best help we could get. So we would rely -- I don't {page 40 begins here} want to say solely, but I would have to say their opinions were regarded highly.

Q. Under the usual practice where you'd interview the victim first, what training have you had ever, Bishop, in protocols for interviewing victims of sexual abuse?
A. For that specifically, none.

Q. I know you are trained as a canon lawyer and are certainly trained for the priesthood. Beyond the training you received for those two aspects of vocation, what training have you had in -- in sexual abuse at all?
A. Training, I would have to say no specific training. Counseling, I did participate in a course at Loyola. But that wasn't for specifically these kinds of cases.

Q. When was that course, Bishop?
A. Boy, I don't remember the year.

Q. Okay.
A. It would have been before I became pastor. So probably in the latter '60s, early '70s.

MR. GEOLY: Jeff.

BY MR. ANDERSON: {page 41 begins here}
Q. What training --

MR. GEOLY: Jeff, I don't want to break you up. I'd like to take a break soon.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure.

MR. GEOLY: We can do it now or you can proceed with the next question, if you like.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure. No. You want to take a break right now? Sure.

VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at 10:35 a.m.

(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at 10:49 a.m.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Bishop, I want to follow-up on a couple of things you mentioned before the break. I've got these people next to me saying you have to ask about this stuff.
A. Go ahead.

Q. I know. You mentioned at one point that in response to one of my questions about -- I think it was having to do with principal advisors to the Cardinal at a given point in {page 42 begins here} time. And you said that -- we were talking about Sister Costello. And then at some point we were talking about -- you made a mention of Father Robert Peter Bowman and having some role. What role did he have?
A. He was Moderator of the Curia. That's the title.

Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, what involvement did Father Robert Bowman have in matters pertaining to sexual abuse by the clergy, the investigation of it and/or the handling of it?
A. I don't think he had any.

Q. Okay. If you look at Exhibit 100, you'll see a Robert Peter Bowman who was removed from public ministry on 5/2002. Is that the Robert Peter Bowman you were just referring to?
A. Yes. Robert is his first name, but he always went by Peter.

Q. Okay. When we were talking about people who were handling it currently, that is, matters of sexual abuse, you said that Jimmy Lago as Chancellor is kind of the go-to guy?
A. Well, he -- go-to guy. He was {page 43 begins here} designated by the Cardinal. I forget what title he was given. But he was kind of to oversee everything involved with this issue.

Q. Okay. And as I had mentioned, Thomas and now Bishop Thomas Paprocki was his predecessor as Chancellor, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And according to the records I have, he was Chancellor from '93 to Lago's appointment in 2000. Does that sound about right?
A. Probably, yeah.

Q. What involvement did Bishop Paprocki have in these matters, to your knowledge; that is, matters pertaining to the reports, complaints and suspicions of sexual abuse?
A. When he was -- Father Paprocki as Chancellor, he also sat in on the meetings of our group which at that time was called PCAC. And he was actually the secretary or chairperson who conducted the meetings. He subsequently became, I'm pretty sure, the Cardinal's delegate to the review board.

Q. When would that have been?
A. Well, it would be sometime before he {page 44 begins here} was ordained Bishop. I don't know the exact years.

Q. And approximately when was Thomas Paprocki installed as a Bishop, roughly?
A. I would say '97 or so, maybe '98.

Q. Okay. Yeah. Actually, it looks like according to the Catholic Directory, which I refer to, it might have been later than that. It might have been as late as 2002. But this could be wrong.
A. No, my memory could be wrong.

Q. Who knows. We'll see. It's not important. In any case, Bishop Paprocki's predecessor was Robert Kealy, Father Robert Kealy, K-E-A-L-Y, as Chancellor?
A. Yes.

Q. What was his role in these matters pertaining to suspicions, investigations and the handling of sexual abuse?
A. My recollection is that he also participated in the meetings of PCAC, which would review various cases from, you know, once a month or so.

Q. Okay. If you look at Page 2, Bishop, {page 45 begins here} of the -- of Exhibit 100, that is the Archdiocesan Priests With Substantiated Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, two-thirds of the page down, do you see Robert Louis Kealy?
A. Yes.

Q. As a man designated as having had substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct with minors?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that the same one we were just talking about who served as Chancellor and on the committee?
A. Yes.

Q. I'd like to go back to the usual practices that we had been talking about and follow-up on some of the questions that -- and information that you're providing to us and that connection.
     I had asked you about your experience in interviewing victims and training and you said, really, I hadn't had any. My next question is what experience -- in step two of your usual practice was to interview the accused cleric. {page 46 begins here}
     My question to you, Bishop, is what training have you had in interview techniques of an individual accused of a crime such as sexual abuse?
A. I was a member of the Metropolitan Tribunal for 20 years. And this was pretty much our responsibility. In church law, it's a little different than, I think, civil law. In church law, the Judge does a lot of the questioning.
     So I would -- I would think over the years, I learned how to question adult -- most of the victims that came to us were adults. I never interviewed what you would consider a young child. Most of the -- in fact, I think most of them when they came -- I don't even remember anybody coming that was still a minor.
     I may have done one, but I don't remember. So I was dealing with adults, whether it was the victim or the accused. In our life as parish priests, we're doing this all the time. Were we trained specifically in dealing with sexual abuse, no.

Q. So if I'm hearing you correctly, then, {page 47 begins here} your experience or training and all of it that you received was in the context of having been a member of the Metropolitan Tribunal for 20 years and in church law; is that correct?
A. Plus the years that I was a parish priest before I --

Q. Are you aware -- in interviewing a victim and in interviewing then the accused, is your purpose and -- excuse me. In the usual practices that you're discussing here in interviewing the victim and interviewing the accused, is your purpose to determine whether or not sexual abused has occurred?
A. I'd have to say no.

Q. Okay. What would have been your purpose then in interviewing the victim and then the accused?
A. The purpose of interviewing the victim was to simply learn from him or her what -- what is the allegation.

Q. And then how would you and did you determine whether the allegation was true, substantiated or not?
A. Are you asking immediately after {page 48 begins here} interviewing the victim?

Q. Well, as a part of the usual practice that you employed, how would that determination be made by you or others that it, in fact, had happened?
A. After I interviewed the victim and received the allegation, I would call in the priest accused and I would present it to him and ask his response. In those days, the priest frequently, if not almost always, admitted.

Q. And in those instances where the priest after being interviewed by you, and to use your words, almost always admitted, the sexual abuse, after the priest admitted that to you on those occasions, in how many instances did you turn that admission over to the law enforcement or civil authorities?
A. None.

Q. Why not, Bishop?
A. At that time, we were not mandated reporters. And almost always the victim was no longer a minor. We had attempted to present it to the DCFS and they refused to accept it because they said they were only handling cases {page 49 begins here} of minors.
     At times we would present it anyway, but they wouldn't -- they wouldn't handle it. I'm talking about 20 years ago. Things are different, quite different now.

Q. And is it fair to say then that because the law didn't require you to, at least in your view, you didn't turn it over to law enforcement?
MR. GEOLY: Objection, asked and answered. I think the Bishop just answered that very question.

MR. ANDERSON: Are you instructing him not to answer?
MR. GEOLY: No. That's my objection. You asked why and he told you why. And now you're asking him again.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'll ask another question.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Bishop, given your training and 20 years as a -- in the Metropolitan Tribunal and your training in the church law, as you said it, and then your training as a parish priest, {page 50 begins here} is it fair to say that all that training was in the usual practice of the Catholic church in terms of how to handle a problem such as this?
A. When you say, such as this, Jeff, were you referring to sex abuse?

Q. Yes.
A. Run the question once more, please?

Q. Is it fair to say that all the training you've had in interviewing victims and/or accused and employing the usual practice you've described all came from experience and training you received in how a Catholic church official is expected to handle this matter as opposed to a non-cleric?
A. I think to that question, I'd answer no.

Q. Well, then what outside resources did you draw upon then, outside of the resources of the Catholic church in interviewing victims and/or accused?
A. We used many resources. I don't even know if they were Catholic or not. We didn't -- we weren't concerned of what their religion was. We were concerned about their competence. We {page 51 begins here} relied on the ones that were trained to deal with this to question both the victim and the priest accused.
     If the victim wished to, you know, attend to someone in that position. With regard to the accused, the treatment centers that we used, as I say -- and some of them, I'm sure, were Catholic, but I don't know that they were. But they would pursue the questioning with them. That's their training. I didn't pretend to be a counselor to any of them. I just wanted to know what are the facts.

Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say, Bishop, in your experience at least prior to the creation of the charter in 2002, that it was the practice of the priests and the officials of this diocese and others that when a problem of sexual abuse would come forth, that the practice was to keep that internal within the priests and the officials of the church?
A. No.

Q. When is the first time to your knowledge any allegation of sexual abuse by a priest of the Archdiocese was made known to {page 52 begins here} members of the public or law enforcement by any officials of the church?
A. Exactly when the first time?

Q. Yes.
A. I don't know. It was certainly when I was Vicar For Priests. Because we were involved very much with the State's Attorney at that time.

Q. And --
A. But it might very well have been prior to my becoming Vicar For Priests. I'm just not familiar with what was done at that time.

Q. Other than making certain information available to the State's Attorney, which it sounds like you believe had been made; is that correct?
A. Well, in the case that I'm thinking of, it clearly was made.

Q. What case are you thinking of?
A. Am I –

MR. GEOLY: Is that a name that's on this list?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. GEOLY: Then you can use the name. {page 53 begins here}
THE WITNESS: I can use it? In the case of Holihan.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. And on Exhibit 100, you're referring to Daniel Mark Holihan?
A. Right.

Q. He was removed from public ministry in 2002?
A. Yeah.

Q. When was that information concerning Father Holihan made known to anybody outside the Archdiocese?
A. I wouldn't be able to give the exact date. But it would be sometime between '87 and '91. I was still Vicar For Priests when we dealt with it.

Q. And who brought that information outside of the Archdiocese?
A. I presume the principal of the school or the teacher of the children that spoke. But I don't know for certain.

Q. Do you have a name or recall who that would have been or was?
A. I can't remember the name. But I'm {page 54 begins here} sure it's on the record.

Q. And so is it your recollection, Bishop, that the principal or a teacher reported the information concerning Holihan to somebody outside of the Archdiocese?
A. They reported -- my understanding is that they made the report to DCFS.

Q. DCFS, okay. And other than in that connection and in that instance, are there any other instances prior to 2002 that you're aware of where information pertaining to sexual abuse by a cleric was reported to individuals outside of the Archdiocese?
A. I'm not saying it didn't happen. But right now, I'm drawing a blank. It's too long ago.

Q. Bishop, when in -- when an adult, whether it's a priest or a family member or anybody else, engages in sexual contact with a child or a minor, you understand that's a crime, do you not?
A. Yes.

Q. When did you first come to know that that was a crime? {page 55 begins here}
A. Well, I obviously knew it once I became Vicar For Priests because I had to deal with it. Whether I knew it before then, at this point, I presume I just took it for granted that it was a crime.

Q. As an adult and as a priest now for over 55 years, you know the police are the ones that handle crimes and are trained to investigate them, do you not?
A. Yes.

Q. If you know that to be the case, then why were you, as a matter of usual practice, interviewing victims and accused priests of crimes instead of turning it over to law enforcement who are trained to do that?
A. Today, that's what we would do. In those days, that wasn't what we did. The people that we dealt with, the victims, for the most part as far as I can remember, were adults. And they certainly were free to go to the civil authorities. Most of them that I interviewed in those days wanted no part of that. They wanted the situation to remain confidential. And we would respect that. {page 56 begins here}

Q. Isn't it also true that there has been and there is a practice prior to at least 2002 in this Archdiocese and elsewhere to keep crimes by clerics of sexual abuse secret and to handle it internally and allow the church officials to handle it?
A. I guess I wouldn't use the word secret. If you're using the word confidential, I would answer yes. When I became Vicar For Priests, I saw my role similar to what a pastor's role is, whether I'm dealing with victims or whether I'm dealing with the accused.
     And I think certainly the accused looked upon the relationship as a confidential relationship. And so I tried to observe that with both the accused and the victim. Most of the victims at that time, simply wanted to have help for the victim and make sure that the accused wouldn't do it again or hoped that the accused wouldn't do it again. They were not looking to get involved with the civil law.
     We never told them they could not or anything like that or even encouraged them. But it was their choice. {page 57 begins here}

Q. So instead of using the word secret, I'll use the term confidential. It was the practice to keep this confidential. And when you say confidential, that would be among members of the clergy and the officials in the Archdiocese, correct, and their advisors?
A. I would think so.

Q. Well, you're trained in canon law. And canon law, among other things, has protocols that set forth how certain matters are to be handled, disciplinary -- disciplining the priest, precepts, suspensions, removal of the faculties and the obligations of the priests to the bishops and the like, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And it's also fair to say that a part of the canon law sets forth the -- really the policy manual relating to the employment of priests and the obligations of priests to bishops and vice versa?
MR. GEOLY: Objection, vague and ambiguous and calls for legal conclusions.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Well, you're a canon lawyer, aren't {page 58 begins here} you?
A. Yeah, but I'm a has been.

Q. Well, you were the president of the Canon Law Society for some time, weren't you?
A. It wasn't my fault.

Q. But in any case, we digress for a moment. The fact is that the canon law provides for a broader array of things. And among it, it sets certain rules for handling certain problems within the clerical culture, correct, and there are penalties?
A. Yeah.

Q. And there are crimes designated, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And in the canon law, a priest engaging -- abusing a child is a crime, is it not?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it fair to say then that -- is it fair to say, Bishop, that you and others in the Archdiocese at least prior to 2002, relied more upon your history and training in the canon law in dealing with this than in the civil law? {page 59 begins here}
A. Give me that once more, Jeff.

Q. Is it fair to say that in the handling of sexual abuse, at least prior to 2002, you relied upon your training and experience and what is written in the canon law as opposed to what is written in the civil laws?
A. I think I'd say no.

MR. ANDERSON: I guess we're out of tape. We're going to change tape here for a moment.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at 11:17 a.m. with the end of Tape Number 1.

(Whereupon, a discussion was had off the record.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record at 11:23 a.m. with the start of Tape Number 2.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Bishop, I just want to follow-up with your last response about reliance upon Catholic church practices and protocols and canon laws versus reliance upon the civil laws in handling of sexual abuse.
     You say that you answered no to the {page 60 begins here} question regarding whether in your view at least prior to 2002 you and others like you relied upon church practices as opposed to civil practices in handling this. Why do you say no to that?
A. The reason I said no, Jeff, was that if we followed what canon law says -- I forget the canon now, whatever the number. A crime of this kind would require a church trial. And the difficulty with the church trial is the church law -- I presume civil law is similar. The church law allows for certain degrees of guilt, degrees of imputability and so on.
     And we almost knew beforehand that if a person actually did this crime that he's accused of, very likely his imputability would be diminished in many cases, particularly if he was under the influence of alcohol or marijuana or something like that. And as a result, we could go through the whole thing of a trial and in the end you'd have nothing because they would say it hasn't been proven that the crime was committed by somebody who was fully conscious of what he was doing and so on. {page 61 begins here}
     So we rarely used that. Maybe with hindsight, we would use it more frequently. But I don't even know that we relied on the civil law. I'm not a civil lawyer, so I wasn't -- I knew the civil law considered it a crime. But all -- civil law also has degrees of guilt and so on.
     But I'm not a civil lawyer. I think we just relied on -- a lot on our -- we knew it was wrong, what was done. And we used our common sense and prudence with the help of people -- expert in the field to assist us in resolving these cases.

