AMAZING CONNECTIONS
LENTEN AND
HOLY WEEK EMAILS
FROM MAHONY AND HIS INNER CIRCLE
March 13, 2002
— April 3, 2002
The Complete Text in
Chronological Order with Commentary
Reading
Copy—Preliminary Draft
July 18, 2003
A Production of
BishopAccountability.org
This edition of the Mahony
emails
is dedicated to the “anonymous individual”
who made them public.
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me,
it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he were cast into the sea.
Mark 9:42
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Keating and the Mahony Emails
Creating a Readable Version
Context
Who’s Who
Photographs of Some Email Writers
The Emails
March
13, 2002
1. PR
Challenges of the Haigh Settlement, Goldberg
2.
Reporting Laws, Nussbaum
3.
Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, McNicholas
4.
Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, Goldberg
5.
Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss
Reporting, McNicholas
March
14, 2002
6.
Arranging Call to Discuss Fr. Tony Mcdonnell, Goldberg
7.
More on Tony Mcdonnell, McNicholas
March
19, 2002
8.
Fr. Dominic Savino & Fr. Peter
Luizzi, Loomis
March
20, 2002
9.
Background on Savino & Luizzi, Murphy
10. Responding to Delgadillo on Training, Mahony
11. Problems of Delgadillo Training, McNicholas
12. Whether to Remove Luizzi, McNicholas
13. Selecting Delgadillo Trainees, McNicholas
14. Response to Delgadillo (No Training),
McNicholas
15. “Safe Folks” for Delgadillo Training, Mahony
March
21, 2002
16. Reporting Savino & Adding to the Rucker
File, Murphy
March
22, 2002
17. Bishop Arzube’s Quiet Handling of Savino
(?), Mahony
18. Summaries of Fr. Mcgowan & Fr. Hill, Cox
19. Carmelite’s Lawyer in Savino Case,
McNicholas
20. Fr. Kearney of St. Francis High Removed,
Loomis
21.
St. Francis High School: No Message,
McNicholas
March 24, 2002
22. Fr.
Granadino Accused and Removed, Cox
23. More Detail
on Granadino’s Removal, Cox
24. Mahony Reacts to News About Granadino,
Mahony
March
25, 2002
25. Likely Turnout for 3/25 Chrism Mass, Loomis
26. Parishes & Removed Priests at 3/25 Press
Conference, Cox
27. Feedback on Prep for Chrism Mass, Cox
28. Only the Facts in Meet with Sheriffs, Murphy
March
26, 2002
29. Thank You After Meet with Sheriffs, Cox
30. Press Reaction to Exchange with DA, Mahony
March
27, 2002
31. Big Mistake of Not Pretending on 3 Priests,
Mahony
32. Individual Reporting: How to Tell Parks,
Mahony
33. Making Transcript in Hickman Accusation,
Arviso
34. Plan for Responding to Hickman Accusation,
Mahony
35. Message to Fresno PD on Hickman, McNicholas
36. Instruct Parks & He Will Leak the
Letter, Mahony
37. Planning Letter to Parks, McNicholas
38. One Change to Parks Letter, McNicholas
39. Instructing and Leaking Again, Mahony
40.
Teachable Moment for Parks, Mahony
March
28, 2002
41. Planning Fresno PD’s Interview with Mahony,
Mahony
42. Releasing the Parks Letter Ahead of the
Curve, Mahony
43. Parks
Letter on How We Act Now, Mahony
44.
Clarification for Mixed-Up Media, Mahony
45.
Reporting Wasn’t Contemporaneous, Cox
46.
Warning Priests Who Were Reported to LAPD, Mahony
47.
Cardinals’ Confidential Call with Gregory, Mahony
48.
Priests Reported “Previously” Not “Duly,” Goldberg
49. Letter to Parks Is Excellent, McNicholas
March
29, 2002
50.
Talking with Fr. Gael Sullivan, Loomis
51.
Sullivan Says No Arrest at St. Dominic
Savio, Cox
March 30, 2002
52. Meeting Victims: Spiritual Victims’ Group?,
Mahony
53. Making Sure That All 8 Priests Were Referred,
Mahony
54. Handling an Accusation of Priest with
History, Loomis
55.
Forgetting an Abuser; Feeding the LAPD;
Baker, Murphy
March
31, 2002
56.
