Deposition of Cardinal Roger Mahony
November 23, 2004

[Note: This is Part 1 of a two-part HTML version of the Mahony deposition [see also Part 2] that created from a Word document included with Cardinal Untruths: Mahony's Testimony in Sex Scandal Clashes with Earlier Statements and Reality, by Jeffrey Anderson, LA Weekly (12/15/04). See also Mahony in '80s Banned Two Priests: Deposition Reveals He Ousted Pair Accused of Molestation from U.S. While He Was Stockton Bishop, by Jean Guccione, LA Times (12/10/04); and Cardinal Mahony Accused of Perjury in Sex Abuse Case, by Don Lattin, San Francisco Chronicle (12/11/04). In his article, Anderson also provided four of the deposition exhibits: 2, 3, 4, and 8. For easier reading, we have formatted the list of exhibits and the list of questions that Mahony was instructed by his lawyer not to answer. We've displayed the page numbers in blue and adjusted the spacing, but otherwise this is the text of the deposition that accompanied Anderson's article.]

       Coordinated Proceeding                             )
  6   Special Title (Rule 1550(b)                         )
  7                                                                     )
       THE CLERGY CASES III                      )   No. JCCP 4359
  8                                                                     )
  9   _________________________________)
                                  DEPOSITION OF
                      CARDINAL ROGER MAHONY
                       LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
                     TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2004
25   CSR NO. 6361

  1                Videotaped deposition of
  2         CARDINAL ROGER MAHONY, taken on behalf of
  3         Plaintiffs at 601 N. Figueroa Street,
  4         26th Floor, Los Angeles, California,
  5         commencing at 10:05 a.m., on Tuesday,
  6         November 23, 2004, before Lisa Michaels,
  7         RPR, CSR No. 6361.
11       JOHN C. MANLY, Attorney at Law, M. RYAN DIMARIA,
12   Attorney at Law, of Manly & McGuire, 555 Anton
13   Boulevard, Suite 1200, Costa Mesa, California, 92626,
14   (714) 557 9999, appeared as counsel for and on behalf
15   of Plaintiffs,
16       VENUS SOLTAN, Attorney at Law, JOE Q. KAUFMAN,
17   Attorney at Law, of Soltan and Associates, 555 Anton
18   Boulevard, Suite 1200, Costa Mesa, California, 92626,
19   (714) 434 7900,, appeared as
20   counsel for and on behalf of Plaintiffs,
21       RICK SIMONS, Attorney at Law, of Furtado,
22   Jaspovice & Simons, 22274 Main Street, Hayward,
23   California, 94541, (510) 582 1080,,
24   appeared as plaintiffs' liason counsel,
25       ANTHONY M. De MARCO, Attorney at Law, of Kiesel,

  1   Boucher & Larson, 8648 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly
  2   Hills, California, 90211 2910, (310) 854 4444,
  3, appeared as counsel for and on
  4   behalf of plaintiffs,
  5       JOSEPH C. GEORGE, JR., Attorney at Law, of The
  6   Law Offices of Joseph C. George, Ph.D., 980 Ninth
  7   Street, Suite 1900, Sacramento, California, 95814,
  8   (916) 442 7100,, appeared as
  9   counsel for and on behalf of the plaintiffs       
10   family,
11       JEFFREY A. SILVA, Attorney at Law, GREGORY R.
12   DAVENPORT, Attorney at Law, 3031 West March Lane, Suite
13   334E, Stockton, California, 95209, appeared for and on
14   behalf of plaintiffs,
15       KATHERINE K. FREBERG, Attorney at Law, of Freberg
16   & Associates, 8001 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1070,
17   Irvine, California, 92618, (949) 453 1111,
18, appeared for and on behalf of
19   plaintiffs,
20       DONALD F. WOODS, JR., Attorney at Law, J. MICHAEL
21   HENNIGAN, Attorney at Law, JAMES P. HABEL, Attorney at
22   Law, of Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman, 601 South Figueroa
23   Street, Suite 3300, Los Angeles, California, 90017,
24   (213) 694 1200,, appeared for and
25   on behalf of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the

  1   witness,
  2       FRANK D. MAUL, Attorney at Law, of Stammer,
  3   McKnight, Barnum & Bailey, 2540 W. Shaw Lane, #110,
  4   Fresno, California, 93711 2765, (559) 449 0571,
  5, appeared for and on behalf of The
  6   Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno, a Corporation Sole and
  7   The Diocese of Fresno Education Corporation,
  8       PAUL N. BALESTRACCI, Attorney at Law, of
  9   Neumiller & Beardslee, 509 W. Weber Avenue, P.O. Box
10   20, Stockton, California, (209) 948 8200,
11, appeared for and on behalf
12   of The Roman Catholic Bishop of Stockton,
13       PETER J. GODFREY, Attorney at Law, of Gilbert,
14   Kelly, Crowley & Jennett, 1055 West Seventh Street,
15   Suite 2000, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213)
16   580 7000,, appeared for and on
17   behalf of The Los Angeles Diocese,
18       JOHN P. CHRISTIAN, Attorney at Law, of Tobin &
19   Tobin, 500 Sansome Street, Eighth Floor, San Francisco,
20   California, 94111, (415) 433 3883, appeared for and on
21   behalf of The Diocese of Monterey and as liason counsel
22   for defendants and clergy,
23       PAUL A. MATIASIC, Attorney at Law, of Lewis,
24   Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, One Sansome Street, Suite
25   1400, San Francisco, California, 94104, (415) 362 2580,

  1, appeared for and on behalf of the
  2   Defendants Franciscan Friars of California and the
  3   Bishop of Oakland,
  4       SETH J. SCHWARTZ, Attorney at Law, of McNamara,
  5   Dodge, Ney, Beatty, Slattery & Pfalzer, 1211 Newell
  6   Avenue, P.O. Box 5288, Walnut Creek, California,
  7   94596 1288, (925) 939 5330,
13       DAVID J. HUDAK
14       PATRICK J. WALL
16       JOHN DOE
17       NANCY SLOAN

  1                   INDEX OF EXAMINORS
  3   EXAMINATION                                        PAGE
  4       BY MR. MANLY                                       11
  5       BY MS. SOLTAN                               161, 264
  6       BY MR. SIMONS                                    204
  7       BY MR. De MARCO                                  258
                      INDEX OF EXHIBITS
11 1 Fresno State College document; 8 pages 40
12 2 Letter from the Servants of the Paraclete
dated 7 6 68; 1 page
13 3 Confidential Memorandum dated 2 15 84; 5 pages 68
14 4 Letter to Captain House dated 3 16 84; 4 pages 75
15 5 Letter to Captain House dated 3 28 84; 1 pages 83
16 6 Biographical Data on Cardinal Roger Mahony; 94
17   6 pages  
18 7 Codex Iuris Canonici; 14 pages 134
19 8 6 12 98 Trial Testimony; 2 pages 134
20 9 Instructio (Latin); 55 pages 142
21 10 Instruction (English); 39 pages 142
22 11 Il Processo Penale Cannonico article; 20 pages 152
23 12 Letter dated 8 23 76 from Rev. O'Grady;
2 pages

  1             INDEX OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
  3 13 Letter dated 21 29 84 from Dr. Morris; 1 page 226
  4 14 Documents in Cardinal Mahony's file; 47 pages 234
  5 15 Memorandum dated 10 4 70; 1 page 240
  6 16 Letter dated 10 8 70 from Bishop Donohoe; 243
  7   1 page  
  8 17 Handwritten notes on Rev. Herdegen; 1 page 243
  9 18 Memorandum dated 1 5 71; 1 page 245
10 19 Handwritten letter to Bishop Donohoe; 3 pages 245
13 11 24   150 22
14 12 17   155 8
  13 25   165 24
15 13 6   175 24
  56 18   179 7
16 64 5   179 19
  83 20   181 4
17 84 2   209 12
  92 17      
18 112 12      
  112 18      
19 114 7      
  123 12      
20 128 15      

  2                         10:05 A.M.
  3       THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. This is the
  4   videotaped deposition of Cardinal Roger Mahony. It's
  5   taken in the matter of John Doe versus the Roman
  6   Catholic Bishop of Stockton. It's pending trial in the
  7   Superior Court of California, for the County of
  8   Alameda, Case Number 4359.
  9       Today's date is November the 23rd, 2004. The
10   time is 10:05 A.M. This deposition is being taken at
11   the law firm of Hennigan and Bennett, located at 601

12   South Figueroa Street, on the 26th floor, in
13   Los Angeles, California. The videotaped deposition is
14   noticed by John C. Manly of Manly & McGuire, located at
15   555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200, in Costa Mesa,
16   California, 92626.
17       The videotape operator is Richard Smith. I'm
18   with Dan Motaz Video Productions, located at 182 Second
19   Street, Suite 202 in San Francisco, California, 94105.
20   The phone number is (415) 624 1300.
21       Could I have counsel please identify themselves
22   and state their affiliations for the record, please.
23            MR. MANLY: John Manly for the plaintiff.
24            MS. SOLTAN: Venus Soltan for the plaintiff.
25            MR. WALL: Patrick Wall for the plaintiff.

  1            MR. SIMONS: Rick Simons, plaintiffs' counsel
  2   in Clergy III.
  3            MR. GEORGE: Joseph George, Jr., plaintiff.
  4            MR. SILVA: Jeff Silva, plaintiff.
  5            MR. DAVENPORT: Gregory Davenport, plaintiff.
  6            MS. FREBERG: Katherine Freberg, plaintiff.
  7            MR. CHRISTIAN: John Christian for the Diocese
  8   of Monterey and liaison counsel for defendants in
  9   Clergy III.
10            MR. CALLAHAN: Peter Callahan, Diocese of
11   Orange and Diocese of Monterey.
12            MR. SCHWARTZ: Seth Schwartz, Diocese of
13   Stockton.
14            MR. BALESTRACCI: Paul Balestracci, Diocese of
15   Stockton.
16            MR. MATIASIC: Paul Matiasic, Franciscan
17   Friars and Bishop of Oakland.
18            MR. MAUL: Frank Maul, Diocese of Fresno.
19            MR. HENNIGAN: Michael Hennigan, Archdiocese
20   of Los Angeles.
21            MR. WOODS: Don Woods representing the
22   witness, Cardinal Mahony.
23            MR. GODFREY: Peter Godfrey for the
24   Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
25            MR. HABEL: James Habel for the Archdiocese of

  1   Los Angeles.
  2            VIDEOGRAPHER: Could I have that again, a
  3   little louder, please.
  4            MR. HABEL: James Habel, Archdiocese of Los

  5   Angeles.
  6            MR. DIMARIA: Ryan Dimaria for the plaintiff.
  7            MS. SOLTAN: We have our plaintiff John Doe,
  8   and also plaintiff Nancy Sloan is present.
  9            MR. KAUFMAN: Joe Kaufman for the plaintiff.
10            MR. De MARCO: Anthony De Marco for the
11   plaintiffs.
12            MR. SIPES: Rick Sipes for the plaintiff.
13            MS. SOLTAN: We also have a plaintiff John Doe
14   and a plaintiff       *.
15            MR. HUDAK: David Hudak for the Archdiocese of
16   San Francisco, Diocese of Santa Rosa and Diocese of
17   Oakland.
18            MR. MANLY: The record should reflect that
19   Mr. Wallace and Mr. Sipe not counsel. They are here as
20   consultants.
21            THE VIDEOGRAPHER: If I could have the court
22   reporter please swear in witness.
23   ///
24   ///
25   ///

  1                CARDINAL ROGER MAHONY,
  2      having declared under penalty of perjury to tell the
  3       truth, was examined and testified as follows:
  4                        EXAMINATION
  5   BY MR. MANLY:
  6       Q. Good morning, Your Eminence.
  7       MR. WOODS: Can we go off the record one second?
  8            THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record. The
  9   time is 10:08.
10            (An off the record discussion was held.)
11            THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record.
12   The time is 10:08.
13   BY MR. MANLY:
14       Q. Good morning, Your Eminence.
15       A. Good morning.
16       Q. Your Eminence, have you ever been deposed
17   before?
18       A. Yes.
19       Q. On several occasions; right?
20       A. Yes.
21       Q. And you understood the oath you just took
22   compels you to tell the truth?
23       A. Yes.

24       Q. Eminence, are you familiar with something
25   called the "Doctrine of Mental Reservation"?

  1            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the
  2   question and instruct the witness not to answer.
  3   BY MR. MANLY:
  4       Q. Eminence, do you promise, regardless of any
  5   obligation you have as a Father of Faith, that you will
  6   testify truthfully, regardless if it's good, bad, or
  7   indifferent for you or the case?
  8            MR. HENNIGAN: We're going to stop this
  9   deposition right now if you persist in this harassment.
10   BY MR. MANLY:
11       Q. Do you promise to tell the truth,
12   Your Eminence?
13            MR. HENNIGAN: He already did. Move on.
14   BY MR. MANLY:
15       Q. Eminence?
16       A. I already swore to that.
17       Q. Your Eminence, did you tell me when a priest
18   becomes a priest what obligations he has to his Bishop?
19            MR. WOODS: Object. Instruct the witness not
20   to answer.
21   BY MR. MANLY:
22       Q. Are you going to follow that instruction, Your
23   Eminence?
24       A. Yes.
25       Q. Can you tell me if a priest takes an

  1   obligation of celibacy?
  2       A. Correct.
  3            MR. WOODS: Object. Instruct the witness not
  4   to answer.
  5   BY MR. MANLY:
  6       Q. And what is celibacy?
  7            MR. WOODS: Object. Instruct the witness not
  8   to answer.
  9            MR. MANLY: On what grounds?
10            MR. WOODS: It's beyond the scope of the
11   deposition, as ordered by the Court.
12            MR. MANLY: Well, let me make an offer of
13   proof, Mr. Woods. Among other things in this case is
14   that the in my case and in numerous other cases
15   priests told victims that it was not a violation of the
16   vow of celibacy to, for example, masturbate or have sex

17   with them. So I want to have a clear understanding of
18   what that means. I don't think that's irrelevant. I
19   think it's clearly within the scope. And I would like
20   the witness, for the sake of the boys and girls this
21   happened to they deserve to have an answer to that
22   question.
23            MR. HENNIGAN: Why don't we stop this right
24   now and get an instruction from the Court.
25            MR. MANLY: Fine. We'll move on, and we'll

  1   call the Court at lunch, and we'll get an instruction.
  2            MR. WOODS: The issue is not with the
  3   perpetrator here. We're dealing with supervisory
  4   authority. The only issues are notice and response.
  5   Okay? Under the case law and under the instruction of
  6   this Court, the issue is notice, did they have notice
  7   and was a response proportional to the notice that they
  8   received.
  9            MS. SOLTAN: What are you referring to when
10   you say those are the only issues?
11            MR. WOODS: Those are the only issues and
12   scope of liability relating to this case.
13            MS. SOLTAN: Counsel, you and I had a
14   meet and confer before this deposition was scheduled,
15   in which we indicated the various items that are going
16   to be covered. And they are in no way limited to what
17   you contend to be notice and response.
18            MR. WOODS: They certainly don't cover excuses
19   and pretext by perpetrators.
20            MS. SOLTAN: Beg your pardon?
21            MR. WOODS: That was not one of the issues
22   that we discussed.
23            MS. SOLTAN: Say that again?
24            MR. HENNIGAN: Expert testimony.
25            MR. WOODS: We did not discuss the legitimacy

