Deposition of Cardinal
Francis E. George OMI

The deposition of Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago was taken by Jeffrey Anderson on January 30, 2008 and was released to meet a nonmonetary demand of the survivors who settled with the archdiocese on August 11, 2008. The deposition focuses on:
•  George’s hitherto unknown campaign in 1997-2002 to obtain early release from prison for convicted child molester Rev. Norbert Maday.

•  The archdiocese’s failure to remove Rev. Daniel McCormack despite many allegations, and the resulting abuse in 2005–2006.

•  George’s 2005 decision not to remove Rev. Joseph Bennett despite a number of allegations—and the ten other allegations, hitherto unknown, that emerged when Bennett was finally removed.

This deposition provides access to archdiocesan documents relating to those priests, and offers Cardinal George's detailed discussion of the archdiocese's performance, which was assessed by the Defenbaugh report (p. 2) as "violating Illinois Criminal Statute – Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act." The deposition explores what that report (p. 3) had called the "total breakdown in communication amongst the Archdiocesan staff assigned to react to allegations of sexual abuse of minors," and examines what the report identifies as the "watershed event," when a 2003 complaint regarding Fr. Daniel McCormack was not "properly dealt with."

The deposition also sheds light on the archdiocese's canonical performance under the Norms that George had helped to finalize with the Vatican in 2002. George's own Review Board, in one of the documents provided with the deposition, notes that George "chose not to act on" the Review Board's October 17, 2005, recommendation that Fr. McCormack be removed and suspended. After that recommendation, and before McCormack was arrested on January 20, 2006, the priest reportedly abused four boys. "We are extremely dismayed," the Board members wrote, "that yet another claim of clerical sexual abuse of a minor has been brought to our attention, and that action was not taken in a timely manner." In the deposition, George states, "I am very dismayed myself."

This webpage offers a convenient version of the deposition, designed so that readers can read it easily, do searches, access individual pages, and view exhibits while they read. Below on this page we offer our own table of contents and list of document exhibits, and the text of the deposition with added photos, images of selected documents, and links to all the exhibits. These enhancements are clearly distinguished from the text of the deposition, which was scanned from the archdiocese's released copy and compared carefully against the original. You may search the full text of the deposition on this page by using the search function in your browser (in Internet Explorer, type control-F, type the word you wish to search, and type enter).

We also provide a separate page with links to articles and commentary about the settlement and deposition and their background. Another page provides a detailed summary of the exhibits and links to the deposition and exhibit PDFs released by the archdiocese and Anderson.


This table of contents was created by to facilitate your use of the deposition, and was not part of the original. We have aimed to make the titles of each section neutral and helpful—the wording is ours, and not the work of any participants in the deposition. We have not inserted these section titles in the text of the deposition, but if you click on a section title in the table of contents, you will scroll down to that section.

Files and Housekeeping page 5
     • Plaintiff's Request for Files and Archdiocese's Late Production 5
     • Introduction and Housekeeping 7

Examination by Anderson Begins 11

Background 11
     • Oblate Sexual Abuse Cases in the 1980s 11
     • Doyle Manual and Actions by the Bishops' Conference 15
     • Bishops' 2002 Dallas Meeting and George's Work on the Norms 19
     • Zero Tolerance 21
     • Solicitation in the Confessional 24
     • Career As an Oblate and a Bishop 28
     • Cardinals' Oath of Secrecy 30
     • Secrecy and Reporting in Chicago 34
     • Mandated Reporting and George's Role in Education 36
     • George Gets Reports and Files in 1997 38
     • Accused Priests in Ministry in 1997: Files and Monitoring 41
     • Childers Report and Monitoring 43
     • Recidivism and the John Jay Report 46
     • George about Abuse "a Generation Ago" 48
     • Delays in Removing Accused Priests 53
     • Priests Alleged to Have Offended While Being Monitored 66

Daniel McCormack 68
     • George's Apology after McCormack's Second Arrest 68
     • Narrow Scope of Defenbaugh Report 73
     • Late Notice to George and Recommendation from Board after First Arrest 76
     • Board Recommendation Not Followed by George 81
     • Erroneous Evidence of McCormack's Innocence Delayed George 86
     • Watershed Complaint of September 2003 90
     • George Appoints McCormack Dean 93
     • McCormack's Seminary Misconduct and Files 95
     • George's Treatment of Archdiocesan Managers 100
     • Robert Davies and the 1997 Allegation 107
     • Phone Call in September 2003 about Boys in Rectory 111
     • Boys in Rectory and McCormack Made Dean 116
     • Grace Tells McCormack to Remain Silent during First Arrest 119
     • First Arrest: Victim's Mother Comes Forward in September 2005 127
     • Review Board's Complaint about "Lack of Truth-Telling" 129
     • DCFS Lists McCormack As Child Molester in December 2005 136
     • Chancery Meeting: Assignments with Children despite Monitoring 138
     • Comparison: Delay in Removing Bennett after Board's Recommendation 143
     • Archdiocese Fast-Tracks McCormack Allegations after Second Arrest 146