Excuses for Forgetting; Numbers; the Dear
Sheriffs, Murphy
April
1, 2002
57.
Stonewalling on Names Until Interest Wanes, Mahony
58. Refer
Pat H Because We’d Be Vulnerable, Mahony
59.
Informing Pat H Before Reporting Him, Mahony
60.
Passing Along Baker’s Info, Cox
61.
Evaluating Pat H and Putting Him in a Parish, Cox
62.
Contacting Pat H, Cox
April
2, 2002
63.
Transcript Is Complete in Hickman Case, McNicholas
64.
Reminder: Transcript Complete in Hickman Case, McNicholas
65.
Fresno, Fundraising, Confirmations, and
R&R, Mahony
April
3, 2002
66.
Interview with Stammer of the LA
Times, Mahony
67. Msgr.
Matt Kelly’s Past Difficulties, Mahony
68. Fr.
Michael Wempe at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Miller
69.
Priests As Mandated Reporters, Miller
APPENDIX
OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
A.
“Mahony Ousts Priests,” Stammer and Lobdell, LA Times, 3/4/02
B. “Simple Suggestions for Mahony,”
Lopez, LA Times, 3/13/02
C. “Chrism Mass Homily,” Mahony,” 3/25/02
D. “Rip the Veil of Secrecy, Editorial,” LA Times, 3/27/02
E. “LAPD
Already Has Facts on Priests, Mahony Says,” Winton, LA Times, 3/29/02
F. “Victims Crushed in a Priestly
Silence,” Lopez, LA Times, April 3,
2002
G. “Mahony Says Victims' Requests Led to
Secrecy,” Larry B. Stammer, LA Times,
4/3/02
H.
“Mahony E-Mail Talks of ‘Our Big Mistake,’” Garrison, LA Times, 4/5/02
I. “Mahony E-Mails Cite Fears Over
Scandals,” Stammer and Winton, LA Times,
4/6/02
J. “Sheriff's Department Set to Wrap Up
Azusa Priest Investigation,” NBC4.TV, 4/12/02
Keating
and the Mahony Emails
Gov. Frank Keating’s criticism of Cardinal Roger
M. Mahony in a Los Angeles Times
interview (6/12/03) and Keating’s subsequent resignation should prompt a fresh
look at a batch of chancery emails that were leaked to a Los Angeles radio
station in April 2002. The emails are of
enduring interest for several reasons.
Keating got on Mahony’s bad side recently by
calling him a bishop “who listen[s] too much to his lawyer and not enough to his
heart.” Sure enough, the leaked emails
show Mahony intensely engaged with not one or two but five lawyers, and their
exchanges are not motivated by a concern for the victims of sexual abuse. The emails illustrate Mahony’s early efforts
“to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain
away,” as Keating would later say in his resignation letter. After some of the emails were read on the air
by talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Champou, in a broadcast from the
sidewalk in front of Mahony’s offices, the cardinal went to extraordinary
lengths to suppress the documents, arranging a quixotic late-night hearing
(4/4/02) with Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe.
When the judge refused to find for prior
restraint and the emails were published, Los Angeles got an un-spun look at a
diocesan administration famous for its devotion to PR. Although the emails were written during Lent
and Easter, religious feeling is surprisingly absent. Instead, Mahony and his inner circle seem
consumed by a desire to game and one-up the prosecutors and manipulate the
press. Mahony happily describes in one
email his use (so he seemed to think) of the very reporter to whom Keating would give
his defiant last interview. Most
depressing of all is the complete indifference shown toward the victims of
abusive priests.
Creating
a Readable Version
The
emails are still available on the KFI Web site at www.kfi640.com/media/mahony%20e-mails1.pdf,
but they are not an easy read. The
messages are not in chronological order, and many emails are nested in reverse
order within subsequent replies. Lines
are broken and the email addresses are difficult to keep straight. In order to help people read these important
exchanges, the staff of BishopAccountability.org has produced a reading copy of
the file. We have placed the messages in
chronological order and supplied cross-references to the original KFI file, so
that our work can be easily checked. We
have also removed the prevalent “reply” marks (<<<) and replaced the
various email addresses with the last names of the participants. Titles have been added for the reader’s
convenience, and the messages have been numbered. Our bracketed comments are carefully distinguished
from the text, and an appendix of relevant documents is provided. We hope that the result is a readable and
informative version. This is a
preliminary edition—as questions are answered and documents released,
BishopAccountability.org will issue a fuller commentary. Please contact us with corrections and
explanations staff@bishop-accountability.org.