  1   of excuses proposed by offenders as a topic for
  2   discussion. This is not an alleged offender. This is
  3   a supervisory employee. The issues here are what did
  4   he know and what did he do in response to what he knew.
  5   Those are the general issues of testimony, primary
  6   issues for supervisory liability in a secular content.
  7            And the judge made it very clear in his order
  8   that this deposition will be based upon secular
  9   concepts of liability, and that's how we're going to

10   proceed.
11            MS. SOLTAN: Actually, Your Honor actually,
12   Counsel, I think what the Court did is the Court made
13   an indication that we were entitled to inquire into the
14   custom and practice with the various diocese with
15   regard to the handle of sexual abuse cases. And that
16   is what Mr. Manly is attempting to lay a foundation
17   for. And I think you are doing entirely too narrow a
18   drawing of what you consider the issues to be, which I
19   think is inappropriate.
20            MR. WOODS: We'll take it up with the judge if
21   you like, but I don't believe that's the scope of it.
22   And I think these questions these initial questions
23   are simply an attempt at harassment.
24            MS. SOLTAN: Okay. I think what we need to do
25   is we need to go off the record. Let's pull out the

  1   Court's order.
  2            MR. MANLY: Let's not do that.
  3            MS. SOLTAN: Wait a minute. Let's pull out
  4   the meet and confer, and let's get the judge on the
  5   telephone. And if we're not going to be laying a
  6   foundation for the Cardinal's testimony, there really
  7   is not a lot of point. And my perception is that this
  8   is just an attempt to thwart the deposition process,
  9   and I'm very concerned about that. Is that your
10   intent?
11            MR. WOODS: It's obviously not our intent. We
12   are prepared to move forward on the basis that I
13   discussed. In the court order I reviewed it very
14   recently this witness is not called as an expert
15   witness. He's not to give any hypothetical or
16   opinion type testimony. He's only to give testimony as
17   to his percipient knowledge and as to the practices and
18   policies that he adopted and he used in his various
19   supervisory roles at Fresno and in Stockton.
20            MR. SIMONS: Mr. Woods, I have the order in my
21   hand, which does not conform to your understanding.
22   Perhaps we should review it once again. I'm looking at
23   page
24            MR. WOODS: Why don't we just call the judge.
25   Let's call the judge and ask if these questions are

  1   appropriate.
  2            MS. SOLTAN: Let's go off the record for just
  3   a few minutes. Let's go out in the hall and confer.
  4            Off the record, please.
  5            THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record. The time
  6   is 10:14.
  7            (An off the record discussion was held.)
  8            THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. The
  9   time is 10:19.
10   BY MR. MANLY:
11       Q. Cardinal, when is the first time in your
12   entire life, as a layperson, as a deacon, as a priest,
13   that you ever heard of a cleric molesting a child?
14       A. The the best of my recollection would be in
15   1981.
16       Q. Would that be Father Camacho?
17       A. No. Actually, I believe it would be Father
18   Antonio Munoz.
19       Q. And when you found out that Father Munoz had
20   allegedly molested a child, did that shock you?
21            MR. WOODS: Hold on. I'm going to object to
22   the question. It's totally irrelevant as to the
23   evaluation of his conduct as a supervisor, whether he
24   was shocked, not shocked. But I'll let him answer the
25   question.

  1            THE WITNESS: Well, obviously, it's despicable
  2   that a priest would molest a minor in any way.
  3   BY MR. MANLY:
  4       Q. And that was an unusual event; correct?
  5       A. "Unusual," meaning?
  6       Q. Well, it didn't happen every day that you had
  7   a cleric under your charge that molested a child; fair?
  8       A. No. You asked what the first time, and this
  9   was the first time that I I recall.
10       Q. Right. So it was it was something that
11   that, you know that was significant in your mind,
12   because you'd never had to deal with it before;
13   correct?
14       A. Well, it was significant, yes.
15       Q. Yeah. And that and did and is that the
16   case where you met with the families?
17       A. No.
18       Q. Okay. You never forgot about Father Munoz,
19   did you, Your Eminence?
20       A. What do you mean?
21       Q. Did you did you ever at any point in your
22   life forget that incident where you found out that one
23   of a priest, albeit not a diocesan priest, but a
24   priest in your diocese under your charge, molested a
25   child?

  1            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object. Irrelevant
  2   to the subject matter. There's no difference whether
  3   he forgot or didn't forget at some point in time. I'll
  4   let him answer.
  5            MR. MANLY: Do you want to have a running
  6   objection to every question under all bases so you
  7   don't have to object to every question?
  8            MR. WOODS: I'll take it, but I need to voice
  9   the objections anyhow.
10            MR. MANLY: Because I think what you intend to
11   do is what you did in the last deposition, which is
12   object to every single question to delay the
13   proceedings. You know what
14            MR. WOODS: If you'd ask standard questions.
15   I mean, you're obviously is it unusual, how do you
16   feel about it, those those are aren't the type of
17   questions you should be asking here.
18            MR. MANLY: Don, you know what, we've all
19   worked very hard to get here. And I would ask that you
20   behave courteously, as I am, not be nasty, not be
21   insulting, because we're going to get this done a lot
22   faster and get His Eminence out of here.
23            MR. HENNIGAN: We're going to we're going
24   to to quote a line from a movie some time ago, "If
25   you think you're being courteous, you must be from

  1   New York City."
  2            MR. MANLY: Well, I'm certainly not from
  3   Hancock Park.
  4       Q. You didn't forget about Father Munoz, right,
  5   Your Eminence?
  6       A.   I'm not sure what you mean by "forget about
  7   Father Munoz."
  8       Q. Well, since the first time this happened and,
  9   you know, you found it despicable and you found it
10   shocking and you found it awful, and it's not something
11   you would forget; correct?
12       A. Well, I'm not sure about whether I forgot it
13   or remembered it, but I acted quickly on it. That's
14   what I remember.
15       Q. When's the next time you had a priest molest a
16   child, under your care in other words strike
17   that.
18            MR. MANLY: Just relax. Let me ask my
19   question.
20       Q. When is the next time in your career as an
21   Ordinary, Your Eminence, that you had a priest in a
22   diocese that you were in charge of molest a child?
23       A. The next time, to the best of my recollection,
24   was sometime in the early part of 1984.
25       Q. And who was that priest, Your Eminence?

  1       A. That was Father Antonio Camacho.
  2       Q. And he was a priest in the Diocese of
  3   Stockton?
  4       A. Well, he was an extern priest. He didn't
  5   belong to the diocese, but he was working there.
  6       Q. And so the jury will understand, what is an
  7   extern priest, Eminence?
  8       A. An extern priest would be someone who has come
  9   into the diocese, but is not officially a part of the
10   diocese through incardination. And it is assisting
11   for, usually, a limited period of time.
12       Q. Did Father was Father Munoz an extern
13   priest, as well?
14       A. Yes, he was.
15       Q. Okay. And did he have Your Eminence, so
16   the jury will understand, what are faculties as it
17   pertains to a priest?
18       A. Faculties is a term used to cover certain
19   authorizations whereby a priest can hear confessions,
20   preach, and administer the sacraments.
21       Q. Okay. So he can function as a priest of the
22   diocese; correct?
23       A. Yes.
24       Q. And you gave Father Camacho faculties;
25   correct?

  1       A. I think Father Camacho yes, I did.
  2       Q. What are you looking at, Your Eminence, just
  3   out of curiosity?
  4       A. What I'm looking at if you recall, the
  5   record of the last deposition has all the documents in
  6   it. And I just simply did a time line for my own
  7   from the documents, of of the dates and things.
  8       Q. Okay.
  9       A. Because these priests with one of both
10   being named Antonio and both from Mexico, to keep
11   them keep them straight.
12       Q. I see.
13            And you gave Father Camacho faculties, as
14   well?
15       A. Well, Father Munoz was in the diocese when I
16   came. So he had received faculties before, as opposed
17   to Father Camacho, who came while I was there.
18       Q. Okay. And what was the policy that you had in
19   the Diocese of Stockton for investigating extern
20   priests, if any?
21       A. At that time, it was fairly customary to have
22   some type of letter from the man's bishop or religious
23   superior saying that he was able to function in the
24   diocese.
25       Q. Did you have to have a letter from his bishop

  1   saying he was of good morale character and he can
  2   function as a priest, something like that?
  3       A. Well, in those days, the letters were much
  4   more general. And the assumption was that if a priest
  5   were in good standing in his diocese or religious
  6   community, that was all you needed.
  7       Q. Okay. Have you seen such a letter on
  8   Father Camacho?
  9       A. Father Camacho has a letter from I believe
10   the letter is only for Father Munoz.
11       Q. Okay. Do you know, Eminence, where the
12   Father Camacho letter is?
13       A. I don't know if there's an actual letter with
14   him or not, because he actually was serving in the
15   Diocese of Oakland before he came here. So I I just
16   suspect that most likely that was done by telephone
17   between Vicar General in Stockton and the Vicar
18   General, Chancellor in Oakland.
19       Q. Now, when you found out that Father Munoz had
20   molested a child or allegedly molested a child, did
21   you do an investigation?
22       A. Father Munoz was accused of taking young
23   people, high school aged people, to Mexico and abuse
24   them. And when that information came to me, I acted
25   very quickly to terminate his faculties and his

  1   assignment in the diocese.
  2       Q. Your Eminence, my question is a little simpler
  3   than that. I probably didn't articulate it well.
  4            Did you conduct any kind of investigation or
  5   inquiry upon finding out the accusation against
  6   Father Munoz?
  7       A. No, because Father Munoz was in Tijuana; he
  8   was not in the Stockton diocese at the time.
  9       Q. Now, I think you said that you did not have a
10   policy at that time regarding child sexual abuse in
11   Stockton. Is that correct?
12       A. To the best of my knowledge, we didn't have a
13   specific policy.
14       Q. Okay. Was there any procedure in place,
15   either in the Diocese of Stockton, put out by the
16   Metropolitan Diocese of San Francisco, put out by the
17   Catholic Bishops, or put out by the Vatican, that you
18   were aware of, that you were supposed to follow in the
19   event you had this type of accusation, in 1981?
20       A. Well, as far as I recall, there wasn't a
21   specific procedure in place in those days, like there
22   is today, to actually deal with these, step by step.
23       Q. When the Vatican I think it's fairly
24   you're familiar with the policies and procedures of the
25   Roman Catholic Church in America; right, Cardinal?

  1       A. Well, as they have as I've used them, yes.
  2       Q. Right. And prior to getting to Stockton, you
  3   served as a Vicar General; correct?
  4       A. Yes.
  5       Q. And you served as a Chancellor; correct?
  6       A. Yes.
  7       Q. And is it fair to say that both of those
  8   positions require some level of expertise in canon law?
  9       A. I would say some level, but not not much.
10       Q. And you you had previously testified, or
11   given a declaration in a case, as an expert in canon
12   law in Monterey; correct I'm sorry, in Fresno;
13   correct?
14       A. An expert in terms of certain aspects of canon
15   law.
16       Q. Okay. Fair enough.
17            Eminence, what is an instruction when let
18   me ask the question this way: When the Vatican issues
19   an instruction on anything, what does that mean? What
20   does that word mean?
21       A. An instruction is normally some direction on
22   some matter of spiritual pastoral work in the church.
23       Q. Can it be on a matter of administrative or
24   financial matters?
25       A. I think it would be better to say that most of

  1   these are are matters of canon law and instruction
  2   is simply clarifying or somehow amplifying what's in
  3   canon law.
  4       Q. Okay. And if an instruction is issued by the
  5   Vatican that says this is the procedure the diocese is
  6   to follow, is it your obligation as the Bishop of that
  7   diocese to follow that instruction?
  8       A. Well, it depends, first of all, whether we are
  9   aware of the instruction, whether we've received it,
10   whether it has been explained to us what the reasons
11   are. And, usually, the Bishops' conferences around the
12   world have to interpret the instruction according to
13   the reality of their country.
14       Q. In in 1981, were you aware of the existence
15   of any type of psychological professional or
16   psychological facility that specialized in the
17   treatment of sexual disorders?
18       A. In what year?
19       Q. '81, Your Eminence.
20       A. I actually don't recall in 1981 whether I was
21   aware of that or not.
22       Q. Okay. How about in 1982, were you aware of
23   that in 1982?
24       A. I don't believe so.
25       Q. How about in 1983, were you aware of that in

  1   1983, Your Eminence?
  2            MR. WOODS: Could I have a clarification?
  3   What is the "that"?
  4            MR. MANLY: I'm sorry.
  5       Q. The original question was: Are you aware of
  6   any professional or treatment facility, psychiatric or
  7   psychological treatment facility, that specialized in
  8   the treatment of sexual disorders?
  9       A. I don't believe so, in that year.
10       Q. How about 1984, Your Eminence?
11       A. I simply don't recall 1984.
12       Q. You don't recall whether you knew in 1984?
13       A. I don't, in 1984.
14       Q. And how about 1985, did you become aware of
15   that in 1985?
16       A. Yes.
17       Q. Okay. Eminence, when is the first time, if
18   ever, that you visited the Servants of the Paraclete as
19   an Ordinary, any of their facilities?
20       A. I don't recall ever visiting.
21       Q. Have you ever visited a treatment facility, be
22   it the Servants of the Paraclete, House of Affirmation,
23   St. Luke's, as an Ordinary to hear a report or an
24   evaluation about a priest or a cleric?
25       A. During my time in Fresno and Stockton, no.

  1       Q. How about at any time in your career?
  2            MR. WOODS: Hold on. I'm going to object to
  3   that as beyond the scope of the deposition.
  4            MR. MANLY: Okay. Well, all right.
  5       Q. Let me let me try it this way: As a
  6   Bishop, had you ever received any correspondence from
  7   the Servants of the Paraclete prior to 1985?
  8       A. I simply don't recall.
  9       Q. Okay. Is it your testimony today that you did
10   not know prior to 1985 that the Servants of the
11   Paraclete existed?
12       A. I simply don't recall whether they I knew
13   or not. I had no contact with them.
14       Q. I'm sorry. You know, I meant to tell you
15   this. If I at any point I interrupt your answer,
16   please let me know. And if you interrupt my question,
17   and you haven't done that so far, Your Eminence, I'll
18   let you know. Okay?
19            And the other thing I meant to tell you is, if
20   at any point you need to get up, take a break, use the
21   restroom, for any reason, you stop me, okay, as long as
22   I don't have a question pending. This is not an
23   endurance contest. Okay, Your Eminence?
24       A. Okay.
25       Q. Okay. Do you know what year the Servants of

  1   the Paraclete was founded?
  2       A. No, I do not.
  3       Q. And what is your understanding of what the
  4   order known as the Servants of the Paraclete do?
  5            MR. WOODS: You want his understanding prior

  6   to roughly September 1985?
  7            MR. MANLY: I want his understanding now.
  8            MR. WOODS: Well, I don't think his
  9   understanding now is within the scope of this
10   deposition. The only thing is what he knew, did,
11   responded to during his time in Fresno and Stockton.
12            MR. MANLY: He said he wasn't sure, so I want
13   to I want to probe it.
14       Q. And so I want to ask the question: Do you
15   know what they do?
16       A. While I was in Fresno and Stockton, I simply
17   can't recall if I'd ever heard of them or not.
18       Q. Okay. Do you know what they do?
19            MR. WOODS: You know, again, I'm going to
20   object for the record that if he knows now what they
21   do, it's not relevant to what he knew during the
22   relevant time period.
23            MS. SOLTAN: Don't argue. Just go. He's not
24   instructing.
25            MR. WOODS: Go ahead. I'll let him answer.