Q. It is fair to say that when you say we, that means you and other officials in the church relied upon assistance of others, those are consultants that you hired and lawyers, right?
A. Yes.

Q. And is it also fair to say that in all instances at least prior to 2002 that you're aware, this was kept confidential, except in the Holihan situation that you mentioned?
A. Well, I know that within the time -- you better ask the question again. I'm -- {page 62 begins here}

Q. Can you cite other than to the instance of Father Holihan that you mentioned, any instance where an allegation of sexual abuse surfaced and was handled by the Archdiocese and officials and their advisors where it was not kept confidential?
A. The answer is yes. And I'm looking at -- if a name is on the chart, I can say it?

Q. Yes.
A. In the Strand case, we went to I believe it was St. Mary's Church in Des Plaines. And we went with a group which included two women who were experts in dealing with child care. I don't know what the name is.

Q. When was that, Bishop?
A. Well, again, I don't know the year. But it would have been while I was Vicar For Priests. So sometime between '87 and '91.

Q. And my question to you is was there anybody within the Archdiocese or its advisors that brought the information pertaining to Stand to outside authorities first before others did?
MR. GEOLY: Did you understand the question? {page 63 begins here}
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I'm trying to think. I don't think I was Vicar For Priests when Strand was first dealt with.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Wasn't the Strand situation in response to others having reported it to members of the parish and making it public as opposed to Archdiocesan people?
A. I just don't know.

Q. Okay. Any other instances that you can point to or remember where the information pertaining to sexual abuse was not kept confidential by the Archdiocese and officials, priests or their advisors and made known to members of the public or authorities?
A. Could I look at the list?

Q. Sure.
A. And you're talking about before 2002?

Q. I am right now.
A. I don't see any others on the list.

Q. Is it correct to say that there is a historical protocol in the Catholic church and employed by the Archdiocese that requires you as a priest and others like you to avoid scandal? {page 64 begins here}
A. That's ordinary common sense, that our responsibility -- everybody, yours, too, to avoid scandal. If you mean scandal in the strict sense of the word, where, you know, your conduct or behavior would invite others to maybe perform similarly. That -- we have to avoid that.

[17 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 64]

{page 65 begins here}

[PAGE 65 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 66 begins here}

[15 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 66]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Are you familiar with the term internal forum?
A. Yes.

Q. What does that mean?
A. It could mean two things. Internal forum the way we ordinarily understand it is the communication between a penitent and the confessor in the confessionals in the sacrament {page 67 begins here} of penance.
     That's what we call internal sacramental forum. It's within the sacrament of reconciliation. Anything that I hear in the sacrament of reconciliation, I must keep confidential forever.

Q. When a victim says that they were abused and report a sexual abuse to you or to one of your subordinates, would you consider that to be a communication in internal forum?
A. Have they confessed this --

Q. Outside the confessional.
A. Outside. Yes, I would consider that. Again, I'm not talking about today. Because today we tell them right out, this is not something that's going to be kept confidential. So they -- you know, if they're going to tell us, fine. But they have to know.

Q. I'm talking about the past.
A. In the past, we would consider that internal non-sacramental forum. The communication between a parishioner and the pastor. That's how I saw most of what I heard as Vicar For Priests from the victim or accused. {page 68 begins here] And that's what I tried to respect.

Q. And that accounts in part why this was not -- information pertaining to sexual abuse was not shared outside of the forum of the Archdiocese, correct?
A. Yeah, I was --

Q. You did point to Father Holihan as being an instance where you recall where an actual -- actual information was made outside of the Archdiocese or internal forum or its advisors. And I'd like to ask you about that. In 1990, I have information that a good touch, bad touch video was being showed to sixth graders at Our Lady of the Snows parish. That's where Mark Holihan had been serving, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And a group of boys at that time told a teacher that they had been molested by Father Holihan. Does that sound pretty correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And at that time Father Holihan was removed from the parish and told not to be around kids. Does that sound correct? {page 69 begins here}
A. Yes.

Q. Who would have told him that?
A. I did.

Q. And at that time, the information I have says that his ministerial faculties were not removed nor was his reassignment published -- well. Let me ask. At that time, his ministerial faculties were not removed; is that correct?
A. I presume so.

Q. And it's also correct at that time, he resigned his pastorate at Our Lady of the Snows and began residing, living at a new parish?
A. I can't say now that it was at that time that he resigned from the parish. I'd have to look at the file to see when the resignation took place.

Q. Is it also correct and I think --
A. Pardon me, Jeff.

Q. I'm sorry.
A. No. I just wanted to -- you said and lived at another parish. I'm not sure of that either where he went -- I'd have to see the file again. {page 70 begins here]

Q. Fair enough. He did resign at our Lady of the Snows. You do remember that or not?
A. Well, resignation requires that he send a letter to the Cardinal resigning the parish. I don't know that he did it upon being removed. Usually we want to wait until we see what the facts are and so on.

Q. Whose idea was it for him to leave the parish?
A. I did.

Q. Okay. So you said, you have to leave the parish at least?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did he resign sometime after that?
A. He would have resigned sometime after. Sure.

Q. Okay, got it. And I think you said in that instance, information was made available to those outside of the Archdiocese and their advisors. And that was a teacher reported it to DCFS; is that correct?
A. Well, I'm presuming either the teacher or the principal. {page 71 begins here}

Q. Okay.
A. Probably the teacher.

Q. And do you recall that DCFS found that allegation to have been, quote, indicated or what we would call credible, that means believable?
A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall, Bishop, that for whatever reason, the State's Attorney declined to prosecute Father Holihan at that time?
A. I do recall.

Q. Do you recall if anybody from the Archdiocese discussed that decision before it was made with the then State's Attorney?
A. No.

Q. Did you?
A. I did not, no.

Q. Had you ever had contact with the then State's Attorney pertaining to a matter of sexual abuse prior to 1990 for any reason?
MR. GEOLY: There were a lot of words there. Can we hear the question one more time?
MR. ANDERSON: Sure. I'm sorry. {page 72 begins here}

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Did you, Bishop, ever have any contact with the State's Attorney pertaining to any matters of sexual abuse by clergy in the Archdiocese?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Going back to Holihan. In the years that followed the DCFS having made that finding and Father Holihan, he remained a priest in the Archdiocese, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And did it come to your attention that he was assigned to another parish?
A. If he was, I don't remember that.

Q. Do you recall that after the finding by DCFS and his departure from Our Lady of the Snows, that there were several phone calls and letters from concerned parishioners who saw Holihan with teenagers?
A. I do recall some -- bringing that to my attention, yes.

Q. What do you remember about that beyond what we just --
A. Right now, I just vaguely remember {page 73 begins here} somebody saying they thought they saw him driving in a car with a teenager. But I don't know if they even gave a name.

Q. Do you recall that at the time that that information was received by you, that Father Holihan was under a mandate from you -- actually issued by the Cardinal through you to not have contact with these teenagers and youth?
A. Not have contact, not be alone with teenagers under 18.

Q. And then after the information surfaced that he was with these teenagers or concerns were expressed by parishioners, did you then meet with Holihan and tell him -- give him some instructions?
A. I don't remember. But I would have presumed that I would have.

Q. I have some information that either you or somebody from the Archdiocese at that time told him to stop causing trouble for himself. Do you recall that or having information like that?
A. No.

Q. Are you aware that he eventually took a {page 74 begins here} job with Catholic Charities, which is operated by the Archdiocese?
A. Yes.

Q. And while he was with Catholic Charities, are you aware that he was supposed to have been monitored?
A. Yes.

Q. And what did monitoring mean then as it pertained to Holihan and other priests such as him accused of abuse?
MR. GEOLY: Do you want to just address Holihan first? Because that's at least a specific case.

MR. ANDERSON: That's fair.
THE WITNESS: I would have to say I -- you know, you'd have to ask Bishop Conway what he considered monitoring. But you know he's deceased, so.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Was Bishop Conway the one that was supposed to be monitoring Holihan at the time or what?
A. He may have delegated it to someone else at Catholic Charities. I'm just not {page 75 begins here} familiar with that.

Q. Do you recall that after all these events that we just described that Father Holihan was given frequent permission to travel for extended periods of time, sometimes out of the country to perform various sacraments such as weddings? Do you have any knowledge of that?
A. What years are we talking?

Q. This would have been after the allegations were indicated by DCFS and he left Our Lady of Snows and went to Catholic Charities and continued to work and be monitored?
A. I'm not aware of him traveling around the country to do weddings.

Q. Was Holihan ever asked if he had committed the sexual -- a crime of sexual abuse by these kids by you or any official in the diocese?
A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?
A. He never felt that he abused the children. He -- in his mind, he was showing friendliness and affection. But never in his {page 76 begins here} mind did he consider his behavior as abuse, at least when I was dealing with him.

Q. Okay. He expressed that to you?
A. Yes.

Q. So he expressed to you that he didn't think what he was doing with these kids was sexual abuse, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. He did admit, however, having shown affection towards these kids including the touching of their genitals?
A. Over the clothes, yes.

Q. And when he told you that, you knew that it was a crime for an adult, a priest to be touching youth on their genitals over the clothes or under the clothes, correct?
A. Yes.

[7 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 76]

{page 77 begins here}

[20 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 77]

Q. I've got 10 to 12:00. I'm going to work for a while. But I want to be deferential to you, Bishop. Would you like to take a break for lunch now? {page 78 begins here}
MR. GEOLY: Well, what we've got is lunch coming in.

MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
MR. GEOLY: And I thought it would be set up or that they would be ready to set it up right now. It could be that they're waiting because our door is closed.
MR. PEARLMAN: Let me check.

MR. ANDERSON: If it's okay, we'll go ahead for a while here. If at any time you want to take a break, then we'll plan on taking breaks. See this pile of documents here?
THE WITNESS: Do we have to go through that?

MR. ANDERSON: I know. Here we go.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. So I'm going to try and work through these fast. We are going to get done today. I am hoping to be on a 6:30 flight. So that tells you I'm going to work fast.
A. Not too fast.

Q. I know. If I work too fast, we'd be gone, right? But I'm going to have -- Jessica hand me the pile of documents. I'm going to go {page 79 begins here} through some of them with you, Bishop.
MS. ARBOUR: I think I just moved the camera.

THE WITNESS: Which way?
MS. ARBOUR: It scooted that way. So it may need to be turned this way, towards me.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. We premarked these. And the first document that we're going to hand you and counsel is actually something for convenience. I just asked Mr. Geoly to prepare.
     And I'm not asking you to certify that this is absolutely correct. But it basically was just kind of an outline of your assignment history, a cursory outline of your assignment history so that I didn't have to walk you through this date by date. It may be correct, it may not. But does it look -- does it look -- is it correct?
A. Just the spelling of Barnabas, if you don't mind, B-A-R-N-A-B-A-S.

Q. Got it, okay.
A. I think the rest of it is pretty {page 80 begins here} accurate. Yeah.

Q. Close enough anyway for our purposes?
A. Yes.

[21 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 80]

{page 81 begins here}

[PAGE 81 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 82 begins here}

[8 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 82]

Q. I'm going to write down a name here, Bishop. And it's just John Doe 1. And you can -- if you could show that to Mr. Geoly, as well.
MR. GEOLY: I can see it. Thank you. I can see it.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. And we're going to call him John Doe 1.
A. Okay.

Q. And his family, you know, that -- Doe family 1. You came to know that family, did you not, while at St. Barnabas?
A. Yes.

Q. And you came to learn that Father Mayer was accused of having sexually abused John Doe 1, did you not? {page 83 begins here}
A. Yes.

Q. And how did you learn that -- learn of that?
A. John Doe 1 came to see me out of the clear blue. We received an e-mail. He wrote an e-mail to the diocese and information office asking how he could get in touch with me. And they gave him the information. And then he e-mailed me and then eventually came to Chicago and I met with him.

Q. That actually happened or was alleged to have happened at St. Barnabas?
A. Yes.
MR. GEOLY: The abuse we're talking about.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Yeah, the abuse of John Doe 1 by Mayer.
A. Yes.

Q. And you were the -- you were actually the pastor in '76 to '87?
A. Right.

Q. And I think that the abuse was -- was that while you were pastor?
A. No. {page 84 begins here}

Q. It was right before?
A. No. Mayer had already been transferred elsewhere.

Q. Okay. Did you have any reason to believe that what John Doe reported to you wasn't true, that Mayer had abused him?
A. Was not true?

Q. Did you believe John Doe?
A. I believed John Doe. Yes.

Q. You believed that Robert Mayer had sexually abused him?
A. Yes.

Q. How many kids do you believe Robert Mayer abused besides John Doe 1?
A. I have no idea.

Q. More than 50?
A. I really have no idea.

Q. Did you ever investigate to find out?
A. I dealt with cases that were brought to my attention while I was Vicar For Priests and probably heard of others after I left. But I have no memory of it now.

Q. Do you know if any officials of the Archdiocese ever conducted any internal {page 85 begins here} investigation to make some determination of how many kids Father Robert Mayer actually abused?
A. Well, prior to my becoming Vicar For Priests, there had been a lawsuit of some sort involving allegations made. And it was settled, resolved.
     I'm not sure what was -- what the decisions were based on. I just don't know. All I know is that it was resolved, whatever the allegations were.

Q. Okay. And I'm writing down in our confidential list, No. 2, the name of somebody that we'll call as Doe 2. That would be the mom and the son Doe 2.
A. What's the son?

Q. I think that's the son's name. I might be wrong on the son's name.
A. Yeah.

Q. The mom's name --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that the lawsuit you're referring to?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what was your role in the {page 86 begins here} settlement of that suit, Bishop?
A. I had no role.

[22 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 86]

{page 87 begins here}

[PAGE 87 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 88 begins here}

[PAGE 88 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 89 begins here}

[3 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 89]

Q. Do you remember making an effort to find Holihan's file and not being able to locate it or just don't remember at all?
A. I just don't remember.

Q. Okay. We can assume that if he's a priest of the diocese, there is a file, certainly a priest file maintained on all of them and that there would have been one on him. Is that a fair assumption?
A. I think so. In a letter as you described, though, would not be in what we call the priest file, like which covers appointments and so on. If the letter was of that nature, my guess is it would have gone to the Vicar For Priests.

Q. Okay. So that leads to another area that I needed to ask you about. There's a file -- a separate file maintained by the Vicar For Priests apart from the ordinary priest file, is what I'm hearing, correct?
A. Yes, yes. {page 90 begins here}

Q. Okay. And the -- a letter such as this, that is a report of possible sexual abuse, would you have customarily gone to the file for Vicar For Priests?
A. Yes.