Rev. Joseph R. Bennett 151
     • Table of Bennett Allegations with Links to Deposition Pages and Exhibits
     • Allegation in 2002 of Abuse of Three Boys; Dubi As Monitor 151
     • Allegation in 2003 of Abuse of Two Girls 160
     • Board Twice Recommends Removal; Instead George Reviews File 180
     • Grace Coaches Bennett before Review Board Meeting 194
     • Priest Describes Boys in Rectory and Dubi's Role 206
     • Many Allegations Received by Archdiocese in February-June 2006 209
     • Sending Bennett to House in Gary Diocese Owned with Dubi 211
     • George to Bennett Supporter: Partial Account and "I suggest you talk to his accusers" 233
     • Comparison: George's Delay in Removing Skriba As Board Recommended 242

Rev. Norbert Maday 244
     • Delay in Laicizing Maday 244
     • Maday's Imprisonment and Other Allegations 246
     • George's Alleged Obstruction of Maday's Civil Commitment 246
     • George Sought Maday's Early Release from Prison 1997-2002 248
     • Board Recommends Maday Laicization in 2003; George Requests It in 2007 266
     • Dallas Norms and Removal of McCormack, Bennett, and Stepek 269
     • Cardinal Rivera of Mexico City on Bishops' Code Words for Abuse 274
     • Lists of Accused Priests Not Published by Bishops 277
     • Archdiocesan List of 23 Allegations against McCormack by July 2007 282

Examination by Klenk Begins 285
     • George's 2007 Letter Asking That Maday Remain in Custody 285
     • When in Bennett's Career Did Alleged Abuses Occur? 289
     • Archdiocesan Actions on Behalf of Victims 290
     • Ad Hoc Committee's Assessment of Defenbaugh Report 293
     • DCFS Notification to McCormack in December 2005 295

Further Examination by Anderson Begins 297
     • DCFS and Chicago Police Investigations of McCormack 297
     • Multiple Bennett Allegations Missing from Defenbaugh Report 298
     • Will Archdiocese "Make this Stuff Public?" 300
     • George's 2007 Letter Requesting That Maday Remain in Custody 301
     • Board Recommends That George Request Extended Maday Sentence 303

Notary's Certification 306


This list was created by to facilitate your use of the deposition. The list is not included in the original deposition. Exhibits are listed in the order in which they are discussed in the text. The first link for each exhibit that is listed will open the PDF of that exhibit. The link at the end of each line (p5, p189, etc.) will bring you to the page of the deposition where that exhibit is first discussed. "Board" is short for "Archdiocesan Review Board." See also our more detailed list of exhibits, which is organized in exhibit-number order. In the list below, an en dash (–) means "to." If space requires, a slash is used instead of "and" to link multiple addressees or authors. In order to make the list more compact we have used a shorthand to reference persons who have made an allegation against Bennett. So "BC1" means "Bennett Complainant 1" in our Table of Bennett Allegations. Each reference (BC1, BC2, etc.) is linked to the appropriate place in that table. These numbers are's method for organizing the Bennett allegations. They are not used in the deposition itself, but only in our Bennett table and the list of exhibits below.

File Production and Housekeeping
   A Anderson request for documents - 1/24/08  p5
   B Cover letter with delivered files - 1/29/08  p5
   C Letter delivering McCormack files - 1/29/08  p5
   D Cover letter and list of delivered files - 1/29/08  p6
   2 Sealed list of victims  p7

Examination by Anderson: Background
216 Curriculum vitae of Cardinal George - 1/29/08  p30
200 Oath taken by cardinals during promotion ceremony  p31
  49 Childers report - 3/7/06  p43
204 George interview on abuse a generation ago - 11/18/07  p48
   1 Archdiocesan list of accused priests  p53
201 Priests removed by George for pre-1997 allegations  p56
202 Priests removed by George for post-1997 allegations  p58

Rev. Daniel McCormack
203 George–parishioners on McCormack - 2/8/06  p68
106 Defenbaugh report - 3/20/06  p73
206 Hogan article on seminary allegations - 11/14/07  p97
111 McCluskey–chancery/Davies: 1999 allegation - 2/12/06  p107
115 Memo to chancery on call about rectory boys - 9/5/03  p111
117 Rassas/Grace/Costello: dean & rectory boys - 7/13/05  p116
118 Grace advises silence during first arrest - 8/31/05  p119
124 McCluskey–chancery on victim's mother - 9/15/05  p127
126 Board–George on "lack of truth telling" - 1/28/06  p129
127 DCFS–McCormack listing him as molester - 12/14/05  p135
128 McCluskey–chancery on 2006 allegation - 1/19/06  p138
134 Smilanic–McCluskey on fast-tracking - 1/24/06  p146