  1            MR. MANLY: What's that?
  2            MR. WOODS: I'm going to let him answer the
  3   question.
  4            MR. MANLY: Oh, I'm I'm sorry. Okay.
  5   Fine.
  6            MR. WOODS: We'll go a little bit, to test
  7   this.
  8   BY MR. MANLY:
  9       Q. You can answer, Your Eminence.
10       A. I simply don't recall the first time I heard
11   about the Servants of the Paraclete.
12       Q. In fairness, my question is a little
13   different.
14            My question is: Do you know today,
15   Cardinal Mahony, what they do?
16            MR. WOODS: Same objection.
17            You can answer.
18            THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
19            MR. MANLY: It's my mistake.
20            MR. WOODS: Just wants a general comment.
21            THE WITNESS: I believe they offer services
22   for priests, religious, I'm not sure who else, of
23   where all kinds of psychological problems and
24   problems difficulties in ministry.

25   ///

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. At any point while you were the Bishop of
  3   let me ask this: When you were in incardinated was
  4   Monterey still Monterey Fresno or was it Monterey I
  5   mean, was it Fresno at that point?
  6       A. In 1962, it was the Diocese of
  7   Monterey Fresno.
  8       Q. Okay. And when did that change,
  9   Your Eminence?
10       A. That changed in the fall of 1967.
11       Q. So for from '62 to '67, you were a priest
12   of the diocese in Monterey Fresno; right?
13       A. Yes.
14       Q. During that time, did your diocese, to your
15   recollection, ever receive a visit from anyone from
16   either the Servants of the Paraclete or any other
17   treatment facility, talking about their services?
18       A. Which time frame again, please.
19       Q. '62 to '67.
20       A. I don't recall any.
21       Q. Okay. And how about from '67 to 1980, did
22   anybody from the Servants of the Paraclete or any other
23   treatment facility visit your diocese and discuss with
24   you or any other member of the diocese any of their
25   services for priests?

  1            MR. WOODS: Okay. I wasn't quite sure. From
  2   the Paracletes or any other treatment facility, whether
  3   run by the Paracletes or not?
  4            MR. MANLY: That's correct.
  5            THE WITNESS: I simply don't recall any.
  6   BY MR. MANLY:
  7       Q. And is it your understanding that the Servants
  8   of the Paracletes, one of the services they provide is
  9   they treat or counsel or provide services to alleged
10   child abusers?
11            MR. WOODS: Now, do you want his understanding
12   when he was in Stockton and Fresno or his understanding
13   now?
14            MR. MANLY: Either one.
15            MR. WOODS: Okay. Well, I'm going to object
16   that his current understanding is irrelevant to the
17   issues involved in any of the cases during this time
18   period. And I'll let him answer with that
19   understanding to work that into your answer somehow.
20            THE WITNESS: During my time in Fresno and
21   Stockton, I was unaware of what the Paracletes did.
22   BY MR. MANLY:
23       Q. And are you aware of that now?
24       A. Of some of their services.
25       Q. Eminence, you're a member of the National

  1   Conference of Catholic Bishops; correct?
  2       A. Well, now it's United States Conference of
  3   Catholic Bishops.
  4       Q. Okay. Formerly United States Catholic
  5   Conference, formerly the NCCB; correct?
  6       A. Yes.
  7       Q. Okay. And you were you became a member of
  8   that umbrella organization and its predecessors and
  9   successors at the time you became ordained to the
10   episcopacy; correct?
11       A. Yes.
12       Q. Okay. When is the first time you attended a
13   meeting of bishops in the United States?
14       A. I don't remember exactly. But most likely, it
15   would have been the November meeting of 1975.
16       Q. Okay. And that was shortly after you were
17   ordained an Auxiliary Bishop for Fresno?
18       A. Yes.
19       Q. And do you recall the St. Luke Institute, at
20   any time prior to 1985, being discussed at the Bishops'
21   meetings you attended?
22       A. I honestly don't recall that.
23       Q. Do you think it's possible it was discussed
24   and you just don't remember?
25            MR. WOODS: Calls for speculation.

  1            THE WITNESS: Well, normally the Conference of
  2   Bishops agenda does not allow outside speakers to
  3   address the Bishops. All of the business is handled by
  4   Bishops.
  5   BY MR. MANLY:
  6       Q. Did the NCCB or its predecessor did the
  7   NCCB or its predecessor entities actually originally
  8   fund the founding of St. Luke's?
  9       A. Could you repeat that? I'm not
10       Q. Sure. Did the Bishops, any of the Bishops'
11   umbrella organizations, actually fund St. Luke's, the
12   founding of St. Luke's?
13       A. I simply don't know.
14       Q. Okay. Do you ever recall seeing a line item
15   on the Bishops' meetings, prior to 1985 sorry.
16            Do you ever recall seeing an agenda item, a
17   line item, or any reference in any of the NCCB agendas,
18   either executive or open, referencing the issue of the
19   abuse of children the sexual abuse of children by
20   priests?
21            MR. WOODS: At any time?
22            MR. MANLY: Prior to between 1975 and 1985.
23            THE WITNESS: I simply don't recall any.
24   BY MR. MANLY:
25       Q. Okay. And I'm not including the Collegeville

  1   meeting, because you've talked about that.
  2            Okay. So your answer was, prior to
  3   Collegeville, you don't recall any?
  4       A. I don't recall any.
  5       Q. Is it is it your testimony there weren't
  6   any, or is it your testimony that you just can't recall
  7   any?
  8       A. No, just my testimony that I don't recall any
  9   such item.
10       Q. Okay. When did you personally first become
11   aware that child sexual abuse was a problem in society?
12            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the form of
13   the question. "Problem in society" is pretty vague in
14   general, but I'll let him answer.
15   BY MR. MANLY:
16       Q. Well, let me ask it this way: When did you
17   first learn it was not a good thing for adults to have
18   sex with children?
19            MR. WOODS: Is that facetious?
20            MR. MANLY: No. I'm trying to address your
21   objection. I'm trying to be
22            MR. WOODS: Okay. I have a problem with that
23   question, but I'll let him answer it.
24            THE WITNESS: Well, I probably from my
25   parents.

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. Right. And you've known your whole life, like
  3   any right thinking person, that it's wrong; correct?
  4       A. Yes.
  5       Q. Okay. And at some point you attended and I
  6   don't remember the dates, and forgive me you
  7   attended Catholic University; correct?
  8       A. Yes, Catholic University of America
  9       Q. Right.
10       A. in Washington.
11       Q. And is Catholic University owned by the
12   Bishops?
13       A. I'm not certain. It was established by the
14   Bishops and is a separate corporation.
15       Q. I think also at one point you served on the
16   board; is that right?
17       A. Yes.
18       Q. It's a reputable institution; correct?
19       A. Yes.
20       Q. And you went there, and you've sent, over the
21   years, employees and priests there for various things;
22   correct?
23       A. Yes.
24       Q. For the School of Social Work; right?
25            MR. WOODS: Is there a School of Social Work,

  1   is that the question?
  2   BY MR. MANLY:
  3       Q. You've sent priests to the School of Social
  4   Work there; correct?
  5            MR. WOODS: Before 19?
  6            MR. MANLY: '85.
  7            MR. WOODS: Okay.
  8            THE WITNESS: I don't think I sent anybody to
  9   the school before 19 up to 1985.
10   BY MR. MANLY:
11       Q. Okay. Maybe Woods will give me Mr. Woods
12   will give me some leeway on this.
13            Did you send anybody after '85?
14       A. I don't recall sending anybody to social work
15   school. Other schools.
16       Q. Other Bishops you know have attended that
17   school; correct?
18            MR. WOODS: The social work school?
19            MR. MANLY: Correct.
20       Q. Like Mike Driscoll, for example?
21       A. Yes.
22            MR. WOODS: I think the question is: Do you

23   know that Mike Driscoll, whoever that is
24            MR. MANLY: He he answered the question.
25            THE WITNESS: I'm not sure. I know two or

  1   three who went to Catholic University. I'm not sure
  2   about Mr. Driscoll.
  3   BY MR. MANLY:
  4       Q. Okay. You've sent priests certainly before
  5   1985, priests went to the school of canon law there;
  6   right? That you knew?
  7            MR. WOODS: Okay. Okay. I'm going to object
  8   to the form of the question. There's a difference
  9   between did you send
10            MR. MANLY: Fair that's fair.
11       Q. You were aware that priests from California
12   frequently went to Catholic University to get a
13   doctorate in canon law, fair, prior to 1985?
14       A. Yes.
15       Q. Okay. And you thought it was a good school;
16   right?
17       A. Yes.
18       Q. And you had a good experience there; correct?
19       A. In the School of Social Work, yes.
20       Q. Okay. Did you study the issue of child
21   welfare while you were at Catholic
22   University, Eminence?
23       A. I don't recall the curriculum exactly. But
24   the priests who went to the School of Social Work were
25   usually on a track of organization and administration.

  1       Q. Did you at any point have any class that in
  2   any way referenced the issue of child welfare while you
  3   were at Catholic University, if you remember?
  4       A. To the best of my recollection, it would do
  5   with with abandoned children, orphans, children from
  6   broken homes. That's the best of my recollection.
  7       Q. Okay. And is it it's fair to say that
  8   after you left Catholic University, you obtained a
  9   license in social work, correct, from California, the
10   State of California?
11       A. I don't recall whether at that point it was a
12   registration as an RSW. Then there was an LSW. I
13   don't recall the sequence, actually.
14       Q. Okay. Did you obtain some type of
15   certification, license, registration, or otherwise from
16   the State of California as a social worker?
17       A. Yes, I did.
18       Q. Okay. And from what period of time for
19   what period of time did you have such a certification,
20   Eminence?
21       A. I returned from Catholic University in 1960
22   '64. And I was in Catholic Charities until 1970. So
23   I I suspect it was during that period of time.
24       Q. Okay. Did you do any clinical work either at
25   Catholic University or in Fresno?

  1       A. And by "clinical work," you mean?
  2       Q. Counseling?
  3       A. No, because I was in the organizational
  4   administrative track, and we did not do personal
  5   counseling.
  6       Q. Did you do so did you no counseling hours
  7   whatsoever?
  8       A. Very little.
  9       Q. Okay. Let me show you a document
10            MR. MANLY: Would you hand one to Mr. Woods,
11   please?
12            MS. SOLTAN: Yes.
13   BY MR. MANLY:
14       Q. that I'll represent to you is the Cal State
15   University Fresno general catalog for the social work
16   department for 1965 and 1966.
17            MR. MANLY: And just show one to the Cardinal,
18   please.
19            MS. SOLTAN: Are you going to attach it?
20            MR. MANLY: Yeah, we're go ahead and attach
21   this as 1.
22            (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 was marked for
23             identification.)
24   BY MR. MANLY:
25       Q. And I'd like you to look at the document,

  1   Your Eminence, and familiarize yourself with.
  2            MR. WOODS: Do you have an exhibit number for
  3   it?
  4            MR. MANLY: One.
  5            MS. SOLTAN: Exhibit 1.
  6            MR. WOODS: Exhibit 1?
  7            You want to direct his attention to a specific
  8   part or do you want him to read this whole thing?
  9            MR. MANLY: Actually, what I'm going to ask
10   him is what classes he taught.
11            THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
12   BY MR. MANLY:
13       Q. I'm going to ask you, Your Eminence, what
14   classes in that catalog you taught, please. So that's
15   what I'm that's where I'm going.
16            Just let me know when you're ready.
17       A. To the best of my recollection, the courses
18   you see here, I believe are required courses for social
19   work degree. The courses I taught were for people who
20   needed some segment of social welfare training for
21   another degree, for example, to be a teacher or
22   probation officer or something else. So I didn't
23   actually teach in the degree program.
24            And I didn't usually teach there at Fresno
25   State, but one of the adjunct small campuses, for

  1   example, Visalia. And I taught primarily, I guess what
  2   you would call, on Page 221, classes like 127, Group
  3   and Community Services.
  4       Q. Okay. Do you remember any other classes you
  5   taught, Eminence?
  6       A. Again, the best of my recollection is that's
  7   the only field in which I taught at all, was that field
  8   of group work and community organization.
  9            MR. WOODS: What what number was that?
10            MR. MANLY: 127.
11            THE WITNESS: On Page 221.
12   BY MR. MANLY:
13       Q. And did that have anything to do with the
14   the care and the care of children?
15       A. No.
16       Q. Okay. Eminence, as the Bishop of a diocese,
17   be it Fresno well, actually, as the Bishop of the
18   Diocese of Stockton, you are, in effect, the chief
19   executive officer of the entity; correct?
20       A. Well, the term is close, but there's not an
21   exact secular term.
22       Q. Okay. But is that the closest one you're
23   comfortable with, CEO, if you had to analogize it to a
24   secular term?
25            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the word

  1   "comfortable with." I don't know what that means.
  2            THE WITNESS: It is not a term we use in the
  3   church or eclesiology.
  4   BY MR. MANLY:
  5       Q. Right. You use "Ordinary"; fair?
  6       A. Well, we use "shepherd of the diocese,"
  7   basically.
  8       Q. Okay. As the shepherd of the diocese, you are
  9   the chief human relations officer; correct? You make,
10   ultimately, the personnel decisions for priests,
11   laypeople, et cetera, the power rests with you; fair?
12            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the form of
13   the question. There's about four questions in there.
14   But I'll let him answer it.
15   BY MR. MANLY:
16       Q. You can answer.
17       A. Well, there are many people in a diocese who
18   are delegated to retain and terminate personnel.
19   Pastors, school principals. There are a number of
20   people involved at various levels that have delegated
21   authority.
22       Q. But you, ultimately, have the authority. If
23   you choose to delegate it, that's your business, but
24   it's your authority; correct?
25       A. Ultimately, I I suppose canonically, it

  1   would be my authority.
  2            MS. SOLTAN: I apologize. I didn't hear that
  3   answer. Could I ask the reporter to state the answer.
  4            MR. WOODS: Could we have the question back,
  5   too.
  6            (The record was read as follows:
  7            "But you, ultimately, have the authority.
  8            if you choose to delegate it, that's
  9            your business, but it's your authority;
10            correct?
11             Answer, Ultimately, I I suppose
12            canonically, it would be my authority."
13   BY MR. MANLY:
14       Q. Was there a custom and practice in the diocese
15   of Stockton I understand you said there wasn't a
16   policy. But was there a practice or custom in the
17   Diocese of Stockton that you established when you got
18   there, on dealing with child sexual abuse by employees
19   of the diocese?
20       A. No. Since no.
21       Q. Was there is a custom and practice that you
22   were aware of, either as a priest or a Bishop, an
23   Auxiliary Bishop of the Diocese of Fresno, when you
24   were there, to deal with child sexual abuse?
25       A. No, to the best of my recollection, there was

  1   not.
  2       Q. Have you ever heard the term, Your Eminence,
  3   "oral history" in relationship to dealing with the
  4   transfer of alleged priest perpetrators?
  5            MR. WOODS: Hold on. Could I hear that back?
  6            MR. MANLY: I'll repeat it.
  7       Q. Have you ever heard the term "oral history" in
  8   connection with the transfer of a Bishop of an alleged
  9   priest perpetrator?
10            MR. WOODS: Are you say oral, O R A L?
11            MR. MANLY: O R A L, yes, sir.
12            MR. WOODS: Oral history?
13            MR. MANLY: Correct, that's what I'm saying.
14            MR. WOODS: As a term of art of some kind?
15            MR. MANLY: I think the question stands.
16            THE WITNESS: Well, you talked about in
17   your question, about the transfer of a Bishop.
18   BY MR. MANLY:
19       Q. Did I say Bishop? I meant priest. I
20   apologize.
21            Have you heard, as a Bishop
22       A. Could you yes.
23       Q. Yeah, I'll restate it. Fine.
24            As a Bishop, have you ever heard the term
25   "oral history" associated with the transfer of an

  1   alleged perpetrator priest?
  2       A. No.
  3       Q. Have you ever decided, either in Stockton or
  4   Fresno or any time prior to 1985, when you were dealing
  5   with a perpetrator, not to document the file entirely,
  6   but rather communicate orally to your subordinates or
  7   your successor Bishops regarding that abuse?
  8       A. No.
  9       Q. Okay. And you've never heard the term "oral
10   history" being advocated as a way to conceal the abuse
11   of a priest; is that fair, Your Eminence?
12       A. That's correct. I have not heard of that.
13       Q. Okay. When did you first learn that there
14   were treatment facilities available for Bishops to send
15   priests, either for evaluation or treatment, that had
16   been accused of child molestation?
17            MR. WOODS: If it was before
18   BY MR. MANLY:
19       Q. I just want to know
20            MR. WOODS: September of 1985.
21            THE WITNESS: I don't recall exactly, but I
22   I recall certainly, in June of 1985.
23            MR. MANLY: We'll attach we'll attach this
24   document as next in order.
25            Can you give Mr. Woods a copy, please?

