Volume 4 – Volume 4 of Part 1 Deposition of Archbishop Robert F. Sanchez January 15, 1994 https://www.abqjournal.com/news/arch/4ARCH.HTM • 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 Page 552 1 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO 3 4 JOHN DOES I THROUGH III, 5 Plaintiffs, 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, 9 Defendants. 10 _________________________________________________________ 11 JOHN DOES IV and V, 12 Plaintiffs, 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 BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA and CLARENCE GALLI, 16 Defendants. 17 _________________________________________________________ 18 JOHN DOES VI and VIII, 19 Plaintiffs, 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, 23 Defendants. Page 553 1 JOHN DOE VIII, 2 Plaintiff, 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, 6 Defendants. 7 ________________________________________________________ 8 JOHN DOES IX and X, 9 Plaintiffs, 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, 13 Defendants. 14 _________________________________________________________ 15 JOHN DOE XI through XVII, 16 Plaintiffs, 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, 20 Defendants. Page 554 1 JOHN DOE VIII, 2 Plaintiff, 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, 6 Defendants. 7 ________________________________________________________ 8 JOHN DOES IX and X, 9 Plaintiffs, 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, 13 Defendants. 14 _________________________________________________________ 15 JOHN DOE XI through XVII, 16 Plaintiffs, 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, 20 Defendants. Page 555 1 JOHN DOE IV, 2 Plaintiff, 3 vs. 4 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FALL RIVER 5 MASSACHUSETTS, SERVANTS OF THE PARACLETE, INC., CLARENCE GALLI, and JAMES R. PORTER, 6 Defendants. 7 SERVANTS OF THE PARACLETE, INC., 8 Third-Party Plaintiff, 9 vs. 10 JOHN A. SALAZAR, SALAZAR CLINIC, and 11 SALAZAR CLINIC, P.C., 12 Third-Party Defendants. _________________________________________________________ 13 JOHN DOE XI, JOHN DOE XII, JOHN DOE XIII, JOHN DOE XIV, JOHN DOE, XV, JOHN DOE XVI, and 14 JOHN DOE XVII, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 vs. 17 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, INC., JASON E. SIGLER, 18 a/k/a JAY B. SIGLER, BISHOP ARTHUR TAFOYA, and CLARENCE GALLI, 19 Defendants. 20 _________________________________________________________ MICHAEL G. HARRIS, DANA KAINZ, PETER D. ST.CYR, 21 CONRAD L. JIRON, and ED TRUJILLO, 22 Plaintiffs, 23 vs. 24 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SANTA FE, INC., and FATHER ARTHUR J. PERRAULT, 25 Defendants. Page 556 1 DEPOSITION OF ROBERT F. SANCHEZ 2 VOLUME IV January 15, 1994 3 9:19 AM 5625 Isleta Blvd., SW 4 Albuquerque, NM 87105 5 6 TAKEN BY: BRUCE PASTERNACK ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 7 8 REPORTED BY: Jenifer L. Russin, RPR-CM, NM CCR #182 9 Russin Reporting 317 Commercial, NE, Suite 200-G 10 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Page 557 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 6 STEPHEN E. TINKLER 7 MERIT BENNETT 425 Sandoval Street 8 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 9 REESE & MATHY 160 E. Flaming Gorge 10 P. O. Box 1060 Green River, Wyoming 11 BY: ROBERT REESE 12 For the Witness: 13 STOUT & WINTERBOTTOM Attorneys at Law 14 718 Central, SW Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 15 BY: RICHARD A. WINTERBOTTOM 16 For the Defendant Archdiocese of Santa Fe: 17 SIMONS, CUDDY & FRIEDMAN 18 6400 Uptown Blvd, NE, Suite 630E Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 19 BY: KAREN C. KENNEDY 20 KELEHER & McLEOD, P.A. 414 Silver Avenue, SW 21 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 BY: ARTHUR O. BEACH 22 EAVES, BARDACKE & BAUGH, P.A. 23 6400 Uptown Blvd., NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110 24 BY: PETER KIERST 25 Page 558 1 For the Defendants Servants of the Paraclete: 2 MILLER, STRATVERT, TORGERSON & SCHLENKER, P.A. 500 Marquette, NW, Suite 1100 3 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 BY: ALAN KONRAD 4 JILL BURTRAM 5 6 7 8 I N D E X 9 PAGE   10 EXAMINATION OF ROBERT F. SANCHEZ 11 By Mr. Bennett (Continued) 561 12 SIGNATURE/CORRECTION PAGE 754 13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF DEPOSITION 756 14 Page 559 1 MR. GOFFE: This is the continuance of the 2 testimony of Archbishop Sanchez. In case numbers that 3 will be listed at the conclusion of this deposition, from 4 January 14th, 1994. Today is January 15th, 1994. The 5 time is 9:19 AM. We are on the record. 6 MR. PASTERNACK: Good morning, Archbishop. 7 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 8 MR. PASTERNACK: I'm not going to be asking 9 the questions today. Mr. Bennett will continue with that. 10 But I did want to just talk about, for the record, what 11 our concern is about the time problem, just state our 12 position, so there will be no question about it having 13 been made on the record. 14 I believe that the Plaintiffs that I represent 15 will have at least another day -- excuse me, half a day, 16 at least, of questioning for the Archbishop. Mr. Bennett 17 tells me that he will have this full day, and Mr. Konrad 18 tells me that he will probably have a full day. 19 MR. KONRAD: May have a day. 20 MR. PASTERNACK: May have a day. And Mr. 21 Tinkler will want to take some time, too. I believe that 22 I could have completed what I wanted to do by today, but 23 for the difficulties in starting the deposition on the 24 first day, where I believe the record will reflect we 25 didn't get going until sometime after 11:00 because of an Page 560 1 unexpected hearing that Judge Ashby summoned us to and 2 then because of the various machinations that were 3 required in getting here. 4 Otherwise, it appears the deposition has 5 relatively smoothly. I'm sure that nobody is delaying. 6 I'm sure we all want to finish this as quickly as we can. 7 But it's going to be our position, when Mr. Bennett 8 concludes with his questioning today and whatever Mr. 9 Tinkler does, that the deposition is not ended but rather 10 will be recessed until it can be continued. 11 I'm willing to continue tonight, if that 12 accommodates the Archbishop and counsel. I'm willing to 13 continue tomorrow, if that accommodates the Archbishop, 14 although I suspect there may be a religious objection to 15 so doing. And I'm willing to continue on Monday, if that 16 accommodates the Archbishop's schedule, or at any time in 17 the reasonably near future that's convenient for all 18 counsel. 19 So that's going to be our position, and if 20 anybody wants to agree with that, they can. Otherwise 21 we'll just take it up with the judge. Thanks. 22 MR. BENNETT: And that accurately states 23 the position for the Plaintiffs that I represent. 24 25 Page 561 1 EXAMINATION (Continued) 2 BY MR. BENNETT: 3 Q. Good morning, Archbishop. 4 A. Good morning, Mr. Bennett. 5 6 7 8 Q. Archbishop, where are the parish files kept? 9 A. At the office of the chancery. 10 Q. And that is a file that is separate and apart 11 from the priest personnel file? 12 A. They are simply filed differently. One is 13 titled "Parish Files." The other is titled "Personal 14 Files." 15 Q. Is there any policy, or has there been any 16 policy, in effect to determine what documents enter which 17 file? 18 A. No, sir. There's no written policy. It just 19 stands to reason things that pertain to parish business go 20 into a parish file, and anything that may be of a personal 21 nature, just pertaining to the priest himself, would go 22 into the priest file. 23 Q. You say there's no written policy? 24 A. No, sir. 25 Q. Is there a written policy on maintaining of Page 562 1 files in any respect? 2 A. Not while I was there, sir, no, sir. 3 Q. Do you have any knowledge of whether or not 4 there was a written policy under Archbishop Davis? 5 A. I don't know of anything, any policy that 6 existed under Archbishop Davis. I can't speak for him 7 obviously, but none comes to my attention at all. 8 Q. Is there now, to your knowledge, a written 9 personnel policy for the regulation of priests? 10 A. A personnel policy? 11 Q. Correct. 12 A. Not for regulation of priests, but an effort was 13 made to gather some general guidelines to sort of guide 14 the personnel board in references to the priests, so that 15 whatever priest concerns existed, they would try to 16 address them. To the best of my knowledge, that personnel 17 policy, if you want to call it, was never fully confirmed 18 as a policy. It was an effort to establish such. 19 Q. When was that effort undertaken? 20 A. It's been quite a few years. That might even be 21 10 years old, eight years old. I am not certain. 22 Q. So 1986? 23 A. Perhaps. I just don't recall it. 24 Q. Within a range of time? 25 A. In the '80s. Page 563 1 Q. Mid '80s? 2 A. Possibly. 3 MS. KENNEDY: Object, asked and answered. 4 He's already indicated to Mr. Bennett he doesn't know the 5 time. 6 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, were there any 7 written documents reflecting that effort to come up with 8 personnel guidelines for priests in the mid '80s or the 9 '80s? 10 A. There was a written document that had been 11 brought together. Much of it just reflects the Code of 12 Canon Law, because much of the law of the Church 13 pertaining to priests is found in the Code of Canon Law. 14 So it was simply extracted from the code and included in 15 the document for the Archidocese, and then tried to 16 localize the information in that document stating the 17 number of parishes and what information we had about them 18 and the personnel board, how it was formed, and the 19 priests themselves, how they have a right to a vacation, 20 and they have a right to so many weekends off from the 21 parish per year, things of this nature. 22 Q. Why was that document never ratified or adopted? 23 A. Just like many things, you make a supreme 24 effort, but it just wasn't reviewed a second time at 25 another point and finally ratified and promulgated. It Page 564 1 had been given to priests for their review, asking for 2 their input after three years, over a three-year period, 3 to get information from them so that eventually a final 4 document could be settled, but that was never done. 5 Q. Why not? 6 A. It simply wasn't done. Many things in our life, 7 we don't get done. We want to fix the refrigerator for 8 two years, and we don't do it. Some things just fall 9 through the cracks. 10 Q. And where is that document now? 11 A. I would suppose a copy of it is at the chancery 12 office in the Archidocese. 13 Q. Do you know under what file that would appear? 14 A. I think you would have to ask the chancellor if 15 they could procure a copy for you. It's been a few years, 16 like I say, since it was distributed, and I would assume 17 that the chancellor has a copy perhaps in his list of 18 books or files. 19 Q. Did you direct that effort, that that effort be 20 undertaken? 21 A. The effort was directed by the personnel board. 22 It was a self-initiated effort by the personnel board of 23 the Archidocese to accumulate information that might serve 24 as a personnel file or personnel policy. 25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: One moment, Mr. Tinkler. Page 565 1 MR. BENNETT: My name is Mr. Bennett. 2 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Oh, that's right. 3 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) So that undertaking was not 4 initiated by you as Archbishop? 5 A. No. It wasn't a formal mandate from myself. It 6 was something that we all felt we would need, and we 7 should make an effort to put together. 8 Q. Why did you feel that you might need it? 9 A. I think that unless you have some policy in 10 front of you, you're reinventing policy every few years. 11 And so it would be good to have some directives that would 12 be clear to the priests, so that they would know, in fact, 13 what their salary is and its base, their salary schedule, 14 what benefits they may receive, what vacation time is 15 theirs, just those very nitty-gritty type of policies that 16 pertain to the administration. 17 Most were familiar, but we felt it would be good to 18 put them all down in a single booklet or a policy. 19 Q. Is consistent application another reason for 20 having such a written policy? 21 A. I think that's one of many reasons for having a 22 written policy, besides remembering what the policy has 23 been, bringing it to the attention of newly ordained 24 priests and other variable reasons. 25 Q. Was there any written personnel policy in the Page 566 1 Archidocese, to your knowledge, prior -- or at any time 2 prior to that, prior to that effort that was undertaken by 3 the personnel board in the '80s? 4 A. No, Mr. Bennett, there was no prior written 5 personnel policy, to the best of my recollection. 6 Q. And when you became Archbishop in 1974, did you 7 know whether or not there was ever such a policy, written 8 policy, under Archbishop Davis? 9 A. I was unaware of any written policy under 10 Archbishop Davis, and I suspected that there never had 11 been any form of written policy for personnel alone, 12 simply because personnel boards, as such, had never been 13 part and parcel of the Church's structure until after the 14 Second Vatican council addressed that. 15 Q. Who was chancellor when you became Archbishop? 16 A. Father Lucien Hendren. 17 Q. And was he chancellor under Archbishop Davis? 18 A. For a brief period of time, yes. 19 Q. How long is "brief"? 20 A. I don't know. I do not believe he was 21 chancellor during the full tenure of Archbishop Davis. 22 Q. Do you know if he had been chancellor for more 23 than a year prior to your becoming Archbishop? 24 A. Yes, I believe he was. 25 Q. After you became Archbishop, did you consult Page 567 1 with Chancellor Hendren concerning the policies and 2 procedures of the Archidocese? 3 A. Concerning -- 4 Q. Anything. 5 A. We didn't consult one another. I did not 6 consult with him to sit down and say, "Let's review what 7 all the policies and procedures are." I needed to ask 8 from him advice regarding one or another issue, especially 9 in reference to canon law, since he was a canonist, and I 10 was new in the administrative position. So I needed to 11 confer with him regarding separate issues from time to 12 time. 13 Q. Why didn't you review with him all the policies 14 and procedures of the Archidocese when you became 15 Archbishop? 16 A. Simply didn't occur to me to sit down and say, 17 "Let's review policies and procedures." As I have already 18 mentioned, there were no written policies for 19 administration within the Archidocese. Once again, the 20 Code of Canon Law provides the broad guidelines for the 21 administration of Church and Church materials, 22 celebrations, liturgical celebrations, reference with 23 communities, administration of sacraments. Most of the 24 activity of Church is covered in the Code of Canon Law. 25 Q. But the administration activities, the Page 568 1 day-to-day administration activities of the Archidocese is 2 not a part of canon law, is it? 3 A. Such as? 4 Q. Such as personnel matters relating to priests. 5 A. Code of Canon Law includes references to the 6 activity of priests, the assignment of priests. That's 7 included in the Code of Canon Law to many different 8 degrees and different ways. It talks about faculties for 9 priests to be able to perform marriages, to administer the 10 sacrament of baptism. It talks about the assignment of 11 pastors, the positions of associate pastors. So it does 12 address personnel in many fashions. 13 Q. Does it address how the backgrounds of priests 14 are to be investigated prior to their assignments? 15 A. It doesn't deal with that in detail, but it 16 presumes that the priest who is going to be ordained and 17 granted faculties is one who is in good standing with the 18 Church. 19 Q. And in order to assure that that presumption is 20 intact, it's the responsibility of the particular 21 archidocese to conduct an investigation of that priest's 22 background? 23 A. To acquire the information that they need to 24 make a proper decision. 25 Q. And with respect to those policies, did you Page 569 1 consult -- or why didn't you consult with Chancellor 2 Hendren after you became Archbishop to update yourself on 3 what those policies were? 4 A. The policy to which you're referring was one 5 that is -- was known to him and to myself and to others, 6 that if a priest who comes into the Archidocese and 7 requests faculties, that there must be a contact with his 8 own superior before any faculties are to be granted. 9 There was contact with him. 10 I think you're stating that I had no contact with 11 him, and I am saying that I had contact with him on a 12 daily basis. But I'm not saying that we sat down in a 13 pre-planned program to investigate all of the policies of 14 the Archidocese. 15 Q. So you didn't have any specific meeting with 16 Chancellor Hendren to discuss the policies -- 17 A. Just policies, no. 18 Q. -- of the Archidocese with respect to the 19 investigation of the background of priests? 20 MS. KENNEDY: Object, asked and answered. 21 A. Sir, his office was close to mine and just 22 required a few steps to be able to consult with him and he 23 with me regarding any issue. 24 Q. Does the Archidocese maintain telephone records? 25 A. I'm not certain. You mean memos from telephone Page 570 1 conversations? 2 Q. What I'm talking about are billings from the 3 telephone company for telephone calls made by the 4 Archidocese. 5 A. I really don't know, sir. That belongs to the 6 department of the finance. I'm sure they keep financial 7 records, but I don't know if they're going to keep them 8 for more than whatever is normally required or advised, 9 seven years or so possibly. But to try to keep 10 everything, goodness, we would need a warehouse to store 11 information that way. So I'm not saying that there are 12 none, but I'm not saying that we have kept everything. 13 Q. Do you have any policy in that regard? 14 A. No, sir. 15 Q. You have no policy with regard to the length of 16 time you would keep telephone records? 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q. You mentioned seven years. Is that -- 19 A. I mention seven years because that comes to my 20 mind regarding the IRS. I think they require individuals 21 to keep their own personal records of income tax and etc., 22 over a seven-year period; and beyond that, you're not 23 obliged to do so. So I just -- it just seems to be that 24 maybe there's a similar law that exists for corporate 25 businesses. Page 571 1 Q. Has the Archidocese kept records of the 800 2 number calls from the 800 number that was instituted to be 3 available to the public to report sexual abuse by priests? 4 A. I really don't know if that has been kept. That 5 belonged to Chancellor Wolf. 6 Q. So Chancellor Wolf would have records of that, 7 if any? 8 A. He would be the person to ask whether or not 9 records were kept or not kept. 10 Q. Is there any policy established with respect to 11 those types of records? 12 A. No, sir. I did not establish any policy in 13 reference to that. Perhaps he did. 14 Q. Did you authorize him to establish such policy? 15 A. No, sir, he initiated that totally 16 independently. 17 Q. You indicated that you were on the personnel 18 board at some period of time prior to becoming Archbishop? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. Could you please tell me again what period of 21 time that was? 22 A. It could have been anywhere -- probably either 23 '70 -- more than likely 1972, I believe it was. It could 24 have been '71 or '72, but I believe it was 1972. 25 Q. For how long did you serve? Page 572 1 A. I believe I served for a one-year period, at 2 least that's what's in my mind at this time, because I 3 came to Albuquerque in 1971, in September. So I don't 4 know if I -- I can't recall. I may have been on the board 5 at that time already. Maybe it was a two-year period. 6 But it would be one, possibly two years. 7 Q. Were you serving on the personnel board at the 8 time you became Archbishop? 9 A. No, sir. 10 Q. Do you know how long prior to that you 11 discontinued service on the personnel board? 12 A. Well, I was named Archbishop in 1974. I may 13 have discontinued in '73 or '72. 14 Q. Did the personnel board, while you were on it, 15 handle any requests from priests outside of the 16 Archidocese for incardination within the Archidocese? 17 A. You mean applications for consideration? 18 Q. Correct. 19 A. I just don't have a recollection, an immediate 20 recollection, of any individual in particular. That does 21 not mean that there may not have been a request. I just 22 don't recall, sir, whether anyone wrote -- they would not 23 write to the personnel board for that consideration. They 24 would have written to the Archbishop for that 25 consideration. And he and his chancellor would have done Page 573 1 whatever they needed to do. 2 You see, incardination does not come about simply 3 because of request. There is normally a testing period in 4 which the individual must serve, with the permission of 5 the archbishop, with proper documents, but he must first 6 serve for approximately three years. I would require a 7 three-year period of service before any consideration for 8 incardination would occur. Because incardination is not 9 only asking the -- or allowing the priest to minister to 10 people, but he has to be able to share himself with his 11 brother priests. He has to get along. It's a team. And 12 if someone wanted to simply come here and serve and just 13 isolate himself from everyone else, or if he didn't get 14 along with the other clergy, then I would not have wanted 15 to incardinate him, nor would the priests have voted for 16 his incardination. The personnel board would not have 17 voted for that. 18 So the man has to prove himself, you know, after -- 19 in fact, during that three-year period, he himself may 20 feel and reach a decision that this really isn't the area 21 that he would like to continue to work for the future and 22 would simply leave. 23 Q. So an application for incardination by a priest 24 from outside of the Archidocese of Santa Fe would have 25 been a matter that would have been referred to the Page 574 1 personnel board for evaluation and, as you said, a vote? 2 A. Only after he had served in the diocese for 3 about a three-year period. The application would have 4 belonged to the archbishop, perhaps to his chancellor, for 5 any initial acceptance of that priest into the Archidocese 6 for -- to give him the opportunity for service with an eye 7 toward incardination. 8 Q. So my question is, would -- I assume from what 9 you've said, then, that an application for incardination 10 would ultimately be referred to the personnel board for 11 evaluation and a vote? 12 A. That was my policy when I came in as the 13 Archbishop. I felt that a personnel vote was important 14 for me, because I needed to know how the priests felt 15 about any priest who was petitioning for incardination. 16 Q. And was that the policy in effect when you 17 served on the personnel board prior to becoming 18 Archbishop? 19 A. Not in every instance. I am told -- when I 20 served, I think it was. I think we were consulted. But I 21 know that in other instances, Archbishop Davis would make 22 decisions himself, and possibly because there was no 23 personnel board at that time. Like I say, it did not 24 always exist. 25 Q. But it existed from the time you served on it? Page 575 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Until you became Archbishop? 3 A. Yes. 4 [The witness conferred with his attorney.] 5 Q. Archbishop, when a priest comes into the 6 Archidocese of Santa Fe from another Archidocese and wants 7 to serve in a parish either on a weekend supply ministry 8 or on any other temporary assignment, does he have to be 9 granted faculties to do that? 10 A. Before any priest serves in the Archidocese of 11 Santa Fe in a public manner, yes, he would need the 12 faculties of the Archidocese to do so. 13 Q. And how does he acquire those faculties? 14 A. Request is normally made to the chancery office, 15 received either by the chancellor or directly by the 16 archbishop. Most of the time, it's by the chancellor. 17 Q. And then what does the chancellor do with that 18 request? 19 A. The chancellor would speak with the priest, or 20 if it was by letter, he would then reply that he would 21 kindly have his local bishop or chancellor write on his 22 behalf, so that we might know of his good standing in his 23 own diocese. 24 Q. And is it that point when the contact would be 25 made with his archidocese of origin? Page 576 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And these requests have to be approved by whom, 3 or faculties have to be granted by whom or what 4 authorizing body? 5 A. The archbishop is the one who has the authority 6 to grant the faculty, but I delegate, or a bishop may 7 delegate, that authority to his chancellor in order to 8 facilitate things, because oftentimes the archbishop is 9 away from the office, out of the town, out of country. 10 And so another person who is, in a sense, replacing him 11 has that authority to act, so that there's not an 12 extraordinary delay. 13 Q. Would the person to whom such authority was 14 delegated be anyone outside of the chancery office? 15 A. Could be the vicar general, the vicar general of 16 the archidocese who does not have an office, did not have 17 an office under me in the chancery. He was a pastor in a 18 parish. He would have that authority. 19 Q. Could it be any priest other than a vicar 20 general? 21 A. No ordinary priest, no. In fact, my advice to 22 priests in the Archidocese, whenever a visiting priest 23 came into their parish who had come, say, to visit their 24 father or their mother and were going to stay for a few 25 days on vacation and wanted permission to celebrate Holy Page 577 1 Mass each day that they were there, that they should at 2 least advise us. If they did not know the priest, then we 3 would be obliged to call their bishop. 4 If he was a priest who was already known to us 5 because he had visited on other occasions, then we 6 wouldn't have to make that call. But ordinarily, if the 7 man was unknown, the priest pastor would call us and say 8 that, "Father So and So is visiting parents, would like 9 permission to celebrate the Eucharist," and we would place 10 a call to his diocese of origin saying, "May we have that 11 permission?" 12 Frequently priests who are visiting like that do 13 bring a little letter or a little card that is already 14 printed and merely needs a signature of the bishop to 15 indicate that they are indeed a priest in good standing 16 and that they may -- it requests that whoever would honor 17 his request to celebrate the Eucharist. 18 Q. But you would make an initial inquiry; if they 19 didn't have that letter, you would make inquiry to their 20 archidocese of origin to determine whether or not they 21 were in good standing or if there was some adverse 22 information that you should be aware of? 23 A. That's right. 24 Q. And was that the policy while you were 25 Archbishop? Page 578 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And was that the policy, to your knowledge, 3 under Archbishop Davis? 4 A. I would presume it was. 5 Q. And why would you presume it was? 6 A. Because I felt an obligation, any time that a 7 priest would ask me to celebrate the Eucharist, to call 8 and ask if he could do so and for them to get clearance 9 for him. 10 Q. And you felt that such a policy would be 11 reasonable and prudent? 12 A. Well, it was just common sense. I think this is 13 what it was. Here's a stranger whom I do not know, and so 14 I -- this was -- I suppose as a pastor, that's part of 15 canon law, as well. As a pastor, that's my 16 responsibility. I can't accept anyone's word unless he's 17 known to me. 18 Q. Yesterday we talked about Exhibit 12, which is 19 Jason Sigler's personnel file, and I referred you to 20 documents 12-E, 12-F and 12-G, which -- correct me if I'm 21 wrong -- appear to indicate that Jason Sigler was making 22 application for incardination some time in the middle of 23 1973, according to those letters; is that correct? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. And do you know if you were serving on the Page 579 1 personnel board at that time, or can you remember? 2 A. I don't remember these letters being brought to 3 us, but I was serving either in '72-'73 -- I believe it 4 was, yes. 5 Q. So do you have any recollection of whether or 6 not you, while you were serving on the personnel board, 7 knew about Jason Sigler's request for incardination? 8 A. No, but we didn't have to. Maybe you're not 9 clear on the process that I was trying to understand, and 10 I'd like to clarify it, so that you can understand it. 11 Perhaps working backward might assist a little bit. 12 Before an archbishop signs -- before I, as the Archbishop, 13 would have signed a document incardinating a priest into 14 the Archidocese, I would have had to have in my hands 15 documents from his bishop excardinating him. It's a 16 formal document written in Latin which it says, "We are 17 willing to excardinate Father X from our diocese so that 18 he may be incardinated in your diocese, if this is your 19 wish." 20 So that is a formal document sent to us from his 21 bishop. We don't require or request that document, 22 rather, until other procedures had occurred. 23 Now, before that would have been a request from the 24 priest himself for incardination, an approval letter from 25 his ordinary, his bishop, for that concept. I would have Page 580 1 asked my personnel board and deans, "What do you think 2 about this man," to get that as part of the process. 3 "He's been with us now for three years. You've had a 4 chance to see him in ministry and to associate with him as 5 a brother priest. Do you think he should, in fact, be 6 incardinated into the Archidocese?" So this is all the 7 final actions that would take place. 