Rev. Joseph Bennett
  54 Fleischmann–Serritella on BC6 polygraph - 11/12/02  p151
  55 McCluskey–George: no to BC6 polygraph - 1/14/03  p152
  57 Bennett–Kaczorowski: Mexico with Dubi - 2/9/03  p157
  59 McCluskey–George: no to BC6 complaint - 4/28/03  p158
211 McCluskey on BC4's 2003 allegation - 12/19/03  p160
  62 Haynes–McCluskey on BC4's "horrific abuse" - 3/11/04  p164
  63 Anderson–Serritella & O'Malley on BC4 - 5/14/04  p167
  64 McCluskey interviews sister of BC4&5 - 11/3/04  p168
  65 Board: Investigate BC4 more, no Dubi - 3/29/05  p169
  66 Board: Need more info on BC4; where's Dubi - 7/16/05  p173
  67 Brachear article on McCormack & Bennett - 2/2/06  p174
  72 McCluskey–George: reasonable cause in BC4 - 10/15/05  p180
  73 McCluskey–George: reasonable cause in BC5 - 10/15/05  p180
  74 McCluskey sends George files on BC4&5 - 11/2/05  p186

  Rev. Joseph Bennett (cont.)
  75 George–McCluskey postponing BC4&5 removal - 11/7/05 p189
212 Grace coaches Bennett for Board - 11/9/05 p194
  76 Grace coaches Bennett on BC4 - 11/14/05 p198
213 Mayo Clinic photo of keratosis p201
  78 Board on George second-guessing BC4&5 - 12/3/05 p203
  79 Anderson–McCluskey on George BC4&5 delay - 12/7/05 p205
100 Smilanic & McCluskey ask Kub about Bennett - 8/7/06 p206
  82 McCluskey assistant–chancery on BC9 - 2/9/06 p209
  84 Costello–Bishop Melczek on Bennett in Gary - 2/3/06 p211
  85 Rassas–Bishop Melczek on Bennett in Gary - 2/1/06 p213
  86 McCluskey form on BC1 seminary allegation - 4/25/07 p215
  89 Form on BC3 allegation and denial by Bennett - 2/9/06 p216
  90 McCluskey–chancery on call with BC2 - 2/10/06 p217
  91 Priest–Costello on rectory boys - 2/14/06 p218
  92 McCluskey assistant–chancery on BC11 - 2/27/06 p220
  93 O'Malley–Boliker on BC10 - 3/23/06 p220
  94 McCluskey–chancery on call about BC10&11 - 5/3/06 p223
  98 McCluskey–chancery on DCFS about BC14&15 - 6/29/06 p224
  81 George–Bennett supporter - 7/14/06 p233

Rev. Norbert Maday
  21 George–Gov. Thompson on prison privilege - 9/8/97 p248
  22 McBrady–Maday on early release - 10/31/97 p249
  23 George–Maday on early release - 5/23/98 p251
  25 Leggdas–Coughlin on prison stipend - 12/1/98 p253
  26 Coughlin–Parole Board on archdiocese - 5/20/99 p254
  28 McBrady–Maday supporter - 10/4/99 p257
  29 George–"Father Norb" on release - 1/12/00 p259
  30 McBrady–George on lobbying - 2/16/00 p260
  31 George–"Norb" on release - 3/6/00 p261
  32 Letter to "Norb" on George and release - 7/26/00 p263
  34 George to "Norb" on prayer for release - 9/7/00 p264
  39 George–"Norbert" on parole - 2/4/02 p264
  40 Review Board again recommends laicization - 6/25/03 p266
  42 Mentioned but not discussed or included p269
214 Cardinal Norberto Rivera on code words - 3/26/07 p274
208 Suit for archdiocese to release documents - 1/31/06 p278
217 Archdiocesan list of McCormack allegations - 7/10/07 p282

Examination by Defendant's Attorney
AOC 1 George–Parole Board on Maday laicization - 4/11/07 p286

Further Examination by Anderson
  45 Board: investigate Maday more - 1/20/07 p303



  ) SS:

IN RE:  
DOE, et al., )
             Plaintiffs, )
       vs. )
             Defendants. )

The discovery deposition of FRANCIS CARDINAL GEORGE, taken in the above-entitled cause, before Liza Marie Regan, a notary public of Cook County, Illinois, on the 30th day of January, 2008, at the hour of 10:18 a.m. at 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2200, Chicago, Illinois, pursuant to Notice.