  1            MS. SOLTAN: Which one are we talking about?
  2   Okay.
  3            This is Exhibit 2?
  4            MR. MANLY: Yeah.
  5       Q. Would you take a moment to look at the
  6   document, Your Eminence.
  7            (Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 2 was marked for
  8            identification.)
  9            MR. MANLY: When your counsel's done, I'll...
10            MR. WOODS: John, could you read the second
11   word of the second line, after "monastery"?
12            MR. MANLY: It's inaugurate.
13            MR. WOODS: Inaugurate?
14            MR. MANLY: Yeah.
15            MR. WOODS: Okay.
16   BY MR. MANLY:
17       Q. Eminence, do you have you ever seen this
18   document before?
19       A. To the best of my recollection, no.
20       Q. While you were a priest, an Auxiliary Bishop,
21   or a Bishop, did any of the dioceses you worked for, to
22   your knowledge, receive any type of communication like
23   this, a periodic memo from the Servants of the
24   Paraclete?
25       A. Not that I'm aware of.

  1       Q. Well, in Stockton, for example, if the memo
  2   was to all Archbishops and Bishops and it came to the
  3   diocese
  4            MR. HENNIGAN: That's not what it says.
  5            MR. MANLY: It says, "To all Archbishops,
  6   Bishops, Abbots, and major superiors of men"
  7            MR. HENNIGAN: "Of men resident at."
  8            MR. MANLY: I understand.
  9       Q. If a document was sent to an Archbishop or a
10   Bishop, okay, and it was addressed to the Diocese of
11   Stockton, would it have been the Diocese of Stockton's
12   custom and practice, as you understand it, to route
13   that to you?
14       A. Well, since we had no one at Via Coeli, we
15   wouldn't probably not have received this.
16       Q. No. My question's a little different.
17            If there was a document from a religious
18   order, be it the Servants of the Paraclete, the
19   Jesuits, whoever, and it was routed to a Bishop, okay,
20   it said addressed to the Bishop, didn't name him by
21   name but was addressed to him, would it be the custom
22   and practice of the Diocese of Stockton to have that
23   document routed to you, as the Bishop?
24            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object. 1968. Have
25   we established whether he was a Bishop?

  1            MR. MANLY: No.
  2            MR. WOODS: So if he's not
  3            MR. MANLY: I think my question's clear.
  4            MR. WOODS: the Bishop, how does he know?
  5   BY MR. MANLY:
  6       Q. From 1980 to 1985, you got a document like
  7   this (indicating), okay, not this document but a
  8   document like it, would it have been the custom and
  9   practice of the Diocese of Stockton to route that
10   document to you?
11            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object. In 1968, was
12   he even in Stockton?
13            MS. SOLTAN: He said between '80 and '85.
14            MR. HENNIGAN: I don't know what a "document
15   like this" is. What is a "document like this"? A
16   letter?
17            MR. MANLY: You can answer, Eminence.
18            MR. WOODS: Okay. I'm going to object to the
19   form of the question in that it's no foundation to ask
20   him what's the custom and practice in a place where he
21   isn't at at the time.
22   BY MR. MANLY:
23       Q. How about this question: If the document says
24   "Bishop, to the Bishop," Eminence, would the document
25   be routed to you in the Diocese of Stockton from 1980

  1   to '85?
  2       A. Yes.
  3       Q. Great. Thank you.
  4            Have you ever met Father Feit?
  5       A. The the name is not familiar. And to the
  6   best of my recollection, no, I have not met him.
  7       Q. Have you ever met Father Liam of the Servants
  8   of the Paraclete?
  9       A. Is there more name than Father Liam?
10       Q. Liam Hoare, H O A R E?
11       A. I simply don't recall.
12       Q. What documents would assist you in recalling
13   whether you ever met anyone from the Servants of the
14   Paraclete prior to 1985?
15       A. I'm not really sure what documents would.
16       Q. Have you let me ask it this way. Let me
17   ask you this question: When you found out that
18   Father Munoz, in '81, had been accused of molesting a
19   priest, how did you know what to do? I'm sorry,
20   accused of molesting a child, not a priest. Forgive
21   me.
22       A. Well, Father Munoz's situation, we had very
23   specific victims, not just one, but several, who came
24   forward with their parents and all together confirmed
25   what had happened to them in Tijuana. So I didn't

  1   really didn't need anything further. They all
  2   corroborated their their stories, or testimonies.
  3   And I took immediate action to terminate his faculties
  4   and his assignment at that that very day.
  5       Q. Well, how did you how did you know that was
  6   the right thing to do?
  7       A. I knew that we wanted priests serving in our
  8   parishes who were not going to be a danger to anybody.
  9       Q. And is that the measure you used, if somebody
10   was a danger, they weren't going to serve in a parish?
11       A. Either fulfilling their ministry as they're
12   supposed to or or somehow creating a difficulty in
13   some way.
14       Q. Okay. If you thought a priest was a danger to
15   a child in 1981, it was your custom and practice,
16   Roger Mahony, the Bishop of Stockton, not to allow that
17   priest to minister in a parish; is that right?
18            MR. WOODS: Could I hear it back, please,
19   before you answer.
20            (The record was read as follows:
21            "If you thought a priest was a danger
22            to a child in 1981, it was your custom
23            and practice, Roger Mahony, the Bishop
24            of Stockton, not to allow that priest
25            to administer in a parish; is that

  1            right?")
  2            MR. MANLY: Actually, it's "minister in a
  3   parish."
  4            REPORTER: Minister. Okay.
  5            MR. WOODS: I have a problem with "custom and
  6   practice," in that you've heard the testimony already
  7   that he had one incident in '81; the next one was in
  8   '84. And we don't know how many there are from '84
  9   until the end. You haven't established that yet. But
10   it's hard to say there's a custom and practice for
11   anything if you only have one or two instances. So
12            MR. MANLY: Let me let me try it another
13   way.
14       Q. As of 1981, when you dealt with Father Munoz,
15   was it your personal practice, your personal judgment,
16   in your mind, as the Ordinary of the diocese, that if
17   you thought that someone was a danger, you know, they
18   were not going to serve in a parish in a diocese where
19   you were the Bishop? Is that right?
20       A. Well, not proven danger. In this case, we had
21   actual victims we could identify and believed.
22       Q. Okay.
23       A. So that's that's the danger we had.
24       Q. So if a victim came to you
25            MR. WOODS: Wait.

  1            MR. MANLY: Hold on. Let me ask the question.
  2       Q. If a victim came to you, told you that a
  3   priest had abused them, as of 1981, and you believed
  4   them, that priest wasn't going to minister in a parish,
  5   is that the standard that you, Roger Mahony, used as
  6   Bishop of Stockton?
  7            MR. WOODS: Okay. I'm going to object to the
  8   form of the question in that you're suggesting in the
  9   question that he had a thought out custom and practice
10   or policy. You can ask him that question
11            MR. MANLY: I'm just trying to
12            MR. WOODS: but
13            MR. MANLY: Actually
14            MR. WOODS: he's already testified that
15   there were
16            MR. MANLY: My question is real simple.
17            MR. WOODS: no policies or procedures up to
18   that point in time.
19            The first case he ever had was the case you're
20   talking about. Okay? So you're trying to illicit a
21   policy out of one case. And I'm going to let him
22   answer the question, but I object to the form of the
23   question.
24            MS. SOLTAN: This is ridiculous. Object and
25   move on.

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. You can answer.
  3       A. Well, in the case of Father Munoz, we had very
  4   specific allegations confirmed by credible testimony.
  5   And I took action.
  6       Q. Was it your testimony is it is it your
  7   understanding, your world view, Roger Mahony as Bishop
  8   of Stockton, as of that time, after Munoz, when
  9   somebody came to you and said, I was molested by
10   Father X, and you believed them, at that point and
11   you thought it was true, at that point, was that priest
12   not allowed to minister in the diocese?
13            MR. WOODS: Up to the end of your term in
14   Fresno.
15            MR. MANLY: No, Stockton.
16            MR. WOODS: Stockton, sorry.
17            THE WITNESS: Well, if we had credible
18   evidence, the priests would be dealt with in some way
19   to either ascertain, corroborate the evidence. Or if
20   it's if we had sufficient evidence that it was true,
21   then we would remove him.
22   BY MR. MANLY:
23       Q. Okay. And in the interim I you know, I
24   noticed you said we dealt with it quickly. You
25   suspended Father Munoz's faculties that day, right, or

  1   shortly thereafter?
  2       A. I believe it was that same day.
  3       Q. Okay. So as of 1981, was it your personal
  4   view, Your Eminence, that if you had a credible
  5   allegation against a priest, or an allegation that you
  6   weren't sure was credible but needed to be
  7   investigated, that you would pull that priest from
  8   ministry, from the parish, and investigate that claim?
  9       A. No. My testimony was that if I had credible
10   evidence corroborated, and we had victims that we could
11   talk to, then we would take decisive action.
12       Q. How did you decide those victims were
13   credible, Eminence?
14       A. I didn't meet with these victims myself.
15       Q. Okay. Who did?
16       A. Father Fernando Villalobos.
17       Q. And he was the Hispanic vicar, or the
18   equivalent of?
19       A. Yes, that's correct.
20       Q. Okay. Father Father Villalobos met with
21   them. And did he tell you he believed them?
22       A. They came to him, the parents and several
23   children, or high school young people, came to him
24   because they knew him as a vicar for the Spanish
25   speaking.

  1       Q. If a child in a parish if a young adult,
  2   13 , 14 , 15 year old, came to you or came to somebody
  3   that worked for you in the diocese and said,
  4   "Father Jones molested me, he hurt me, he raped me,"
  5   was it your practice, Eminence, as of '81, because of
  6   your experience with Father Munoz, to remove that
  7   priest from ministry if you believed it?
  8            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the term
  9   "practice," in view of the fact that the testimony is
10   there was only one incident in his entire career as a
11   priest up to that time that he had to deal with. Hard
12   to call anything a practice at that point in time.
13   BY MR. MANLY:
14       Q. Well, was that your view of the appropriate
15   thing to do?
16       A. Given the circumstances of Father
17   Antonio Munoz, it was.
18       Q. Okay. Can you think of a circumstance where
19   there's a credible allegation of abuse can you think
20   of a circumstance where there's a credible allegation
21   of abuse that you encountered from '80 to '85 where it
22   wasn't appropriate to remove the priest from ministry?
23            MR. WOODS: Calls for speculation. Calls for
24   an opinion. And I'm going to instruct him not to
25   answer it as phrased.

  1            MR. MANLY: I guess we'll talk to the judge
  2   about that one.
  3       Q. If someone came to you had come to you
  4   well, let me ask it this way: The next allegation that
  5   you recall occurred when?
  6       A. The next allegation involved Father
  7   Antonio Camacho, and it was the early part of 1984.
  8       Q. And did you handle that case differently?
  9       A. Yes.
10       Q. How was it different?
11       A. It was different to the extent that the
12   parents and the children, high school young people,
13   made an appointment to come see me personally.
14       Q. Okay. So how you found out about the
15   allegation was different; correct?
16            MR. WOODS: That's what he said.
17            THE WITNESS: Yes.
18   BY MR. MANLY:
19       Q. And did you handle the allegation in terms of
20   how you dealt with the priest administratively
21   differently than you handled the Munoz allegation?
22       A. A little differently.
23       Q. How quickly did you take him out of ministry,
24   Eminence?
25       A. Immediately.

  1       Q. So to that extent, you handled it the same
  2   way; you believed the allegation, you thought he was a
  3   danger to kids, and you removed him; correct?
  4       A. Yes.
  5       Q. Okay. So at that point in your world view as
  6   a Bishop and as a human being, as a supervisor of
  7   people who teach kids
  8            MR. WOODS: I object to the form of the
  9   question.
10            MR. MANLY: I haven't finished it.
11            MR. WOODS: It's already it's already
12   objectionable. "World view," we're not going to answer
13   that question.
14            MR. MANLY: What okay. How can I ask him
15   if he what I want to ask him, you tell me how to ask
16   the question.
17            I want to ask him if he thought somebody was a
18   child molester as of 1984, did they need to be pulled
19   out of ministry. That's what I want to ask. Can I ask
20   that question?
21            MR. WOODS: Phrase it that way.
22            MR. MANLY: I just did.
23       Q. Can you answer the question, please?
24            MR. WOODS: Do you understand the question?
25            Read it back, Ms. Reporter.

  1            MR. MANLY: Read it back so his Eminence can
  2   understand it, please.
  3            THE REPORTER: The last one you just spoke?
  4            MR. MANLY: Yeah.
  5            (The record was read as follows:
  6            "I want to ask him if he thought
  7            somebody was a child molester as
  8            of 1984, did they need to be pulled
  9            out of ministry. That's what I want
10            to ask. Can I ask that question?")
11            THE WITNESS: Yes, if we had evidence that he
12   was a child molester.
13   BY MR. MANLY:
14       Q. Okay. And when you say "evidence," what do
15   you mean?
16       A. I mean particularly having victims, facts and
17   information corroborated by others to sustain the
18   the allegation.
19       Q. Okay. And you would agree that accusing a
20   priest of something that's horrific as molesting a
21   little child is a is a pretty serious allegation;
22   correct?
23       A. Yes.
24       Q. Does it get any more serious than that,
25   Eminence?