8 Prior to that initiation of those actions, the priest 9 will have served in the Archidocese for three years. In 10 order for him to serve for three years, we would have 11 received clearance prior to that time from his bishop or 12 archbishop regarding his status, his intentions, his 13 purpose of being with us. So that there were clearly -- I 14 would have a clear understanding of who he was, and they 15 would have a clear understanding of what the intentions of 16 the priest is. 17 So there would have been two communications, formal 18 communications, between the dioceses prior to that 19 happening. The whole thing would have taken three to four 20 years and sometimes much longer. Sometimes much longer. 21 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you have any 22 recollection one way or the other of having been involved 23 or seen or known of Father Sigler's request for 24 incardination when you were serving on the personnel board -- 25 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and answered Page 581 1 Q. -- prior to becoming Archbishop? 2 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 3 answered. 4 A. No, sir. I had no awareness because it had not 5 yet reached a point even to consult with us. The 6 archbishop was merely soliciting information at this point 7 and chose not to act on anything; and, as a matter of 8 fact, for the record, Father Jason Sigler was never 9 incardinated. 10 Q. That brings up my next question. How long, or 11 is there a policy with regard to this, how long do you 12 permit a priest from another archidocese to serve in the 13 Archidocese of Santa Fe, as a parish pastor without 14 incardinating him? 15 A. There is no policy that would govern that, 16 because the individual himself may choose not to become 17 incardinated. I can give you an example. Father Don 18 Starkey, who served as chancellor for a few-year period, 19 had served in the Archidocese for some 14, 15 years 20 without requesting formal incardination. 21 Q. Let me ask you this: I want to direct your 22 attention to this particular case, because Jason Sigler 23 did make a request for incardination? 24 A. Yes. But you had asked a general question. You 25 said how long does a policy require a priest to be present Page 582 1 in the Archidocese, or how long can he stay without being 2 incardinated? And I was trying to explain that there is 3 no real limitation, and I gave as an example one man who 4 was with us for about 15 years before any effort or the 5 formality of incardination took place. 6 Q. Do you know if Jason Sigler's request for 7 incardination was denied? 8 A. I have no evidence of that. As far as I can see 9 from the documents that you've presented, it was simply 10 never acted upon. 11 Q. Do you know why? 12 A. I have no ideA. 13 Q. It was not acted upon -- it appears from these 14 documents -- and please correct me if I'm mistaken -- 15 A. Sure. 16 Q. -- that after an application for incardination 17 was made by Jason Sigler in 1973 and contact had been made 18 with his home archidocese and the Archidocese of Lansing, 19 Michigan, no action was ever taken with respect to his 20 application? 21 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object. Calls 22 for speculation on the part of this witness. 23 Q. Is that what these documents indicate to you? 24 A. It's not what the documents indicate to me. 25 It's lack of any other documents that would indicate that Page 583 1 he was denied or a decision was reached contrary to his 2 wishes. 3 The very fact that a bishop initiates this work is no 4 indication that he's obliged to come up with a decision 5 immediately. It doesn't happen that way. 6 Frequently priests who come to us, even on the first 7 meeting and say, "I would like to come here with an eye 8 for incardination, and I have written a letter requesting 9 this." 10 And we tell them, "Father, we'll go ahead and write 11 your bishop, let him know your intentions, but we have a 12 process that will last several years." 13 The bishop may take his own time. It's his decision, 14 and it's not a decision of a personnel board, because 15 they're advisory, and it's not a decision of anyone else. 16 It's his decision when he feels it is proper to 17 incardinate someone. 18 Q. And when you became Archbishop in 1974 -- 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. -- according to these records, Jason Sigler's 21 application for incardination was still pending? 22 A. Yes, it was. 23 Q. And Jason Sigler was terminated as a priest in 24 1982; is that correct? 25 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object to the Page 584 1 phraseology, "terminated as a priest." It's vague. 2 Q. Well, is he still a priest? 3 A. No. He left the priesthood at his own volition 4 and married within six months or so. 5 Q. So you've never terminated Jason Sigler from 6 priestly duties -- let me rephrase that. 7 A. Yes, that's not accurate. 8 Q. You have never -- Jason Sigler resigned as a 9 priest in 1982? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Prior to that time, did you take any action on 12 his application for incardination? 13 A. No, sir. 14 Q. Why not? 15 A. First of all, I did not know him. I had come 16 into the Archidocese on July 25th, 1974. One week later 17 he spoke to me with the intention of leaving the 18 Archidocese in order to return to Michigan to care for his 19 ill parents. Within a month after that meeting, he had 20 left his parish and returned home. As far as I was 21 concerned, the man was gone forever. It was his request. 22 He did not belong to the Archidocese of Santa Fe. He was 23 not incardinated, and he requested to -- notified me that 24 I would have to find another pastor to replace him, 25 because this was his intention. He left and we had to Page 585 1 replace the parish in which he served with another priest. 2 Q. Which parish was he serving at the time? 3 A. I believe it was Fort Sumner. 4 Q. Did you know where he had served prior to that 5 time? 6 A. Apparently with St. Thomas Apostle Parish in 7 Abiquiu. 8 Q. Did you know how long he had been there? 9 A. I did not know how long he had been there, no. 10 Q. Did you pull out his personnel file when he 11 showed up to talk to you? 12 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, asked and 13 answered. 14 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 15 answered. 16 A. There was no need to. The man was requesting 17 permission to leave, not to be incardinated. 18 Q. Did you discuss the issue of incardination at 19 that meeting? 20 A. No, Mr. Bennett. I was not even aware that he 21 had any desire to be incardinated. These documents that 22 you have shown me were in his file indeed. I had not 23 reviewed his file. He simply asked immediately, one week 24 after I assumed office, if he could speak with me. We 25 spoke probably by phone, and informed me that he wanted to Page 586 1 leave and that I should be aware of this so that the 2 parish would not go unattended. 3 Q. And were you ever advised that he was back? 4 A. At any time? No. For a visit, you mean? 5 Q. To serve as a priest again in the Archidocese of 6 Santa Fe. 7 A. Oh. He called approximately -- close to two 8 years later. He placed a call from, I believe, Lansing, 9 Michigan, saying that his parents were now better, and he 10 wondered if there would be any possibility of him being 11 able to serve in the Archidocese of Santa Fe again. 12 My reply to him was, "You'll have to have the 13 personnel of that diocese send documentation on your 14 behalf, so that we know, in fact, that you have served 15 there effectively." I said, "After that, then I'll bring 16 this before the personnel board." 17 Q. Did you receive such a document? 18 A. Yes, I did. 19 Q. Does it appear in the personnel file? 20 MS. KENNEDY: Yes, it does. 21 MR. TINKLER: Are you answering the 22 questions now? 23 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Tinkler, which 24 document is -- or excuse me, Mr. Bennett, which document 25 is it you're requesting us to look for? Page 587 1 THE WITNESS: A letter of recommendation 2 from the Diocese of Lansing. This is a document dated 3 February 1, 1976, from the pastor of St. Mary Magdalen 4 Church in Hazel Park, Michigan. 5 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: It's 12-X. 6 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) And is that the document that 7 you had requested from Jason Sigler? 8 A. Yes. The parish at which he had been assigned. 9 Q. Why didn't you ask him for a letter from his 10 archidocese of origin, the Archidocese of Winnipeg? 11 A. Simply because he had not been in the 12 Archidocese of Winnipeg. He had apparently left the 13 Archidocese of Winnipeg over quite a few years and was now -- 14 his parents were now living in this area of the country, 15 and he had requested permission to go back there, and 16 that's where he would be serving. 17 If I had written to the archidocese, they would have 18 had to refer me to this area to get the letter of 19 recommendation, because they would not have known him. 20 Q. Did you know at that time that he had served in 21 the Archidocese of Lansing, Michigan, prior to coming to 22 St. Thomas Parish? 23 A. No, I did not. 24 Q. At the time you spoke with Jason Sigler, and he 25 requested to return to serve as a priest in the Page 588 1 Archidocese of Santa Fe in 1976, did you review his 2 Archidocese personnel file? 3 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 4 answered. 5 A. No, sir, I did not. 6 Q. Why not? 7 A. He had been serving in the Archidocese up to the 8 time that he had left. It was my assumption that my 9 predecessor who had assigned him there had done all that 10 was necessary for clearance. I felt there was nothing 11 else that I needed to know. 12 He had gone to Michigan and had served there. The 13 pastor under whom he had served writes a letter of 14 approval and commendation, recommendation on his behalf. 15 I felt that I had covered the bases as best I knew how and 16 that was necessary. 17 Q. But you didn't know whether or not your 18 predecessor had conducted a proper investigation, did you? 19 A. There's a lot of things you don't know -- you 20 have to assume in your life from day to day. I have to 21 trust that my predecessor had done that which was 22 necessary for any action that he would take. 23 Q. You personally, at the time you authorized Jason 24 Sigler to return to the Archidocese of Santa Fe in 1976, 25 did not know anything about Jason Sigler's past before he Page 589 1 came to the Archidocese and served at St. Thomas Parish? 2 A. That is right. 3 Q. Didn't you think that was something you'd want 4 to know? 5 A. It didn't occur to me to go to any personnel 6 file and see what would be in there. I simply was dealing 7 with the man's request, taking those steps that were my 8 responsibility and then bringing that before the personnel 9 board to see what would transpire. 10 Q. In hindsight, don't you think you would have 11 wanted to look at that personnel file? 12 A. Again, as I said yesterday, you know, hindsight 13 is 20/20 vision, and there's a lot of things that we would 14 like to have done earlier, but we can't always be held to 15 have covered everything as we would see things now. It 16 just isn't the same. 17 Q. In hindsight, would you have wanted to look at 18 that personnel file? 19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, asked and 20 answered. 21 MR. BENNETT: I haven't heard an answer 22 yet. That's why I'm asking the question. 23 A. I'm saying, in hindsight, there's a lot of 24 things I think I would like to have done differently. 25 Q. Is this one of them? Page 590 1 A. It would possibly be one of them. I don't know 2 whether I would be motivated strongly to do that. But 3 hearing what we're talking about right now, obviously 4 we're saying that maybe that would have been a good thing. 5 But if there had been nothing in that file at all contrary 6 to the gentleman, would you have been saying that it was 7 something that I should have done? 8 Q. But in this case, you know there was something 9 in that file, as you term it, "contrary to the gentleman." 10 A. Right now. 11 Q. That's correct. You could have been aware of 12 that contrary information in 1976; isn't that right? 13 MR. KONRAD: Objection. This is real vague 14 and ambiguous. 15 Q. Let's be real specific, Archbishop. 16 [The witness conferred with his attorney.] 17 Q. Archbishop, have you finished consulting with 18 your lawyer? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. Archbishop, please correct me if I'm wrong, you 21 have in front of you document 12-K, which is the letter 22 from Reverend James A. Murray dated June 28, 1973, which 23 refers to the fact that Jason Sigler had become involved 24 "in re turpi" with some boys in the parish in Michigan. 25 If you had reviewed Jason Sigler's personnel file in Page 591 1 1976, when he made application to return to perform priest 2 duties in the Archidocese of Santa Fe, would you have 3 discovered that letter? 4 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for 5 speculation. That assumes facts not in evidence. 6 A. If I had reviewed the file, this letter would 7 have been in the file, and I would have seen it. Again, 8 in reading this letter, you know, in the letter, you 9 didn't mention that the chancellor also had some positive 10 things to say about the priest. It is true he mentions 11 that -- he said, "He was well received by the people and 12 was generally effective in the exercise of his ministry. 13 Unfortunately, he allegedly became involved 'in re turpi' 14 with some boys in the parish." And he also says, "To the 15 best of my knowledge, the allegations had some basis in 16 fact." 17 We discussed "in re turpi" yesterday and were trying 18 to -- I think all of us were focusing on child 19 molestation. "In re turpi," as I was trying to explain 20 yesterday, too, is an expression that's very broad, very 21 broad. It's not something that's very narrow. 22 Q. What about "'in re turpi' with some boys"? 23 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Excuse me, Mr. Bennett. 24 Have you finished your response, Archbishop? 25 THE WITNESS: No. Page 592 1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Please allow the 2 Archbishop to finish his response. 3 Q. I'm sorry, Archbishop. 4 A. I wanted to say that it's an expression that can 5 be very broad. Anything that is wrong, "in re turpi," 6 contributing to the delinquency of a minor in a way would 7 be considered "in re turpi." Allowing them to drink 8 alcoholic beverages, allowing them to attend an adult 9 gathering of any kind. "In re turpi" could be many 10 things, not necessarily, nor excluding it, sexual 11 molestation of a child. 12 Q. If you'd have seen this letter that said "'in re 13 turpi' with some boys," wouldn't you have wanted to find 14 out what it did mean? 15 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for 16 speculation. 17 A. It would seem to me if I had read that letter, I 18 would have wanted to find out more about him, yes. 19 Q. Including what "'in re turpi' with some boys" 20 meant? 21 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for 22 speculation. 23 Q. Isn't that right? 24 A. I would have tried to find out from this 25 gentleman, Reverend James A. Murray, what he knew about Page 593 1 Father Jason Sigler. 2 Q. And you would have wanted to have known what he 3 meant by "'in re turpi' with some boys"? 4 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for 5 speculation. 6 Q. Isn't that right? 7 A. I think that I would like to have found out, not 8 only that, but what he also meant about, "It seems that 9 the allegations had some basis in fact." There had been 10 no apparently proof of anything, whatever the allegations 11 were. To this day, neither you nor I know exactly what 12 those allegations were. 13 Q. And you certainly didn't know what they were in 14 1976, because you didn't call Father Murray? 15 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object. I think 16 this line of questioning is becoming argumentative and 17 also it's asked and answered. 18 Q. Isn't that right? 19 A. I did not call Father Murray, no. But I 20 received a letter from the pastor in which he served 21 saying that again he had served during that time, of his 22 presence in Michigan, very effectively. He was a hard 23 worker, and he was pleased to recommend him to us. 24 Q. When Jason Sigler called you in 1976, asking to 25 come back to the Archidocese of Santa Fe to serve again as Page 594 1 a priest in the Archidocese, did you know at that time 2 that he had been treated at the Servants of the Paraclete? 3 MR. KONRAD: Objection to the use of the 4 term "treated." 5 MR. TINKLER: That's a good objection. 6 MR. KONRAD: They never claimed to treat 7 people. I mean, the psychiatrists treated them. So the 8 objection is that it assumes facts not in evidence. 9 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Let's stick with the question. 10 A. Could I get your question again, please? 11 Q. At the time Jason Sigler called you in 1976, 12 requesting that he be allowed to, once again, serve as a 13 priest in the Archidocese of Santa Fe, did you know that 14 he had been treated at the Servants of the Paraclete on a 15 prior occasion? 16 MR. KONRAD: I object to the form of the 17 question, as it misstates the evidence. There is no 18 evidence that he was treated by Servants of the Paraclete 19 or ordinary Catholic priests. He was treated at Lovelace 20 Hospital in Albuquerque by a psychiatrist. 21 MR. BENNETT: You know, I'm really -- it 22 really is bothersome when you attempt to testify. 23 MR. KONRAD: It's bothersome when you 24 attempt to testify by asking your question which misstates 25 the evidence. Page 595 1 MR. BENNETT: When you want to be under 2 oath and testify, we can do that, but not today. 3 MR. KONRAD: Okay. The same goes for you. 4 MR. BENNETT: Now I had asked the question 5 to elicit information, and he can answer the question yes 6 or no. 7 Q. My question stands, Archbishop. 8 MR. KONRAD: And my objection stands. 9 A. Sir, in 1976, I do not recall at this time 10 whether I was aware that Father Jason Sigler had, in fact, 11 been part of any program sponsored by the Paraclete 12 Fathers, which, in fact, included both a type of program 13 that they had included both spiritual counseling, 14 spiritual rehabilitation, which is at that time conducted 15 apparently at Jemez, and also included psychotherapy, and 16 these men were referred to professional psychiatrists. 17 I was unaware -- and I cannot recall at this time, 18 whether I was aware in 1976 -- whether Father Jason Sigler 19 had gone through any type of program with the Servants of 20 the Paraclete. I will speculate a moment for you. If I 21 was aware -- 22 Q. Don't speculate. 23 A. But you've been asking me to speculate for two 24 days. 25 Q. No, I've been asking for your opinion as Page 596 1 Archbishop based upon facts that we have before us. So 2 please answer in that vein. 3 A. All right. 4 MS. KENNEDY: Is there a pending question? 5 MR. TINKLER: No. 6 A. No, the question is, I cannot recall at this 7 moment whether I was aware of it or not, and I'll leave 8 the next question to you. 9 Q. Thank you. Were you aware that he had been, at 10 that time, in 1976, that Jason Sigler had been a resident 11 at the Servants of the Paraclete prior to that telephone 12 call? 13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Asked and answered. 14 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 15 answered. 16 A. I just replied, sir, that I do not recall 17 whether I knew that he had been a resident there or not. 18 Q. When do you first have a recollection of knowing 19 that fact? 20 A. I think it was in conjunction with the -- in 21 1981, I believe it was, when allegations were brought 22 against Father Jason Sigler concerning sexual molestation 23 at St. Therese Parish in Albuquerque, and I asked him then 24 to return to the Servants of the Paraclete because he had, 25 in fact, gone there in 1978. I believe it was in Page 597 1 conjunction with that time that I became aware of the fact 2 that he had, in fact, been there before. 3 Q. Been there before 1978? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. In 1978, when you sent him to the Servants of 6 the Paraclete, did you learn at that time that he had been 7 there on a prior occasion? 8 A. No, sir. I was under the impression, and in 9 fact, that recalls my answer for 1976, as well. In 1978, 10 I was under the impression that I was sending Father Jason 11 Sigler to the Servants of the Paraclete for the first 12 time. 13 Q. And in 1978, you sent him to the Servants of the 14 Paraclete based upon the initiation of complaints from the 15 parish in which he was then serving in Las Vegas; is that 16 a fair statement? 17 A. Yes, it was. But I think you have to explain 18 the "complaints." 19 Q. Any type of complaints. 20 A. Yes. Complaints were regarding his personal 21 behavior, his anger, his insultive manner against people, 22 his lack of control of language from the pulpit. This was 23 all part of a behavior that I felt was severe and had 24 asked him to go to the Servants of the Paraclete for 25 treatment of that disorder. Page 598 1 Q. And so it was your opinion in 1978 that Jason 2 Sigler had some sort of disorder for which he needed 3 treatment at the Servants of the Paraclete? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. And at that time, when you held that opinion, 6 did you then pull out his priest personnel file and look 7 at it? 8 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 9 answered. 10 A. No, sir, I did not. 11 Q. Why not? 12 A. Again, it did not occur to me to have to refer 13 to anything in a personnel file that I didn't think 14 contained anything. Nothing -- 15 Q. How did you know it didn't contain anything? 16 A. Because nothing had been brought to my 17 attention. No one had referred anything to me in 18 reference to Father Jason Sigler. 19 Q. Nor had you looked at his personnel file? 20 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Asked and answered. 21 A. True. 22 Q. In 1978, when you believed that Jason Sigler had 23 some sort of disorder that needed treatment at the 24 Servants of the Paraclete, did it occur to you that he may 25 have had other disorders that may have been reflected in Page 599 1 his personnel file? 2 A. No, sir. I was focused in on his own disorderly 3 conduct as a priest, the insults and offenses against 4 people, and I was concerned about that. 5 Q. And did you want to know or would it have been 6 reasonable for you to want to find out if he had committed -- 7 or there were any complaints in his personnel file 8 concerning that type of activity before? 9 A. Sir, again, as I mentioned yesterday, I'm not a 10 suspicious man by nature. I had not heard of any 11 complaints prior to that time. No one advised me of any 12 other prior complaints. I had no reason to think that 13 there had been complaints. When these came against the 14 man, I felt that I had to address that which was before me 15 and address it quickly, and I did that. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Sir, I don't know whether the position of an 25 Archbishop requires you to be suspicious. I think my own Page 600 1 training has been one always of trust and of faith. I've 2 been taught to trust people and to have my faith in my 3 God. I am not skilled at trying to listen to what people 4 are saying to see if they're lying to me or not. I am a 5 person who would like to believe that they're telling the 6 truth. 7 Q. Did you ask Jason Sigler whether or not he had 8 ever been treated for any disorder when you sent him to 9 the Servants of the Paraclete in 1978? 10 A. I don't recall asking him any question of that 11 nature. 12 Q. Do you think that might have been prudent? 13 A. I don't know. Many things may have been good to 14 ask, may have been helpful, but that simply did not occur 15 to me to ask that question. I don't recall whether I did. 16 Q. Archbishop, during the period of time Jason 17 Sigler was in the Servants of the Paraclete from 1978, 18 when you sent him there onward, did you receive any 19 reports from any of his therapists or psychologists or 20 supervisors or superiors at the Servants? 21 MR. KONRAD: Object to the question. It 22 assumes that he had superiors, supervisors and things like 23 that at Servants, which is not in evidence and won't be in 24 evidence. 25 A. No, sir. I don't recall any evaluation or any Page 601 1 updating about progress. And I have to assume that since 2 his therapy was being given to him outside of the home of 3 the Servants of the Paraclete, I think at that time they 4 were using facilities in Albuquerque, like the Lovelace 5 Clinic and the Nazareth Sanitorium and other private 6 psychiatrists. Those were the places they would refer 7 them to. I didn't receive anything from anyone. I didn't 8 even know who his therapist would have been. I do recall 9 a letter from one of the superiors of the Servants of the 10 Paraclete, apparently after he had been there a number of 11 months. 12 Q. Is Exhibit 12-DD that letter? 13 A. This is indeed a letter from Father Joseph 14 McNamara, who was the Servant General of the Paraclete 15 community addressed to me on October 4, 1978. 16 Q. Is that the letter to which you were referring? 17 A. Yes, I was recalling that letter. 18 Q. And in this letter, it appears that Father 19 Joseph McNamara is requesting permission from you to allow 20 Father Sigler to accept weekend and supply ministry in the 21 Archidocese; is that -- 22 MR. KONRAD: Object. 23 Q. -- what it appears to you to be requesting? 24 MR. KONRAD: Object to the question. The 25 letter speaks for it itself. It says a number of Page 602 1 additional things. 2 A. Yes. That's the final paragraph. Prior to 3 that, he mentions that he has been under the care of Dr. 4 Duane Sherwin, who had prescribed medication. "He has 5 been a great help with our sick and aged Fathers at our 6 nursing home. He has conducted himself in an exemplary 7 manner." 8 And then he asks, "Would it be possible, Archbishop, 9 if Father Sigler could accept weekend and supply ministry 10 in the Archidocese?" 11 He says, "I feel that this would be good for him, and 12 I am confident that he will be able to function 13 responsibly." 14 These are assurances that are contained in his 15 letter, and so he makes the request of me whether that 16 would be possible. His letter was one of request, and his 17 letter was one of assurance, as far as he was able to 18 grant it, that if permission were granted to him that 19 Father would function responsibly. 20 MR. KONRAD: I'd like the record to reflect 21 that there are three more sentences in that paragraph, and 22 I'd like to have them read into the record at this point. 23 Q. And is Exhibit 12-EE your response to that 24 letter? 25 A. Yes, sir, this is my reply to his letter. It's Page 603 1 dated October 25th. I'm indicating that I'm replying to 2 his letter of October 4. And I indicated that, "I have no 3 objections to Father Sigler assisting those parishes of 4 the Archidocese which request his assistance for weekend 5 or supply ministry." And so I grant faculties to him. 6 And then Father McNamara, of course, would have to make 7 arrangements with any parish who may need help. 8 And I conclude simply by saying I'm grateful to 9 Father McNamara and the staff at Via Coeli for the 10 assistance that they've rendered to Father Sigler. 11 Q. Now, in considering Father McNamara's request 12 and in making your response which allowed Jason Sigler to 13 return to a parish in the Archidocese on a temporary 14 basis, did you review his personnel file? 15 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 16 answered. 17 MR. KONRAD: And mischaracterization of the 18 evidence. 19 A. No, sir. 20 Q. Why not? 21 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Asked and answered. 22 A. The request from Father McNamara was whether 23 Father Jason Sigler could have faculties to help when 24 asked for weekend assistance to help supply a parish for a 25 Mass on one weekend or another weekend. This was not an Page 604 1 assignment in the Archidocese. This was not an 2 appointment. It was a request for faculties for time to 3 time as the need may arise. And on that basis, I granted 4 him faculties, not an assignment. So I simply did not 5 again feel any need to review the file, as I mentioned 6 before. I just did not feel a need to review it. 7 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: It's 10:30. Why don't 8 we take a 15-minute break. 9 MR. GOFFE: The time is 10:31. We will go 10 off the record. 11 [A recess was taken.] 12 MR. GOFFE: The time is 10:56. We are back 13 on the record. 14 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, after you received 15 the October 4, 1978, letter from Father McNamara, did you 16 have any discussion or did you call Dr. Duane Sherwin to 17 request a report on Jason Sigler's progress? 18 A. No, sir, I did not call Dr. Sherwin. 19 Q. Why not? 20 A. It just seemed to me that I was not dealing 21 directly with Dr. Sherwin. I had sent a priest to the 22 program at Jemez Springs. They, in turn, employ their 23 psychiatrists as part of their program, and the 24 psychiatrist deals directly with the superior of the 25 program, and he deals with me. I had no acquaintance with Page 605 1 Dr. Sherwin. I had never received any report from him. 2 And so I just dealt with Father McNamarA. 3 Q. Between the time you received Father McNamara's 4 letter and when you replied on October the 25th, granting 5 temporary -- or weekend and supply ministry faculties to 6 Jason Sigler, did you call Father McNamara or anyone else 7 at the Servants of the Paraclete concerning Jason Sigler? 8 A. I don't recall any phone calls. That does not 9 exclude any phone calls that may have been made. But I do 10 not recall making any phone calls. 11 Q. Do you recall discussing with anyone, prior to 12 granting temporary faculties on October 25th, 1978, the 13 condition of Father Sigler? 