License No. 084-004277

[page 2 begins]


332 Minnesota Street, E-1000
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 227-9990


70 West Madison Street, Suite 5350
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 261-4550

       Representing Plaintiffs,

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 876-8000

[page 3 begins]

APPEARANCES (Continued):

330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2200
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312) 840-7000

       Representing the Defendant,


[page 4 begins]



By Mr. Anderson 11
Mr. Klenk 285
Mr. Anderson (Further) 297
[See also's more detailed Table of Contents.]


Defendant Deposition Exhibit
AOC 1 286

[page 5 begins]

(Whereupon, all Plaintiff
Exhibits were marked
[See's list of plaintiff exhibits.]

MR. ANDERSON: Before we begin the video portion of the deposition, I'd just like to put a couple of matters on the record. I've advised the videographer and the court reporter of the nature of this proceeding so they understand.

We marked Exhibit A which was our request for the files and that request was made on January 24th. Those files were delivered to us yesterday as reflected by Exhibit B. The files that were delivered to us yesterday involve a number of the priests, Becker, Ruge, Ryniecki and Steel which are pertinent to this inquiry but, candidly, because they were delivered so late yesterday, there was no way I or we could review those materials.

Exhibit C is a letter that was delivered to us yesterday also on the signature of Jay Franke on behalf of the Archdiocese that produced us some documents that by reason of whatever were not produced earlier and these included, among other things, McCormack's seminary files and some of his [page 6 begins] employment records. There are 80 pages appended to Exhibit C approximately. Again, because of the late delivery of these materials that had been requested, we just could not review them. There's no way we could have been expected to have reviewed them so I will not be able to ask about those.

Exhibit D is the cover letter of Jay Franke with attachments. This was delivered to us as we were preparing last night at 6:30 p.m. In it, the Archdiocese is disclosing to us for the first time that there are over 200 pages of documents of what they call supplementary production of materials from -- ranging from Becker to Bennett to Craig to Hagan and right down the list at page three that, again, it would be impossible to have reviewed on such short notice.

So I put these matters into the record, Jim, just so that we can take it up later, if necessary, when we have an opportunity to review those matters and leave it there for now.

MR. GEOLY: Let me make a very brief comment that that approach is acceptable. You've stated your concerns and we'll just reserve whatever rights we have and any response we need to make in [page 7 begins] the appropriate form. You've identified the issue. If it has to be taken up later, both sides will have their opportunity to make their arguments.

MR. ANDERSON: With that in mind, we're going to proceed.

For us here today, would you like me to refer to you as your Eminence or Cardinal?

THE WITNESS: It's your choice but cardinal is more --

MR. KLENK: I think cardinal.


Also, while we're doing this, a couple of housekeeping things. We're on the transcription record. We were scheduled to start at 9:30 but because of a miscommunication, we didn't have a court reporter so the time is 10:25.

We've also agreed that at various times in this deposition, we may refer to some possible -- want to refer to some possible names of some possible victims. To protect their anonymity and be respectful of that, we've agreed to mark Exhibit 2 and we'll refer to them using pseudonyms such as Does and Roes and things like that. When we do, I'll write down or have you or Jim will [page 8 begins] write down on Exhibit 2 their actual name. On the left, you'll see there's Does one through 30. That way, we can keep this document, Exhibit 2, sealed by agreement and do what we can to protect their privacy and the like.
        Do you agree to that?

MR. KLENK: We'll do this.

THE WITNESS: I will know the name, however?

MR. ANDERSON: We will give you the name.

MR. KLENK: You'll know it. This is just a procedure to protect the confidentiality of the victims that we think is appropriate.


MR. ANDERSON: We'll write the name down on this exhibit. It will be before both of us. If we need to talk about that individual by name, we'll know who we're talking about but we'll be referring to him or her as Jane Doe One or John Doe.


MR. ANDERSON: Anything else?


THE VIDEOGRAPHER: My name is Kelly Woods, legal video specialist with McCorkle Court Reporters located at 200 North LaSalle Street, [page 9 begins] suite 300, Chicago, Illinois 60601. I am the camera operator on January 30, 2008 for the videotaping of the deposition of Cardinal Francis George being taken at 330 North Wabash at the time of 10:26 a.m. in the matter of Doe, et al., plaintiff, versus Chicago Archdiocese, defendant.
        Will the attorneys please identify themselves for the video record.

MR. ANDERSON: For the plaintiff, Jeff Anderson.

[Attorney Jeff Anderson at a press conference when this deposition was released. He holds photographs of Therese Albrecht and Rev. Joseph R. Bennett. See Photogallery: Priest Abuse Cases Settled, Chicago Sun-Times, August 13, 2008.]