Context
The KFI emails span a three-week period,
beginning on March 13 and ending on April 3, the Wednesday after Easter. A Chrism Mass for priests, held on March 25,
the day after Palm Sunday, figures in the exchange. See Appendix Document
C for Mahony’s homily at the Mass, and Appendix
Document D for the response in the LA
Times.
On March 4, 2002, Larry Stammer and William
Lobdell wrote in the LA Times that
Mahony had removed six to twelve priests in February for sexual abuse
allegations (see Appendix Document A). The Geoghan and Shanley cases had just broken
in Boston, and the LA Times revelation prompted law enforcement authorities to
press the archdiocese for an accounting of the priests involved. Reporting of such cases is governed in
California by a 1997 statute, and several of the Mahony emails are dedicated to
answering a request from Bernard C. Parks, the LA Chief of Police, who was
concerned about compliance with that law.
Mahony and most of his advisors want to “instruct” Parks that the
statute mandates reporting by individuals, not by institutions like the
archdiocese. Besides the 1997 reporting
statute, the archdiocese was committed to a 1988 abuse policy, and Mahony was
also bound by an agreement he was compelled to sign as part of the 2001 DiMaria
settlement. See Appendix
Document A for more on this background, and Appendix
Document E for a description of the letter that was ultimately sent to
Parks.
Some of the emails introduce the reader to
priests like Baker and Wempe, whose cases would soon become huge problems for
Mahony. Messages 60, 61, and 68, seem
like routine communications that pass along contact info, summarize a
reassignment, and communicate a phone message.
But the routine they document served to hide abusers, transfer them with
terrible consequences, and expose children to harm during hospital stays. Other abusive priests mentioned in the emails
(Pat H. and Tony McDonnell) still remain unidentified, as Mahony continues to
stonewall on the release of names, nearly a year later. This silence has likely prevented some victims
from learning that their perpetrator has other victims, and is exposing others
to harm. Mahony’s refusal to release
names is related to his conviction that as time passes, interest in the crisis
will wane. He expects that will happen
by May 2002 (Message 66). Or July 2002
(Message 57).
The KFI emails revealed a false accusation of
Mahony himself, which is treated almost boyantly by Mahony and his advisors,
because it poses no threat. The contrast
is stark between Mahony’s eagerness to be questioned on the subject of the
Hickman accusation and his general counsel’s “just the facts” advice, when
detectives come to call at the chancery about the priests whom Mahony removed
back in February.
The emails also show the involvement of Mahony
and his advisors in responding to accusations that come through on the new help
line. See, for example, the Granadino
investigation, which comes up in several messages; see also Appendix Document J.
On April 3, the last day of the emails, the
Haigh case against John Lenihan was settled (see Appendix
Document F). The settlement had
been imminent all through the emails, and the very first email contains PR
advice on the Haigh settlement from one of Mahony’s lawyers.
For reporters’ assessments of the emails at the
time they first appeared, see Appendix Documents H and
I.
Who’s Who
[Notes in brackets describe how email addresses
were translated into last names by the editor.]
Craig
A. Cox - A canon lawyer and the archdiocese’s Vicar for
Clergy. He was formerly (through June
2000) the archdiocese’s Judicial Vicar. [Cox = MsgrCACox@la-archdiocese.org
Charles
Goldberg - Partner with Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons
in Denver (www.rothgerber.com);
former Denver District Court judge (1974–78) and head of RJ&L’s Religious Institutions
practice. (See their resource library at
www.churchstatelaw.com.) Goldberg has been the general counsel for the
Archdiocese of Denver since 1982 and became the general counsel of the Diocese
of Fargo in 2001. [Goldberg = CGoldberg@rothgerber.com]
Richard
A. Loomis - Monsignor and director of the archdiocese’s
Secretariat for Administrative Services.
Formerly the archdiocese’s Vicar for Clergy (1995–2000) [Loomis = FrDick@aol.com and MsgrRALoomis@la-archdiocese.org
and FrDick@la-archdiocese.org]
Roger
Mahony - Archbishop of Los Angeles
(www.la-archdiocese.org) since 1985 and cardinal since 1991. Formerly bishop of Stockton (1980–85) and
auxiliary bishop of Fresno (1975–80). [Mahony = Cardrmm@aol.com]
John
P. McNicholas - Partner with McNicholas & McNicholas in
Los Angeles (www.mcnicholaslaw.com), a
firm that specializes in personal injury work.
