Transcript of Weakland Deposition Video Excerpts

This page presents a transcript of the video excerpts from Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland's deposition of June 5-6, 2008. See also the full deposition transcript.

In places, the video was edited by Jeff Anderson & Associates to eliminate objections and digressions. We have included that deleted material and have rendered in blue all the words included in the video.

Video 1

Click image to view video.

[page 67 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q So I want to break this down, Archbishop. I don't want to interrupt you, but I want to make sure that you're answering the question that I'm asking. I'm asking personally as the archbishop, did you ever make any report of suspected sexual abuse between '77 and 2002 to civil authorities?

MR. ROTHSTEIN: Pardon me. Simply show my objection. We're here about three individual [page 68 begins] priests, MacArthur, Widera and Becker. This is way beyond that.

THE WITNESS: I can't recall ever doing so personally.

* * * * * *

Q Did you ever direct any official under your control actually turn the information that you had received or that the Archdiocese had received concerning sexual abuse over to the civil authorities so they could investigate it?
A That happened later.

Q When is the first time that happened, Archbishop?
A I couldn't tell you, but it was probably in the '90s.

* * * * * *

Q So is it your testimony that you and Archbishop Dolan have really never discussed the issue of [page 94 begins] sexual abuse by priests of the Archdiocese and what you knew and when you knew it with him?
A We've never had any kind of discussion about that.

* * * * * *

[page 103 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q And when you learned that he [Widera] was a convicted and [page 104 begins] accused child molester in active ministry in your diocese, did you ask your predecessor or any other official in the Archdiocese how many other priests do we have in ministry in the Archdiocese who are offenders or who are suspected of having abused children and we know about it?
A I don't remember ever asking that question as you've formulated it.

* * * * * *

[page 107 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Okay. I'm going to show you 103. I'm going to skip 103. I'm going to show you Exhibit 103-B. This would be a Judgment of Conviction and a Sentence Withheld where probation is ordered. And this is the official court record reflecting his finding, and it's a Judge Warren A. Grady at the lower left you'll see, and the district attorney is James M. LaPointe, at least as reflected by this document. Is this the judge and the DA that you were faulting for having allowed Widera to continue in ministry where he abused youth?
A If he was the acting judge of the case, yes.

* * * * * *

BY MR. ANDERSON: [page 116 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Exhibit 107 is a response from Father Theisen to Mrs. Flood dated February 19th, '74, and you'll see the second paragraph, second sentence he says, and this is Theisen now as executive secretary of the personnel board, "We are happy to hear that he is doing well in school and shows so much interest in children." When you see this, Archbishop, would you agree that Father Theisen, the Archdiocesan personnel board, had an obligation to Mrs. Flood to tell her that Widera was a convicted child molester?

MR. ROTHSTEIN: Object. Foundation. Asking witness to interpret mind of third person.

THE WITNESS: I don't know if it was necessary to tell Mrs. -- what was her name -- Flood.

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: But I certainly do think that somebody, probably the probation officer, should have been alerted to this.

* * * * * *

[page 126 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q And in all of these cases where priests offended children and they were sent for treatment on your watch, you allowed each of these priests to continue in ministry in some capacity, did you not?
A Yes.

* * * * * *

[page 130 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Okay. Before 1992, is it fair to say then, Archbishop, that the practice was to put the priests in ministries -- back in ministry, either a parish or a chaplaincy, and not tell the laity that you knew that he was an offender?
A I would say that was the practice.

* * * * * *

[page 149 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q I think that's one issue and I think that's -- you know, that's real, but what is also evident here, wouldn't you agree, is that all of the energy is given to the protection of Father Widera and the reputation of the Archdiocese at the peril of the children?

MR. ROTHSTEIN: Pardon me. Same objection. No foundation for this witness.

THE WITNESS: At the peril of the children, yes, that's true in a way. I think the disagreement would probably be if you had Archbishop Cousins here talking, is that he really believed that people could be cured, predators, or at least if not cured, that's a bad word perhaps, that they could keep that attraction, if you call it addiction, under control, and I think he really believed that you could put in place ways of doing that. Now, today psychiatrists and psychologists, probation officers might have a different take on it, but at least at that time I think that would have been the concept that most bishops would have had.

