Volume 3 – Volume 3 of Part 1
Deposition of Archbishop Robert F. Sanchez
January 14, 1994
• Volume 1 – January 12, 1994
• Volume 2 – January 13, 1994
• Volume 3 – January 14, 1994
• Volume 4 – January 15, 1994
• Volume 5 – October 3, 1994
• Volume 6 – October 4, 1994
• Volume 7 – October 5, 1994
• Volume 8 – Cctober 6, 1994
1 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF BERNALILLO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO
4 JOHN DOES I THROUGH III,
6 vs. CV-91-11688
7 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
8 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA and CLARENCE GALLI,
11 JOHN DOES IV and V,
13 vs. CV-91-11989
14 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
15 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA and CLARENCE GALLI,
18 JOHN DOES VI and VIII,
20 vs. CV-91-12302
21 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
22 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA and CLARENCE GALLI,
1 JOHN DOE VIII,
3 vs. CV-92-00128
4 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
5 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA and CLARENCE GALLI,
8 JOHN DOES IX and X,
10 vs. CV-92-00312
11 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
12 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA and CLARENCE GALLI,
15 JOHN DOE XI through XVII,
17 vs. CV-92-09746
18 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
19 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA and CLARENCE GALLI,
1 JOHN DOE,
3 vs. CV-93-02879
4 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
5 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ROBERT SANCHEZ and SERVANTS OF THE
6 PARACLETE, a New Mexico non-profit corporation,
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
12 OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
13 BISHOP ROBERT SANCHEZ and SERVANTS OF THE
PARACLETE, a New Mexico non-profit corporation,
16 JOHN DOE,
18 vs. CV-93-02883
19 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
20 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ROBERT SANCHEZ and SERVANTS OF THE
21 PARACLETE, a New Mexico non-profit corporation,
1 JOHN DOE,
3 vs. CV-93-06343
4 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
5 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ROBERT SANCHEZ and SERVANTS OF THE
6 PARACLETE, a New Mexico non-profit corporation,
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
12 OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
13 BISHOP ROBERT SANCHEZ and SERVANTS OF THE
PARACLETE, a New Mexico non-profit corporation,
16 JOHN DOE,
18 vs. CV-93-07188
19 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
20 JASON E. SIGLER a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER,
BISHOP ROBERT SANCHEZ and SERVANTS OF THE
21 PARACLETE, a New Mexico non-profit corporation,
JOHN DOES I, II and III
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
5 OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FALL RIVER,
6 MASSACHUSETTS, a corporation sole, THE SERVANTS
OF THE PARACLETE, INC., a New Mexico.
7 non-profit corporation, and JAMES R. PORTER,
9 JOHN DOE IV,
11 vs. CV-92-08011
12 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
13 ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FALL RIVER,
MASSACHUSETTS, a corporation sole, THE SERVANTS
14 OF THE PARACLETE, INC, a New Mexico non-profit
corporation, and JAMES R. PORTER,
17 ELAINE MONTOYA and PAUL MONTOYA,
19 vs. CV-92-08933
20 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
21 and FATHER ARTHUR J. PERRAULT,
1 MICHAEL D. HARRIS, DANA KAINZ,
PETER D. ST. CYR, CONRAD L. JIRON,
2 and ED TRUJILLO,
4 vs. CV-92-10319
5 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE
OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation,
6 and FATHER ARTHUR J. PERRAULT,
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT F. SANCHEZ
11 VOLUME III
January 14, 1994
12 9:22 AM
5625 Isleta Boulevard, SW
13 Albuquerque, NM
15 TAKEN BY: BRUCE PASTERNACK, ESQ.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS
17 REPORTED BY: Jenifer L. Russin, RPR-CM, NM CCR #182
18 317 Commercial, NE, Suite 200-G
Albuquerque, NM 87102
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 For the Plaintiffs:
3 BRUCE E. PASTERNACK, P.C.
Two Woodward Center
4 700 Lomas, NE, Suite 100
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
5 BY: BRUCE E. PASTERNACK and
NEIL R. BLAKE
STEPHEN E. TINKLER
7 MERIT BENNETT
8 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
9 REESE & MATHEY
160 E. Flaming Gorge
10 Green River, Wyoming 82935
BY: ROBERT J. REESE
12 For the Witness:
13 STOUT & WINTERBOTTOM
718 Central, SW
14 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
BY: RICHARD A. WINTERBOTTOM
16 For the Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe:
17 SIMONS, CUDDY & FRIEDMAN
6400 Uptown Blvd, NE, Suite 630E
18 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
BY: KAREN C. KENNEDY
KELEHER & McLEOD, P.A.
20 414 Silver Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
21 BY: ARTHUR O. BEACH
22 EAVES, BARDACKE & BAUGH, P.A.
6400 Uptown Blvd., NE
23 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
BY: PAUL BARDACKE
1 For the Archdiocese of Santa Fe (cont.):
2 SHEEHAN, SHEEHAN & STELZNER
707 Broadway, NE
3 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
BY: LUIS STELZNER
5 For the Servants of the Paraclete:
6 MILLER, STRATVERT, TORGERSON & SCHLENKER, P.A.
500 Marquette, NW, Suite 1100
7 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
BY: ALAN KONRAD
8 JILL BURTRAM
14 I N D E X
15 EXAMINATION OF ROBERT F. SANCHEZ
By Mr. Pasternack (Continued) 346
16 By Mr. Bennett 441
1 A. That awareness was not primary in my mind, Mr.
2 Pasternack. I know the process that you're using. I
3 believe when an allegation is brought to you, your primary
4 focus is upon that individual and that particular time,
5 and it simply does not occur to you that you should
6 initiate an investigation.
7 The Church is not an institution that initiates
8 investigations. The allegation that was brought to us was
9 done not as a result of an investigation but by the free
10 will of the people. It simply must have appeared to me
11 that if any other people had been so violated, they too
12 would have come forth and have notified us, so that we
13 might be able to respond to their particular need and show
14 that sensitivity.
15 But the need for an investigation, as I mentioned
16 repeatedly yesterday, the Church is simply -- never has
17 made a public announcement to parishes that, "So-and-So
18 has been accused of sexual molestation; and therefore, if
19 anyone is aware of such, let them come forth." And I
20 explained yesterday, and briefly I'll explain again, that
21 the Church has always expressed sensitivity to the privacy
22 of all people, the privacy of individuals, so that no one
23 is being falsely accused or being made objects of
24 suspicion of others within a parish, so that there is no
25 division of that parish.
1 We have not, then, made general announcements to
2 parishes asking if anyone who may have been molested by
3 Father X, they should come forward. We have not done
4 that. That has not been our tradition.
5 Q. How could you, then, in your own intellectual
6 process, expect children to come forward about sexual
7 conduct when you, yourself, were too ashamed and guilty
8 and hypocritical to come forward about your own sexual
10 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object,
11 misrepresents the testimony.
12 Q. Go ahead and answer.
13 A. Children are very close to their parents. They
14 are not adults. And I think that children who have felt
15 that something wrong has occurred in their life would feel
16 free enough to be able to share this information either
17 with parents or those individuals who are closest to them,
18 in some cases grandparents.
19 Q. So is it your belief that children without
20 education, without maturity, are more capable of coming
21 forward to reveal sexual misconduct than an Archbishop
22 with a wonderful education and maturity?
23 A. You're assuming that I did not reveal that to
24 anyone. Yesterday you questioned me about did I reveal
25 this to anyone, to a confessor, and I told you that that
1 is privileged knowledge, because any knowledge between
2 confessor and penitent is privileged knowledge.
3 A child, it seems to me, if they have felt hurt by
4 anyone, as they frequently are hurt, would share that hurt
5 with parents. That has simply been an assumption in my
6 mind. I don't believe it's a question of having more
7 education or greater formation to be able to share a hurt
8 that a person has suffered within themselves. I'm not an
9 expert in that field, nor do I claim to be or ever have
10 claimed to be such an expert. I certainly would listen to
11 psychiatrists or psychologists who are skilled in sexual
12 abuse of children, and they certainly could instruct me.
13 They can instruct us all.
14 Q. Whether or not you acknowledged your own conduct
15 in the context of the confessional, I presume we will
16 never know, but you did not divulge it publicly,
18 A. No, I did not.
19 Q. But would you have expected, then, a child who
20 did not have your education, maturity, etc., to reveal
21 publicly what you, yourself, couldn't?
22 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
24 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: It's asked and answered.
25 Q. Go ahead and answer.
1 A. I believe I responded to that question already,
2 Mr. Pasternack.
3 Q. No, you responded by saying you weren't going to
4 tell me what happened in the confessional. And now I'm
5 asking you if you -- since you publicly couldn't reveal
6 your own conduct, why is it that you expect a child would
7 publicly reveal?
8 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection.
9 MS. KENNEDY: Asked and answered.
10 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Asked and answered, and
11 it misstates the evidence. His prior response did not --
12 it alluded to the confessional, but it also talked about
13 the distinction between his own position and those of
14 children who have parents and loved ones and grandparents
15 they could go to.
16 Q. Go ahead and answer, Archbishop.
17 A. As I said previously, Mr. Pasternack, it seems
18 to me -- it seemed to me then, that in dealing with a
19 specific allegation, I did not feel a responsibility, I
20 was not aware of such to go back to other parishes or to
21 make public announcements, because I felt that if any
22 child -- or additional child had been violated, that they
23 would come forward.
24 Q. That doesn't answer the question. The question
25 is, if you couldn't publicly reveal what you had done, why
1 do you expect a child could publicly reveal what had been
2 done to them?
3 MS. KENNEDY: Objection.
4 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, it misstates
5 the evidence. And he doesn't expect children to publicly
6 reveal what was done to them. He's just stated that that
7 revelation would be private within the family or to their
8 loved ones.
9 MS. KENNEDY: It misstates the evidence
10 both given earlier today and his testimony yesterday.
11 Q. Go ahead and answer, please, Archbishop.
12 A. Mr. Pasternack, I just would repeat again that I
13 would expect children to share intimately with those who
14 are closest to them, parents, grandparents or siblings,
15 events in their own life. I don't consider that to be a
16 public revelation. I would consider that to be quite
17 private within the walls of the family, within a loving
18 concern of a family, not a public revelation of any event
19 that may have occurred.
20 Q. Does canon law prohibit causing or fomenting
21 scandal in the Church?
22 A. Canon law does not -- in one instance, it refers
23 to something similar. I am not going to say that's
24 particularly causing scandal, but it cautions about it,
25 that in cases in which allegations have been brought
1 against a priest of any kind, that any type of
2 investigation into that allegation should be done
3 discreetly, so as not to bring a sense of division and a
4 sense of guilt to people and spread scandal to people
5 within that parish community.
6 Q. What canon is that?
7 A. I would have to refer to the Code of Canon Law
8 to find that canon, sir.
9 Q. Do you have any opinions, Archbishop, looking
10 back in retrospect as you see what has happened to the
11 Archidocese of Santa Fe, as you see what's happened to
12 all -- with all the people who have come forward --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- as to whether you performed adequately by not
15 more diligently investigating when these matters were
16 originally coming up?
17 A. I would say this, in all honesty, I think every
18 one of us, hindsight is 20/20 vision. When you look back,
19 we can always see things much clearer than we could when
20 we first looked at them. We have many Monday-morning
21 quarterbacks who would call a play differently, so that a
22 team might have won on Saturday. I think all of us, then,
23 in one way or another, know that we can improve on our
24 procedures, on our actions, on our programs, whatever it
25 may be. Even parents know that they can improve their
1 parental guidance of children once they've gained
2 experience. And I would say the same is true about me in
3 these cases.
4 I was inexperienced with pedophiliA. I did not know
5 what allegations entailed. I was unaware of any extensive
6 and continued damage that a child might suffer from that.
7 These were not issues that were public in the 1960s or
8 '70s and perhaps even early '80s. And so I acted -- and
9 this is the bottom line to your question -- I acted
10 according to what I knew and what I thought was best.
11 The information that we have now would lead me to
12 take a different course of action, so as to offer greater
13 protection to our children, because that is the greatest
14 concern of our Church is the common good of the people
15 whom we serve. And we have to continually look out for
16 that common good.
17 And so today, with knowledge that I have, I would
18 want to do things more effectively, more thoroughly, and
19 perhaps with greater continual follow-up, so that all
20 children would be protected.
21 Q. As these allegations of sexual misconduct by
22 your clergy came to your attention and in some cases were
23 confirmed by admissions of the alleged perpetrator --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- did you ever call up any psychiatrist, any
1 psychologist and ask, "Do you think there might be other
2 children out there that I should be worried about?"
3 A. No, I didn't ask that specific question, but I
4 would like you to know that I did speak with many
5 psychiatrists and many psychologists in the process of
6 therapy for these priests. These experts, the
7 psychotherapists, who certainly have gone through training
8 and have a far greater knowledge than I have or would have
9 had at that time, did not mention to me or suggest to me
10 that I should take or enter into a procedure of public
11 announcements or investigations. That was never brought
12 to my attention by any of our psychiatrists.
13 Q. You're talking now, aren't you, about cases
14 where individual priests were in counseling, and you would
15 ask for status reports on them?
16 A. Yes, but that did not exclude the opportunity
17 for any expert to be able to share with me any additional
18 concerns or directives or suggestions.
19 Q. The specific question, though, was did you ever
20 ask any psychologist or psychiatrist whether there might
21 be other victims?
22 A. And I replied to that that I did not.
23 Q. When you did have a priest who was in counseling
24 and you got a status report, isn't it the case that on
25 many occasions the status report from the professional was
1 that there would likely be or could be other victims?
2 A. No, I don't recall occasions of them saying that
3 there may likely have been many other victims.
4 Q. Any other victims?
5 A. Or any other victims.
6 Q. You mentioned in responding to whether you
7 initiated any investigations that basically that's not the
8 way the Church functions.
9 A. True.
10 Q. What is it, if you know, about the philosophy of
11 the Church which causes a lack of investigation under this
12 type of circumstance?
13 A. I don't want to have to continue to repeat, but
14 the Church is concerned about the privacy and the good
15 name of every individual within parishes. She is
16 concerned what would happen with public gossip and public
17 and malicious accusations of one another, how this would
18 result in the perhaps defamation of one family or children
19 or cause children to be hurt because of general
20 allegations and suspicions of others.
21 And so the Church has always cautioned that any type
22 of event that could be scandalous, not just for Church,
23 not thinking of official Church, but scandalous for the
24 people of the Church, where this could hurt them, that
25 these events have to be treated with great caution and
1 with prudence lest they hurt innocent people. That seems
2 to be the general concern of our Church.
3 Q. Do you have an opinion, now, looking back in
4 retrospect, as to whether that prudence and caution didn't
5 allow a terrible problem to fester secretly?
6 A. What I have learned now in 1994 is that
7 confirmed pedophiles, as we have looked at them, unless it
8 is their first occasion that they have molested a child,
9 that there is a possibility that they have molested
10 others, that is one of the characteristics that seems to
11 accompany pedophiliA.
12 And with that knowledge now, I would be more thorough
13 in any investigation that I would make with any allegation
14 that would be brought to me, so as to make certain that we
15 would cover as much of the field as possible, both for the
16 child that has been hurt and providing for that child and
17 for the family, but also to inquire from the family about
18 any possible other cases, asking also the psychiatrist who
19 might be helping the child to question whether the child
20 would know others, and to try to investigate any other
21 circumstances that could lead to possible victims. I
22 would try to be more thorough.
23 Q. The question was whether you have an opinion as
24 to whether the secrecy that was fomented in the
25 Archidocese of Santa Fe allowed a great scandal to go
2 A. I don't -- you can call it secrecy. I think
3 that might characterize or mischaracterize the efforts.
4 We were trying to not make a public scandal, it is true.
5 We were trying to protect the good name of the people who
6 had come to us, because they're entitled to that, as well.
7 And it appears that there were other victims that did not
8 come forward immediately or were not known to us who have
9 since then surfaced. And apparently these victims who
10 have come forward have, in fact, been hurt to one degree
11 or another because they did not receive counseling
13 Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether this policy
14 of the Church of avoiding public scandal ended up
15 resulting in many people being hurt?
16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection. The
17 testimony is -- it mischaracterizes the testimony.
18 Archbishop Sanchez' testimony was not that there was a
19 policy of the Church of avoiding public scandal. His
20 testimony is there was a policy of announcing -- not
21 announcing from the pulpit allegations of abuse to protect
22 individual parishioners within the Archidocese.
23 A. My opinion --
24 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mischaracterizes the
1 A. My opinion is that our procedure was a good
2 procedure because it protects individuals, as well. But
3 my opinion would be that our procedure could be more
4 extensive and more private, being private, but still to
5 conduct investigations to search out individuals who may
6 also have been molested by the person accused.
7 Q. I do want to make it clear, Archbishop, that the
8 speaking and coaching objections are going to result in a
9 motion to resume your deposition. I just want to make
10 sure that was on the record so that it could be --
11 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: You can make that --
12 MR. PASTERNACK: So that you and your
13 counsel could be aware of that.
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll make it clear that
15 any effort to resume the Archbishop's deposition will be
16 strenuously contested.
17 Q. Well, Archbishop, let me ask you this: If you
18 have an opinion on this, if a child in a northern New
19 Mexico community, Abiquiu or Canjilon or Coyote, had come
20 forward and gone public with an accusation that a certain
21 priest had sexually molested him or her, would that have
22 been the type of thing that canon law would refer to as a
23 public scandal that should be avoided?
24 A. Oh, no. If they came forward publicly, either
25 to the Church or to any civil authorities, that's simply a
1 fact that has to take place. That is a scandal,
2 certainly, because the priest has been accused of
3 molesting a child or children. But that is not to be
4 avoided that way. That's a fact.
5 The scandal about which I am referring is that which
6 can hurt people unjustly who are innocent. I spoke to you
7 yesterday about defamation and possible calumny, and I
8 think your interpretation was this was just in reference
9 to the perpetrator, and I was speaking in reference to the
10 people within the Church community.
11 Q. Is there a difference in the scandal level
12 caused by a child who comes forward and publicly announces
13 that, "Father So-and-So has molested me," or the family
14 member of the child who comes to you and says, "My child
15 says that Father So-and-So has molested me"? Is one a
16 bigger scandal than the other?
17 A. I think in terms of -- both of them are serious,
18 but in terms of public knowledge, one becomes more known
19 than the other.
20 Q. Well, once scandal reaches a certain level, is
21 it then the type of scandal that the Church does not want
22 to have become public for the reasons you specified?
23 A. No. I think what you're saying is that the
24 Church is trying to avoid any bad news in that concept for
25 itself. That's not the ideA. The Church is not looked at
1 at as a separate institution apart from the people of the
2 community. The people of the community are considered the
3 Church. And it's that people, that community, that is the
4 object of concern, when I speak about the Church trying to
5 avoid false allegations, one against the other, which
6 could be created by any public announcements. Private
7 investigations are something else.
8 Q. Then would it be the case, sir, that if the
9 child came forward without coming to the chancery first
10 and said, "Father So-and-So did this to me," that's
11 exactly the type of public scandal that the Church would
12 have wanted to avoid?
13 A. But it's one child accusing one priest. It's
14 not a question of how many out there may also be guilty or
15 not guilty, but be offended by this person and should come
16 forward. That's the difference.
17 Q. So would it be better, then, for the child to
18 conduct his investigation and round up other victims for
19 corroboration, thereby making it less scandalous when they
20 publicly reveal?
21 A. No, the child and the parents, actually, of the
22 child, certainly are free to address the issue however
23 they would choose, whether that was to come to Church
24 authorities or to go directly to any civil authorities. I
25 believe they come to Church authorities because they feel
1 that this person represents the Church; and therefore,
2 they feel the Church authorities should know this, and
3 this man should be removed from his position.
4 Q. The next question, then, is even if a person had
5 come to you and reported this on behalf of himself, as a
6 small child or through his or her parents, based on what
7 you've already said, isn't it true that you likely
8 wouldn't have investigated the matter anyway, because it
9 wouldn't have occurred to you that there would be other
11 A. I would have taken the concern of the people who
12 brought it to me, but I would not have made a public
13 announcement at the Church whether there would be other
14 victims involved. And I'm talking about 1970s, when
15 knowledge about this was very, very limited.
16 Q. Are you saying that knowledge was limited in
17 the -- on the part of the Church, or are you saying that
18 knowledge of everyone was limited about the injury caused
19 by child abuse?
20 A. My opinion would be that knowledge about child
21 abuse was a limited fact generally in the public. It
22 certainly did not have the high profile position that it
23 has today.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. And the knowledge that accompanies that high
1 profile position.
2 Q. Can you identify with any type of range when you
3 began to discover that childhood sexual abuse causes
5 A. I did not begin to address the issue of child
6 abuse with any type of focus to be able to gather whatever
7 information I could into the late 1980s.
8 Q. Would you expect that children who were sexually
9 abused in the '70s would know in the '70s a greater level
10 of information about the injury than you as an adult did?
11 A. No, sir, but neither would their parents.
12 Q. Where the priest admits guilt, so there's no
13 question about stirring up false accusations or false
14 rumors, would it still be scandalous to announce his guilt
15 from the pulpit and solicit others who may have been
16 injured to come forward?
17 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, misstates
18 Archbishop Sanchez' testimony. He has not -- where a
19 priest admits guilt does not necessarily exclude false
20 accusations towards other victims in the past.
21 MR. BENNETT: I want to jump in here, too,
22 and also join. I want to object to the coaching
23 objection. The only objection in the deposition, that I
24 understand the rules provide for, is an objection to the
25 form of the question, and I think this is coaching the
1 witness, and he's putting words in the witness' mouth, and
2 I think it's highly improper. And I'm going to object to
4 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Well, the question
5 misstates the evidence. I feel it's incumbent to set the
6 record straight as to what the evidence has been.
7 MR. BENNETT: I think the record speaks for
8 itself, and your testimony is not what we're here for, Mr.
10 MR. PASTERNACK: Just to be clear, what I'd
11 like to do here is go back and have the court reporter
12 read the question, so that Mr. Winterbottom can be assured
13 that the question didn't repeat testimony. It simply
14 asked a question. Would you please do that.
15 [The record was read by the reporter.]
16 Q. (By Mr. Pasternack) You can ahead and answer.
17 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Same objection,
18 misstates the testimony of the Archbishop Sanchez.
19 A. The question was whether this would be
20 considered scandalous to announce it from the pulpit, that
21 this priest has admitted molesting a child and then
22 publicly to invite all who may have been molested to come
23 forward. It would be offensive to people to hear a public
24 announcement of that nature. They would be told, one,
25 that the priest had been so accused is being removed for
1 that purpose.
2 The second announcement, that of there being other
3 children who might possibly have been victimized to please
4 come forward, that portion of that announcement could
5 begin to cause the type of questioning within the
6 community to which I had alluded previously over and over
7 again, how one might begin to wonder about this child or
8 that child.
9 Q. Is that a yes, Archbishop? Yes, it would be
10 scandalous to announce the admitted conduct of a child
12 A. It could be scandalous to the people, the second
13 part, not to admit the child molester. That could offend
14 them. It's scandalous -- anything that's done that is
15 sinful or shameful in a church that's public is
16 scandalous. That has a scandalous connotation. So the
17 answer is yes to your question.
18 Q. All right. In the eyes of the Church, is it
19 more important to prevent scandal than to prevent the rape
20 of children?
21 A. No. I think that you're excluding any
22 possibilities of in-betweens. The Church has a great
23 concern for all of its people. Its children are God's
24 gift to us. We have to protect them. We're not going to
25 do something that would endanger the children. That is
1 not the Church's action.
2 I know that you're saying that if we don't announce
3 something publicly that this is going to endanger the
4 children. The Church's policy has always been not to make
5 public announcements about things that could lead to
6 people being divided one against the other, of this type
7 of public scandal, as you would want to call it. It does
8 not exclude the Church's concern for any other victims who
9 may be present in that community.
10 Q. Is there a middle ground, in your opinion,
11 between avoidance of public scandal and rape of children?
12 A. You're making two comparisons, which you're
13 assuming that if there's no public announcement there's
14 automatically the rape of children. I'm saying that if a
15 rape of a child has occurred, any type of molestation, and
16 it's brought to our attention, that action is taken
17 seriously. The family is received and provided with
18 whatever is necessary for that child. But the need to
19 make a public announcement simply has not been the
21 Q. Then wouldn't it be the case, sir, that the only
22 way the injuries of the child could be addressed and
23 remediated is if the child has more courage than you?
24 A. No, sir. The courage of the Church is to be
25 able to respond to the needs of that family. And if the
1 family themselves feel that there possibly could be other
2 victims, and they make any comment, an investigation is
3 begun to try to find any other families, any other
4 children, specifically, who may have been injured.
5 Q. I'm not asking about the courage of the Church.
6 Isn't it true that for the system, as you described the
7 Church's system, to function properly, a child has to have
8 more courage than you, as Archbishop, had?
9 A. No, sir. I don't believe that a child has to
10 have more courage than I had. I had to deal with
11 everything that was brought to my attention and to deal
12 with it immediately. I'm not certain what you are
13 alluding to when you're talking about a child needing more
14 courage to admit that he has been violated. Is this what
15 you're referring to?