14 A. If I would have called anyone, it would have 15 been Father McNamara, but I do not recall that. 16 Q. Do you recall being curious to ascertain what 17 they had found out concerning Jason Sigler's disorder? 18 A. I was curious, I suppose, that he was -- I was 19 happy to know that I had received a very favorable report 20 on Father Jason Sigler, and that, in fact, they were 21 making recommendations for continued ministry, although on 22 a very limited basis. I was just pleased with that. I 23 may have phoned Father McNamara as a follow-up to his 24 letter, but I have no recollection of that. 25 Q. My question was, were you curious at that time Page 606 1 as to what Jason Sigler's disorder was? 2 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for 3 speculation on the part of the witness. Also, it 4 misstates evidence. There is no evidence that Jason 5 Sigler had a disorder, if you're using it in a technical 6 sense, nor is this witness competent to state whether he 7 had one or not. 8 MR. BENNETT: This is a speaking objection, 9 again, and it's very disruptive. 10 Q. But let's do it this way, Archbishop, and I'm 11 sorry we have to do it this way. 12 A. Sure. 13 Q. But because of your attorney, we must. You felt 14 when you sent Jason Sigler to the Servants of the 15 Paraclete in 1978 -- and you've testified to this -- that 16 he had a disorder of some type; isn't that correct? 17 A. I testified to the fact that his behavior had 18 reached a point that it had become severely offensive to 19 people and was manifesting itself through abusive 20 language, irritability and his anger; and that made the 21 relationship to parish members very delicate and critical. 22 And I felt that if he was going to be a competent and 23 effective priest, he needed to have some treatment 24 regarding his anger for whatever the causes may have been 25 for that. Page 607 1 Q. And you characterized that behavior as a 2 disorder? 3 A. I think I was repeating the term that you had 4 used. I don't know exactly what a disorder means. If it 5 has a technical meaning, I certainly don't want to be held 6 to a technical meaning. 7 Q. Well, let's do it this way. 8 A. I'm not certain what that means. Disorder 9 behavior means to me that behavior that's not acceptable. 10 Q. And with respect to this acceptable behavior, 11 were you curious in 1978 to find out why Jason Sigler was 12 experiencing this unacceptable behavior? 13 A. No, I do not recall that I was curious at that 14 point to ask Father McNamara for any explanation. The 15 fact of the matter may be that I may have asked him 16 something by phone. But I'm not certain Father McNamara 17 would have had all of the details either, since they were 18 not the psychiatrists or the psychologists. 19 Q. Now, I would refer you to Exhibit 12-FF, which 20 is a letter from Father Gregory McCormick of the Servants 21 of the Paraclete to you dated February 21, 1979. Do you 22 recall receiving that letter? 23 A. May I take a moment to read it? 24 Q. Yes, please. 25 A. I don't have an immediate recollection of the Page 608 1 receipt of the letter, but it was addressed to me, so 2 obviously I did receive it. 3 Q. Do you have any recollection of having 4 requesting that such a letter be written by Father 5 McCormick? 6 A. No, sir. I was not aware or familiar with 7 Father McCormick, so I would not have solicited that from 8 him. 9 Q. Do you recall soliciting such a letter from 10 anyone? 11 A. No, sir. 12 Q. The next letter that appears in the personnel 13 file is document 12-GG, which is a letter from you 14 addressed to Jason Sigler. Do you recall sending that 15 letter? 16 A. The letter was on this date, July 30th, 1979. 17 It was written from me to Father Jason Sigler. I don't 18 recall writing the letter, but I did write it, yes. 19 Q. And in this letter, you granted Jason Sigler 20 faculties at the St. Therese Parish in the Archidocese? 21 A. Yes, sir, and it was done, as the letter 22 indicates, because he had served apparently very 23 successfully and had the high recommendation of the 24 pastor. He had been serving there apparently on a 25 temporary basis assisting the priest without canonical Page 609 1 assignment, like a test situation. 2 Q. You mean other than a weekend or weekend supply 3 ministry? 4 A. I have reason to believe that he had been 5 serving with Father Hunt more frequently, so that Father 6 Hunt would have a chance to evaluate his ministry, more 7 like part-time, not just weekend. 8 Q. But more time than for which you approved in 9 October of 1978? 10 A. The request in October 1978 had been for supply 11 ministry and weekend ministry. I'm not aware of what 12 areas that he may have served at. Apparently one of the 13 parishes that they felt would be -- that needed assistance 14 and was willing to work together with Father Jason Sigler, 15 was that of St. Therese in Albuquerque, and so he was 16 assigned to help there. 17 Apparently, all the time that he spent with Father 18 Hunt was a very successful period of time, both on 19 weekends, supply ministry, when supply was needed, say 20 funerals or weddings or such instances. So that the 21 pastor could give a recommendation such as contained in 22 the letter. 23 Q. My question is, do you know if Jason Sigler was 24 in St. Therese Parish on a more frequent basis than just 25 weekend or supply ministry? Page 610 1 A. No. I don't see any evidence, any letters that 2 I asked him to serve like with an assignment there, even 3 part-time. The evidence that I have is that we've sent 4 him -- excuse me, that we gave permission to the Servants 5 of the Paraclete to allow him to serve on weekend ministry 6 and supply ministry. The tone of the letter is what I'm 7 referring to, is that Father Hunt appears to be referring 8 to the fact that he had witnessed his services to him in 9 various fashions that he could give such a letter of 10 recommendation. 11 Q. My question is, when you granted faculties to 12 Jason Sigler on July 30, 1979, did you know whether or not 13 he had been serving in St. Therese Parish on a basis more 14 frequent than weekend and supply ministry? 15 A. No, sir. 16 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 17 answered. 18 MR. BENNETT: You know, I will give you a 19 continuing asked-and-answered objection. There is no such 20 thing in a deposition format. You can object to the form. 21 You may have an asked-and-answered objection for the 22 remainder of this deposition. I would appreciate it if 23 you would not interrupt the testimony. 24 MS. KENNEDY: Well, I have to put my 25 objections on the record. Page 611 1 MR. BENNETT: And you can please put a 2 legal objection on the record, which is an objection to 3 the form of the question. With respect to that objection, 4 you have a continuing objection, so you don't have to 5 interrupt the testimony anymore. 6 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, can you please 7 answer my question? 8 A. Would you kindly repeat it. I think I've lost 9 my train of thought. 10 Q. I've lost mine, too. 11 [The record was read by the reporter.] 12 Q. There's certainly nothing in this personnel file 13 to indicate, one way or another, that fact; is that 14 correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. When you were considering granting faculties to 17 Jason Sigler to serve in the St. Therese Parish, did you 18 speak with anyone at the Servants of the Paraclete? 19 A. I do not have evidence, did not make any letters 20 to that effect, but I would suspect that I would have 21 called the Servants of the Paraclete. I had to call them 22 because it would entail a transfer from residence at the 23 Servants of the Paraclete to St. Therese Parish. 24 MR. KONRAD: Objection, move to strike. 25 That was speculative. You haven't shown him any Page 612 1 documents, but I think the evidence is clear that Sigler 2 left Servants of the Paraclete in early February '79 and 3 moved into a place called Bethany House. 4 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: May we go off the record 5 a moment? 6 MR. BENNETT: No. I have no reason to go 7 off the record. 8 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Well, if you -- that 9 objection. 10 MR. BENNETT: The deposition is in 11 progress, and the objection again is a speaking objection. 12 That's coaching the witness. 13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: It's your deposition. 14 MR. BENNETT: I want this witness's 15 recollection of what his knowledge is. 16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Go ahead, Mr. Tinkler, 17 You don't need to make what you call a speaking objection. 18 MR. BENNETT: And my name is not Mr. 19 Tinkler. 20 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Bennett. 21 I apologize to you. I'm looking at Mr. Tinkler, saying 22 Mr. Tinkler. I mean Mr. Bennett. I apologize to you for 23 that. 24 MR. TINKLER: I agree with him. 25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I knew that, as well, Page 613 1 which is why it doesn't make much difference to either of 2 you. 3 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Please answer the question. 4 Do you recall it? 5 A. I didn't know you'd asked one, I'm sorry. I 6 think I answered it, in fact. 7 MS. KENNEDY: I believe so. 8 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: You did. 9 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Well, you indicated that you 10 would have had to have made contact with someone at the 11 Servants of the Paraclete? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In that contact, did you discuss with them Jason 14 Sigler's current condition? 15 MR. KONRAD: Well, objection calls for 16 speculation. He said he doesn't recall it. He must have 17 done it, but he doesn't recall any contact. How can he 18 tell you what it is? 19 Q. Do you recall a contact? 20 A. I do not recall the contact with anyone. The 21 statement that I had made previously was that I would have 22 needed to call, make contact, to indicate that we were 23 willing to place Jason Sigler in a position such as St. 24 Therese. 25 Q. And would that have been your policy at that Page 614 1 time? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And what other information would you require, if 4 any, from the Servants of the Paraclete in accordance with 5 that policy? 6 A. I would have simply requested whether they had 7 any objection to the proposal. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 615 1 2 3 4 5 Q. And you also cannot say whether or not the 6 procedure was followed? 7 A. I would have to say that my procedure was 8 followed because I would not have assigned a man full-time 9 to a parish without having consulted with the person who 10 was his, at that time, local superior. 11 Q. And did you consult with his therapist, Dr. 12 Duane Sherwin, or anyone else who was treating him, prior 13 to granting him full faculties at the St. Therese Parish? 14 A. I have never consulted with Dr. Duane Sherwin. 15 I do not know the gentleman. I consulted with the man 16 whom Dr. Duane Sherwin, I suppose, had to report to, 17 because the program was together as -- even though the 18 program was the Servants of the Paraclete, but the 19 psychiatrists were the ones who handled the professional 20 type of therapy for them. 21 Q. Was it the policy of the Archidocese at that 22 time to receive reports from therapists of priests who 23 were being returned from the Servants of the Paraclete to 24 active ministry? 25 A. No, sir. I don't recall any type of reports Page 616 1 from psychiatrists during those years, the '70s, at all, 2 from psychiatrists. It just seems to me -- and this is 3 speculative on my own part -- that they probably did not 4 submit any reports to anyone. They probably respected the 5 whatever you call it, the confidential nature of the 6 relationship between the therapist and the client. 7 Q. At what time did you begin to receive reports 8 from therapists? 9 A. I began to receive some reports in the 1980s, 10 probably around mid 1980s. 11 Q. And these are the reports that you referred to 12 before that you destroyed after receipt? 13 A. These are reports that would contain the stamp 14 mark, "To be destroyed" after having read it, or "To be 15 returned to the center," and they would destroy it. 16 Q. So no policy was in effect within the 17 Archidocese between 1974 and the mid 1980s that required 18 reports, whether or not they were to be destroyed, to be 19 sent to you from therapists of priests applying for 20 faculties in the Archidocese? 21 A. That's right. There was no procedure of that 22 nature at all. 23 Q. Why not? 24 A. Apparently they didn't offer them. If they have 25 a client-therapist confidentiality, they don't have to Page 617 1 extend a report to you. They can refuse that. I have 2 always felt that you go to a psychiatrist/psychologist 3 because you want to receive confidential treatment. And 4 it appears to me that's the confidentiality that has to be 5 observed. 6 If I would write you a letter asking for information 7 from a particular client, I don't believe that you could 8 supply that, because there is a confidential nature 9 between yourself and a client. 10 Q. If my client authorized a disclosure to you, I 11 could supply that; isn't that your understanding? 12 MS. KENNEDY: Object, calls for legal 13 conclusion. 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. Isn't that your understanding? 16 A. If a client would authorize that, I suppose that 17 you could do it, and I suppose then a psychiatrist could 18 do it. 19 Q. So why didn't you require your priests applying 20 for faculties in your parishes to authorize the release of 21 a report from their therapist to you prior to making the 22 decision to return them to parish work? 23 A. Because, sir, I had had no direct contact with 24 the therapist. My contact was with the Servants of the 25 Paraclete; and with their letters or comments on the phone Page 618 1 of assurances, I felt that was adequate. I had not 2 received any type of explanation of the progress of the 3 therapy being treated. I simply depended upon the 4 psychiatrists -- excuse me, upon the Servants of the 5 Paraclete to give me the information that they, in turn, 6 had received from the psychiatrist. 7 Q. Were you aware that in the late 1960s the 8 Servants of the Paraclete were sending such reports to the 9 Archidocese? 10 A. No, sir. I was not involved with the 11 administration of the Archidocese in the late 1960s. 12 Q. From that time forward, until the mid '80s, were 13 you aware that any such reports were sent to the office of 14 the Archidocese? 15 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, that 16 misstates -- one, such evidence is not in the record here, 17 and number two, I believe, in fact, misstates the facts. 18 And if you want a speaking objection, I'll explain to you 19 why it misstates the facts. That's an incorrect statement 20 of what, in fact, the Servants of the Paracletes did. 21 Q. To your knowledge, were any reports, written 22 reports, concerning the psychological status of a resident 23 of the Servants of the Paraclete from either the Servants 24 or the residents' therapists sent to the office of the 25 Archidocese from 1960 to the mid '80s? Page 619 1 A. I was not aware of any type of reports being 2 sent at that time. 3 Q. Including what might be characterized as a 4 monthly status report? 5 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object, assumes 6 facts not in evidence. 7 MR. TINKLER: You know, we're not in trial. 8 We don't have to prove our case before we can ask a 9 question. 10 MS. KENNEDY: Well, you know, I don't think 11 it's proper, Mr. Tinkler, to ask questions which misstate 12 the evidence in a deposition or in a trial. 13 MR. BENNETT: There is no evidence here. 14 MR. TINKLER: This is a deposition. 15 MR. BENNETT: We are looking for evidence. 16 We are discovering evidence. That's what this. It's 17 discovery. I am entitled to ask questions that may 18 discover evidence. 19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I don't think it does 20 the witness -- 21 MR. BENNETT: I don't have to -- I don't 22 know what he knows. 23 MR. TINKLER: He asked him if he was aware. 24 He didn't say it's a fact. I mean, this is totally 25 disruptive of the deposition to object for objection's Page 620 1 sake. You're not going to get anywhere in Court with it. 2 When we have evidcence and we ask it at trial, that's 3 different. But we're not at trial. 4 MR. KONRAD: Im going to say something. 5 This deposition is being taken in a number of cases, 6 including Sigler cases against the Archidocese of Santa Fe 7 which were filed either in late '92 or -- late '91 or 8 early '92, and there is an abundance of evidence in the 9 record in those cases. And I think it is -- especially 10 when you're asking an Archbishop about things that 11 happened over 15 years ago. It's very improper and 12 misleading to the witness to mischaracterize the evidence 13 to him. 14 So I think we do have to object to 15 mischaracterizations of the evidence, and I think we've 16 had a whole line of questioning -- probably the last 20 17 minutes has resolved around an incorrect chronology. 18 Sigler left Via Coeli Monastery in early February of '79. 19 He lived at a place called Bethany House in Albuquerque. 20 He worked at St. Therese and then was assigned to St. 21 Therese in the summer of '79 on a permanent basis. That's 22 in the record. There are no facts to the contrary. 23 He did not leave Servants of the Paraclete and 24 be assigned to St. Therese or -- which seems to be the 25 assumption that you have, upon which all of your questions Page 621 1 were based. 2 MR. BENNETT: Well, I know that your 3 recitation of history has got to be the most accurate, but 4 I'm entitled to explore the recollection of this witness, 5 whatever it is. 6 MR. KONRAD: That is not my recollection of 7 history. I wasn't around anymore than you were. But that 8 is the evidence in the record. 9 MR. BENNETT: It doesn't make any 10 difference. 11 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, did you ever know 12 that documents which I will characterize as monthly status 13 reports were received by the Archbishop's office from the 14 period of 1960 to the mid '80s from therapists of priests? 15 A. I am unaware of any monthly status reports, 16 having been submitted to the Archidocese during this time 17 that we are discussing. I know nothing of the '60s, and I 18 recall that there were no status reports in the '70s, as 19 well. 20 Q. And does your answer include such status reports 21 from the Servants of the Paraclete? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So according to this record, Jason Sigler was 24 assigned as an associate pastor of St. Therese Parish 25 effective July 1, 1979; isn't that right? Page 622 1 A. Yes, sir. 2 Q. But your date of the letter is July 30, 1979. 3 Does that mean that he had been an associate pastor at St. 4 Therese Parish for 30 days before you granted faculties? 5 A. No, sir. If there's a discrepancy in the date -- 6 I don't recall how the letter reads. I may have -- thank 7 you. 8 Yes, the assignment was effective July 1, 1979. I 9 would have given oral, verbal faculties to Father Sigler 10 and permission to Father Hunt to receive him effective 11 July 1. It was simply my own negligence in getting a 12 formal letter written at a later date. 13 This frequently happened with different assignments. 14 Oftentimes in a letter, I will include, "Excuse me for 15 being tardy in getting a formal letter to you." But the 16 assignment goes through with the decision. 17 Q. Are you certain that happened in this case? 18 A. It does not state it, but I am certain that he 19 would not have been made effective July 1, unless I had 20 written or given him, rather, oral permission to be there 21 by July 1. 22 Q. Do you know for a fact, one way or another, what 23 happened? 24 A. Sir, I don't recall one way or another, but I 25 know that no man can become a full-time associate pastor Page 623 1 without the explicit permission of the bishop of that 2 diocese. 3 Q. How long after granting Jason Sigler permission 4 to be a full-time pastor at St. Therese Parish did it come 5 to your attention that he had molested young boys there? 6 A. It must have been -- well, the documents that 7 you have indicate it accurately, but it was in 1981, which 8 would have been approximately a year and six, seven months 9 or whatever it is. 10 Q. Let me show you document 12-HH, which is a 11 letter dated March 23, 1981, to George Bernard Cardinal 12 Flahiff, Archbishop of Winnipeg, signed by Reverend D.J. 13 Starkey and ask if that refreshes your memory on this 14 question? 15 A. Okay. Date: March 23rd. 16 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to the 17 time? 18 A. Yes, sir. 19 Q. And what recollection was refreshed? 20 A. That apparently in the month of March of 1981, 21 Father Jason Sigler was removed from St. Therese Parish, 22 sent to the Servants of the Paraclete and would not be 23 allowed to continue ministry in the Archidocese and that 24 notice, then, was directed to the chancellor to be 25 communicated to the Archbishop Flahiff, so that he might Page 624 1 have knowledge of that. 2 Q. And my next question is, given this letter and 3 the date that you feel Father Sigler was returned to the 4 Servants of the Paraclete in March of 1981, when do you 5 think the report was made to you or you learned that he 6 had sexually molested boys in the St. Therese Parish? 7 A. It says by Father Starkey, "a few days ago." 8 The report must have come in perhaps within a week of that 9 time, because the action was taken immediately upon 10 receipt of knowledge. The pastor received information in 11 preparing for a wedding, it seems this way, and he 12 immediately called me and met with me and with Father 13 Sigler that same day that he called. 14 Father Sigler admitted the allegation, and I asked 15 him to be packed and gone by the next morning from the 16 parish, that he would not have permission to celebrate 17 Mass for the community at all and needed to return to the 18 Servants of the Paraclete immediately. 19 So I would imagine that from the time of the 20 allegation to the time that this letter was written, no 21 more than a week had transpired. 22 Q. And I believe you testified that you learned 23 that, in your recollection, four to five boys had been 24 sexually molested by Jason Sigler while at St. Therese 25 Parish? Page 625 1 A. I learned this from the testimony given by 2 Father Ted Hunt in his deposition. I did not recall what 3 had actually occurred. But his deposition was able to 4 bring back to memory some general lines of the procedure 5 that had taken place at that time. 6 He indicated that we had spoken about -- after we had 7 confronted Father, that we had spoken together about the 8 incident and that I had said to him, "Find out if there 9 are any other victims." I would not have had any reason 10 to say that to him unless he had said something in our 11 discussion regarding that possibility. And the reason I 12 state that is because Father Hunt had completed studies in 13 sexual abuse and was familiar with the knowledge that was 14 available at that time and may have suggested to me that 15 possibility. 16 And I then directed him, "Well, then find out if 17 there are any other victims or possible victims that may 18 be there." 19 Q. And you did find that out? 20 A. Father Hunt testified that, in his deposition, 21 that he, in fact, did receive a list of four or five 22 names -- I don't recall -- from Father Sigler and that he 23 made it a point, then, to personally visit those families 24 to see what the situation really was. 25 Q. And he told you that there were other victims at Page 626 1 that time? 2 A. Who told me? 3 Q. Father Hunt. 4 A. Father Hunt informed me that he had a list, that 5 Father Sigler had given him some names, and that he had 6 made a list of these names, and that he was going to visit 7 each one of those families personally. 8 Q. And I believe you testified yesterday that in 9 your best recollection that list contained the names of 10 four or five boys that Father Sigler had molested? 11 A. That is what I understand from the deposition of 12 Father Hunt. 13 Q. Is that what you understand from your memory? 14 A. My memory is very vague on those details, and I 15 could not personally testify that that is my recollection. 16 But that information was before me upon reading of the 17 deposition of Father Hunt. 18 Q. Do you recall now, as we sit here today, Father 19 Hunt telling you there were other victims? 20 A. No, I do not recall Father Hunt telling me that 21 there were other victims. 22 Q. Do you have any reason to doubt that Father 23 Hunt's deposition testimony that there were other victims 24 of Father Sigler at St. Therese Parish was false? 25 A. I have no reason to doubt the testimony of Page 627 1 Father Hunt. I would have to assume that what testimony 2 he gave was from his recollection, and I would have to 3 assume the recollection was accurate. 4 Q. And would you also assume that if that 5 recollection was accurate and you were told about other 6 victims, then you would also have known in 1981 that 7 Father Sigler had molested other boys at St. Therese 8 Parish? 9 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, requests 10 speculation from the witness. 11 A. Father Hunt, if he, in fact, had told me that he 12 had these names of these boys -- and this is what he 13 testified to -- that there had been other possible 14 victims, and that he was going to interview the families, 15 then I would have had that information at that time, if 16 that, in fact, had occurred. 17 Q. You have no reason to believe that that didn't 18 occur, did you? 19 A. I have no recollection of it, but I feel that I 20 should trust the testimony of Father Hunt. 21 Q. What were the details of the sexual molestation 22 that came to your attention at that time? 23 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Are we talking about the -- 24 MR. BENNETT: Talking about the physical 25 sexual acts that were performed on these young boys, the Page 628 1 ones you know about. 2 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Which young boys? The 3 ones that Father Hunt first brought to the Archbishop or 4 the ones that Father Hunt found out later? 5 Q. Any of them. You can tell me which is which. 6 A. As I have just mentioned, I do not recall the 7 details of that discussion. I do not recall the details 8 of what actions had actually transpired between Father 9 Jason Sigler and the children, or whoever was named. 10 I would also think that at that time, the language 11 that would have been used would have been a general 12 reference to perhaps sexual molesting, rather than a 13 graphic description which we're accustomed to today. But 14 I do not have any recollection of him describing what had 15 actually transpired. 16 Q. Did you feel it was pretty serious, whatever it 17 was? 18 A. It must have been serious enough for me, because 19 I took immediate action that night upon hearing this and 20 upon hearing the confession -- by confession, I mean that 21 he admitted to the allegation -- I told him that he 22 immediately was suspended from the Archidocese. He had no 23 faculties. He could not celebrate Mass the next morning, 24 and he had to leave immediately and return to the Servants 25 of the Paraclete. Page 629 1 MR. BENNETT: We can stop here. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. 3 MR. GOFFE: The time is 11:37. We will go 4 off the record to change tapes. This is the end of tape 9 5 in the deposition of Archbishop Sanchez. 6 [A recess was taken.] 7 MR. GOFFE: The time is 11:45, and we are 8 back on the record with the beginning of tape number 10 in 9 the deposition of Archbishop Sanchez. 10 MR. BENNETT: At this time, I would like to 11 request of the defense a copy of Father Ted Hunt's 12 deposition transcript. That's now relevant in these 13 proceedings, because the Archbishop has referred to that 14 transcript as, in part, that he's relying on to 15 reconstruct his testimony -- or his memory concerning his 16 testimony, and this document has been withheld from us by 17 the defense in a discovery request that we had made. We 18 have filed a motion to compel with the Court. I feel this 19 document is now relevant. 20 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Are you addressing that 21 to me, Mr. Bennett? 22 MR. BENNETT: No, I'm addressing it to the 23 young lady sitting behind you. 24 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Because there are many 25 Defendants in this case. You've sued a passle of people. Page 630 1 MR. BENNETT: And I would now request that 2 if you have it, you now tender that document to me, so I 3 can properly question the Archbishop, and it will save 4 time and further inquiry in the future. 5 MS. KENNEDY: First of all, Mr. Bennett, I 6 do not have it with me. Second of all, perhaps you are 7 unaware, but I think you might be aware, of the fact that 8 there is a six-page Court order, which by its terms 9 prohibits me or any other party from releasing any 10 deposition testimony or any discovery documents absent 11 Court order. 12 You, sir, to my knowledge have not attempted to 13 have that order lifted; and in the absence of the lifting 14 of that order, I am bound by it. 15 MR. BENNETT: The objection that you have 16 given us in our cases in which we filed the discovery 17 request was that this sort of document was not relevant. 18 MS. KENNEDY: Well, certainly -- 19 MR. BENNETT: And I believe that it is now 20 relevant, and there are no grounds for withholding it. 21 MS. KENNEDY: Well, I don't have it with me 22 here. We're clearly not in my office. 23 MR. BENNETT: All right. 24 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, I'm going to show 25 you now -- Page 631 1 MS. KENNEDY: And just for the record is 2 straight, I'm not waiving any of the other objections we 3 have. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that there 4 is a pending Court order. 