* * * * * *

[page 152 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Do you have any information, Archbishop, that the Archdiocesan officials then informed the probation office under whose supervision Widera remained until this date of the fact that Widera had reoffended?
A I see no indication of that.

* * * * * *

[page 161 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Well, Archbishop, I think I'm hearing you say that if you would have informed the parishioners of the known risk of a priest such as Widera, you never could have assigned him to that parish because people wouldn't have it, right?
A Right. Exactly.

Q And so what the practice was was to not tell the people and assign him hoping that they would not reoffend, correct?
A Hope is too modest a word.

Q Let's say making the choice to take the risk that they won't reoffend?
A With safeguards, yes.

* * * * * *

[page 184 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Is the doctrine of manifestation of conscience in your view an admonition against asking somebody like Becker did you abuse kids?
A Yes, it would be. He would not have to have answered that in the affirmative to his bishop.

Q Would it be some kind of violation of norms, protocols or law for you as the archbishop to ask your priest that question?

MR. ROTHSTEIN: Object. Question vague.

MR. ANDERSON: You can answer.
THE WITNESS: As far as I know, it would have been contrary to what a bishop has the right to ask of a priest.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q Well, a bishop is the one responsible for the [page 185 begins] ordination, the placement, the transfer, the assignment of all priests of the Archdiocese, correct?
A Yes.

Q When you refer to the doctrine of the manifestation of conscience, does that act as some prohibition imposed upon the Archdiocese to say to Becker did you abuse kids?
A I would say that that -- he could have very rightly have said that's none of your business. I think that would have been a part of his right in doing that. That's my judgment. I might be wrong, but that was how I would have interpreted a manifestation of conscience.

Q My question to you, Archbishop, is did you ever ask Franklyn Becker the question, "Did you abuse kids while you were my priest?"
A I never asked him that question as you worded it, no.

Q And why not? You had suspicions.
A Yes, but it's like asking all kinds of questions of people, do you have a right to ask them or don't you. I didn't think I had the right to pose a question that way.

* * * * * *

[page 190 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Was this information, his apology and admission to you that he had become involved with this boy as he writes [see Exhibit 306], ever made known to the police by you or any of your officials?
A Not to my knowledge.

* * * * * *

[page 198 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q Who did you tell at the parish where you assigned him in 1980 that you had already known and learned that Becker was a child molester or a molester of minors?
A I can't recall that I ever told anybody in the parish this, and in 1980 I don't think it would have been done. Hindsight is easy, knowing how he turned out, but at that time I can't recall that there would have been any.

Q And it's fair to say that you didn't make that warning and/or disclosure to the parishioners because of a variety of things. One of those I heard you say is that you treated priests like family members, right?
A That's true.

Q Another thing is the way the Canons, the Canon Law, [page 199 begins] operated, it made it difficult for you to take action against the priests?
A At least to remove them from priesthood, yes.

Q It didn't impede your ability to assign him to a parish, however, correct?
A No.

Q Beyond that whole family dynamic that you described, treating Becker as a family member, a member of your family not just of faith but like blood, what other explanation do you have ...

Video 2

Click image to view video.

... for not having told the people at the parish that this guy is a molester?
A I think I can say honestly that if that's -- that was the criterion that had to be used, then there would have been no one assigned at that point because no parish would have accepted a priest, unless you could say that he has gone through the kind of psychological examination and that he's not a risk to the parish, which would have been what was happening here.

* * * * * *

[page 231begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q I'm going to direct your attention to page 13 of this document, Archbishop. In the middle of it, at the fourth paragraph down and the second sentence, it reads -- page 13, fourth paragraph, middle, it reads, "It further suggests that there is a high likelihood that he will continue to act out sexually, especially with adolescent males if given the opportunity." So this expert retained by the Archdiocese is telling you and other officials this guy is going to continue to commit crimes against youth, right?
A Right.