16 Q. Yes. Your whole system, doesn't it depend on
17 the child having more courage in disclosing sexual contact
18 than you, yourself, were able to muster?
19 A. I did not initiate an investigation, and I have
20 testified to that. And I testified to the fact that I did
21 not initiate such an investigation for several reasons.
22 One, I was unaware that there could possibly be other
23 victims. That was not my primary focus.
24 But secondly, in response to your question about any
25 public announcements or that it might surface any possible
1 victims, I have responded that this has not been the
2 tradition of the Church and has not been such because it
3 is always considered the good of the people within that
4 community and would, in fact, depend upon the privacy, the
5 right of the individuals to come forward when they chose
6 to come forward.
7 Q. With all respect, sir, isn't it true that for
8 the traditions of the Church to have worked in the way you
9 described, a little child would have to have more courage
10 than that which you personally showed?
11 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, I think the
14 Archbishop has answered this question now several times,
15 and he's done the best he could. If you're not satisfied
16 with his answer, Mr. Pasternack, rephrase the question.
17 A. I can't right offhand think of examples that I
18 could share, but I'm wondering -- and this is a question,
19 in my mind -- whether a school in which a child perhaps
20 has revealed a molestation to the principal and the
21 principal is removed, whether public announcements are
22 then made to parents and children. I'm asking that as
23 inquiry. I'm just unaware of having read or heard about
24 such procedures. Because we're talking about the
25 procedure of the Catholic Church in response to such
2 Q. That wasn't my question.
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. My question is, in order for your system of the
5 Church to work in the way you described it, doesn't that
6 depend upon a little child having more courage to disclose
7 than you, as an Archbishop, as a trusted and revered
8 authority figure, as an admired representative of God on
9 earth, had the ability to muster yourself?
10 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
12 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, asked and
14 A. Sir, I believe that a child has to have courage
15 to come forward to reveal any act of molestation against
16 himself, his person. That requires courage to tell any
17 one of his own family members.
18 I have to have the courage to be able to respond and
19 support that child and that family when that allegation is
20 brought to my attention.
21 Q. When Father Wolf now proclaims, on occasion,
22 information about people he believes to have been priests
23 who were molesting children in New Mexico, do you have an
24 opinion on whether that's scandalous on the part of Father
1 A. No, sir. I think that Father Wolf is making
2 statements publicly that, in fact, have been covered in
3 the news media, and I think he is making every effort to
4 assure the general public that the Church's concern for
5 any victim. I know that publicly, we also established an
6 open line so that people anywhere in this state or beyond
7 could call in and make known to us any allegation that
8 they choose. I know that we also set up that independent
9 commission for that purpose, as well. So I don't believe
10 his actions are scandalous.
11 Q. In retrospect, Archbishop, and perhaps engaging
12 in Monday-morning quarterbacking, do you feel you were
14 A. I feel, sir, that I did the best job I could at
15 that time with what I knew and what procedures I was aware
16 of. If you're asking whether I would do things
17 differently today, perhaps I would.
18 Q. Perhaps? Is there any doubt in your mind that
19 you were careless?
20 A. Well --
21 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, misstates the
22 evidence. He didn't state he was careless.
23 A. I'm saying that perhaps I would --
24 Q. Excuse me.
25 A. Sorry.
1 MR. PASTERNACK: When you ask someone, Mr.
2 Winterbottom, if they think they were careless, you are
3 not accusing them of having previously said it. Please
4 refrain from coaching, improper objections which will
5 unquestionably have to inconvenience this man by bringing
6 him back.
7 Q. Now, I will ask you again --
8 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I will make the
9 objections, Mr. Pasternack, as I feel they are necessary.
10 Q. -- in retrospect, is there any doubt in your
11 mind that you were careless?
12 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, misstates the
13 evidence, and it's asked and answered.
14 A. I responded to your question if there was any
15 doubt in my mind if I was careless. I said that I did the
16 job as best I could given the circumstances and the
17 knowledge I had at that time. I added that I felt that
18 perhaps -- I used that word -- I would do things
19 differently today if such a situation arose.
20 You objected to the word "perhaps." By that, I meant
21 if such a situation came to me and the situation were such
22 that I felt investigations were warranted because of the
23 event, I would have an investigation.
24 Q. Do you, as you sit here today, feel that it's
25 possible that you addressed the problem of childhood
1 sexual abuse while you were Archbishop properly?
2 A. I feel I did the best I could. I wish I had
3 known more about it. I wish that the awareness of
4 pedophilia as we know it today had been known to all of us
5 at that time, certainly to me, so that I could have done a
6 better job and more effective one in helping families,
7 children, and protecting others.
8 Q. When allegations of child molestation by priests
9 first started coming in to you --
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. -- did you make any effort to learn about it?
12 I've asked if you asked any psychologists or
13 psychiatrists. But did you go to a library, call up a
14 cardinal, call up the Vatican, get a book, read a
15 magazine, do anything to develop an understanding from
16 what literature or information there was about the
17 consequences of childhood sexual abuse?
18 A. No, sir, I did not make that effort.
19 Q. Okay. Let's, if we may, please, Archbishop,
20 turn to Arthur Perrault. When did you first make the
21 acquaintance of Arthur Perrault?
22 A. I made the acquaintance of Arthur Perrault when
23 he was appointed as a teacher at St. Pius X High School, I
24 believe in the year 1967.
25 Q. Were you there at the time as a teacher?
1 A. I was there at the time as a teacher. In fact,
2 it was my last year at St. Pius. I had been there for
3 seven years, and that was my last year.
4 Q. Was it the '67-'68 school year that was your
5 last year, or '66-'67?
6 A. No, my last school year was '67-'68.
7 Q. And did you come to find out while the two of
8 you were at Pius together where he was from and how he had
9 gotten to New Mexico?
10 A. No, sir, I did not. We were not friends to that
11 extent where we simply shared personal information with
12 one another. He was assigned as one of the professors.
13 There were many others, as you might imagine. And being
14 that I had been there a number of years, I had my own
15 friends, and he was simply another teacher.
16 Q. In the way the Church works, it's my
17 understanding that it is somewhat unusual for a priest who
18 was incardinated somewhere else to come into a different
19 archidocese. Is it somewhat unusual, absent a military
20 assignment or just visiting?
21 A. It might be unusual in some diocese. It was not
22 unusual in this Archidocese. Many priests who had served
23 in this Archidocese for many years were not native to this
24 Archidocese. In fact, the majority, I would say, of the
25 priests who served in this archidocese were from other
1 areas of the country and had come here to work with this
2 Archidocese. Some were ordained for this Archidocese,
3 coming from other areas. Others had been ordained
4 elsewhere and had come to work here.
5 Q. Are you able to quantify the proportion of those
6 who were ordained elsewhere and came to work here who came
7 here via Servants of the Paraclete?
8 A. No, I couldn't give you an accurate number to
9 that, Mr. Pasternack.
10 Q. Do you recall any range of numbers?
11 A. First of all, I wasn't aware of those who came
12 to the Archidocese via the Paracletes. I just knew that
13 there were a number of priests who were here from outside
14 of the Archidocese, who were not native to the
16 Q. While you were at St. Pius, did anyone from the
17 Archidocese -- realizing that at the time you weren't
18 running it, you were an employee -- did anyone from the
19 Archidocese tell you or anybody at St. Pius, as far as you
20 know, about any sexual allegations or history of Arthur
22 A. No, sir, nothing.
23 Q. While you were at St. Pius, did any of the
24 students at St. Pius, even one, come to you and report
25 that Arthur Perrault had in any fashion sexually molested
2 A. No, sir, none came to me.
3 Q. When did you first learn, if you learned, that
4 Arthur Perrault had come to New Mexico via Servants of the
6 MR. KONRAD: I'm going to object to the
7 form of the question, as the phrase "via Servants of the
8 Paraclete" is meaningless. It's ambiguous.
9 Q. Go ahead and answer.
10 A. I'm not accurately sure when I learned it. I'm
11 trying to recall in my memory the years of the '70s or the
13 Q. Fair enough. Let me ask you this: What is the
14 first situation under which you recall learning that
15 Arthur Perrault was accused of or had a history of being a
16 sex offender?
17 MR. KONRAD: I'm going to object to the
18 form of the question as assuming facts not in evidence.
19 There's been no evidence that at the time he had been
20 accused of or had a history of being a sex offender.
21 Q. Go ahead and answer.
22 A. I was unaware of any history of a sex offense.
23 Probably until I had asked him to enter into therapy, and
24 I don't recall even the -- any knowledge, any specific
25 knowledge, about any specific allegations that may have
1 been made against him. I may have very well have had a
2 what I would call a general knowledge that there had been
3 allegations against him, but I was unaware of any specific
4 ones. And that would have probably surfaced in -- on
5 occasion of asking him to enter into therapy.
6 Q. Approximately when do you recall asking him to
7 enter into therapy?
8 A. I know that I had him in therapy, and I had
9 spoken with the doctor repeatedly beginning in either late
10 1980, early 1981. I believe that there was another
11 occasion that we spoke -- that's Father Perrault and
12 myself -- about him continuing therapy. I use the word
13 "continuing" because he had indicated that he had seen a
14 therapist named -- a Dr. Hermann, and that he had been
15 seeing him. And I had asked him to continue his therapy
16 that he was undergoing at that time.
17 Q. Was that sometime before you asked him to enter
18 into therapy?
19 A. Before I asked him to enter into therapy with a
20 Dr. VanDenHeuvel, right.
21 Q. Right, okay. Do you recall what specific
22 episode or episodes occurred that caused you to ask Father
23 Perrault to enter into therapy with Dr. VanDenHeuvel?
24 A. Yes. When we had dealt with Father Jason
25 Sigler, the former Father Jason Sigler in 1981, I had
1 spoken with Dr. VanDenHeuvel, whether he would be able to
2 offer continual therapy to Father Art Perrault, and he
3 said he would be able to receive him.
4 I don't recall whether he had known Father Art
5 Perrault previously, but I asked him at that time that
6 Father Perrault would go there, so that he would have
7 regular contact with a therapist for regular monitoring, I
8 guess you'd use that word.
9 Q. All right. Please explain why it is that
10 whatever happened with Father Jason Sigler in roughly 1981
11 caused you to talk to VanDenHeuvel about Perrault?
12 A. Yes. Father Jason Sigler had been accused of
13 molesting children at St. Therese parish in Albuquerque.
14 His pastor had come to me and brought this to my
15 attention. And upon questioning Father Sigler about it,
16 he had admitted his guilt and was asked then to cease from
17 his assignment immediately and faculties removed, and he
18 was asked to return to Jemez Springs, the Servants of the
19 Paraclete, for treatment, and that he would have no longer
20 any assignment in the Archidocese.
21 Because of this, the allegations of the sexual abuse
22 that had occurred, in conference with my attorney at that
23 time over it, because I had spoken with him about this, we
24 felt that Father Perrault -- we could start a process
25 where anyone who has ever had any problem should have
1 continual care with a therapist for their well-being.
2 Q. Well, who else was put into the therapy as a
3 result of the Sigler thing? Perrault and who else?
4 A. He was -- Father Jason Sigler and Father
5 Perrault were the only ones that I had in therapy at that
7 Q. Well, didn't you just say that it was anyone who
8 had had that kind of problem in the past?
9 A. No, that that would become a process for us that
10 we would follow. This was going to become --
11 Q. So you didn't go back at that point in 1981 and
12 ask Ed Donnollan to enter into therapy?
13 A. I may have asked Father Donnollan to enter into
14 therapy. I think it was a little later, but it wasn't for
15 any type of sexual molestation, as I mentioned yesterday.
16 It was because of his continued harassment of people and
17 his anger, and so he went into therapy.
18 Q. And would it be equally the case that you didn't
19 ask in 1981 to enter into therapy?
20 A. I can't recall the year when we had Father
21 into therapy. We had him there twice, if I
22 recall correctly, in Jemez Springs for therapy.
23 Q. And by the way, when Jason Sigler admitted to
24 you in 1981 these things happened, would it be accurate to
25 say that you again did not alert the parishioners at St.
1 Therese, at Fort Sumner, at Abiquiu, at Immaculate
2 Conception in Las Vegas where he had previously served,
3 that he was now an admitted, confessed child molester?
4 A. No, sir, we did not make that general
5 announcement, as we have discussed previously.
6 Q. What was it that caused you to have the opinion
7 or know in 1981 that Perrault needed this therapy for
8 matters relating to sex?
9 A. I don't have a recollection of the event, but I
10 am told that a woman named Mrs. Nowak had approached me in
11 the mid 1970s, '76 or '77, I'm not certain, but -- and had
12 informed me that she felt that Father Perrault who had
13 been a friend of the family, had in fact molested one or
14 two of her boys. And I don't recall what form of
15 molestation that she may have mentioned to me at all. I
16 don't recall that conversation.
17 Q. Let me ask you, then, before you continue. Are
18 you saying that now, in 1994, you do not recall any
19 alleged conversation with Mrs. Nowak in the mid or late
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. But are you also saying that in 1981, you must
23 have recalled it because it's probably why you put
24 Perrault into therapy? 1981.
25 A. I put Father Arthur Perrault into therapy as a
1 result of the events, as I said, with Jason Sigler and as
2 a precaution for his own behavior and monitoring,
3 strengthening him continually.
4 Q. Was the motivating factor in 1981 your
5 recollection of, at that point, of the meeting with a
6 lady --
7 A. It must have been. That's -- I would assume
8 that, even though I don't recall the meeting with her.
9 But it must have been referring back to that event that
10 she had made known to me in whatever year that was.
11 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to why that
12 particular episode in the mid or late 1970s escapes your
13 current memory?
14 A. I wish I did know, sir. But it may very well
15 have been the first occasion that anyone spoke to me about
16 anything. She may not have used what I would call
17 descriptive language as we use today. It may have been
18 shrouded in terms such as, "abusing my sons," "something
19 has happened there," and "I just don't think that Father
20 should continue to be close to us, or perhaps do whatever
21 ministry he was in."
22 I do not recall the specifics in meeting with Father
23 Perrault at any of her requests, but I have a vague
24 recollection in my mind of having confronted Father
25 Perrault about some issue. But I can't recall the
1 specific issue.
2 Q. Well, would it be accurate to say that this
3 conversation which you think may have happened in the mid
4 to late 1970s was apparently vivid in your mind in 1981,
5 so that when the Sigler thing came up, you instantly got
6 Perrault in touch with VanDenHeuvel?
7 A. I don't know if it was vividly in my mind. Any
8 allegation that would have come up, I would have also
9 passed on to our attorneys and sort of left it in their
10 hands this way. And I believe it was at the attorneys'
11 initiative in speaking with me that the recommendation was
12 made that we would keep Arthur Perrault in therapy, and I
13 was -- I have to imagine that I chose Dr. VanDenHeuvel
14 simply because the man he had seen previously, a Dr.
15 Hermann, was no longer available to him. Perhaps he had
16 retired or whatever. But I asked him to see Dr.
18 Q. When you learned at some point in the mid to
19 late '70s through this mother of a boy who reported that
20 her son had been abused, did you conduct any investigation
21 of Perrault?
22 A. No, sir. I did not conduct any investigation of
23 Perrault, not that I can recall. As I said, I don't
24 recall the specific conversation with the mother. I don't
25 recall a specific conversation with Father Art Perrault.
1 Q. Did you continue to allow him to have parish
2 assignments even after the mother had made these
4 A. In the mid '70s, at that time, Father Perrault
5 was -- his principal assignment was that of director of
6 the liturgy for the Archidocese, and the printing of a
7 liturgical newsletter, as well as of a communication to
8 the Archidocese called the Commentator. He was given
9 half-time assignment so as to enable him to assist on
10 Sundays in the celebration of Mass for parishioners at
11 Anunciation parish. But he was not involved in the full
12 parish program.
13 Q. But isn't it true that throughout the mid and
14 late 1970s, and continuing on into 1980, he was allowed to
15 work in parochial work at Anunciation?
16 A. Sir, he was doing what we call part-time or
17 weekend assignment work, which means that it's basically
18 hearing of confessions on the weekend and of celebration
19 of the Eucharist for the parish. Also to celebrate Mass
20 during the weekdays, whenever the pastor would ask for his
21 assistance, because they would have perhaps a funeral or
22 something else. But he was not the full-time pastor or
23 full-time assistant to Anunciation at that time.
24 Q. No, but he was there and administering Holy
25 Sacraments, wasn't he?
1 A. Only on the weekends, celebration of the
2 Eucharist and the celebration of the sacrament of
3 confession for them, right.
4 Q. You don't expect, do you, that child abuse is
5 limited to Mondays through Fridays?
6 A. No, sir.
7 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object,
9 A. No, sir, child abuse can occur any time. Nor do
10 I recall at this time where Mrs. Nowak may have said the
11 abuse had occurred. I simply don't recall the
12 conversation with her.
13 Q. Why didn't you conduct an investigation when she
14 told you about Arthur Perrault?
15 A. This was my first allegation that had been
16 brought to me as a new Archbishop. I certainly had no
17 experience whether investigations needed to be done or
18 whether I needed simply to confront the priest who was
19 accused, and if such was -- if such was the truth, if he
20 had admitted to that, to see that he would receive proper
21 therapeutic psychotherapy, help for himself, so that this
22 action would not be repeated in the future.
23 Q. Did you have a meeting with him and confront him
24 with Ms. Nowak's allegations?
25 A. As I mentioned a few moments ago, I recall
1 meeting with Father Perrault. I don't recall whether that
2 was the confrontation with him or not.
3 Q. Do you recall whether he admitted in the meeting
4 that he had molested children?
5 A. I don't recall the content of the meeting with
6 him at all, as I mentioned. I just recall meeting with
8 Q. Do you recall pulling his personnel file,
9 looking at it and seeing if there was any history of
10 sexual abuse?
11 A. No, sir, I do not recall that either.
12 Q. Do you recall whether you placed him on any type
13 of supervision, such that when he was around children on
14 weekends at various parishes, he would be supervised?
15 A. I may very well have done that as part of that
16 conversation. I also may very well have asked him to
17 continue to see Dr. Hermann for therapy.
18 Q. Do you recall whether or not you put additional
19 supervision on him, or I think you just said you may have?
20 A. I'm using the word "may" because none of those
21 particulars are in my active memory.
22 Q. Would it be accurate to say, then, that as best
23 as you currently recall today --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- you can't say that you probably employed
1 additional supervisory measures on him?
2 A. I could not say with certitude, no.
3 Q. Hadn't there already been allegations a few
4 years before, in 1974, that he had molested a boy at Our
5 Lady of Guadalupe in Albuquerque?
6 A. Not to my knowledge, sir. Not at all.
7 Q. Then can you tell us, anyone who may be watching
8 the tape, what action, if any, you took with regard to
9 Arthur Perrault's alleged sexual misconduct between the
10 time you received the complaint from the lady in the mid
11 1970s and the time you placed him into therapy with
12 VanDenHeuvel as a result of the Sigler situation?
13 A. I've already mentioned that I do not have an
14 active recall of any specific actions with Father Perrault
15 resulting from the conversation with Mrs. Nowak, as she
16 stated it. I don't recall the conversation. I don't
17 recall the confrontation with Father, although I do recall
18 meeting with him for a meeting which would have been of a
19 serious nature. But I don't recall the contents of that.
20 Q. Do you recall meeting with him again in 1981 to
21 tell him that he would be asked to enter into therapy with
23 A. No, I don't recall that meeting. But I do know
24 that I had sent him to Dr. VanDenHeuvel, and there was a
25 document sent from doctor's office that he reported, as
1 requested. And then after that, he continued in therapy,
2 then, for the next 10, 11, 12 years on a regular basis.
3 Q. When you sent him to VanDenHeuvel in 1981, did
4 you ask VanDenHeuvel whether there might have been other
5 Perrault victims?
6 A. No, sir, I did not ask him that question, nor
7 did he offer me any information in that regard.
8 Q. Was there an additional triggering event between
9 the conversation that you refer to in the mid 1970s and
10 the time you sent him to VanDenHeuvel in 1981? Had he
11 been accused of molesting anybody else?
12 A. Could you repeat it just one more time, just so
13 I don't --
14 Q. You've testified about the conversation with the
15 lady in the mid '70s or late '70s. You have testified
16 that after the Sigler revelations in '81, you put Perrault
17 in therapy. And my specific question is: Had there been
18 any allegations against Arthur Perrault of a sexual
19 nature, between the conversation in the mid to late '70s
20 and the time you put him into therapy as a result of the
21 Sigler episode?
22 A. No, sir, no allegations were brought to my
23 attention. In addition to that, in one letter from the
24 therapist, from Dr. VanDenHeuvel, in 1983, he indicated
25 that the therapy with Father Perrault was proceeding very
1 well. He felt that he was getting himself more in contact
2 with all the reality. He felt better regarding
3 interpersonal relationships, and he indicated that there
4 had been -- as far as he could see, there had been no
5 other incidents in the life of Father Perrault for the
6 past seven years.
7 He also included in that letter, he said, "Given his
8 progress, I can see no reason why you would not want to
9 give him a full-time pastoral assignment." The statement
10 was simply made in the letter. We did not give -- take
11 any action on that statement. But that was part of the
12 testimony of the psychiatrist.
13 Q. You seem to have a very precise recall of that
14 letter. Have you seen it lately?
15 A. I have seen the letter.
16 Q. How recently?
17 A. I saw that as recent as this morning.
18 Q. And prior to this morning, did you have the same
19 recollection of those events as you do now that you saw
20 the letter this morning?
21 A. No, sir, I would not have recalled all those
22 events, but seeing the letter written with the statements,
23 that's what I could refer to.
24 Q. However, isn't it correct, Archbishop, that by
25 the fall of 1984, you were beginning to receive reports
1 that he was molesting again?
2 A. Fall of 1984?
3 Q. I'll try to be more specific.
4 A. If you could, please.
5 Q. Your chancellor, in September of 1984, was
6 Father Starkey, wasn't it?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. And didn't Father Starkey come to you in
9 September of 1984, or thereabouts, and say that Elaine and
10 Paul Montoya had come in and said that Perrault had
11 sexually molested them?
12 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object to the
13 form of the question, Mr. Pasternack. You know that that
14 testimony was about allegations occurring in the early
15 '70s, and the form of your question was putting it as he
16 was molesting again.
17 Q. Go ahead and answer, Archbishop.
18 A. I don't recall the names Elaine Montoya -- I
19 don't recall that name nor any visit with Father Starkey
20 regarding any allegation that they had brought to him.
21 Again, I cannot say that it did not happen.
22 Many, many things were brought to my attention about
23 various things that I would have no recall about. But I
24 don't recall that specifically at all. I know that Father
25 Perrault continued in his therapy with Dr. VanDenHeuvel.
1 He continued for 11 years. And I'm sure that if there had
2 been something that had surfaced that was of a serious
3 nature, the doctor also would have brought that to my
4 attention, and we would have discussed it.
5 Q. Do you know whether Father Starkey ever gave the
6 doctor any information about allegations against Perrault?
7 A. Not that I would know, no. It's possible he may
8 have called the doctor, but I would not be able to testify
9 to that.
10 Q. Did you or any of your representatives, as best
11 you recall, ever refer anyone who identified themselves as
12 a victim of Arthur Perrault to the Archidocese attorney,
13 Charles Reynolds, for representation?
14 A. Any of the victims?
15 Q. That's right.
16 A. Not that I recall, no.
17 Q. In 1984, do you recall what the policy would
18 have been if somebody came in to report that they had been
19 sexually abused by a priest? Would they be immediately
20 given an audience with you or would this have had to work
21 its way up the channels through the chancellor?
22 A. Most of the time people spoke with Father
23 Starkey. He is the one who took most phone calls about
24 everything. And people would call to have a meeting with
25 him, and he would do the meeting with the people.
1 Sometimes he would say something to me about
2 whatever, but on most occasions, he simply did not confer
3 with me about the things that he felt he was handling, and
4 I would not get that specific information. So I never met --
5 as far as I can recall, I never met with the Montoyas.
6 Q. Are you saying, sir, that then it's possible
7 that someone who alleged to have been sexually abused by a
8 priest might get only as far as Starkey, and you would
9 never know?
10 A. Not by way of policy, no.
11 Q. But by way of happenstance?
12 A. It could have happened.
13 Q. If that occurred, do you find that acceptable,
14 that child abuse reports stop at the chancellor?
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. Would you have wanted Starkey to bring such
17 matters to your attention?
18 A. I think anything of a serious nature should have
19 been brought to my attention.
20 Q. By 1984, would you consider Perrault to have
21 been a friend of yours?
22 A. Actually, Father Art Perrault never really
23 became a friend, as you would want to characterize him.
24 He was an acquaintance. He was a priest of the
25 Archidocese. We had frequent contact because of our --
1 the ministry that he was involved in and my own
2 responsibilities. But I had similar contact with all of
3 our pastors that way. But he was no friend. We never had
4 a dinner together, other than at his rectory when I was
5 visiting there for confirmation. We never went to any
6 recreational movie or whatever together.
7 Q. Do you recall when the woman in the mid to late
8 '70s met with you, whether she insisted that Perrault be
9 placed into the care of a mental health practitioner?
10 A. No, sir, I don't recall that. I have not seen
11 any documentation in that regard. If you have something
12 to refresh my memory, I'd be happy to look at it, but I
13 simply do not recall meeting with Mrs. Nowak.