Q. As opposed to the priest file?
A. I would presume so.

[10 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 90]

Q. How long was that separate file maintained by a Vicar For Clergy or Vicar For Priests?
A. Well, the Vicar For Priests file began when Father Ventura was named in 1983. So if such a request -- such a letter came in, I presume it would have been turned over to him. {page 91 begins here}

Q. I see. And what kind of materials would go to the file for Vicar For Priests as distinguished from the materials that go to the ordinary priest personnel file?
A. Ordinarily, the Vicar For Priests would have files on any priest who came of his own free will to meet with the Vicar For Priests. In addition, it would have any file that came in from any source regarding the conduct of a priest.

Q. And that would be misconduct?
A. Misconduct.

Q. Yeah. So if there was a report by a child or a parishioner of suspected sexual abuse, that would go to the priest -- the Vicar For Priests file?
A. That's my presumption.

Q. If there was a rumor and a document of a rumor of misconduct or sexual abuse by a priest and it was documented, that would go to the Vicar For Priests file?
A. Yeah, presuming this is not anonymous.

Q. Well, I don't know. Is there a -- do you make -- did you and -- does the Archdiocese {page 92 begins here} make a distinction between an anonymous report and one that isn't?
A. Actually, we would also have the anonymous report. The Vicar For Priests would -- at least he would notify the priest that such a report came in about him.

Q. And if there was a conversation between the Vicar For Priests, a non-confessional conversation between the Vicar For Priests and the priest such as you described with Father Holihan, and the priest says, well, I did abuse these kids or I did engage in sexual contact with them or, you know, something like that and the Vicar For Priests records that, that would be maintained also in the file for Vicar For Priests?
A. I could only speak for when I was Vicar For Priests. I would ordinarily memorialize meetings that I had, conversations that I had. But keep in mind that at that time, that kind of a conversation would be considered a confidential communication between the priest and myself.
     And so I'm a little concerned even here {page 93 begins here} whether I have a right to speak about this case. Do I?

MR. GEOLY: Well, the question is what would happen with the document. Would it go in your file? I think that's what you were asked.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, yes, it would. It would be in the file.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay. And whether -- and whether the -- the conversation -- all such conversation as we just described is what you would consider confidential, which means you would keep that within the confines of the Archdiocese and/or the file you described, correct?
MR. GEOLY: Objection. I don't know what you mean by all there.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Well, the -- let's say a priest admits that he had sexually abused a child and he admits it to the Vicar For Priests, to you, you make a recording of that. You document that. You put that into the Vicar For Priests file, correct, of that -- of that priest?
A. Yes. {page 94 begins here}

Q. Okay. And it's your position, and I trust the position of the Archdiocese, that that is confidential information?
A. At that time, that's how the relationship was considered between the Vicar For Priests and priests.

Q. Who defined that for you to be a confidential relationship?
A. I'd have to say when I took over from Father Ventura, he -- he would have discussed that aspect with me. I think it became clearer to all of us when the issue was resolved by Judge Fitzgerald, which he recognized that at that time, these conversations were considered confidential.

Q. So did -- if I'm hearing you correctly, was it Cardinal Bernardin through former Vicar For Priests Ventura that led you to the belief that that information would be considered confidential?
A. Yes. Because when I took over the office, that's exactly how I felt, that I was pastor to the priests.

Q. And you referred to Judge Fitzgerald {page 95 begins here} making some kind of finding that is confidential. Tell me about that. That's news to me. What were you referring to?
A. At that time -- and I don't recall the case that was involved. But the question was what material can we give and what material shouldn't we give. And our attorneys gave the material to Judge Fitzgerald and indicated what they thought should be reserved from anyone else because of the confidential nature that that was considered to be, like the pastor/penitent privilege. And the decision that was made by Judge Fitzgerald was he accepted that as confidential.

Q. And so was that effort you just described in 1992 in anticipation of disclosures being made by the Archdiocese to the then State's Attorney or another time?
A. It was -- I know the State's Attorney Office was trying -- again, my recollection. The State's Attorney was trying to subpoena a number of our files.
     And we felt we could give him whatever he had a right to have. But we could withhold {page 96 begins here} what he did not have a right to have. And the attorneys went through the case and redacted, I think is the word, any lawyer/client privilege, any penitent/priest privilege, any mental health privilege.

Q. Was that in connection with the Maday case that that was done?
A. Right now, I don't remember what it was in connection. And I don't remember whether I was still Vicar For Priests when the decision came down. I just don't remember.

Q. Was Judge Fitzgerald then a presiding sitting Judge where this determination was made that you believe?
A. To my memory, he was a presiding Judge at the criminal court.

Q. Okay. So it's in the context of some criminal case?
A. Probably.

Q. And the prosecution of Father Maday or another priest of the Archdiocese?
A. I just don't remember which one.

Q. Fair enough. Just so I understand you and I think the position of the Archdiocese. Up {page 97 begins here} until that decision, you and the Archdiocese had considered an admission by a priest documented to an official of the Archdiocese of sexual abuse to be confidential and that -- correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that -- when that issue came up, Judge Fitzgerald decided that in that case, there was a determination that there was a confessional privilege that applied to that particular communication, correct?
MR. GEOLY: Time out. Objection. Let me just ask. Are you asking him to characterize Fitzgerald's opinion in detail now?

MR. ANDERSON: Well, your understanding of it is -- because he's operating on his understanding of this.
MR. GEOLY: Well, we're speaking in a very high level of generality right now and very hypothetically. We're not talking about any particular case or particular information you're asking from him. So I don't have a problem with him telling you what he remembers about this. I just have a problem with him parsing a legal opinion for you. {page 98 begins here}

MR. ANDERSON: Maybe you can save us some time, Jim. Did he come down with a decision in one case that said in this particular case there's a confessional privilege that applies to --
MR. GEOLY: I can give you a copy of the decision. I can get one for you today.

MR. ANDERSON: Did it apply to one case?
MR. GEOLY: It wasn't one case. It was a grand jury investigation. And there wasn't a particular prosecution, as I recall. But I'd be happy to share a copy of the opinion with you.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Bishop, what do you know about a grand jury investigation having been underway and what role did you have in that?
A. As far as my memory today, I had no role and I know nothing about the grand jury investigation. I probably heard something about it through the newspapers and others. But I had -- to my knowledge, I had no role in it at all. {page 99 begins here}

Q. Other than -- other than having given the deposition in a matter of the Lutz case, have you given any testimony either in grand jury or in trial or in any other place that pertains to your knowledge of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese by any of the cleric?
A. Yes.

Q. When and where?
A. I was called as a witness in the case of Father Mayer.

Q. And you were called by Father Mayer and his lawyers to testify?
A. I don't think so. I think it was -- I think it was the prosecuting.

Q. Prosecuting?
A. I think so.

Q. And what do you remember having testified to at that time?
A. I honestly don't remember. It wasn't a lengthy thing, I know that. But I don't remember what questions were asked. I simply answered whatever questions were asked of me. But I don't remember the questions now.

Q. Okay. Going back to the {page 100 begins here} confidential -- let me rephrase this. Going back to the topic of the Archdiocese considering the conversation wherein a priest admits to the Vicar For Clergy that he has engaged in sexual abuse or a crime of misconduct and that is documented by the Vicar For Clergy. I heard you say that it would be customarily placed in the file pertaining to that priest, maintained by the Vicar For Clergy, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And -- and I also heard you say that at the time that was done while you were Vicar For Clergy and you were led to believe your predecessor, Father Ventura, that was considered confidential and not to be shared with anybody outside the Archdiocese, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And to this day, have those documents maintained by your predecessor and/or by you wherein a priest may have admitted having committed crimes been shared with anybody outside of the Archdiocese?
A. I could only speak for when I was Vicar For Priests. What has happened afterwards, I {page 101 begins here} don't know.

Q. What had -- what had -- what had happened up until your -- the end of your tenure for Vicar For Priests, which would have been 19 --
A. 91.

Q. -- 91. Up until that time, it remained confidential?
A. To my knowledge, it was, yes.

Q. And -- and you have no personal knowledge of the current practices and those employed until 2002?
A. I have no recollection of knowing what's involved.

Q. Okay. I'd like to go back to focus on Father Robert Mayer and mom Doe Number 2 has reported that in November of 1986, she made a call to you. In 1986, you were the Vicar For Priests?
A. No.

Q. You were not. In 1986, what was your title?
A. Pastor.

Q. You were a pastor at St. Barnabas? {page 102 begins here}
A. A pastor at St. Barnabas.

Q. I misspoke, yeah. You were a pastor at St. Barnabas. And Father Mayer had been an associate at St. Barnabas?
A. Yes.

Q. In any case, Jane Doe or Mom Doe 2 reports that she made a call to you concerned that Mayer was abusing kids or had abused kids in the parish. Do you remember such a call from a mom who I've identified as Jane Doe 2 to you?
A. No. And are you saying it was in November of '86?

Q. Well, the date may not be precise --
A. I don't recall.

Q. That's why --
A. Yeah.

Q. Do you remember -- I guess the question to be more fair, Bishop, do you remember any call from Jane Doe 2, the mom who we'll describe as Mom Doe Number 2 to you saying, I'm concerned that Father Mayer is abusing kids in our parish at St. Barnabas?

MR. GEOLY: At St. Barnabas?

BY MR. ANDERSON: {page 103 begins here}
Q. Or at the new parish.
MR. GEOLY: Do you understand the question?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. It was either at St. Barnabas or his later parish? Actually, Mom Doe would have been -- 2 would have been at St. Edna's.
A. Right.

Q. And the call would have come at the time, I think, Mayer was at St. Barnabas?
MR. GEOLY: Can you start over. Just start the question again so we have it straight?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Here's -- here's how I'll put the question. Do you have any memory of having received a call from Mom Doe 2 about concerns of Mayer having committed sexual abuse of kids at all?
A. Anywhere?

Q. Yeah, from this mom at any time?
A. I don't recall any call. But I don't want to say that it didn't happen. I just don't recall any call.

Q. Okay. She's given a statement to us {page 104 begins here} that she made such a call and reported that it was to you. And I'm paraphrasing.
     But she reports that you had stated to her that the Archdiocese was aware of Mayer's history and had been told to not have unsupervised contact with children. My question to you, Bishop, is do you remember having made such a statement to a mom or that mom pertaining to Father Mayer?
MR. GEOLY: Can we clarify something, Jeff? Were you stating that it was Mayer who was told not to have contact -- unsupervised contact with minors?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Did I misstate it?
MR. GEOLY: I'm not sure. I may have misunderstood you.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Do you want me to ask that question again, Bishop?
A. Yeah, let's try it.

Q. Do you remember telling any mom or Mom Doe 2 when concerns were expressed that Mayer was abusing children that the Archdiocese was aware of Mayer's history and he was not allowed {page 105 begins here} to have unsupervised contact with children?
A. I don't recall the specifics that you're mentioning. But I would want to say I do recall having a conversation with Mom 2. My recollection is that conversation was at St. Edna's when a group of us went out there to give the people there a chance to tell us whether or not any of their children experienced this kind of -- so I did have a conversation and I remember specifically to her.
     Because at that point -- you know, keep in mind, this is after everything unfolded at St. Odilo's. And I believe I apologized to her for any hurt that might have been caused by either him or ourselves in the way we handled things.

Q. Did you tell her what the Archdiocese was now doing about protecting other children and keeping Mayer away from those kids so that he would not repeat the crimes that the Archdiocese knew he already committed?
A. Well, I can't say that I remember here and now what exactly I said, whether I said that or not. I just don't remember. It wouldn't {page 106 begins here] surprise me if I said it because that was the case.

Q. I'm going to show you what we've marked as Exhibit 5. Now, this is handwritten. We've already provided you a copy of this, Jim.
MR. GEOLY: Thank you.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. And to the extent necessary, we'll take -- we'll do redactions. Oh, they've already been done, okay. I'll represent to you that this is the handwriting of Mom Doe 2, okay? And I'm not going to ask you to read the whole thing. But it is her account of some events in and around 1986. Look at the second page, Bishop. Well, let's just look at the first. Because let's just see if there's some mistake by somebody here. You'll see the first sentence says, father introduced himself --
A. Pardon me, Jeff. The first mistake is the year, if we could correct that.

Q. That's why I say there was a mistake.
A. I wasn't Vicar For Priests.

MR. GEOLY: Yeah, let him ask you the question. {page 107 begins here}
THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. I was just looking like there was a mistake here. Because the first sentence says, Father introduced himself at the new -- at the new Vicar of Priests for the Diocese of Chicago, having taken over for Father Ventura.
      And at the date above this, you'll see it says November 11th and then 1986 is written in. Now, there's a mistake by somebody here if you weren't Vicar For Priests yet, right?
A. Right.

Q. So did you serve as an interim or temporary Vicar For Priests for a period of time?
A. No. I became the Vicar For Priests July 1 of '87. And I just periodically met with Father Ventura before. But I was never considered temporary.

Q. Okay. So this '86 date that's written up there might be the wrong year?
A. I would think so.

Q. In any case, we're in agreement that {page 108 begins here}you were the Vicar For Priests in November of 1987?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So the first sentence states that Father introduced himself as or at the new Vicar of Priests for the Diocese of Chicago having taken over for Father Ventura.
     The last sentence in this document, I will read it and ask you a question. At this time, were you aware that there had been a settlement made of some kind with this woman and her mom -- this mom and her son?
A. I probably saw it in the case file.

Q. And do you recall her then raising concerns about the Archdiocese not having abided by their promises as they had been made to her in this settlement about Mayer and him not having contact with kids and the like?
A. I can't honestly say that I remember the details of the conversation.

Q. Okay.
A. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just don't remember.

Q. Okay. Look at the last sentence of the {page 109 begins here} first page. I'll read it and then see if it refreshes for you, Bishop.
     It says, the Judge relayed to Serritella upon questioning that he had spoken with me and it seemed I was not satisfied with settlement and that I was concerned that the Archdiocese had not and was not living up to its settlement agreement. And then it states, Goedert said he met with Serritella yesterday.
     Does that refresh your recollection at all, Bishop, about these events at least as recounted by her?
A. No. I really have no knowledge of the contents of this settlement. And I don't recall ever being told what the contents were.

Q. Okay. Let's look at the last full sentence of the second page. I will read that to you then ask you a question, Bishop.
     And it is the seventh line from the top. It states, I told Goedert what I am concerned about, always have been and always will be, is the possibility that Mayer could further harm young people. Because as far as I could see from other instances I had known about {page 110 begins here] at St. Stephens, Mayer remains unrestricted.
     Do you remember or does that refresh your recollection as to what Mom Doe 2 told you at that time?
A. No, because I don't really remember the conversation.

Q. Okay. Look at the third page. You'll see at the second -- the first paragraph that says, I told Goedert that, for various reasons, I had gone into the Daley Center records and found that many people have been through the file in the past years. Most recently an attorney for the Des Plaines Police Department, which alarmed me because Mayer is in Des Plaines. Do you remember that being told to you?
MR. GEOLY: By this person, by Mom Doe?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay.
A. I'm not saying she didn't, I'm just saying I have no memory of it.