Q And it is also correct to say that you and the officials of the Archdiocese continued him in ministry without warning the parishioners and the parents of the youth that he was continuing to be at risk for offending?
A That's true.

* * * * * *

[page 245 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q And direct your attention to entry 8 [of Exhibit 300] -- excuse me -- 483. This states, "On August 29, 1992, I gave tentative approval to Tom Trepanier for utilizing Franklyn Becker as a weekend help out at Cascade after Dick Fetherston's departure and in view of Jim Thurman's unwillingness to continue that particular assignment." When the writer says "I," that would mean the then vicar for clergy, correct?
A Yes.

Q And the vicar for clergy has authority to do that only from and through you as the presiding Archbishop, correct?
A Yes.

Q When approval was given to Tom Trepanier by you and the chancellor for Becker to work as a weekend [page 246 begins] priest at Cascade, was any warning given to the parishioners that Becker had a long history of molestation and that the Archdiocese had known it?
A I do not know.

* * * * * *

[page 253 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

Q I'm going to show you Exhibit 327. Archbishop, this is dated July 19, 1996, it's addressed to you, bishop --

MR. SHRINER: Sklba.

MR. ANDERSON: -- Sklba. [page 254 begins]

MR. SHRINER: Just pretend there's a vowel in there.
BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q And Reverend Carrol Straub from Liz Piasecki, psychologist regarding Becker. It's marked privileged and confidential, and it states, "On July 17th, '96, I had an extended conversation with Dr. Marlene Trachsel, the psychologist who is treating Franklyn Becker," and it goes on to state, "During the course of that conversation, Dr. Trachsel articulated the following concerns," and of those concerns, I direct your attention to number two. It states, "Father Becker now, (again), identifies himself as a pedophile and asks Dr. Trachsel to sign a statement to that effect so that he could collect a private disability policy which he holds." Do you remember receiving this memo?
A I have a vague recollection of it but not very detailed.

Q I'll direct your attention to item number four at the second page. It states, "Father Becker is in conflict with some adolescent boys who live next door and she wonders if there hasn't been some kind of prior advances which have contributed to the [page 255 begins] present aggression against him by these boys." This is current events that are being reported by Trachsel to Piasecki, Piasecki to you and bishop Sklba. What was done with this information by the Archdiocese?
A I know that we worked very much with Dr. -- I think she called herself Trachsel and that she continued to monitor him constantly for years, and I can't tell you exactly what we did this time with him.

Q There's no evidence in this document or any others that I've seen that this information was brought to the police. Do you have any?
A No, I don't.

Q The next item, number five, says, "She believes Father Becker may be in possession of child pornography in his home." You're aware that an adult abusing a teenager is a crime, correct?
A Yes.

Q You're also aware that possession of child pornography is also a crime?
A Yes.

* * * * * *

[page 283 begins] [view this page in the context of the entire deposition]

MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to mark this one Exhibit 414.

BY MR. ANDERSON:
Q This is an article that appeared in the New York Times June 1st, 2002, and I think you had told me earlier that you had over the years garnered some sensitivity for the suffering that victims of abuse by clergy have suffered spiritually and otherwise?
A Yes.

Q And it's fair to say that you've always kind of felt some of that pain?
A Yes, I can say that, yes.

Q In this article here you're quoted here, and I'd like to ask you about a few things here. Is this written by you? [page 284 begins]
A Yes.

Q Okay. And at the second paragraph, it says -- why did you write this?
A On August 23rd, 2002 -- not August, May 23rd, Paul Marcoux was on TV. It was Good Morning America, I think, and which he mentioned about the settlement and also about the fact that what he called date rape that had taken place in '79. I had already resigned as Archbishop, but they had not accepted it and put it into practice, so that happened immediately. I waited a week to think and pray and decide what to do, and then we had a penitential right in the chapel at Cousins Center in which I read this apology.

Q Okay. And at the second paragraph, the second sentence says -- you write, "I know and I'm sure you do, too, that the church to be authentic must be a community that heals." Those were your words?
A Yes.

Q Then you write, "But I also know that you do, too, that there is no healing unless it is based on truth." Do you believe that?
A I do.