MR. KLENK: For Cardinal George and the Archdiocese of Chicago, James Klenk from Sonnenchein, Nath and Rosenthal.

[Attorney James A. Klenk]

MR. GEOLY: And I don't know if you can pick this up -- yes -- for Cardinal George and the Archdiocese, James Geoly from Burke, Warren, MacKay and Serritella.

        Will the court reporter please swear in the witness.

(Witness sworn.)

MR. ANDERSON: Cardinal, would you please state your full name for the record?

THE WITNESS: My name is Francis Eugene George. [page 10 begins]

[Cardinal Francis E. George, speaking at the release of his deposition. See Photogallery: Priest Abuse Cases Settled, Chicago Sun-Times, August 13, 2008.]

MR. ANDERSON: Cardinal, you understand and we met this morning that this is being recorded both by videotape and transcription?


MR. ANDERSON: And you're giving testimony here today as if it is in a courtroom.
        Do you understand that?


        You also understand that I'm one of the lawyers for a number of individuals who have been and have brought claims alleging sexual abuse by very -- various clerics of the Archdiocese of Chicago?


        If you don't understand any question that I ask you throughout the day, just let me know. If you don't tell me that, I'll assume you understand the question.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. ANDERSON: And should you want to take a break at any time, feel free to.


[page 11 begins]


called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:



Q. Cardinal, you've been a priest now since your ordination in '63 for -- is that 40 --
A. Almost 48 -- for 45 years. I -- 45 years, yeah.

Q. And you were ordained as an -- as an Oblate which is an order or religious priest, correct?
A. Yes. I was ordained a priest as a member of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

Q. And when ordained as a priest, you made three vows, one of poverty, one of chastity and one of obedience to your superior, correct?
A. I made those vows before I was ordained when I entered the order.

Q. And those vows at all -- while -- while at all times a priest remain in effect, do they not?
A. Yes.

Q. The vow of celibate chastity that you and a priest takes and make, what does that mean? [page 12 begins]
A. It means that one must live a chaste life as an unmarried man. Chaste meaning observing the 6th and the 9th commandments in your behavior and their spirit, in your thoughts, in your life.

Q. Did you in preparation for your vocation or even since your ordination ever receive any training from anybody in terms of how to manage the vow of celibacy and your own sexuality?
A. Yes. During our year of novitiate before we made vows, much time was given to that subject.

Q. Okay.
        Beyond that, has any formal training been given to you or others like you to your knowledge?
A. To me, when we did the study of pastoral counseling, the subject of various sexual pathologies was addressed so we could recognize them. We're not counselors so we can't treat them but there was some further information given.

Q. Okay.
        Cardinal, when in time as a priest in all your years did you first come to believe, if you did, that there was a problem of clerics sexually abusing children?
A. The first time I heard of such an instance [page 13 begins] was in the mid-'80s when I heard that a member of my own order had been accused of this sin and crime.

Q. And where were you then working at that time?
A. I was the Vicar General for the Oblates of Mary Immaculate stationed in the city of Rome where our General House is.

Q. And in response to having learned that an Oblate had been accused, did you take any action or were you required to do anything responsive to that?
A. The case had been handled in the civil courts before we heard about it. We went to the Provincial, who is the superior in place, and asked him for an account of what happened.

Q. And did you or anybody under your direction report what you or the Oblates knew about this priest's history to civil authorities in the mid-'80s?
A. That had been done in the place where he was accused.

Q. Okay.
        So when you referred to the case, were you [page 14 begins] referring to a criminal case that had been brought against the cleric?
A. That's right.

Q. So it had been brought to civil authorities by somebody other than an Oblate?
A. I don't know that.

Q. Okay.
        And at that time in the mid-'80s, did it come to your attention that there was a larger problem of sexual abuse by clerics either in the Oblates or among the -- the priests beyond this one cleric accused?
A. Not immediately. I did hear after that about two other cases in the next several years.

Q. And approximately when would that have been?
A. That would have been still in the mid-'80s.

Q. And -- is -- while you were still Vicar General of the Oblates in Rome?
A. That's correct.

Q. In -- in those two instances, did you or anybody at your direction within the Oblates or among the clerics report that information to civil [page 15 begins] authorities?
A. There were criminal cases tried where the priests had committed this terrible sin. We got it after everything was done, basically.

Q. So in all three instances which we've discussed, the civil authorities had the information before you received it.
        Is that your understanding?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
A. Before we received the report from the Provincial.

Q. Okay.
        Cardinal, in about 1985, the Catholic Conference of Bishops, then the National Conference of Bishops, at their annual meeting in November of that year convened and received a presentation and a report dealing with what has been called the crisis of pedophilia in the priesthood. Cardinal, that report was authored by a Father Tom Doyle. [See The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner, by F. Ray Mouton and Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., June 8-9, 1985.]
        Have you heard that name?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And it was co-authored then by an attorney, Ray Mouton. [page 16 begins]
Have you heard that name?
A. Perhaps in asking about the report.