5 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) I'm going to refer you now to 6 Exhibit 12-FF, which we've talked about briefly before, 7 the letter dated February 21, 1979, to you, signed by 8 Father Gregory McCormick, House Director of the Servants 9 of the Paraclete, and I want to direct your attention to 10 the second paragraph of that letter which indicates that 11 Father McCormick had lived with Jason Sigler several times 12 over the previous five years; do you see that sentence? 13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Let us review the 14 document for a moment -- 15 MR. BENNETT: Certainly. 16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: -- Mr. Tinkler, if you 17 don't mind. Thank you. 18 MR. BENNETT: I'm not Mr. Tinkler. 19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, I'm sorry. 20 I apologize once again. I've got a bad block, you're 21 right, Archbishop. I apologize to you, Mr. Bennett. 22 A. Excuse me, what is the question about the 23 letter? 24 Q. The question is, have you found that sentence 25 that makes reference to the fact that Father McNamara had Page 632 1 lived with Jason Sigler on several occasions over the past 2 previous five years? 3 A. Just a correction for the report. It was not 4 Father McNamara, but Father Gregory McCormick. 5 Q. Excuse me, Father McCormick. 6 A. Yes, in his letter of the second paragraph, he 7 says that, "Having lived with him at many months at 8 various times during the past five years," etc., etc. 9 I don't know to what he is referring. Obviously, 10 Father was sent to the Servants of the Paraclete in 1978. 11 I would have to see if it was Spring or what month that 12 was in which he was sent there. I believe it was sometime 13 in the Spring, maybe March of '78, and was there until at 14 least October, November, December, sometime in there, and 15 actually later, because his appointment takes place the 16 following July. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 634 1 2 3 4 5 6 A. Sir, if I can respond? 7 Q. Yes, please. 8 A. Okay. That phrase did not catch my eye. But if 9 we want to discuss it, I'd be happy to let you know why I 10 don't think it's an accurate statement on his part, "for 11 the last five years." 12 In September of '74, Father Jason Sigler left the 13 Archidocese of Santa Fe. He was returning to care for his 14 ill parents in Michigan. He was gone until '76. Upon his 15 return in '76, he had asked for an assignment in the 16 Archidocese. We've discussed it. He was assigned to a 17 parish in Las Vegas, New Mexico, where he remained until 18 1978. 19 So for those four, four and a half years, he was not 20 with the Servants of the Paraclete in any way. So I'm not 21 certain how accurate that statement is by Father Gregory 22 McCormick. It just -- it seems to not have the time 23 element for him. And even in 1974, those first months, 24 before I became the Archbishop, Father Sigler, it appears, 25 was administrator at Fort Sumner in New Mexico, and so was Page 635 1 not with the Servants of the Paraclete. So I just don't 2 understand that phrase that he used in his letter. 3 Q. So in -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- 4 A. Surely. 5 Q. -- in February of 1979, therefore, you did not 6 call Father McCormick and make inquiry as to what he 7 meant? 8 A. No. That wasn't the main thrust of the letter 9 that I saw. The main thrust was these other statements 10 that he was making. I had not requested any letter from 11 Father McCormick. Why he chose to right the letter, that 12 was fine. But he was not the superior of a program; 13 Father McNamara was. But he wrote it on behalf of Father 14 Jason Sigler, apparently. 15 Q. And my question is: Did you call Father 16 McCormick to find out what he meant by that sentence? 17 A. No, sir. 18 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 19 answered. 20 A. I do not recall calling Father McCormick about 21 that sentence or about the letter. 22 Q. Thank you. 23 A. No, I'm sorry. 24 Q. That's all right. 25 MR. KONRAD: Did you read the personnel Page 636 1 files? 2 Q. Mr. Konrad has offered a question to you, 3 Archbishop. At that time, in February of 1979, did you 4 review Jason Sigler's personnel file at the Archidocese 5 office? 6 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 7 answered. 8 A. No, sir, I didn't. 9 MR. BENNETT: And Ms. Kennedy, again, you 10 have a continuing objection, okay? So you don't need to 11 interrupt the Archbishop. Go ahead, Archbishop. 12 A. No, sir, I do not recall reviewing that. 13 Q. The letter, 12-HH, the letter to the Archbishop 14 of Winnipeg from Chancellor Starkey, did you direct 15 Chancellor Starkey to write that letter? 16 A. I directed him to inform the Archbishop of 17 Father Jason Sigler, who was the Cardinal Flahiff, that 18 Father Jason Sigler had been sent to the Servants of the 19 Paraclete and that his ministry in the Archidocese of 20 Santa Fe was terminated. 21 Q. And Exhibit 12 -- actually, it's pages 12-II and 22 JJ of Exhibit 12 is a letter dated April 2nd, 1981, from 23 the Archbishop of Winnipeg, addressed to you. Do you 24 recall receiving that letter after that date? 25 MS. BURTRAM: Mr. Bennett, I'm sorry, what Page 637 1 was the date? 2 MR. BENNETT: April the 2nd, 1981. 3 THE WITNESS: '81. 4 MS. BURTRAM: Thank you. 5 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Have you reviewed that letter? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Do you recall receiving it? 8 A. I don't recall receiving it, but I did receive 9 it. He had sent it to me. 10 Q. And in that letter, he refers to similar 11 problems Jason Sigler had in the Archidocese of Lansing; 12 isn't that right? 13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: That misstates the 14 letter. 15 A. I don't think he mentions anything in reference 16 to Lansing. It refers to "'the same trouble' as on a 17 previous occasion when Father Sigler had gone to Via 18 Coeli." 19 Q. At that time, were you aware that Father Sigler 20 had gone to Via Coeli at the Servants of the Paraclete on 21 a previous occasion, other than 1978? 22 A. I was not aware of it until that occasion. 23 Q. Until you received this letter? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And at that time, did you review Jason Sigler's Page 638 1 personnel file at your Archidocese offices? 2 A. I do not recall reviewing the personnel file, 3 but this letter brought to my attention that Father Jason 4 Sigler had apparently been at Via Coeli previously with 5 this type of allegation for which he was sent there in 6 April of 1981. 7 Q. So you learned through a letter from the 8 Archidocese of Winnipeg, the Archbishop there, in April of 9 1981, that Jason Sigler had been to the Servants of the 10 Paraclete on a prior occasion for molesting children? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. Did you make any inquiry of anyone at that time 13 to determine when and where Jason Sigler had molested 14 children on a prior occasion? 15 A. I do not recall making any direct inquiries. I 16 think my concern at that time was that Jason Sigler had, 17 in fact, abused children at St. Therese Parish in 18 Albuquerque. Our confrontation was in reference to that 19 incident. My concern was that he return to the Servants 20 of the Paraclete and that he be properly informed, and his 21 superior, as well, that he would never again have ministry 22 in the Archidocese of Santa Fe. To remove the perpetrator 23 of the crime was uppermost in my mind. 24 Q. And you also knew that he had done it before, 25 but you didn't know when or where? Page 639 1 A. I did not know when or where. The reference was 2 couched in the language of Archbishop Flahiff. I think my 3 whole focus and my emotion at that time was wrapped up in 4 having discovered this terrible offense against children 5 and having to remove this man and tell him that he would 6 never again minister in our Archidocese and to inform his 7 ordinary, his bishop, of the same news. 8 Q. But you also knew in April of 1981 that this was 9 not an isolated incident, that he had a history of this 10 type of conduct? 11 A. The Archbishop is referring to some other 12 occasion, yes. 13 Q. And that came to your knowledge in April of 14 1981? 15 A. In this letter. 16 Q. And knowing that Jason Sigler had a history of 17 molesting children, why did you not pull out his personnel 18 file and look at it? 19 A. I simply did not have any interest in Jason 20 Sigler at that time. I felt that I had done what was 21 necessary to remove him from any potential offense against 22 other children; and the situation, in my mind, was closed 23 as far as the Archidocese was concerned. He would never 24 have an opportunity to serve there again, and that action 25 was taken quickly and decisively, and I felt that was the Page 640 1 best thing that I could do. 2 Q. And in April of 1981, knowing that Jason Sigler 3 had a history of molesting children, why did you not go 4 back to each of the parishes in the Archidocese of 5 Santa Fe in which he had served as a parish priest and 6 alert the parishioners that he was a child molester with a 7 history of child abuse? 8 A. Sir, as I testified yesterday to similar 9 questions, this was not a practice in the Archidocese of 10 Santa Fe or in the Church. It was not something that we 11 were familiar with about multiple types of victims that a 12 person may have. I did not feel -- was not aware that it 13 would be wise to be able to return to wherever the man had 14 served and make any public announcements. I believe 15 yesterday I gave reasons for that, and I stand by that. 16 Q. And yet you had told Father Ted Hunt to inquire, 17 to get a list of the children that Jason Sigler had 18 molested at St. Therese Parish and make inquiry among the 19 parishioners involved to determine whether or not such had 20 occurred; isn't that right? 21 A. The truth of the matter is that Father Hunt and 22 I discussed the incident; and as a result of the 23 discussion, it was decided to be a prudent thing or a wise 24 thing to do to ask Father Sigler if there were, in fact, 25 any other children involved. Page 641 1 Q. Why? 2 A. I think Father Hunt must have instructed me 3 about that, because he himself was, as I said, a man who 4 had gone through studies in psychology and had been 5 informed about, as much as possible about these cases. He 6 then questioned Father Sigler, as I understand it, the 7 following day. 8 Q. Why was it important to locate other children 9 that he might have abused at St. Therese Parish? 10 A. So that Father Hunt, as pastor, would be able to 11 go and visit with any person of that nature who had 12 possibly -- any child who may have possibly been offended, 13 to visit with their parents to show the concern of the 14 Church, which we have always had for children, and to be 15 able to help them in any way if, in fact, they had been 16 violated. 17 Q. And to help those children who had been 18 molested; isn't that right? 19 A. Of course. That's the help that I'm talking 20 about. 21 Q. If that was your concern, to help children that 22 Father Sigler had molested in the parish of St. Therese, 23 why did that concern not extend to children that he may 24 have molested in parishes at which he had served 25 previously? Page 642 1 A. Apparently -- and I use that word, 2 "apparently" -- the difference in my mind was the fact 3 that we had names given to us by Father Jason Sigler which 4 was tantamount to potential allegations so that Father 5 could talk to these parents discreetly and yet openly with 6 the parents in their homes to speak to them about this. 7 And in other cases, I had heard no -- of no other 8 allegations against Father Sigler from any parish through 9 the years that he had served with us, and even during the 10 years when he was absent from the Archidocese. Nothing 11 had come to our attention. 12 Q. But you asked Father Sigler to give you names? 13 A. I did not ask Father Sigler to give us names. 14 Father Hunt, the pastor, asked Father Sigler for names. 15 Q. With your blessing? 16 A. If there were any. Yes, with my blessing. We 17 had discussed it. 18 Q. And with your blessing, why did you not 19 institute an inquiry or ask Jason Sigler who he may have 20 molested in other parishes? 21 MS. KENNEDY: Same objection. 22 A. I simply did not ask Father Sigler if there had 23 been any other potential victims, because I had never 24 heard of any other potential victims. It did not occur to 25 me to ask him this. I had asked Father Hunt to speak with Page 643 1 him. He gave him names of St. Therese. He didn't give 2 him names from any other place. If Father Sigler was 3 concerned about the children, if he felt that he wanted to 4 help them, he could have volunteered that information to 5 Father Hunt. 6 Q. Father Sigler raped them. Why would you think 7 that Father Sigler would want to help them? 8 MR. KONRAD: Object to the form of the 9 question. I don't think the evidence is that he raped any 10 Plaintiff. 11 MR. TINKLER: I disagree. You can't give 12 your consent when you're eight years old. 13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Excuse me one moment, 14 Archbishop, before you answer, Mr. Tinkler, not Mr 15 Bennett, Mr. Tinkler, the Archbishop is trying to answer a 16 question here. The objection was made, and you continue 17 with some sub rosa sort of comments to other counsel. If 18 you'd like to hear the Archbishop's response, then we 19 would appreciate it, on our behalf, the courtesy of 20 remaining silent, so that he may concentrate on the 21 question and the answer. He has to wait for the 22 objections and then perhaps answer the questions. But as 23 I've suggested, your sub rosa comments to those objections 24 interrupt his chain of thought and, I might add, mine, as 25 well. Thank you. Page 644 1 MR. TINKLER: Would you rather them be at a 2 higher level? 3 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Go ahead, Archbishop, 4 you can answer, unless you'd like the question repeated. 5 THE WITNESS: I think I better get the 6 question again. I apologize, unless you remember it. 7 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) You extended a 8 consideration -- because you knew from Father Hunt that 9 this was an appropriate and reasonable and prudent thing 10 to do, you extended a consideration to other children in 11 the parish of St. Therese that Jason Sigler may have 12 molested; is that a fair statement? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Why did you not extend that same consideration 15 to the children of -- in other parishes within which Jason 16 Sigler had served for a period of time to determine 17 whether or not they had been molested and to provide them 18 with help and support? 19 MS. KENNEDY: Same objection. 20 A. Sir, as I have repeatedly replied to similar 21 questions, that type of practice simply was not familiar 22 to us. The issue with St. Therese, as you have accurately 23 stated it, was to inquire from the parents whose names, in 24 fact, had been stated by Father Jason Sigler. 25 It occurs to me that if Father Sigler had said, "No, Page 645 1 there were no other victims," I'm not certain at this 2 point what we would have done. 3 Q. But you don't know what he would have said; you 4 didn't ask him? 5 A. No. We asked him about if there were additional 6 victims there in St. Therese, and he replied. If Father 7 Sigler were concerned about these additional children, it 8 would seem to me that he would also have been concerned 9 about any other additional children that may have been 10 victimized. 11 Q. And if you were concerned about other children 12 who may have been victimized, it would seem to me that you 13 would have asked Father Sigler who they might be? 14 A. I was concerned at that time, sir, about the 15 parish -- 16 MS. KENNEDY: Same objection. 17 A. -- about the children in the parish in which he 18 was working, had worked for nearly two years. It simply 19 did not occur to me to question him about other 20 assigments. 21 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: It's past 12:00, Mr. 22 Bennett. Can we break now? 23 MR. BENNETT: We can break now. 24 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Thank you. 25 MR. GOFFE: The time is 12:11. We will go Page 646 1 off the record. 2 [The noon recess was taken.] 3 MR. GOFFE: The time is 1:21. We are back 4 on the record. 5 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Good afternoon, Archbishop. 6 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Bennett. 7 Q. Archbishop, we've been discussing the 8 disposition of Father Jason Sigler in 1981, and I want to 9 now show you Exhibit 12-KK, which is a letter dated August 10 3, 1981, addressed to you and signed by Father Joseph 11 McNamara, Servant General of the Servants of the 12 Paraclete, and ask if you recall that letter. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. Have you had an opportunity to review that 15 letter, Archbishop? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. And do you recall receiving that shortly after 18 August 3rd, 1981? 19 A. Again, I don't have an active memory of it, but 20 it did arrive. It was addressed to me. 21 Q. Now, there's a notation down in the lower 22 right-hand corner that indicates, "Answered, appt.," which 23 I assume means appointment, "August 24." Do you see that? 24 A. Yes, right. 25 Q. Do you know whose handwriting that is? Page 647 1 A. I think that's my secretary, that this must have 2 been answered, and an appointment was established for 3 August 24th, is what I think she's putting down. 4 Q. And there is a note, a typewritten note, at the 5 bottom of the letter? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With the initials at the end of that note, 8 "RFS." Can you please tell me who placed that note on the 9 letter? 10 A. That note was placed by my secretary at my 11 dictation, and the "RFS" refers to me, Robert F. Sanchez. 12 Q. And so this meeting did take place on August 24, 13 1981, between yourself, Dr. Feierman and Father McNamara? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was anyone else present? 16 A. Not that I can recall. 17 Q. Was Jason Sigler present? 18 A. I don't believe so; otherwise, it would have 19 been included in the note, notation. 20 Q. What about Father Clarence Galli? 21 A. No one else but the three mentioned. 22 Q. And what was discussed at that meeting, to your 23 best recollection? 24 A. The letter that was originally sent to me, the 25 contents of that letter. They had asked, I believe, to Page 648 1 meet with me so that Dr. Feierman would make some decision 2 about Father Sigler's immediate future. Dr. Feierman was 3 the therapist, apparently, for Father Sigler; and they 4 wanted to know whether to enroll him in the next module at 5 the Albuquerque Villa or to put him on strong medicine. 6 And he wanted also to know whether there would be any 7 possible future for Father Jason in the Archidocese of 8 Santa Fe and whether we would be willing to help 9 financially for his support at the Albuquerque VillA. 10 Those three points. 11 The memo that I placed down at the end of that letter 12 was that I, in fact, did meet with Dr. Feierman and Father 13 McNamara, and I agreed to have them place Father Jason at 14 the Albuquerque Villa for their program, which was to 15 begin in January, and that the Archidocese would probably 16 help to some financial agreement. I had no idea what the 17 cost may be, so no figures were placed here. 18 But I also made it clear, in answer to Dr. Feierman's 19 request, I made it clear that Father Jason Sigler would 20 not be acceptable for ministry in the Archidocese. 21 So I believe the questions that they were seeking to 22 be answered were, in fact, answered for them. 23 Q. Now, what was the purpose of sending Jason 24 Sigler to the Albuquerque Villa, and why was your approval 25 needed? Page 649 1 A. They wanted to know, first of all, whether I had 2 any hopes or intentions of allowing him to minister in the 3 Archidocese, since he had been; and I had to make it clear 4 to them that I would not. 5 Secondly, they wanted to know whether I would help 6 finance anything if they placed him in the Villa in the 7 module, if the Archidocese may be willing to pick up part 8 of the cost. I told them that I would consider that an 9 act of the kindness towards Father Sigler, inasmuch as he 10 had served there for some time. But there was going to be 11 no future for him in the Archidocese of Santa Fe. 12 Q. And so there was no discussion of sending him to 13 the Albuquerque Villa to see how he might progress in the 14 future and then make another determination in the future 15 whether or not he would return? 16 A. No. As far as I was concerned, that 17 relationship to myself had ceased, and he was now in 18 the -- well, he had been under the authority of his own 19 archbishop, not myself. 20 Q. And why did you decide to terminate the 21 relationship with Father Sigler at that time? 22 A. Because of the incident that had occurred 23 earlier that Spring at St. Therese Parish in Albuquerque. 24 Q. Was it also, in part, because you knew that he 25 had done it before, as you had found out from the Page 650 1 Archbishop of Winnipeg? 2 A. I don't recall if that was part of my conscious 3 decision. I just knew that when I had terminated him at 4 St. Therese, I had done so firmly, and I believe my mind 5 was made up that since he was not a priest incardinated in 6 the Archidocese of Santa Fe, I did not have that 7 responsibility or continuing responsibility toward him. 8 Q. Was it another possible reason that you didn't 9 want to continue the relationship with Jason Sigler was 10 because of the nature of his sexual misconduct at St. 11 Therese Parish? 12 A. That's speculative, but it could have been. I 13 know that I am hurt deeply when offenses of this nature 14 occur. That may have been part of the reason. But again, 15 as I state, dealing with Father Jason Sigler and dealing 16 with the personnel board of our Archidocese, there would 17 have been no chance for him to become a member of the 18 diocese once again. He had been with us, and now his time 19 with us had ended. 20 Q. Was this matter referred to the personnel board 21 at that time? 22 A. No, the decision was made by myself. But if I 23 were going to allow him to even be considered, then I 24 would have referred to the personnel board, and they would 25 have had to make a decision, and I'm certain that their Page 651 1 decision would have been negative, as well. 2 Q. And prior to having this meeting with Dr. 3 Feierman and Father McNamara, did you pull out Father 4 Sigler's personnel file and review it? 5 A. I do not recall doing that. 6 Q. The next letter in the personnel file is Exhibit 7 12-LL which is a letter addressed to you signed by Jason 8 Sigler. Let me ask if you recall receiving that? 9 MS. BURTRAM: Do you have a date, Mr. 10 Bennett? 11 MR. BENNETT: Yes. 12 THE WITNESS: It's January 14th, 1982. 13 MS. BURTRAM: Thank you. 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. Did you receive that shortly after it was 16 written? 17 A. I assume I did. I have no active memory of 18 receiving it, but it was addressed to me, and I'm sure I 19 received it. 20 Q. And in this letter, Jason Sigler states that he 21 has decided to leave the active ministry. And let me show 22 you what's been marked as 12-MM. It's a letter on the 23 Archidocese of Santa Fe letterhead dated January 26th, 24 1982, addressed to Reverend Jason Sigler at the Servants 25 of the Paraclete, and the signature block is yours. Let Page 652 1 me ask if you did, in fact, send that letter to Jason 2 Sigler on that date? 3 A. It was my response to his letter dated the 14th 4 of January. 5 Q. And you did sign the original, I assume? 6 A. Oh, yes. 7 Q. And sent it to Jason Sigler? 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. In this letter, you make the statement, "I have 10 judged you to be a very sincere person." Why did you make 11 that statement? 12 A. Apparently from his dealings with me, 13 conversations, he always seemed to have a very sincere 14 approach to whatever he would talk about, and I felt that 15 he had been a sincere type of individual that I had known 16 during this period of time. I think that's an expression 17 we can use to friends. This would be my last letter to 18 him. It was an expression of gratitude on behalf of 19 people that he had served and contained that comment from 20 me, as well. 21 Q. Was Jason Sigler your friend? 22 A. He was not my friend, no, sir. 23 Q. You later state in the letter, "You are a good 24 man." Why did you say that to Father Jason Sigler, who 25 had molested children at St. Therese Parish? Page 653 1 A. I think that, sir, when a person retains within 2 themselves the goodness of the Lord, even though we have 3 failed -- and I have said to countless people that they 4 are good people, when they have come to me with their own 5 personal shortcomings and failings -- I have to try to 6 reaffirm them in the basic goodness that is there, so they 7 can begin to rebuild their life on that goodness. 8 Q. And you go on to say, "I am grateful to you for 9 your eight years of service in the Archidocese of 10 Santa Fe." 11 How could you be grateful to Jason Sigler for the 12 abuse of children at St. Therese Parish? 13 A. I was not grateful for the abuse of children. I 14 was not grateful for any other mistakes that he may have 15 made in insulting people, but I had to speak on behalf of 16 those individuals whom he did serve properly and had 17 received help at his hands, and this is the type of letter 18 I normally write to people when they are either retiring 19 from the ministry or leaving the diocese to express, on 20 behalf of the people whom they have served, words of 21 gratitude. 22 Q. Did you conduct any type of survey or 23 investigation of the people Jason Sigler had served within 24 the diocese to determine whether or not they were grateful 25 for his service? Page 654 1 A. No, sir. I did not conduct any type of survey 2 from the people of the Archidocese. 3 Q. Was this an assumption you made on your part? 4 A. It was an assumption on my part that I felt I 5 had the basis of the fact that he had served people 6 throughout New Mexico, the Archidocese of Santa Fe, and 7 that there were people there who must have been grateful 8 for that ministry. 9 Q. But you didn't know any specific people who were 10 grateful? 11 A. Sir, just the very celebration of the Eucharist 12 in our communities on a daily basis is a service to 13 people, and people are grateful for that very special 14 opportunity to attend Mass on a daily basis. I think my 15 assumption that people were grateful for that was correct. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) I'm asking for policy of the 24 Archidocese of Santa Fe. 25 A. There's no policy in courtesy. I think common Page 655 1 courtesy to people is one thing. Policy is something 2 else. This was a letter in reply to his informing me that 3 he had now decided to leave the priesthood totally and 4 change his own career, his life direction. And I replied 5 to his letter of information with my own words of 6 affirmation, of encouragement for his future, that it 7 might be a half descent future for him. 8 Q. Well, I can understand encouraging his future. 9 But my question to you, do you think it was reasonable and 10 prudent to be grateful for his service in view of the fact 11 that he had sexually molested children at one of your 12 parishes? 13 A. That is your opinion about being grateful. 14 Perhaps I am too good in that area of showing people 15 gratitude for things that they do. I think that anyone 16 who serves people in public positions are appreciated, 17 even though they may not be perfect in that service. 18 Q. And even though they may sexually molest 19 children while in that service? 20 A. I did not include that as part of my example. 21 Q. I included it as part of my question. 22 A. I realize that his offense was a serious offense 23 against children. In my own letter of farewell to him, I 24 was saying, "Thank you for the positive things you have 25 done." I did not include a condemnation for any negative Page 656 1 things that he was guilty of. 2 Q. But you had conducted no investigation 3 concerning -- or a survey concerning whether or not the 4 positive outweighed the negative, did you? 5 MS. KENNEDY: Same objection. 6 A. Sir, no, I did not conduct any investigation. A 7 person who is head of a large group of people such as a 8 diocese, or even the President when he speaks on behalf of 9 the nation, saying, "The nation certainly joins with me in 10 thanking you for your service to us," that's a general 11 statement without conducting an investigation, and that 12 was just an expression of courtesy. 13 Q. Do you know of any archidocese anywhere in the 14 world that has a policy of expressing gratitude to priests 15 who have molested children? 16 A. I do not know of any archidocese anywhere in the 17 world that has a policy of expressing gratitude to priests 18 who have molested children. 19 Q. Let me show you the last document in Jason 20 Sigler's personnel file, which is 12-OO. It's a 21 handwritten letter addressed to you, dated March 11, 1982, 22 signed by Jason Sigler. Do you recall receiving that 23 letter? 24 A. Once again, I do not have an active memory of 25 receiving it, but it was addressed to me, and I did Page 657 1 receive it. 2 Q. And Jason Sigler refers to a friendship between 3 him and you in this letter. Is he incorrect when he uses 4 that term? 5 A. I think he is using the term in a generic way. 6 The fact that we were not enemies was the fact that, then, 7 we were friends. But there was no special friendship or 8 relationship between us in any way. 9 Q. Archbishop Sanchez, at the time that you sent 10 the January 26th, 1982, letter to Jason Sigler expressing 11 your gratitude for his eight years of service and thanking 12 him for his ministry in the Archidocese, did you, on or 13 about that time or at any time after he molested children 14 at St. Therese Parish, send any letters of support and 15 comfort to the parents of the children whom he had 16 molested at that parish? 