Q. Fair enough. The next sentence and {page 111 begins here} I'll read says, yes, Goedert said he'd already spoken with the Chief of Police there to find out what that was about. The Chief told Goedert that was prompted by an anonymous call he had received regarding Mayer.
     Bishop, do you remember having spoken to the Chief of Police and/or anything having to do with this?
A. I'm hesitating because I don't remember if it was the Chief of Police or who. But I did speak to someone regarding this, yes.

Q. Who?
A. Well, that's why I say, I don't remember.

Q. It was a police officer?
A. It was somebody connected with the police station.

Q. What prompted you to do that? What motivated you to have that conversation? Was it initiated by you or by him?
A. I think at this time, my recollection is I think I heard it from him. The story that I got -- well, I'm not certain if he initiated it or if we heard it from some other source. {page 112 begins here} But I was aware that there was an anonymous call.
     The anonymous call, to my recollection, was actually to a TV station. And the TV station passed it onto the Chief of Police. And either he called us or -- I don't know, but I became aware of it.

Q. And at this point in time -- and we'll assume it was '87, Mayer was denying that he had abused boys and he was being continued in ministry, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And how long after 1987 was Father Mayer continued in ministry by the Archdiocese?
A. He remained in ministry until it would have been 1991, I believe, when -- July of 1991, I think when we -- the Cardinal required that he submit his resignation.

Q. And in 1987, you, as Vicar For the Priests and having talked with Mom Doe 2 and others, did you believe at that time Father Mayer had, in fact, abused children while serving as a priest at the Archdiocese? {page 113 begins here}
MR. GEOLY: I want to object that we have not established that Bishop Goedert had a conversation with Mom Doe of that kind. He didn't remember the conversation.

MR. ANDERSON: He said he had a conversation with her.
MR. GEOLY: That's my objection. But subject to the objection, you can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Can you ask the question again, Jeff?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. The question is in 1987, did you believe that Father Mayer had abused kids?
A. I did not believe that I had enough information to say that he had committed abuse of minor children. The reason why I was never sure is because we would hear accusations from people who were present at the time. And we would hear just the opposite from other people who were there at the time, people who would deny that such a thing occurred, you know.
     So we were always left with an uncertainty. I was well aware of some of his {page 114 begins here} totally inappropriate behavior. But at that time, it never rose to the level that I thought gave me assurance that there was abuse of children as was being alleged. I have to admit it was very difficult dealing with this.

Q. Bishop, what was the level that these reports and/or information had to rise to that gave you enough assurance to believe that he had abused children?
A. What was the level that it would have to arise to?

Q. Yes. You said it never rose to the level that gave you the assurance that he had abused. My question is what level is that? What was required by you for it to be --
A. Had people that were present on the same occasions agreed that what was being alleged, happened, I think that would have been sufficient.
      But we never were able to get that. People would always deny. There was always the confused situation. And of course he denied any impropriety.

Q. Well, were you aware then that most {page 115 begins here} offenders accused of sexual abuse when confronted, deny it?
A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And so it's no surprise that Mayer would deny it. Did you or any Archdiocesan officials conduct --
A. Pardon me, Jeff. I want to back up. Because I'm aware that in general, people tend to deny. My experience in dealing with the priests who I had to confront with this was that they admitted it.

Q. Did you consider most of those priests to be your family?
A. I -- I certainly consider them to be in a special relationship with the Bishop of the Diocese and therefore in a sense, brothers. Yes.

Q. And -- and you had no specialized training in investigation of crimes. Why didn't you turn this over to people that did have such training, such as law enforcement?
A. I think I've answered that a few times already today. At the present time, since about 1992 when the new policies went into effect, {page 116 begins here] we've turned over everything to the civil authorities.
     Prior to that, we were not mandated reporters. We felt that the information that was exchanged between a priest on the Vicar For Priests was the confidential conversation that exists between a pastor and his parishioners. I saw them as my parishioners.

MR. ANDERSON: It looks like we have to take a break and change tapes.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 1:52 p.m. at the end of Tape 2.

(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)

VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 12:00 p.m. with the start of Tape Number 3.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Bishop, you had mentioned that at that point in time, when you were Vicar For Clergy -- and I think we were talking about '87, that most of the priests had admitted to you that when asked if they had abused, that they had; is that what you had said?
A. Yes. {page 117 begins here}

Q. How many priests before Mayer denied it had admitted to you that they had abused kids?
A. I won't be able to remember the number of priests that I interviewed. But that's just my recollection that most of them admitted -- maybe not to the same extent, but they admitted it.

Q. Do you remember the names of any of the priests who were asked if they had abused and made such an admission to you that they had before Mayer was denying this in '86, '87?
MR. GEOLY: I just want to make a clarification. Bishop Goedert started as Vicar For Priests in '87. So he wouldn't have been the Vicar For Priests before that.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm aware of that. But this question is broader, priests having admitted it to him.
MR. GEOLY: To him.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

MR. GEOLY: That's why I'm confused by the question.
     Do you understand how it's being asked?
THE WITNESS: Well, I presume he's {page 118 begins here} asking about cases that I handled.

MR. GEOLY: That's why I'm confused. Because if it's cases he handled, it couldn't have been before '87.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, he may have been involved in another capacity, so that's why I'm asking.
MR. GEOLY: Okay. Fair enough.

MR. ANDERSON: He's saying that in 1987, most had admitted it. So that presumes that he had conversations with some before then. And that's what I want to know.
MR. GEOLY: Okay. I just think we're getting hung up on a turn of phrase that maybe doesn't mean much. So go ahead and clarify it. That's fine.
THE WITNESS: I never interviewed or spoke to any priests that were accused before I actually took over the office. So I would have no knowledge –

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay.
A. -- of anything prior to '87.

Q. All right. One final question then I'm {page 119 begins here} going to go to these documents and that is this. You say that when Father Mayer denied this to you or another priest admitted having abused children to you, that the Archdiocese and you consider that confidential at that time. And it was a requirement of confidentiality, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And it's also -- was it a requirement that after a priest admitted that to you that the Archdiocese continue that priest in ministry?
A. Not in all cases. Dependent on the case itself.

Q. It is a fact that a number of priests were continued in ministry after having admitted having committed crimes of sexual abuse, correct?
A. I'd have to say that some were. I wouldn't be saying that all were.

[5 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 119]

{page 120 begins here}

[PAGE 120 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 121 begins here}

[LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 121]

     Do you know anything about Chester Przybylo and information concerning him in 1986 as to why he could not be incardinated into the Archdiocese of Chicago?
A. I wouldn't be able to say it had any connection with incardination. But I was aware -- and I don't know if it was as Vicar For Priests or as a friend of Chester's former pastor. I just recall him saying something to the effect that at a wedding practice, Chester kind of pushed somebody around. It had nothing to do with -- at that time, I didn't know anything about child abuse. But I remember a conversation like that.

[LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 121.
10 TOTAL LINES REDACTED FROM THIS PAGE.]

{page 122 begins here}

[9 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 122]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Were you aware of or did you ever receive information that in 1986, after a string of allegations involving possible sexual abuse at St. Clemens, Robert Becker, Father Robert Becker was removed from his position?
A. Prior to becoming Vicar For Priests in 1987, I knew nothing about Father Becker's history. I only learned it when I became Vicar For Priests.

Q. How did you learn it?
A. Father Becker was one of those who was told by Father Ventura to report to the Vicar For Priests' office. I don't remember if it was once a month or whatever. And I would meet with {page 123 begins here} him fairly regularly, maybe once a month, once every couple of months.

Q. So you learned at that time then that Father Becker was under monitoring for past -- for allegations of past abuse?
A. Yes.

Q. And at that time, what did monitoring mean and who was monitoring him?
A. At that time, I think the extent of the monitoring would have been certainly myself. He'd be reporting to me on occasion. And I don't remember whether at that time Father Ventura had anyone in the parish monitoring him.

Q. Okay. I'm showing you what has been produced and marked as Exhibit 4. This pertains to Becker and copied to Cardinal Bernardin or sent to Cardinal Bernardin in 1986.
     Have you ever reviewed this for any reason after having become Vicar For Priests?
A. At this point, I'd say I don't remember ever seeing this document. But I don't want to say I didn't see it. But I don't remember it.

[2 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 123]

{page 124 begins here}

[PAGE 124 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 125 begins here}

[PAGE 125 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 126 begins here}

[PAGE 126 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 127 begins here}

[LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 127]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay. Bishop, I want to move on. I'll show you what we have marked as Exhibit No. 6. This would pertain to Father Kenneth Ruge, R-U-G-E.

[LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 127.
19 TOTAL LINES REDACTED FROM THIS PAGE.]

{page 128 begins here}

[13 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 128]

Q. Did you know that Ruge had been accused of abuse and was on monitoring before you became Vicar For Priests?
A. No.

Q. Did you learn it after?
A. Yes.

Q. How?
A. By reading the file.

Q. Okay. And what -- and who was monitoring him, making sure that he wasn't around kids and didn't abuse other kids? {page 129 begins here}
A. Our understanding of monitoring then is quite different from what it is now. I think that the Vicar For Priests would have asked someone at the parish, usually the pastor, to be sure that he doesn't violate that mandate.

Q. According to a sentencing transcript, we have information that Father Vincent McCaffrey, who was charged with violations involving pornography and convicted, when did you first become aware that Father McCaffrey had sexually abused or was accused of having sexually abused children?
A. When I became Vicar For Priests.

Q. How did you learn that?
A. Through the files, certainly.

Q. In February of 1987, a parishioner reports that her son had been abused by Father McCaffrey on four different occasions. Father McCaffrey is put on medical leave and is told to stay away from minors.
     Other than him having been told to stay away from minors, did anybody from the Archdiocese to your knowledge, take any other action to keep him away from minors? {page 130 begins here}
A. If you're talking before July 1st of 1987, I simply don't know.

Q. And after July 1st of '87?
A. Well, my recollection in my dealings with him, we searched out a pastor who we thought would be both kind but tough. And we had him be the monitor at the parish level.

Q. When you say we, is that yourself and the Cardinal?
A. At this point, I don't remember who all was involved in that. It certainly would have been myself. But beyond that, I don't remember. I presume we would have notified the Cardinal but --

Q. Yourself and perhaps somebody else under authority delegated you by the Cardinal; is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. In the sentencing transcript, it was stated that McCaffrey had been treated at St. Lukes taking up to 30 medications a day, according to him. Did you know that?
A. No. Well, pardon me. I think I knew he was treated at St. Lukes. I'm not aware of {page 131 begins here} medications.

Q. Okay. And according to McCaffrey, he was reassigned to a parish, after these earlier reports, where he was told to have, quote, limited contact with minors and that his pastor would be monitoring him. Who was that pastor?
A. I presume that they're talking about Father Marty O'Donovan at Lady Of Good Counsel, I think it was.

[15 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 131]

{page 132 begins here}

Q. Did you know that Father McCaffrey was open and shared with other priests, including Patrick Cecil that he was receiving treatment at St. Luke's, not for alcoholism as some thought but for childhood sexual abuse, abuse of minors?

[11 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 132]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what we've marked as 32. This pertains to McCaffrey and it goes -- and this is on Archdiocese of Chicago {page 133 begins here] Vicar For Priests stationery. The date is February 8, '91. It's to the file. And then that's blacked out. Would this be to you?
A. No. It's a file that I created.

Q. Okay.
A. That was my habit. Memo to file. It's just for my own sake to keep track of what's going on.

Q. Okay. So because we got this from the Court, a lot of -- there's a lot of what we call redactions, black outs. So under -- see at the top it says, to file and then there's a paren. Is that -- would that be you? Does your name appear there?
A. I presume it's my name.

Q. Okay. And it regards Vincent McCaffrey. And the date is February 8, 1991, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then the person that -- the first part is blacked out. It says -- and it follows, the pastor of Our Lady of Good Counsel called at 9:50 and said that he wanted to get advice on a situation involving Vince. That would be Marty {page 134 begins here} O'Donnell?
A. He's the pastor of Good Counsel. Am I able to talk about the things that are redacted? I'm not –

MR. GEOLY: Yeah. No, I don't have a problem with you speaking about Father O'Donnell's name. I mean, that's fine.
THE WITNESS: It's Marty O'Donovan.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. O'Donovan. Pardon me.
A. Yes.

MR. GEOLY: I didn't hear you right the first time, either.
THE WITNESS: Maybe I mumbled.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Was -- Bishop, was Father O'Donovan the person assigned to monitor McCaffrey, told that McCaffrey's problem was sexual abuse of minors?
A. Yes. He knew fully the history.

Q. Who told him that?
A. I did. And I suspect Vince told him, too.

Q. In the case of McCaffrey, we have allegations of sexual abuse involving minors, {page 135 begins here} correct?
A. Yes.

Q. We have treatment of him, correct?
A. Am I able –
MR. GEOLY: Well, you've reflected it in information you provided.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. These are public records.
A. All right, yes. Yes.

Q. And then we have reassignment of him in a pastorate of monitoring?
MR. GEOLY: Not as a pastor.
THE WITNESS: He's not a pastor.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. He was continued as a priest, was he not?
A. Yes.

Q. And he was continued and transferred to what assignment?
A. Lady of Good Counsel. I haven't read the whole memo to refresh my memory. But I think that was the last place he was.

Q. And at our Lady Of Good Counsel, more allegations surfaced, did they not? {page 136 begins here}
A. Outside of what Marty told me in this memo, I don't remember other people coming forward. But I just don't remember.

Q. Well, this memo reflects more allegations, does it not?
MR. GEOLY: Should we refer to the memo?
THE WITNESS: I better read -- I better read the memo, then.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. I'm going to go through some of the things in the memo. You'll see at the first sentence, blank has observed that Vince continues to associate with high school boys. Is not suggesting that there is anything sexual in the relationship, but he feels uneasy.
     Let me just -- at Paragraph two it says, what really upset blank was the fact that Vince did take one kid overnight this past weekend. That's a violation of his restrictions, wasn't it?
A. Yes, unless there were other adults present.

Q. Ten lines down, it says, this is the {page 137 begins here} boy that blank is most concerned about as the relationships seems to be very close. Vince and the boy went to Vince's cottage on February 1st in the afternoon and stayed through Sunday February 3rd. This is information that's pretty suspicious of more sexual abuse, isn't it, Bishop?
A. It's suspicious, yeah.

Q. Over what period of time did Father O'Donovan observe this behavior going on as reflected in the memo you created?
MR. GEOLY: Objection, calls for speculation.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. What timeframe?
A. At this point, I don't remember if he told me how long it had been going on.

Q. There were allegations of impropriety, suspicions of sexual abuse against Vince McCaffrey before he was ordained. Were you aware of that?
A. Before he was ordained?

Q. Yeah, while a deacon.
A. I'm not sure if he was a deacon at a {page 138 begins here} parish in Calumet City St. Victors. Was he a deacon? Do your records show that?
MR. GEOLY: The question was, do you remember it. He can't help you with it.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Did you receive information that Vince McCaffrey had committed or was suspected of having committed sexual abuse of minors before he even became ordained as a priest, for example, as a deacon?
A. I was not aware of it until I became Vicar For Priests.