Q. Okay.
        And it was co-authored by a Father Peterson who had formerly run a treatment center that had treated a number of clerical offenders.
A. Yes.

Q. My question to you is did that report or the presentation given to the then National Conference of Bishops in 1985 in any way come to your attention at about that time?
A. No.

Q. Okay.
        When would in time you have first heard of that report then made by them to the conference?
A. I became a bishop in 1990.

Q. Okay.
        At Yakima?
A. I was made the Bishop of Yakima in September of 1990.

Q. And then after having been appointed and installed as bishop in Yakima, how did you come to learn of the report made to the conference or [page 17 begins] then -- then the bishops five years earlier?
A. In November, I went to my first meeting as a bishop in 1990 and there was a committee in place to address this issue in the conference and when the bishop in charge of the committee opened the discussion, I had heard this report referred to. It was tangential, as I recall it, to the discussion at the time.

Q. And, Cardinal, any time, at least to your knowledge, did any bishop or did the then National Conference of Bishops take any decisive action or any action at all responsive to the report made to them five years earlier --


MR. ANDERSON: Just a moment.


Q. -- beyond discussion of it?

MR. KLENK: I just had an objection to the form of the question, compound. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

MR. ANDERSON: That's okay.
        Do you want me to ask it again?

THE WITNESS: If you would, please. [page 18 begins]


Q. To your knowledge, did any -- anybody take action responsive to that report beyond discussing it at the level of bishops?
A. Whether or not it was directly responsive to the report, the bishops had put in place guidelines including the use of a review board to receive allegations that each Diocese was asked to implement in order to be sure children were protected and that reports were adequately handled.

Q. To your knowledge, did that report and the information you received in connection with it identify a crisis in the clerical culture in the U.S.?
A. May I ask which report?

Q. The Doyle --
A. The Doyle report you're talking about?

Q. -- report.
A. I don't know that the word crisis was used but I understood the report to say this is a matter of grave importance.

Q. Okay.
        And did you then view it as a matter of grave importance? [page 19 begins]

A. Oh, very much so. Even one instance of an abuse of a child is a matter of grave importance.

Q. To this day, have you ever viewed the issue of priests abusing youth, children, and -- and the handling of that issue by superiors to be a crisis?
A. I think you could call it a crisis.

Q. When did you perceive that to be a crisis?
A. The magnitude of the crisis became clear in 2002.

Q. And then out of that came the charter and the very public meeting of the Catholic Conference of Bishops in Dallas?
A. That's correct.

Q. And at the time of the charter and the adoption of the protocols that came out of that, what was then your role and/or position with the Catholic Conference of Bishops?
A. I was the Archbishop of Chicago and, therefore, a member of the conference. I was not an official. The discussion that took place then had to go to the Holy See so that we could have the special norms in order to put the promises of the charter into the laws of the church. I was part of [page 20 begins] the group that the conference asked to go and negotiate the creation of those special norms with the Holy See. [See the Dallas Charter and Norms; and the Charter and Norms as revised by the so-called Mixed Commission and approved by the Vatican.]

Q. Was there resistance from the See and the congregation to the doctrine of the faith [sic; this is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] regarding the implementation of the norms as proposed by the bishops in the U.S.?
A. Resistance, no.

Q. Was there negotiation between the See's office and the Catholic Conference of Bishops --
A. There was conversation, of course, what does this mean.

Q. Who among the bishops advocated most strenuously for adoption of those norms to the See?
A. There were four of us and we all -- we all asked the Holy See to create special legal norms to handle these cases.

Q. And who were those four?
A. I was one. Archbishop Levada. Bishop Levada -- Archbishop Levada.


THE WITNESS: Bishop Thomas Dorin and Bishop William Laurie. [sic; the U.S. members of the so-called Mixed Commission that revised the Norms were Cardinal George, then-Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco (now cardinal and prefect of the CDF), Bishop Thomas G. Doran of Rockford IL, and Bishop William E. Lori of Bridgeport CT; see a USCCB press release on the Mixed Commission's work, as well as two presentations 1 2 of the revisions that Cardinal George and his fellow members made in the original Norms][page 21 begins]


Q. And at the time of the discussion of these norms in 2002 with the Office of the Holy See and I presume a representative from the congregation; is that correct?
A. Several congregations.

Q. Okay.
        One of the proposals in that charter was the so-called zero tolerance; correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And, Cardinal, let me ask you about what your view was then of that zero tolerance at least as proposed.
        Did you have serious concerns about the zero tolerance as proposed?
A. No. I had voted for the charter which included that as a promise. Listening to the bishops' discussion, it became clear to me that was an absolutely necessary requirement.