  1            MR. WOODS: I object to the form of the
  2   question.
  3            THE WITNESS: Well, all sinfulness against
  4   someone else is serious.
  5   BY MR. MANLY:
  6       Q. As a priest and as a Bishop, and you're an
  7   administrator at schools, you feel as an administrator,
  8   you have an obligation to protect kids; correct?
  9            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the form of
10   the question. And I'm going to explain why. When you
11   say "as a Bishop, as an administrator, as"
12            MR. MANLY: I'll rephrase it.
13            MR. WOODS: is that some special thing
14   other than being just a normal human being?
15            MR. MANLY: Well, in my opinion it is. I'm a
16   Catholic. I believe Bishops are successors to the
17   apostle. So I think it is special. Okay?
18            MR. WOODS: All right. So you think so
19   you're asking for some opinion other than just what a
20   normal human being would would react.
21            MR. MANLY: No. I want to know I'll
22   rephrase it so your secular
23            MR. WOODS: Because I don't want any expert
24   opinions here, which is beyond the scope of this
25   deposition.

  1            MR. SIMONS: I think that's a
  2   misinterpretation of what the judge's order is.
  3            MR. MANLY: I forgot what the question was.
  4            MR. WOODS: The question's also very
  5   argumentative.
  6            MR. MANLY: That hurts me.
  7            MR. WOODS: I'm sure you've heard that
  8   objection before.
  9            MR. MANLY: Once or twice.
10            MS. SOLTAN: Let's be civil, gentleman.
11            MR. MANLY: Okay.
12            MR. HENNIGAN: He judges the quality of his
13   exam by how often he gets that objection.
14            MR. MANLY: What was my last question?
15       Q. Cardinal, are you doing okay?
16       A. Yes.
17       Q. We'll take a break in about five minutes. All
18   right?
19       A. Fine.
20       Q. Okay.
21            MR. WOODS: The question was simply, do you
22   think it's bad, or is this a bad thing.
23            MR. MANLY: That was much more argumentative
24   than that.
25            MR. WOODS: Yeah, it was.

  1            (The record was read as follows:
  2            "As a priest and as a Bishop and as

  3            an administrator at schools, you feel
  4            as an administrator, you have an
  5            obligation to protect kids; correct?")
  6            MR. MANLY: Let me let me reask it.
  7       Q. As the Bishop, you are the head of the
  8   Catholic schools of the diocese; correct?
  9       A. Yes.
10       Q. Okay. And as the head of the Catholic
11   schools, you recognize you have young children through
12   high school that are under the diocese's care; fair?
13       A. Yes, that would be fair.
14       Q. Okay. And being mindful of that, if you had a
15   reasonable belief that one of your priests had used
16   that office to sexually assault a child, that is a very
17   serious thing; wouldn't you agree?
18       A. Yes.
19       Q. And it's among the most serious things you
20   ever had to deal with as a Bishop from 1985 and before;
21   correct?
22       A. Yes.
23       Q. And it's a very painful thing for you to deal
24   with; correct?
25       A. Yes.

  1       Q. Painful as a priest; correct?
  2       A. Yes.
  3       Q. Painful as a human being; correct?
  4       A. Correct.
  5       Q. Painful for the families of the victim and the
  6   victim themselves; correct?
  7       A. Correct.
  8       Q. Okay. And as of when you were the Bishop of
  9   Stockton, you wanted to do everything in your power, I
10   take it, to make sure that never happened to a child;
11   right?
12       A. Yes.
13       Q. Okay. And so in the first two examples we
14   discussed, what you did when you believed that those
15   people hurt those children, you removed them from
16   ministry; correct?
17       A. Yes.
18       Q. Okay. At any point while you were the Bishop
19   of Stockton, did your view on how to handle child sex
20   abuse cases change? In other words, if you had a
21   credible allegation, you believed it, you had evidence,
22   to use your term, you would remove them from ministry
23   immediately?
24       A. Yes, evidence including victims.
25       Q. Okay. And if you had those things, your view

  1   on what you were going to do and your practice was to
  2   pull that priest out of ministry because they they
  3   were they posed a danger to kids?
  4       A. Yes.
  5       Q. Now, I know you've heard the term before and I
  6   suspect you thought I was going to bring it up today,
  7   of "secret archives"; right?
  8       A. I've heard
  9            MR. WOODS: Wait. Hold on. What's the
10   question? You've heard it before or you expected me to
11   bring it up today? The second one is irrelevant, and
12   I'll instruct him not to answer. The first one, I'll
13   let him answer.
14   BY MR. MANLY:
15       Q. You've heard of the secret archives before,
16   Your Eminence; right?
17       A. Yes.
18       Q. Okay. And I read your deposition, and I think
19   you said the better term for it would be "confidential
20   archives"; right?
21       A. Probably even better, limited or restricted
22   access files.
23       Q. Fine. You did you prepared
24   documentation I think you have some in front of
25   you on both the Camacho case and the Munoz case;

  1   correct?
  2       A. Yes.
  3       Q. Okay. And when those cases came up, did you
  4   access the secret archives to determine, or the
  5   confidential archives or restricted archives, to
  6   determine whether or not there had been any prior
  7   allegations against them?
  8       A. No.
  9       Q. Did you prepare any confidential memorandum
10   regarding any of those cases?
11       A. In the case of Antonio Camacho, I did prepare
12   a memorandum from my notes.
13       Q. Okay. And did it say "confidential" on the
14   top?
15       A. I'd have to look. I don't
16       Q. Feel free.
17       A. I don't recall.
18            Yes, it says "confidential file memorandum."
19       Q. Okay. And, Eminence, that memorandum, which
20   we'll attach a copy of later, has "confidential" on it,
21   meaning it should go to the secret archives, correct,
22   or the confidential archives or the restricted
23   archives, whatever you want to call it?
24       A. Yes.
25       Q. Okay. And why is that?

  1       A. That's because there are a lot of people who
  2   work in the chancery office. And personnel files of
  3   this matter, these kinds of issues, are not in public
  4   domain; and therefore, we need to protect those
  5   because, particularly in this one, the names of the
  6   victims were in it. And we wanted to make sure the
  7   victims were protected so that the access would be
  8   limited.
  9       Q. So you're trying to protect the victims by
10   putting them in secrete archives; is that it?
11       A. In this case particularly.
12       Q. Okay. Let me attach a copy of that and let me
13   show you my copy and make sure that it's what you have.
14   Okay, Your Eminence?
15            The memo I have is dated Don, do you have a
16   copy of that?
17            MR. WOODS: I do, but I don't have
18            MR. MANLY: Let me let me get you one.
19            MR. WOODS: I have the unredacted version.
20            MS. SOLTAN: Don't you have the unredacted
21   version?
22            MR. WOODS: I do. He doesn't.
23            MR. MANLY: We'll just use his. That's fine.
24       Q. The only thing that's redacted in there,
25   Eminence, is the names of the victims; is that right?

  1   And in fairness, you may want to look at Page 3 before
  2   you answer that question.
  3            MR. WOODS: Wait wait to see their exhibit.
  4   It might be different than yours.
  5            MR. MANLY: Okay? Well, I think
  6            MR. WOODS: Is this the copy from the
  7   deposition in the
  8            MR. MANLY: Yeah, it's the copy you provided
  9   us.
10            MR. WOODS: American General case?
11            MR. MANLY: Yeah. And I think that there's
12   some attorney client material that may be redacted on
13   page 3, because it says "Mr. Shepherd," and then it's
14   redacted. So the redactions
15            MR. WOODS: Here. I want you to look at this
16   version.
17            Do you have another version for us?
18            MS. SOLTAN: Yes, I do. Another version or
19   another copy?
20            MR. WOODS: Another copy for me.
21            MS. SOLTAN: I do.
22   BY MR. MANLY:
23       Q. Do you want some water, Your Eminence?
24       A. No, thank you. I have some right here.
25       Q. Okay.

  1            MR. MANLY: Don, are you ready?
  2            MR. WOODS: And just so you understand, these
  3   redactions, I think were made in the process of the
  4   litigation.
  5            MR. MANLY: I know. I don't think he had
  6   anything to do with them.
  7            MR. WOODS: All right.
  8            MR. MANLY: Don, are you ready?
  9            MR. WOODS: Yeah.
10            MR. MANLY: Okay. We'll attach this document
11   as next in order. So it will be Exhibit 2 3. Thank
12   God you're here. Exhibit 3.
13            (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 was marked for
14            identification.)
15   BY MR. MANLY:
16       Q. And this is the confidential memorandum you
17   prepared, Eminence?
18       A. Yes.
19       Q. Did you type this yourself, sir?
20       A. I honestly don't remember.
21       Q. If you didn't type it, who would have?
22       A. Most likely, my secretary.
23       Q. Who was?
24       A. Angie Alexander.
25       Q. You knew how to type; correct, sir?

  1       A. Yes.
  2       Q. Okay. Did you sometimes type your own
  3   material?
  4       A. Sometimes.
  5       Q. Okay. I think your testimony was that in this
  6   memo, the primary reason you made it confidential was
  7   to protect the identity of victims. Is that accurate?
  8       A. That was one of the main reasons.
  9       Q. Okay. What were the other reasons?
10       A. That this was limited to the eyes of just
11   certain people in the office so we didn't want it
12   floating about.
13       Q. Have you ever heard the term "internal forum"
14   associated with your work as the Bishop of Stockton?
15            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the form of
16   the question and ask for religious beliefs policies.
17            MR. MANLY: No, I'm not. I'm asking as he's
18   ever
19            MR. WOODS: I'm instructing him not to answer.
20   Put it on the list.
21            MR. MANLY: You're instructing him not to
22   answer if he's ever heard of the term?
23            THE WITNESS: Internal forum is a religious
24   term.
25            MR. MANLY: So can I say, have you ever

  1   heard
  2            MR. WOODS: It has nothing to do with the
  3   liability
  4            MR. MANLY: No, it does.
  5            MR. WOODS: of an institution.
  6            MR. MANLY: And you know it does.
  7            MR. WOODS: No, I don't.
  8            MR. MANLY: It does. You know what it is,
  9   it's the system of secrecy that allowed this to go on.
10   It's part of it. You know it. I know it. And that's
11   why you're instructing him not to answer.
12            And you know what, Mr. Woods, there's a lot of
13   people there's a lot of people, victims here that
14   have come a long way to hear him discuss it, ,and I'm
15   sure he's willing to discuss it. And you should let
16   him, because these boys and girls deserve an answer.
17            MR. WOODS: And I'm sure if you're right, the
18   judge will instruct us. But I think it's a religious
19   term and a religious concept
20            MR. MANLY: How do you know?
21            MR. WOODS: beyond the scope of this of
22   this deposition.
23            MR. MANLY: How do you know what's religious
24   and what isn't?
25            MR. HENNIGAN: Are you still being courteous?

  1            MR. MANLY: Not to Mr. Woods.
  2            MR. WOODS: I'm going to instruct him not to
  3   answer. So let's just move on.
  4            MR. MANLY: It's just wrong. I don't mind
  5   objections. I don't mind doing this, but coming here
  6   and intentionally thwarting this, intentionally doing
  7   this, putting us through this without any intention of
  8   asking letting me ask meaningful questions is wrong.
  9            MR. WOODS: Tell it to the judge. I think
10   we'll get a ruling on it, and that's the professional
11   way to handle it.
12   BY MR. MANLY:
13       Q. Were the police investigating this case,
14   Eminence, when you wrote this memo?
15       A. I don't think at the very time that this memo
16   was written that the police were involved.
17       Q. So your recollection, as you sit here today,
18   is the police were not involved as of
19   February 15th, '84?
20       A. No. This was done the very same day that they
21   came to see me.
22       Q. Who is "they"? The victims?
23       A. The parents and the victims.
24       Q. Okay. Can you read at Page 4, the paragraph
25   beginning, "After Father Camacho and Father Villalobos

  1   left my office, I placed a call to the Diocese of
  2   Oakland"? Can you read that?
  3       A. Yes.
  4       Q. Would you read it out loud and into the
  5   record, that paragraph and the paragraph below it,
  6   Your Eminence.
  7       A. "After Father Camacho and Father Villalobos
  8       left my office, I placed a call to the
  9       Diocese of Oakland to share what had happened.
10       No diocesan official was available at that
11       time.
12            Then Father Fernando called me on the
13       intercom to advise me that Father Camacho had
14       told him he intended to go to Union City,
15       California, not to Mexico. He told Father
16       Fernando he would be at this address: 4096
17       Marston Avenue, Union City, California 94587."
18       Q. Okay. And your recollection is, is that the
19   police were not involved at this point?
20       A. At that day, yes.
21       Q. Can you look at Page 2, Your Eminence, of the
22   document? Can you read the third to the last
23   paragraph, beginning "Both Mr. Blank, the boys"?
24       A. "Both Mr. Blank, the boys, and the lady
25       then stated that it was their intention to go

  1       to the police and report Father Camacho.
  2       However, they felt that it was important to
  3       speak with me, the Bishop, first about these
  4       matters."
  5       Q. Your Eminence, did you try and dissuade these
  6   boys from going to the police?
  7       A. No.
  8       Q. Was anybody else in the room while you spoke
  9   to them, besides the victims and their families?
10       A. I don't believe so.
11       Q. Do you have a do you have a pretty good
12   recollection of that meeting?
13       A. Well, I have my handwritten notes from which
14   the this (indicating) was prepared.
15       Q. Okay. But your notes and your do you
16   remember where the meeting took place?
17       A. I believe it was in the Bishop's office in
18   Stockton.
19       Q. Okay. And your recollection you recall
20   when it took place and approximately the time of day,
21   et cetera?
22       A. Well, I begin on Page 1 by giving "9:15 a.m.
23   today."
24       Q. Somebody read the document. Okay.
25            Look at this last paragraph, Eminence, and

  1   read it into the record, please.
  2            MR. WOODS: The last paragraph on the last
  3   page?
  4            MR. MANLY: I'm sorry, Page 2, same page we're
  5   on.
  6            THE WITNESS: Page 2? The last full paragraph
  7   on that page?
  8   BY MR. MANLY:
  9       Q. The paragraph that begins, "They then stated
10   they would not."
11       A. "They then stated that they would not take
12       any legal action if Father Camacho were to
13       leave the parish and the country at once, and
14       if he returned to his native diocese, San Juan
15       De Los Lagos, in Jalisco, Mexico."
16       Q. All right. So why would you discuss whether
17   they were going to take legal action in your document?
18       A. I was simply trying to record on the record
19   what they told me.
20       Q. Did you care whether they took legal action?
21            MR. WOODS: Object to the form of the
22   question. Irrelevant to the subject matter.
23            You can answer.
24            THE WITNESS: Well, I thought that it would be
25   helpful if the actual victims did speak to the police

  1   directly.
  2   BY MR. MANLY:
  3       Q. So your testimony is you encouraged them to
  4   speak to the police?
  5       A. Yes.
  6       Q. And did you speak to the police?
  7       A. I did.
  8       Q. And did you tell the police everything you
  9   knew about Father Camacho that you thought might be of
10   assistance?
11       A. I believe so.
12       Q. Okay. Did you when you spoke to the
13   police, you were truthful with them; correct?
14       A. Yes.
15       Q. And you didn't hold anything back you thought
16   might be important; is that right?
17       A. That's correct.
18       Q. Okay. Let me show you a document we'll attach
19   as Exhibit 4. And it's a letter dated
20   March 16th, 1984. And I'd like you to read that into
21   the record, please.
22            (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 was marked for
23             identification.)
24            THE WITNESS: You would like me to read the

25   letter into the record?