Q. And then once you became Vicar For Priests, did you learn that Vince McCaffrey had been accused or reports have been made of him having committed sexual abuse at every parish that he had served?
MR. GEOLY: Did you hear that question?
THE WITNESS: Well, it sounded like you were asking if I heard that he was accused at every parish.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Yes.
A. And I wouldn't be able to say yes to {page 139 begins here} that because I don't even know all of the parishes he was in.

Q. Okay. I'm going to direct your attention because I'm not working chronologically. We're bouncing around a bit.
     But I'm directing your attention to Father Joseph L. Fitzharris. He's on the list that we already discussed to have had allegations substantiated against him. And Exhibit 7 is a document that obviously is of recent origin. But my question is in March of 1987, Father Fitzharris was convicted of child sexual abuse in Cook County. Were you aware of that, Bishop?
A. I was not aware of it in March of '87. I became aware of it after I became Vicar For Priests. Let me -- let me -- I'm not sure when I became aware of it about Cook County and whatnot. I presume it was in the record and I saw it there.

Q. Okay. Well, you'll see in this document that it states in a request made by us about him that it states, in March of 1987 Fitzharris was convicted of the offense of {page 140 begins here} criminal sexual abuse in the Circuit Court of Cook County and was sentenced to supervision.
MR. GEOLY: What's the question?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Did you know that?
A. When I became Vicar For Priests, I did.

Q. And then it states, the Archbishop placed Joseph L. Fitzharris under restrictions with monitoring. Were you aware of that when you became Vicar For Clergy?
A. For Priests?

Q. For Priests?
A. Yes. I --

Q. Who was his monitor?
A. At that time, the monitor would be myself. And the pastor of the parish, wherever he lived, would usually know the situation and be told to watch him.

Q. So if I'm reading this correctly, a convicted sex offender is being continued in ministry by the Archbishop with monitoring; is that correct?
A. He -- because a priest has to live somewhere, he's allowed to remain in a parish {page 141 begins here} setting. But his ministry is certainly restricted. In his case, he would not be allowed to be alone with any minors. And so -- but he remained in the parish, yes.

Q. And he remained in ministry to the extent he was allowed to administer all of the sacraments --
A. Yes.

Q. -- at mass?
A. Yes.

Q. And do all the priestly functions that a priest is allowed to do with the possible exception of being alone with minors, correct?
A. I would probably say yes, except I have hesitation because he was in -- again, am I -- anything on this list I'm able to speak about, mental health and that?

MR. GEOLY: Not necessarily mental health information. But the names of the priests on that list, you can use in the deposition.
THE WITNESS: I don't know how to answer that, then.

MR. GEOLY: You're also free to discuss {page 142 begins here} the practices that you employed and your general approach.
THE WITNESS: Well, the practices would require that he was --

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Getting some help for the problem?
A. Yeah, okay. If I could do that without violating the rule.

Q. If we look at the exhibit, the next paragraph reads, in October of 1991, Joseph Fitzharris was withdrawn from ministry. Now, this would be four years after he was convicted, right?
A. Yes.

Q. And is it also correct to say that when Fitzharris was convicted in 1987, that was not very publicly known, nothing was reported, for example, in the newspapers about it?
A. I don't know if it was in the newspapers or not.

Q. The same paragraph goes on to state that in January 1995, Joseph Fitzharris resigned from priestly ministry. And that would be four years after he was withdrawn and eight years {page 143 begins here} after he was convicted. Does that sound right?
A. I have to presume those are the right dates, yeah.

Q. To your knowledge, Bishop, was Fitzharris withdrawn from in 1991 because another allegation cam forward or another report had been made?
A. I was not Vicar For Priests at that time. So I don't know what the reason was. But keen in mind that we had quite a switch. The whole procedure that we followed evolved. And at this point, the Cardinal had appointed the commission. And eventually out of the Commission, came the policies of 1992.
     So it could be that as a result of the commissions work, that he was removed. But I don't know that for a fact.

Q. It would appear to me, at least on my review of this, that the commissions were -- it was reflected in policies and some practices that were implemented in '92. There were quite a few removals in '92. The withdrawal of ministry of Fitzharris was '91 before a number of other withdrawals. So my question to you is {page 144 begins here} do you really know the reason for his withdrawal of ministry in '91?
A. No.

[21 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 144]

[11 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 145]

Q. Okay. I'm going to show you Exhibit 8. Now, this pertains to Bishop -- Father Mayer, again. And we're in May of 1987. And if you look at this document, it is on Archdiocese of Chicago stationery, it looks like from the office for priests.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And at that point in time, this would still be Ventura, correct?
A. Right.

Q. And this is marked confidential at the upper right hand corner and it's underlined. Is this the same kind of confidentiality that you {page 146 begins here] were talking about before that you and your predecessor operated under that caused you to believe that this was information that should be kept in and among members of the Archdiocese and their advisors?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
MR. GEOLY: And for the record, though, this document was produced to you by the Archdiocese in discovery. So it has not been withheld, other than the redactions that are on here.

MS. ARBOUR: That's actually mine.
MR. GEOLY: Those are your redactions so we didn't even redact it.

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. We redacted to take some names out of some possible victims, I think.
MR. GEOLY: Okay.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Look at the last page of this document. I'm not going to spend a lot more time with it because Father Ventura prepared it. But you'll see -- you have to look at the second to last {page 147 begins here} page on 6/2/87. It states, meeting with Father Bob Mayer, Father Len Mezydlo, M-E-Z-Y-D-L-O, Father Ray Goedert and Father Ventura to discuss the conclusion of the investigation and the plan for the future.
     So there's an investigation in which you're involved, at least in the meeting here on 6/2/87, correct?
A. Yes. I wasn't aware of it, but I presume it took place. Yes.

Q. And this would be an investigation of Mayer committing abuse against minors, correct?
A. Well, in reading the whole -- I haven't read the whole thing carefully. But it seems like it was primarily responding to that call that the Chief of Police had received and whatever investigation of that that Father Ventura did. Unless there's other things in there that I didn't catch.

Q. Okay. And then it states, to discuss a conclusion of the investigation on the plan for the future which involves a) continuance of his present assignment to its conclusion next June, which means he is allowed to continue ministry, {page 148 begins here} correct?
A. Yes.

Q. B) complete psychological evaluation by Dr. Cavanough. And Dr. Cavanough was actually with Isaac Ray Center and one of the people utilized by the Archdiocese to help you do evaluations of these guys --
A. Yes.

Q. -- who were accused of abuse?
A. Yes.

Q. In making decisions to continue these guys accused in ministry, you didn't rely exclusively on Cavanough to make that decision, did you?
A. No.

Q. You relied on your own judgment and the discretion of the -- ultimately the Archbishop cardinal, correct?
A. At that time, we would certainly utilize the input from the mental health people. And we would discuss it among our task force, our group and then a recommendation would be given to the Cardinal, so in effect, he responded to our recommendation. {page 149 begins here}

Q. Okay. So whether the decision was made to continue Mayer in ministry with at least these restrictions under this plan, you knew that he had been suspected of or had committed crimes against children?
MR. GEOLY: Well, this refers to an anonymous report to a TV station.
THE WITNESS: You know, that's where I'm confused. Because I'm not aware of any allegation about -- I don't know what the allegation was that was made to the TV station that was passed onto the Chief of Police. I don't know whether it was an allegation of abuse of children or not.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. You knew that there had been a lawsuit brought against the Archdiocese and Mayer by Mother Doe 2, had you not?
A. Back in the early '80s?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.

Q. And that at that time, there were allegations made that he abused several boys in addition to Doe 2, correct? {page 150 begins here}
A. Yes.

Q. Didn't that cause you to have additional concerns about this new allegation that is being reflected here in 1987?
A. Did I have concern, yes.

Q. And why wasn't this then brought to the police? Why wasn't this document and what you knew about him in the past brought to the police?
A. Probably for the same reason that I've mentioned as he states on there, the information that is given to us, we consider it confidential. Today, it's totally different.
     But I'm thinking 20 years ago how we dealt with things. We've learned.

Q. Bishop, I'm going to hand you Exhibit 9. And while Jessica is giving that to you, this one pertains to Father Ruge. And because I'm working chronologically now, I direct your attention to him and this document. June of 1987, Vicar For Priests, that would be either you or Ventura. And I think it's Ventura because it's from him. But it's to you. So it looks like -- it looks like, you know, you're {page 151 begins here} just taking over for him. Is that --
A. Well, July 1. But I was meeting with him off and on prior to that, you know.

Q. So this is really kind of transitional information being exchanged?
A. That's how I would see it, yes.

Q. And as I read this, Ventura is writing to you to update you on Ruge. At this time, Ruge is in parish ministry working mostly with seniors. And he only has contact with youth if other adults are around. Do you see that in the third paragraph?
A. Yes.

Q. His only contact with youth is supervised situations such as a retreat outing for servers.
     How is one to know that, if that's really being honored by him?
A. I would presume in this case that the pastor probably gave information to Father Ventura that there were teachers and parents and so on. Is that your question, Jeff?

Q. Well, I think you answered it. How many allegations, reports or complaints had been {page 152 begins here} made against Ruge having abused or been suspected of abusing minors at the time of this document?
A. I don't know.

Q. The confidentiality that you spoke of, didn't prevent you from sharing this information with other clergy, it just prevented you from sharing it with any non-clergy; is that correct?
MR. GEOLY: Which information?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Information that you're receiving about sexual abuse by priests and from priests?
A. I considered -- whatever I heard as Vicar For Priests I considered it confidential in the same way I would as pastor. I received a communication from a parishioner. I simply would not talk about it to anyone except those who had a right to know because of their position in the diocese.

Q. Well, what about those that are working with that priest who is accused, who is supposed to be monitored, the assistant pastors working with him, the housekeepers, the pastors, all those other people that are there. Did you {page 153 begins here} believe that you could tell them?
A. Yes. Because we felt we had to have someone overseeing him, and so we did tell them. Yes.

Q. If you could tell the housekeepers, the other employees, the assistant pastors and the like, that this guy had a history and you should keep an eye on him, why couldn't you tell the parishioners?
A. I'm not aware of ever telling housekeepers. Where is that?

Q. Okay. Let's say assistant pastors, then, let's say pastors, let's say administrators.
A. We would only --

Q. Why don't you let me finish the question. I'm sorry, Bishop.
A. That's okay.

Q. And hearing you correctly, you're laboring the then belief that this information is confidential. But you could tell pastors, you could tell other priests, you could tell assistant pastors, you could tell other clergy, some -- and certainly anybody that was required {page 154 begins here} to keep an eye on him, such as monitors, correct?
A. No. I would not feel free to tell this clergyman or that clergyman or this housekeeper or that housekeeper. The only one I would feel free to tell would be the one whom we're asking to monitor his behavior.

Q. And that particular protocol under which you were then laboring, was that written somewhere or is that just passed down?
A. Well, if you read the Fitzgerald decision and all of the material that went into it, you will see that Father Ventura had written a document for the sake of the priests in the Diocese describing the role that he had as Vicar For Priests. He was the first one to be appointed such.
     You'll also see a document in which I state how I see the position. And I think both of those documents speak to this issue of confidentiality.

Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit 10. This one pertains to Father Robert Mayer, June 2, 1987 Archdiocese stationery, Vicar For Priests' {page 155 begins here] office. From Father Ventura regarding Mayer to the file and there are individuals signing it, you being one of them, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. This document reflects, does it not, that in June of 1987, Ventura's writing to update -- let me just see. This is June 2nd. You and two other bishops are meeting with Mayer to lay out a series of mandates in response to a phone call from the Des Plaines Police, correct?
MR. GEOLY: I'm sorry, Jeff, I -- somewhere in that question, you lost me.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. I think it's priest, excuse me. I think what -- I read this document as you and two other priests are meeting with Mayer to lay out a series of mandates in response to the May 11th phone call from the Des Plaines Police; is that correct?
A. Can you ask it again, please?

Q. You'll see it says on May 11, 1987, Police Chief Joseph Kozenczak of Des Plaines informed me that he received anonymous information? {page 156 begins here}
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. And this involves Mayer, correct?
A. Yes.

MR. GEOLY: This is Ventura writing, right?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. And this last sentence of the first paragraph says, however, the fact of the concerns indicates need for special supervision of Father Mayer. Now, this is special supervision as opposed to supervision. What is special supervision in contrast to the former supervision?

[7 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 156]

Q. Yeah, okay. So what does this special {page 157 begins here} supervision mean?
A. I know one thing, it means because of our concerns, we required that another assessment be made. Because we were concerned is he a risk to children. And we wanted to be certain that by leaving him there, that children would not be at risk.
     And so we did call for a special evaluation. There was no new allegation made, other than this anonymous call to the TV station. And we don't know the content of that or anything. It was just because of the situation that we thought we've got to get another assessment of this fellow.

[4 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 157]

Q. And 2, a canonical mandate is given to Mayer to avoid all unsupervised contact with all persons under the age of 21. This applies especially to his private living quarters in the rectory. Why is that spelled out to apply especially to his private quarters in the {page 158 begins here} rectory?
A. Well, I can only speculate now. But I presume it was because a number of allegations were made in the past that he seemed to invite young people into his room at the rectory. And we -- you know, we thought it's inappropriate and we wanted to make sure that he understands that he's not to do that.

Q. And among those allegations was him supplying alcohol to minors?
A. That was one of them, yes.

Q. Among those allegations was him engaging in circle jerks, masturbation with him and other kids?
A. I don't remember -- as you described it, I don't remember that. But it may have been there.

Q. Among those allegations was him smoking marijuana with kids in the rectory?
A. I seem to remember that allegation.

Q. Among the allegations was nudity by him and encouraging other kids to be nude in his presence in the rectory?
A. I don't remember the precise thing that {page 159 begins here} he was nude. I do remember something about him coming out of the shower. Whether he had a towel on or not, I don't remember that.

[20 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 159]

Q. Okay. So tell me this, then, Bishop, {page 160 begins here} when is the first time you, as Vicar For Priests, warned any parishioners that Father Mayer posed a risk of harm to their children?
A. My memory of it is -- the first time was when we went to St. Odilo's. Unfortunately, it was after the fact he had already been removed. And we also went to St. Edna and I believe St. Stephen. But at the moment, I can't remember whether it was before or after the Odilo thing.

Q. And you're correct, that was after the fact that you told parishioners. It was too late because the kids had already been hurt, right?
A. (Nodding).

Q. Tell me this. When in time did you warn any parishioners that any of these priests who were under restrictions and against whom allegations have been made, were told about what you knew?
A. Well, as I said, our policies, our procedures evolved quite a bit over the years. In the beginning, we did not notify the parishioners. I believe that we began to notify {page 161 begins here} the parishioners only at the time when we removed a priest from the parish. I can't put a date on that. But that's when we started to have someone go and read a letter, a statement at the parish.