He taught at Loyola Law School, and his clients include the Holy See,
the Apostolic Vatican Library, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the
Archdiocese of Milwaukee. John Paul II
gave McNicholas the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great. McNicholas is a member of the Knights of
Malta. [McNicholas = jpm@mcnicholaslaw.com]
Judith
Anne Murphy - A sister of the Congregation of St. Joseph
and general counsel for the archdiocese. [Murphy =
SrJMurphy@la-archdiocese.org]
L.
Martin Nussbaum - Partner with Rothgerber Johnson &
Lyons in Denver, and member of RJ&L’s Religious Institutions practice. Nussbaum’s clients include the archdioceses
and dioceses of Boston, Cheyenne, Colorado Springs, Denver, El Paso, Fargo,
Jackson, Los Angeles, and Richmond. He
has served as an expert witness in 1st amendment defenses. [Nussbaum
=MNussbaum@rothgerber.com]
Tod
M. Tamberg - Director of the archdiocese’s Office of Media
Relations. [Tamberg = tamberg@la-archdiocese.org
and media@la-archdiocese.org]
accmed14@hotmail.com
- Unidentified addressee on a number of emails from Mahony and several replies
from others. No emails in the PDF are
from this person; s/he listens but doesn’t talk.
Paul
M. Albee - Secretary to the cardinal (appointment
announced 9/8/98). Recipient of one
email from Mahony, asking that someone check the back files of Fr. Matt
Kelly. [Albee = FrPMAlbee@la-archdiocese.org
and MsgrPAlbee@aol.com]
Paula
Arviso - Employee of McNicholas & McNicholas whose
assistant keyboarded the Pat Gordon transcript.
[Arviso = pma@mcnicholaslaw.com]
LMN@mcnicholaslaw.com
- Unidentified employee of McNicholas & McNicholas, copied on a 3/13
scheduling email sent by John P. McNicholas.
Lucille
Miller - Executive assistant to Craig A. Cox in the
Office of Vicar for Clergy. Informed Loomis of two calls while Cox was away.
PHOTOGRAPHS
OF THE AUTHORS
 |
 |
 |
| L. Martin Nussbaum | Charles Goldberg | Msgr. Richard Loomis |
 |
 |
|
| Roger M. Mahony | John P. McNicholas | |
1. PR CHallenges of
the Haigh Settlement
[A very interesting email from Goldberg on the
“public relations challenges” of the imminent Haigh settlement. Indents and bullets are supplied by editor.]
[From:]Goldberg
03/13/02 12:09PM
[To: Tamberg]
[No
Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 30]
Hello Tod,
What follows is obviously highly confidential at
this moment in time:
It appears that we will soon (Friday is the
target) accept the outstanding offer to settle the Haigh matter for $1.2
million dollars in exchange for a complete, comprehensive release of all
claims. As of this moment, there is no reason to believe that this settlement
will be confidential. The settlement sum will be paid 80% by the Diocese of
Orange and 20% by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Subject to our self insured retention
obligation, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' portion of the settlement will be
paid by our insurers who insured the Archdiocese in 1978-1979. The same carrier
insured us post 1979 until The Ordinary Mutual was formed.
Here are the public relations challenges:
1. At the moment we have not asked that this
settlement remain confidential. Unless there is a strong contrary view, we do
not anticipate asking for confidentiality.
2. Regarding the 80/20 split, the question
arises whether we inform Ms. Freberg at the time of acceptance of her offer
(which will likely occur on Friday, March 15th) of the precise split? Do we
hold that information and release it to her later when the releases are
prepared and executed? Do we keep the 80/20 confidential. We are leaning toward
disclosing the split in the acceptance letter to Ms. Freberg subject, of
course, to your advice from >>> a p.r. perspective.
3. Here
are some the questions that come to mind that the press will likely raise:
·
Why is the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
("ADLA") contributing at all to this settlement?
·
Who is the ADLA priest who is accused of
sexually molesting Ms. Haigh? Where is he now?
·
If he is not in ministry, why not?
·
When was he removed from ministry?
·
What were the reasons for his removal?