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. Well, let me ask you a question first. And
  3   then I'll have you read it.
  4            Have you seen this document before, Eminence?
  5       A. Yes, I have.
  6       Q. Is it a letter?
  7       A. Yes, it is.
  8       Q. And did you prepare it, sir?
  9       A. Yes.
10       Q. And your I see there's an RM:aa at the
11   bottom, under the signature line?
12       A. Correct.
13       Q. Does that indicate your secretary typed it?
14       A. Yes.
15       Q. Okay. And then can you read you don't have
16   to read the address, but start at "Dear Captain House."
17   Would you read that into the record, please,
18   Your Eminence.
19       A. Okay. The letter is March 16, 1984.
20            "Dear Captain House, I wish to acknowledge
21       our telephone conversation of Thursday, March
22       15th, with respect to the Reverend Antonio
23       Camacho. I am pleased that you were able to
24       speak with him directly in your office, and
25       that as a result of that conversation, he

  1       made plans to return immediately to his
  2       diocese in Mexico.
  3            "I am hopeful that he will follow through
  4       on this arrangement and that he will receive
  5       the special treatment and counseling which
  6       he definitely needs.
  7            "As an added safeguard, I'm sending a
  8       personal letter to all of the Bishops in
  9       the western states, advising them to not
10       grant faculties nor an initial assignment
11       to Father Camacho in their diocese.
12            "As soon as I hear from the Bishop of San
13       Juan De Los Lagos that Father Camacho has
14       arrived there, I shall advise you.
15            "Thanking you for your assistance in
16       this delicate case, and with kindest
17       personal regards, I am sincerely yours in
18       Christ."
19       Q. And then your signature; right?
20       A. Then my signature.
21       Q. Okay. Now, you knew at that point that
22   Father Camacho wasn't going to Mexico; right?
23            MR. WOODS: Calls for speculation.
24            THE WITNESS: I don't recall exactly when I
25   knew he was not going to return.

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. Well, doesn't your letter of February
  3   15th, '84, say he's in Union City, which is in the
  4   Diocese of Oakland?
  5            MR. WOODS: The letter speaks for itself.
  6            THE WITNESS: Between February 15th and
  7   March 15th, there were there were conversations with
  8   the Modesto police department, and the division
  9   commander himself actually interviewed Father Camacho.
10   So the latest of March 16th was that Father Camacho
11   told Captain House that he was going back to Mexico.
12   BY MR. MANLY:
13       Q. Did you ever give the Modesto Police
14   Department the address in Union City where
15   Father Camacho was?
16       A. I don't recall, but most likely I did.
17       Q. Is there a reason you didn't put it in the
18   letter?
19       A. No.
20       Q. Did you ever direct Monsignor Cain to give the
21   address to Captain House?
22       A. No.
23       Q. Did you ever ask the Diocese of Oakland to
24   tell the police that there was a molester in their
25   diocese and a priest who was living in their diocese

  1   who had been credibly accused of child molestation?
  2            MR. WOODS: Calls for speculation. Assumes
  3   facts not in evidence that he was in the location
  4   indicated in the earlier memo. I'll let him answer.
  5   BY MR. MANLY:
  6       Q. Do you remember the question?
  7       A. No.
  8            MR. MANLY: Okay. Why don't you ask it. I
  9   mean ask it why don't you repeat it back,
10   Ms. Reporter.
11            (The record was read as follows:
12            "Did you ever ask the Diocese of Oakland
13            to tell the police that there was a
14            molester in their diocese and a priest
15            who was living in their diocese who had
16            been credibly accused of child
17            molestation?")
18            THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I was reading
19   another document, Counsel. Could you please repeat
20   that again.
21   BY MR. MANLY:
22       Q. Sure. No problem, Your Eminence.
23            (The record was read as follows:
24            "Did you ever ask the Diocese of Oakland
25            to tell the police that there was a

  1            molester in their diocese and a priest
  2            who was living in their diocese who had
  3            been credibly accused of child
  4            molestation?")
  5            THE WITNESS: Yes.
  6   BY MR. MANLY:
  7       Q. You told the diocese to tell the police?
  8       A. Yes.
  9       Q. Who did you tell?
10       A. I did not personally, but my Vicar General
11   did.
12       Q. Okay. Did you ever is it your sworn
13   testimony, Cardinal, that you told Captain House of the
14   Modesto Police Department that Camacho was living as a
15   free man in Union City, California?
16       A. Again, I don't recall I met with
17   Captain House once, and talked to him on the phone. So
18   I don't remember specifically. But I do recall making
19   him alert to the fact, and that our office called the
20   Diocese of Oakland to alert the Fremont police about
21   this matter.
22       Q. Why didn't you just call the Fremont police or
23   direct Cain to call the Fremont police?
24       A. Well, I thought it would be better for Cain to
25   talk to his counterpart in Oakland, because recall,

  1   Camacho had been in Oakland already, and that it would
  2   be better if the Oakland diocese informed the police
  3   and, also, that the Oakland diocese be aware that this
  4   man is wandering around.
  5       Q. You know, I noticed in your letter you say you
  6   wrote a letter to all the Bishops warning not to
  7   warning the diocese not to give him faculties. Do you
  8   have a copy of that letter?
  9       A. I don't have it here, but I have seen it
10   somewhere in this documentation.
11       Q. Eminence, do you have your desk calendars from
12   the years you were in Stockton?
13       A. No, I don't.
14       Q. Did you ever ask Monsignor Weber to retrieve
15   those?
16       A. Monsignor Weber would not have had those.
17       Q. They're not in the archives in L.A.?
18       A. I actually don't remember what kind of
19   calendar system I used when I was in Stockton. So I
20   don't know whether it was small, monthly, a yearly. I
21   simply can't recall what kind of system I used.
22       Q. And your testimony is that you did not keep
23   those?
24       A. Anything like that would have gone to the
25   archives in Stockton.

  1       Q. Okay. Have you made a asked them to make a
  2   search to see if they can find them?
  3       A. Yes.
  4       Q. And what did they tell you?
  5       A. They told me no, that they could not find
  6   anything like that.
  7       Q. When did you ask them to search for those?
  8       A. I don't recall, but it was in the last year or
  9   two.
10       Q. So in other words, 2004 or 2003?
11       A. Correct.
12       Q. Okay. Did you meet with Captain House before
13   you spoke to him on the phone or vice versa?
14       A. I believe I did because I had his card, and
15   that's actually part of the Xerox copy.
16       Q. So you met with him first, and then you spoke
17   to him on the telephone; correct?
18       A. Yes. And then if you the next
19   correspondence with Captain House is March 28th.
20       Q. You have that in front of you?
21       A. I do.
22            MR. MANLY: We'll attach that as next in

23   order.
24            MS. SOLTAN: Okay. This is the one from the
25   police department?

  1            MR. MANLY: This is a March 28th letter from
  2   Cardinal or from Bishop Mahony, then Bishop Mahoney,
  3   to Captain House of the police department in Modesto.
  4            (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 was marked for
  5            identification.)
  6            MS. SOLTAN: Do you have that, Cardinal?
  7            THE WITNESS: Yes.
  8            MS. SOLTAN: Okay.
  9   BY MR. MANLY:
10       Q. And did you tell him in that letter, Eminence,
11   that he was living in Oakland I'm sorry, that he was
12   living in Union City, California?
13       A. No.
14       Q. Were they looking for him?
15       A. I don't believe so.
16       Q. Why were you writing him on the status of it?
17       A. When I had met with him and spoke with him, I
18   would I told him that I would do my best to keep him
19   informed.
20       Q. Cardinal, when you were do you consider
21   yourself or did you consider yourself when you were
22   Bishop of Stockton, detail oriented?
23            MR. WOODS: I object to the form of the
24   question and instruct him not to answer.
25   ///

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. Did you consider yourself to be a
  3   detail oriented manager when you were the Bishop of
  4   Stockton?
  5            MR. WOODS: I object to the form of the
  6   question. Vague and ambiguous. Calls for a conclusion
  7   and speculation. Argumentative. Instruct the witness
  8   not to answer.
  9            MR. MANLY: Now, that's a good one. I mean
10            MR. WOODS: Are you a detailed guy?
11            MR. MANLY: Why don't you just object, it
12   might hurt my case. That would be more honest. Okay?
13       Q. Do you have any document anywhere, Eminence,
14   that establishes that you ever told the police that
15   Father Camacho was living in California?

16            MR. WOODS: Other than the documents in front
17   of him?
18            MR. MANLY: If you want to make an objection,
19   go ahead. Don't coach the witness.
20            MR. WOODS: Object to the form of the question
21   as assuming a fact not in evidence.
22            THE WITNESS: My letter of March 16th, 1984,
23   to Captain House is a brief recollection of the our
24   telephone conversation the day before.
25   ///

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. Doesn't say anything about him living in
  3   Union City, California, does it, Eminence?
  4       A. This particular letter does not.
  5       Q. Do you have any document or do you know of any
  6   document that reflects that you told the police that
  7   Father Camacho, an alleged child molester, who you
  8   removed because you believed he was a child molester,
  9   was living in Union City, California?
10       A. I don't have a document.
11       Q. So it's just your word; right?
12            MR. HENNIGAN: That's not only argumentative,
13   that's offensive, John. You can do much better than
14   that. It's argumentative. It's offensive.
15            MR. WOODS: He's already testified the police
16   chief met with Father Camacho in his office.
17   BY MR. MANLY:
18       Q. Let me ask you this way: Do you know of any
19   other evidence, beside your testimony, Eminence, that
20   you told that reflects you told the police where
21   Father Camacho was living?
22       A. Keep in mind, the March 16th letter from me to
23   Captain House says, second paragraph:
24            "I am pleased that you were able to speak
25       with him directly in your office, and that as

  1       a result of that conversation, he made plans
  2       to return immediately to his diocese in Mexico."
  3            So I didn't think he was going back to
  4   Northern California.
  5       Q. When did you learn, after this letter, that he
  6   was living in Northern California?
  7       A. I actually don't recall exactly.
  8       Q. Did you tell the victims' families he
  9   continued to live in the area here?
10            MR. WOODS: Object to the form of the
11   question. "The area"? You mean all of
12   Northern California, "the area," as far as you're
13   concerned?
14            MR. MANLY: You know what, if my kids were
15   molested by Father Camacho and I lived in Northern
16   California, that would the area.
17            MR. WOODS: Well, the area is Northern
18   California.
19            Did you tell the victims' parents that he was
20   in Northern California, if you knew?
21            THE WITNESS: No, I don't recall.
22   BY MR. MANLY:
23       Q. Did you do anything to assure that
24   Father Camacho well, Father Camacho was not a
25   citizen of the United States; correct?

  1       A. At that time, he was not.
  2       Q. Okay. Did you notify the immigration
  3   authorities?
  4       A. No, I did not.
  5       Q. Okay. If he was employed by the Diocese of
  6   Stockton, did you understand you had any obligation to
  7   notify immigration if he'd engaged in a felony?
  8       A. No.
  9       Q. Is there a reason you didn't notify
10   immigration?
11       A. I notified our attorney and asked him to
12   handle any legal aspects, but I don't recall the
13   immigration service being a part of that.
14       Q. In Father Munoz's case, you did notify
15   immigration and attempt to have him deported; is that
16   correct?
17       A. No. I believe the testimony and documentation
18   will show that if he attempts to come back in the
19   United States from Mexico.
20       Q. Are you done, Your Eminence? Are you
21   finished?
22       A. Yes.
23       Q. Okay. Have you seen Monsignor Cain's letter
24   of December 28th, 1984 to
25            MR. WOODS: Can we go back to the prior

  1   question?
  2            THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I was I was
  3   unaware of proper full response to your earlier
  4   question.
  5            On my letter of February 15, 1984, to Father
  6   Antonio Camacho. Do you have that?
  7   BY MR. MANLY:
  8       Q. No, but I'd be happy to to get it.
  9       A. It's it's in that package.
10       Q. Do you want to read it into the record?
11       A. Sure.
12            MR. WOODS: Read the whole letter?
13            MR. MANLY: No, just what he wanted to point
14   out to me.
15            MR. WOODS: Is this a letter for the
16   record, this is a letter dated February 15, 1984, from
17   Cardinal Mahony, at the time, Bishop of Stockton, to
18   the Reverend Antonio Camacho.
19            MR. MANLY: Go ahead.
20            THE WITNESS: I would call your attention to
21   the fourth paragraph.
22            "I am revoking my authorization today with
23       the Immigration and Naturalization Service for
24       your status in the Diocese of Stockton."
25   ///

  1   BY MR. MANLY:
  2       Q. So you did?
  3       A. Yes.
  4       Q. Okay. And you thought that was the right
  5   thing to do; correct?
  6       A. Correct.
  7       Q. Did you ever notify immigration about
  8   Father O'Grady?
  9       A. No.
10       Q. Why not?
11       A. Father O'Grady had not been found guilty of
12   the sexual abuse of minors in my time.
13       Q. Was Father Camacho found guilty?
14       A. In Father Comacho's case, we had victims,
15   corroborated evidence adequate to take action.
16       Q. Did Monsignor Cain get a copy of that letter?
17            MR. WOODS: Are you referring to the letter of
18   February 15, 1984, from Bishop Mahony to
19   Father Camacho?
20            MR. MANLY: Yeah, that's the letter I'm
21   referring to.
22            THE WITNESS: I honestly don't remember, but
23   very possibly he did.
24   BY MR. MANLY:
25       Q. Father O'Grady was a citizen of Ireland; isn't

  1   that true, Your Eminence?
  2       A. I believe so.
  3       Q. And he was your employee; right?
  4       A. Correct.
  5       Q. So if you knew that Father O'Grady had
  6   molested kids, is it your testimony you would have and
  7   should have reported him to immigration?
  8            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object to the form.
  9   Calls for speculation. Calls for you also, I guess, to
10   assume
11            MR. MANLY: You know what, object
12            MR. WOODS: the same factual circumstances
13   as Camacho. I'll let him answer.
14   BY MR. MANLY:
15       Q. Go ahead.
16       A. Yes. Well, that the O'Grady case is
17   different from the Munoz case and the Camacho case.
18       Q. Okay. If you knew that Father O'Grady had
19   molested kids, okay, you believed it, and you were the
20   Bishop, would you and should would you have and
21   should you have, as his Bishop and as his employer,
22   reported him to U.S. Immigration authorities to have
23   him deported?
24       A. If I had evidence and victims and
25   corroboration, most likely, yes.