14 Q. Well, do you remember whether you participated
15 in the selection of Simon Hermann to be Perrault's
17 A. No. What I understood from Art Perrault was
18 that he had been seeing this gentleman and apparently had
19 already known him. I did not know Dr. Hermann.
20 Q. Did you ever direct or facilitate Perrault's
21 mental health care through a Dr. David Rosenstein?
22 A. Never heard of the name.
23 Q. Do you recall whether you told the lady at the
24 time of the meeting in the mid to late '70s, these words
25 or words to this effect, "What do you want from me? They
1 send these people from all over the country."
2 A. No, I don't recall anything of our conversation.
3 I'm glad you're mentioning these things. Maybe that will
4 help snap.
5 Q. Have you experienced this, that sometimes there
6 are things that you don't recall, and then there's a
7 triggering event that brings it to your current
9 A. Sometimes it would bring a general concept in my
10 mind. Not specifics, but sometimes a general concept can
11 appear. You know, in any given day, as you might imagine,
12 the office of the Archbishop has just numerous demands
13 upon it, both with phone calls, the amount of mail that
14 arrives daily, and the daily interviews with priests,
15 religious and laity, besides the nighttime obligations of
16 visiting parishes, meeting with parish councils and
17 greeting hundreds of people continually, and I just -- I
18 think sometimes for your own protection, you put out of
19 your mind the activity of the day, so as to try to address
20 yourself to each thing that comes next. So there's just
21 been many things that I could not give you detailed
22 account of.
23 Q. Have there been some things that you've put out
24 of your mind because they were painful?
25 A. That's possible. That's possible.
1 Q. Is it just possible or do you know that on
2 occasion you have done that?
3 A. I could not swear that I have done that on
4 occasion. That is possible. I think that's been
5 described in whatever I read as a defensive mechanism,
6 that people, in general, like to forget those things that
7 are painful, and they like to remember the things that are
9 [The witness conferred with his attorney.]
10 Q. Before we get back on Perrault, let me just ask
11 you about this settlement that you now feel is not
12 confidential, the Anthony Fontana-Clive Lynn matter.
13 A. Oh, yes, surely.
14 Q. What do you recall about that settlement?
15 A. Since the settlement was not a confidential
16 settlement, that has been brought to my attention now, I
17 feel free that I can share whatever recollection I have of
19 It appears to me -- to the best of my recollection,
20 that the Archidocese was given notice by an attorney, I
21 believe it was directly from Mr. Fontana, who was an
22 attorney in LouisianA. I can't recall the city.
23 In any event, he had put us on notice that he was --
24 had been notified by another attorney in Albuquerque that
25 a young person in the city of Mora, New Mexico, had
1 brought to her attention that he had been abused by a
2 Father Clive Lynn a few years earlier. Mr. Fontana
3 brought this to our attention around, I guess, 1988, 1989,
4 in that areA. And that the alleged abuse had occurred
5 when Father Lynn was in Mora, which would have made it
6 around, I suppose, 1984 or so.
7 And he would want us to contact him and to speak to
8 him about it. I brought this to the to the attention of
9 the Archdiocesan attorney, Mr. Chuck Reynolds. Mr.
10 Reynolds contacted Mr. Fontana and the Albuquerque
11 liaison. As a result of that, Mr. Fontana came out to
12 meet with us personally and informed us of the details and
13 mentioned that he would be willing to enter into a
14 settlement for this without going to trial or having to
15 bother with more time, etc., etc.
16 And I was impressed with Mr. FontanA. He had
17 mentioned to me that his brother, I believe, is a Catholic
18 priest, and so we had much in common to talk about. He
19 seemed to be very personal and open. I told him that I
20 appreciated his information.
21 As a result of the meeting, our attorney then
22 contacted the insurance company that was covering us at
23 that time.
24 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Excuse me, Archbishop,
25 I'm going to instruct you not to discuss anything within
1 the attorney-client privilege; that is, you can discuss
2 your conversations with Mr. FontanA. You can discuss what
3 the settlement was. But in terms of discussions between
4 yourself and your attorney or your attorney and other
5 individuals, I'm going to instruct you not to go into
6 those areas.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 A. As a result of our effort, then, on behalf of
9 the request of Mr. Fontana representing this person from
10 Mora, whom I never met, incidentally, whom I never
11 interviewed, nor did I meet the family, a settlement was
12 reached and agreed upon, and Mr. Fontana had indicated to
13 me his willingness to provide me with information
14 regarding how to work with priests who may have
15 difficulties and to provide me with information in general
16 regarding pedophilia and what was taking place. Because I
17 simply mentioned to him that I was certainly not as
18 informed at all about this issue as he was, and he seemed
19 quite open to that fact.
20 So after the settlement, I did write him a letter --
21 no, he sent me a letter, in fact, with information, just
22 some points about establishing a policy for the
23 Archidocese, things of this nature, that he felt would be
24 of assistance to try to have a handle on any issues
25 concerning pedophiliA. I responded with a letter of
1 appreciation for his interest and his assistance. And
2 that was the gist of our relationship.
3 Q. What was the amount of the settlement?
4 A. I believe -- and I have not seen that figure for
5 about six, seven years. But I believe it was $200,000 to
6 $250,000. I think that was the cap. Yes, it was between
7 $200,000 and $250,000.
8 Q. Now, do you recall approximately when Mr.
9 Fontana first contacted you about this allegation?
10 A. The first contact, I believe, was -- I would say
11 probably 1989. I don't recall what part of the year. But
12 I choose that year because it was after Clive Lynn had
13 left Raton and had returned to his family in Ireland. So
14 it would have to put it at that time, about '88, '89. I
15 think it was probably 1989.
16 Q. And the allegations that Mr. Fontana made which
17 arose in Mora, would those things have chronologically
18 preceded Father Lynn's tenure in Raton?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, you've testified yesterday that there was
21 some indication from people in Raton that he had sexually
22 abused. You now had information that he had abused before
23 Raton, in MorA. At that point, then, in 1989, did you
24 contact the people of Raton, the people of Mora or the
25 people at St. Therese to tell them what you had learned
1 about Father Lynn and to ask if any of them had been
2 similarly treated?
3 A. No, sir, I did not.
4 Q. Did you make any offers to the woman who had
5 complained to you about the molestation of her own son
6 once you settled the case with Mr. Fontana?
7 A. No, sir, we did not.
8 Q. Why?
9 A. I suppose I was responding to the requests of
10 individuals, and it did not occur to me to take the
11 initiative and to contact whoever it was in Raton that had
12 made the allegations to speak with them about any type of
14 Q. Did you feel it was not incumbent upon you to
15 reveal to the people in Raton that now a financial
16 settlement had been made with regard to a priest whom they
17 alleged had sexually molested them?
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. Did you kind of hope that the whole situation
20 would blow over, and you wouldn't hear from the people in
22 A. Well, I think that you are hoping that each case
23 can be settled, and you hope that there's peace in
24 parishes and peace in different families that may have
25 been upset. And I just did not take the initiative to
1 reopen any of these issues.
2 Q. In your mind, did you think back to the Raton
3 allegations and at least offer prayers for those people?
4 A. Oh, I've offered prayers for our people
5 continually. I suppose one of the biggest things in my
6 mind was Father Lynn and the fact that he was out of the
7 country, and we couldn't even confront him.
8 Incidentally, when he had left the country, we had
9 suspended him from all of his faculties.
10 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Pasternack, this
11 might be a good time to take a break. We've been at it
12 for over an hour.
13 MR. PASTERNACK: Okay.
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Thank you.
15 MR. GOFFE: The time, as indicated on the
16 screen, is 10:45 AM. We will go off the record.
17 [A recess was taken.]
18 MR. GOFFE: The time is 11:07. We are back
19 on the record.
20 Q. (By Mr. Pasternack) Did there come a time,
21 Archbishop, when you directed Arthur Perrault to go to
23 A. Yes, sir. I asked Father Arthur Perrault to go
24 to Southdown in the summer of 1992.
25 Q. Why?
1 A. It was a result of a meeting with a gentleman
2 named and his wife; their counselor, I believe
3 her name was Dr. Schreiner; their attorney; and a
4 confrontation -- this was held at the office of Dr.
5 Schreiner with Father Art Perrault, his attorney and his
6 therapist. And the confrontation was due to the fact that
7 Mr. had revealed to his therapist in the
8 course of therapy that he, in fact, had been abused by
9 Father Art Perrault in the early 1970s. And all of this
10 came to light in his therapy with her, and they had
11 notified us that the attorney of Mr. had notified
12 the Archidocese of this fact.
13 And we had met with them, and through a series of
14 meetings with the family and with their therapist, we
15 had -- they had asked for a settlement with certain
16 demands, and a part of it was they wanted Father Arthur
17 Perrault to enter into a program of therapeutic care that
18 they felt would be in accord with what they felt was
19 adequate for sexual care.
20 Whether they had required it or not, I felt that
21 Father Perrault should go into a program at that time to
22 have another re-evaluation totally by a center apart from
23 his therapist who had been seeing him for a number of
24 years and to give us a chance to see what that evaluation
25 would result in. So I did send him to Southdown in the
1 summer of 1992.
2 Q. Would it be accurate to say, then, that you made
3 the determination, not in consultation with VanDenHeuvel,
4 to send him to Southdown?
5 A. VanDenHeuvel was informed that this was my
6 intention. It was not -- I did not consult him seeking
7 his approval. But I did inform the therapist that I was
8 asking his patient to enter into an evaluation setting at
9 Southdown that summer.
10 Q. Had your inexperience or perhaps even naivete
11 about psychological issues enhanced by that point that you
12 felt you were going to make the therapeutic directions
13 rather than listen to VanDenHeuvel?
14 A. Dr. VanDenHeuvel had, in fact, been guiding
15 Father Arthur Perrault for about 12 years by that time.
16 And I thought that it was good for a whole team to have an
17 evaluation of a man such as Father Arthur Perrault who had
18 now been confronted with an allegation. I was present for
19 that. And it was my first time that I had seen such a
20 confrontation with therapists present, attorneys present,
21 and the people, family, present. And I felt that I wanted
22 this type of a follow-up to take place for Arthur
24 Q. What was Father Perrault's reaction at the
1 A. He did not say much because his own attorney was
2 was present with him, and she was instructing him not to
3 reply. And in fact, they did not want too much of a
4 reply, if I recall correctly. The confrontation was
5 actually an opportunity, if my memory serves me right, for
6 this gentleman, , to be able to express himself
7 thoroughly and without interruption to all of us and in
8 the presence of the accused about what he felt had
9 happened to him back around 1971. And so he had that
10 opportunity for about an hour and a half to do that
11 without interruption.
12 Q. Did he vividly describe repeated acts of sexual
14 A. He -- I wouldn't say repeatedly or vividly.
15 There were vivid descriptions, certainly vivid to me. I
16 don't know how it affected others, but it certainly
17 affected me strongly, yes.
18 Q. Did he give numerous examples of abuse?
19 A. He mentioned that it occurred on several
20 occasions. I don't recall the number or whatever. But
21 the vivid description was certainly very shocking.
22 Q. If these events were presented to you in 1992 as
23 having occurred in 1971, why did you care to send him to
24 Southdown? Wasn't it a resolved issue, since it had
25 happened 20 years ago?
1 A. It was not a resolved issue in my mind, because
2 he's still a priest of the Archidocese. But also because
3 the therapist there -- I respected her comments. She
4 seemed to be well aware of issues of sexuality and
5 molestation of children, and she would explain things very
6 well. I was present not only for that one occasion, but
7 for two additional meetings with her and the others where
8 she had a chance to explain various things about
9 pedophilia, but most especially about someone like
10 . And I came to respect her. And she felt that for
11 Father Art Perrault to really have a general --
12 comprehensive, rather, understanding of his actions and
13 his own inclinations, that he needed to be in a setting
14 where people had specialized in that type of work and not
15 with simply a general psychiatrist who had been treating
17 And I thought that her advice was well given, and I
18 listened to that. And so I felt I would immediately
19 recommend to her -- I spoke with her about Southdown, and
20 I got information, some written documents from Southdown
21 advertising their type of program, and she was pleased
22 with that and felt that that would be a good place for him
23 to go.
24 Q. Hadn't you already sent Sabine Griego to
1 A. I had sent Sabine Griego to Southdown. That's
2 how I came to know about it.
3 Q. And in this conversation with Dr. Schreiner, or
4 these conversations, did she make it clear to you that
5 somebody who had molested a child 20 years ago might still
6 be a risk to be a child molester thereafter?
7 A. I don't recall a specific statement such as you
8 have made, Mr. Pasternack, but the instruction that she
9 was offering to all of us who were there present was
10 enlightening, and I believe it was at that time that I
11 began to understand that pedophilia was not -- I wouldn't
12 call it -- maybe the word is "addictive." I don't know
13 all what "addictive" totally means in psychiatric
15 But it is a type of illness where a person has to
16 monitor it always, much like alcoholism; that it's not
17 simply an illness that, once treated, can hopefully be
18 overcome immediately; that it's going to have to be
19 treated and re-treated continually in their life.
20 I was interested in her comments because I realized
21 that in the country there were various opinions about
22 pedophilia, whether or not it is able to be corrected
23 totally or whether it's never able to be totally
24 corrected. And her comments were that it's a type of
25 illness that is addictive and a person has to monitor it
1 with continual psychotherapy and especially a -- in a
2 setting dealing with psychiatrists who are skilled in
3 sexual abuse, especially of minors.
4 Q. Can you direct me to any professional literature
5 or lay literature that has ever said that pedophilia is
7 A. I would say that literature prior to the 19 --
8 1985 probably dealt with pedophilia as one of the types of
9 sexual illnesses that could be treated and treated
10 effectively with proper psychotherapy, not calling it
11 addictive or permanent.
12 Q. And were you reading that literature back in
14 A. Not reading that particular literature, sir, but
15 these were comments that were being made. In fact, Dr.
16 Schreiner referred to that type of comments or opinions of
17 psychotherapists as being distinct from the opinion of
18 psychotherapists today.
19 Q. Have you, yourself, sir, ever read an article
20 anywhere that ever said that pedophilia was curable?
21 A. I did not read an article, but I did hear an
22 address on one occasion given to the National Conference
23 of Catholic Bishops where we had a panel of psychiatrists
24 addressing us, and one of them addressed the issue saying
25 that in his opinion, that this was not yet a settled
1 issue; that in fact, pedophilia is not correctable; that
2 he felt that the final word has not yet been spoken in
3 that regard.
4 Q. When was that conference?
5 A. That conference -- I think that particular one
6 was around 1990.
7 Q. And was that the first time you recall ever
8 hearing anyone say that pedophilia might be curable?
9 A. No. I had assumed, in fact, that pedophilia was
10 like any other illness; it was curable. What I
11 discovered, and especially now in the 1990s, was that more
12 and more the psychotherapy field is holding that it may
13 not be curable.
14 Q. From what sources had you, prior to 1990,
15 derived the assumption that pedophilia might be curable?
16 A. Simply by the fact that in dealing with the
17 psychologists and psychiatrists who had dealt with our
18 priests, they were recommending for them to be able to be
19 placed in another setting, to be -- to act as priestly
20 ministers of people. I had to assume, sir, that they were
21 saying to me that this man has, in fact, reached a stage
22 of a level of cure, that he is functional without being a
23 danger to others.
24 Q. Well, with regard to Perrault, I have in front
25 of you, if you'd like to look at it, his personnel file
1 and then a series of letters that were delivered to me by
2 counsel for the Archidocese on January 11, 1994, a couple
3 of days after we settled most of the Perrault cases, from
4 VanDenHeuvel, and I don't see in either of those any
5 indication, once you became Archbishop, that Perrault was
6 fit to work with children. Are you aware of any such
7 indication? Let me take that little note off there.
8 That's not part of the -- thanks.
9 MR. KONRAD: Can we have those marked and
10 made an exhibit to the deposition? Could we have Dr.
11 VanDenHeuvel's letters marked as an exhibit and made an
12 exhibit to the deposition?
13 MR. PASTERNACK: Yes.
14 [A discussion was held off the record.]
15 MR. GOFFE: The time is 11:22. We will go
16 off the record. This is the end of tape 6.
17 [A recess was taken.]
18 MR. GOFFE: The time is 11:27. We are back
19 on the record. This is the beginning of tape number 7 in
20 the deposition of Archbishop Sanchez.
21 Q. (By Mr. Pasternack) Archbishop, let me rephrase
22 this question a little bit. I believe you indicated the
23 therapists in some fashion had told you that Perrault was
24 acceptable to return to parish work?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Are you aware of any documents that exist
2 anywhere where any therapist ever expressed that sentiment
3 to you?
4 A. These documents that I have in front of me do
5 indicate that having examined him, that they would find no
6 reason why he should not. And I would like to read from a
7 couple of them, if I may.
8 Q. Let's establish what the first one is. You're
9 referring to a letter of April 26, 1966?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. From Dr. Salazar to James Peter Davis?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. Let me ask you first, did you ever, as
14 Archbishop, ever review Arthur Perrault's personnel file?
15 A. No, I did not, sir.
16 Q. So the letter that you have in front of you here
17 is not something that you ever looked at or relied on?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Then let us forget that, because the question
20 was what information had been given to you. Is there any
21 other information?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll object to limiting
23 the Archbishop's perusal of the April 26, 1966, letter
24 from the Salazar Clinic, in that before the break, while
25 we were examining the documents -- and we examined this
1 document -- you suggested that the Archbishop review
2 portions of the personnel file of Mr. Perrault in which
3 this letter is placed. And you also asked him if he was
4 aware -- the question, as I recall it, after the break,
5 was, "Are you aware of any documents that indicate that
6 Father Perrault was fit for parish work?"
7 To the extent, Archbishop, that the referral to
8 the April 26, 1966, letter helps you answer that, I would
9 ask you to give a full and complete answer with reference
10 to that letter.
11 MR. PASTERNACK: Mr. Winterbottom, if you
12 want to ask questions of your client, you can. You will
13 not rephrase my questions or you will be pretty assured
14 that this deposition will resume in a way that this
15 coaching ceases.
16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I would like you to --
17 Q. Now, Archbishop I will ask you again. Do you
18 have any documents that you had ever reviewed when you
19 were Archbishop where any mental health practitioner ever
20 told you that Perrault was fit to do parish work?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. What is that?
23 A. A document from Dr. Joseph VanDenHeuvel, which
24 was addressed to me in 1983.
25 Q. All right, let's take a look at that. What
1 exactly is the date of that?
2 A. It's January 4th, 1983.
3 MR. PASTERNACK: Let's label the whole
4 package in the order that it was given to me by fax as
5 Exhibit 11.
6 [Exhibit 11 was marked for identification.]
7 Q. And what language in there did you rely on to
8 conclude that he was fit to do parish work?
9 MR. TINKLER: For the record, why don't you
10 number the pages.
11 MR. PASTERNACK: They're numbered at the
12 top on the fax, Bennett.
13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: For the record, Exhibit
14 11 starts with Page 3.
15 A. The statement by the psychologist reads as
16 follows: "Furthermore, indications are that his growth
17 will be further promoted by increased opportunities to
18 interact with adults on a regular ongoing one-to-one
19 basis. Thus I would recommend that full-time parish work
20 would be considered at this time."
21 Q. Now, he had been doing full-time parish work up
22 to that time as well, hadn't he?
23 A. No, sir, not at all.
24 Q. Just part-time parish work?
25 A. In fact, he was out of part-time parish work for
1 at least four years by this time.
2 Q. And are you saying that you took Dr.
3 VanDenHeuvel's statement that he should be encouraged to
4 work with adults as being permission to do unsupervised
5 work, as well, with children in a parochial setting?
6 A. No, sir. I took his recommendation that we, as
7 an Archidocese, certainly as a personnel board, would be
8 able to listen to the psychologist, his recommendation of
9 Father Perrault, if we ever chose, would, in fact, be
10 qualified to serve in a parish.
11 Q. In fact, by 1983, roughly the same time as that
12 letter, had not you received complaints from an
13 Anunciation nun by the name of Sister Pauline who reported
14 directly to you that Perrault was sexually molesting
15 children in Anunciation?
16 A. No, sir, I have not -- I have no recollection of
17 any Sister Pauline speaking to me.
18 Q. And I want to make it clear. Is that something
19 you absolutely deny or simply don't recall?
20 A. Sir, I cannot recall it.
21 Q. Had Father Kemper ever complained to you that
22 Perrault was sexually molesting children at Anunciation?
23 A. No, sir.
24 [The witness conferred with his attorney.]
25 Q. In approximately November of 1980, did a lady
1 named meet with you and tell you that Perrault
2 had molested her son ?
3 A. No, sir, I have no recollection of meeting with
4 a .
5 Q. So you don't deny it; you just don't remember?
6 A. I have no recollection of it.
7 Q. Did Ms. subsequently bring to your
8 attention after December of 1981, that had in fact
9 killed himself because he had been molested by Perrault?
10 A. No, sir.
11 Q. Do you know Sister Mary Mortz?
12 A. Yes, sir, yes, I do.
13 Q. Did Sister Mary Mortz ever speak with you about
14 Perrault molesting parish children?
15 A. Sister Mary Mortz spoke with me once about the
16 anger displayed by Father Perrault toward her in their
17 sharing of mutual area for their ministries at the
18 Catholic Center.
19 Q. The question was, did Sister Mortz ever speak to
20 you about Arthur Perrault molesting children?
21 A. No, sir.
22 Q. Do you deny that she did, or you just don't
24 A. I have no recollection of her mentioning
25 anything about sexual molestation.
1 Q. Isn't it correct, sir, that shortly after Mary
2 Mortz made such a representation to you, she was
3 transferred from the Archidocese of Santa Fe?
4 A. No, sir, she was not transferred by us at all.
5 She had worked with us for several years, specifically in
6 the area of the handicapped, was a very dedicated worker.
7 But her own religious community asked her to serve back --
8 I don't recall where. I believe it was in California
9 somewhere, because they needed her. She was a very
10 qualified person.
11 Q. Did Sister Mary Mortz ever tell you that once
12 she had disclosed abuse by Arthur Perrault, her car began
13 to be shot at?
14 A. I did not hear that she had been shot at by
16 Q. Do you know a woman by the name of Della Hall?
17 A. Della Hall was one of the directors of our
18 Catholic Center. In fact, I believe she took over from
19 Father Perrault after he had terminated his work at the
20 pastoral center.
21 Q. That's also known as El Centro Pastoral?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you recall Della Hall ever telling you that
24 she had caught Perrault molesting little boys at El Centro
1 A. No, sir.
2 Q. And is that something, again, you simply don't
3 recall, or do you deny?
4 A. I don't think it would have occurred, because I
5 had occasion to meet with Della Hall and her husband many
6 times, many, many times. And they would have -- if they
7 had ever mentioned one thing to me, I'm certain that they
8 would have repeated, and there was never any repetition of
9 anything. I just don't have any recollection of them ever
10 having mentioned it to me.
11 Q. It's important for us to differentiate, though.
12 Do you deny it, or do you simply not recall it?
13 A. I have no recollection of them ever speaking to
14 me about it.
15 Q. Did Father Biczak ever report to you that Arthur
16 Perrault had been caught molesting children?
17 A. No, sir.
18 Q. Deny or don't recall?
19 A. I don't recall any occasion in which he would
20 have spoken to me about that issue.
21 Q. Did Father Francis Eggert ever report to you
22 that Perrault had been caught molesting children?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. Do you deny it or not recall?
25 A. I have no recollection of him ever speaking to
1 me. You cannot deny something if you don't recall.
2 Q. Did Father Walter Cassidy ever discuss with you
3 complaints that he had caught Perrault molesting children?
4 A. No, sir.
5 Q. Did Noby Hurley, while president of the St. Pius
6 school board, complain to you that Perrault had been
7 caught molesting children?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. Why was -- well, was it your direction that kept
10 Perrault in therapy with VanDenHeuvel for the 12 years
11 that you mentioned?
12 A. First of all, I felt that he should be in
13 therapy, as I mentioned, in 1981. I certainly did not
14 have intention that he would continue for 12 years,
15 principally because of the expense involved. But he,
16 himself, volunteered to pay for his own therapy,
17 continuing therapy. As long as he was willing to do that,
18 I felt he should continue that way. And the doctor felt
19 that it was good maintenance for him.
20 Q. Why?
21 A. Simply because he was doing well with the
22 doctor, and the doctor was indicating that he was
23 progressing as a human being and improving in his ability
24 to deal with people, and those were all positive remarks.
25 Q. Other than Exhibit 11 where VanDenHeuvel states
1 in 1983 that Perrault should be given increased
2 opportunities to interact with adults on a regular,
3 ongoing, one-to-one basis and was recommending that it be
4 full-time parish work, did you receive any other written
5 documentation from any mental health practitioner that
6 said that Perrault was ready to work in a parochial
7 assignment at all?
8 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Is that other than Dr.