·
Tod, we think we know who he is but, at
this moment, are not absolutely certain who it is. Further, we have never
indicated to Ms. Freberg that we know who he is although she has asked
repeatedly?
·
Why is Ms. Haigh receiving $1.2 MM when
the victims in Boston may receive less than $300,000 per victim? Did you report
Ms. Haigh's allegations to the police under the Child Abuse Reporting Statute?
·
Why are you paying so much money when her
claim appears to be so old? Where is Fr. Lenihan now?
·
When was he removed?
·
Is he going to be laicized by Rome?
·
Is this settlement being paid by
insurance?
·
4. Note that Ms. Freberg could go public upon
receipt of our letter and prior to any releases being executed. These are some
of the issues that we need to conference with everyone about between now and
Friday. Please let us now when we can all gather fo discuss these sensitive
p.r. issues.
Chuck
Charles Goldberg, Esq.
Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP
1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-628-9609
303-623-9222
CGoldberg@rothgerber.com
The information contained in this electronic
communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is
attorney-client privileged, work product, or otherwise confidential and
intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by
telephone or reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you.
2. REPORTING LAWS
[A very useful summary of the reporting laws, which
disparages Lopez but described his 3/13 “screed” as an “overly lenient
description of the Archdiocese’s reporting duties.” For the “screed” itself, see Appendix Document B.
Compare Mahony on individual reporting in Message 32.]
From: Nussbaum
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:32:27 -0700
To: Mahony,Loomis, Tamberg, Cox, Murphy,
McNicholas, Goldberg
Subject: Press
& Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 27]
Privileged Attorney-Client Communication
In addition to the possible public relations
issues identified by Chuck, I would suggest we need to put on the agenda
discussion of the additional issues below related to the Haigh settlement. As
suggested by Chuck, I think we would benefit from several or all of us
convening a meeting to discuss how to handle these issues. Tod, will you
attempt to convene a meeting of the appropriate set of people. (I have a court
appearance on Friday morning which will occupy me from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
(Pacific time). Otherwise, I am available on both Thursday and Friday of this
week.
1. Should ADLA announce the settlement in
advance of Ms. Freberg and thereby, get in front of her on this story?
2. When and how should ADLA coordinate with the
Diocese of Orange re PR issues and the settlement?
3. Other questions which may come from the
press:
a. Who is the ADLA priest mentioned in the
complaint? What has been done to find him?
b. Has ADLA reported the ADLA priest mentioned
in the complaint to law enforcement? Has ADLA complied with the reporting law
as regards Lenihan and the un-identified ADLA priest?
c. Is the ADLA priest mentioned in the complaint
still in service?
4. I would also note that Steve Lopez's screed
in today's LA Times, while predictable in its criticism of the Church, is
really rather surprising in his overly lenient description of the Archdiocese's
statutory reporting duties. He contends that the statute:
a. Does not require clergy to report instance of
child abuse which occured before 1987 (we think the correct date is 1996 , when
the legislature added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters);
b. Does not require clergy to report if the
victim is an adult when the cleric learns of the earlier abuse (Lopez says that
a prosecutor told him that this is how the statute reads. I think that this is
only a possible interpretation of the statute which requires "mandated
reporter" to report whenever he or she "has knowledge of or observes
a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been a
victim of child abuse . . . "); and
c. Does not require clergy to report unless
"a minor makes a complaint (I see no support in the statute for this
interpretation. Accordingly, I read the statute as requiring clergy to report
regardless whether a minor complains.
5. With all the vultures circling, we should
continue to closely analyze whether ADLA's personnel are complying with the
reporting statutes:
a.
See paragraph 3(b) supra.
b. Does ADLA, for example, require its mandated
reporter employees to sign the statutorily-prescribed form which puts the
employee on notice of his statutory duties. Section 11166.5 requires this. Does
ADLA maintain copies of these forms?
c. When ADLA's mandated reporters report, do
they do so both verbally and in writing. (A written report is good risk
management and is also required by 11166(a). In fact, the written report must
be on the state-prescribed form. See Section 11168.)