[9 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 161]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Because there are a number of priests who continue in the ministry under restriction. We've identified some of them and I have more to ask you about that are in these documents.
     So my question to you, Bishop, is when is the first time that you personally or were involved in the Archdiocese warning parishioners that there is a priest in ministry against whom allegations have been made of sexual abuse and {page 162 begins here} is being monitored by us?
MR. GEOLY: So it's the monitoring situation that you're asking about?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
THE WITNESS: At this time, I'm drawing a blank as to when we began to go to parishes, whether or not it predated removal from ministry. I just don't remember exactly when.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. I looked at these documents, Bishop, and I haven't seen anyplace where it was documented that you ever told the parishioners that you were removing a priest from ministry for sexual abuse.
     I've seen documentation that you removed them from ministry for personal reasons or health reasons. Do you have any recollection of ever having told parishioners that a priest was being removed from ministry for having abused children?
A. Well, we certainly did, for instance, in the Holihan case. They already knew it.

Q. Holihan was convicted, wasn't he?
A. No. {page 163 begins here}

Q. Okay. Did you tell them it was for sexual abuse?
A. Yeah, they knew the story.

Q. Okay. Other than Holihan, do you or anybody -- I'll ask you the question again. Do you have any personal recollection of you or anybody else from the Archdiocese ever warning the parishioners and/or informing the parishioners that you were removing the priests from ministry because of sexual abuse?
A. Well, we certainly did in the Mayer case. But we had already -- he had already been removed, though, when we told the people.
     I know we went to St. Mary's in Des Plaines about the Strand case. But again, I don't know the -- you know, the exact timing of it. But he had already been removed.

MR. GEOLY: But the question is whether you told the parishioners the reason for the removal.
THE WITNESS: In the Strand case?
MR. GEOLY: In general.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. In any case. I was -- if you had any {page 164 begins here} recollection of ever having told the reason for the removal of it being sexual abuse as opposed to it being personal reasons, health reason or some other.
A. All right. Yeah, I'd say the Strand case we certainly told the people.

Q. Any others?
A. The three cases that I remember where we actually told them the whole story was Mayer, Holihan and Strand. Now, whether there were others, at the moment, I'm not thinking of any.

[LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 164]

BY MR. ANDERSON:

[LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 164.
12 TOTAL LINES REDACTED FROM THIS PAGE.]

{page 165 begins here}

[15 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 165]

Q. Okay. I'm showing you Exhibit 12. This is from you to Mayer. And at the second paragraph, the last sentence says, but rather for your own protection lest any occasion be given to persons who may want to hurt you by bringing up again the charges from the past.
     Here it's written that there's concern about Father Mayer and it's being expressed by you. And that sentence begins with, again, the {page 166 begins here} purpose of this is not our concern that something inappropriate might happen, but rather for your protection.
     My question, Bishop, is did you ever write or express in writing concern about the protection of the children?
MR. GEOLY: Can I just ask you, Bishop, to read the entire -- to yourself just read the entire Paragraph 2 so you can see the context of that sentence.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. So my question is, you're expressing concern about protecting Father Mayer, correct?
A. Yes. But we'd be concerned that children not be in any way hurt. But at the moment what I'm saying there is to protect you. Because it seems like he would somehow bring out accusations, allegations and ones which we can never establish with certainty. But somehow his behavior would create that.

Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 13 again. It again pertains to Mayer. The second paragraph, third sentence, it refers to, I explained that I would like it to be a place that would both {page 167 begins here} physically and psychologically distant from the three parishes where difficulty has arisen.
     Were all those three parishes where difficulty arisen involved his conduct pertaining to minors?
MR. GEOLY: Pardon me. Where are we? On the document, where is that?

MR. ANDERSON: Paragraph 2, first sentence.
THE WITNESS: At the three parishes that he's talking, allegations were made. Usually it regarded his conduct with minors, all though at St. Stephens, we have no idea what the allegation was.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. All right. 17 is another one involving Mayer in May of '88. Is this authored by you?
A. If it's in 1988, it had to be me. Yes.

Q. I'm showing you now Exhibit 15 pertaining to Father James Hagan. And it appears the Archdiocese learns that Hagan is being investigated by DCFS for his sexually graphic discussions with children, correct?
A. Yes. {page 168 begins here}

Q. And then showing you Document 16, you wrote this also pertaining to Hagan. It appears here that the same time, a mother calls because some of parents said that Hagan has been abusing boys. Is this written by you?
A. The memo is mine.

Q. Okay. Is it correct to say that Hagan remained in the parish as pastor?
A. I don't think he's pastor. I think he's at -- I think he's still at St. Gertrude's as an associate pastor.

Q. It appears that he's a pastor at St. Dennis in May of '88. Oh, St. Gertrude, excuse me. It says, pastor at St. Gertrude's.
MR. GEOLY: But that's not referring to Hagan.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. So is it correct to say that he remained at least then as associate pastor at St. Gertrude's after this information was recorded?
A. The answer to your question is yes. But before when you asked the question, you said he was accused of fondling boys and I don't {page 169 begins here] think that was accurate.

Q. Look at Paragraph 3 of 16. In the course of her comments, she mentioned that some of the parents are disturbed now about the associate pastor who is accused of fondling the children; that is correct, isn't it? That's what it says.
A. Yeah, as long as you didn't say boys. Because it seemed to me that the case I dealt with was a girl.

Q. Okay. I got it. Exhibit 18 goes back to Mayer. And this is November of '88. The first paragraph, fourth sentence says, also it will give us another year or so to sit out a possible threat of the book or TV movie coming out.
     The negative side is that Dionysius is a place where the lay person got in trouble with pedophilia and there is a criminal case pending against that person. Thus far, there are no lawsuits against our church. However, if people who want to do harm to Bob decide to spread gossip out in Cicero, it could become a can of worms inasmuch as the people would be saying {page 170 begins here} first they put up but this lay person who is active in the parish and now they send us a pedophile pastor.
     My question to you is, is it correct to say that the concern is about avoiding scandal and keeping this a secret as opposed to protecting the kids?
A. I don't like -- you are separating the two and I'd like to think we were concerned for the children. And up to this point, we still had no servitude about him abusing children. We were giving him another chance to prove himself. And we obviously were concerned about causing scandal, yes.
     You have to keep in mind, all of this was when I was Vicar For Priests. And our policies evolved and are quite different now. I mean, today there would be no way he'd be in that parish.

Q. I'm handing you Exhibit 19, Bishop. And this is to the Clergy Personnel Board. It's written by Auxiliary Bishop Jay Jakubowski. It -- essentially, there's a recommendation here. Did you agree with the recommendation {page 171 begins here} being made?
MR. GEOLY: Do you want to take a look at it?
THE WITNESS: Could I read it?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Well, let me cut through it so you don't have to. At the third paragraph in the middle, it says -- let me read it. We agree that Father Mayer would be the ideal priest to bring St. Dionysius to a level of where we thought a parish should be. In other words, he's being recommended for a position there.
     Did you support the recommendation in the placement to him at St. Odilo?
A. Well, I don't actually remember supporting the recommendation. I presume I did. But I don't support and didn't support all the phrases that were used.

Q. Okay.
A. I didn't consider him ideal.

Q. And at this point in time, had any of the parishioners been warned of the concerns, the complaints, the restrictions, the evaluations or the settlements that have been {page 172 begins here} made in the past regarding this guy?
A. The parishioners at St. Dionysius?

Q. At anywhere.
A. At this time --

Q. At St. Dionysius.
A. I doubt it. I would think not.

Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 20, again, Father Mayer. It's a call from [REDACTED] -- actually, you called her. And at 3 it says, I explained to [REDACTED] the nature of my call. I wanted to put her at ease. Did you tell her anything about the history that you knew that the Archdiocese had concerning Mayer and the sexual abuse and suspicions around it?
A. I would presume I did. But I don't have a memory of it at the moment.

Q. It's not reflected in this moment. Was the Archdiocese expecting her to be his monitor then?
A. I think we were expecting Bishop Jay Jakubowski to be his monitor. But --

MR. GEOLY: Look at the date of the memo, Bishop. This is a little out of order. This memo is from 1988. So it's not the {page 173 begins here} St. Odilo's appointment that was discussed in the 1990 document.
THE WITNESS: It's the St. Dionysius, isn't it?

MR. GEOLY: Right, right.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Did I answer your question, Jeff?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Yeah, I think you did.
A. Okay.

[14 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 173]

{page 174 begins here}

[3 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 174]

Q. Okay. Do you remember anything to do with Kissane in '88?
A. I dealt with Kissane, but I don't remember the date.

Q. What do you remember doing pertaining to Kissane?
A. With regard to Kissane, again, I'm not sure of the very first allegation or if there were many. But I do recall an allegation being made. I interviewed the person who made the allegation and we followed our usual practice of requiring him to -- I presume I did it in this case. That was my usual practice, to require that he be assessed and so on.

Q. Okay. He was continued in ministry?
A. Well, I'm drawing a blank right now whether we allowed him to stay -- to stay there or what. I just don't remember.

Q. In June of 1989, the information I have is that a woman comes forward and tells the Archdiocese that as an 8th grader [REDACTED] she {page 175 begins here] was abused by Joe Kissane, [TWO LINES REDACTED] Do you know anything about that? Do you remember that?
A. I remember that. Yes.

[19 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 175]

{page 176 begins here}

[7 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 176]

Q. Exhibit 22 pertains to Father Maday. The date is July 8, 1988 and -- from the Archbishop and he takes a sabbatical. Is there any other paperwork on file -- well, let me ask you this. What do you know about Maday taking a sabbatical at this point in time and his request for it?
A. I don't remember. But --

Q. Had he been involved inappropriately with children?
MR. GEOLY: I think he was still answering your question.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry, Bishop.
THE WITNESS: What were you --

MR. GEOLY: Were you still answering the question or were you done?
THE WITNESS: All I was going to say {page 177 begins here} was I don't remember but it could have happened.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Yes.
A. I didn't deal with --

Q. This document says he's requesting a sabbatical. And so you don't remember the reason for that?
A. See, I was never involved with those kinds of decisions.

Q. I'm showing you now Exhibit No. 33 -- 23. This pertains to Vincent McCaffrey. It's dated March 30, '89, Archdiocese of Chicago, Vicar For Priests' stationery, several typed written pages. Is this something you prepared, Bishop? It's got a lot of deletions on it. But --
A. Should I read the rest of it or what?

Q. My question is did you prepare it?
A. Well, given the date, it certainly looks like my, you know --

Q. Look at the last Page, No. 23. It states, it seemed unfair to insist that Vince move out of St. Josaphat. But on the other hand, I don't see much of an alternative. If he {page 178 begins here} stays, we run the risk that someone else might be phoned just as the blank were and they may not be as discrete.
     Moreover, what do we do if someone starts checking things out and finds that Vince does have a past history, question mark. This would certainly compromise both blank, myself and the Diocese. It would appear as though we were covering up for Vince and not telling the blank exactly what the story is.
     When you wrote this, your concern was to avoid scandal and keep this secret?
A. I think that's -- I think that's something that in every case I would like to think we use the word confidential than secret. But in this particular case, I was also concerned at the discomfort that was felt by the couple that had mentioned this. They weren't accusing him of anything that happened at that parish. They simply had heard from somebody about Vince's previous history.

[2 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 178]

{page 179 begins here}

[10 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 179]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Was McCaffrey removed from ministry at this point?
A. It was at this point -- the answer is no. It was at this point that he went to Lady of Good Counsel.

Q. In 1989, Bishop, Father Maday is assigned, according to records, to St. Jude the Apostle. The other priests there were Fathers Murphy and Powers.
     And police investigators were told that Maday was warned not to have boys in his rectory room and did not comply. Were you involved in that? {page 180 begins here}
A. What's the date?

Q. 1989 Maday.
A. I would have been, yes.

MR. GEOLY: Do you remember that happening?
THE WITNESS: I don't.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Why was Fathers Murphy and Powers told that he couldn't have boys in his room? What had he done or what had been reported that he had done that caused them to have been told that?
A. At this point, I just -- I vaguely remember something about St. Jude. But I don't remember telling Father Powers and the other that -- you know, I just don't remember. {Note: In the 1990 Official Catholic Directory, which reflects data collected in Fall 1989, the priests at St. Jude the Apostle in South Holland were Rev. John J. Powers (pastor), Thomas S. McMahon (pastor emeritus), John Murphy, and Norbert J. Maday, and the deacons were Herbert Drazba, Arthur Nylen, and Richard Stojak. The parish school is listed as having 638 students in 1989-90.}

[7 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 180]

{page 181 begins here}

[PAGE 181 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 182 begins here}

[PAGE 182 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 183 begins here}

[PAGE 183 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 184 begins here}

[8 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 184]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay. In May of 1990, Father Robert Craig -- and I'm showing you a letter {Exhibit 25} that he wrote to Cardinal Bernardin apologizing for attending Quigley Seminary graduation. But given his involvement with the seminary over the years, we didn't feel right about not being allowed to go.
     In the first page it states I may as well -- at the start of the first -- second paragraph. It states, I may as well get the bad news out first. I was at Quigley South's final graduation. I know you don't agree, but I think you made a mistake. What -- do you know what Cardinal Bernardin -- or excuse me, what Father Craig is referring to here? {page 185 begins here]
MR. GEOLY: Objection, calls for speculation. But you can answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Well, I presume it's the closing of Quigley South that many people disagreed with.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Why would that be related to Craig?
A. I really don't know.

[15 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 185]

Q. In June of 1, 1990 -- I'm going to show {page 186 begins here} you a document Exhibit 27. Again, this is to Cardinal Bernardin, Archdiocese of Chicago, Vicar For Priests' stationery from you.

[21 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 186]

{page 187 begins here}

[2 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 187]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. I'll direct your attention to the second page of this document. It's numbered Paragraph 4 in the last sentence. I'm going to read it and then I'll ask you a question.
     If someone does go public and digs up the past, the possibility of scandal can be minimized if we're able to counter such an attack with the data revealed in blank. Did you write that?
A. Well, I'm presuming I wrote the whole memo. I don't know now what's under the blank.

Q. Well, I think it's probably an evaluation. But you don't remember what it is, so I'm not going to speculate, if you don't remember.
A. Well --

Q. The first question is you wrote this, obviously?
A. Yes.

Q. And so you're concerned about scandal, are you not? {page 188 begins here}
A. Yes.

Q. And you were at all times concerned about scandal?
A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. I'm showing you Exhibit 28. This involves Norbert Maday, July of 1990. Detective called St. Jude the Apostle pastor to report that Maday molested his son in 1988. Were you involved in this?
A. I was certainly involved with this. It sounds like -- Father McDonagh wrote the memo. But it sounds similar to what I had learned, that a policeman whom we can never track down because he gave an address or a phone number that wasn't --

Q. Did you make the effort to track him down?
A. Well, Father McDonagh was the assistant Vicar For Priests. And since he wrote the memo, I presume at the time that he would have done whatever was appropriate.

Q. So it's correct to say that Maday was continued in parish work without warning to parishioners and without report to police? {page 189 begins here}
A. Yeah, as was the practice then. It's totally different now, but that was the practice.