Q. Have you always adhered to the view and do you still adhere to the view that zero tolerance is a necessary requirement both in this Archdiocese and across this country?
A. I do now, yes. [page 22 begins]

Q. When you say you do now, what -- what and when did you change your view of that?
A. When I came to Chicago, the Chicago system was regarded with great respect and the rules permitted someone, with proper precautions in place to protect children, to continue with a kind of limited ministry. I inherited that situation. I was told it was working well and I had not had time to change it before 2002.

Q. You say you had not had time.
        Does that mean -- what -- what do you mean when you --
A. Well, we reviewed the situation several times. I asked for a review when I first came, what is the situation in the Archdiocese and as we talked about it, that topic came up, is it appropriate that even with restrictions to protect children there should still be limited ministry available to someone who has been accused of and found to have had this behavior, this sin, in his past?

Q. And was it your belief and perception that there was a less than zero tolerance in the Archdiocese of Chicago before 2002? [page 23 begins]
A. There was no tolerance whatsoever for the sexual abuse of children.

Q. Has there been a -- a zero tolerance administered as written and adopted as a part of the charter in the Archdiocese of Chicago since 2002?
A. Yes.

Q. And that's a zero tolerance by you?
A. By the Archdiocese, by the church, by me.

Q. And you, as Cardinal Archbishop of the Archdiocese, you are in charge of all of the affairs, ultimately, of the Archdiocese of Chicago?
A. I'm responsible for the Archdiocese as its Bishop.

Q. And you, ultimately, answer to -- to the See, correct?
A. In -- in some fashion, yes.

Q. In what fashion -- you say in some fashion.
        What's your qualification of that?
A. There are written reports at the end of every year about sacramental practice so that is a way of telling the people and the Holy See what the state of the church is here. In that sense, yes. [page 24 begins]

Q. Okay.
        Cardinal, going back to 2002 and when the bishops are in discussions with the Office of the Holy See about the charter, its adoption and the like, at that time in 2002, did you know that the Office of the Holy See through the congregation of the doctrine of the faith had implemented a protocol and an instruction to all the superiors across the -- across the world regarding solicitation in the confessional? [See Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation, Rome, Vatican Press, 1962. This Instruction is often referenced by the first two words of its original Latin text, Crimen sollicitationis.]
A. What was the year of that protocol, please?

Q. The year the protocol that it was issued was '62.
A. Oh, okay. Then yes.

Q. My question goes to 2002 and did you know that such a protocol had been issued and disseminated by the Office of the See to the superiors?
A. Yes. I was a seminarian in 1962 and in moral theology class, that was a document that was given us when we discussed the sacrament of penance.

Q. And when you received and reviewed that [page 25 begins] document and came to understand its effect, did you understand that that document issued by the See and the Office of the See, in effect, required you and any other cleric to keep any solicitation of sex in the confessional secret and to follow that protocol?
A. I believe the purpose of the document, as I recall it, was to see to it that if there was the crime and the sin of solicitation for sexual activity in the confessional, given the sacramental confidentiality, how would it be possible to see that someone who had committed this sin would be prevented from ever hearing confessions or preaching again.

Q. And do you recall being instructed on the actual protocols to be followed when it was revealed that a cleric had committed the crime of solicitation in the confessional?
A. That is a sin and a crime that is reserved to the Holy See and so the protocol would have -- would demand that the Holy See review the case saving the seal of the sacrament which is a very sacred confidentiality privilege in our sacramental system. [page 26 begins]

Q. And do you recall, Cardinal, that, in fact, that protocol required that whoever in the clerical culture receives evidence of that crime, they are to keep that information secret and impart it only to the See and the Office of the See?
A. And what was new was that they had to tell someone to be sure the crime never was repeated again even though it was within the seal.

Q. And within the seal means it needs to be kept among the clerics only for the Office of the See to be dealt with, correct?
A. No. The seal means that a confessor may never in any circumstance himself reveal the contents of a confession that's sacramentally made.

Q. Okay.
        When you're referring to the seal, you're referring to the priest penitent seal of confession?
A. That's right, yes.

Q. But I'm referring to when -- when it becomes known by another cleric that a cleric has violated the confessional by engaging in sex with a minor, for example.
A. By soliciting sex. [page 27 begins]

Q. That would be soliciting sex, correct?
A. Of anyone.

Q. And when that becomes known by another cleric, do you recall that that protocol required clerics who learned of solicitation in the confessional to keep that secret and if an investigation is done, that is to go to the See and only the Office of the See?
A. For the first time, it required him to make the report.

Q. Okay.
        And it required that that report be secret at all times for the eyes and/or ears of the Office of the See and the clerics only, correct?