10 MR. PASTERNACK: Yes.
11 A. There was a verbal approval extended to me by
12 Dr. VanDenHeuvel, the same doctor, prior to the assignment
13 of Father Perrault as pastor at St. Bernadette parish some
14 three years after this letter was written. Even though he
15 had recommended him for parish work, we continued to allow
16 him to function as a director of the Catholic Center, El
17 Centro Pastoral, and to do the publications that he was
19 When the opening came at St. Bernadette's parish, his
20 name was one of the recommendations, and I asked the
21 therapist, Dr. VanDenHeuvel, if he felt that Father should
22 be considered as a candidate for the parish, and his
23 response was affirmative.
24 Q. If Perrault, though, had needed, at your
25 direction, therapy, which Perrault paid for, with
1 VanDenHeuvel because of sexual-related issues, did you not
2 feel the need, once it came to your attention in May of
3 '81, and you began specifying that therapy, to go back to
4 the people at Pius, back to the people at El Centro
5 Pastoral, back to the people at Anunciation, back to the
6 people at Assumption and say, "I've got a guy that I put
7 into therapy because of sexual problems. Did he ever hurt
9 A. As I mentioned to you before, the one
10 allegation, which is now public, that I don't have a
11 recollection of it, that we referred to earlier this
12 morning by Mrs. Nowak, was the allegation that led to his
13 continual therapy. I had no further reason to feel that
14 he should be given any special treatment or be kept out of
15 parishes. He was in therapy. His doctor had assured me,
16 in this document of 1983, or '81, that he had no incidents
17 of this nature for some six or seven years. So I had no
18 reason to act differently.
19 Q. Sir, after the meeting with in 19 --
20 what did you say, 1992?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did it occur to you then to go back and warn the
23 people from Pius, from our Lady of Guadalupe, from
24 Anunciation, from Assumption, from El Centro Pastoral,
25 from any parish assignment he had had since the time he
1 had allegedly molested , "Hey, this guy is a sex
2 offender. If he hurt any of your children, please come to
3 us, and we'll help you." Did that occur to you?
4 A. No, sir. The event that they referred to had
5 occurred 20 years before. By the time this became public
6 to me and brought to my attention in 1992, we did have in
7 place, as I have mentioned before, public notice to
8 everyone that if there had ever been any type of sexual
9 molestation by any priest in the Archidocese, they could
10 kindly called the 800 number and speak directly with us,
11 and we would have interviews with them and give special
12 attention to them. So the invitation was open.
13 The papers were carrying a lot of that information at
14 that time, likewise, regarding the special commission.
15 They received apparently many, many letters. They met
16 independent of myself, and people were free to make known
17 to them any type of allegation that they had on their
19 Q. Sir, isn't it true that the settlement with
20 predated by several months lawsuits against Arthur
21 Perrault based on similar conduct?
22 A. The allegation made by -- the settlement with
23 did conclude in the spring of 1992. Further
24 allegations against Father Arthur Perrault did not become
25 public until, I believe, September or October of that same
2 However, the announcement, as far as people are
3 concerned hearing announcement about any priest, to come
4 forward regarding any priest, that was already in place
5 for almost a year.
6 Q. In between the spring of 92, when you settled
7 with , and October of '92 when other Perrault
8 victims started coming forward by filing lawsuits, did you
9 or anyone in the Archidocese undertake any efforts to go
10 back to the people at the parishes and organizations where
11 Perrault had worked and warn them of what Perrault might
12 have done and specifically offer them assistance because
13 of what Perrault might have done?
14 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and answered
16 Q. Go ahead and answer.
17 A. We did not do anything specific as you have
18 indicated. We did not go back to those centers. He had
19 taught at St. Pius in the '60s. Anyone who had attended
20 school in the '60s, Lord knows, they have graduated.
21 They're living all over the country.
22 We used the 800 number to try to reach the greatest
23 number of people possible in this whole area who may have
24 had any knowledge of any priest that they wanted to
1 Q. In fact, sir, after you reached the settlement
2 with in the spring of 1992, you continued to
3 allow Arthur Perrault to serve as pastor at St.
4 Bernadette's for a period of time, didn't you?
5 A. I did, until -- he had gone, of course, to
6 Southdown for his -- what do you call it? Well, all of
7 the testing that they do and evaluation. And he had
8 indicated to me also his desire to enter into a sabbatical
9 which was to begin October 1st of that year, and I had no
10 reason to remove him from the parish, knowing that he was
11 under therapy, that he had gone to Southdown, would be on
12 a sabbatical and would, in fact, continue to go to
13 Southdown upon his return from the sabbatical.
14 Q. What is the canonical statute of limitations on
15 being a child molester? Are you saying that if 20 years
16 or five years or one year goes by without an allegation,
17 that the hands still have the power to administer the Holy
19 A. Sir, ordination, the character of priests never
20 ceases. That does not mean that they have permission to
21 function. But he had been the pastor of this parish and
22 had functioned well. There had been no allegations
23 against him. He was continuing to see his therapist
24 regularly. He went through the full evaluation at
25 Southdown, with specialists, returned, and I saw no reason
1 to remove him immediately from anything of this nature.
2 His request to have a sabbatical, I thought, was a
3 good one at that time and would remove him, of course,
4 from any type of parish work. And upon his return from
5 the sabbatical, he would then go to Southdown for their
7 Q. Isn't it true, sir, that you were allowing the
8 hands of a known child molester to administer the Holy
9 Sacraments of the Church; yes or no?
10 A. Yes, sir. There is also in our Church something
11 that I have referred to before in previous depositions,
12 and that is a concept of sacramental forgiveness, and it
13 is a sacramental forgiveness that we regard as essential
14 for a person to continue to administer the sacraments.
15 The concept of a person having been a child molester
16 with an allegation dating back 20 years would not prevent
17 him from celebrating Holy Mass 20 years later.
18 I had to assume that this event that we had
19 concluded, as shocking as it was, had been shared with
20 him, with his therapist, with his confessor, with his God,
21 and in fact, that he had had worked effectively at St.
22 Bernadette for some six years with high regard from the
23 people just gave me the information that I felt that he
24 could continue for the next two months to complete his
25 stay at St. Bernadette before taking that sabbatical.
1 Q. If you had come to learn that a priest had
2 murdered someone, would you continue to allow him to
3 administer the Holy Sacraments?
4 A. The concept -- I would have to deal with the
5 individual. I cannot just say yes or no to a question
6 like that.
7 Q. Really?
8 A. Yes. In other words, what were the
9 circumstances? Had he served a term sometime in his life
10 for this? Where is he at in it?
11 Q. So it is possible that a priest could murder
12 someone and go on to serve the Holy Sacraments?
13 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for
15 Q. Is that possible?
16 A. It's possible for a person who has a life that
17 has been marked with sin to have a conversion and
18 ultimately to enter a seminary and to become ordained a
19 priest and to live an outstanding life and an honest life
20 and an integral life as a priest. The fact that he would
21 have sinned at any time in his life before does not
22 destroy that integrity.
23 Q. How about after he's ordained, he then goes to
24 to murder someone without justification. Could he be
25 allowed thereafter, under any circumstances, to administer
1 the Holy Sacraments?
2 A. Again, it depends on himself. He can celebrate
3 the Holy Mass privately. Investigation would have to be
4 made about what took place, where this happened, who knew
5 about it, has there been any notification.
6 Q. Why would who knew about it be important? God
7 knows about it, doesn't he?
8 A. Yes, but apparently you have one understanding
9 of forgiveness from God, and we have another
14 A. Sir, I cannot enter into the mind and the heart
15 of God. I have to believe that a person's action, the way
16 they have conducted themselves for many years is evidence
17 to me that the person is contrite and that they have, in
18 fact, requested forgiveness for whatever wrong they have
19 done in their life.
20 Q. Do you know what the parishioners at St.
21 Bernadette's were told about Perrault's departure when he
22 finally departed?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. Did you undertake any action to tell the people
25 at St. Bernadette's that he was departing because he was
1 going off for treatment as a sex offender?
2 A. No, sir. You mean his departure from the parish
3 in October?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Sir, he had held -- he had announced to the
6 people that he was, in fact, taking a sabbatical from the
7 parish, and they'd held even a farewell reception in his
9 Q. All right.
10 A. And so that announcement had taken place.
11 Q. How about when he left to go to Southdown; do
12 you know if he announced from the parish that he was
13 leaving to go there because he was a sex offender?
14 A. No, sir, he did not make any announcement of
15 that nature, not to the best of my knowledge.
16 Q. And do you feel that he should have or should
17 not have?
18 A. I don't believe that he should have made that
19 announcement to the people unless he felt that he would
20 want to personally. This event had occurred 20 years
21 prior. He could have told them that he was going off to
22 Southdown for an evaluation.
23 Q. In your mind, did you consider, after speaking
24 with Mr. and his therapist, that there might be
25 other Arthur Perrault victims out there?
1 A. I don't recall us discussing additional victims,
2 although I know that Mrs. Schreiner alluded to the fact
3 that confirmed pedophiles oftentimes are engaged with more
4 than one person. And that was part of the instruction
5 that she was giving to all of us.
6 Q. Do you recall in your mind reflecting upon
7 whether there might be other Arthur Perrault victims out
9 A. I'm sure it was part of my thinking.
10 Q. And was part of your thinking at any time taking
11 active steps to find those victims and offer them the help
12 that you, as Archbishop, could offer?
13 A. We did not take any specific steps, other than
14 to have, again, the public announcement to all the people
15 in our Catholic newspaper and the secular newspapers, on
16 the radio and TV, that an 800 number was available for
17 anyone who may have felt offended at any time.
18 Q. But not specifically by Perrault?
19 A. But not specifically by Perrault.
20 Q. And, in fact, at the time of his sabbatical from
21 St. Bernadette's, wasn't St. Bernadette's the largest
22 parish in terms of population and revenues in the
23 Archidocese of Santa Fe?
24 A. It was the largest in -- well, I don't know if I
25 could call it the largest in numbers. We had about three
1 others that were very close to that. But it was one of
2 the largest in the Archidocese, yes.
3 Q. And by that time, 1992, Father Perrault had
4 become a rather powerful priest, hadn't he, in the
5 hierarchy of the Church?
6 A. No. He was a pastor, and that was all that he
8 Q. Well, he was a pastor. He was a military
9 chaplain in line for promotion to general. He still had
10 editorial responsibility at People of God. He was still
11 the chief liturgist for the Archidocese, wasn't he?
12 A. No, he was not.
13 Q. Who was the chief liturgist by that point?
14 A. We had a commission, and we had a full-time
15 person. The full-time person was Mary Francis Resa, and
16 she headed a full-time liturgical commission under the
17 direction of Father -- he's a pastor of Holy Rosary
18 parish, but his name escapes me at this time.
19 Q. But in any event, he was pastor of one of the
20 largest parishes, if not the largest; he was a military
21 chaplain of high rank in the Archidocese, right?
22 A. Well, he was --
23 Q. I understand the chaplain --
24 A. His position with the military really does not
25 affect the Archidocese. He had been a member originally
1 of the chaplain for the Air National Guard for many years,
2 beginning with my predecessor, as the Archbishop. He had
3 had permission from him to serve as chaplain and then
4 later transferred from the Air Guard to the Air Reserve.
5 And they liked his work, apparently, whatever work he was
6 doing with them, and they promoted him consistently. That
7 did not affect his position with us.
8 His position as editor of the newspaper was more of a
9 burden than it was of a title. I realize that for some
10 people the editor of a newspaper appears to be a very
11 powerful position or a strong financial one. He had no
12 salary for it and was, in fact, simply seeing that the
13 paper was properly put together by a secretary.
14 Q. Did you ever attend or observe a Mass put on by
15 Arthur Perrault at St. Bernadette's?
16 A. I celebrated Mass there myself, but I have not
17 attended a Mass in which he was a celebrant.
18 Q. Were you in St. Bernadette's after the
19 remodeling of it?
20 A. Oh, yes.
21 Q. And would you agree it's a very beautiful and
22 impressive facility?
23 A. Yes, it's a beautiful and impressive facility.
24 He had worked together with his pastoral council planning
25 what restoration of the church should take place.
12 A. Any victim -- any additional victims to which
13 you may refer were adults at this time and certainly were
14 free as adults to be able to testify or to come forward
15 and make known to us that they had been victimized.
16 Q. When you were talking about -- I believe you
17 were talking about how you couldn't know what was in the
18 mind of God in terms of whether Perrault had been forgiven
19 in the mind of God for what he had done 20 years before.
20 In the way that the Church is structured, in order to
21 resume any parochial work or be allowed to continue in
22 parochial work, did he have to at least get your
23 forgiveness, as well?
24 A. The forgiveness of -- it's implicit in any
25 assignment. If a person is given an assignment in a
1 parish, it shows the support of the bishop, whoever he may
2 be, for that individual, that we would not place him in
3 that assignment if we did not feel that that individual
4 has proven himself to be worthy of that assignment.
5 Q. So you would not have allowed him to remain at
6 St. Bernadette's and serve from spring of '92 until
7 October of '92 unless you, in your own mind, had forgiven
8 him for what he may have done in the past?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And given what Dr. Schreiner had told you about
11 the tendency of pedophilia to be addictive or repetitive,
12 given the complaints from Mr. , given the seminar
13 that you attended where it was discussed that pedophilia
14 may not be curable, may be, given the complaint in the mid
15 1970s that you acknowledge happened, do you feel now,
16 looking at it, that it was reasonable for you to forgive
17 him and allow him to continue in parish service?
18 A. Forgiveness, first of all, is a spiritual
19 quality. Putting in service or continuing in service is
20 something else. A person can be forgiven without being
21 given an opportunity to serve. So I'd like to make that
23 In my own faith, Our Lord Jesus asks us to forgive
24 one another as He has forgiven us. We pray that in the
25 Lord's Prayer as Christian people repeatedly, because we
1 recognize that as we ask God to forgive us, so must we be
2 willing to forgive others. So forgiveness is a spiritual
3 act that I have always felt is important to extend to
4 people who have shown their own contrition.
5 I think your question is more precisely regarding
6 whether he should have ever been independently allowed to
7 continue at St. Bernadette after that point or whether he
8 was going to continuing to be a source of possible danger
9 to others.
10 And I am saying that he was under the guidance of a
11 therapist; and therefore, with the assurance of the
12 therapist and the fact that he had gone to Southdown and
13 gone through the evaluation which indicated that they felt
14 that there was no acting out at this time and the fact
15 they'd indicated that there was no urgency for him to
16 enter into the full program, although they would recommend
17 at a future date that that would occur, with that
18 assurance, I allowed him to remain there for the
19 additional month and a half.
20 Q. Are you saying that Southdown informed you
21 verbally it was their opinion that he should enter their
22 full sex offender program?
23 A. No, sir, just the opposite. They informed me
24 that they did not find it necessary for him to enter it at
25 this time. They would recommend that at some future date
1 that this could be helpful. Their sex offender program is
2 not only for those who have offended at this point, but
3 it's also type of program that enriches and strengthens a
5 Q. If they were telling you that he needs to enter
6 the full sex offender program in the future, didn't that
7 make you believe that he might be a danger now?
8 A. No, sir, they were saying that there was no
9 indication of his need for that now, and that was an
10 assurance to me. Their statement was a recommendation
11 that this could be helpful for him in the future.
12 Q. So you did not, in your mind, view Arthur
13 Perrault as a danger despite what you knew by the Spring
14 of '92; is that right?
15 A. I did not consider him a potential danger to
16 anyone in the Spring of '92 because of his presence with
17 his therapist, the continuing therapy that he was
18 receiving, evaluation that he received, the fact that
19 there had been no allegations for several years and years,
20 the fact that the people of St. Bernadette, meeting with
21 them repeatedly, had nothing but affirmative things to say
22 about him. With that in mind, I allowed him to remain
23 there for the additional six weeks.
24 Q. How do you know there were no other complaints?
25 A. Because I had not received them.
1 Q. But the system breaks down, doesn't it, if
2 Starkey had received complaints and not passed them along
3 to you?
4 A. Father Starkey was no longer part of the
5 organization receiving any type of complaints. Father Ron
6 Wolf was in charge at that time and, in addition to that,
7 was assisted with investigators. And we had, again, as I
8 mentioned that 800 number and other avenues for people to
9 make known to us any possible complaints.
10 Q. I'm not just talking about complaints that might
11 have come in after Wolf came in. If Starkey didn't pass
12 complaints along to you when Starkey was your chancellor --
13 A. Right.
14 Q. -- then it would be incorrect to say there had
15 been no complaints?
16 A. Well, I would not have been -- I could not be
17 accountable for things that I was unaware of.
16 Q. And the question that I don't believe we ever
17 quite got answered was, did VanDenHeuvel tell you after
18 the meeting with that Perrault was fit to
19 continue to work in a parish?
20 A. No, he did not say that, nor did he deny it.
21 Q. And would you agree, sir, that even if God
22 forgives, even if a psychologist says the person is likely
23 not to reoffend, the person still may pose a danger?
24 A. The -- yes. I think, as I have come to
25 understand the concept of pedophilia, that is possible,
1 more possible than for you or for myself to be sinful in
2 some other way, because of the -- what they call an
3 addictive illness.
4 But I have to say that if that person is properly
5 supervised, such as an alcoholic, that that person can
6 function effectively and without failure. The
7 possibility, perhaps, is always there, but with proper
8 maintenance and support, that person can function
9 effectively, and it appears that he did function
10 effectively at St. Bernadette's.
11 Q. Why was Perrault allowed to go on so many years
12 doing this, Archbishop?
13 A. Doing what, sir?
14 Q. Sexually molesting children.
15 A. Would you mention to me the occasions that
16 you're referring to?
17 Q. All right. Why was he allowed to molest David
18 Bibo, Greg Monen, the Nowak brothers, Elaine Montoya, Paul
19 Montoya, Dana Kainz, Michael Harris, Conrad Jiron, in the
20 chancery offices? Why was he allowed to go on so many
21 years molesting children?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, states facts
23 not in evidence.
24 A. You have --
25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: And allegations not in
1 evidence, for that matter.
2 A. You have mentioned names that I have not heard.
3 The allegations that I had dealt with were those that we
4 have discussed here this morning, and it appeared to me
5 that with proper counseling of this man, proper therapy
6 and support, that he could work effectively. There was no
7 indication to the contrary.
8 I believe that if the therapist at any time had
9 indicated to me that Father Perrault constituted a
10 continual danger to children, that I would not have
11 allowed him to function in that way. There was a great
12 period of his priesthood in which he did not function in a
13 parish. He was outside of parish work. We felt that was
14 also proper support for him.
15 Q. Would you agree, sir, that your forgiveness or
16 even God's forgiveness does not necessarily remove the
17 danger that someone poses?
18 A. Excuse me once again?
19 Q. Your forgiveness or, for that matter, God's
20 forgiveness, does not necessarily eliminate the
21 possibility of future danger from that individual, does
23 A. No, it does not, sir. That does not guarantee
25 MR. PASTERNACK: I guess we better break
1 for lunch here, and what we propose to do is Mr. Bennett
2 will begin the examination after lunch.
3 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: So that -- I take it,
4 Mr. Pasternack, then, you're done with your examination?
5 MR. PASTERNACK: No, I'm not.
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Well, the letter that
7 you wrote to me last week -- two weeks ago implied that
8 you were going to finish your portion of the deposition,
9 and then Mr. Bennett would continue or Mr. Tinkler would
10 continue on behalf of their cases.
11 MR. PASTERNACK: Well, I guess we're just
12 going to conduct the deposition the way we want to.
13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Why don't we perhaps, if
14 you're willing, we might discuss that over the lunch hour.
15 I see by your shaking your head, you're not willing to
16 make those discussions. But let me suggest this, since
17 you are obviously in need of some sustenance. I will
18 consider that proposal over the next hour, and I'll let
19 you know when we get back on the record at 1:00, or 10
21 MR. PASTERNACK: Oh, no. No, no, no. I am
22 telling you the way this is going to work, since we are
23 now at the point of Sigler, is that Mr. Bennett is going
24 to take over the questioning. Judge Ashby's order
25 specifically provided that there would be no limitation on
1 the scope of the deposition of the nature you proposed,
2 nor did he put any limitation on the manner in which it
3 would be conducted or the order it would be conducted.
4 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'm not about to have a
5 revolving door of people questioning the Archbishop.
6 MR. PASTERNACK: And any efforts on your
7 part to interfere with this deposition in violation of
8 Judge Ashby's order will lead to a motion for contempt.
9 Now --
10 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Well, I hope you file it
12 MR. PASTERNACK: At the end of lunch -- be
13 quiet. At the end of lunch, Mr. Bennett will begin the
14 examination of the Archbishop, and I will pick up
16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Pasternack, while
17 you --
18 MR. PASTERNACK: We are now --
19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: -- visit the salad bar
20 at the Pizza Hut, or wherever you happen to go, consider
21 the fact that I am not inclined to allow a revolving door
22 of people coming in and questioning the Archbishop on
23 matters of extreme sensitivity, and, I might add, not
24 recent history. And I will make the decision about what
25 we're going to do.
1 If Mr. Bennett is going to take your place to
2 question about Mr. Sigler, I suggest that perhaps our
3 position is going to be that you're not going to do any
4 questioning about Mr. Sigler. But I am not inclined to
5 let everybody here have a potshot, as they feel free, at
6 the Archbishop.
7 You finish your questioning, then Mr. Tinkler or
8 Mr. Bennett or whoever wants to question next can do so.
9 MR. PASTERNACK: Well, I'll tell you what,
10 Mr. Winterbottom, I'm going to call Judge Ashby now, and
11 I'm going to tell him what you have done and the ways in
12 which you have proposed to violate his order, and we'll
13 see whether he says you're in charge or he's in charge.
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Just make sure I'm a
15 party to that telephone conversation.
16 MR. PASTERNACK: I'm just going to call him
18 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Well, then, inform him
19 that I'm not a party to the telephone conversation, so he
20 knows that I'm being ex parte'd.
21 MR. GOFFE: The time is 12:11. We will go
22 off the record.
23 [The noon recess was taken.]
24 MR. GOFFE: The time is 1:13 PM. We are
25 back on the record.
1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, before we
2 begin, I'd just like to make a record that Mr. Pasternack
3 is not present for this portion of the deposition.
4 However, his clients' interests are being represented, as
5 I understand it, by Mr. Neil Blake, Mr. Pasternack's law
6 associate, who is here at present to represent all of the
7 Pasternack-Blake clients during the course of this
8 continuation of our deposition.
9 MR. BENNETT: And also, I'd just like to
10 mention that I am interrupting Mr. Pasternack's testimony
11 to take -- or deposition to take the testimony of
12 Archbishop Sanchez in cases in which I represent, along
13 with Mr. Tinkler and Mr. Reese, various Plaintiffs.
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I understand.
15 MR. KONRAD: And I'd like to say, about the
16 timing of the deposition, this is the third day of
17 examination by Plaintiffs. I represent Servants of the
18 Paraclete, a Defendant, and I would like a full day, so I
19 think it's only fair that I take the examination tomorrow
20 if it is only going to be a four-day examination.
21 MR. BENNETT: Well, we can talk about that
22 later, but I don't see how it can be a four-day
24 MR. BLAKE: Since we're all going around
25 the table, on behalf of the Plaintiffs not represented by
1 Mr. Tinkler and Mr. Bennett, we're not in any way waiving
2 our rights nor our interests in resuming the deposition as
3 to the Archbishop after Mr. Tinkler and Mr. Bennett have
4 concluded their examination.
5 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: The deposition will
6 continue at 9:00 o'clock Saturday morning. It will end at
7 5:00 o'clock Saturday morning.
8 MR. TINKLER: It will adjourn at 5:00
10 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: We will not be there
11 after 5:00 o'clock on Saturday, so make the most of the
12 time you've got, let's begin.
14 BY MR. BENNETT:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Archbishop Sanchez.
16 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Bennett.
17 Q. My name is Merit Bennett; and as you know, I
18 represent several other Plaintiffs in various lawsuits
19 that have been filed against you individually and the
20 Archidocese of Santa Fe.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. I have one preliminary question. You have taken
23 an oath to tell the truth in this deposition?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. And that is a civil oath required by the courts
1 of the state of New Mexico?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Is there any difference between that type of
4 oath and a canonical oath?
5 A. There is no canonical oath, as such. It is a
6 sacred oath that a person takes before God to tell the
7 truth, and I would interpret the civil oath to be the same
8 as the sacred oath.
9 Q. So the oath you've taken in these proceedings is
10 to tell the truth under both civil and canonical law?
11 A. Yes, sir, absolutely.
12 Q. You have testified earlier that you felt that
13 children who had been abused, sexually abused by priests,
14 should feel free to disclose that abuse to their parents;
15 is that a fair statement?
16 A. Yes. In the discussion previously with Mr.
17 Pasternack, as one of the examples, I told him that
18 children who may have been abused -- and God forbid that
19 that happens to them, but it happens -- I would hope that
20 they would share that information with their family
21 members. Oftentimes it's direct parents. Other times, it
22 may be grandparents or other relatives with whom they are
24 Q. Now, you have admitted to having committed
25 certain sexual indiscretions while you served as
2 A. Yes.
24 Q. When you were a child -- and by "child," I mean
25 under the age of 18 years of age -- had you ever had any
1 sexual contact with anyone older than you?
2 A. No, sir, not that I can recall.
3 Q. In your deposition testimony, you have referred
4 to certain women that Mr. Pasternack referred to as Ms. A
5 through K, and there are a couple of unanswered questions
6 concerning them.