17 A. No, sir. I do not recall having done anything 18 of that nature. 19 Q. Did you ever meet with those parents personally? 20 A. I do not recall any special meeting with the 21 parents. 22 Q. Why not? 23 A. No meeting was requested of me. Without that 24 incentive, it did not occur to me that a meeting was 25 necessary or needed to take place. The people who deal Page 658 1 with our parishioners on a daily basis are normally our 2 pastors, the pastors of each parish. They are the 3 representatives of our Church, of the Archidocese, and 4 it's normally their duty to be able to bring comfort to 5 everyone and anyone who seeks that from them in whatever 6 capacity. 7 On very rare occasions, do people come to me directly 8 for that type of personal comfort. If it is requested, I 9 certainly receive them. 10 Q. You mean to tell me if a parent of a child 11 that's been sexually abused by one of your priests doesn't 12 come to you for comfort, you won't give it? 13 A. No, sir, I did not state that. I'm saying that 14 if parents -- parents are free to come to me or to say 15 they'd like to meet with me at any time. I am saying that 16 I did not take any initiative to go out and to meet with 17 the parents of any child who may have been abused by 18 Father Jason Sigler, not because I felt it was not my 19 duty. It was simply not an active thing in my mind. I 20 depend upon my pastors in my parishes to relate directly 21 with their own community, with the people of the parish. 22 Q. What I want to know is why wasn't it an active 23 thing in your mind to rush to these parents whose children 24 had been sexually assaulted by one of your priests? 25 MS. KENNEDY: Same objection. Page 659 1 A. I can't give you a specific reason why it was 2 not an active motivation in my mind to rush to these 3 parents. I did send the pastor to meet with them in my 4 name, and I have no doubt if they had expressed any desire 5 to meet with me, I would have been there personally. 6 Thinking about it, it would have been a nice thing, but it 7 did not occur to me at that time that that was something 8 that I should do. 9 Q. Do you know if psychological support or 10 professional counseling support within or without the 11 Church was offered to those families at that time? 12 A. I believe -- and I'm not accurate in my 13 recollection with the pastor -- but I believe that part of 14 the discussion with Father Hunt was that if the people, or 15 certainly the ones who we knew, needed any type of 16 psychological assistance, that that could be provided by 17 the Church for them. How he may have represented this to 18 the people or what their response was, I don't know. 19 Q. Why don't you know? 20 A. If no report was given to me whether they wanted 21 to have psychological counseling or not, I just don't 22 know. 23 Q. You didn't ever think to follow up on how these 24 families were doing or whether or not they were receiving 25 help? It just didn't occur to you because nobody brought Page 660 1 it to your attention? 2 A. Sir, I may very well have followed up. I'm 3 saying that I do not have an active recollection of having 4 done that. Father Hunt, as I have mentioned before in my 5 testimony, was a person familiar with sexual conduct and -- 6 misconduct, excuse me, and especially in dealing with 7 children. And I would have to assume that what was 8 necessary for the families who were there would have been 9 discussed by him with those families. 10 My presence, if I had gone to them, would certainly 11 have been an affirmation of the Church, but it did not 12 occur to me at that time that I should do that. 13 Q. Do you know to this day whether or not any of 14 those families have received professional psychological 15 assistance? 16 A. I am not certain about that at all, no. 17 Q. Do you know whether or not any monies have been 18 expended by the Archidocese to provide such a service to 19 these families? 20 A. I cannot recall that either. I don't know. 21 Q. Do you think it would be a good policy of the 22 Archidocese of Santa Fe to have a record of such a thing? 23 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, speculation. 24 A. If, in fact, monies were granted for assistance 25 or for -- rather, for psychological assistance, therapy Page 661 1 for the children, there would be some kind of record in 2 the finance department, because the Church has stood ready 3 in the years to be able to assist whenever a need such as 4 this would surface. 5 Q. And would you have to approve such an allocation 6 of funds? 7 A. Most of the time they would be brought to my 8 attention. If they were going to be brought to my 9 attention at all, I would say, yes, that this was sort of 10 a policy that we had. If there is any kind of offense 11 from a priest to an individual, we stood ready to provide 12 counseling for them. 13 Q. And have you ever approved an allocation of 14 money to the families of the children abused by Jason 15 Sigler for psychological counseling? 16 MS. KENNEDY: Same objection. 17 A. I do not recall those families in particular at 18 all, sir. 19 Q. Prior to your appointment as Archbishop in 1974, 20 did you have any knowledge that your name may be submitted 21 for such an appointment? 22 MS. KENNEDY: Objection. 23 A. No, sir. There was rumor about many things, 24 about many individuals being possibly named as our next 25 archbishop, because it became known that Archbishop Davis Page 662 1 had, in fact, submitted his letter of resignation to the 2 Holy Sea and was simply waiting an approval of that letter 3 of resignation. Once that word became known, the priests 4 themselves began to speculate as to who might be named. 5 The naming of an archbishop normally comes from the 6 ranks of a man who has served as bishop for a number of 7 years, because an archbishop is in a position -- not only 8 has administrative responsibilities to his own diocese, 9 but he serves as a Church representative to an area of 10 bishops. In our concern here, the Archbishop of Santa Fe 11 is also, then, the metropolitan leader of the Province of 12 Santa Fe, which includes the Diocese of Phoenix and 13 Tucson, presently Las Cruces and Gallup, those four. 14 When I was named, Las Cruces diocese had not yet come 15 into existence. In its place was a Diocese of El Paso. 16 For this reason, a man who was named archbishop was 17 normally one who had been a bishop in another diocese for 18 a period of time. 19 One name that was mentioned popularly was Bishop 20 Hastrich from the Diocese of Gallup, since it was close to 21 us, and he had served there for several years, was an 22 older man, and we thought perhaps he would be the one who 23 would be selected. So I had no idea that -- or even 24 suspicion that my own name would be so recommended. 25 Q. And who made the appointment? Page 663 1 A. The appointment is made by the Holy Father, 2 himself. 3 Q. The Pope? 4 A. The Pope. 5 Q. And had you met with the Pope at any time prior 6 to your appointment? 7 A. No. The Pope at that time was Pope Paul VI, and 8 I had not been to Rome for 15 years, since my ordination 9 as a priest. And at that time, the Pope was Pope John 10 Paul -- I mean, Pope John XXIII, who had just been elected 11 and installed. I did not know the current Pope at that 12 time. 13 Q. You had mentioned that Archbishop Davis had been 14 having some mental difficulties, for lack of a better 15 word. I don't know if those were your words. 16 A. Not mental difficulties, if I may add. 17 Q. Go ahead. 18 A. It appeared -- and I'd like to underscore that 19 word "it appeared," because I don't want to say that it 20 was a certainty. I had no facts to say it was -- it just 21 appeared that his memory was not as accurate as we thought 22 it might be, especially the immediate memory, during the 23 day. 24 Q. Let me ask you, then, a hypothetical question: 25 If an archbishop of the Archidocese of Santa Fe is Page 664 1 incapacitated to serve or is having difficulties serving 2 or there are questions about his competency, do you know 3 how the Pope is alerted and whether or not the Pope is 4 alerted to this situation? 5 A. If a person is having physical illness and feels 6 that he is being incapacitated significantly, and he is 7 not fulfilling his responsibilities adequately, then that 8 person himself would submit his name. If there are other 9 difficulties, then bishops who meet within the province -- 10 because the meetings occur at least twice a year, and 11 there are frequently other occasions for the bishops to be 12 together -- they, in turn, would be able to speak with 13 that bishop about his apparent incapacity or deficiency 14 and recommend that he would write a letter requesting 15 approval of resignation. 16 Q. Do you know if that occurred in Archbishop 17 Davis' situation? 18 A. I believe -- and I have no support for this, I 19 believe that Archbishop Davis wrote his own letter of 20 resignation, recognizing, again, as I mentioned before, 21 his own deteriorating physical condition, personal 22 exhaustion -- he had been a bishop for some 30 years or 23 so, 35 years -- and the fact that his feet especially were 24 giving him severe problems, I believe that he felt it was 25 time to retire. Page 665 1 Q. After you were appointed -- or along with your 2 appointment as Archbishop, were there any instructions 3 from the Pope on how to conduct your tenure as Archbishop? 4 A. No, sir. There are were no instructions given, 5 no specific instructions given from the Holy Father. The 6 letter of appointment is a very nice letter. It's written 7 out in special writing, and it's written in Latin with 8 words of encouragement and officially appointing you as 9 the whatever number it might be. In my case, it was the 10 10th Archbishop of Santa Fe effective on certain date. 11 Q. Did you have any personal meetings with the Pope 12 at your appointment? 13 A. Not immediately afterwards. One year later, I 14 did present myself to Pope Paul VI on a visit to Rome, and 15 we were able to meet together for about 20 minutes or so. 16 In fact, there was another bishop and myself who met with 17 him at the same time. It was a courtesy visit, and I felt 18 that I needed to simply present myself and let him know 19 whom he had appointed to the Archidocese of Santa Fe. 20 Q. At that time, did you seek or did he give you 21 any advice concerning how to be an archbishop? 22 A. No, sir. It was not a meeting of instruction, 23 but it was a meeting of concern for a specific pastoral 24 ministry. I recall on that meeting with him, he took out 25 a map and asked me to show him what comprised the Page 666 1 Archidocese of Santa Fe in the United States, and I was 2 able to outline the areA. 3 And then he asked -- he was specifically concerned 4 about Native American Catholics in our area and about 5 Catholics who were of Spanish heritage, especially the 6 Spanish-speaking, and I was able to give him some 7 information that I was aware of. And he asked that I make 8 certain I would not neglect ministering to them and give 9 special attention to them, if necessary. And I recall 10 that having occurred at that meeting. 11 Q. Did he have any other concerns or advice for you 12 at that time? 13 A. No, sir, none. 14 Q. Had you ever met with the Pope following that 15 occasion? 16 A. Yes, sir. A bishop of a diocese who is in 17 charge of the diocese -- we call them an ordinary, whether 18 he's an archbishop or a bishop -- he's responsible, in a 19 sense, for that areA. A bishop, then, is responsible to 20 go to Rome every five years; and in advance, we submit a 21 report of the pastoral situation of the Archidocese, how 22 many priests we have, how many women religious, how many 23 men religious, what are the parishes, how many, the number 24 of Catholics, what sacraments have been administered 25 during the past five years. It's a comprehensive report Page 667 1 regarding the pastoral ministry, and we go ahead and do 2 our report, and then we present ourselves to the Holy 3 Father, again, as a courtesy visit. Most of the time we 4 have a chance to be with him privately for about 10 or 15 5 minutes at. 6 Most. On other occasions, he may invite in a group 7 from a region, area, maybe 12 or 15 bishops to meet with 8 him together. So it's not really an opportunity to talk 9 about a specific concern. It's more of a courtesy visit 10 with him and let him know in brief terms what the state of 11 affairs are in your particular diocese. 12 Q. Is this something the Pope expects you to do 13 every approximately five years? 14 A. Yes. It is called the ad limina apostolorum. 15 It's Latin expression, a-d l-i-m-i-n-a and 16 a-p-o-s-t-o-l-o-r-u-m, which means to the portals of the 17 apostles. The bodies of St. Peter and St. Paul both lie 18 in Rome. They're entombed there. And bishops are 19 expected to go to Rome and pray at the portal or the tomb 20 of these two great Christian saints. 21 On the occasion of their going and praying at those 22 two locations, they are then expected to make this report 23 and also to present themselves to the Holy Father. So 24 it's an expected responsibility every five years, and 25 you're obliged to do that unless you're incapacitated Page 668 1 physically and cannot do so. 2 Q. And as part of this report that's submitted to 3 the Pope every five years, does it contain a section 4 wherein you would present any particular or current 5 concerns of the Archidocese? 6 A. In your report -- I think you're referring to 7 clergy, personnel. That's right, you would indicate in 8 the report the number of priests that are currently 9 serving, how many have died since your last report, how 10 many have been ordained since your last report and how 11 many may have left the ministry since your last report. 12 And you indicate those figures on that report so that they 13 can see either the increase in personnel or the decrease 14 in personnel. 15 A. My question is a little more specific. Do you 16 ever or have you ever indicated in these reports to the 17 Pope that there has been a concern of -- or cases of child 18 sexual molestation by priests in your Archidocese? 19 A. I don't recall right offhand if I indicated that 20 specifically in my report. If, in fact, we had had a rash 21 of cases, I probably would have made reference to that. I 22 simply don't recall whether I made any specific reference 23 to this particular case that you're presenting, nor did I 24 make specific reference to other concerns about priests, 25 whether they were having problems with alcohol or whether Page 669 1 they were obedient at all times or were giving indication 2 that they would not be obedient or whether there were 3 significant changes from the sacred liturgy that priests 4 may have been involved in, varying from the guideline of 5 the Church. There would be many concerns that a person 6 could bring up in a report of that nature. I do not 7 recall what specific reports I may have made back then. 8 Q. Certainly it would be something that you could 9 place in that report? 10 A. Yes, yes, surely. It's a comprehensive report. 11 You can include -- I think the challenge is always trying 12 to keep it to a reasonable amount of written report, 13 because you can talk about anything and everything. 14 Q. Do you know when -- what was the date you 15 submitted the last report, the most recent report? 16 A. I would have been obliged to go to Rome this 17 past summer, but I was not the Archbishop at that time. 18 So I did not submit that report nor make that visit. I 19 have to assume -- I have not spoken with him, so I would 20 have to assume that my successor, Archbishop Michael 21 Sheehan, did, in fact, make the ad limina visit to Rome 22 and did submit some kind of report. 23 Q. And that would have been in 1993? 24 A. 1993, excuse me, yes. 25 Q. Would that mean that the report, the next report Page 670 1 prior to that, would have been submitted in 1988? 2 A. 1988, yes. 3 Q. And was such a report submitted them? 4 A. Yes. I traveled to Rome on that occasion and 5 fulfilled my responsibilities. 6 Q. And do you have any present recollection as to 7 whether or not in that report in 1988 you mentioned the 8 fact that there had been at least one occurrence of 9 molestation of children by a priest in your Archidocese? 10 A. I don't recall what I included specifically in 11 that report, Mr. Bennett. It's just -- 12 Q. So the answer would be no, you don't? 13 A. The answer is no, I'm sorry. Right, no 14 recollection. 15 Q. And would the next previous report be the report 16 submitted in 1983? 17 A. '83. 18 Q. And was that report submitted then? 19 A. It was submitted then. 20 Q. And the same question: Was there any mention of 21 sexual molestation of children by priests in that report? 22 A. And repeat the same answer. I simply don't 23 recall what I included in that report. Just too much to 24 recall, I guess. 25 Q. Let's see. That would have been sent or Page 671 1 submitted to the Pope two years after you discovered the 2 molestation of children at St. Therese Parish? 3 A. It would have been 1983, and this occurred in 4 1981, correct. 5 Q. And would the, again, the next prior report have 6 been submitted in 1978? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. And the one prior to that would have been 9 submitted in 1973? 10 A. '73, by my predecessor. 11 Q. That's correct. And do you know if that was 12 submitted in 1973? 13 A. I have no knowledge of it. I have to presume 14 that he did. 15 Q. Have you ever seen it? 16 A. No, I have not seen his report. 17 Q. And where are copies of these reports kept? 18 A. Copies of my reports should be kept at the 19 chancery office. 20 Q. Has it been the policy of the Archidocese or of 21 the Pope for any interim reports to be sent to the Pope in 22 interim years? 23 A. No, sir. I don't recall any requests for 24 interim reports. 25 Q. Have any special reports been sent or any Page 672 1 reports, other than the ones you've described, have been 2 sent to the Pope during your tenure as Archbishop? 3 A. No special report, sir, no. There is occasion 4 to deal with various offices of the Holy SeA. As an 5 example, we have a tribunal that deals with marriages and 6 annulments of marriages; and on occasions, very difficult 7 cases need to be submitted to the tribunal in Rome for 8 their final judgment. So it would be that type of 9 contact. But no reports, as you are considering here. 10 Q. Do you, as a matter of Church policy, report to 11 any other official of the Church who fits in the hierarchy 12 between yourself and the Pope? 13 A. There is the Pope's representative in the United 14 States. He is considered to be, at this time, a 15 pronuncio, officially the representative not only of the 16 Holy Father, but of the Vatican state to our country. He 17 resides in Washington, D.C. 18 If I have need to deal with some affair, some 19 concern, that should be brought to the attention of the 20 Holy Father, I would consult with his representative in 21 Washington and submit it to him for mailing in the 22 diplomatic pouch to Rome. If it's not of urgency, then I 23 would simply send it regular airmail to Rome and let it go 24 through the regular process that way. 25 Q. Do you receive any guidance or instruction from Page 673 1 the pronuncio? 2 A. No, there is no direct guidance given. From 3 time to time, they do submit a document that one of the 4 sacred congregations in Rome might issue and ask to be 5 brought to the attention of all the bishops. For example, 6 a document on, say, the sacrament of confession and 7 guidelines for that, which have been either newly 8 established or they feel need to be brought to the 9 attention of priests once again. On those occasions, he 10 will submit documents to all the bishops in our country 11 for our information. 12 Another such document would be a letter, a formal 13 letter, written by our Holy Father, by the Pope, which is 14 going to be published for the whole world, but as a 15 courtesy, they will send copies of this to every 16 individual bishop in our country, rather than to wait for 17 us to have to go to a publishing company and pick it up 18 that way. That's the type of communication that we 19 normally receive. 20 Q. What about a cardinal; is there -- what is a 21 cardinal? 22 A. A cardinal is normally an archbishop. In the 23 country, all of the cardinals who are active, who are not 24 retired, are archbishops of their own archidocese. They 25 are given the title and the recognition as cardinal as a Page 674 1 special recognition of their outstanding service to the 2 Church and also as a compliment to the large archidocese 3 over which they have been asked to be the archbishop and 4 shepherd. 5 In this nation, traditionally the cardinals have been 6 named to the large metropolitan centers in our country, 7 and the archbishops of those cities are normally named 8 cardinal because of it. The title sort of goes with the 9 position. 10 As an example, Boston will have a cardinal, and they 11 do at this time; New York, Philadelphia, Chicago. St. 12 Louis does not have a cardinal at this time, because the 13 retired cardinal is still living, and Rome does not make 14 the archbishop a cardinal until his predecessor has died, 15 and then they'll grant that honor. 16 In the west, we have only one. Traditionally it's 17 been in the city of Los Angeles, so the Archbishop of Los 18 Angeles has also been granted the title of Cardinal. 19 Q. Do you have any reporting responsibilities to 20 any cardinal? 21 A. No, I do not. An archbishop or a bishop who is 22 the ordinary in his diocese is considered independent to 23 that degree, and he reports directly to the Holy Father, 24 or if the Holy Father so designates, he can deal with the 25 Holy Father's representative on any given issue. But we Page 675 1 don't report on any normal case to cardinals. 2 Now, a cardinal may be designated by the Holy Father 3 to head a certain project or program. In that case, then, 4 we would be obliged to report to him not because he is a 5 cardinal, but because he has been designated the primary 6 agent in that specific project. 7 Q. But with respect to the general affairs of the 8 Archidocese, you would report to and be responsible to the 9 Pope directly? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Has the Pope or any of his agents, if you will, 12 ever given you any guidance on how to handle priests who 13 were accused of sexually molesting children? 14 A. No, sir, no specific guidance, guidelines or 15 directives have come to us from the Holy Sea regarding how 16 to handle priests guilty of sexual molestation. 17 Q. Have you made any requests of the Pope at any 18 time for such guidelines? 19 A. No, sir, I have not. 20 Q. Why not? 21 A. I was not -- I did not feel concerned that I 22 needed additional guidelines. The Code of Canon Law 23 contains guidelines in the general law of the Church; and 24 for any particular concerns, certainly dealing with the 25 spiritual concerns, I would be free to consult with any Page 676 1 other bishop in the country who might have some experience 2 in that areA. 3 But I did not feel that this was an issue that Italy 4 might be able to provide guidance on. Not every area of 5 the country, every area of the world, experiences the same 6 pastoral needs as our experienced in another particular 7 areA. 8 Q. Have you consulted with any other bishop 9 anywhere at any time concerning how to address the concern 10 of priests who are sexually molesting children? 11 A. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops 12 sponsored a workshop in Collegeville, Minnesota, I believe 13 it was in 1986. 14 Q. Would that have been June 1985? 15 A. Possibly. I was just trying to recall it. It 16 was probably June 1985, to which all bishops were invited 17 to attend, and one of the principal workshops that were 18 offered on that occasion to the bishops concerned the 19 issue of sexual abuse by priests. 20 Q. Did you attend that workshop? 21 A. Yes, sir, I did. 22 Q. Did anyone else from the Archidocese attend? 23 A. No. It was just for the bishops. It was a 24 bishops' meeting. 25 Q. Who gave the workshop, if you recall? Page 677 1 A. There was a panel of speakers at the time. I 2 think the only person that I can recall in my memory right 3 now, who is was a member of that panel -- the panel was 4 composed of laiety, psychiatrists, as well as bishops. 5 And the only member that I can recall is a bishop named 6 Bishop Angel, and I cannot recall the other members. An 7 appropriate name. 8 Q. Certainly needed. Archbishop, at that workshop 9 in Collegeville, Minnesota, in June of 1985, what were you 10 told or what did you learn concerning the issue of 11 molestation of children by priests? 12 A. You know, Mr. Bennett, it's really difficult to 13 be accurate in a recollection in this area, because I have 14 tried to familiarize myself with whatever I can read. I 15 attended a second occasion -- or it wasn't a workshop. It 16 was a presentation at a bishops' meeting where reports -- 17 or these speeches were given, and I don't know where I 18 learned what. It's sort of mixed up. 19 But it appears to me, and I'm just trying to recall 20 off the top of my head, that one of the issues that was 21 related to us at that time was that the concern of sexual 22 misconduct for priests was a concern for the entire 23 country, that bishops should not consider this a concern 24 relegated or located in one specific area, whether it be 25 metropolitan centers or rural areas or north or south, but Page 678 1 it was a universal concern. 2 We were encouraged to work closely with people of 3 knowledge in the field and with legal assistance to be 4 able to come up with some kind of policy, procedures, for 5 our respective diocese in reference to any sexual 6 allegation. I'm sure that they must have quoted facts and 7 figures or statistics about sexual molestation in the 8 country, the various kinds of therapy that had been 9 extended to perpetrators, not just priests, but in 10 general. And that, sir, is about all that I can 11 specifically recall. 12 What I have related in a very few brief sentences 13 really was fleshed out by the panel of speakers on that 14 occasion, which I think was geared specifically to 15 heighten the awareness of sexual abuse and that we needed 16 to start familiarizing ourselves with that concern. 17 Q. With respect to the guidelines that the 18 Archdiocese needed to institute to deal with this problem, 19 what type of guidelines were discussed? 20 A. What to do -- well, they pointed out that, first 21 of all, any allegation against a priest, we have to 22 remember that he has certain canonical rights given to him 23 by the Code of Canon Law; and therefore, any investigation 24 and any action, any steps taken into that needed to -- you 25 needed to consult the Code of Canon Law to make certain Page 679 1 that you were proceeding properly and were not abridging 2 his rights in any way. 3 Secondly, that we needed to involve attorneys in any 4 allegations so that they became part and parcel of the 5 concern that was in front of us; what to do if an 6 allegation is brought against the priest, whether he is to 7 be removed immediately from his place of employment until 8 an investigation is concluded or allow him to remain there 9 until the investigation is concluded; the response to 10 people, to be able to meet with people who have come to us 11 in their concern, to show them the respect of the Church 12 and the concern of the Church, to assist them in every 13 way. I can't recall more details than that. That's about 14 it. 15 Q. Weren't you advised at that time that it was 16 essential that allegations of sexual abuse by priests be 17 reported to the civil authorities? 18 A. It may very well have been part of the 19 instruction at that time, whoever must have given that 20 part of the presentation. I'm trying to recall these 21 facts. I'm not trying to eliminate facts. I'm trying to 22 recall them. 23 Q. I understand. Is that one of the facts you 24 recall? 25 A. I don't even -- I can't even swear that Page 680 1 everything I've related to you was exactly treated in that 2 session because, like I say, having been to a couple of 3 them, I'm not certain what facts were treated where. But 4 yes, that was included at one point or another. 5 Q. And did you receive any written materials or 6 written policy or guidelines or any other type of written 7 document at that meeting in June of 1985? 8 A. No, no packet was given to us at that meeting. 9 There were some sheets to follow the presenters who were 10 making their presentations and who they were. But I think 11 they were going to send a packet of information at some 12 later time for the information of the bishops, because not 13 all the bishops were present at that particular meeting. 14 Q. And they did send that packet at a later time? 15 A. I think they did. I can't exactly recall what 16 was in it, but I believe a packet was sent. 17 Q. And that would have been later that summer? 18 A. Sometime perhaps either late '85 or early '86. 19 I don't recall. 20 Q. And do you recall receiving that packet? 21 A. I don't have an active memory of it, but if they 22 sent it, it may very well have been received by myself, 23 yes. 24 Q. And do you know where that packet might be now? 25 A. No, sir. I couldn't say where that packet would Page 681 1 be at this time. A lot has gone on. We spent about two, 2 three years working on a policy and talking with priests, 3 and I shared what information I had with committees. So 4 I'm not certain where that information would be now. 5 Q. You instituted a written policy in 1990 that was 6 disseminated to your priests concerning the reporting of 7 sexual misconduct by priests? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Why did it take five years from the National 10 Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 1985 until 1990 11 to formalize a written policy for the reporting of sexual 12 abuse by priests? 