Q. Okay. Exhibit 29 is a -- is to the file prepared by you. The date is August 25, 1990. And the last sentence says, on the other hand if it causes some sort of public situation, it would be much better that Bob not be in a position of pastor when things erupt.
     And it refers to earlier Bob's deposition. Why is Bob's deposition being taken, do you know?
A. No.

Q. And then again your words at the last sentence here about the public situation and it's better that Bob not be in a position when things erupt. Try to avoid scandal and keep this confidential, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Exhibit 30, Bishop, we'll hand you involves Father Craig. It's dated September 13, 1990. And the mother of victim tells her parish priest he had Father Ed Maloney, M-A-L-O-N-E-Y, that her son was abused {page 190 begins here} by Craig. And here -- here you write, Father Ed said that Bob has kids on the second floor of the rectory all the time. Do you see that at 4?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. He spends an awful lot of time with kids. It's correct to say that Father Craig was continuing in the ministry after this memo was created and this information received?
A. I'm not sure I remember getting this and I remember interviewing him, whether we allowed him to stay there with the pastor knowing the situation or whether we removed him at that time. Because there was a time when we put them in a separate setting.

Q. Okay. Actually, Exhibit 31 reflects that a month later, Craig is put on a medical leave of absence. [ONE AND A HALF LINES REDACTED]
     Craig is also given permission by you to celebrate a jubilee mass at his parish so as not to upset his mother. And you write in this exhibit, quote, I told him there is a pattern in Bob's activity that some of the things he'd done will constitute criminal behavior, unquote. {page 191 begins here}
     Do you see that at the third paragraph?
A. Yes.

[5 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 191]

Q. I'm showing you what we've marked now as 80. And this is a letter from you to Robert Craig, -- Rev. Robert Craig October 16, 1990. And you're asking him for a list of names and addresses of his -- I presume is that of kids he abused?
A. He had mentioned -- when I confronted him on the abuse that was already brought by that woman before, he had indicated that there were others.

Q. Did you ask him how many?
A. I did not ask him how many. He did -- he did tell me, but I don't remember the number.

Q. Okay. It was -- it was more than five?
A. My recollection is yes, but I wouldn't be able to go --

Q. And this information was kept {page 192 begins here} confidential?
A. Confidential from whom?

Q. Well, in the hands of the Archdiocese and for its representatives only?
A. I'd have to say --
MR. GEOLY: Well look at the document.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Well, let me say its representatives and its advisors.
A. Well, we did want to contact others who were victims. But so in that sense, we were going beyond just the Archbishop and his advisors.

Q. And you didn't because?
A. Well, at this point, I'm not sure whether we did or didn't. Apparently his attorney recommended against it.

Q. Did you make this request of any other offenders before Craig in 1990, to give the names of your victims so we can reach out to them and/or help them?
A. At this point, I don't remember. Because usually we only had the one allegation and I did not ask. {page 193 begins here}

Q. This actually came up with Craig because he raised it?
A. Yes.

Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 33. This involves Father Robert Mayer, May 30, 1991, a three-page memo to the file prepared by you.
     This is a memo that you wrote concerning Mayer and an anonymous allegation has been made -- at least another allegation has been made against him. And this is an anonymous one; is that correct?
A. No. Are you looking at the same one?

Q. 33?
A. It was not anonymous. The name is right above there were it says, he came to see me.

[8 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 193]

{page 194 begins here}

[PAGE 194 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 195 begins here}

Q. So I'm showing you Exhibit 34. And this involves Father Kenneth Ruge, again to the file prepared by you, correct, Bishop?
A. Yeah, it has my name, so I own it.

[8 LINES REDACTED FROM MIDDLE OF PAGE 195]

Q. And he was abused by Ruge, correct?
A. Yes. I'd have to read this whole thing. But --

Q. Look at the third page, Paragraph 12. It states, blank said that he has never heard anything about Ken since. He doesn't know whether or not the Diocese is aware of this or if he was ever treated.
     But blank said he just doesn't want any scandal for the church. He has no intention of making this public and he certainly doesn't wish harm to Ken but blank feels that we cannot {page 196 begins here} afford any more scandals.
     What did you do responsive to this?
MR. GEOLY: Do you need to look at the whole document?
THE WITNESS: I think I would have to read it because I don't know what the document is about.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay.
A. Do you want me to read it or --

Q. Okay. Let's look at 35. I think that answers pretty much -- at least what you documented what was done.
     And if you look at it on June 4, 1991, a memo prepared by you the day after the priest -- victim met with you. Did you give Ruge the okay to be assigned for a pastorate?
A. No.

Q. Was he removed from ministry as a result of this information?
A. He was removed from ministry. But I don't recall if it was a result of this particular case or others. I don't remember.

Q. I'm handing you Exhibit 36, Bishop. {page 197 begins here} This one refers back to Father Robert Mayer. And I'm not going to go through the whole thing. But there is one sentence I want to ask you about at Paragraph 2. I asked Dave whether or not he was aware of any inappropriate behavior on Bob's part. He said it appeared that Bob lacked good judgment.
     When I asked him to what he was referring, he responded, anyone who had the problem that he had, would be expected to use much greater discretion. When the word the problem is being used by you and it pertained to the priest, is that code for sexual abuse?
A. I would never describe it as code for sexual abuse. But I presume that's what we're talking about, yeah.

Q. Was Mayer removed from ministry as a result of this information in this memo?
A. I think his removal was right around this time. The other -- now, I forget the date on the other memo about the -- the one that came to see me. It all came to a head at that time. He was -- he was asked to resign. So whether it was right after this or not, I'm not sure. {page 198 begins here]

Q. I'm now showing you Exhibit 38. And this is actually -- there's documentation that shows that on July 1, 1991, you met with Mayer to receive his resignation as pastor and Cardinal Bernardin was in that meeting.
     And this would appear to be a draft of a message given by Cardinal Bernardin. Did you prepare this draft for the Cardinal?
A. I'm pretty sure I did.

Q. Were you taking the position here in the Archdiocese that if he goes to treatment, he'd be allowed back in ministry?
MR. GEOLY: Where is that?
THE WITNESS: I don't see it.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Paragraph 5. Furthermore, I direct you, then black out, the Vicar of Priests and then I will remain in contact with you, and then blank, and a determination will eventually be made as to whether or not you will be permitted to return to active ministry.
MR. GEOLY: That's Number 5.
THE WITNESS: I see it. At that time, keep in mind that our practice was we would {page 199 begins here} return a person to ministry if there was no danger to children. Our practice has changed radically over the years. And since 1991, shortly after he was asked to resign, the policy became quite different. And we have adhered to it ever since. That for the most part, they would not be allowed to stay in ministry.
     There was no way -- at this time the Cardinal was getting ready to meet with him to tell him to resign. And this was a statement that I gave that the Cardinal could use in the conversation.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. You'll see in Exhibit 38 the message to be given under the name of Cardinal Bernardin at the first paragraph. I'll read it and then ask you a question. In the middle it states, over the years you have repeatedly been the subject of allegations of sexual impropriety, and yet you have refused to modify your behavior in such a way that the risk to yourself and to the church would be eliminated.
     Now, there's no mention of the children in here, is there, just Father Mayer and the {page 200 begins here} church, right?
A. You have to understand. I think in all our dealings, we were concerned about children. We never had a clear allegation that was substantiated until that individual came forward.
     And the Cardinal is simply saying that you had been given many chances. We never were able to have proven allegations, but there was smoke all the time. And we asked you to revise your behavior and he obviously didn't.

Q. Paragraph -- Exhibit 39 that you have before you -- that we're placing before you, as you receive this, this is to Cardinal Bernardin from you, June 24, '91 involving Mayer.
     At the second page, Paragraph D -- 7D it states, Bob should be told that if he cooperates (i.e., resigns and agrees to enter treatment) a more benign statement will be read at all the weekend masses, a statement that will simply say that Bob has decided to resign the parish for personal reasons, et cetera.
     So, Bishop, as I read this, you and the Cardinal are prepared to inform the masses that {page 201 begins here} he would be resigning for personal reasons, not for reasons of sexual abuse, right?
A. Yes.

Q. And what did -- what did the parish get told?
A. The parish was told for personal reasons.

Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 40, which is effectively just a memo of the July 1st meeting with the Cardinal, Bishop Jakubowski and you with Mayer, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And I've read this and I don't see any reference to protecting children. But in Paragraph 4, I see at the first sentence it's written, Bob said that we're going to have to help him to handle the political fallout and the Cardinal responded that he was going to do whatever he could to protect Bob's reputation.
     Did I read that correctly?
MR. GEOLY: Do you want to read the rest of it?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Now, this is before Bob Mayer is {page 202 begins here} arrested, isn't it?
A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. At Paragraph 6, Bishop, let me read a part of it and ask you a question. After the meeting concluded, the Cardinal, Bishop Jakubowski and I continued to discuss the situation. We agreed that if a priest asked us why Bob was treated in this fashion, we would tell the truth. In a sense, Bob has forfeited his right to privacy and we will not let the church or any of us take the heat for his behavior. On the other hand, we will do our best to protect him as far as his parishioners and others are concerned.
     So what are you contemplating there, lying until comply?
A. Lying?

Q. Yes.
A. Where do you mean?

Q. Well, you say that we agreed we would tell -- we agreed that if priests ask us why Bob was treated in this fashion, we would tell the truth.
A. We would let the priests know what had {page 203 begins here} happened in that case.

Q. What about the parishioners, what would you tell them?
A. I think we were still following our procedures at that time. If this was 1991 or '92 after the policies were promulgated, there would be a total difference.

Q. Okay.
MR. GEOLY: Can we go off the record for a moment?

MR. ANDERSON: Do you want to take a break?
MR. GEOLY: I want to ask you about scheduling, given the time of day and all.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 4:26 p.m.

(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record at 4:39 p.m. with the start of Tape Number 5.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay. Bishop, I'm handing you Exhibit 41, a letter to parishioners from {page 204 begins here} Archbishop Bernardin. This involves Mayer. And it states in the body, because of personal reasons, however, he is asked that I accept his resignation effective immediately so that he may go on sabbatical.
     In this case, Bernardin told him to resign, did he not?
A. Yes.

[16 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 204]

{page 205 begins here}

[5 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 205]

Q. And in the case of Mayer here, it states, on sabbatical. What is that supposed to mean?
A. I don't know what Cardinal Bernardin had in mind. I presume it was to go for treatment.

Q. Well, it's a big word. But in effect what it means is we're getting him out of here to keep him quiet, to keep him away from the police and not let the parishioners know the true facts, that being that this guy is a criminal, right?
MR. GEOLY: Is that a question?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
THE WITNESS: I don't think that is the thought process that we would go through in something like this.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. But in terms of the actions, it is what {page 206 begins here} you did or at least what the Archdiocese did, isn't it?
A. It is what we did. And I think the way you are characterizing it is not really what was in our minds at the time any more than it is when a corporation does the same thing.
     They don't spell out all of the problems and so on that somebody might have encountered, but they just say, he resigned for personal reasons.

Q. In this corporation, there's a problem with sexual abuse of minors by clerics.
A. Right.

Q. And the parishioners aren't being told. In the case of Father Maday, the parishioners were told, as they were in Mayer, that he was going on sabbatical in 1988 when, in fact, there had been a long history of abuse, correct?
MR. GEOLY: Objection. That does assume facts not in evidence. He testified not having any knowledge of that 1988 document on Maday and his sabbatical.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Well, I'll represent to you that {page 207 begins here} documents reflect that the parishioners were never told this. And documents show him going on sabbatical. With that in mind, it's the same pattern that we've been talking about here, isn't it?
MR. GEOLY: Objection, vague and ambiguous and assumes facts not proven, not in evidence concerning patterns. You can answer the question.

THE WITNESS: I can?
MR. GEOLY: You can if you can. Go right ahead and answer it, even if he's looking at papers.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. You can answer that question.
A. Is that all right?

Q. Yeah, sure?
MR. GEOLY: Jeff's already onto the next question. He remembers that he asked you one, so you still have to answer it.

MR. PEARLMAN: And you're polite enough to wait for him.
THE WITNESS: The answer wasn't so specific to what you had asked. But I do think {page 208 begins here} what you brought out is something that we are well aware of now. It's a lot easier for us to see clearly that we made a mistake.
     And the Mayer case is probably what triggered the appointment of a commission to look into this whole question out of which came the policies of 1992. And so as bad as it all sounds, the Mayer case is what helped us to see that we were not doing the proper thing.
     And from that point on, I do think we changed.

[13 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 208]

{page 209 begins here}

[PAGE 209 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 210 begins here}

[PAGE 210 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 211 begins here}

[22 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 211]

Q. Well, let me put it to you this way, Bishop. You said that it changed in 1992, {page 212 begins here} didn't you?
A. The procedures changed, yes.

Q. The procedures changed but let me ask you about the practices employed by this Archdiocese. Isn't it correct that this Archdiocese, within the last year or two years, in the case of Father Joseph Bennett effectively received allegations of sexual abuse, continued in the ministry and kept it confidential.
A. I know nothing about that case.

Q. Isn't it true that in the last two years, the Archdiocese received allegations of abuse pertaining to Father Dan McCormack, kept him in ministry, kept him confidential and didn't tell the parishioners or report it to anybody outside of the Archdiocese?
A. I know nothing about that case, other than what -- rumors and newspaper.

Q. Let me show you Exhibit 43. This is three-page notes of a parish a leadership meeting at St. Odilo's parish, where you talk about you being present here. And you'll see at the second page at the third paragraph, it says, [ONE LINE REDACTED] {page 213 begins here} [REDACTED] spoke of how not knowing the circumstances of Mayer's problem and restrictions put her in a very vulnerable spot, especially vis a vis the children. She was controlled but angry and frustrated. Now, I appreciate that this was written in 1991, was it not?
A. Yes.
MR. GEOLY: Well, what's the date on it. Have we established who wrote this document?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Did you?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Someone -- you'll see at the middle it says -- you're referred to here. You'll see someone asked if the parish might be sued. Ray explained that that would not happen. Do you see that?
MR. GEOLY: Where is that?
THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. That's one, one, two, three, four, the fifth paragraphs down. Someone asked if the {page 214 begins here} parish might be sued, Ray explained that that would not happen.
     And above that, it states Ray Goedert answered that the school is being evaluated and is doing a very good job. So that Ray, I presume, is you; is it not, Bishop?
A. Well, where it says Ray Goedert -- I don't know who wrote the memo, but -- and I don't know what the question was.
MR. GEOLY: What was the question?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. The question is, according to this memo, a parishioner asked if the parish might be sued?
MR. GEOLY: Do you remember being asked that question?
THE WITNESS. No.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Do you remember giving the answer no, it won't happen?
A. No, I don't remember that.

Q. Okay. And going back --
A. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just don't remember. {page 215 begins here}

Q. Okay. Just going back to [REDACTED] and the concerns that she was expressing about being in the dark and being vulnerable and her concerns about the children. Who is monitoring Mayer at this time?
A. In October, he was gone.