7 MR. BENNETT: Do you have that list? Could
8 you hand that to the Archbishop, please?
9 MR. KONRAD: Could you read that question
10 [The record was read by the reporter.]
12 THE WITNESS: May I open this?
13 MR. BENNETT: Yes, please.
14 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, with respect to
15 Ms. A, I believe you had indicated that you had had sexual
16 contact with Ms. A?
17 A. Yes, I indicated that there had been an embrace.
18 Q. And what I wanted to ask you is, at the time
19 that that embrace took place, how old was Ms. A?
20 A. I don't recall. I never asked her her age.
21 Q. What would be your best estimate?
22 A. Probably around -- I would say about 20.
23 Q. And how old were you at the time?
24 A. I must have been around 36, 37.
25 Q. With respect to Ms. B, when the first incident
1 of sexual contact occurred with Ms. B, how old was Ms. B,
2 to the best of your knowledge?
3 A. Probably 23.
4 Q. And how old were you at that time?
5 A. I would have been about 48.
6 Q. And subsequent to that, was there sexual contact
7 between you two?
8 A. You mean later?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. It occurred within -- any sexual contact that
11 occurred between us occurred within a year's period.
12 Q. With respect to Ms. D, you indicated that there
13 had been embraces; is that correct?
14 A. Not of a sexual nature.
15 Q. What about -- Ms. E was a sexual contact; is
16 that correct?
17 A. It was an embrace with her, also, yes.
18 Q. And a kiss, I believe?
19 A. Yes, excuse me.
20 Q. And at the time that that sexual contact took
21 place, how old was Ms. E, to the best of your knowledge?
22 MR. KONRAD: I'm going to object to the
23 question. I don't know that an embrace and a kiss is
24 sexual contact.
25 MR. TINKLER: I believe he defined it as
2 MS. KENNEDY: Well, the testimony, if you
3 want to know was that someone could consider it sexual
4 contact between friends. He did not feel it was sexual.
5 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: It was not for sexual
6 purposes was the Archbishop's statement.
7 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Go ahead and answer,
9 A. To the best of my knowledge and recollection,
10 Ms. E would have been, I suppose, around the same age, I
11 believe, 21, in college, in college. In fact, I recall
12 she was in college.
13 Q. And how old were you at the time?
14 A. About 44.
15 Q. Was there any sexual contact between you and
16 Ms. F?
17 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: It's asked and answered.
18 A. Not sexual contact, as such.
19 Q. There was more than one kiss, I believe you
20 referred to?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. At the time that the kissing occurred, how old
23 was Ms. F?
24 A. I would say approximately 24.
25 Q. And you were --
1 A. About 55, I think it was.
2 Q. And the sexual contact with Ms. G, this took
3 place over a period of time, that's my understanding; is
4 that correct?
5 A. No. The friendship was a long friendship, but
6 the sexual contact was not.
7 Q. Over what period of time did the sexual contact
9 MS. KENNEDY: Object, asked and answered.
10 Q. In terms of time span.
11 A. Within -- all within a year's period.
12 Q. And during that time, how old was Ms. G, to the
13 best of your knowledge?
14 A. About 28, 29.
15 Q. And you were --
16 A. About 55, I guess.
17 Q. And with Ms. I, when did that contact with Ms. I
18 occur, in terms of her age; how old was she?
19 A. She was about 19 or 20.
20 Q. And you were --
21 A. 41.
22 Q. And Ms. J, how old was Ms. J when that contact
24 A. Just about the same age.
25 Q. 19 or 20?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you were --
3 A. Same age, about 41.
4 Q. And with Ms. K, was that contact over a period
5 of time?
6 A. Within a year's time.
7 Q. And how old would Ms. K have been?
8 A. At that time, I suppose about 20, 21.
9 Q. And you?
10 A. About 41, 42.
11 Q. Thank you. You can return that to the reporter.
12 How old are you now, Archbishop?
13 A. I'm 59.
14 Q. Archbishop Sanchez, why did you decide to become
15 a priest?
16 A. I decided to become a priest because I was
17 impressed with the priests who had served in my home
18 community. They were dedicated men. They seemed to
19 always be ready to help others. They were at their
21 In my own home environment, religion and the practice
22 of our religion was very essential. I felt very close to
23 the Lord, as well as to my Church. And after -- as I was
24 approaching the end of my high school career, I was able
25 to reflect on it with a parish priest, and he recommended
1 that I would try the seminary and to see whether or not I
2 really had a vocation to the priesthood or not. It's a
3 proving ground, as it were, gives you a chance to test
4 whether you're going to be submitting to the routine of
5 the school, the training and the spiritual development.
6 Q. And who was that priest?
7 A. That was Monsignor Majeski, John J. Majeski.
8 Q. Was your decision to enter the seminary based,
9 in part, upon the example that Monsignor Majeski had set
10 for you as a priest?
11 A. Himself and others before him. I had known
12 other priests before Monsignor Majeski was part of our
13 parish, and they had certainly influenced me.
14 Q. And when you -- had you made up your mind to
15 become a priest prior to entering the seminary?
16 A. You don't really make up your mind to become a
17 priest because the training and the formation program goes
18 on for a large number of years. In my case, it was for 10
19 years. And your decision is to give yourself an
20 opportunity to test out your vocation, whether or not God
21 is calling you to a life as a priest or not.
22 Many of the men during the course of their training
23 will choose to leave the seminary. They decide that this
24 is not what they would like to make a life of. They feel
25 that perhaps they're called to another vocation, and
1 several leave the seminary at any point of their seminary
3 Q. When did you decide that you wanted to remain
4 and become a priest?
5 A. Each year I would have to renew that commitment
6 toward the priesthood. And the ultimate commitment came
7 before my ordination to the subdeaconate, because with
8 that ordination comes the obligation of celibacy, as well
9 as a daily -- certain daily prayers that you're obliged to
10 pray as a deacon and then later as a priest.
11 Q. And when would that have been?
12 A. That occurred, sir, in 1959.
13 Q. Was that in Rome?
14 A. I was at the North American College in Rome,
16 Q. And at the time you made that decision and
17 commitment in 1959, did you feel that you could keep your
18 promise of chastity and celibacy?
19 A. I did, sir. The Church and its structure at the
20 time was very strong. I had been in the seminarian
21 formation for a number of years, as I have indicated, and
22 I had no reason to believe that I would not be able to be
23 a good priest. I also knew that coming back to America
24 would pose many challenges, because the temple of America
25 simply was not the temple of Europe that I had lived in
1 for six years.
2 Q. So you would have been about 25 years old at the
4 A. I was ordained when I was 25, yes.
5 Q. Did you feel that you were old enough to make a
6 mature decision as to whether or not to commit to the vows
7 of chastity and celibacy?
8 MR. KONRAD: Object to the form of the
9 question. I don't think there is a vow of chastity.
10 A. It's a speculative question, whether I thought I
11 was old enough or not. I don't know if there's any
12 particular point in your life when you feel absolutely
13 certain. I felt an awe regarding the priesthood. I felt
14 I would never really be worthy of this sacred office, but
15 I felt that this is what I had been called for and for
16 which I had trained for; and according to my own spiritual
17 director and those who advised me, they felt that I, in
18 fact, was mature enough to make that decision and could go
19 ahead with ordination.
20 So with their advice and my own feeling and trust in
21 God -- I suppose it's much like a young couple who make
22 promises to get married. They're very excited about their
23 love for one another on their marriage day, but they know
24 that the road for marriage is long, and it's fraught with
25 all kinds of dangers and temptations. They hope that they
1 will remain as husband and wife for the rest of their
2 life. And I know on the day of their marriage, they feel
3 that they will, even though they know it could be very
5 Q. And you were prepared to make that commitment at
6 that time?
7 A. To the best of my knowledge, I was prepared.
8 Q. How did you come to be incardinated in Rome?
9 A. I wasn't incardinated in Rome. I was sent there
10 as a seminarian to study. There is a seminary called the
11 North American College. It is a residence for young
12 seminarians from our country who are given the opportunity
13 to study at one of the major universities in Rome,
14 preparing themselves for the priesthood.
15 There were approximately 300 students from the United
16 States there at that time. The majority of us attended
17 school at the Gregorian University in Rome. That's
18 situated in downtown Rome. It was operated by the Jesuit
19 Fathers and had been so operated since the 1600s.
20 Q. How did you come to be sent there or to go
22 A. I was asked to go there by the Archbishop of
23 Santa Fe at that time. His name was Archbishop Edwin
24 Vincent Byrne. He, in conference, I presume, with the
25 rector and the staff from the Immaculate Heart of Mary
1 seminary in Santa Fe had decided where each of the
2 seminarians would continue their theological studies; and
3 in my case, they indicated that they would like me to
4 continue my studies at the North American College in Rome.
5 Q. Was that an honor?
6 A. Yes, it was. It was an honor and, at the same
7 time, a difficult task, because you would be away from
8 your family and your own home for a six-year period. The
9 honor was because you would have an opportunity to study
10 with other men from throughout the world. At the
11 Gregorian University there were representatives from some
12 80 different countries in attendance in classes there.
13 Being in Rome itself was certainly an honor to be able to
14 see the various ceremonies and events that would take
15 place in that historic city.
16 Q. Was anyone else from the Archidocese of Santa Fe
17 sent to Rome to conduct seminarian studies?
18 A. Yes, there were other seminarians and priests
19 who had been ordained for this Archidocese. To the best
20 of my recollection, Monsignor George Rieffer, who is now
21 deceased, was ordained in Rome in the 1930s.
22 Q. Let me interrupt so I'm clear. During the time
23 that you were there, was anyone else sent from the
24 Archidocese of Santa Fe?
25 A. Yes. I had been there for a three-year period,
1 three or four years, when another seminarian was sent from
2 the Archidocese of Santa Fe. His name was Gene Guerin,
3 G-u-e-r-i-n. He was also ordained for the Archidocese of
4 Santa Fe.
5 When I arrived in Rome, my first year, there was
6 another seminarian for the Archidocese of Santa Fe who was
7 in his last year, and that was Monsignor Francis Tournier.
8 He died in Santa Fe some 15 years or so after his
10 Q. Did an assignment or a seminary assignment in
11 Rome indicate that you may in the future be a candidate to
12 advance in the hierarchy of the Church?
13 A. No. It was not like West Point where they would
14 expect them to be the military officers. That was not it.
15 It was an opportunity for young men to, in a sense, be
16 exposed to the practices of the Vatican and the ceremonies
17 at St. Peter's, to become acquainted with the history and
18 the tradition of our Catholic Church, which was so strong
19 in the Eternal City.
20 It is true that many of the students who were
21 ordained there eventually were made bishops, but there was
22 no guarantee.
23 Let me give you an example. In my class, there were
24 51 of us who were ordained together. Of that 51, three
25 have been made bishops. So the other 48 have been serving
1 in various capacities in their different diocese but have
2 not been made bishops.
3 Q. Nevertheless, was that a path to becoming a
5 A. Any seminary is a path. A selection of a bishop
6 does not depend upon the seminary where he studies. It
7 depends upon the individual.
8 Q. When did you return to the Archidocese of
9 Santa Fe?
10 A. After my ordination in Rome, which was in
11 December 1959, I completed, then, my studies which ended
12 in July or late June of 1960, and I returned to the
13 Archidocese in early July.
14 Q. And what was your first assignment at that time?
15 A. My first assignment was as the assistant pastor
16 at Our Lady of the Anunciation parish in Albuquerque. I
17 was asked, also, at that time to be on the staff of
18 teachers at St. Pius X High School.
19 Q. And who asked you to do that?
20 A. The Archbishop of Santa Fe. He gave me that
22 Q. Was that Archbishop Byrne at the time?
23 A. Archbishop Byrne, yes.
24 Q. And what was your -- what had been your
25 relationship with Archbishop Byrne? Had you known him in
1 any other context outside of the priesthood?
2 A. No, none. I had -- I would see him when I was a
3 seminarian at the Immaculate Heart of Mary seminary. I
4 would see him like all of us did. We were asked to be
5 altar servers for several of the ceremonies at the
6 Cathedral in Santa Fe. Then when I was assigned to Rome,
7 I didn't see him for six years. So when I came back, my
8 assignment was already completed. I did not meet with him
9 prior to the assignment.
10 Q. Did you have any duties, outside of parish
11 duties or teaching duties, connected with the chancery at
13 A. No, not at that time.
14 Q. Did you at any time after that?
15 A. Yes. After I had taught at St. Pius and
16 assisted at Anunciation parish for one year, I was then
17 asked by the Archbishop to go to Catholic University in
18 Washington, D.C., to do studies in canon law. I attended
19 the university, then, in the school year of '61-'62. It
20 was to be a two-year program, but after the first year, it
21 was completed. And it was a successful school year,
22 incidentally. Apparently his own need for priests in the
23 Archidocese was such that he asked me to remain in the
24 Archidocese and to assume a position, again, at the
25 St. Pius X High School in Albuquerque.
1 Q. And were you teaching again?
2 A. So I went back again to teaching. The principal
3 of the school at that time asked if I would also take some
4 classes, because of certification that is necessary in the
5 state of New Mexico. I had not taken classes specifically
6 for teaching when I was in Rome, and so I then took
7 classes at the University of New Mexico during the summer.
8 Q. Did you have any other duties within the
9 Archidocese, other than participating as a student and
11 A. Not duties. I would volunteer to assist a
12 priest who might need help on weekends, because I could be
13 free to help them either Saturday night, on occasions, as
14 well as Sunday morning, since I was not at that time
15 assigned to a parish. So I helped a priest, the pastor at
16 Holy Ghost parish, whenever he would ask my assistance,
17 and also the chaplain at the military base.
18 Q. Which military base?
19 A. It was Sandia, Sandia Base.
20 Q. And after that, where were you assigned?
21 A. I stayed at St. Pius X High School as a staff
22 member until 1968, at which time the then Archbishop,
23 James Peter Davis, asked me to accept a new assignment,
24 and that was to be as pastor of two combined parishes in
25 northeastern New Mexico located in Roy and Mosquero, St.
1 Joseph's parish in Mosquero and Holy Family parish in Roy.
2 Q. Did you have any duties within the Archidocese
3 outside of that parish assignment?
4 A. The only additional obligation that I recall was
5 the Archbishop asked if I would belong to a committee that
6 was trying to prepare some guidelines for pastoral
7 councils, parish councils, which were becoming a new
8 entity at that time.
9 Prior to the 1960s, there was no such thing as parish
10 councils for our Roman Catholic Church, but with the
11 Second Vatican Council that was taking place, that was
12 permitted. And so the Archbishop wanted to have some
13 guidelines and asked me to belong to a committee to
14 achieve that goal. That was the only additional duty that
15 I had.
16 Q. When did you complete that parish assignment in
17 Roy and Mosquero?
18 A. It was in 1971.
19 Q. And then where were you reassigned?
20 A. I was asked by the Archbishop, then, to leave
21 Roy and Mosquero, to surrender that parish, so as to
22 assume a new parish assignment in Albuquerque at San
23 Felipe parish in Old Town, Albuquerque.
24 Q. And your assignment was to be the pastor of that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you have any duties within the Archidocese
3 outside of that assignment?
4 A. I believe I was elected to two things: One was
5 to represent -- to belong to the priest council. It was
6 called the -- I don't recall the formal name, but the
7 priests of the Archidocese were able to have a council of
8 priests which would meet perhaps every two months for the
9 sake of discussing our pastoral ministry and making
10 recommendations to the Archbishop for the well-being of
11 the Archidocese.
12 I recall, as a member of that body, I was also chosen
13 by them to represent them, myself and one other priest, to
14 represent them at a national convention of priest councils
15 that took place.
16 Q. Was that a new group at that time?
17 A. It was. That was again an outgrowth, one of the
18 fruit of the Second Vatican Council that had completed its
19 work in late 1960s.
20 Q. And what was the purpose of a priest council?
21 A. The purpose was to look at two areas of priestly
22 interest: One was called priestly life, and the second
23 priestly ministry. The issues of priestly life concerned
24 such basics as our salary, was this adequate for us? At
25 that time, we were receiving $50 a month salary, and it
1 was pretty tough to even make any car payments for
2 ourselves. So issues like that had to be addressed.
3 There was no retirement program for priests at that
4 time, and the priest council addressed itself to an issue
5 such as that, issues for priestly life.
6 For priestly ministry, they would address such issues
7 as language preparation for seminarians, preparing to
8 serve, that they would be prepared bilingually, how to
9 best prepare themselves for liturgical celebrations,
10 different types of enrichment programs for the laiety,
11 such as Cursillo, which is a program of assistance for lay
12 members to become involved in. So it involved itself in
13 both the priestly life and priestly ministry concepts.
14 Q. How many priests were on that council when you
15 served in those years, approximately?
16 A. I don't recall. I would say approximately
17 perhaps 15.
18 Q. And were they elected by the priests in the
19 Archidocese to serve?
20 A. Yes. They had a formula -- I don't recall
21 exactly, but it was like each -- it divided the priests
22 into age groups, like 10-years groups. So there was four
23 or five different groupings, and each age group could
24 elect, I think, two members from their age group to
25 represent the age group, and then the entire body of
1 priests would elect another six members or so to represent
3 Q. Did the entire body of priests meet to do that,
4 or was that done by mail?
5 A. It was done by ballot, yes. They mailed ballots
6 to them.
7 Q. Was that the only organization at that time that
8 represented the priests and gave the priests a voice in
9 the Archidocese with the Archbishop?
10 A. Yes, that was the organization for that purpose.
11 Q. As a part of that organization, were issues,
12 other issues concerning problems that might arise in
13 parishes that were common or unique to more than one
14 priest, were those also discussed and brought to the
15 Archbishop's attention?
16 A. You mean such as personnel problems, things of
17 this nature?
18 Q. Any type of personnel problems. By "personnel,"
19 I assume you mean priest staff?
20 A. That was my question to you, what you meant by
22 Q. Personnel problems, either with the parishes,
23 complaints from the parishes about the way priests were
24 performing their duties.
25 A. No, those -- that would -- I don't recall them
1 discussing that in that particular forum. I think that
2 particular forum was more for evaluation of what I call
3 diocesan programs and then planning for diocesan programs
4 or planning for the seminary or seminarians' vocations and
5 so forth, retirement.
6 Any type of discussion about Father X doing his duty
7 here, doing his duty there, might come up in what we
8 called deanery meetings. This was an occasional gathering
9 of priests from a particular areA.
10 The geographic area of the Archidocese is divided
11 into eight parts, and each part is called a deanery. And
12 those priests will meet from time to time to discuss
13 anything either that has come down from the Archbishop or
14 of mutual interest among themselves or simply to meet for
15 mutual support. A lot of times it's just for social
16 gathering to support themselves.
17 Q. Would the Archbishop use the parish council to
18 disseminate information to the priests at large?
19 A. You mean the priest council?
20 Q. Excuse me, the priest council?
21 A. It was possible he could use that, since they
22 represented the priests, but I would say most of the time,
23 the Archbishop would have used a direct communication by
24 letter to them. He could ask the priest council to
25 discuss an issue or to plan a certain program. But I
1 think that to make certain that all priests would receive
2 the communication, he would do that by letter.
3 Q. What about the deanery council; would he use
4 those to disseminate information, or again, if he wanted
5 to get information to all priests, he would usually do
6 that by letter?
7 A. By letter, right, yes.
8 Q. Were there any other forums for discussion of
9 issues that may arise either in the parishes or in the
10 particular conduct by any specific priests? Was there any
11 other forum in which those issues might arise in those
13 A. Well, as far as laiety is concerned, many of the
14 parishes did have parish councils. I don't know if they
15 would have brought personal problems to the parish
16 council. It was possible. But I think most of the time
17 the parish council really served as an administrative
18 advisory group, not so much for personal needs as for
19 administration of the parish.
20 There was another body that might have received, I
21 think, what you're talking about, and that would have been
22 the Archdiocesan personnel board. This board was
23 established by the Archbishop to assist him in assigning
24 priests to different parishes, to make recommendations to
25 him as to who might best serve as a pastor of this parish
1 or associate at that parish.
2 Q. And was that the procedure, as far as you knew
3 it, in the late '60s, early '70s, the personnel board
4 would make recommendations to the Archbishop concerning
6 A. The personnel board would meet and make
7 recommendations. We weren't always assured that he would
8 follow those recommendations. And only because Archbishop
9 Davis was, in a sense, his own man, I guess. He would
10 make decisions whether you advised in that direction or
11 not. He just felt that he was the Archbishop, and we were
12 advisory, so, you know, it wasn't binding upon him. But
13 nonetheless, the board did exist to make recommendations.
14 Q. Were you on the personnel board during that
15 period of time?
16 A. I served on the personnel board for a year, yes.
17 Q. What year was that?
18 A. I would say -- it could very well have been like
19 1972, I think 1972.
20 Q. And as far as your understanding of the
21 personnel board's procedures in, let's say, the late '60s
22 through 1972, what steps did the personnel board undertake
23 in making a recommendation to the Archbishop concerning
24 placement of a priest?
25 A. The priests on the personnel board by and large
1 were familiar with the parishes of the Archidocese and
2 could all address, then, the -- what I would call the
3 profile of a parish and their needs. They knew how large
4 the parish was. They knew whether it was a bilingual
5 parish or not. They knew if it had a Catholic school
6 attached to it or not. They were familiar with the entire
7 parish structures. And they were also familiar fairly
8 much with the talents of each priest and the experience of
9 the priests, and they would make recommendations based on
10 that knowledge.
11 Oftentimes, if a pastorship was open, it would be
12 informed -- in a sense, advertised to the general body of
13 priests. If somebody had a particular interest in that,
14 he would submit his name for consideration. But the
15 priest personnel board ultimately would make a
16 recommendation to the Archbishop that they would recommend
17 so-and-so for this parish. Sometimes they might have two
18 names on the recommended list, feeling that either one
19 would be a very fine candidate for it.
20 Q. What type of investigation was undertaken by the
21 personnel board of the priest to determine whether or not
22 he was suitable for assignment to a particular parish?
23 A. It wasn't a formal investigation as to himself.
24 They knew his work in a particular parish. It seemed to
25 be very effective work. The parish seemed to be
1 functioning smoothly. As far as the board knew, there
2 were no particular problems that they were -- that the
3 pastor had personally or that any parishioners had brought
4 against the parish. But they would make that
5 recommendation to the Archbishop.
6 Q. My question is, how would they acquire that
7 information, by word of mouth or talking among themselves?
8 Would they pull out the priest personnel file?
9 A. It would be talking among themselves. They do
10 not have access to the priest personnel files. That
11 belonged to the Archbishop.
12 Q. So the personnel board, in making a
13 recommendation to the Archbishop for placement of a parish
14 priest in the late '60s and early '70s would not have
15 access to that priest's personnel file?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. But the Archbishop would?
18 A. Oh, yes.
19 Q. You said Archbishop Davis was pretty much his
20 own man. Do you know what process he went through to
21 determine how priests should be assigned within the
22 various parishes?
23 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, calls for
24 speculation on the part of this witness.
25 Q. I'm asking your knowledge, Archbishop.
1 A. I don't know what process he would go through at
3 Q. Do you know what process was undertaken in your
4 case to make your assignments to parishes?
5 A. I was -- since I had been on the personnel
6 board, and I had served as a priest in the Archidocese,
7 when I became the Archbishop, I assured the priests that I
8 would be listening to the recommendations of the personnel
9 board, and in fact followed those recommendations, right
10 offhand, off the top of my head, I would say at least 99
11 percent of the time. Their recommendations seemed to be
12 very fine, very fair.
13 Q. And when you were Archbishop, did the personnel
14 board have access to the priest-in-question's personnel
16 A. No. Personnel files, as such, were considered
17 confidential. But if they chose, if they wished to
18 interview the priest, they could, or if they wished to
19 contact the parish council of the parish, that was
20 possible, too.
21 Q. But during the time that you were Archbishop,
22 there was no access to the personnel file?
23 A. Not by general access, no. They were
24 considered -- the individual priest's own file was
25 considered confidential and private for that priest, not
1 that it would necessarily have anything of a confidential
2 nature, but it did have his curriculum vitae, where he was
3 born, and so forth, and any change of assignment. But it
4 was his file, and that priest could have access to the
5 file whenever he chose to see it. But it was really the
6 file of the Archbishop on behalf of that priest.
7 Q. You don't feel that it would have been
8 reasonable or prudent for the personnel board to have
9 access to that in making recommendations for assignments
10 to the Archbishop?
11 A. Not really. I think that the knowledge of the
12 personnel board, in most instances, was as much as the
13 Archbishop knew, myself, and perhaps more so, because they
14 were in touch with their brother priests more frequently
15 than I myself.
16 Q. Prior to becoming Archbishop, when you were
17 assigned to particular parishes, do you know what
18 procedures or process was undertaken to determine your
19 being fit for assignment?
20 A. No, I don't. Only the Lord knows. I have no
22 Q. No one advised you of what the process was?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Was Archbishop Davis ill in the latter part of
25 his service as Archbishop?