6. As a point of information, I would note that
even if ADLA were inclined to release information about previous reports to law
enforcement, any such actions would violate the statute which makes the release
of any such reports a criminal misdemeanor punishable by not more than 6 mos.
in jail and a fine of $500 or both. See Section 11167.5. Further, if ADLA had
made reports to the three sheriffs mentioned in the LA Times' articles and
editorials, the sheriffs would violate the statute if they released the names
of any individual or entity which had made a report. Section 11167(d)(1) which
states: "The identity of all persons who report . . . shall be
confidential and disclosed only among agencies receiving or investigating
mandated reports, to the district attorney . . .", etc. It also states
that "No agency or person listed in this subdivision shall disclose the
identity of any person who reports under this article." Section
11167(d)(2).
7. Finally, I continue to fear that the next
wave of this press feeding frenzy may well focus on clerics who have had
romantic or sexual liaisons with other adults. I think it prudent to begin
reviewing personnel disciplinary files to assess the scope of any such problem.
[RL&S confidentiality statement; see
Message 1.]
3. SCHEDULING A
MEETING TO DISCUSS REPORTING
[From:] McNicholas
03/13/02 03:41PM
[No
Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 26]
All,
I am available Thursday 9:00 am -11:00 am and
from 2:00 PM until the end of the day.
I am travelling on Friday.
Regards,
John
4. SCHEDULING A MEETING TO DISCUSS REPORTING
From: Goldberg
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:05:11 -0700
To: McNicholas, LMN@mcnicholaslaw.com
Subject: Re:
Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 25]
As for me, I am available anytime Friday and
tomorrow from 1 P.M. (PDT) and thereafter.
Chuck
[Goldberg contact info.]
[RL&S confidentiality statement; see
Message 1.]
5. SCHEDULING A MEETING TO DISCUSS REPORTING
[Teleconferencing is a pricey option.]
[From:] McNicholas
03/13/02 06:09PM
[No
Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 25]
All,
Can we teleconference Thursday at 2:00pm?
John
6. ARRANGING CALL TO DISCUSS Fr. TONY McDONNELL
[McDonnell is an as-yet unidentified priest.]
From: Goldberg
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:49:10 -0700
To: McNicholas
Cc: Mahony,Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Nussbaum
Subject: Re:
Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 24]
John,
Hi.
I just received a call from Tod who is in the
midst of some training exercises with priests; he told me he and Fr. Dick will
be calling me at 3:30 P.M. (PDT). He gave me no options. Are you available. If
so, I'll see you are tied in. Let me know.
Most importantly, does the description of the
priest you interviewed, Rev. Michael Anthony McDonnell provided by Katherine
Freberg in her letter dated March 12, 2002 (Martin faxed this to you
yesterday). Does Rev. McDonnell fit the description of one, 20 years ago who
was short, stocky, possibly in his 40's, tight curly hair? Please let us know
ASAP by e-mail in advance of our call today so we can begin to think of how we
craft our p.r. responses.
Thanks.
Chuck
[Goldberg contact info.]
[RL&S confidentiality statement; see
Message 1.]
7.
MORE ON TONY McDONNELL
From: McNicholas
To: Goldberg
Cc: Mahony, Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Nussbaum
Sent: 3/14/2002 11:24 AM
Subject: Re:
Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 24]
Chuck,
1. I'm on for 3:30 PM today.
2. It is possible that Tony McDonnell could have
fit that description 20 years ago. I repeat, "possible." He told me
very forcefully that he was never involved with minors. Lets discuss.
Regards,
John
8.
Fr. DOMINIC SAVINO & Fr. PETER LUIZZI
From: Loomis
To: Murphy, McNicholas
Sent: 3/19/2002 9:27 PM
Subject: Storm
on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 35]
PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
Sister & John,
I have learned that the Carmelites at Crespi
High School are currently preparing an announcement for faculty, parents and
students concerning Father Dominic Savino's removal from active ministry.
Father Savino is the President of Crespi HS. I do not know when the
announcement will be made but it will
undoubtedly draw a great deal of public attention. The Carmelites are
introspective as an order and may not think to warn us before notifying the
school community.
Also, though hearsay has it that these
allegations are from years ago and all alleged victims are now adults, I
certainly hope they have thought of obtaining legal advice regarding the
reporting laws.
If Monsignor Cox is not in direct communication
with the Provincial, I suggest that he ought to speak with Father Quinn Connors
at tomorrow's workshop and establish direct communication on this matter. Since
Father Connors was out here for our workshops and is himself a former
Provincial, he was delegated by the current Provincial to confront Father
Savino with the allegations. If you agree with my concerns, would a call from
legal counsel to Monsignor Cox be better than one from me to set this in
motion?