Q. At the time of St. Odilo's?
A. He was gone in -- I think it's June of '91. July 2nd he announced to the parishioners that he was gone.

Q. And who was monitoring him before he left then?
A. Well, I -- to some extent, Bishop Jakubowski is the vicar would be the one who would be concerned, and I as the Vicar For Priests would have been -- before he was removed, I would have been the one that was meeting with him.

Q. And so nobody at the parish knew that he was even being monitored?
A. Probably the only ones at the parish who knew were the family that -- because they were part of the parish, I mean they were very active. {page 216 begins here}

Q. And, Bishop, I know you're no longer the Vicar For Clergy and you recently have been Vicar General, but you remain auxiliary. Are you aware that the parishioners and the employees around Dan McCormack were never told that he was being monitored, that reports have been made and they expressed the same concerns about him that were being expressed about Mayer in 1991? Are you aware of that?
A. No. I really don't know the details of the McCormack case, but I accept that.

Q. It's disturbing, isn't it, Bishop?
A. Well, I think that's why I said that this case, as bad as it might seem, the pluses that it got us to look at our policies and procedures and while we maybe didn't arrive at the perfect solution, we certainly changed quite a bit.

Q. Well, did you look at the Defen Baugh report that was done, the audit that was done where the Archdiocese hired Defen Baugh to give them a report and they rendered findings in connection with Joseph Bennett and Dan McCormack. Did you read that? {page 217 begins here}
A. I did read the Defen Baugh report. At this point, I don't remember the content.

Q. And I'll represent to you that they found -- these independent auditors found that what the Archdiocese did in the case of Joseph Bennett and Dan McCormack in the last two years was the very same things that the Archdiocese had done and failed to do in 1991 and before.
MR. GEOLY: Wait for a question.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. When you read the report, did you note the similarities?
MR. GEOLY: I'm going to object that it mischaracterizes the Defen Bough report and let you answer the question as best you can.
THE WITNESS: Well, it would be hard to answer the question because I did read the report at the time it came out. But I don't remember the content enough to even comment at this time.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. I read the report, Bishop, and it made me sick. Did it make you sick?
A. Not that I can recall. It doesn't mean {page 218 begins here} I was happy with it or anything like that. But I don't remember the report enough to, you know --

Q. Okay. I'm going to go through these real quick now. 45 is October, '91. This involves Ruge. And under 4, it states, Father Steve Tebes, T-E-B-E-S, was appointed pastor a short time ago. He did not have knowledge of Father Ruge's previous history. And he's Ruge's supervisor and he's not told that Ruge has got a history of sexual molestation. What do you know about that?
A. Nothing.

[11 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 218]

{page 219 begins here}

[8 LINES REDACTED FROM PAGE 219,
BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE REDACTED COPY WHETHER THE LINES
FELL ABOVE OR BELOW THE FOLLOWING TEXT
OR WERE DISTRIBUTED ABOVE AND BELOW IT.]

Q. Tell me what you remember about your dealings with Cloutier.
A. Yes.

Q. He was accused of sexual abuse, wasn't he?
A. Yes.

Q. He was actually accused of raping two kids. And then at gunpoint, threatening their lives and the lives of their parents if they told, right?
A. I remember it -- that goes back to the '70s or so?

Q. Yeah. That went to the Oak Lawn Police in '79, didn't it?
A. I didn't think it was Oak Lawn. But it was one of those southern, south towns.

{page 220 begins here}

[11 LINES REDACTED FROM PAGE 220,
BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE REDACTED COPY WHETHER THE LINES
FELL ABOVE OR BELOW THE FOLLOWING TEXT
OR WERE DISTRIBUTED ABOVE AND BELOW IT.]

Q. Okay. So your knowledge of that is kind of after the fact?
A. Very much after, yeah.

Q. When did you first learn and how did you first learn Bill Cloutier was a predatory child molester?
A. When I became Vicar For Priests, it was one of the cases that I dealt with because he was reporting every month and that type of thing.

Q. And so he was being continued in ministry under monitoring, right?
A. Yes.

{page 221 begins here}

[11 LINES REDACTED FROM TOP OF PAGE 221]

Q. And that was about it, though, right?
A. As far as I know, probably.

Q. In fact, the public didn't even know about Cloutier and all these other priests until -- until we brought suit and brought this all out to the public, right?
A. Well, I don't know, you know, when all {page 222 begins here} that happened. Whether that was a question of whether you were the one that brought Cloutier out to the public, I didn't know that.

Q. I was. And can you point to an instance in which any one of these priests who had known histories of sexual molestation had been made known to the public by representatives of the Archdiocese, yourself or others?
A. Well, I remember being present at -- I think I mentioned it before. St. Stephens, St. Edna's, St. Mary's, Lady Of the Snows, at which it was communicated to the public exactly what the problem was. I'm not sure of the timing of it.

[10 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 222]

[IN THE REDACTED VERSION, THE FOLLOWING NOTE
WAS ADDED TO THE TEXT HERE:
Witness was shown Exhibits 52, 55, 60, 70, 71, 77]

{page 223 begins here}

[PAGE 223 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 224 begins here}

[PAGE 224 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 225 begins here}

[PAGE 225 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 226 begins here}

[PAGE 226 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 227 begins here}

[PAGE 227 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 228 begins here}

[PAGE 228 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 229 begins here}

[PAGE 229 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 230 begins here}

[PAGE 230 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 231 begins here}

[PAGE 231 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 232 begins here}

[PAGE 232 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 233 begins here}

[PAGE 233 REDACTED COMPLETELY]

{page 234 begins here}

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. Okay. It looks like on November 1, '96, you assumed the day-to-day responsibilities for the Archdiocese as Cardinal Bernardin's health continued to decline. Does that sound right?
A. What date did you give?

Q. November 1, '96.
A. I thought it was a little earlier. It could have been.

Q. He died on November 17, '96?
A. No, November 14th.

Q. Okay.
A. Tomorrow is his anniversary.

Q. Okay.
A. He was quite, quite sick. And I thought it was the end of October, but I could be wrong. Your date might be right.
     But I again, I was not taking over as adjustor as Vicar General. He was asking me to carry the responsibility.

[3 LINES REDACTED FROM BOTTOM OF PAGE 234]

{page 235 begins here}

[7 LINES REDACTED, APPARENTLY FROM TOP OF PAGE 235]

Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 85. This is dated May of 2005. And it's a declaration in which Cardinal George and yourself signed that Mayer left the priesthood because of violations of Canon 1395, a violation of chastity. Is it fair and correct to say that this could have been signed by you and/or the presiding Cardinal at any time while Mayer was a priest of the Archdiocese?
A. It was signed by us on May 28th.

Q. It was signed in 2005.
A. Yeah.

Q. My question is why wasn't it signed in 1970, '71, '72, '73, '74, '75, '76 or earlier?
A. 1970, I don't know that we had any issues at all with Mayer. The reason it's signed -- {page 236 begins here}

Q. Then let's use 1990, '91.
A. That's okay.

Q. Why wouldn't have --
A. The reason why it is signed in '05 is because the Cardinal had asked me to look into the question of whatever priests had left the active ministry, not anything with regard to sexual abuse or whatever. Whatever reason they left, if they had not been laicized, we wanted the records to show in the file that they were no longer authorized to represent the Diocese, et cetera, all the things that we said there.
     I did this in some 260 cases. It had nothing to do -- except in this case, sometimes Paragraph 2, I would say, because they entered a marriage outside the church. In this case, it was referring to the sexual misconduct.

Q. Look at 2d and e. D says that the Archdiocese does not consider itself in any way responsible for the activities of Robert E. Mayer. Why is that so?
A. It's simply a document to let whoever would see that file know that we do not consider him in any way a representative of the {page 237 begins here} Archdiocese of Chicago.

Q. From this point forward you mean. Is that what that means?
A. Well, we haven't considered it for quite a while. But this is when -- because he just asked me probably some time in 2005 -- 2005 to do this. So that's why it's done in that year.

Q. Okay. And then Exhibit 2e -- excuse me, Number 2e says that the Archdiocese is not to be held liable for any scandal or harm to souls for which he has been or is responsible. That refers to the past. Why is this written so?
A. I suppose basically because we don't believe that whatever he has done, he's responsible for his own behavior, that the Archdiocese really can't be held accountable. Now, we've been held accountable by society and by lawsuits, et cetera. But basically, he is responsible for his own behavior.
     In this particular case, if it came down to somebody asking now today did we act responsibly by allowing him to stay in ministry, {page 238 begins here} I would say yes, but it was a poor decision when you look at everything about this man.
     [TWO AND ONE-THIRD LINES REDACTED] And until that final case, we never had a substantiated allegation, I mean a proven one. We had lots of people saying things.

Q. Would you say the same thing about Cloutier?
MR. GEOLY: With respect to what? What?

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q. You never had substantiated allegations?
A. No, I would not say the same. Because apparently the police, you know, had the -- why they didn't pursue prosecution, I don't know.

Q. But he was continued in ministry.
A. Yes.

Q. Would you say the same thing about Fitzharris? He was convicted but continued in ministry. Excuse me, Holihan. Yeah, we'll just say the same thing. {page 239 begins here}
A. When was Fitzharris convicted?

Q. 1987. It was quiet but it was a conviction.
MR. GEOLY: Do you know that? I know it came up earlier in the deposition. But it's now --
THE WITNESS: At this point, I don't remember.

MR. GEOLY: Okay. We've been going eight hours.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.

MR. GEOLY: So I want to make sure that the Bishop is clear on what you're asking him. Let's do this, I'll withdraw that question.
     Mark just whispered in my ear that he wants to take a break for five minutes. I think I'm done in five minutes. So between the two of us, I think we're done in ten. So I'm going to try to be done in ten. After we take a 35-minute break.
THE WITNESS: Do we count the break?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, let me put it this way, I'm kind of devilish.

VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at {page 240 begins here} 5:28 p.m.

(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record at 5:43 p.m.

EXAMINATION BY MR. PEARLMAN:

Q. Bishop Goedert, previously you were shown Exhibit 100, which is a list that's in front of you.
     I want to mark something as Exhibit 100A. And what I'd like you to do is just if we can go through this list -- and I'm not going to read each name to you. But maybe if you can just put an X next to each of the names on here where during your tenure as Vicar For Priests you were aware of an allegation either through a review of the files or through an allegation being made to you of each of the priests on this list.
A. During my role as Vicar For Priests?

Q. Yes. I appreciate that you may not recall every one. So I'm asking you to do this by memory. And I'm not holding you to the {page 241 begins here} accuracy of that without the benefit of documents. I appreciate that.
MR. GEOLY: So as best you can recall.

BY MR. PEARLMAN:
Q. As best you can recall from any source, whether it was Father Ventura telling you, whether it was a file review of a file that existed or any allegation from any source?
A. But just during the period of '87 to '91 when I was Vicar For Priests.

Q. Right. I'm not asking you for things you learned after 1991.
A. Okay. An X is that what you want?

Q. Just an X next to the name is fine.
A. It's a little difficult because of my involvement continuing on PCAC and whether I dealt with a case as vicar or as a member of PCAC. In some -- in some of them, I know clearly I dealt with. Can I mention --

Q. Sure. If there's --
MR. GEOLY: Just try to use your best recollection and do the best you can. We understand this may not be perfect.
THE WITNESS: Yeah. {page 242 begins here}

MR. GEOLY: This represents what you remember right now.
THE WITNESS: Well, you know, I remember about a case. But whether it started with me or I heard it --

BY MR. PEARLMAN:
Q. Yeah, you don't know why you know of it?
A. Yeah.

Q. I understand just go with the ones that you --
A. Any allegation?

Q. Yes, of sexual abuse.
A. Does it -- sex abuse of a minor, is that what we're asking?

Q. Yes.
A. So if it was adult misconduct -- I may have made a mistake here. I put an X in front of a name. I dealt with him, but it had nothing to do with sex abuse.

Q. You could cross that off.
A. Delete it? Okay.

Q. Scratch it out. I'm fine with that.
A. It's harder than I thought to {page 243 begins here} separate -- I know a lot about some of these, but I don't know what the source was, whether I really dealt with it. The Xs are the ones I'm pretty certain about. There are others that I really just have doubt. I just don't remember.

MR. GEOLY: When we're done, I can make a copy of that, right.
MR. PEARLMAN: Sure. And we have no further questions. Thank you for your time.
MR. GEOLY: Okay.

(FURTHER DEPONENT SAITH NOT.) {page 245 begins here}

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS: COUNTY OF C O O K ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - LAW DIVISION JOHN DOES AND WOES, ) Plaintiffs, ) vs.

) ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO, ) Defendant. ) I, RAYMOND GOEDERT, being first duly sworn, on oath say that I am the deponent in the aforesaid deposition taken on the 13th day of November, 2007; that I have read the foregoing transcript of my deposition, consisting of pages 1 through 147 inclusive, and affix my signature to same.
______________________________

RAYMOND GOEDERT Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
, 2007 Notary Public
STATE OF ILLINOIS )

) SS: COUNTY OF C O O K ) I, SUSAN HASELKAMP, a notary public within and for the County of Cook County and State of Illinois, do hereby certify that heretofore, to-wit, on the 13th day of November, 2007, personally appeared before me, at 330 North Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, RAYMOND GOEDERT, in a cause now pending and undetermined in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, wherein JOHN DOE AND WOE are the Plaintiffs, and ARCHDIOCESE is the Defendant. I further certify that the said RAYMOND GOEDERT was first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony then given by said witness was reported stenographically by me in the presence of the said witness, and afterwards reduced to typewriting by Computer-Aided Transcription, and the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the testimony so given by said witness as {page 246 begins here} aforesaid. I further certify that the signature to the foregoing videotaped deposition was reserved by counsel for the respective parties. I further certify that the taking of this videotaped deposition was pursuant to notice and that there were present at the videotaped deposition the attorneys hereinbefore mentioned. I further certify that I am not counsel for nor in any way related to the parties to this suit, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome thereof. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF: I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this day of
, 2007.
__________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LIC. NO. 084-004022

McCorkle Court Reporters, Inc.
200 N. LaSalle Street Suite 300
Chicago, Illinois 60601-1014 DATE: November 14, 2007 BURKE, WARREN, MACKAY & SERRITELLA PC MR. JAMES C. GEOLY One IBM Plaza 330 N. Wabash Ave., 22nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60611-3607 IN RE: Does vs. Archdioces of Chicago DATE TAKEN: November 13, 2007 DEPONENT: Raymond Goedert Dear Mr. Geoly: Enclosed is the deposition transcript for the aforementioned deponent in the above-entitled cause. Also enclosed are additional signature pages, if applicable, and errata sheets. Per your agreement to secure signature, please submit the transcript to the deponent for review and signature. All changes or corrections must be made on the errata sheets, not on the transcript itself. All errata sheets should be signed and all signature pages need to be signed and notarized. After the deponent has completed the above, please return all signature pages and errata sheets to me at the above address, and I will handle distribution to the respective parties. If you have any questions, please call me at the phone number below. Sincerely, Margaret Setina
Court Reporter Present: Signature Department SUSAN HASELKAMP cc: Attorneys of Record