1 A. It appeared to many of us that -- well, he did
2 have a heart condition that would not allow him oftentimes
3 to -- he could not venture to the high altitudes for a
4 long period of time. So he would spend a great period of
5 time in the Albuquerque area or lower areA. I know that
6 he tried to limit the numbers of times he'd have to go to
7 Santa Fe because of its particular altitude.
8 He also suffered from gout, and what became more and
9 more obvious was that perhaps the beginnings of what is
10 known now as Alzheimer's disease was beginning to afflict
11 him, because his memory was beginning to have problems.
12 And as I look at myself, I'm wondering if that's not an
13 affliction that hits all archbishops.
14 Q. Only when they're sued.
15 A. No, unfortunately it happens on other occasions,
16 as well, many occasions. But he seemed to be having
17 difficulty that way.
18 Q. When did he first appear to be having that
19 difficulty concerning his memory?
20 A. I don't know. I could not give you a definite
21 year, but certainly by his last year in office, I would
22 say that it seemed anyway -- I don't want to say that he
23 was at that time suffering from Alzheimer's, but it seemed
24 to us from some of his decisions and perhaps failures to
25 remember other things, that he was contradicting a prior
1 decision that he may have forgotten about.
2 Q. Do you recall any specific decisions?
3 A. I just don't remember any specific ones. They
4 weren't major things, but it just seemed that that was
5 happening, and so we just wondered if he wasn't.
6 Ultimately he did go into severe Alzheimer's disease and
7 died that way himself.
8 Q. Can you recall approximately the year that you
9 would have first began to recognize, yourself, that that
10 was a problem with Archbishop Davis?
11 A. I suppose 1973. I'd say immediately -- shortly
12 before his retirement.
13 Q. Is when you first noticed it?
14 A. I would say yes.
15 Q. Had you heard that that was a problem with
16 Archbishop Davis prior to 1973?
17 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'm going to object to
18 the use of the word "problem," unless you're more specific
19 as to how it has been a problem. The Archbishop testified
20 as to some memory loss but didn't indicate that it was a
21 major problem.
22 A. I did not hear of other -- it wasn't scuttlebutt
23 or anything like that. When we would have a decision made
24 that seemed to be contradictory to what we thought had
25 been made prior, we wondered whether he changed his mind
1 or whether he simply forgot.
2 Q. Did that first begin to occur in '73, or did
3 that start to happen before?
4 A. I did not have close contact with the
5 Archbishop, in fact, not even much in '73. He simply
6 stayed in his office. And I think I had visited his
7 office only twice in the previous -- in the 10 years of
8 his tenure.
9 Q. When you were admitted to the priesthood, do you
10 know what type of screening or evaluation process was done
11 into your background?
12 A. I don't know what the officials may have done,
13 I'm sure that they depended a lot upon the local pastor to
14 recommend seminarians, because the local pastor was
15 familiar with the family, with the candidate or potential
16 candidate, his talents, indications that he would show
17 regarding his desire for a spiritual life, oftentimes if
18 he was attending Mass daily or infrequently, his
19 interests, whatever they were, in music or in sports, or
20 whether he worked in a job here or there. They, I would
21 say, by and large, depended upon the recommendation of the
22 local pastor for that.
23 Q. Do you know if that was done in your case?
24 A. I would assume it was because my pastor knew me
25 very well, and I would say the seminary officials would
1 have called or contacted him for recommend -- they would
2 not allow anyone in the seminary without a recommendation
3 from their pastor.
4 Q. After you became a priest, did you become aware
5 of the Archidocese of Santa Fe's procedures for screening
6 priest applicants?
7 A. I was not associated with the seminary. I was
8 neither a professor at the seminary or an official, and so
9 I really had no occasion to find out what their procedure
11 Q. Have you ever found out?
12 A. When I was the Archbishop in my own years, I was
13 able to ask them, you know, the procedures that are
14 recommended for seminary admission. And somewhere along
15 the line -- I don't recall exactly what years, but we
16 began to include, I guess, a testing, a psychological
17 testing of the individual, also required recommendations
18 from beyond the pastor. It would include other
19 individuals who had known him or former employers,
20 teachers, so that there was a greater and a broader body
21 of knowledge that was brought to the admissions board for
22 the seminary.
23 Q. And that process was instituted after you became
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you institute that process?
2 A. Not so much myself. That was the rector of the
3 seminary and the staff. They were familiar with the
4 guidelines for seminary admissions.
5 I might add that the National Council of Catholic
6 Bishops do have a commission or a committee that looks at
7 seminaries and has recommendations for seminaries for
8 everything from the curriculum to spirituality practices,
9 structures, admissions, this sort of guideline for
11 Q. Do you know under which rector that admissions
12 policy was instituted?
13 A. Well, there were various admissions policies,
14 I'm sure, under every rector, except that they would
15 become more demanding as years went on. I don't know --
16 if I recall correctly, things began to take on different
17 tones, I think, probably under the rectorship of Father
18 Johnny Lee Chavez.
19 Q. Which would have been what years, approximately?
20 A. Oh, probably the early '80s to mid '80s.
21 Q. So prior to that time, the early to mid '80s,
22 when these procedures were instituted, there was no
23 requirement that a seminarian priest undergo a
24 psychological evaluation?
25 A. Not that I can recall, or at least not that I
1 was aware of. Now, this is our seminary at Santa Fe,
2 which deals with college-level students. When they leave
3 there, they have four more years of study, and they have
4 to go to what we call a House of Theology. And the House
5 of Theology has their own requirements for admission and
6 acceptance and procedures. So they would have an
7 additional structure of admission categories that the
8 candidate would have to go through.
9 Q. Did the Archidocese of Santa Fe have its own
10 screening process for priests, after they completed
11 seminary or other theological studies?
12 A. Not really a separate process, screening
13 process, for the priests. We depended upon the seminary
14 where they had been in school for at least four years and
15 under the guidance of professional formation staff. They
16 had gone through testing, through their studies, through
17 spirituality, spiritual direction, and they would give you
18 reports on these seminarians, and finally they would
19 recommend a seminarian for ordination to you only if he
20 passed their requirements. If there was any doubt about
21 him, they would not recommend him for ordination.
22 Q. If a seminarian was recommended for ordination
23 to you as Archbishop, would you generally accept that
25 A. Yes, I would.
1 Q. Without performing any additional investigation?
2 A. I would have a letter of recommendation from his
3 home pastor or parish. I would have a letter of consent
4 or at least testimony of consent from the parish council
5 of his parish, from his parents, and the personnel board
6 would also have to vote affirmative for his ordination.
7 Q. Did you examine -- in that process, did you
8 examine any of the application records that were required
9 by the seminary to include any psychological evaluation
10 testing, if one was conducted, or did you just rely on the
11 seminary's recommendation?
12 A. I relied on their interpretations since they had
13 administered their testing. If, in fact, there were any
14 concern in an area about a candidate, that would be
15 brought to my attention. If they would say that, "This
16 person seems to exhibit a high degree of irascibility. He
17 gets angry very quickly. He flies off the handle at the
18 drop of a hat, and we're concerned about that quality. We
19 recommend that he have counseling until he can learn to
20 control that temper." And with that notification, the man
21 would then be asked to go into counseling for that
23 Q. Did that particular situation ever occur?
24 A. Yes, it did.
25 Q. When?
1 A. It occurred with one example I can recall off
2 the top of my head, with a priest who had been a
3 seminarian in St. Meinard's in Indiana, and he was held
4 back from ordination to the deaconate because of it, and
5 they requested that he would go through therapy there at
6 their own school, and I agreed with their request. The
7 candidate felt very hurt by it, but he did comply with the
8 request, and so his ordination was delayed for another
10 Q. What year was that?
11 A. I suppose around 1976, '77.
12 Q. What about priests who came to the Archidocese
13 from other Archidocese?
14 A. Priests who would come to us from another
15 Archidocese would have to bring with them or would have
16 sent ahead of them letters of recommendation from their
17 own bishop, and he would explain to the local bishop, to
18 myself or to my predecessor that, "Father X desires to
19 work in the Archidocese of Santa Fe. He's a priest of our
20 diocese. We recommend him. If you would like to receive
21 full information about him, please contact us, and we'll
22 send it."
23 If, in fact, after interviewing the individual, the
24 Archidocese felt that they would have an interest in him,
25 they would then write to the chancery office of his former
1 diocese or of his diocese, asking for a full curriculum
2 vitae on that priest.
3 Q. And that was the procedure in effect when you
4 were Archbishop?
5 A. Yes, for a priest that wanted to come to work in
6 the Archidocese, that would be the procedure I would go
7 through. In fact, I could not allow any priest to even
8 function on a weekend without first clearing that with his
9 own bishop or superior in his former diocese. That would
10 normally be done with a phone call.
11 Q. So it was your policy as Archbishop to make a
12 personal contact with the Archbishop of the diocese from
13 which the priest came to assure that that priest was
14 qualified to serve in your Archidocese?
15 A. Yes. If the priest has presented himself to us
16 as a total stranger, and he's presented himself to us for
17 the first time, we have no idea who he is. We have to
18 verify, first, that he's a priest; and secondly, what kind
19 and why he's there and what does his bishop have to say
20 about it. So that is pro formA. That communication or
21 letters are sent regularly.
22 Q. All right. And I assume that you feel that that
23 is a prudent practice to undertake to assure the
24 well-being of parishioners with whom this priest may come
25 in contact?
1 A. Yes, as well as to assure that he is validly
2 ordained a priest and has the right to function as such,
3 so that he's not pretending to be such.
4 Q. Well, not only that concern, but you're also
5 concerned about anything in this priest's past --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- or past behavior that may adversely affect
8 the health of the parishioners in the Archidocese of
9 Santa Fe?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. When you were at St. Pius High School in
12 Albuquerque, you said that you taught; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And did you do anything else, other than teach?
15 A. I was also activities director and, for one
16 year, athletic director. Then I was asked to assume the
17 additional responsibility of academic advisor to our
18 seniors so as to get them placed in colleges or in
19 whatever career they may choose to go.
20 Q. Did you have any contact with the chancery?
21 A. No, sir. There was no need to contact the
22 chancery, unless they asked me to come in for some
24 Q. At what point in time did you know that you were
25 on a path to becoming Archbishop or have any indication
1 that that was a possibility?
2 A. Sir, the most surprised individual in this world
3 was myself when I was told by my predecessor that I was
4 selected by the Holy Father to be the next Archbishop of
5 Santa Fe. I had no indication. I was simply a parish
6 priest. I had not been given any special positions or
8 In past years, at that time, it had been the --
9 almost a tradition of the Church that any candidate for
10 the episcopacy had to be a chancellor of the diocese for
11 many years, so as to become familiar with administration.
12 I had not been chancellor nor had I been in the chancery
13 except twice in a 10-year period. So I was far removed
14 from that. I was simply involved in parish work, and I
15 was fairly resigned that I would be a pastor for the rest
16 of my life.
17 Q. When did you learn of that appointment?
18 A. I learned of my appointment from the Archbishop
19 in late May of 1974.
20 Q. And when did you take office?
21 A. Well, the appointment formally was made then
22 public on the 4th of June, just about a week later, in
23 1974. There was a break between that and the time that I
24 was ordained and assumed office, which took place on July
25 25th, 1974.
1 Q. And is that when you moved to the chancery in
3 A. And that's when I moved to the chancery in
4 Albuquerque, yes, sir.
5 Q. Was that the first time that you had begun to
6 understand the administration of the Archidocese?
7 A. I can't really say I began to understand it
8 then, but I was exposed to it then. And it took -- as you
9 might imagine, it would take a few years to really feel
10 comfortable with positions such as that, because it
11 involved such a new area of concern. I had no idea about
12 land and titles and all -- what lands were ours and the
13 titles that we had, some going back, you know, several
14 hundred years, and the parishes that existed, the number
15 of buildings that were on them, insurance policies. I had
16 no idea about financing all of this, and where the
17 financing came from, how we had to struggle to make it
18 work. I had no idea about the retirement program for the
19 priests and how that was functioning. Our cemeteries,
20 which are also public entities that are governed by state
21 law. I had no idea about the hospitals that were in
22 existence and what medical malpractice could be brought
23 against the hospitals, what insurances were required, how
24 they operated. I had no idea about Catholic charities
25 that dealt with the multiple needs of humanity and what
1 exposure was there. I had to learn about the number of
2 parishes we had, their programs. The Catholic school
3 program had 27 schools. I suddenly became an
4 administrator of 27 schools. Liaison with colleges, and
5 on and on.
6 It just -- it's an awesome awakening when you
7 suddenly sit down in that position and realize that you
8 are now faced with a responsibility which is much greater
9 than you had ever been involved in previously, and you had
10 to begin to familiarize yourself with all of those
12 Q. And did you undertake to educate yourself
13 concerning those responsibilities?
14 A. I had no other choice but to do so.
15 Q. And so you did that?
16 A. It's called on-the-job training.
17 Q. And as a part of that on-the-job training and
18 educating yourself concerning the affairs of the
19 Archidocese, did you review the personnel files of all of
20 your priests?
21 A. No, sir, I did not. It just occurred to me, as
22 I took it over, I took over the responsibility, that each
23 of the priests who had assignments, who were assigned at
24 that time, had been given the proper clearance and had
25 been approved by my predecessor, and we began immediately
1 to continue to function where they were at. So I did not
2 go to personnel files to start with any review of one, two
3 three. I did not do that.
4 Q. Did you think at that time to check the
5 personnel files of priests that had been given assignments
6 within the Archidocese within at least a year prior to
7 your taking over because of Archbishop Davis' infirmity?
8 A. No, sir, it did not occur to me. I felt that
9 the Archbishop had a chancellor, was familiar with the
10 Archdiocese, a very capable man; and that whatever was
11 necessary for priests to be able to work in the
12 Archidocese had been done properly. And I did not try to
13 double-check Archbishop Davis at all.
14 Q. Well, I'm not talking about double-checking.
15 I'm talking about you becoming familiar with the priests
16 assigned to parishes in your Archidocese to ensure the
17 safety of your parishioners. Did you think to do that at
19 MS. KENNEDY: I object. Could you read
20 back the question?
21 [The record was read by the reporter.]
22 MS. KENNEDY: Well, I'm going to object to
23 the question as vague. And if the question is, did you
24 look through the personnel files, then I object. It's
25 already asked and answered.
1 Q. Go ahead.
2 A. I did not feel I had to go through those
3 personnel files. The majority of the priests who were
4 working in the Archidocese had been there for several
5 years, and so I knew them. There were some admittedly
6 that I did not know, simply because I had not been part of
7 their area or association with them. But I assume that
8 the other priests who also served in various capacities
9 were familiar with them and would be able to advise me
10 about them. I did not make that a personal goal. You
11 might say I was -- I had enough on my plate and felt that
12 what was already in place had been well proven and would
13 continue that way.
14 Q. So you didn't undertake any affirmative action
15 to update yourself on the background of the priests that
16 you didn't know?
17 A. That's right, sir, I did not.
18 Q. At the time you became Archbishop, did you know
19 Jason Sigler?
20 A. I did not know Jason Sigler. I believe I met
21 him, if I met him, probably at the ordination ceremony,
22 because I greeted each priest personally at one point of
23 the ceremony, and I have to assume that he was there and
24 that I greeted him, but I had not met him as such.
25 MR. GOFFE: The time is 2:24. We will go
1 off the record to change tapes. This is the end of
2 tape 7.
3 [A recess was taken.]
4 MR. GOFFE: The time is 2:44. We are back
5 on the record. This is the beginning of tape number 8 in
6 the deposition of Archbishop Sanchez. The date today is
7 January 14th, 1944 -- 1994.
8 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop Sanchez, you
9 mentioned the Cursillo.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What is the Cursillo?
12 A. The Cursillo is a movement for spiritual
13 enrichment for the laity, Catholic laity. The full name
14 is Cursillo de Cristianedad. It means a small course or a
15 short course of Christianity, a brief experience in
16 Christianity. It involves a long weekend with a
17 determined number of laiety. Normally, the program begins
18 on Thursday evening, continues all day Friday, Saturday,
19 until Sunday afternoon. It consists of lectures that are
20 delivered principally by laymen and laywomen. A priest, a
21 spiritual director of the Cursillo, delivers one of the
22 lectures. And the purpose of it is to both inform that
23 particular group of laiety about their own faith, but more
24 importantly, to help create a little more fire within them
25 to build up that enthusiasm within their own Christian
2 And it has proven to be a very effective movement for
3 the laiety in this particular Archidocese. There have
4 been thousands of men and women who have made the
6 They are separate, a Cursillo for men, and then
7 perhaps the following week, a Cursillo for women. We do
8 want to have husbands and wives be able to attend the
9 Cursillo, but they are done separately so they can be
10 addressed as men or as women.
11 Q. Now, how often do these take place within the
13 A. Well, it has differed over the years. Sometimes
14 they're as often as one a month. Other times it would be
15 less often, perhaps eight times a year. There is a
16 preparation for the Cursillo that is necessary, so that
17 the team that is presenting the Cursillo is well prepared
18 for that weekend.
19 Q. And would the Cursillo take place at various
20 locations throughout the Archidocese, or would it be a
21 central location?
22 A. Normally it would be a central location, because
23 we didn't always have the facilities, since it includes
24 overnight accommodations for those making the Cursillo.
25 So it would normally be one, perhaps two places, but that
1 would be the extent. We don't have that type of multiple
3 Q. Now, would a priest be assigned to Cursillo
4 duty, if you will?
5 A. Sometimes a priest would be assigned as the
6 chaplain. It wouldn't be a full-time job. It would mean
7 that he should meet with the leadership, because it's a
8 lay organization principally, and the laiety themselves
9 have their board of directors, you might call -- it's
10 called the secretariate, and they have their president,
11 and they elect officers on a regular basis.
12 But the priest chaplain then meets with them when
13 they do meet as officers, but it's not a full-time
14 position for them. It's something that he is -- feels
15 that he can afford the time to be with them in this way.
16 Q. At any given time would more than one priest be
17 assigned to Cursillo duties?
18 A. Normally you have one chaplain, spiritual
19 director, spiritual chaplain, for them. But for each
20 Cursillo that is held for that weekend, a different priest
21 might be assigned for that, so that burden doesn't fall on
22 one man, since it takes the whole weekend. And most of
23 our priests are involved in parishes where the weekend
24 becomes quite busy for them. So they can't always free
25 themselves to be with a Cursillo. So you have different
1 men who are familiar -- who have made the Cursillo
2 themselves and are willing to serve as the chaplain of
3 that particular Cursillo.
4 Q. When were you directly involved with the
6 A. I made a Cursillo personally, I believe it was
7 about 1979, as an Archbishop, is when I made my Cursillo.
8 And it was held in Santa Fe at the seminary. Prior to
9 that, I knew of the Cursillo, although I had not made it,
10 and would be able to recommend candidates, our lay
11 candidates, to make the Cursillo.
12 Q. Would you have done that when you were a pastor
13 in a parish prior to becoming Archbishop?
14 A. Yes, as a parish priest, because your candidates
15 come out of your parishes. So I would recommend them.
16 Q. And what is the Search?
17 A. Search Program?
18 Q. Search Program.
19 A. The Search Program is also a weekend of
20 spiritual enrichment for laiety, but it's particularly
21 designated for young adults, young adults being anyone
22 from, say, 17 to about 30, in that age category. So the
23 young adults are then -- they make application to their
24 pastor, and the pastor makes application to the Search
25 committee. And whenever they feel they can accommodate
1 this particular individual, then they have a Search
3 The weekends are similar to the Cursillo weekend.
4 It's the same format except it's designated for young
5 adults, single adults. It's been a very effective program
6 to get enthusiasm, again, religious enthusiasm, alive in
7 the young adults of our various parishes.
8 Q. With respect to the Search Program, are a group
9 of priests assigned to administer this program, or is
10 it -- is there a board of directors or a council that --
11 A. What I recall is they had their own board; some
12 adults on the board decides, the young adults, and a
13 spiritual chaplain or a spiritual director, much like the
15 Q. Were you ever involved in the Search Program?
16 A. I was asked to be a chaplain on one occasion of
17 a Search Program.
18 Q. When was that?
19 A. I think it was the year -- perhaps in the winter
20 of 1972, January, February or March of that year, I
21 believe it was.
22 Q. During the -- when you came back from seminary,
23 were incardinated and installed in a parish in the
24 Archidocese of Santa Fe and at St. Pius, did you -- you've
25 indicated that by the time you got to be Archbishop, you
1 knew a good number of the priests; is that a fair
3 A. Yes, we had been serving together for 14 years.
4 Some were very close friends, others were coworkers
5 together, and others were more acquaintances, because they
6 may have been older men that I simply did not -- you know,
7 you don't hang around -- you hang around your own group,
8 but you get to know them, but you're not close friends
9 with them.
10 Q. Prior to becoming Archbishop, did you know or
11 become familiar with Father Bob Kirsch?
12 A. I had heard of Father Bob Kirsch, but I had not
13 had opportunities to meet or to share with him at any
14 particular time. I can recall hearing one lecture that he
15 gave to a group of Sisters at the Immaculate Conception
16 parish in Albuquerque on one occasion, and I think that
17 was the first time that I saw him functioning that way.
18 Q. When would that have been?
19 A. That would have been around '73.
20 Q. You had not seen him prior to that time?
21 A. I cannot swear that I had not seen him, because
22 there are gatherings for ceremonies at the Cathedral when
23 all the priests will come together for our Chrism Mass on
24 Holy Thursday, but I had not spoken with him or had a
25 chance to hear him.
1 Q. Were you ever aware, prior to becoming
2 Archbishop, that Father Bob Kirsch was accused of having
3 physically assaulted a woman, physically assaulting a
4 woman at St. Thomas Parish?
5 A. No, I wasn't aware of that.
6 Q. Have you ever become aware of that?
7 A. After I was made the Archbishop, I had heard
8 talk about it. I didn't know when that occurred, and I
9 never questioned Father Bob specifically about the
10 incident that I had heard about. But it must have
11 occurred or at least come to my attention, oh, a number of
12 years after I was the Archbishop. It simply wasn't talked
13 about. It must have been maybe around 19 -- I don't know,
14 late '70s, early '80s, when I heard about this.
6 Q. Father Ed Donnollan, did you know him prior to
7 becoming Archbishop?
8 A. Yes, I had heard of Father Ed Donnollan prior to
9 becoming Archbishop and in fact had met him on one
10 occasion. I was pastor at Mosquero at the time, and I
11 knew that he was operating a boys' ranch or a ranch for
12 boys, I should say, and the event happened. I had just --
13 I had gone deer hunting that morning and was fortunate
14 enough to shoot my deer. And after hauling him back to
15 the car for a mile and a half, I was just drained. I
16 drove back to the rectory, and I was covered with some
17 blood and drinking some water, and he walked in and asked
18 why I was full of blood, and I told him I had shot a deer.
19 He wanted to see it. And then he said "Gee, the boys at
20 the Ranch would sure enjoy a deer like that." So I gave
21 it to him. That was the occasion that I met him.
22 Q. When was that?
23 A. About 1970.
24 Q. Did you ever go to the Boys' Ranch?
25 A. No, sir.
1 Q. In 1970, did you know the function of the Boys'
2 Ranch or what was -- what Father Bob's -- excuse me,
3 Father Ed's role was at the Boys' Ranch?
4 A. I really didn't know the particulars. I think
5 the general comment was that it was a ranch for juveniles,
6 because Father Ed had served as chaplain at the boys'
7 school in Springer and had become familiar with the
9 And then at one point, Archbishop Davis apparently
10 granted permission to him to open a ranch, to put
11 facilities at the disposal of boys and to apply to the
12 State of New Mexico for a license to operate such a
13 facility, and apparently he was granted that.
14 I didn't know those particulars at that time. All I
15 knew was that he had a ranch for boys that seemed to have
16 been for delinquents.
17 Q. But you later found that out --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was it your understanding, then, that Father Ed
20 Donnollan was the director of the Boys' Ranch at the
21 request of the then Archbishop Davis?
22 A. Yes. He had to receive that permission from his
23 superior before he could assume that position.
24 Q. And you, in fact, closed the Boys' Ranch?
25 A. When I was the Archbishop, I had that duty.
1 Q. And can I assume, then, that Father Ed Donnollan
2 was at all times while he was operating the Boys' Ranch
3 under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of the
4 Archidocese of Santa Fe?
5 A. Well, there's a distinction that has to be made
6 there. As the director of the Boys' Ranch, he was really
7 under the supervision of the New Mexico Health and Social
8 Services, because that was a program sponsored by the New
9 Mexico Health and Social Services, and they would send
10 their team to evaluate that Ranch, as they did to other
11 centers for their boys.
12 So he had to give accountability to them for his
13 operations. As a priest, he was still a priest of the
14 Archidocese of Santa Fe. But he was functioning in a
15 position of an administration or administrator of the
16 Ranch rather than functioning as a parish priest.
17 Q. But with respect to his conduct as a priest of
18 the Archidocese of Santa Fe, he was under the jurisdiction
19 and supervision of the Archbishop of the Archidocese?
20 A. Oh, yes.
21 [The witness conferred with his attorney.]
22 Q. Archbishop, do you know how Father Ed Donnollan
23 was getting paid?
24 A. I would assume -- and I don't know this for a
25 fact, but I assume that if the Health and Social Services
1 approves any institution to exist, and they then license
2 them as a center for care of their boys, then the State
3 probably pays that center so much per capita for the
4 number of boys that are there. That's what I would
5 assume. Much like I would think that they subsidize
6 schools with textbooks; it's based on the number of
7 children who are in the school. Depending on how many you
8 have, that's what you get per child for textbooks.