  1       Q. Okay. So your policy was if you had an extern
  2   priest or a diocesan priest
  3            Let me ask it this way: Your world view, your
  4   view of how to act properly as a Bishop, when you had
  5   an employee who had molested kids who was not a citizen
  6   but was here serving you, as the Bishop, as an
  7   employee, your practice, protocol, world view of the
  8   appropriate thing to do was to report that person to
  9   immigration and get them deported because they were a
10   danger to kids; is that right?
11            MR. WOODS: I object to the form of the
12   question.
13            THE WITNESS: My primary concern would be to
14   make sure he was not in public, private, priestly
15   ministry, where he could be a danger to children as a
16   priest.
17   BY MR. MANLY:
18       Q. Why did you try to get Camacho deported?
19            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object that that was
20   his intent and purpose, as opposed to simply complying
21   with the law.
22            MR. MANLY: You know what, that you're just
23   coaching the witness. Why don't you just whisper in
24   his ear. It would be easier.
25            MR. WOODS: Because you are assuming facts

  1   that aren't true.
  2            MR. MANLY: No. You can object, Don. I'm not
  3   a genius. You may be right. But don't coach him.
  4   It's wrong.
  5            MR. WOODS: Assumes facts in not in evidence.
  6            MS. SOLTAN: Could you read the question back,
  7   please.
  8            (The record was read as follows:
  9            "Why did you try to get Camacho deported?")
10            THE WITNESS: Because he told Captain House
11   that he was going back to Mexico and did not. So I
12   withdrew his authorization.
13   BY MR. MANLY:
14       Q. You didn't try to get him deported because you
15   thought he was a molester?
16       A. That would be part of it.
17       Q. Okay. So if Father O'Grady told Mr. Gutteri
18   he molested a child, why didn't you get him deported?
19            MR. WOODS: Object. Object. Assumes not in
20   evidence. Instruct him not to answer.
21            MS. SOLTAN: Nothing's in evidence.
22            MR. WOODS: It's a hypothetical. Calls for an
23   opinion.
24   BY MR. MANLY:
25       Q. Well, you were a social worker for you

  1   know, you have a master's degrees
  2            MR. WOODS: This is argumentative.
  3            MR. HENNIGAN: He's right.
  4            MR. MANLY: Did you see that Tom Cruise movie
  5   where you commit a crime and they know beforehand and,
  6   you know, you must have some unique talent because I
  7   haven't asked a question yet and you object.
  8            MR. WOODS: Because you're already starting
  9   out argumentatively.
10            MR. MANLY: Well
11            MR. WOODS: Call the judge.
12            MR. MANLY: Well, I'll tell you what, at this
13   point we've been going for almost two hours. Why don't
14   we take a break. Thank you.
15            THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record. The
16   time is 11:52. This is the end of tape number one of
17   the deposition of Cardinal Roger Mahony.
18            (The luncheon recess was taken from
19             11:52 a.m. to 12:36 p.m.)
20            THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record.
21   The time is 12:36. This is tape number two of the
22   videotaped deposition of Cardinal Roger Mahony in the
23   matter of John Doe versus Roman Catholic Bishop of
24   Stockton.

  1            Today is November the 23rd, 2004.
  2   BY MR. MANLY:
  3       Q. Your Eminence, I've handed you a document, or
  4   my co counsel has, that we're going to attach as
  5   Exhibit 6. It's entitled "Biographical Data on
  6   Cardinal Roger Mahony."
  7            Have you seen this before?
  8       A. This is updated many times over the years.
  9   Could I take a moment just to review it to see what
10   version we have here?
11       Q. Okay. Looks to me like it's probably accurate
12   as of '97, which for our purposes I think is fine.
13            Is that correct?
14       A. Well, let me look at the pages here.
15               (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 was marked for
16                identification.)
17            THE WITNESS: Yes, it looks fine.
18   BY MR. MANLY:
19       Q. Okay. Can you look on the first page under
20   "Educational Background"?
21       A. Yes.
22       Q. And is that accurate as of the date of this
23   document?
24       A. Yes, it appears accurate.
25       Q. Okay. The first experience you had in

  1   preparation for the priesthood is attending Los Angeles
  2   College Preparatory Seminary; correct?
  3       A. Yes, that is correct.
  4       Q. While there, did you ever become aware of any
  5   priest abusing any young person, sexually or otherwise?
  6       A. No.
  7       Q. Okay. From 1954 to 1956, you attended Our
  8   Lady Queen of Angels Seminary in San Fernando,
  9   California; correct?
10       A. Yes, correct.
11       Q. And it's a high school seminary?
12       A. It was high school plus two first two years
13   of college.
14       Q. Okay. And while you attended there, do you
15   did you ever become aware of a priest abusing a young
16   person, sexually or otherwise?
17       A. No.
18       Q. From 1956 to 1958, you attended St. John's
19   Seminary, College Seminary, in Camarillo; correct?
20       A. Yes, correct.
21       Q. And did you ever become aware, while you were
22   there, of a priest abusing seminarians, sexually or
23   otherwise?
24       A. No.
25       Q. While you were there, did it ever come to your

  1   attention that anyone in the faculty was not complying
  2   with the vow of celibacy?
  3       A. I have no way of knowing that.
  4       Q. When is the first time you became aware that
  5   priests violate their vow of celibacy on occasion?
  6       A. I don't recall the first time I learned of
  7   that.
  8       Q. While you were at St. John's Seminary, in the
  9   theologate, did you study the 1917 Code of Canon Law?
10       A. Yes.
11       Q. Did you learn about something called
12   "solicitation in the confessional"?
13       A. Yes.
14       Q. And what is that, Your Eminence?
15       A. Solicitation in the confessional refers to a
16   priest hearing confessions in the confessional and,
17   during the course of hearing confessions, solicits the
18   penitent for some time type of sexual activity.
19       Q. Okay. And did you learn that the '17 Code had
20   penalties for that?
21       A. Yes.
22       Q. Okay. And did you learn the '17 Code had
23   penalties for sex with minors in the confessional?
24       A. I actually don't recall that specifically.
25            MR. MANLY: Okay. Let me we'll attach a

  1   copy of a document. The first document is Latin, and
  2   I'll represent it's the cover page of the Code with the
  3   section. And the second part is a translation.
  4       Q. And I direct your attention to Page 3 of the
  5   translation.
  6            MR. WOODS: Can I have a copy?
  7            MS. SOLTAN: It's coming. Just a second.
  8   BY MR. MANLY:
  9       Q. Have you ever seen the document before?
10            MR. WOODS: Hold on.
11            MR. MANLY: I'm sorry?
12            MR. WOODS: Hold on. Hold on. Okay. So can
13   you for my benefit, Page 709, starting there,
14   what what is that supposed to be? That Latin? Is
15   that Latin, I assume?
16            MR. MANLY: Yeah, the text is in Latin.
17            MR. WOODS: Okay. And what is that?
18            MR. MANLY: What is Latin? It's the language
19   of the Roman Empire.
20            MR. WOODS: What is what is 709? What do
21   you represent it to be, 709 to 712?
22            MR. MANLY: It's part of the 1917 Code of
23   Canon Law.
24            MR. WOODS: Okay. And then what's Page 5?
25   "Constitutio Sacramentum Poentitentiae of Pope Benedict

  1   XV"?
  2            MR. HENNIGAN: XIV.
  3            MR. WOODS: XIV, sorry.
  4            This is the same document or a different
  5   document.
  6            MR. MANLY: Same document.
  7            MR. WOODS: Oh, I see. This is a
  8   translation you're representing this is a
  9   translation of the earlier pages?
10            MR. MANLY: Right.
11            MR. WOODS: And the translation was by
12   James F. Ernest; it is that your representation?
13            MR. MANLY: That's what it says.
14            MR. WOODS: And it's your representation that
15   one is a translation of the other?
16            MR. MANLY: That's correct.
17            MR. WOODS: Okay.
18   BY MR. MANLY:
19       Q. Cardinal, have you seen the Latin document
20   before?
21       A. I I'm sorry. I'm a bit confused. You have
22   here this cover and the next page referring to the Code
23   of Canon Law, I presume, of 1917?
24       Q. That's correct.

0025       A. Then everything that follows after that is

  1   from 1741?
  2       Q. Yeah, it's the 1741 document. That was part
  3   of the code.
  4            MS. SOLTAN: Cardinal, if you look at the
  5   table of contents, which is the second page, document
  6   V, Roman numeral V, is the I'm not going to try to
  7   say this in Latin but I believe that refers to the
  8   rest of the document. And what is attached to the back
  9   of the document, I believe is a literal translation of
10   the document.
11            MR. WOODS: I'm I'm telling you, I don't
12   know how this is going to relate to his practices or
13   what he did, as opposed to trying to obtain an expert
14   opinion on canon law.
15            MR. MANLY: I'm not asking him his opinion on
16   Canon Law.
17            MR. WOODS: I'm curious to see how it's going
18   to happen here.
19   BY MR. MANLY:
20       Q. Have you ever seen that document before,
21   Eminence?
22       A. You do not have here the 1917 Code of Canon.
23   What you have is a collection of documents prior to
24   that code. This is just for the record. This is not
25   the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

  1       Q. Have you read or ever seen that document
  2   before?
  3       A. I've never seen the document.
  4       Q. All right. Fine. From 1958 to 1962, you
  5   attended the theologate, Camarillo, St. John's
  6   Theologate Seminary?
  7       A. Excuse me. We're back to the
  8       Q. The resumé.
  9       A. The resumé.
10            For the moment, we're setting this aside?
11       Q. Yeah.
12       A. Thank you. Yes, back to the resumé. The
13   question, please?
14       Q. Yeah. You attended the theologate from '58 to
15   '62; correct?
16       A. Correct.
17       Q. And while attending the theologate, did it
18   come to your attention that any priest was abusing
19   seminarians, minors or otherwise?
20       A. Abusing minors where?
21       Q. Abusing seminarians minors
22       A. Where?
23       Q. sexually or otherwise
24       A. Where?
25       Q. while you were at the seminary in the

  1   theologate?
  2       A. At St. John's Seminary?
  3       Q. Yes.
  4       A. No.
  5       Q. Okay. From 1962 to 1964, you attended the
  6   National Catholic School of Social Service; correct?
  7       A. Yes.
  8       Q. Okay. Did it ever come to your attention
  9   while you were there that priests had abused young
10   persons in the Washington, D.C. area?
11       A. Best of my knowledge, no.
12       Q. Okay. Let's move to Page 2.
13            Oh, I'm sorry. In 1964, you got your master's
14   degree in social work; correct?
15       A. Yeah, that's correct.
16       Q. Okay. Let's go to Page 2 and look at your
17   priestly assignments.
18            From May 10th to September 10, '62, you were
19   assistant pastor at St. John's Cathedral in Fresno?
20       A. Yes, that's correct.
21       Q. Your duties, in part, caused you to function
22   as a parish priest; is that correct?
23       A. Yes.
24       Q. And while you were there at that assignment,
25   did you come to learn that any priest, either in your

  1   parish or anywhere in the diocese of Fresno had abused
  2   a child, sexually or otherwise?
  3       A. No.
  4       Q. Did it come to your attention that any priest
  5   was routinely violating his vow of celibacy?
  6            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object as totally
  7   irrelevant to the subject matter of this case. I'll
  8   let him answer.
  9            THE WITNESS: I certainly don't recall.
10   BY MR. MANLY:
11       Q. Okay. Did you engage did it come to your
12   attention that any priest, while were you at that
13   assignment, had engaged in sexual exploitation of any
14   member of the faithful?
15            MR. WOODS: Same objection.
16            THE WITNESS: Again, I simply don't recall.
17   BY MR. MANLY:
18       Q. Is that something you would remember, you
19   think?
20            MR. WOODS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
21            THE WITNESS: I don't know.
22   BY MR. MANLY:
23       Q. So are you saying it didn't happen or you just
24   don't remember?
25       A. I just don't recall.

  1       Q. Okay. June 10th, 1964, to September 10, 1964,
  2   you were in residence and then administrator of
  3   St. Genevieve's parish in Fresno?
  4       A. Yes, that's correct.
  5       Q. So essentially, you were acting initially as
  6   an associate pastor, and then as a pastor; correct?
  7       A. No.
  8       Q. You didn't have the assignment as pastor, but
  9   administrating the powers of a pastor?
10       A. Well, I was actually full time director of
11   Catholic Charities.
12       Q. I see. So you you said mass and assisted
13   on weekends?
14       A. The parish is one square block. It's a
15   Chinese parish.
16       Q. Got it.
17       A. And nobody came except during the two masses
18   on Sunday.
19       Q. During that time period, Eminence, did it come
20   to your attention that any priest was sexually abusing
21   or abusing in any way, a child or a minor?
22            MR. WOODS: May I just have a clarification.
23   What time period?
24   BY MR. MANLY:
25       Q. During the time from '64 to '67, when you were

  1   at St. Genevieve's?
  2       A. Was I aware of what again?
  3       Q. Any priest was sexually abusing or otherwise
  4   abusing a minor, a child?
  5       A. No, best of my recollection, no.
  6       Q. And did it come to your attention that any
  7   priest at St. Genevieve's or any other place in the
  8   diocese, that you were aware of, was sexually
  9   exploiting a member of the faithful?
10            MR. WOODS: Object as irrelevant to the
11   subject matter.
12            THE WITNESS: I simply don't recall any case.
13   BY MR. MANLY:
14       Q. Okay. In December 1968, you were given the
15   assignment in residence at St. John's Cathedral again;
16   correct?
17       A. Correct.
18       Q. Okay. And while you were at St. John's in
19   '68, I guess to 73, you were still with Catholic
20   Charities, what until 1970?
21            MR. WOODS: Wait. There's two question.
22            MR. MANLY: I'll break it up.
23       Q. Your Catholic Charities assignment terminated
24   in 1970; right?
25       A. Yes, that's correct.