A complicating fact: I believe that Father Peter
Liuzzi is being assigned to Crespi Carmelite HS as a faculty member. A
representative of the "Lay Catholic Mission" has approached a
Carmelite priest who occasionally helps here at Saint Charles to question
"the wisdom of assigning Father Liuzzi to an all-boy school." On top
of that, Father Liuzzi and Father Savino have lived in the same community house
for as long as I have worked at the ACC -- not quite seven years. They are
close friends. I am not sure how many people know these facts and I would not
want to tip my hand.
Everything in this "complicating fact"
paragraph would be tracked right back to me. I would not want it made public if
it can be avoided. But my thought is that one issue might ignite the other in
the press, both secular and retro-Catholic.
Dick
Rev. Msgr. Richard A. Loomis
Director, Secretariat for Administrative
Services
3424 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Voice: 213 637-7890
Fax: 213 637-6890
9.
BACKGROUND ON SAVINO & LUIZZI
From: Murphy
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:10:38 -0800
To: McNicholas
Subject: RE:
Storm on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 35]
John,
Please put a call into Msgr. Cox. He is in santa
Barbara today with the last Boundaries Workshop. The carmelite priest below is
well know in the Valley and is a therapist. Presently, some of our priests go
to him. An adult came forward and made a complaint that he was molested as a minor.
The priest denied this charge but from what I know admitted another which
happened years ago. When you reach Msgr. Cox, see if you can find out who their
lawyer is and deal with him\her. For the Carmelites (and ours) best interest,
they should call this in to law authorities. If the Order does not have some
police contact, then suggest Detective Barraclough. As to the other priest, he
is the priest who ministered at the ACC to gay and lesbian Catholics. He stayed
on the narrow line until he wrote his book. He is gay and the Catholic Mission
(the off the wall right wing throw-away newspaper) has been gunning for him for
years.
Thank you,
Sister Judy
10.
RESPONDING TO DELGADILLO ON TRAINING
From: Mahony
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:16:56 EST
To: Nussbaum, Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg,
Loomis, Tamberg, accmed14@hotmail.com
Subject: Delgadillo
letter [WKFI PDF p. 33]
Privileged Client--Attorney Communication
All:
I would appreciate your drafting a response to
Delgadillo for me. We should take him up on his offer to assist training
sessions--we will need those for teachers, parish staffs, youth folks, etc.
That would give us the opportunity to give them
the summary of the law and to have them sign that form which the Act requires
anyway.
I say--let's go for it!
Thanks.
+RMM
11.
PROBLEMS OF DELGADILLO TRAINING
[McNicholas is concerned that if the city
attorney gets involved in training, Q&A sessions could open the church to
“uncontrolled ‘free’ discovery” like that of a grand jury. McNicholas also raises the Constitutional
issue of the city attorney’s involvement in an “ecclesiastical function.”]
From: McNicholas
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:13:49 -0800
To: Mahony
[forwarded by McNicholas to Loomis on 3/20/2002
1:13 PM]
Subject: Re:
Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 32]
Cardinal,
I am working on a draft. However, I think we
should discuss his offer in the third paragraph. We have taken the position
that we have complied with the statutory reporting laws and continue to do so.
We are, even now, cooperating with investigations initiated by the Los Angeles
Police Department and by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office. Sr. Judy, as you
know, has met with both agencies and has established a god working relationship
with them.
So, what am I worried about having the City
Attorney ("C.A.") conduct training sessions with clergy, et al.? I am
concerned about direct contact with our clergy and lay personnel. For example,
training sessions usually have a question and answer period. Judging from the
reception of Di Maria settlement, the monetary amount and the non-monetary
terms, a question and answer period could be problematic and
"misunderstood" by the Deputy City Attorneys providing the training.
The third paragraph is, in my opinion, the kind of investigation done by Grand
Juries. In essence, the third paragraph provides the C. A.'s office with
uncontrolled "free" discovery.
Martin [Nussbaum] called me as I was preparing
the e-mail. He agrees with the above and sees a Constitutional issue as well:
this is an ecclesiastical function; we should not hand over our authority to
the C. A.
We suggest that we provide him with our policies
and welcome suggestions. . [sic] We then can make a choice to include them or
not. If we include them we have the imprimatur of the City Attorney.