9 Q. While Father Ed Donnollan was the director of
10 that Boys' Ranch, do you know if he was receiving any
11 funds from the Archidocese?
12 A. No, there was no funding at all from the
14 Q. When you became Archbishop in 1974, did you
15 undertake any review of either the background or
16 qualifications of Father Ed Donnollan or the status or
17 state of the program at the Boys' Ranch?
18 A. No, sir, I did not take any -- did not make a
19 review of his qualifications for that position. The man
20 had been working as its director for several years
21 already. I guess I simply presumed that the State of New
22 Mexico was content or happy with what was taking place at
23 that Ranch and with his directorship.
24 Q. You subsequently did conduct an investigation
25 upon receiving complaints about Father Donnollan, correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So you made no efforts to investigate what was
3 happening at the Boys' Ranch until you received
4 complaints; is that a fair statement?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. At the time that you had received information
7 concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by Father
8 Donnollan at the Boys' Ranch, did you instruct Father
9 Griego, or did you instruct anyone, to obtain a list of
10 the names and home addresses of the boys who were then in
11 residence at the Ranch?
12 A. No, sir. That was not my responsibility or duty
13 at all.
14 Q. Why not?
15 A. I'm not Health and Social Services. Those boys
16 belonged to Health and Social Services.
17 Q. You were Archbishop, though?
18 A. But the boys were not under my charge.
19 Q. Father Donnollan was, correct?
20 A. As a priest, but not as a director of the
21 institute or the Ranch.
22 Q. Well, let me ask you this: If Father Donnollan
23 sexually abused any of the boys at that Ranch, do you
24 think you, as Archbishop of Santa Fe, had any obligation
25 to those boys?
1 A. I had an obligation to make this known to the
2 Health and Social Services and, with them, to work
3 together to see that whatever abuse had occurred, the
4 actions that were necessary to be taken would be taken.
5 Q. Did you feel that you had any obligation to
6 those boys?
7 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: A legal obligation or
8 social obligation?
9 Q. Any obligation. Moral, legal, whatever
10 obligation you felt.
11 A. I did not know of any specific incident of any
12 accusation against Father Ed Donnollan that he had, in
13 fact, abused this boy X, and I did not take up any
14 investigation to discover who that might be.
15 The allegations that I had principally centered
16 around poor management and possessiveness on his part for
17 control and authority, and this seemed to come to me
18 repeatedly from both the staff and others around there.
19 I encouraged them also to make that known to the
20 authorities in Santa Fe or, at that time, in Raton, since
21 they had an area office, because this was the office that
22 they had to report to.
23 The incidents that you're referring to, or any
24 allegations about possible sexual misconduct, was simply a
25 reference that they thought there might be other more
1 serious things going on at the Ranch. And I think this
2 was the subject of our conversation, then, with the Health
3 and Social Services so that a proper investigation would
4 be made.
3 Q. Was Father Donnollan, at the time he was
4 director of the Boys' Ranch, receiving a priest's salary?
5 A. No, sir, he wasn't. To the best of my
6 knowledge, he received no salary from the Archidocese of
7 Santa Fe because, in fact, he wasn't working in any
8 priestly assignment for the Archidocese of Santa Fe.
9 Q. Even though Archbishop Davis was the one that
10 directed him to establish the Ranch?
11 A. Archbishop Davis, as far as I know, did not
12 direct him to establish the Ranch. I believe that Father
13 asked permission to work in that specific ministry as a
14 result of his work at Springer boys' home.
15 Q. So the Ranch was a ministry?
16 A. Not from the Archidocese of Santa Fe. It was a
17 group home approved by the New Mexico Health and Social
18 Services for the sake of helping young boys who had a
19 delinquent problem or had problems in their homes.
20 [Exhibit 12 was marked for identification.]
21 Q. Archbishop, I'm going to mark, or I have marked
22 what I have been told to believe is your -- or led to
23 believe is the Archdiocese of Santa Fe's personnel file of
24 Jason Sigler. And I marked that as Exhibit 12. I'd like
25 for you to review that with your lawyer to confirm the
1 fact that it is his personnel file.
2 MS. KENNEDY: Let me just state for the
3 record, Mr. Bennett, I don't have with me that file as I
4 produced it, so I am unable to confirm that that is the
5 complete production from my office.
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Why don't we go off for
7 a minute.
8 MR. GOFFE: The time is 3:18. We will go
9 off the record.
10 [A recess was taken.]
11 MR. GOFFE: The time is 2:24. We are back
12 on the record. Pardon me, 3:24.
13 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, I had showed you
14 Exhibit 12, which has been represented to me to be the
15 personnel file of the Archidocese of Santa Fe of Jason
16 Sigler. Have you had an opportunity to review that
18 A. I did at this moment, and it appears to be his
20 Q. Now, we were talking a little while ago about
21 your policy at the Archidocese while you were Archbishop --
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. -- concerning review of the qualifications and
24 an evaluation of a priest from outside of the diocese who
25 desires to be in residence inside of the diocese?
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And you indicated to me that there were certain
3 steps that you felt were reasonable and prudent to go
4 through and that, in fact, you went through in evaluating
5 these types of priests. I would like just briefly, before
6 we talk about Mr. Sigler's file, to review those steps.
7 As I understand it, one of the steps is to make a
8 direct contact with the Archidocese of origin or of
9 incardination of this particular priest before faculties
10 are granted; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And another would be to conduct an interview of
13 this particular priest before he is installed; is that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who would generally conduct that interview?
17 A. It normally would be the chancellor who would
18 meet with the priest. Occasionally it might be myself.
19 Q. And other than interviewing the priest,
20 requesting faculties, even before a supply ministry were
21 authorized, or contacting the archidocese of
22 incardination, were there any other steps that you felt
23 reasonable and prudent to undertake?
24 A. No, the first step would be the contact of the
25 diocese of origin to verify who he is and that he is
1 legitimately a priest of that diocese in good standing, so
2 that he is accurately representing himself, and inform
3 them what, in fact, the priest is asking of us and see if
4 they agree to that.
5 The priest may very well be asking for faculties for
6 one year because he's attending the University of New
7 Mexico, and he'd like to be able to help on a weekend
8 while he's here, faculties such as that, or he might be
9 asking for us to consider him for an assignment in the
10 Archidocese; and for that, we would need not only the
11 verbal approval of a bishop or the chancellor, but we
12 would then ask for a written statement from them that, in
13 fact, he has served effectively, etc., and that they would
14 recommend him for assignment in our Archidocese.
15 Those are the initial steps that we would take
16 besides the interview of the individual personally.
17 Q. And I assume these steps would be undertaken to
18 determine whether or not the priest making application for
19 faculties would pose any health risk to the parishioners
20 of the Archidocese of Santa Fe?
21 A. Yes, I think it's all part of the package, that,
22 in fact, if he is a priest in good standing, we have to
23 assume that he is not a risk to anyone and that his own
24 health is not at risk. He's not suffering from a poor
25 heart or a bad liver or something of this nature. So all
1 of this information is to guarantee or at least to assure
2 the diocese, the receiving diocese, that the man who is
3 seeking a position with you can, in fact -- is, in fact, a
4 priest in good standing and can, in fact, do the work that
5 is being asked of him.
6 Q. I assume that in making those types of
7 inquiries, you would also want to know whether or not the
8 priest had committed any acts of moral turpitude on boys
9 at previous parishes where he may have served?
10 A. Either that or any other kind of actions which
11 would reflect negatively upon his character. He might be
12 given to drink. He might be a very poor driver or --
13 there's a lot of things that can come across in a letter
14 from a diocese.
15 So the letter of inquiry is specifically to receive
16 any facts that we should know about the individual before
17 accepting him, especially toward incardination.
18 Q. Has there been a circumstance while you have
19 been Archbishop that a priest came to the Archidocese of
20 Santa Fe from another archidocese and was placed or
21 reported to the Servants of the Paraclete prior to making
22 a request for faculties in the Archidocese of Santa Fe?
23 A. There are priests who had been at the Servants
24 of the Paraclete for treatment; and at the request of the
25 Servants of the Paraclete, we were asked if, in fact, we
1 could provide a place for ministry for them, usually on a
2 temporary basis, that being for weekend ministry, for
3 three, four weekends. Or in some instances they may
4 request, "Is it possible to have him remain in your
5 diocese for about six months?" Those would require
6 special meetings with the staff or representative from the
7 Servants of the Paraclete to receive from them what the
8 situation may be regarding that individual priest and what
9 assurances we might have that he is functioning well and
10 effectively at this time.
11 Q. And would that be in addition to your normal
12 process of inquiry with the archidocese of incardination?
13 A. The Servants of the Paraclete would be asking us
14 to assume responsibility in their name. In other words, I
15 will have contact with the -- in fact, the Servants of the
16 Paraclete normally then write to the diocese of origin
17 because the man really is under the responsibility, as it
18 were, of the Servants of the Paraclete until he returns to
19 his home diocese.
20 By asking us to accommodate them for a weekend, we,
21 in effect, become part of the healing ministry, giving
22 them an opportunity sort of as a halfway position before
23 returning to their diocese.
24 The assurances are received both from the Servants of
25 the Paraclete and permission granted from their original
1 bishop for that to take place.
2 Q. Well, my question is, when you have a priest who
3 comes to your attention or at least makes application for
4 temporary faculties while or after being treated at the
5 Servants of the Paraclete, do you make contact, as you do
6 with other priests from other diocese coming into your
7 Archidocese, do you make contact with the archidocese of
8 origin --
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. -- of incardination to determine whether or not
11 there might be anything in this priest's background that
12 may adversely impair the interests of your parishioners?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Just so I'm clear, you not only rely upon the
15 information given to you by the Servants of the Paraclete
16 concerning this individual, you would also contact the
17 archidocese of incardination to obtain whatever
18 information that archidocese might have?
19 A. And their permission, actually, because the
20 priest is not under my authority, but rather under the
21 authority of his own archbishop or bishop.
22 Q. And do you feel that that process, when a priest
23 in residence at the Servants of the Paraclete is involved,
24 is also a reasonable and prudent thing to do to protect
25 the interests of your parishioners?
1 A. To receive them for ministry in the Archidocese
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Are you asking my opinion now or opinion before
5 or --
6 Q. Your opinion now. I mean, is that a reasonable
7 and prudent thing to undertake prior to installing a
8 priest or allowing a priest to have faculties to minister
9 in your parishes?
10 A. You have to be prudent and take as many
11 precautions as you can, especially today. Knowing as we
12 do know today, that there are many problems in different
13 people's lives, thorough letters of recommendation need to
14 be received before opportunities are offered to any priest
15 who requests that permission to work with us.
16 Q. And this has been your practice since you have
17 been Archbishop?
18 A. I've tried to maintain that, yes.
19 Q. Did you know whether or not the procedure that
20 you've described was the practice of Archbishop Davis
21 before you?
22 A. I would have to assume that it was, because that
23 is normal procedure for any diocese to receive priests for
24 them. They would have to make contact with the bishop of
25 origin to see that they have a man in good standing before
1 they can grant him faculties. It's pro forma type of
3 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to refer to certain
4 documents in Exhibit 12, and first I'll show you a letter
5 dated August 17th, 1970.
6 MS. KENNEDY: May I ask, first, Mr.
7 Bennett, are those individual pages numbered, of Exhibit --
8 MR. BENNETT: No, they're not.
9 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Why don't we just number
11 MS. KENNEDY: I would just like to indicate
12 for the record when I produced the personnel file of Jason
13 Sigler in other pending Sigler litigation, they all had a
14 document number computerized on the bottom of them. If
15 your copies do not have that document number, then there
16 is no way I could ever verify, without an individual
17 page-by-page review, as to whether that's a complete copy
18 of the personnel file, just so the record is clear.
19 MR. TINKLER: Mr. Beach produced them, not
21 MR. BENNETT: These documents were produced
22 by Mr. Beach.
23 MR. BEACH: I got them from Karen. The
24 numbers are right down here, if you'll look down here.
25 Maybe in the photocopying, it didn't get every page, but
1 there should be a number at least on some of the pages.
2 MR. BENNETT: What I'm going to do is
3 number in the upper right-hand corner by number -- or
4 actually I'll do it by letter, marking from first to last
6 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) I've now, Archbishop, marked
7 these exhibits, letters AA through OO -- excuse me, A
8 through OO respectively. I'm going to refer to document B
9 of Exhibit 12, which is a letter dated August 17th, 1970,
10 addressed to Father Tobin on letterhead of Our Mother of
11 Mary Church, Wellington, Texas. The signature is missing.
12 I understand the signature to be that of Jason Sigler.
13 But your counsel can correct me if I'm wrong.
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Your counsel doesn't
15 know Jason Sigler's signature, so I'm not sure he can
16 correct you.
17 Q. Let me show you this letter. And my question
18 is, after reading that letter, if you can tell me whether
19 or not that letter indicates that -- well, first, let me
20 ask you this: Who was Father Tobin?
21 A. I presume he was a member of the Servants of the
22 Paraclete. I'm not certain what position he held. He may
23 have been director of the house at Jemez Springs, but I'm
24 not certain.
25 Q. In reading this letter, does it indicate to you
1 that Jason Sigler was residing or at least undergoing some
2 type of contact with the Servants of the Paraclete in
3 August of 1970?
4 MR. KONRAD: Are you asking for his opinion
5 from reading the letter?
6 MR. BENNETT: That's correct.
7 MR. KONRAD: I'm going to object to the
8 question as ambiguous, residing or having contact with.
9 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: The document speaks for
10 itself. This is a document, as I understand, from Exhibit
11 12-B. The letter is not written to the Archbishop.
12 There's no reason to believe that the Archbishop ever
13 received the letter or has ever seen the letter before.
14 I guess I'm -- Mr. Bennett, the question is a
15 bit vague. It's a bit difficult to see how this witness
16 can be of any help to you in this regard.
17 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Well, when I read that letter,
18 Archbishop, I get the impression that Jason Sigler is
19 writing to Father Tobin concerning the fact that he was
20 serving or had recently served in Abiquiu. Do you get the
21 same impression?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll object. It's
23 asking for speculation by its very nature, and this
24 witness similarly is not competent to answer this
25 question, as the letter is not addressed to him, and it
1 has nothing to do with him, at least on its face.
2 MR. BENNETT: It's part of the personnel
3 file of the Archidocese.
4 Q. So I'm not -- I just want to get your
5 impression, if you shared the same impresstion that I do.
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Calls for speculation.
7 I'll object.
8 A. It appears to me that what he is saying is that
9 he's thanking Father Tobin for a check of $35, or a check
10 that was directed to the Parish of Abiquiu, and he said,
11 "Thank you, this could help me, because I receive only 10
12 cents per mile traveling to and from Via Coeli, plus the
13 Mass and the baptismal stipends."
14 So he's thanking Father Tobin for whatever donation
15 he made. It appears that he is in residence at Via Coeli
16 but has celebrated Mass at Abiquiu apparently on a Sunday
17 or so.
18 Q. And that was the same impression I had,
19 Archbishop. So it appears, at least from looking at this
20 letter, that Jason Sigler is serving in the Archidocese of
21 Santa Fe in the fall of 1970?
22 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for
23 speculation and interpretation of the document he didn't
24 write, didn't receive.
25 Q. Is that what it appears to you?
1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Same objection, and the
2 question is vague, by -- what do you mean by "serving"?
3 He's clearly not incardinated.
4 A. He had no priestly assignment. I think what he
5 was doing was with the permission of his own superiors
6 apparently in Via Coeli. He had volunteered to help at
7 Abiquiu on weekends, and that was taking place. But there
8 was no assignment to him to any particular areA.
9 Q. No, I understand that. But he was performing a
10 supply ministry, if you will?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. From Via Coeli to the parish in Abiquiu?
13 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for
14 speculation. This witness has already testified he has no
15 personal knowledge of any of this.
16 Q. Is that what it appears to you from that
18 A. From reading it.
19 Q. And let me show you Exhibit 12-C, which is a
20 letter dated December 7, 1970, addressed to James Peter
21 Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe, from Reverend William F.
22 Tobin, Superior, and ask you if that letter also seems to
23 indicate that Father Jason Sigler is a resident at the
24 Servants of the Paraclete in late 1970?
25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Object to the form of
1 the question. It calls for speculation on the part of the
2 witness and a matter about which he has no personal
3 knowledge. This letter has not been sent to him, nor is
4 there any evidence he's ever seen it before today.
5 A. The only thing that I would point out is that he
6 uses the expression "a guest here," and he writes it as a
7 Superior. I don't see a letterhead on it, but I would
8 assume it may be a Superior of Jemez Springs.
9 MR. KONRAD: Object. I would object to the
10 form of the question and move to strike the answer as it
11 was plainly a guess.
12 Q. Now, let me show you Exhibit 12-D, which is a
13 letter dated June 20, 1973, written on St. Thomas Apostle
14 parish letterhead, addressed to Lucien C. Hendren,
15 Chancellor, Archidocese of Santa Fe, signed Father
16 Jason E. Sigler. And could you please tell me what you
17 believe that letter to refer to?
18 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll object to the
19 question. It again calls for speculation on the part of
20 this witness. It calls for a matter upon which he has no
21 personal knowledge. This letter is not addressed to him
22 nor is it written by him, and the witness is asked to
23 speculate as to the meaning of the letter for which he has
24 no -- of which he is not a party.
25 Q. Well, Archbishop, I hope you understand my
1 question here. These letters appear in the personnel file
2 of the Archidocese of Santa Fe, and you being the former
3 Archbishop, I'm asking for your impression of what appears
4 in the Archidocese files. So could you please tell me
5 what that letter appears to represent?
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Same objection.
7 A. Again, since this letter was not addressed to
8 me, and it was signed by Jason Sigler, just from what I am
9 reading, it appears that Jason Sigler is writing to the
10 chancellor of the Archidocese -- and that's the address --
11 to express his own feelings about the Archidocese of
12 Santa Fe, that he feels that the weather in this area of
13 the country is good for his health and that he might be
14 thinking of applying at some time for possible
16 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, I'm going to show
17 you document 12-E and ask if you can please tell me what
18 that appears to be?
19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Same objection as to the
20 question regarding Exhibit 12-E --
21 Q. Let me just go ahead and describe this a little
22 better. It's a letter indicated June 22nd, 1973, to the
23 Reverend Monsignor N.J. Chartrand, Chancellor, Archidocese
24 of Winnipeg, from James P. Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe.
25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Calls for speculation,
1 beyond the competence of this witness, and asks for an
2 opinion about matters of which he has no personal
4 A. Once again, my reply is that the letter was
5 written by my predecessor, not by myself, before I ever
6 became the Archbishop, and addressed to apparently the
7 chancellor of the Archidocese of Winnipeg in Canada,
8 saying that Father Jason Sigler is a priest of that
9 Archidocese in Winnipeg, has expressed a desire to be
10 incardinated, and the Archbishop is asking him to send his
11 curriculum vitae and any information that would be of
12 assistance to look at his request, a courtesy letter.
13 Q. Well, it's more than that, isn't it? It's a
14 request --
15 A. It's a courtesy to Father Sigler.
16 Q. Correct, but it's a request for information?
17 A. Oh, yes. As I had said, it's a request for
18 information, but a courtesy to Father Sigler.
19 Q. All right. Well, let's talk about this. Isn't
20 this a request to the Archidocese of Winnipeg for
21 information concerning Father Sigler similar to the policy
22 that you've described before when a priest applies for
24 A. Yes, sir, it is. It's part of that.
25 Q. And let me show you document 12-G, which is a
1 letter dated June 22nd, 1973, to the Reverend James A.
2 Murray, Chancellor, Diocese of Lansing, from James P.
3 Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe, and let me ask you what you
4 believe that to be.
5 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
6 speculation on the part of this witness, calls for an
7 opinion for which he has no personal knowledge, and it's
9 MR. KONRAD: I join in the objection. I'd
10 like to clarify something. I mean, do we have the gang-up
11 objection where if one person objects, everybody else
12 automatically can argue it, or do you want everybody to
13 pipe up?
14 MR. TINKLER: Frankly, all you can do is
15 object to the form of the question. It's a deposition.
16 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, let me ask you
17 this: Have you reviewed this personnel file of Jason
18 Sigler before today?
19 A. I saw part of a file when I was deposed by Mr.
20 Pasternack about, I suppose, nearly two years ago, a year
21 and a half ago. I had not seen the file prior to that
23 Q. Are you saying you'd never reviewed the
24 personnel file of Jason Sigler prior to a deposition taken
25 of you by Mr. Pasternack?
1 A. That's right, sir.
2 Q. All right, go ahead. What does that letter
3 represent to you?
4 A. This letter is similar to the last letter, a
5 letter from -- yes, Archbishop Davis to the Chancellor of
6 the Diocese of Lansing informing him that Father Jason
7 Sigler, who had spent time in that diocese, is interested
8 in possible incardination. He's asking for any
9 information of service record while he served there.
10 Q. Again, does that appear to be part of the
11 process that you've described in inquiring into the
12 background of a priest asking to have faculties in the
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Did you know, or do you know, that Jason Sigler
16 was ministering or in residence at the St. Thomas Parish
17 in Abiquiu from some time in 1970 until some time in 1974?
18 A. No, sir. I was not aware of where he was
19 ministering. Like many priests in the Archidocese,
20 they're assigned to different parishes. I had never met
21 him before, and I wasn't certain of his presence or where
22 he was actually assigned.
23 I was working at this time in the northeastern part
24 of New Mexico, in Mosquero, far removed from any other
25 priests, and it simply was not my personal interest to
1 know who Jason Sigler was.
2 Q. At any time since that time, has it come to your
3 attention that Jason Sigler was in St. Thomas parish in
4 Abiquiu between 1970 and 1974?
5 A. When we had the deposition to which I've
6 referred previously, this information was provided.
7 Q. Do you have any reason to dispute that Jason
8 Sigler was serving in the parish, at St. Thomas parish, in
9 Abiquiu during those time periods?
10 A. I am not certain about the time periods that you
11 have mentioned. I have no idea under what category he was
12 serving, whether it was for supply ministry or as an
13 associate pastor. But I was informed that he had served
14 in St. Thomas parish.
15 Q. During that time period?
16 A. I'm not certain about the whole time period, but
17 he had served in St. Thomas parish about that time, but I
18 wasn't aware of the years that you have just stated.
19 Q. But now having looked at his personnel file,
20 does it appear that he was serving in St. Thomas parish
21 during that time?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: If he can tell from the
23 personnel file, or if he knows from his own personal
24 knowledge? Which is it, Mr. Bennett?
25 Q. Does it appear from what you've seen here in the
1 personnel file that that was the case?
2 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll object. It asks
3 for speculation and obviously is a matter about which the
4 witness has no personal knowledge.
5 A. I could not state for certain, but reading the
6 letters which you asked us to read, it appears that he was
7 referring to supply ministry at one time in 1970. A
8 second letter contained the letterhead of St. Thomas
9 parish. I don't recall the date on that second letter.
10 And that's all that we have at this moment to go by.
14 Q. Nor do you know from this file whether or not a
15 call was placed to the Archidocese of Lansing, Michigan?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. In fact, all you know from looking at this file
18 is that the first communication of record is in 1973 with
19 the Archidocese of Winnipeg and the Archidocese of
20 Lansing; isn't that correct?
21 MR. KONRAD: Well, objection. That assumes
22 that in the past 20 years, there have been no documents
23 lost or misplaced.
24 MR. TINKLER: Or destroyed.
25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: And that assumes that
1 all communication has been written.
2 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) My question is, Archbishop
3 Sanchez, from looking at this file, there's nothing to
4 indicate to you that any contact was made with those two
5 archidocese prior to 1973; isn't that correct?
6 A. The documentation that you have shown here
7 appears to be a limited documentation, because it begins,
8 as you say, in 1973. I would have to assume that before
9 the Archbishop would have allowed any person to serve in
10 any of the parishes, that contact would have been made
11 with his diocese of origin.
12 Q. You would hope that that would be the case,
14 A. That's my assumption.
15 Q. But you don't know that that was the case with
16 Father Sigler, do you?
17 A. I don't know that it was, and I don't know that
18 it was not.
19 Q. You certainly can't tell from the personnel
20 file, can you?
21 A. No, we cannot.
22 Q. In fact, what you can tell from the personnel
23 file was that there was inquiry made in 1973?
24 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object, asked
25 and answered.
1 Q. Is that a fair statement?
2 A. Because Father Jason Sigler had requested a
3 process towards possible incardination.
4 Q. Let me show you Exhibit 12 or document 12-K,
5 which is a letter on the Diocese of Lansing chancery
6 stationery dated June 28, 1973, addressed to Reverend
7 James P. Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe, signed by Reverend
8 James A. Murray, Chancellor.
9 First, let me ask if you've ever seen that letter
10 before today.
11 A. This was brought to my attention in a previous
13 Q. And you had not seen that letter prior to that
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. In this letter, Chancellor Murray informs
17 Archbishop Davis that Father Sigler allegedly became
18 involved "in re turpi" with some boys in the parish. Let
19 me repeat that, that Father Sigler allegedly became
20 involved "in re turpi" with some boys in the parish in the
21 Archidocese of Lansing. What does "in re turpi" mean?
22 A. Much like what it sounds, in things of
23 turpitude, things that are not proper, improper actions.