  1       Q. Okay. So from '68 to '70, your primary
  2   function was head of Catholic Charities; correct?
  3       A. Yes.
  4       Q. From 1968 to 1970, while at Catholic Charities
  5   or while in connection with your duties at St. John's
  6   Cathedral, did you come to learn that any priest had
  7   sexually abused a child or otherwise abused a child?
  8       A. Best of my recollection, no.
  9       Q. From 1968 to 1970, did it come to your
10   attention that any priest had sexually exploited a
11   member of the faithful?
12            MR. WOODS: Object. Irrelevant to the subject
13   matter.
14            THE WITNESS: Again, to my recollection, no.
15   BY MR. MANLY:
16       Q. Do you remember the first time, Eminence, it
17   came to your understanding or world view that some
18   priests were not celibate?
19       A. I don't remember when that was.
20       Q. Do you remember what decade that was?
21       A. Following the Second Vatican Counsel, at some
22   point I heard of some priests that were leaving the
23   priesthood to marry. But at that time, I did not know
24   any personally or was aware of any.
25       Q. When is the first time you recall, if you

  1   recall well, the Second Vatican Counsel ended in,
  2   what? 1968?
  3       A. Yes.
  4       Q. Okay. So sometime after 1968, is it your
  5   testimony you learned that priests some priests
  6   weren't celibate?
  7       A. Sometime after that.
  8       Q. Do you have an estimate of when that was?
  9       A. I really don't.
10       Q. Can you can you narrow it down by decade?
11   1960s? 1970s? 1980s?
12       A. I suspect it would be the late 1960s into the
13   early 1970s.
14       Q. Looking back on what you know now, do you
15   believe that there was a lot of sexual activity you
16   just didn't know about?
17            MR. WOODS: Object. Calls for speculation.
18   Calls for an opinion. I'll let him answer.
19            THE WITNESS: Did you say answer?
20            MR. WOODS: You can answer.
21            THE WITNESS: In the Diocese of Fresno, where
22   I was, I was not aware of any widespread problem in
23   this area.
24   BY MR. MANLY:
25       Q. Well, looking back on it, given what we know

  1   now, do you think there was a sexual activity and you
  2   just weren't clued into it?
  3            MR. WOODS: Calls for speculation, hindsight.
  4   Calls for an opinion. Irrelevant to the subject
  5   matter.
  6            THE WITNESS: And the question again?
  7   BY MR. MANLY:
  8       Q. Do you think there was a lot of sexual
  9   activity going on in those years and you just weren't
10   clued into it? Is that right?
11       A. I don't believe that there was a lot of sexual
12   activity, correct.
13       Q. Okay. All right. From 1970 to 1973, did you
14   become aware at any point in time of any priest
15   abusing, sexually or otherwise, a child, a minor?
16       A. No.
17       Q. Okay. Did you become aware of any priest
18   during that time period, 1970 to 1973, a priest
19   sexually exploiting a member of the faithful?
20            MR. WOODS: Objection. Irrelevant to the
21   subject matter.
22            THE WITNESS: I simply don't recall any.
23   BY MR. MANLY:
24       Q. Okay. From 1973 to 1980, did you become aware
25   of any priest at any time abusing a child sexually or

  1   otherwise?
  2       A. No, best of my knowledge, I don't recall that.
  3       Q. In connection with your duties as Auxiliary
  4   Bishop at the Diocese of Fresno, did you ever become
  5   aware of a priest accused of molesting a child or a
  6   minor?
  7       A. Best of my recollection, no.
  8       Q. In connection with your duties as Vicar
  9   General of the Diocese of Fresno, did you ever become
10   aware of an allegation of a priest molesting a child or
11   a minor or otherwise abusing a child or a minor?
12       A. I don't recall any.
13       Q. Okay. And as in your in your capacity
14   as Chancellor, you had access to the secret archives or
15   the confidential archives?
16       A. In the Diocese of Fresno, yes.
17       Q. Would those archives in your view did those
18   archives contain any allegations of children being
19   sexually abused, that you saw?
20       A. No.
21       Q. And you had occasion on more than one occasion
22   to inspect the archives?
23       A. Very rarely.
24       Q. Okay. But you did inspect them?
25       A. I didn't really inspect them. If I had to put

  1   something in a file, I would go to the file and place
  2   it there.
  3       Q. So is it your testimony that as far as you're
  4   concerned, the Diocese of Fresno's archives, secret
  5   archives, would contain no information on the sexual
  6   abuse or alleged sexual abuse of minors from 1973 to
  7   1980?
  8            MR. WOODS: Is that his opinion?
  9            MR. MANLY: I want to know what what he 10   what he thinks.
11            MR. WOODS: Well, you haven't established that
12   he looked at them or reviewed them or did anything
13   other than put stuff in them.
14   BY MR. MANLY:
15       Q. Do you know whether code of canon law calls
16   for you to inspect the secret archives annually as the
17   Chancellor of the diocese, Eminence?
18            MR. WOODS: Do you know if the current canon
19   law, is that what you said?
20            MR. MANLY: No, either one, '17 or '83.
21       Q. Do you know if the code calls for you to do an
22   annual inspection of the secret archives?
23       A. No.
24       Q. Okay. Are you in charge of indexing and
25   documenting the secret archives as Chancellor?

  1       A. I'm really not sure.
  2       Q. Okay. Were you sure when you were Chancellor,
  3   or you're not sure now?
  4       A. The the job of Chancellor in this country
  5   varied so widely that the custodian of the records and
  6   documents very often was the Vicar General.
  7       Q. Okay. And in your capacity as Vicar General,
  8   did you access the secret archives?
  9       A. No, because I was Vicar General only because I
10   was Auxiliary Bishop.
11       Q. Okay. And what is a Vicar General, so the
12   jury will understand?
13       A. Vicar General is the person who has been
14   delegated by the Bishop to assist in the overall
15   administration of the diocese and to exercise whatever
16   action the Bishop wishes.
17       Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that the Vicar
18   General is supposed to function, quote, in the heart
19   and mind of the Bishop, close quote?
20       A. Well, it depends on who the Vicar General is.
21       Q. Did you do that, Eminence?
22       A. Well, when I was Vicar General, it was by
23   reason of office. That is, the Auxiliary Bishops were
24   to be named Vicar General. As a matter of fact, there
25   was a full time Vicar General who carried on the

  1   duties. And I was also rector of the cathedral during
  2   this same period of time.
  3       Q. Did you have a regional deanery in Fresno?
  4       A. I believe we did.
  5       Q. And what region were you in charge of?
  6       A. I actually was never the dean.
  7       Q. Okay. So as Auxiliary Bishop and Vicar
  8   General, your responsibility encompassed the entire
  9   diocese; correct?
10       A. And duties given to me by the Bishop.
11            MR. WOODS: I've got to object to the last
12   question. You say "the" Vicar General. He was "a"
13   Vicar General is what his testimony has been.
14   BY MR. MANLY:
15       Q. Your duties as Chancellor encompassed the
16   entire diocese; correct?
17       A. Yes.
18       Q. If a child had been sexually abused during
19   those years, is it fair to say that that would have
20   come to your attention as Chancellor and/or Vicar
21   General and/or Auxiliary Bishop?
22            MR. WOODS: Calls for speculation.
23            THE WITNESS: During which years?
24   BY MR. MANLY:
25       Q. When you were an officer of the Diocese of

  1   Fresno in any of those three offices?
  2            MR. WOODS: Object to the term "officer of
  3   diocese."
  4   BY MR. MANLY:
  5       Q. Go ahead.
  6       A. I imagine I would have become aware of that
  7   during that time.
  8       Q. And your your testimony is that no such
  9   event occurred?
10       A. No. My testimony is I cannot recall something
11   like that occurring during this time.
12       Q. Do you think if a child were raped during your
13   tenure at Fresno, that that would be something that you
14   would forget?
15            MR. WOODS: Object. Argumentative.
16   Harassing. Instruct the witness not to answer.
17   BY MR. MANLY:
18       Q. Do you think if a child molestation allegation
19   had been levied, Your Eminence, while you were there as
20   an acting as an official of the diocese, and it came
21   to your attention, that would be something you would
22   forget?
23            MR. WOODS: I'm going to object. Harassing.
24   Argumentative. Asked and answered. Instruct the
25   witness not to answer.

  1            MR. MANLY: He hasn't answered that question.
  2            MR. WOODS: Yes, he has.
  3   BY MR. MANLY:
  4       Q. Do you know how many cases of child
  5   molestation were reported to you prior to 1985?
  6       A. Best of my recollection, three.
  7       Q. Do you know of any perpetrators that were
  8   operating in Fresno while you were a diocesan official?
  9       A. Since you used the word "perpetrators," you're
10   referring to everybody. And I don't know.
11       Q. Do you know of any perpetrator priest and
12   let me tell you what I mean by that. Somebody who
13   sexually exploits an adult or a child that were
14   operating in Fresno while you were an official of that
15   diocese?
16       A. I can't recall any.
17       Q. Do you know any today?
18       A. Do you mean do I remember today someone who
19   during that period of time?
20       Q. No. Has it come to your attention in in
21   now, present day, that priests that were serving under
22   you were molesting children while you were there?
23            MR. WOODS: Has it been reported to him?
24            MR. MANLY: Or does he know from any source.
25            MR. WOODS: By "do you know," you mean, has it

  1   been reported to him, as opposed to him having
  2   firsthand knowledge?
  3            MR. MANLY: Whatever.
  4            THE WITNESS: No, I'm not I can't recall of
  5   a case.
  6   BY MR. MANLY:
  7       Q. Okay. Do you think you have a good memory,
  8   Eminence?
  9            MR. WOODS: Object. Argumentative. Instruct
10   him not to answer.
11            MR. MANLY: How is that
12   BY MR. MANLY:
13       Q. Do you have any memory problems?
14       A. As I get older, yes, more distant things I
15   cannot remember.
16       Q. Have you have you been diagnosed with any
17   memory problems?
18       A. Not that medically.
19       Q. And you haven't been treated for any memory
20   problems; right?
21       A. Not that I know of.
22       Q. Okay. From 1966 to 1967 I'm at Page 2
23   again, Eminence, toward the bottom you served as
24   assistant professor of social work at Fresno State?
25       A. Yes.

  1       Q. And from '65 to '67, you were an you were
  2   an instructor at Fresno State; is that right?
  3       A. That's correct.
  4       Q. Okay. And you served as Chancellor from 1970
  5   to '77 of the Diocese of Fresno?
  6       A. The years again?
  7       Q. '70 to '77. I've gone on to Page 3.
  8       A. Actually, that probably should say 1970 to
  9   1975.
10       Q. Okay. Go ahead.
11       A. Because when I was ordained a Bishop, someone
12   else was appointed Chancellor.
13       Q. And in 1975 from 1975 to 1980, you served
14   as the Vicar General at the Diocese of Fresno?
15            MR. WOODS: A or the?
16            MR. MANLY: Either one.
17            THE WITNESS: I served as a Vicar General.
18   BY MR. MANLY:
19       Q. Okay. From '74 to '75, you served on the
20   trustees of the St. on the board of trustees of
21   St. Patrick's Seminary?
22       A. Yes.
23       Q. While you were on the board, did the issue of
24   selection of candidates for the priesthood come to your
25   attention?

  1       A. I actually don't recall much discussion of
  2   board of trustees at St. Patrick's Seminary.
  3       Q. What is the first time you recall a candidate
  4   for the priesthood being psychologically screened, to
  5   your knowledge?
  6       A. I can't recall exactly, but I would surmise
  7   somewhere around the mid 1980s and beyond.
  8       Q. Okay. You don't remember do you remember
  9   who the first psychiatrist or psychologist or mental
10   health professional you referred someone to, to be
11   screened for the priesthood?
12            MR. WOODS: That assumes you did that.
13            THE WITNESS: I can't recall during my time in
14   1978 to 1985, myself referring someone.
15   BY MR. MANLY:
16       Q. I thought I read in your deposition that you
17   said that Dr. Morris had been sent candidates for the
18   seminary to be screened by Monsignor Cain. Is that
19   is that accurate?
20       A. No, actually, it's not.
21       Q. Okay. So Monsignor Cain never sent, to your
22   knowledge, candidates for the seminary to be screened
23   by Dr. Morris?
24       A. No. I think the record will show that after I
25   met with Dr. Morris, I informed Father Larry McGovern,

  1   the vocation director, that Dr. Morris would accept
  2   referrals if he had any.
  3       Q. And when you first started sending or knew
  4   that candidates to the priesthood were going to be
  5   screened by psychiatrists, what were you screening them
  6   for?
  7       A. Again, I don't recall us actually sending
  8   anybody. He simply offered that if we felt there was a
  9   question mark or question, that he would be very happy
10   to evaluate the man.
11       Q. Were you aware in 1980 to '85 that there were
12   professionals that specialized in the treatment of
13   sexual let me let me think of the let me
14   rephrase it.
15            Were you aware at any time between 1980 and
16   the Collegeville meeting, the Bishops' meeting you've
17   talked about, that there were specialists who treated
18   sexual disorders?
19       A. Do you mean prior to Collegeville?
20       Q. Yes, sir.
21       A. I can't recall any.
22       Q. So you were unaware of the Johns Hopkins
23   Center For Sexual Disorders, is that accurate, prior to
24   the Collegeville meeting?
25       A. That's accurate.

  1       Q. And you were unaware of the Servants of the
  2   Paraclete?
  3       A. I simply don't remember when I I learned
  4   of of the Paraclete.
  5       Q. And you were unaware of the St. Luke
  6   Institute?
  7       A. Until mid 1985, that's accurate.
  8       Q. And you were unaware of the House of
  9   Affirmation?
10       A. I believe I had heard of the House of
11   Affirmation, but for problems of depression and other
12   mental illness.
13       Q. Did it specialize in treating mental illness
14   of clerics?
15       A. My understanding is that they treated priests,
16   religious, and professionals, doctors, attorneys, and
17   other people.
18       Q. Had prior to 19 prior to the
19   Collegeville meeting, were you of the existence of The
20   Guest House in Rochester, Minnesota?
21       A. I had heard of it, yes.
22       Q. What did you understand it did, Eminence?
23       A. The guest house treated priests with problems
24   of alcoholism.
25       Q. Okay. Prior to 1985, had you ever heard of

  1   Southdown?
  2       A. Southdown is located?
  3       Q. Canada.
  4       A. No.
  5       Q. In either in handling the O'Grady case, the Camacho case, and the Munoz case, did you consult with
  7   anyone outside of Stockton?
  8       A. No.
  9       Q. Did you contact any Bishop, colleague, friend,
10   fellow priest, mental health professional, social
11   worker and seek guidance with them on how to
12   appropriately handle that situation?
13            MR. WOODS: Could I hear it back?
14            MR. MANLY: I'll ask it again.
15            MR. WOODS: Okay. I wasn't sure if you meant
16   outside or inside.
17            MR. MANLY: Yeah. Let me try and clarify it.
18       Q. In handling the situation involving O'Grady,
19   Father O'Grady, Father Munoz, and Father Camacho,
20   Eminence, at any point did you seek outside assistance,
21   outside of the regional area of Stockton, from anybody,
22   a Bishop, a priest, a psychiatrist, anybody else?
23       A. No, I don't recall doing that.
24       Q. Did you consult a canon lawyer in any of those
25   cases?

  1       A. I'm not sure if there was direct consultation,
  2   but there were two or three canonists who were actually
  3   on the personnel board in Stockton.
  4       Q. Okay. From '84 to '88, you served on the
  5   board of trustees at the Catholic University of
  6   America; is that correct?
  7       A. Excuse me. What page are you on now?
  8       Q. I'm sorry. I am on "Other Appointments" at
  9   Page 5.
10       A. Oh, Page 5.
11            And the question has to do with Catholic
12   University?
13       Q. Uh huh.
14       A. Yes. And your question is was I a member of
15   the board?
16       Q. Yes.
17       A. Yes, I was.
18       Q. And do you know when you first obtained the
19   registration to be a social worker, or license to be a
20   social worker, in California, what year that was?
21       A. I don't remember exactly, but I suspect it
22   would have been 1964 or 1965.
23       Q. Did you ever have you ever from 1985
24   from the time you became a priest until 1985, are you
25   aware whether you ever were a mandated reporter of

  1   child sex abuse?
  2       A. Did I know?
  3       Q. Yes. Do you know if you were a mandated
  4   reporter?
  5       A. I know that I was not a mandated reporter.
  6       Q. And how do you know that?
  7       A. Because it wasn't until 1997 that clergy were.
  8       Q. Prior to 1985, Eminence, did you ever report a
  9   priest to the police? Did you personally ever report a
10   priest for the let me try it again.
11            Prior to 1985, did you ever report a priest,
12   in your capacity as a supervisor, to any law
13   enforcement agency for the violation of any law?
14       A. Yes.
15       Q. Who did you report?
16       A. Father Antonio Camacho.
17       Q. You reported that personally?
18       A. I don't recall the exact sequence, but at some
19   early point after he was dismissed, his faculties
20   revoked and his assignment revoked, I spoke personally
21   with the police department in Modesto.
22       Q. Did you actually make the first report or did
23   the victims?
24            MR. WOODS: Or did who?
25            MR. MANLY: Or did the victims?

[Continue to Part 2 of the deposition.]


Any original material on these pages is copyright © 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.