13 A. I don't recall when I asked a committee to begin 14 work on this. I do know that the committee was doing its 15 work for probably two years and perhaps better than two 16 years. It involved preliminary meetings with clergy to 17 advise them of this type of a policy and all that was 18 happening. It involved meeting with other people who had 19 some knowledge of sexual misconduct, trying to identify 20 the area of concern. It just took time. And the 21 finalization of it and its final dissemination did not 22 occur until July 1, but the work on that document had 23 begun long before that. 24 Q. But this was a national crisis. Why did it take 25 five years to respond in your Archidocese to a national Page 682 1 crisis? 2 A. I think the first contact in 1985, it was not a 3 crisis, but it was a concern. I think that would 4 characterize it well. I think it's become a crisis. But 5 at that time, it was certainly a concern. 6 Q. A national concern? 7 A. A national concern, that they wanted to surface 8 the awareness in every bishop to do whatever work they 9 could to get started on this. You wait for materials. 10 You try to meet with some professionals, and that's not 11 the only thing you're doing during that amount of time. I 12 mentioned earlier, we were giving the report to Rome in 13 1988, and all the rest of the activity of the Archidocese. 14 I cannot give you specific reasons why it was not 15 finalized until 1990. Perhaps commission members could 16 speak to that. But the fact of the matter is it was 17 finalized, and it was disseminated, and we had workshops 18 conducted for its dissemination, workshops for priests, 19 for religious and for laiety, for all employees, as well 20 as for volunteers, and workshops took another couple of 21 years to be able to complete. 22 Q. Could you have done it faster? 23 A. Anybody can do anything probably faster, but 24 sir, you have to get -- you have one team who is trying to 25 conduct -- we have 93 parishes. We have 21 schools. We Page 683 1 have 93 parishes, then, that have not only the priests but 2 laiety employees, as well as volunteers. All of these had 3 to be geared for each individual group as we went around. 4 That's not easily done. You don't go there every day. 5 You know the distances, first of all, in New Mexico, and I 6 think that the team who was doing that was doing a 7 marvelous job trying to reach everyone and to organize 8 dates when they would be well received and people would be 9 present for it. 10 Q. Do you think you had any responsibility, as the 11 Archbishop of Santa Fe, prior to 1990 to report instances 12 of alleged sexual abuse of children by your priests to the 13 civil authorities? 14 A. Sir, I have to have it noted, as I gave in a 15 deposition nearly two years ago, that I was unaware of an 16 existing statute in New Mexico law that required that type 17 of reporting. If I had any type of concern on any 18 individual, I normally would share that with an attorney, 19 but I was unaware of that statute until the late 1980s. 20 MS. BURTRAM: I'm going to object to the 21 question. There is and never has been a law requiring 22 reporting, and that's a misstatement of the facts and the 23 law in New Mexico. 24 MR. BENNETT: Well, let's stick to my 25 question, which has nothing to do with your comment. Page 684 1 MR. TINKLER: He didn't mention the law. 2 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Do you feel that you, as the 3 Archbishop of Santa Fe, had a duty to report the sexual 4 misconduct of your priests to civil authorities? 5 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection. You're 6 saying a legal duty? 7 MR. BENNETT: I'm saying duty. 8 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Calls for a legal 9 conclusion on the part of this witness, which he's unable 10 to give. In fact, it appears among a group of attorneys 11 there's some dispute about what the legal duty is. 12 A. I was unaware of any legal duty, and therefore 13 could not respond to a legal duty. 14 Q. Did you feel you had a responsibility, as 15 Archbishop of Santa Fe, a responsibility to your 16 parishioners, aside from any legal duty, do you feel you 17 had a moral responsibility, in your office as Archbishop, 18 to report these allegations of sexual molestation by your 19 priests to civil authorities? 20 A. I was -- I felt no obligation inasmuch as I was 21 unaware of any obligation. 22 Q. So you're saying that unless there was a law out 23 there that required you to do it, you wouldn't do it? 24 A. I think that people do not report things to the 25 authorities unless they need help from the authorities or Page 685 1 else they feel that there's an obligation to do that. It 2 just -- I don't feel an obligation at this time to report 3 an individual to the authorities for something else, 4 whatever it may be, that I'm unaware of. I wouldn't know 5 that. 6 Q. If it came to your attention at any time during 7 your tenure as Archbishop that one of your priests had 8 stabbed and killed one of your parishioners, do you feel 9 that you would have a responsibility as Archbishop of 10 Santa Fe to report that priest to the authorities? 11 A. Yes, sir, and stabbing and killing a person I 12 know is a murder. It's a homicide, and that has to be 13 brought to the attention of the authorities. 14 Q. And for example, would you have brought to the 15 attention of the civil authorities, at any time during 16 your tenure as Archbishop, allegations that a priest was 17 dealing drugs in the parish? 18 A. To me, drug-dealing is contrary to the law of 19 our country, and I would have to bring that to their 20 attention. 21 Q. And so why would you feel that you wouldn't have 22 a responsibility to bring to the attention of civil 23 authorities allegations that your priests were sexually 24 assaulting and molesting the children of your 25 parishioners? Page 686 1 A. I think you have to characterize your question 2 that it wasn't "priests," as though there were 20s or 30s. 3 We're talking about here, I think, Father Jason Sigler. 4 And I did not bring that case to the attention of the 5 authorities because this occurred in 1981, and I certainly 6 had no idea that I had any obligation to bring that type 7 of an offense against a person to the authorities' 8 attention. 9 Q. Is that because that you felt that offense was 10 less heinous than a murder? 11 A. No, sir. I just felt that it was not something 12 that had to be brought to the attention of authorities. I 13 took the action that I took against the gentleman by 14 removing him from the place of assignment and removed him 15 from the situation that might bring harm to others. That 16 was serious action against that man and against his 17 position. And we did our best to assure the families that 18 were there that their children would no longer be in harm, 19 they need not be afraid, and to bring some type of 20 consolation and comfort to them. I did not realize that 21 there was any legal obligation to report this to the 22 authorities. 23 Q. Did you know that what Jason Sigler did to the 24 children of your parishioners was a crime? 25 A. I did not know it was a crime, sir. Page 687 1 Q. So you did not feel, in your own heart of hearts 2 in 1981, that the sexual molestation of a child was a 3 crime? 4 A. Sir, in 1981, I did not understand that to be a 5 crime. I considered it to be a moral infraction of his 6 own life, and it was an offense against a child. 7 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Can we take a break, Mr. 8 Bennett? 9 MR. BENNETT: That's fine. 10 MR. GOFFE: The time is 2:33. We will go 11 off the record. This will be the end of tape 10 in the 12 deposition of Archbishop Sanchez. The time, as indicated 13 on the screen, is 2:39. 14 [A recess was taken.] 15 MR. GOFFE: The time is 2:54. This is the 16 beginning of tape 11 in the deposition of Archbishop 17 Sanchez. We are on the record. 18 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, you seem to want 19 to make the distinction between concern and crisis when 20 talking about the issue of priest pedophilia in 1985. Why 21 did you make that distinction? 22 A. Just for the simple reason that, to the best of 23 my recollection, in 1985 there was not the large amount of 24 media coverage concerning child molestation that is taking 25 place today. If I recall correctly, there was the Page 688 1 beginning of such coverage regarding abuses that were 2 occurring in Lafayette, Louisiana, I believe was the areA. 3 But I don't recall reading about, you know, it being 4 multiplied and being covered so extensively by the media 5 as it has been in the last couple of years. I just 6 thought that would be the difference in words. I wouldn't 7 have considered it in crisis portions in 1985, in 8 comparison to what is happening today. So I chose to make 9 a distinction between concern and crisis. 10 Q. Well, let's not compare it to what is happening 11 today. Let's look at 1985. 12 A. But that's how I compared it in my mind. That's 13 why I used the terms. 14 Q. Well, I understand. But without that 15 comparison, do you feel that in 1985 the issue of priest 16 pedophilia had reached crisis portions within the Catholic 17 Church in this country? 18 MS. BURTRAM: Objection, lack of 19 foundation. 20 A. Again, I would have to ask you to define the 21 word "crisis," what you understand by that. 22 Q. Well, let's do it this way: You tell me what 23 "crisis" means to you. 24 A. "Crisis" to me means that something is happening 25 so frequently and so universally that people feel it's a Page 689 1 crisis. It's out of control. They don't know what to do 2 about it. 3 Serious concern, on the other hand, is something has 4 surfaced. You have knowledge about it. You need to give 5 proper time and attention to that which is surfacing and 6 seems that it could be heading toward a possible crisis. 7 So I think it's just a matter of words here. I'm not 8 denying that even one sexual act of misconduct is not bad. 9 That's serious, because a child is involved, and people 10 are involved, and, you know, I feel badly just talking 11 about numbers, because it seems like children are numbers, 12 and they're not. They're people. They're human beings. 13 And so, you know, we could use the word "crisis" over one 14 child. 15 But I think for the sake of our discussion, I wanted 16 to make that distinction, but I don't want anyone to think 17 that by using the term "serious concern," that it's not a 18 real serious concern for every child that may have been 19 abused at that time. 20 Q. In the life of the child and the family of the 21 child that's been abused by a priest, would you 22 characterize that event as being a crisis in their life? 23 A. I think it's a crisis for the family and a 24 crisis for the priest who's involved, because it's so -- 25 it's affected the lives of those people as principals in Page 690 1 that. It doesn't require a major outbreak everywhere to 2 be a crisis for a family or for an individual. 3 Q. Would it be a crisis for the child who has been 4 molested? 5 A. I would say, yes, that child has suffered 6 seriously, and I think that you should probably use the 7 word -- it's a personal crisis in the life of that little 8 child. 9 Q. And with respect to the crisis in the life of 10 that little child, do you understand now that that crisis 11 is an emotional crisis, as well as a physical crisis? 12 A. This is what I have come to understand, that 13 it's both a deep emotional crisis that a child suffers, as 14 well as physical. I have not been told enough whether 15 there is a distinction at any age group or anything like 16 that. I'm not really familiar with those distinctions. 17 But I would say with all age groups that there is both 18 physical and emotional damage. 19 Q. And is it also your understanding that that 20 physical and emotional damage continues over time after 21 the abusive event has occurred? 22 A. This has been mentioned -- I believe it was Dr. 23 Schreiner, whom I referred to earlier in my testimony. I 24 believe in her instructions to us, she made comments to 25 that fact. Page 691 1 Q. And is it also your understanding that 2 professional help, counseling and therapy can help lessen 3 or ameliorate that damage when it's provided to an 4 individual who has been abused by a priest? 5 A. Yes, this is what I've come to understand, that 6 any time there's emotional harm within a person's life, 7 the only way that you can correct that really is through 8 proper counseling or therapy, if you want to call it that. 9 Q. And would you, as a person, as well as an 10 Archbishop of Santa Fe, want to alleviate or mitigate that 11 suffering as soon as you possibly could? 12 A. That would be my immediate tendency. Knowing 13 that something like that could be helped, we would want to 14 help however we could. 15 Q. As soon as you could? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Were you aware, or do you know how many lawsuits 18 had been filed around the country prior to your attending 19 the conference in 1985, how many lawsuits concerning abuse 20 of children by priests? 21 A. I have no way of making a judgment, sir. I 22 don't receive papers, and I didn't have statistics of how 23 many had been filed. I have no ideA. 24 Q. Did you know that some had been filed at that 25 conference? Page 692 1 A. I had read about filings that had taken place, 2 as I mentioned, in LouisianA. 3 Q. And so you knew that at least some lawsuits had 4 been filed and that this was a serious issue in mid 1985? 5 A. Right. 6 Q. And you also knew in mid 1985 that you had had 7 allegations of sexual abuse of children concerning priests 8 within your Archidocese? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. But no lawsuits had been filed at that time? 11 A. No, sir. 12 Q. Were you also told at the -- or did you learn at 13 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 14 1985 that the profile of priest pedophiles indicated that 15 they were likely to abuse children over a long period of 16 time, that they were repeat offenders? 17 A. I don't recall whether that particular fact was 18 mentioned in that initial workshop. 19 Q. Did you know that during 1985? 20 A. No, sir. I wasn't aware that there could be, 21 over a long period of time, that type of abuse. 22 Q. So you're saying that you didn't know in 1985 23 that the knowledge that was available to the Catholic 24 community was that priests who had these tendencies were 25 likely to act out sexually over an extended period of Page 693 1 time? 2 A. No, sir, I wasn't aware of that. 3 Q. Now, let me ask you this: Who was on that 4 committee that you appointed to establish a policy for 5 your Archidocese concerning sexual abuse of children by 6 priests? 7 A. The working committee that we had from our 8 office, and they then made consultations outside that 9 committee. But the immediate committee that I can recall 10 for you was my chancellor, Father Richard OlonA. There 11 was a young woman who did workshops for the State of New 12 Mexico on sexual child abuse and was employed by schools 13 and other centers for that purpose to bring awareness to 14 groups and was recognized as an expert. Her name was 15 Stella Gallegos. I believe the Archdioceson attorney was 16 a member of that committee. 17 Q. And who was that? 18 A. That name was Mr. Charles Reynolds. I believe 19 that we had one of our employees who is a mother of 20 several children belong to that committee, as well. I 21 believe her name is Berna Fasio. And I'm not absolutely 22 certain about her, but I think she was a member of the 23 committee. Those are the ones that come to mind 24 immediately, and I believe there were a couple of others, 25 but I just can't recall who else formed that committee at Page 694 1 that time. But those were four of probably six. 2 Q. Did anybody else work on that committee over the 3 years, that you can recall? 4 A. They may have had consultants to that committee 5 from men who are trained in canon Law. Father Jerome 6 Martinez may have been one of the consultants. I'm not 7 absolutely certain, but since he's a canon lawyer, he may 8 very well have been one of the consultants. I can't 9 recall the other person. 10 Q. Did Father Sabine Griego consult or participate 11 in that committee? 12 A. No, sir. He was not a member of that committee. 13 Q. And what qualifications or experience did Mrs. 14 Fasio bring to that committee? 15 A. First of all, her concern as a mother for 16 children. Secondly, she had worked with the -- I believe 17 it was the Albuquerque Public School system in the area of 18 insurance and had experience about insurance coverage and 19 concerns in this areA. A very concerned lady. I think 20 that her presence and expertise would have assisted that 21 committee. 22 Q. I don't know the answer to this, but had any of 23 her children been abused? 24 A. No. The committee was also open to making 25 contacts with other individuals, psychiatrists, Page 695 1 psychologists, others who were practicing in the field, 2 for input from them. They could feel free to call those 3 individuals and consult with them, as well, make contact 4 with the National Office of the National Conference of 5 Catholic Bishops for any information that they may have 6 had; contact other dioceses for any work that had already 7 progressed in their particular diocese for establishing 8 such a policy; consulting with centers for treatment, such 9 as St. Luke's Hospital, I believe it's in Maryland, and 10 perhaps the Servants of the Paraclete, which was very 11 close, to solicit as much information as they could for 12 the establishment of the policy. 13 Q. And other than the written policy that was 14 promulgated in July of 1990, were there any other written 15 policies for the Archidocese established by this 16 committee? 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q. Any unwritten policies? 19 A. No, sir. 20 Q. When did you appoint this committee? 21 A. I can't recall the exact date, sir, but I would 22 imagine it must have been around 1987. 23 Q. Why did you wait two years to appoint the 24 committee? 25 A. I don't recall any reason why I waited. I don't Page 696 1 think it was a matter of, you know, just twiddling my 2 thumbs. I think during that period of time there was 3 information that I had to familiarize myself with, and 4 other obligations, as well, towards establishing policy. 5 I'm not certain that it was unanimous feeling among 6 the bishops that policies should be established 7 differently for every diocese. There was discussion that 8 perhaps a uniform policy should be worked on and then 9 offered to dioceses throughout the country, so that 10 everyone would benefit from the expertise of a select 11 group and a center, and I was hoping for that. 12 I know that there was some information sent out to 13 that effect by -- it was it was another center for 14 treatment in Massachusetts, but I can't exactly recall the 15 name of it. I don't know if it was called Guest House or 16 another hospital center. 17 Q. That was sent to you? 18 A. I think they sent some information -- it wasn't 19 a packet, but it was comments about establishing policies 20 to all the dioceses. So there was work, in other words, 21 activity in the areA. It wasn't a matter of simply 22 putting it on the shelf and waiting for a year and a half. 23 There was activity in the area and a lot of discussion 24 about what should be contained in the policy, its 25 appropriateness and who could best give us information, Page 697 1 and so forth. 2 Q. Who were you discussing this with before you 3 appointed a committee? 4 A. By bishops. 5 Q. You were having discussions with bishops? 6 A. In our own meetings. It's not -- it wasn't 7 having a meeting with all the bishops together. These 8 were group meetings, meetings that you would -- informal 9 discussion when you would come together for other 10 obligations. All of us belonged to a host of committees 11 for the bishops' conference, and you're obliged to meet 12 two, three times a year as committees. Whenever we would 13 meet, we would have opportunity, if we so chose, to 14 surface that topic. 15 Q. And when did you have opportunity to surface 16 that topic? 17 A. I can't give you dates or places, sir, but 18 during that period of time, I do recall discussion among 19 the bishops on that particular topic regarding either one 20 uniform policy versus the concept of individual policies. 21 Q. Aside from discussions with other bishops on the 22 issue of whether or not there should be a unified policy 23 versus a policy archdiocese by archdiocese, did you have 24 any other discussions with the bishops concerning the 25 content of the policy? Page 698 1 A. Not formally. There were no formal meetings 2 which called for a discussion of the content. 3 Q. Informally? 4 A. Who knows? I can't recall all of the subject of 5 our discussions. I just know that the subject was raised. 6 It's possible that some had their opinions about content, 7 but I can't recall that for certain at this time. 8 Q. In any of those discussions before you appointed 9 a committee in 1987, did you discuss whether or not a 10 bishop should go back to parishes in which these priests 11 had been previously to determine whether or not there may 12 be other victims who might need help? 13 A. No, sir. I don't recall that topic ever having 14 been surfaced or discussed. 15 Q. Was that topic ever surfaced or discussed, to 16 your knowledge, by the committee after it was appointed? 17 A. Not to my knowledge, sir, no. 18 Q. When you appointed a committee in 1987, what 19 direction did you give it? 20 A. I asked the committee to do research and to come 21 up with a preliminary report on what form of a policy 22 should be provided for the Archdiocese to give adequate 23 guidance to the personnel of the Archdiocese, both clergy, 24 religious and laiety, for the sake of reporting any type 25 of sexual allegation and whatever else they felt could be Page 699 1 included in such a policy. And they are to do research by 2 contacting, as I have mentioned, other dioceses that may 3 have done similar work already that would give us an idea 4 of the type of work that was being done and issues 5 includes. 6 Q. Were those instructions verbal or written? 7 A. Those were verbal instructions, sir. 8 Q. Were there ever any reports given to you by the 9 committee between the time you appointed it in 1987 and 10 the time that policy was issued in 1990? 11 A. There was consultation between myself and the 12 chancellor on another occasion, or perhaps twice; 13 consultation with the person that we had employed as an 14 expert, this Stella Gallegos; consultation between myself 15 and the attorney from time to time on it. But I did not 16 meet with them as a body for the meetings. 17 Q. You never met with them as a body? 18 A. I don't recall, outside of the initial 19 commissioning of the committee to get the policy moving. 20 Q. When the committee was initially commissioned, 21 did you meet with them? 22 A. I don't think I even have recollection of 23 meeting with the whole body. I can recall meeting with 24 chancellor. I can recall meeting with Ms. Gallegos, with 25 the attorney, but I don't recall a full meeting with the Page 700 1 commission. 2 Q. So at no time between 1987 and 1990, did you 3 meet with the committee as a body? 4 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and 5 answered. 6 A. I cannot recall a specific meeting. I know that 7 the members were present for presentations at which I was 8 present, also, and that was the presentation made to the 9 clergy of the Archdiocese on the preliminary facets of the 10 content of that document. This was long before it was 11 published, but it wasn't a meeting just for the committee. 12 I mean, this involved the entire priestly gathering. 13 Q. And was the focus of the committee's work on the 14 publication of guidelines for reporting of child abuse by 15 priests? 16 A. Apparently that was, because that was the result 17 of the document that they decided to provide us with. 18 Q. And was that the direction you had given them, 19 to focus on that subject? 20 A. Well, I really had no direction, specific 21 direction, that I could give them. I had never done a 22 booklet like this. I wasn't really skilled in all the 23 contents of what should be included in a document such as 24 that. I was hoping that they could come up with 25 information from other dioceses and with other experts as Page 701 1 to what should be included, and this was their response to 2 that. 3 Q. Did you ever ask for the inclusion in this 4 particular policy of any other issues, aside from the 5 reporting of sexual molestation? 6 A. I don't recall any specific additions that I may 7 have requested, or concerns. Like I said, I gave them a 8 general mandate, and I think when they had come up with 9 this preliminary report on it, I felt that they had 10 focused on an area that was certainly a very strong 11 beginning. I don't think that any policy of that nature 12 is a final document. I think that can always be improved 13 and added to. But I thought it was a good beginning. 14 Q. Well, it didn't address the area of how to deal, 15 within the Archdiocese, how to deal administratively with 16 a priest who was accused of these types of activities, did 17 it? 18 A. Right. Well, it touched on that, it does, sir. 19 Q. But not in any formal fashion? 20 A. As far as being granted -- or sent to a center 21 for therapy, etc., no, it was not included in there. 22 Q. And neither did it discuss whether or not a 23 search should be made within the Archdiocese for potential 24 prior victims of any priest who was alleged to have been 25 sexually abusive? Page 702 1 A. No, sir, it did not include that. 2 Q. Did that concern you that it didn't address that 3 issue? 4 A. No. I think the issue it chose to address was a 5 very essential, a very important issue, since it was going 6 to be directed not to one specific group of people, but 7 that was going to involve literally thousands of people 8 throughout the Archdiocese. And it was going to take a 9 yeoman's effort to make certain that this policy was 10 brought to their attention. Workshops were held for all 11 of them, full-day workshops, so that they were familiar 12 with it and familiar with the concept of child abuse and 13 have them sign off on that, that, in fact, they had been 14 present, they had received this guideline and were going 15 to abide by it. 16 Q. Did you have the authority as the Archbishop of 17 Santa Fe to issue a policy concerning the disposition of 18 allegations of priest sexual misconduct on your own 19 without any approval by any priests, committee, 20 parishioners? Did you have that authority intrinsic to 21 your office at that time? 22 A. To do what? For a disposition of -- 23 Q. To make up your own policy on these issues and 24 disseminate it to the priests and the parishioners. 25 A. On what issues? You mean reporting? Are you Page 703 1 talking about the reporting policy that we have? 2 Q. Any policy with respect to the investigation, 3 reporting -- 4 A. Oh, yes. 5 Q. -- priest sexual misconduct. 6 A. Yes, the Archbishop could go ahead and sit down 7 and write something out. It may not be very good, because 8 he's not skilled in that particular areA. He has a lack, 9 a great lack, of knowledge of the field. Without the 10 assistance of anyone of a professional nature, it would 11 would have been, I think, a very poor effort, a dangerous 12 effort, for myself to venture into that with the lack of 13 knowledge that I had. 14 Q. But you had the power to do that, if you so 15 chose? 16 A. Yes, you can publish various things. 17 Q. You've indicated that one of the reasons that -- 18 or let me put it this way: You have said that it has not 19 been the Archdiocese's tradition to go to a parish where a 20 priest had sexually molested children and make a public 21 announcement that the parish had had a pedophile for a 22 priest, because you felt that such an action would be 23 divisive; is that a fair summary? 24 A. Not quite. If I could just make a comment on 25 it? Page 704 1 Q. Please. 2 A. Surele. First of all, I know I used the word 3 "tradition" at one point. I think the word that I was 4 trying to search for in my mind was it's been the 5 "practice" of the Church. It's almost the same. But 6 anyway, for the sake of clarity, it has been the practice 7 of the Church not to make public announcements this way in 8 a parish which are so general in nature that in a sense 9 it -- for the sake of soliciting people who might be 10 considered having been victimized because it would cause 11 people then to become suspicious of one another and could 12 have a divisive effect upon them and a negative effect 13 upon them, because parents would begin to wonder about 14 this child or that child. Children would begin to talk 15 about themselves. And so the Church, in her own 16 guideline, has never encouraged open-type of announcements 17 and, in fact, has stated that this type of procedure 18 should be done with caution, that any investigation of a 19 case should be done with great care, so as not to harm the 20 good name of people. 21 Q. All right. You mean harm the good name of the 22 priest? 23 A. No, the good name of the people of the parish. 24 Q. That's what I'm having a little confusion about. 25 How are the good names of parishioners harmed if you Page 705 1 gather all the parents of your parish in and say, "We've 2 had a pedophile priest in your midst who has been in 3 contact with your children, and we are concerned, and we 4 want -- if there's anything unusual going on with your 5 children, we feel you should bring it to the attention of 6 a psychologist"; how does that harm the parishioners? 7 A. It seems to me that parishioners -- because we 8 had spoken earlier about general announcements from the 9 pulpit, from the Church. This is the way that most people 10 will come to meetings or hear announcements, that a 11 general announcement of that nature announces to them that 12 Father X has, in fact, been accused of pedophilia, and 13 we're wondering if any of the children of this parish may 14 have been accused -- or rather been offended, and they 15 should report that to us, and we'll be here for that 16 purpose. 