24 Q. What does this sentence mean to you? What type
25 of action does this sentence refer to when it references
1 Father Sigler and some boys?
2 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection. It's
3 speculative and requests information from beyond this
4 witness' knowledge.
5 MR. TINKLER: What it means to him is
6 beyond his knowledge?
7 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: With regard to Father
8 Sigler was the question.
9 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) When you read this sentence,
10 what does that mean to you?
11 A. Sir, that there was some kind of contact with
12 boys which was considered wrong.
13 Q. Probably sexual contact?
14 A. Possibly.
15 Q. Because we're talking about moral turpitude,
16 aren't we?
17 A. Moral turpitude, yes.
18 Q. If you had made inquiry to an archidocese where
19 a priest applying for faculties in your archdiocese had
20 been, and you received information that that priest had
21 been involved "in re turpi" with some boys in that prior
22 archidocese, would you grant him faculties to serve in
23 your parishes?
24 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for
1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection.
2 A. I would have followed it up for more information
3 as to what that meant and circumstances surrounding the
4 allegations and what, if any, consequences there were. I
5 would need more information. That's a very brief
6 expression that could involve anything or very little.
7 Q. Would that alert you to --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Would that alert you to a concern that you might
10 have for your own parishioners?
11 A. I would -- it would be a moment to reflect on
12 this person who was applying for incardination, and I
13 would have to ask them for more information.
14 Q. And if that further information revealed that
15 Father Sigler had sexually molested the boys, would you
16 then grant him faculties to serve in your parishes?
17 A. I cannot answer it yes or no, because a person
18 who has been guilty of any type of molestation, depending
19 on what kind it was, especially at the age that we're
20 speaking of in those years, if that person had gone
21 through what we might consider to be a program of
22 rehabilitation that was considered to be solid and with
23 professionals; and if they, in turn, had recommended that
24 this man gave every evidence that he has overcome his own
25 weakness and would serve, under supervision, effectively;
1 and they would recommend that he be given an opportunity,
2 then with that type of assurance, it would cause, I think,
3 myself to reflect upon that situation. It would not be
4 the same as though there were no recommendation. That's
5 why I said I could not reply yes or no, because there is
6 that possibility.
7 Q. With the assurances you've described, would you
8 grant that priest faculties?
9 A. In the 1970s? In the 1970s?
10 Q. 1974, 1973.
11 A. No --
12 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
14 Q. One year prior to becoming Archbishop.
15 A. From what I would have known then, which was not
16 very much, about any type of sexual molestation of
17 children, with the assurances from professionals, I would
18 have been inclined to give him an opportunity at least for
19 weekend coverage to see how he would, in fact, act. He
20 would have to be monitored. I would have hesitated to
21 give him a full-time assignment.
22 Q. So you would have granted faculties, but they
23 would have been limited in nature; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Limited to weekends?
1 A. Well, it depends on what the need happened to
2 be. It's hard to -- you're asking for speculation and to
3 try to set up an imaginary setting. I think the term
4 "limited" is perhaps the best expression.
5 Q. Weekend ministries and supervised would be
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Or, as you said, monitored?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Monitored by whom?
11 A. Monitored by the priest with whom he would be
13 Q. And if you wanted the priest with whom he would
14 be working to monitor him, would you advise that
15 supervisor priest of the situation, the problem?
16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
17 speculation, facts not in evidence, and about which this
18 witness has no personal knowledge.
19 Q. If this situation had come up the minute you'd
20 walked into office as Archbishop in 1974, would you have
21 made those recommendations?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
24 A. When you come into a brand new situation, Mr.
25 Bennett, you have to get information, and that's what I
1 would have sought at that time. I would have had to speak
2 with the Servants of the Paraclete. I would have had to
3 speak with the others who are listed in these
5 Q. And then after having spoken with them, you
6 would -- you may grant faculties; is that correct?
7 A. I may have on a limited basis.
8 Q. That you've described?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that limited basis would entail perhaps, at
11 least at the outset, weekend ministries?
12 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, asked and
14 Q. That were supervised, correct?
15 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Asked and answered.
16 A. That's what I would have wanted.
17 Q. And that would have been the prudent thing to do
18 at that point in time; is that right?
19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
21 A. I would say yes, it would be prudent.
22 Q. And the reason you would have applied those
23 limitations, if you did, in fact, decide to grant
24 faculties, would be to protect your parishioners; isn't
25 that right?
1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Speculation, objection.
2 A. Yes, because of the allegation that was included
3 in one of the letters. But I have to insist, again -- and
4 I think you're minimizing it and not commenting on that --
5 and that is that if, in fact, the man had gone through a
6 long period, over several months and perhaps longer,
7 perhaps extending beyond a year, of in-house therapy under
8 the guidance and supervision of professionals, that that
9 man would have been helped to a point that the risk
10 becomes less or minimized in the exposure, at least that
11 was the understanding, I believe, of most of us in the
13 Q. But you still would have been careful?
14 A. I think we always have to be careful.
15 [The witness conferred with his attorney.]
16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, may I
17 propose a 10-minute break, and then go to 5:00?
18 MR. BENNETT: Proposal accepted.
19 MR. GOFFE: The time is 4:11. We will go
20 off the record.
21 [A recess was taken.]
22 MR. GOFFE: The time is 4:29. We are back
23 on the record.
23 Q. What is the purpose of keeping a personnel file
24 on a priest?
25 A. To keep the information that is necessary to
1 follow his priestly ministry. It provides the bishop with
2 just an outline of who the man is, where he was born,
3 where he attended his school, what center he took his
4 theological studies in, any special degrees that he may
5 have received for special ministry and expertise. It
6 provides the dates of his ordination and the churches or
7 schools or whatever assignments that he may have received
8 throughout his priestly life.
9 It contains, in other words, a curriculum vitae for
10 him, not only in one sheet, but with letters and
11 references, ordination certificates, scholarship or
12 reviews of his accomplishments while in the seminary, any
13 special awards that he has received or recognitions
14 received, anniversaries celebrated, permissions requested
15 to return to see family because of illnesses or someone
16 who has died. It contains, in other words, just a general
17 outline and history of important things that need to be
18 recalled in the journey of that priest throughout his
19 priestly life.
20 Q. Would one of those important things that might
21 need to be recalled incidents of alleged sexual abuse?
22 A. It could be placed in a general file, the
23 personnel file of the priest. The Code of Canon Law of
24 the Church requires that items of sensitive nature should
25 not be placed in the general file but should be kept in a
1 special file for the sake of the reputation of the
2 individual involved. So that it's not kept with ordinary
3 file papers of the curriculum vitae of the priest.
4 The Archidocese of Santa Fe, at least while I was the
5 Archbishop, we did not make an effort to place those type
6 of documents, whenever they would arise, separately from
7 the regular file. And so whatever we had or kept in the
8 regular file of the priest were the documents that would
9 outline his work in the parish.
10 Q. Why would it be important to keep documents
11 concerning allegations of sexual abuse in the priest's
12 file, regular or special file?
13 A. I think any allegation that was made and any
14 allegation that was disproved, those allegations are kept
15 there because this is part of a serious action on the part
16 of that priest. And if the action is going to have to be
17 taken on his behalf, for instance, that he will be sent to
18 a center for therapies, psychotherapy, for his healing,
19 then it's noted that this has taken place for him.
20 Q. Why is it important to keep a record of that?
21 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
23 A. Because we have deaths of archbishops, and we
24 have deaths of chancellors, and we have transfers of
25 archbishops and transfers of chancelors; and unless you
1 have a document like that, a person won't always see that.
2 When you have a record of a priest that we try to
3 keep, it is normally looked forward that this is a record
4 that the man will always have with him. Documents, as I
5 said, that are of a highly sensitive nature may or may not
6 be placed there, according to the individual bishop,
7 because the Code of Canon Law actually recommends that
8 they do not be kept there. If another bishop decides that
9 he will, he might include that.
10 Q. But in your case, you made the decision not to
11 keep such documents in a special place, but to place them
12 in the general personnel file?
13 A. I felt that documents that I had received
14 regarding priests could be placed there, in their file.
15 There are other documents that aren't of a personal nature
16 that are normally placed in what we call the file of the
17 parish where he is serving. And those documents pertain
18 more to his ministry in that parish: Assigned as pastor
19 to that parish on this date; that that parish, under his
20 leadership, built and dedicated a parish hall; any
21 activity that deals with the parish. We have a parish
22 file, as well.
23 Q. You wouldn't keep any documents relating to
24 allegations of sexual abuse in a parish file, would you?
25 A. No, not intentionally, no.
1 Q. Those types of documents would be placed, under
2 your reign as Archbishop, in the personnel file of the
4 A. Under my tenure as Archbishop, thank you.
6 Q. And my question is, why is it important to have
7 a document concerning an allegation of sexual abuse in a
8 priest's personnel file? Why is it important to keep it?
9 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
11 Q. What's the reason for keeping that type of
13 A. It documents the individual's failure and will
14 serve to follow him as he goes along his ministry. So
15 that if the bishop who has dealt with him and has provided
16 for therapy or for whatever healing was necessary and has
17 taken action with him, he can refer to that at any later
18 date that he chooses to.
19 Q. Wouldn't a reason to refer to that allegation of
20 sexual misconduct at a later date be to see whether or
21 not -- if he'd had another or subsequent allegation of
22 sexual misconduct, to be able to see whether or not he'd
23 done it before?
24 A. That, like I say, so at least that there is a
25 continuum of information on the given priest.
1 Q. Why would it be important if you had an
2 allegation, a pending allegation of sexual misconduct
3 against a priest, why would it be important to have
4 available to you any prior allegation of sexual
6 A. I think you answered that question yourself. So
7 that if there has been a second fall, that can be referred
9 Q. Why would you want to know if there had been a
10 second fall, and it wasn't just a first fall or third or
12 A. I used that as simply a speculative answer to
13 your speculative question. I didn't mean to limit it to
14 just two. It could be whatever number.
15 Q. Let me ask it this way: If it were brought to
16 your attention that a priest had engaged in sexual
17 misconduct or sexually molested one of the children of his
18 parish, would it be important for you to know whether or
19 not he had done that before?
20 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
22 A. I think in any case it's important to know what
23 that person has done, what his life has been.
24 Q. Why?
25 A. I think that there's a difference between a
1 person who has engaged or has fallen once into a
2 particular area of mistake, different from another who has
3 fallen a second time.
4 Q. What's the difference?
5 A. He has repeated.
6 Q. What significance does that have?
7 A. It indicates that the therapy that he has
8 received -- and I have to presume that therapy was given,
9 since we're dealing with speculative cases -- that therapy
10 assisted him, but for whatever reason, this man has
11 committed a second fault and is going to have to be
12 treated more seriously and be monitored more severely.
13 Q. I understand from prior testimony -- please
14 correct me if I'm wrong -- that there were certain
15 documents you got from the therapists of priests who had
16 sexually molested children that you destroyed?
17 A. Yes, sir. And I'd like to explain why. Because
18 if therapists who would send documents to me would so
19 indicate that these were confidential, even if they
20 contained no -- what I would call serious matter, but they
21 felt that all documentation that was sent to me was, in
22 fact, confidential and should be destroyed by myself or
23 else returned to them for destruction.
24 Q. Well, my question is, as Archbishop of Santa Fe,
25 why did you comply with that request?
1 A. I have to understand that that is a -- not only
2 a request on the part of the psychotherapist, but perhaps
3 there is a state law guaranteeing the privacy of
4 individuals, and a psychotherapist does not have the
5 permission to release any confidential information from
6 his patient without the specific approval of that patient
7 and limit it only to one person.
8 It would be as though someone would ask you to
9 release information from a client who has come to you, an
10 attorney/client privilege. You do not have the right to
11 release that, I don't believe, unless your client so
12 grants permission. And if he grants permission only to
13 one person, then I believe that you would be obliged to
14 follow that directive. I'm not certain if there's a law
15 governing that, but I presume there probably is.
16 Q. Well, at the time you destroyed these types of
17 documents from therapists concerning priests who had
18 sexually molested children --
19 A. They weren't -- excuse me.
20 Q. -- did you know that there was a law requiring
21 you to destroy to those documents?
22 MR. KONRAD: Objection. That assumes that
23 he ever did destroy the documents pertaining to priests
24 who had sexually abused children, and there's never been
25 any evidence of that.
1 A. Documents that I would receive would pertain to
2 many different needs of the priests. They were not just
3 sexual misconduct. They had been referred to therapy for
4 a variety of reasons. And when the therapeutic counselor
5 or psychiatrist would send a report, he would feel that
6 this information should be kept confidential and was
7 allowed to be released only for me to see and requested me
8 to destroy that.
9 Q. You have -- excuse me, go ahead.
10 A. This, to me, was in keeping with the
11 confidential nature of the therapist/patient privilege.
12 Q. You had, in fact, seen therapists' reports
13 relating to priests who had sexually molested children;
14 isn't that correct?
15 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object as
16 ambiguous if we don't have a date on it.
17 Q. Any time during your tenure as Archbishop.
18 A. I would not be able to answer that question
19 automatically without reflecting, because not in every
20 case did I receive reports from therapists, and that
21 question that you've asked is presuming that in every
22 case, especially in sexual molestation, was I given
23 written reports.
24 Q. No, it's not. The question is asking you, isn't
25 it true that during your tenure as Archbishop, you did, in
1 fact, receive some reports from some therapists of
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Of priests who had sexually molested children
5 concerning their therapy?
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Tinkler, are you
7 talking about the original report?
8 MR. BENNETT: I'm not Mr. Tinkler.
9 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Bennett.
10 Are you talking about the original report or the copy of
11 reports? Or perhaps when you use "reports," it's not
12 particularly clear to me, and I'm sure it's not to the
13 Archbishop, whether these are copies or the originals.
14 Q. It doesn't make any difference to me. You can
15 answer the question, Archbishop.
16 A. Yes, I have received reports from centers of
17 therapy regarding a priest who had been accused of sexual
18 molestation, and it was a report, a general report, of his
19 presence, and they again made their request that this
20 report be destroyed.
21 Q. And you did that? You destroyed them?
22 A. And I destroyed them.
23 Q. And so if you die, and the next Archbishop comes
24 along, and this priest has another allegation of sexual
25 misconduct, can the new Archbishop, then, look at the
1 priest's personnel file and find those reports?
2 A. Not the reports from the psychotherapists. I am
3 presuming -- and that has to be an assumption -- that the
4 center of treatment or the psychiatrist in question has
5 preserved copies in their own files. That's why they felt
6 free to send me a copy.
7 Q. But you can't find it in the priest personnel
8 file in accordance with your policy; isn't that right?
9 A. Not the reports on the therapeutic treatment of
10 the priest, no.
11 Q. In hindsight, with respect to all of these cases
12 involving sexual molestation of children, do you wish you
13 had kept some of those reports?
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, speculation.
15 Q. Well, let me ask you this: Would it have been
16 prudent to keep copies of those reports?
17 A. I don't think in every instance it would have
18 been prudent to keep a copy of what I would call ordinary
19 reports, because sometimes they were just nothing. And
20 that just multiplies a person's file.
21 Perhaps on hindsight, as you say, it might have been
22 prudent to keep at least the dates when the person was
23 first evaluated and that type of an evaluation, if they
24 would have granted us permission to do that. I think that
25 would help us recall details for that individual.
1 Q. Did you ever request permission of either the
2 priest or the therapist to keep copies of those reports on
3 file in the Archidocese office?
4 A. No, sir. I complied with the request as
6 Q. You complied with the stamped request on the
7 document itself; isn't that right?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. You never called anybody and said, "What about
10 this stamped request on this document. Do you really mean
12 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
14 Q. Did you?
15 A. No, I didn't. That's not my nature. It may be
16 the nature of lawyers to contest things of that nature,
17 but it was not my nature in receiving a report from a
18 therapist, a therapist that I have respect for. He's
19 treating a priest professionally. He's giving me an
20 update report on what the man has been going through, his
21 improvement, etc. And whenever that had a stamp on it
22 that indicated that, I felt that it was my responsibility
23 to follow that directive and not contest it. I did not
24 think of contesting it.
25 Q. So that was something that didn't occur to you?
1 A. No, sir, it did not.
2 Q. And did you think about the interests of your
3 parishioners at the time you destroyed those reports?
4 A. I think I had thought about the interests of the
5 parishioners when I had the man in therapy. That was the
6 important thing. That's more important than a report, to
7 me, that's simply updating what the man is doing.
8 I think that the therapist is working professionally.
9 He's the expert. He's working with the man trying to help
10 him, and all he's doing is informing me of his progress.
11 Q. So when you destroyed those reports, did you
12 think about the interests of your parishioners or not?
13 A. Absolutely, absolutely. That is precisely why I
14 had the man go to therapy in the first place.
15 Q. Well, my question is: Was it in the interests
16 of your parishioners to destroy his therapists' reports
17 and not put them in his priest personnel file?
18 A. That's a speculative question, and I think
19 you're assuming that no matter what is put or not put into
20 a file is going to result in harm to people. And that's
21 an assumption that I could not accept.
22 You asked me to give an example, to cite whether or
23 not I had received at least a single report, in general,
24 and I can recall receiving that regarding a priest who was
25 accused of sexual misconduct.
1 You asked if I had destroyed that document, the
2 report from the psychotherapist, and I said yes. And
3 that, to me, is following the directions of those who are
4 treating a man and hopefully helping him to improve his
5 life in the future. It's not like it's a blank approval
6 or an attempt to hide what this man is doing or not doing.
7 The therapist would be able to explain or provide copies
8 because they keep copies. I have to assume they keep
10 Q. You don't know that?
11 A. I know that what they've sent me is not an
12 original. I'm sure -- they're giving me a report. They
13 have to keep a report because they're treating the man
14 from day to day to day, and I would assume they have to
15 have some follow-up on their day-to-day reporting.
16 Q. When you sent Father Sigler to the Servants of
17 the Paraclete in 1978, did you review his priest personnel
19 A. No, sir, I did not.
20 Q. And at that time, I believe you testified that
21 there were no allegations of sexual misconduct?
22 A. It was not at that time. It was about two years
23 ago, a year and a half ago, when we had a deposition with
24 Mr. Pasternack, and the question was asked, and I told him
25 that the allegations that had been brought to my attention
1 and had been brought to my attention repeatedly concerned
2 his personal lack of self control, his anger problems, his
3 voice, the use of bad language, insulting towards people
4 and that repeatedly. And when people asked to meet and
5 discuss the shortcomings of Father, I sent my Vicar
6 General to meet with him for that purpose.
7 Q. So you didn't feel that it was prudent to review
8 his personnel file to see if he had exhibited a lack of
9 self-control at any time in the past?
10 A. I did not think about reviewing his personnel
11 file. It wasn't a matter that I didn't think it was
12 prudent. I simply didn't reflect upon that. I was
13 concerned about what the concerns of the people would be
14 and whatever they were going to say about Father Jason
16 Q. Would it have been prudent to review his
17 personnel file at that time when considering those
19 A. It certainly seems like it would be a prudent
21 Q. And when you sent Father Sigler to the Servants
22 of the Paraclete, had you at least confronted -- had him
23 confronted for molesting children at St. Therese?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In 1981?
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Did you review his personnel file to see if he
3 had been involved in any similar activity in the past?
4 A. No, sir. I did not review the file there. I
5 was very hurt, very disappointed, and I had terminated his
6 faculties and his stay in the Archidocese immediately.
7 Q. Would it have been prudent to review that file
8 at that time?
9 A. I am not certain how prudent -- I'm not certain
10 what it would have served, because I made it clear to him
11 that he would have no further assignment and that he was
12 to return to Jemez Springs until his own bishop would
13 decide what to do with him. But as far as I was
14 concerned, he was done in the Archidocese. And that was
15 the reason I was more concerned about that than I was
16 about any files. It just didn't occur to me to review
18 Q. All right. Did you request of Father Sigler,
19 either yourself or through your agent, that he provide a
20 list of the boys that he had molested at St. Therese
22 A. Together, Father Hunt and I, who -- Father Hunt
23 was the pastor who brought the incident to my attention.
24 We confronted Father Sigler. And after Father Sigler's
25 admission, Father Hunt and I discussed the issue. Father
1 Hunt being the pastor and also having taken special
2 training, studies in counseling, must have indicated the
3 need to see if there were additional victims. And so I
4 instructed him to meet with Father Sigler, before he would
5 leave, to get any names of anyone else and to discreetly
6 try to find out from among parishioners if, in fact, there
7 were other victims that needed assistance.
8 Q. Did Father Hunt get the list?
9 A. Father Hunt indicated under testimony that he,
10 in fact, did get a list of about -- I can't recall, four
11 or five others, and that he made it a point, since it was
12 my request of him, to meet with the child and the family
13 in each of the instances.
14 Q. Was the list in writing?
15 A. I never saw a list myself. He did not turn that
16 list over to me. I'm certain that I don't have a list at
17 all. But he indicated that -- he had reported to me that
18 he had met with all of the people and had told them
19 exactly what had taken place, transpired, and that the
20 Archidocese had removed Father Sigler from St. Therese
21 parish immediately. He would not return. And it seemed
22 to me that the situation apparently ended there.
23 Q. So at that time, how many boys did you know were
24 molested by Father Sigler at St. Therese parish?
25 A. I believe the testimony that Father Hunt gave
1 indicated a list of four or five. I don't, in fact, know
2 how many were, in fact, molested or when they interviewed
3 the boy, together with the parents, what their response
5 Q. But Father Sigler had told Father Hunt that he
6 had molested four or five?
7 A. Father Sigler gave him a list of boys that he
8 felt that he had been close to, and I imagine that was a
10 Q. And was that four or five boys?
11 A. Four or five boys.
12 Q. So at that time, when you realized that Father
13 Sigler had molested four or five boys at St. Therese
14 parish in 1981, why did you not go back to his personnel
15 file to see if he had molested boys in the past and in
16 order to determine whether or not you should contact the
17 families at previous parish assignments to advise them
18 that he was a pedophile?
19 A. Your question has -- it's twofold. One, why did
20 I not go back to the file. And I repeat, that the concept
21 of reviewing a file was not uppermost in my mind in that
22 incident. I was concerned about the person and what had
23 taken place.
24 But secondly, I was not aware of any the other
25 specific incidents having been brought to my attention
1 while Father Sigler served in the diocese, and Archbishop
2 Davis had not mentioned any incidents while he was the
3 Archbishop, either.
4 So that it was my assumption that this was the first
5 occasion that it's been brought to our attention that, in
6 fact, Jason Sigler had victimized children and that it had
7 entailed more than one victim.
8 Q. But if you'd have looked at the personnel file,
9 you would have immediately come upon the June 1973 letter
10 from Father -- or Chancellor Murray in the Archidocese of
11 Lansing indicating that he had molested boys in Lansing,
13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection. That
14 misstates the evidence. The evidence is that the letter
15 states "in re turpi" with young boys. The testimony from
16 the Archbishop is that "in re turpi" can mean a number of
17 things, not necessarily molestation, as you have
19 Q. What would "in re turpi" --
20 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: But rather acts of moral
22 Q. What would "in re turpi" have meant to you in
23 1981 with respect to Father Sigler?
24 A. It would have meant to me, if I'd have read that
25 letter, that he had engaged with boys in things that were
1 wrong, perhaps fondling. That's exactly what I would have
3 Q. Wrongful sexual contact?
4 A. That's a good legal expression, wrongful sexual
6 Q. That's a good accurate expression, isn't it?
7 A. I think it covers a broad field.
8 Q. Of which, if you would have read "in re turpi"
9 in 1981, a letter concerning Father Sigler, it would have
10 covered the field of wrongful sexual contact; is that
12 A. It would have -- that type of word would have
13 expressed everything.
14 Q. And therefore, if you would have read that
15 letter from Father Murray, you would have known that this
16 was not the first time Father Sigler had molested boys and
17 that there may be other boys in his wake in the parishes
18 in which he had served; isn't that right?
19 A. Possibly.
20 Q. So would it have been prudent to review Father
21 Sigler's personnel file in order to determine whether or
22 not such information was there when he was caught
23 molesting boys in 1981?
24 A. I think, as I mentioned this morning, hindsight
25 is always 20/20 vision. A person doesn't always think of
1 every action to take that might assist in dealing with a
2 situation or dealing with other possible situations.
3 Sometimes you're confronted with an issue, and you're
4 surrounded with other responsibilities and obligations
5 that you do not think of every possible thing that you
6 could do. That may have been one thing I could have done.
7 There may have been other things that I could have done,
8 as well.
9 Q. Would that have been a prudent thing to do?
10 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, it's 5:00
12 A. I will respond for this. On hindsight, it would
13 have been helpful to know more about Father Jason Sigler
14 by reviewing his file.
15 Q. Not only helpful, it would have been the prudent
16 thing to do; is that correct?
17 A. Prudent. It seems to be a prudent action.
18 MR. BENNETT: Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
20 MR. GOFFE: The time is 5:01. This
21 concludes today's deposition. We are at the end of tape 8
22 in the deposition of Archbishop Sanchez. We are off the
24 [The deposition recessed at 5:01 PM]