17 People would feel that -- first of all, they're 18 shocked about hearing this, and children become an object 19 of suspicion from parents or from friends. "Are you one 20 of them? Are you one of them? Are you one of them?" The 21 people themselves begin to feel -- 22 Q. Let's stop there. 23 A. I'm sorry. 24 Q. Why is that harmful, that parents make inquiry 25 of their children to see if there's been any offensive Page 706 1 contact between them and a pedophile priest; why is that 2 harmful? 3 A. It's not harmful for parents to make inquiry of 4 their children. It could be harmful to the family if they 5 feel that -- they feel obliged to have to make this known 6 because they feel that other people are going to know 7 this. Maybe they're going to feel hurt. Maybe they want 8 to simply keep this quiet. They don't feel any need to 9 divulge anything that's taken place with their child. 10 Q. Well, you're not asking them to do that. You're 11 just saying, "Your children may have been harmed. Be 12 aware. Be on the alert. Find out." How does that harm 13 the family? 14 A. For what purposes are you asking them to find 15 out? 16 Q. So the kids can get help. 17 A. Which means that they really should do some 18 action, and I understand that. I would want to help those 19 children as much as we can. I am just sharing, sir, that 20 if there's enough of questioning and people begin to -- if 21 they don't understand what all of this means either, 22 especially the children, they themselves begin to wonder 23 whether this child is involved or that child is involved. 24 Q. So what? 25 A. Well, it's almost like a stigma maybe on that Page 707 1 child, and they would want to exclude them from their own 2 activities or from their friendship or from their homes. 3 Q. So in order -- and you feel that it would be a 4 benefit for a family to be advised that a pedophile priest 5 had been in their midst, so they could find out if there 6 children had been harmed; would that be beneficial? 7 A. I think it's always a benefit for families to be 8 advised for their own protection and help. I think we 9 have to do what we can to help our families that way. I'm 10 not certain that a public announcement like that is the 11 best way to go about bringing it to the attention of 12 people. 13 Q. What is the best way? 14 A. I think that there are other ways that can be 15 done. Either through individual questioning with 16 investigators or that they would hear it not announced in 17 their own parish, but in more general announcements, so 18 that they would not feel that they are zeroing in 19 particularly on their parish, that this is something open 20 to all people everywhere. 21 And so announcements that there has been child 22 molestation occurring and anyone -- all parents can speak 23 with their children, whether or not this may have been 24 happened to them; they should be aware of this. And this 25 was precisely what we tried to do in the Archdiocese by Page 708 1 bringing this to the attention of the people of the 2 Archdiocese universally with our public announcement, with 3 800 numbers. 4 Q. When was that? 5 A. That occurred, sir, in 1991, between '91 and 6 '92. 7 Q. Why would that have been less divisive, as you 8 say, as an announcement to a particular parish that had 9 children who were abused by a priest prior to that? 10 A. Only because it is less personal to them. It's 11 more -- it protects their anonymity. They can call. They 12 do not have to state their name, if they don't choose, or 13 if they wish to, they may. If they want to meet with a 14 person at the chancery, they may do so. If they simply 15 want to talk about the instance and get some guidance, 16 they're able to do that. 17 Q. But how does an announcement from the pulpit in 18 a parish to the parishioners that there's been a problem, 19 "There's been a pedophile in your midst," how does that 20 defeat their right to preserve their anonymity? Can't 21 they then come to you individually and say, without 22 anybody else knowing, and say, "You know, our son was 23 abused"? 24 A. It's possible they could come, but the general 25 announcement itself is going to give speculation to the Page 709 1 people, is what I'm saying. 2 Q. So what? You want them to speculate. 3 A. Your question of me originally was why the 4 Church had this type of practice, and I was trying to 5 explain that practice. We're trying to gather, at this 6 time, what is the best way to bring issues of this nature 7 to the attention of people for the protection of children, 8 and certainly practices can change, and you would want to 9 have the best way of bringing that to the attention of 10 people, so that children will not be harmed in the future. 11 Q. How do -- I assume that parishioners contribute 12 money to the Church through their parish? 13 A. Oh, yes. 14 Q. And how much of that money on a percentage basis 15 is then contributed to the Archdiocese? 16 A. They contribute -- right now, it's gone up. 17 It's 10 percent of what they give is sent to the central 18 office to help maintain those programs, those ministries 19 that are then centralized so that they can provide a 20 greater source of -- a greater resource for the individual 21 parishes. So 10 percent or 10 cents out of every dollar. 22 Q. Comes to the Archdiocese? 23 A. Comes to the Archdiocese. 24 Q. And 90 cents out of every dollar? 25 A. Remains in their parish. Page 710 1 Q. And out of that 10 cents on every dollar that 2 comes from every parish within the Archdiocese, is your 3 salary paid? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. How are you paid? 6 A. Excuse me, no. Out of that 10 percent, my 7 salary was paid, yes, out of that 10 percent. 8 Q. So the contributions that parishioners make to 9 each parish are, in part, to pay your salary as 10 Archbishop? 11 A. It used to be when I was the Archbishop. 12 Q. I understand. And are there any other sources 13 of revenue that come to the Archdiocese outside of parish 14 contributions? 15 A. Yes, sir. There is a campaign. It's a 16 free-will offering that people are asked to contribute to 17 which is designated for all of the pastoral ministries 18 that are conducted throughout the year for the various 19 parishes. It includes everything from support of 20 seminarians in their training to Native American programs, 21 to Catholic Social Services and the care that they extend 22 to the community from immigration to family counseling, a 23 multiple list of other things, to helping support the 24 clinic in Santa Fe, which offers free care, Villa Therese 25 Clinic, to people who are in need, especially children, Page 711 1 its emphasis is on children. There's a large variety of 2 ministries that are supported totally -- the collection, 3 that campaign's money, 100 percent of that is dedicated to 4 those personal ministries that go back to people. 5 Q. And who contributes to those campaigns? 6 A. People who so choose. 7 Q. And those are parishioners? 8 A. Parishioners, yes. 9 Q. So the parishioners give to the Archdiocese and 10 the parish through the collection plate? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. And give to the programs of the Archdiocese 13 through these campaigns? 14 A. If they so choose, right. 15 Q. And are the monies that are collected through 16 these campaigns put into the same account as the monies 17 that are contributed by the parishes? 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. They're separately accounted for? 20 A. Yes, they are. 21 Q. And do any those funds collected through these 22 campaigns go toward payment of Archdiocese administration 23 or operating expenses? 24 A. No, sir. 25 Q. So the operating expenses of the Archdiocese, Page 712 1 including your salary, when you were Archbishop, relies on 2 the contribution made by parishioners through their 3 parish? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. Hypothetical question, Archbishop Sanchez: If a 6 parish community was advised that one of their priests -- 7 or the priest that was serving in that parish was a 8 pedophile, do you think that that might affect the amount 9 of money those parishioners might contribute in the future 10 to the parish? 11 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for 12 speculation. 13 A. I don't know, sir. I could imagine that it 14 might, but that is not a reason for withholding 15 information. 16 Q. I didn't say it was. 17 A. No, but you asked me to speculate, and that is 18 why I'm saying that it might happen. And I would say to 19 you that that would never be a reason for withholding 20 information of any kind. 21 Q. What other divisiveness, other than what you've 22 testified to, would you imagine could occur if it was 23 announced to parishioners in a parish that their priest 24 was a pedophile? 25 A. I think I have commented on that divisiveness Page 713 1 multiple times, and to do it again would be just 2 repetition. So I would simply say that the divisiveness 3 that divides people against people as individuals or as 4 families or even within their thinking within the parish, 5 any divisiveness within a parish would be a negative. 6 Q. And do you feel that it is reasonable for you, 7 as Archbishop, to avoid that negative at the expense of 8 finding out which of the children of the parish had been 9 abused in order to get them help? 10 A. Let me repeat again. I have mentioned before -- 11 excuse me for repetition, but as I've mentioned before, it 12 had never been our practice to make such public 13 announcements, to take that type of action. It was a 14 practice that simply did not occur to us because it had 15 not be done. 16 But in addition to that, it had not been a practice 17 because the Church had always indicated in her canons, 18 canon law, that care had to be taken regarding any type of 19 allegations and the type of investigation that would be 20 conducted, and so public announcements of this nature had 21 been avoided. It was past practice, and that is all I can 22 say again. 23 Q. Archbishop, during your tenure, or prior to your 24 tenure, are you aware or have you been aware that any of 25 the priests serving in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, Page 714 1 whether incardinated here or not, had a felony conviction 2 on their record? 3 A. You say prior to my taking -- 4 Q. At any time from the time you became a priest 5 until this moment, do you have any knowledge of that fact? 6 A. The knowledge of one instance comes to mind. I 7 found out about it, I suppose, in '91 or '92. I don't 8 exactly recall, but it was an indictment against Father 9 Jason Sigler that had occurred after he had left the 10 priesthood and had married and was recorded apparently 11 with the Albuquerque Police Department. That had happened 12 in 1983, I believe. Knowledge of that did not come to my 13 attention until approximately 1991. 14 Q. Is it permissible, as far as the policy of the 15 Archdiocese of Santa Fe, for a convicted felon to serve as 16 a priest within the Archdiocese? 17 A. No, sir, it is not policy for a convicted felon 18 to serve in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. I'd like to 19 repeat that Father Jason Sigler was not only not a priest 20 of the Archdiocese, but he had resigned from the 21 priesthood, as well. 22 Q. Could you please describe to me any 23 circumstances under which you would permit a priest who 24 had admitted to sexually molesting children to serve as a 25 priest in a parish in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe? Page 715 1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for 2 speculation. It's hypothetical. 3 Q. And I'm asking for Church policy in this 4 Archdiocese. 5 A. You're asking me to speculate? 6 Q. No, I'm asking, what's the policy? 7 A. The policy -- there is no policy that says a 8 priest who has sexually molested a child cannot serve in 9 the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, because the concept of 10 "service" is so broad. I think you have in mind perhaps 11 service in a parish. 12 Q. I do. 13 A. Well, then you cannot make the general 14 statement. 15 Q. I didn't. 16 A. Because there are various ministries that can 17 take place. 18 Q. Let's confine it to serving as a parish priest. 19 A. In a parish, okay, parish priest. 20 Q. Yes, sir. 21 A. There is no written policy that so states. 22 However, whoever the archbishop or bishop is -- are you 23 speaking about the Archdiocese of Santa Fe? 24 Q. Yes, sir. 25 A. And you're speaking under my tenure? Page 716 1 Q. Under anybody's tenure, insofar as policy is 2 concerned. 3 A. The policy would state that no priest serving 4 under -- excuse me. No priest who would represent a 5 threat to people in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, who was 6 previously accused of child molestation -- I'm not 7 using -- I'm progressing improperly, excuse me. May I 8 start again? 9 Q. Take your time. 10 A. No priest who has been accused, previously 11 accused, of child molestation who has not received therapy 12 and a positive recommendation from therapists would be 13 able to serve as a parish priest in the Archdiocese of 14 Santa Fe. More than likely, even with the recommendation 15 of therapists, the man would be excluded. 16 Q. And has that been the policy of the Archdiocese 17 of Santa Fe? 18 A. That policy has had a variable over the years, 19 because of the understanding of pedophilia over the years. 20 There is adequate literature stating that in the 1960s, in 21 the 1970s and into the early part of the 1980s, pedophilia 22 was considered to be curable, as well as to be surrounded 23 by sufficient support as to render the candidate able to 24 function once again within society without posing a threat 25 to children. Page 717 1 The concept that pedophilia is absolutely not curable 2 and now becomes the prevalent opinion is an opinion that 3 has occurred in the last few years. Due to the fact that 4 there's been a change in approach by psychiatrists and 5 psychologists over the years, I would say that in the 6 1970s, certainly, any psychiatrist or psychologist having 7 treated a person for sexual abuse could readily have 8 recommended that that person be reintroduced to parish 9 ministry because he felt that he no longer posed a threat 10 to children, because that happened to be the prevalent 11 opinion during those years. 12 I could well have been influenced by that opinion 13 during the 1970s. We're talking about a hypothetical 14 situation. At this time, however, given the additional 15 type of information that has been provided by the field of 16 psychiatry and of psychology, it appears that a child 17 offender about which we have spoken going through a 18 program of rehabilitation would not be considered to be 19 cured, but rather reached a level of achievement where, 20 with people surrounding him, he can function, but they 21 would recommend that he be kept away from children or 22 those circumstances where children may be present in large 23 numbers. 24 Q. Did you ever have any meetings or discussions 25 with the parish priests in general concerning the issue of Page 718 1 priest pedophilia? 2 A. I wouldn't call it -- well, I'd call it a 3 discussion. It was more of a seminar. In fact, there 4 were two seminars that were held, day-long discussions. 5 Addresses were given to the priests from a variety of 6 standpoints: One was from what is pedophilia and a 7 perpetrator, and what leads that person -- what might be 8 the profile of such a person. And that address was given, 9 at that particular case that I have in mind, by Stella 10 Gallegos using some videos, as well, to assist her in that 11 presentation. And then the attorney for the Archdiocese 12 also added comments from the legal point of view, so that 13 they would understand that areA. 14 I had introduced the day's seminar with my own 15 reflections for them to bring them to an awareness of the 16 importance of the topic that was going to be discussed. 17 Q. When was that? 18 A. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Bennett, it 19 occurred, I believe, in 1987. 20 Q. And where was that seminar given? 21 A. It was held at the Catholic Center, what is 22 known -- I guess you'd know it as a chancery office or the 23 offices of the Archdiocese. 24 Q. And who attended that seminar? 25 A. Priests from the Archdiocese. Page 719 1 Q. All of the priests? 2 A. I can't swear that all attended, but all were 3 invited and strongly urged to attend. I would say that at 4 least 90 percent were in attendance. 5 Q. Other than Stella Gallegos and Mr. Reynolds, 6 were there any other presenters? 7 A. I can't recall another presenter at this time. 8 I recall those two. 9 Q. Were there any written materials distributed at 10 that seminar? 11 A. I don't recall written materials. I do know 12 that a video was used by Ms. Gallegos as part of her 13 presentation. 14 Q. Do you know where that video came from? 15 A. The video is one that she regularly uses around 16 the state of New Mexico to inform people regarding sexual 17 molestation of children, and she uses it both for teachers 18 in schools, leaders on the reservations or the pueblos, 19 and any other group that might invite Health and Social 20 Services for a presentation, and she is contacted to make 21 that presentation. 22 Q. You mentioned a second seminar? 23 A. Yes, sir. A second seminar was held; and on 24 that occasion, the seminar was to present to the priests 25 the policy that we have been speaking about of the Page 720 1 Archdiocese of Santa Fe and to field from them questions 2 regarding the policy and regarding pedophilia in general. 3 Q. When was that seminar? 4 A. That seminar occurred shortly after the 5 dissemination of the policy. The policy was disseminated 6 on July 1, 1990. So the gathering of the priests would 7 have occurred perhaps a month or so later. 8 Q. Prior to July 1, 1990, had any seminars, videos 9 or any other presentations on this topic been offered to 10 parishioners? 11 A. No. The offering to parishioners began at least 12 from the Archdiocesan center. Now offerings may have been 13 made on parish levels that I am unaware of because they do 14 this quite independently. But our contact with them 15 occurred for the remaining months of 1990 and into '91 and 16 '92. 17 Q. And that was with respect to the institution of 18 your new written policy? 19 A. Yes, but at that occasion, it was a lengthy 20 presentation which also included the video, so that they 21 would become aware of the issue of pedophilia and its 22 consequences on children. 23 Q. But there had been no presentations of that 24 nature prior to that time? 25 A. None that I can recall. Page 721 1 Q. Prior to 1980, did you ever discuss the issue of 2 priest pedophilia with the priests in an informal setting? 3 MS. KENNEDY: I'm sorry, prior to? 4 MR. BENNETT: 1980. 5 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: 1980. 6 A. I have no recollection of any meeting or formal 7 discussion with our priests regarding the issue of 8 pedophiliA. As I mentioned, just a few moments ago, 9 pedophilia both -- not only in the ecclesiastical field, 10 but in the civic field itself, was not a high-profile 11 issue. 12 The amount of literature was minimal that was coming 13 out from anyone, and even the justice system -- and I 14 mention this because I had a brother who was a district 15 judge. But I think the justice system depended really 16 upon the individual psychiatrists and psychologists to 17 advise them of issues of pedophiliA. But it was not a 18 high-profile issue, and I don't recall calling any meeting 19 for that discussion. 20 [The witness conferred with his attorney.] 21 Q. When was the first time after you became a 22 priest that you heard of another priest sexually molesting 23 a child, that you heard that that type of activity had 24 occurred anywhere on the planet? 25 A. I've been a priest for 34 years. Let me go back Page 722 1 and -- in our testimony here in this deposition, it was 2 brought to my attention, again -- it was brought to my 3 attention a year ago earlier -- that a woman named Mrs. 4 Nowak had apparently met with me. I don't recall this 5 meeting, but it appears that she had asked to meet with me 6 in my office. And according to her testimony, she says 7 that she had shared with me information that a priest of 8 the Archdiocese had abused one or two of her sons. 9 I don't recall it in my active memory, but since this 10 was a public testimony, I have no reason to doubt that 11 she, in fact, came to see me. And so I would have to say 12 probably the first time that it came to my attention or my 13 awareness -- I'm not even certain how forcibly, but would 14 have been that occasion. 15 Q. Had you ever heard before then that that had 16 occurred with respect to any priest anywhere? 17 A. No, I had not heard of any allegations against 18 priests anywhere prior to that occasion that is apparently 19 documented from Mrs. Nowak. 20 Q. After you became a priest, did you know that the 21 Servants of the Paraclete existed? 22 A. I knew that the Servants of the Paraclete 23 existed. I felt, in my priest years -- because I was 24 ordained in 1959 -- I felt that it was a center for 25 retreats for priests who were coming there from all over Page 723 1 the country. To me, this retreat was for priests who had 2 left the priesthood and who wanted somehow to be able to 3 be reconciled and were coming there to make a spiritual 4 retreat. 5 I believe it was in the early '70s that I then began 6 to think or hear that they also treated alcoholics; and 7 that became my identity, then, for the center at Jemez 8 Springs, that it was a center for priests who had left the 9 priesthood and for priests who were alcoholic. 10 I had concern about alcoholic priests, because I 11 could see among my own brother priests evidence that some 12 of them were certainly drinking more than they should, and 13 I feared that they were alcoholic, and that seemed to be 14 my major concern in the 1970s, was alcoholism among the 15 priesthood. 16 Q. In the early '70s, before you became Archbishop, 17 were you also aware that priests with sexual disorders 18 were residing at the Servants of the Paraclete? 19 A. No. 20 MS. BURTRAM: I'm going to object to the 21 question, as it states facts not in evidence. 22 A. No. I wasn't aware of men with sexual disorders 23 being housed there at the Servants of the Paraclete. 24 Q. When did you first become aware of that? 25 A. Well, I certainly became aware of it in 1981, Page 724 1 when we directed Father Jason Sigler to go to the Servants 2 of the Paraclete because of his misconduct against the 3 children in St. Therese Parish. I may have become aware 4 of it prior to that, but I don't have any recollection of 5 that particular instance. 6 THE WITNESS: Do you want to call a break 7 now, before you pick up anything? 8 MR. BENNETT: Sure, let's go ahead. 9 MR. GOFFE: The time is 3:59. We will go 10 off the record. 11 [A recess was taken.] 12 MR. GOFFE: The time is 4:17. We are back 13 on the record. 14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, before you 15 begin, I'd just like to note, although I'm probably 16 stating the obvious, that as we conclude the fourth day of 17 this deposition, we are now in what I believe to be our 18 22nd hour of taped testimony from the Archbishop. It's 19 been grueling. He's an elderly man. He's tired. I 20 suggest that our position will be, and is as of this time, 21 that this deposition concludes at 5:00 o'clock, and it 22 will not be continued or reopened. 23 I tell you that not as a threat by any means, 24 because that ultimately will be a decision for the Court, 25 but that I encourage you to order, if you haven't already, Page 725 1 your subjects in some hierarchy, so that you get your most 2 important things out of the way while you have the 3 Archbishop here, and we have this present deposition 4 running, because at least for our part, we don't plan to 5 be very sympathetic to arguments to the Court that you 6 have not been able to cover the most important areas that 7 you sought to explore in this deposition. 8 So given our last hour here, 45 minutes, if you 9 have something of burning importance, I'd urge you to put 10 it to the head of your list. 11 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, you indicated that 12 you believe the first time you would have learned that 13 priests with sexual disorders were residents at the 14 Servants of the Paraclete would have been when Marlena 15 Nowak had made that report to you sometime in the mid 16 '70s. 17 MS. BURTRAM: I'm going to object. 18 MS. KENNEDY: No, that wasn't it. 19 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) I'm sorry. Please help me 20 out. 21 MS. KENNEDY: Well -- 22 MR. BENNETT: Not you, the Archbishop. 23 MS. KENNEDY: Just trying to be assistance 24 and move it along, Mr. Bennett. 25 MR. BENNETT: That's okay. I'd rather rely Page 726 1 on the Archbishop. 2 MS. KENNEDY: You're asking Archbishop to 3 tell you what your question to him was? 4 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) My question to you, 5 Archbishop, is I -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I was 6 assuming from your answers that the first time you had 7 learned that the Servants of the Paraclete was a facility 8 that was a residence for priests -- do I have the wrong -- 9 A. I think you have the wrong one, if I may 10 clarify. I think there are two questions. In response to 11 when I may have known about the Servants of the Paraclete 12 as a center for residential center for priests who may 13 have offended children, I think I gave you the date of 14 1981 in conjunction with Jason Sigler, his offense at that 15 time, and then I also stated that I may have learned about 16 it at some point earlier, but I have no recollection of 17 that. 18 The other response which I mentioned that 1976, I 19 think they mentioned, from Mrs. Nowak, was in response to 20 your question when was the first time that I may have come 21 to the knowledge that priests had offended children this 22 way, sexually offended children, since I had been 23 ordained. And I was trying to remember a date since I had 24 been ordained a priest. And so there were two separate 25 questions there, if I'm not mistaken. Page 727 1 Q. Thank you for refreshing my recollection. When 2 is the next time after the Marlena Nowak contact that you 3 recall any information coming to you concerning sexual 4 molestation of a child by a priest, or that that type of 5 thing had occurred in the priesthood? 6 A. My memory right now is sort of overwhelmed, I 7 guess, with the issue of Jason Sigler and the incident in 8 1981. That's the first thing that just pops out in my 9 memory. I'm trying to think if there was any other 10 occasion that I may have had to learn of anything of that 11 nature. But I have to confess that just for the passage 12 of years, I could not accurately say that it was at any 13 other time. But I do know, obviously, that with the 14 incident of Jason Sigler at St. Therese, that was 15 definitely a memorable event. 16 Q. And as far as your present recollection is 17 concerned, that was the next memorable event after the 18 Marlena Nowak event? 19 A. Yes. And I have to add, just for clarity's 20 sake, that I don't recall meeting with Mrs. Nowak. I want 21 that clear. 22 Q. I understand. 23 A. It's just that I know that they've made the 24 statement, and she has made the statement, so I have to 25 assume that I did, but I just don't remember it. Page 728 1 Q. Does the Archdiocese of Santa Fe pay any money 2 to the Vatican? 3 A. No, sir. There's no payment from the 4 Archdiocese of Santa Fe. The only offering that people 5 may want to participate in was called, for years, a 6 Peter's pence collection, and it was a a freewill offering 7 that was taken up on, oh, one of the Sundays in -- I 8 believe it was June, like the last Sunday of June. It was 9 never a very large gift offering, but it was sort of like 10 a second collection during the Mass, and people were asked 11 to contribute to that if they so chose. And the total 12 offering for the entire Archdiocese might have been about 13 $15,000, maybe that. 14 Q. Does that still occur? 15 A. Yes, that's gone on for years. They would ask 16 us to assist in -- the Vatican has their own ministries 17 and missions, as well, that they try to help out, the 18 foreign mission areas, where bishops ask if they can be 19 helped in any way with the work that they're doing in all 20 the -- what I'd call the Third World countries. So the 21 Holy Father tries to assist them in that way. So 22 basically what we're doing is simply asking the Holy 23 Father to help those different ministries that are not 24 localized for ourselves. 25 Q. So the Vatican makes a request to the Page 729 1 Archdiocese of Santa Fe to assist them in that endeavor? 2 A. It's a world-wide request, actually. Every 3 parish in the United States has that same request. It's a 4 national thing. And then the same thing happens in 5 Germany and Spain and other countries. 6 Q. I understand. But that request is made by the 7 Vatican to all of these archdioceses? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Does that offering take place once a year? 10 A. Once a year. 11 Q. And that offering occurs after a Mass or during 12 a Mass? 13 A. It's, yes, normally towards the end of the Mass, 14 after the communion part of the Mass, then the ushers come 15 and pass the collection baskets a second time, and it's 16 announced that whatever freewill offer they make at that 17 time is for that special intention. 18 Q. When you served on the personnel board prior to 19 becoming Archbishop, who else served on the board with 20 you, that you can recall? 21 A. I have absolutely no recall of the other members 22 at all. I'm going to use the word "maybe," because as I 23 say, recollection is just very hazy. Maybe Father Francis 24 Eggert, maybe Father Ron Bruckner, maybe a Father Ray 25 Aragon, and that's where it ends. Page 730 1 Q. Would there be a record of that anywhere? 2 A. It may very well be still retained in the 3 Archdiocese. From time to -- minutes were tried to be 4 kept, but normally it amounted to who was present for the 5 meeting, and then any recommendations in the personnel 6 board meeting. But it wasn't what I would call minutes of 7 discussion or anything like that, because we just -- we'd 8 be participating in the meeting, and one would try to take 9 down whatever you could. So we just asked him to take 10 down resolutions. But it should have -- if they still 11 have the minutes, it should have the members in 12 attendance. 13 Q. Where would these minutes be located? 14 A. Probably now, since it goes way back then, it 15 would have to be in the archives. They'd have to look 16 down there for them. 17 Q. I also need a little help, Archbishop. Did you 18 indicate that you came back to Albuquerque in 1971 from an 19 outlying parish? 20 A. Yes. I indicated that I had previously been the 21 pastor in northeastern New Mexico in an area -- the two 22 communities of Roy and Mosquero. And then the Archbishop 23 asked me to become the next pastor at San Felipe Church in 24 Albuquerque in September 1971. 25 Q. And did you serve at that parish until your Page 731 1 appointment as Archbishop? 2 A. Yes, exactly. 3 Q. When you were at St. Pius after 1971 and until 4 you were appointed at San Felipe, were you more active in 5 Archdiocese activities than you had been previously? 6 A. During what time? I'm sorry. 7 Q. The time you were at San Felipe Parish. 8 A. Official activities of the Archdiocese? 9 Q. Or unofficial. 10 A. Well, I was active in activities, but it wasn't 11 necessarily official activities of the Archdiocese. It 12 was an age where there was a lot of concern in the City 13 for ethnic groups, minority groups. If you recall back, 14 the '60s and early '70s was quite a challenge to our 15 country in reference to minority groups, cultural 16 identity, etc. And the same was true in Albuquerque. 17 There had been an awareness, a growing awarenes, 18 among the Spanish-speaking Catholic people of their need 19 to maintain the old traditions and customs of the Church 20 and of their villages that seemed to be rapidly fading or 21 being forgotten. And so several priests, including 22 myself, were concerned about making efforts to preserve 23 those customs and cultural traditions for the people, as 24 well as the language. And so we became active in those 25 affairs. Page 732 1 And our activity at that level, then, also lead to 2 activity on other concerns, such as the Albuquerque Public 3 School system and if they were reaching out to the 4 minority group, and my concern was the Spanish-speaking 5 youngster, since so many were dropping out of school, and 6 our concern was for the future, both of the child, as well 7 as for the future of the community. If you have a large 8 percentage dropout, you're going to be buying some trouble 9 down the road. 10 So we attended board meetings with the Albuquerque 11 Public School and worked closely with the superintendent 12 to help in whatever way we could to encourage staying in 13 school for the Hispanic child and other minority groups, 14 as well, so that we could try to upgrade the level of 15 education for everyone for the future. 16 So we felt that we could be almost a liaison group 17 working with APS, and they were very grateful. I know 18 even -- excuse me. 19 Q. Were there any other activities associated with 20 the Archdiocese in which you participated in those years? 21 You were on the personnel board. 22 A. I was on the personnel board. 23 Q. Did that meet at the Archdiocese offices? 24 A. No, it normally would meet in a parish. One of 25 the priests who had a parish would host the meeting. Page 733 1 Q. Were there any other activities of that type 2 that you participated in that were associated with the 3 Archdiocese? 4 A. I can't recall any right offhand. I know that 5 the Archbishop in 1974, approximately a week before I was 6 named the Archbishop, he appointed me vicar general. I 7 wasn't certain why that appointment came. It was out of 8 the clear blue. And he just sent me a letter just saying, 9 "I just want you to know I've appointed you vicar 10 general," and I thought I guess he needs someone to help 11 him with the problems, or whatever, you know. And I had 12 no idea -- I guess he wanted me to at least have the title 13 of vicar general before I was appointed Archbishop. But I 14 had no responsibilities with that title for one week. 15 [Exhibit 13 was marked for identification.] 16 Q. Archbishop, I'm going to show you what I've 17 marked as Exhibit 13 which purports to be minutes of a 18 meeting held February 13th, 1967, at the offices of Most 19 Reverend James Peter Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe. 20 A. 1967? 21 Q. That's correct, and I want to ask you -- my 22 question to you is, have you ever seen those minutes 23 before today? 24 MS. BURTRAM: Mr. Bennett, do you have an 25 extra copy of that? Page 734 1 MR. BENNETT: I don't. 2 MS. BURTRAM: Could I see it when they're 3 finished, please? 4 A. Did you want us to read the entire document? 5 Q. Well, just to the extent you need to to 6 determine whether or not you've seen them before. 7 A. I have not seen these at all. 8 Q. Were you ever told about the existence of these 9 minutes after you became Archbishop? 10 A. No, sir, not at all. 11 Q. Let me show you what I've marked as -- 12 A. It's more like part of the history of the 13 Servants of the Paraclete. 14 [Exhibit 14 was marked for identification.] 15 Q. Let me show you what I've marked as Exhibit 14, 16 which is a nine-page document bearing the -- the first 17 page of which bears the letterhead of Via Coeli Monastery 18 of the Servants of the Paraclete. The date on it is 19 December 29, 1966. And let me ask if you were ever aware 20 of that document prior to today. 21 MS. BURTRAM: Mr. Bennett, I'm sorry, 22 Exhibit 14 is what? 23 MR. KIERST: That's the front? 24 MS. BURTRAM: Okay. And Exhibits 13 and 14 25 were Exhibits to Dr. Salazar's deposition? Page 735 1 MR. BENNETT: Yes. 2 MS. BURTRAM: Our are marked, the copies 3 are marked -- 4 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: What's the question? Is 5 the question has he ever seen it before, Mr. Bennett? 6 MR. BENNETT: Right. 7 A. Mr. Bennett, I have never seen this before 8 either. 9 Q. After you became Archbishop, were you ever 10 advised of the existence of this document? 11 A. No. Again, it appears that it's part of the -- 12 I guess, the evolution of the programs at the Servants of 13 the Paraclete, is what it looks like. 14 Q. When you became Archbishop in 1974, were you 15 ever briefed on what the historical relationship between 16 the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and the Servants of the 17 Paraclete had been? 18 A. No, sir, I was not. 19 Q. Did you ever inquire of Chancellor Hendren or of 20 anyone else what that relationship was? 21 A. No, I didn't inquire. It seemed to me, from all 22 appearances, that it seemed to be a -- what should I say, 23 a fraternal relationship. In other words, the Servants of 24 the Paraclete seemed to get along with the diocese. They 25 didn't seem to feel apart or ostracized or -- and there Page 736 1 was no letter saying that no one is welcome to come up 2 here, whatever. In other words, it was a cordial -- 3 seemed to be a cordial relationship. So I didn't inquire 4 as to its history. 5 The first thing that struck me was that the Servants 6 of the Paraclete had their own community, their religious 7 community, and they had a facility up in Jemez Springs, 8 and it was their own facility and really didn't depend 9 upon me for finances from the Archdiocese in any way. So 10 I really wasn't too curious about its history. 11 Q. I believe you testified that you had a general 12 knowledge at that time, when you became Archbishop, that 13 the Servants of the Paraclete was a retreat for, among 14 other things, priests who had alcohol problems? 15 A. Right, the Jemez Springs -- it was called, at 16 that time, Via Coeli. There had been articles from time 17 to time about priests of the Servants of the Paraclete 18 appearing in what was then Catholic newspapers. So people 19 were very well aware of the presence of the Servants of 20 the Paraclete. 21 What their programs were or who their guests were was 22 never made public, certainly not to us. And like I said, 23 I was under the impression, and I think rightfully so, 24 that the center, Via Coeli, Servants of the Paraclete, was 25 indeed a retreat center in the 1960s. That seemed to be Page 737 1 what I would read about it. But as I mentioned earlier, 2 sometime in the 1970s, I began to get the impression that 3 priests who had alcoholic problems were also treated 4 there. 5 Q. Did you know, either from your experience on the 6 personnel board or from your general knowledge as a parish 7 priest, that priests from other archdioceses were in 8 residence at Via Coeli and being placed for service within 9 the Archdiocese of Santa Fe? 10 MS. BURTRAM: I'm going to object, assumes 11 facts not in evidence. 12 A. Not from documents, but what was the, I guess, 13 scuttlebutt or comments by priest to priest, was that 14 priests from that program of the Servants of the Paraclete 15 would be helping this priest on a weekend and then would 16 return up there. On a supply basis, basically. So I was 17 aware that they were, in fact, supplying from time to time 18 in different parishes. I don't recall how many parishes, 19 and I don't recall who did the supply work, but I know 20 that supply did occur. 21 Q. And in order to do supply ministry, a priest 22 would have to be granted faculties by the Archbishop of 23 Santa Fe? 24 A. Priests -- apparently they had requested 25 permission of Archbishop Davis or his chancellor to go Page 738 1 ahead and supply priests. 2 Q. And you knew that that was probably occurring 3 when you took over as Archbishop? 4 A. Yes, right. 5 Q. If you knew that was occurring, why didn't you 6 ascertain what the policy of the Archdiocese was with 7 respect to accommodating these supply ministries from the 8 Servants of the Paraclete? 9 A. Well, it wasn't a policy of the Archdiocese 10 about receiving them. It seemed to be a practice of the 11 Servants of the Paraclete that they would have a man who 12 they felt could serve as a supply priest, if asked by any 13 of the pastors who experienced a need. And so it was up 14 to the pastor to request that service of the Servants of 15 the Paraclete. 16 But there was no written policy on our part, 17 certainly not before the personnel board, relating to the 18 Servants of the Paraclete, because we had no jurisdiction 19 over them. 20 Q. But you did have an interaction with them, 21 because the Archbishop had to grant faculties to serve in 22 a supply ministry? 23 A. The request was made of me, "Could we go ahead 24 and provide supply priests from time to time, if the 25 pastors ask?" This is when I was Archbishop. And, "These Page 739 1 are men who have completed programs, and we feel that it 2 will be of assistance to them, and they can be of 3 assistance to the priests." 4 I must also clarify that after I took over as the 5 Archbishop, that practice was greatly reduced, because I 6 was hesitant -- I didn't know the Servants of the 7 Paraclete that well, and so I wasn't anxious to say yes in 8 every case. I had no reason to discriminate from one case 9 to the other, but it just didn't seem right that we should 10 become dependent upon the Servants of the Paraclete for 11 the priests who were serving us. 12 Q. What efforts did you undertake after you became 13 Archbishop to ascertain what the Servants of the Paraclete 14 were doing, so you could make decisions granting faculties 15 to priests who wanted to perform a supply ministry? 16 A. The effort was simply a phone call to me by 17 whomever the director of the program would be to request 18 whether it would be possible to continue the same practice 19 as Archbishop Davis had of men being able to supply from 20 time to time in parishes. 21 No written policy was shown me, nor did I request a 22 written policy. I trusted that the Servants of the 23 Paraclete, and I think with good reason, that they 24 understood priesthood, they understood parish ministry and 25 would recommend only a man whom they felt they could have Page 740 1 confidence in to assist at any given time. 2 Q. So you made no investigation to determine what 3 the prior policy or practice of the Archdiocese of 4 Santa Fe had been in that regard? 5 A. That's right, sir. I made no investigation. 6 Q. When responding to a request from the Servants 7 of the Paraclete to place a priest in a supply ministry in 8 your Archdiocese, did you think it was important to know 9 what type of program that priest was involved in at the 10 Servants of the Paraclete? 11 MS. BURTRAM: Objection, assumes facts not 12 in evidence. 13 A. I did not inquire from them as to what type of 14 program. My inquiry would have been -- I have no specific 15 recollection of an individual case, but my inquiry would 16 have been, "Are these men responsible? And will they be 17 able to serve effectively as you're recommending them to 18 do?" 19 And even prior to asking, I am sure the guarantee 20 or -- not a guarantee, but an assurance would be offered 21 to me that, yes, they felt that these men, or this man, in 22 whatever case it was, would be able to serve effectively. 23 Q. Do you think it would be a prudent practice to 24 determine what kind of a program that particular priest 25 was in before authorizing a supply ministry? Page 741 1 MS. BURTRAM: Excuse me, I'm going to 2 object, because you're talking about what kind of program. 3 I think it's been established on the record, or in the 4 evidence in this case, that the Servants of the Paraclete 5 offered spiritual rehabilitation for priests. So in that 6 sense, the Archbishop or anybody would have known the 7 program was spiritual rehabilitation. 8 A. I did not ask them to inquire from any 9 psychiatrist or psychologist what treatment had been given 10 to an individual priest. That simply was not my place to 11 ask. My only question to any of the superiors was -- 12 because normally they would ask permission to do this 13 whenever the requests came. They weren't asking for a 14 specific individual at a given moment, and they wanted -- 15 if I would allow that to take place, and I told them that 16 I was more inclined to allow our own priests to cover one 17 for another, rather than always to depend upon Jemez 18 Springs for coverage. 19 Most especially was I this way in reference to any 20 priest whom they may want to place in a parish for a 21 greater length of time, and I would reply negatively. 22 Q. In every case? 23 A. No. I can't say that I did so in every case. I 24 think at the beginning I was a little bit more agreeable, 25 you might say, and allowed -- I don't know, a couple, Page 742 1 maybe. But then I felt that we really needed to take care 2 of our own needs, and we should not be a center for 3 priests to be coming and going, and so I told the director 4 of the program that I would not be agreeable to those 5 requests for the future. 6 Q. At what point in time did you advise Servants of 7 that? 8 A. I would imagine around maybe 1980, that areA. 9 Q. So from 1974 to 1980, you would accept priests 10 from the Servants of the Paraclete to serve on supply 11 ministries in the Archdiocese? 12 A. That was available, but to my recollection, it 13 did not happen on a frequent basis, not frequent at all, 14 but it did happen, yes. 15 Q. And when it happened, did it happen case by 16 case, or did you apply any consistent policy with respect 17 to evaluating whether or not you should grant those 18 faculties? 19 A. I'm not certain what policy you're referring to. 20 We had no policy about when we would grant them faculties. 21 I simply put the responsibility upon those men at Jemez 22 Springs, the Servants of the Paraclete, that they -- 23 anyone that they would allow to serve as supply priests in 24 a parish to celebrate even a weekday Mass, say, that they 25 were men that could be relied upon. Page 743 1 And so that was -- I had to put the responsibility 2 upon them, since I knew nothing of these men, nor could I 3 really take the time to find out, whenever these requests 4 came, who this person was, what's the background, etc., 5 etc. I had to rely upon the Servants of the Paraclete for 6 that information. 7 Q. Why couldn't you take the time to do that? 8 MS. BURTRAM: I'm sorry, Mr. Bennett, I 9 didn't hear your question. 10 Q. Why couldn't you take the time to do that? 11 A. Because I felt I had trust in a program of the 12 Servants of the Paraclete. 13 Q. But you didn't know anything about the program. 14 A. The Servants of the Paraclete were a religious 15 community, in my mind, who were dedicated the spiritual 16 rehabilitation of the priests who had come to them for 17 this purpose. In some instances, it appeared that they 18 had alcoholic problems. I asked of the Servants of the 19 Paraclete an assurance from them that if they were going 20 to allow any priest to go out as a supply person, that 21 they be ready for that. 22 And I have to add that I had not -- did not receive 23 any complaints from any of my pastors regarding the 24 priests. 25 MS. BURTRAM: Mr. Bennett, excuse me. I Page 744 1 apologize, but I just reviewed the gag order that has been 2 entered in these cases, and I feel like I'd like to raise 3 an objection, because I'm not really sure, two exhibits, 4 13 and 14, which -- well, I think the gag order covers 5 those exhibits. 6 MR. BENNETT: Doesn't cover me. I haven't 7 been gagged. 8 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, you have, as far as 9 the deposition is concerned. 10 MR. TINKLER: Only in talking about this 11 deposition. 12 MS. BURTRAM: Well, I don't know. I want 13 to put the objection on the -- 14 MR. BENNETT: I haven't seen the gag order. 15 MS. BURTRAM: I understand. I would like 16 to, in reviewing this gag order -- 17 MR. BENNETT: Can we use another word 18 besides "gag"? 19 MS. KENNEDY: The Court's April '93 order. 20 MR. BENNETT: Thank you, the Court's April 21 '93 order, which does cover everybody else in this room. 22 And it appears to me that one interpretation could be the 23 exhibits to the other deposition. I just want my 24 objection to stand for the record for Exhibits 13 and 14. 25 MR. BLAKE: It seems to me that it's rather Page 745 1 academic, given the fact that the deposition has been 2 sealed by the Court anyway. 3 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: To the extent that 4 whatever was in the previous order, Judge Ashby ruled -- 5 and it's Exhibit 1 to this deposition, paragraph 4, "All 6 provisions of the previous order regarding dissemination 7 of information obtained in discovery will remain in effect 8 and pertain to this deposition." 9 MS. BURTRAM: Thank you, Mr. Winterbottom. 10 So I think it is by at least reference. 11 MR. TINKLER: I think it's binding on us in 12 this deposition, which is why it's all protected. No one 13 is going to see these exhibits, other than by Court order. 14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Tinkler, or Mr. 15 Bennett, I forget who, suggested that Judge Ashby's order 16 only provide -- prohibited verbal or oral communications 17 with regard to substance of this deposition. I read it 18 much differently, and I hope you do, too. 19 MR. TINKLER: I wasn't limiting it. I know 20 we cannot disseminate any information of this deposition, 21 and that's why I don't think there's any problem attaching 22 exhibits from another deposition, because they're all 23 sealed. 24 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: My concerns are slightly 25 different. Page 746 1 MS. BURTRAM: There may not be. 2 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, is it your desire 3 to keep the location of this deposition a secret, or does 4 that come from some other source? 5 A. No, I wanted to keep it from being a public 6 show, because I felt if news media were present with all, 7 that it becomes a distraction for the type of questions 8 that would be asked. And I thought, also, that it should 9 be protective of people whose references may be alluded to 10 in the deposition. 11 So I thought it would be good to keep it in a 12 situation, a place, where everyone would feel free and 13 open to be able to answer the questions and ask the 14 questions that are before us. 15 Q. And is it you who wanted to keep your physical 16 location a secret, as well? 17 A. Yes. I think I discussed this with my 18 chancellor, and together we decided that it would be best, 19 because of the attention the media would want to place on 20 myself. It would be difficult to avoid public interviews, 21 etc., which would certainly distract from what we're 22 trying to do here. 23 Q. When you -- 24 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, to the 25 extent that it's important, your question said, "It was Page 747 1 you." There are other people besides the Archbishop who 2 had desires in this respect, too. 3 Q. What was your relationship with Ron Wolf when 4 you were Archbishop? 5 A. Ron Wolf served, during my tenure as Archbishop, 6 in several capacities. When he was first ordained, he 7 served as an associate pastor in Albuquerque. After that, 8 after a year, I believe, he was then appointed by myself 9 to be pastor in northeastern New Mexico, where I had been 10 at one time, in the small communities of Roy and Mosquero. 11 After he had served there approximately four years, I 12 asked him to attend the Catholic University in Washington, 13 D.C., to do graduate studies in canon law. He had had 14 extensive administrative experience in his own personal 15 life, especially in the educational field, and I felt that 16 he would be an asset to the Archdiocese by getting a 17 degree in canon law and assisting in administrative 18 affairs. 19 Upon completion of his degree, after a two-year 20 period of study, he returned then to Albuquerque to the 21 Archdiocese, and I appointed him to work in our marriage 22 tribunal, which position requires a man who has at least a 23 Master's degree in canon law. 24 So he worked in that position, let's say, either for 25 a year or for several months of a year. And finally, the Page 748 1 chancellor who had served me at that time, Father Richard 2 Olona, asked if he could be given permission to return to 3 parish ministry, since he had been away from parish 4 ministry for about 10 years, and I then spoke with Father 5 Ron Wolf, if he would be willing to accept the position of 6 chancellor in the event that I would accept the 7 resignation of Father Olona, and he agreed. So the 8 resignation of the former chancellor was accepted, and 9 Father Ron Wolf was appointed chancellor. 10 Q. And what is your relationship with him now? 11 A. Father Ron Wolf remains the chancellor of the 12 Archdiocese of Santa Fe, and he receives mail -- a good 13 deal of mail still goes to the office there, and he 14 handles that for me. 15 16 17 Page 749 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Well, my question is: Your 19 location is a secret, the location of this deposition is a 20 secret. My question to you is: Did you instruct Father 21 Wolf, in his capacity as a chancellor, to keep it a 22 secret? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Page 752 1 2 MR. BENNETT: Okay, fine. Then the second 3 point I want to raise with you, Mr. Winterbottom, is it's 4 obvious that we cannot cover over 20 years of information 5 in an equal number of hours or even close to it, and I am 6 nowhere near finishing with the deposition of Archbishop 7 Sanchez. As far as I'm concerned, every question is 8 important, and it is likely to read to the discoverability 9 of admissible evidence. 10 There are many questions I need to ask the 11 Archbishop to protect and preserve the rights of my 12 clients. We have the right to do this. We're entitled to 13 do this. The Archbishop is very gracious, and I know he 14 will graciously consent to a mutually convenient time at 15 which we can resume the deposition and complete it in an 16 expeditious fashion. 17 There have been delays in this deposition that 18 have been caused not through the fault of myself or other 19 counsel, as I'm sure you're well aware, and we just need 20 more time to make sure we make a full inquiry. We're 21 entitled to do that. 22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, I suspect -- 23 MR. BENNETT: So I have not posed any 24 questions this afternoon to try to give my best first or 25 order them in any fashion to accommodate you or to Page 753 1 accommodate anybody else. I'm here to accommodate and 2 preserve the rights of my client. Thank you, Archbishop. 3 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Bennett. 4 Thank you. 5 MR. GOFFE: The time is 5:03. We are off 6 the record. This is the end of tape 11 in the deposition 7 of Archbishop Sanchez. 8 [The record was concluded at 5:03 PM] 9 Page 754 1 SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF BERNALILLO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO 3 4 JOHN DOES I THROUGH III, 5 Plaintiffs, 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, 9 Defendants. 10 _________________________________________________________ 11 JOHN DOES IV and V, 12 Plaintiffs, 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, 16 Defendants. 17 _________________________________________________________ 18 JOHN DOES VI and VIII, 19 Plaintiffs, 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, 23 Defendants. Page 755 1 JOHN DOE VIII, 2 Plaintiff, 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, 6 Defendants. 7 ________________________________________________________ 8 JOHN DOES IX and X, 9 Plaintiffs, 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, 13 Defendants. 14 _________________________________________________________ 15 JOHN DOE XI through XVII, 16 Plaintiffs, 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, 20 Defendants. Page 756 1 JOHN DOE, 2 Plaintiff, 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, 7 Defendants. ________________________________________________________ 8 JOHN DOE, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. CV-93-02881 11 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, 14 Defendants. 15 _________________________________________________________ 16 JOHN DOE, 17 Plaintiff, 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, 22 Defendants. Page 757 1 JOHN DOE, 2 Plaintiff, 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, 7 Defendants. ________________________________________________________ 8 JOHN DOE, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. CV-93-07186 11 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, 14 Defendants. 15 ________________________________________________________ 16 JOHN DOE, 17 Plaintiff, 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, 22 Defendants. Page 758 1 JOHN DOES I, II and III 2 Plaintiffs. 3 vs. CV-92-06892 4 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, 8 Defendants. ________________________________________________________ 9 JOHN DOE IV, 10 Plaintiff, 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, 15 Defendants. 16 ________________________________________________________ 17 ELAINE MONTOYA and PAUL MONTOYA, 18 Plaintiffs, 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, 22 Defendants. Page 759 1 MICHAEL D. HARRIS, DANA KAINZ, 2 PETER D. ST. CYR, CONRAD L. JIRON, and ED TRUJILLO, 3 Plaintiffs, 4 vs. CV-92-10319 5 ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE ARCHDIOCESE 6 OF SANTA FE, INC., a New Mexico corporation, and FATHER ARTHUR J. PERRAULT, 7 Defendants. 8 ___________________________________________________________ 9 10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF DEPOSITION 11 I, Jenifer L. Russin, CCR #182, DO HEREBY 12 CERTIFY that on January 12-15, 1994, the deposition of ROBERT F. SANCHEZ was taken before me at the request of, 13 and sealed original thereof retained by: 14 BRUCE PASTERNACK Attorney for Plaintiffs 15 700 Lomas, NE, Suite 100 Albuquerque, NM 87102 16 I FURTHER CERTIFY that copies of this 17 certificate have been mailed or delivered to the following Counsel and parties not represented by counsel appearing 18 at the taking of the deposition: 19 Richard Winterbottom Stephen E. Tinkler Attorney for Witness Attorney for Plaintiffs 20 718 Central, SW 425 Sandoval Albuquerque, NM 87102 Santa Fe, NM 87501 21 Karen Kennedy Paul Bardacke 22 Attorney for Archdiocese Attorney for Archdiocese of Santa Fe of Santa Fe 23 6400 Uptown, NE 6400 Uptown, NE Albuquerque, NM 87110 Albuquerque, NM 87110 Page 760 1 Luis Stelzner Arthur O. Beach Attorney for Archdiocese Attorney for Archdiocese 2 of Santa Fe of Santa Fe 707 Broadway, NE 414 Silver, SW 3 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Albuquerque, NM 87102 4 Robert Reese Alan Konrad Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Paracletes 5 P. O. Box 1060 500 Marquette, NW Green River, WY Albuquerque, NM 87102 6 Merit Bennett 7 Attorney for Plaintiffs 425 Sandoval 8 Santa Fe, NM 87501 9 I FURTHER CERTIFY that examination of this 10 transcript and signature of the witness was required by the witness and all parties present. 11 I FURTHER CERTIFY that the recoverable cost of 12 the deposition to Bruce Pasternack is $_____________. 13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I did administer the oath to the witness herein prior to the taking of this 14 deposition; that I did thereafter report in stenographic shorthand the questions and answers set forth herein, and 15 the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the proceeding had upon the taking of this deposition to the 16 best of my ability. 17 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither employed by nor related to any of the parties or attorneys in this 18 case, and that I have no interest whatsoever in the final disposition of this case in any court. _______________________________ 21 Jenifer L. Russin, RPR-CM Certified Court Reporter #182 22 License Expires: 12/31/94 Page 761

.