MR. KLENK: I would object just -- just for the --


MR. KLENK: -- record here and we only have a day to do this deposition. And my objection is that this is not likely to lead to discoverable, admissible evidence in the case because in the mediations we have here of these claims, there's no issue about sacramental confessions but please proceed. [page 28 begins]

MR. ANDERSON: Just for the record, there is solicitation in the confessional.

MR. KLENK: Please proceed.


Q. Cardinal, was that a correct?
A. Could I ask you please to --

Q. Basically, it required under the protocols to keep it a secret?
A. No. It's required to disclose it for the first time.

Q. And to disclose it to whom?
A. To those who have responsibility for the sacrament of the church, namely, to the Holy See.

Q. And only them, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
A. It doesn't talk about anybody else, anyway.

Q. Got it.
        You were Vicar General of the Oblates.
        As Vicar General of the Oblates, were you the -- is that the equivalent of the General Superior in some orders?
A. No. I am the vicar to the General [page 29 begins] Superior.

Q. Okay.
        Who was then the General Superior?
A. Father Fernand Jette.

Q. Can you spell that last name?
A. J-E-T-T-E with an acute accent on the E.

Q. As the -- you were -- you were Vicar General of the Oblates and worked in Rome from approximately the mid-'70s to the mid-'80s?
A. From 1974 to 1986.

Q. And during that time, were you required to investigate under the direction of the General Superior allegations of sexual abuse and/or solicitations in the confessional?
A. No.

Q. After -- after your work as Vicar General with the Oblates, you were installed and appointed Bishop for Yakima in September of 1990 and served -- worked as the Bishop there for six years, correct?
A. A little less than six years, correct.

Q. Then appointed and installed as Bishop of the Archdiocese of Portland in 1996 and in that capacity, worked for a -- a year? [page 30 begins]
A. That's correct.

Q. And then appointed Archbishop of Chicago in May of 1997 and installed that month?
A. Yes. The appointment was some months earlier but I was installed in May.

Q. And elevated to the sacred position of Cardinal on February 21, 1998, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. In looking at -- I'm going to show you what we've marked Exhibit 216. And this is what is --
A. Thank you.

Q. -- identified as your curriculum vitae. And we pulled it off the internet. And to be brief, I'll just mark it, have you identify it as such.
        Is it?
A. I believe it is.

Q. Okay.
        And I'd like to ask you a question about your installation as -- and elevation to -- to Cardinal.
        Is it correct that when you became a cardinal and what -- you were elevated to that [page 31 begins] position, you -- you took and made an additional oath that all cardinals take at a ceremony in which you are promoted, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. I'm going to show you what we've marked Exhibit 200.
        This is identified at the top by us as the oath taken by cardinals during the ceremony at which they are promoted.
        Is this the oath that you took to the Holy See at the time of your elevation?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Directing your attention to the middle of it, I'm going to read a portion of it and then ask you a question, Cardinal.
        In the middle, it states -- after it begins I, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful hence forth and forever while I live. And then I'll direct your attention to a portion of it. In the middle, it says not to reveal to anyone what is confided to me in secret nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to the Holy Church.
        Did I read that correctly? [page 32 begins]
A. You did.

Q. And does this oath, in effect, that you and every cardinal takes and make require you to keep certain matters secret?
A. As -- yes. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. And does this oath require you, as Cardinal, to keep secret matters that could subject the Holy Church to scandal?
A. It depends. No. I would have to say no, scandal doesn't enter into this. What this is about is in the context of advising the Holy Father, which is what cardinals sometimes are called to do, to maintain the confidentiality of the discussion. If I may, something like a lawyer-client privilege. So it's a confidential discussion when the matter itself demands confidentiality.

Q. While a priest, you're aware that your rights and obligations and those of your superiors and policies that pertain to you are governed, in part, by the canon law?
A. Oh, yes.

Q. And you're also aware, are you not, Cardinal, that the canon law and specifically canon [page 33 begins] 489 requires that should you receive information as a superior that is scandalous or likely to subject the Holy Church to scandal, that under that canon, you are required to keep that secret or sub secreto? [See the text of canon 489.]

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question, compound.

MR. ANDERSON: That's okay.


Q. Are you aware of that, Cardinal.
A. I'm not a canonist, sir. I would like to see the canon but I think it is the same concern, depending upon the matter, some confidentiality is imposed by the matter itself. If it's not, well then, of course, it can be discussed in other forum but I would like to read the canon.

Q. Sure.
        Are you aware of requirements as a superior both in the Oblates and now as -- as a cardinal that certain matters that could and do subject the church to scandal are required to be kept secret by protocols issued from the Vatican including the canon?
A. Again, I think it depends upon the matter [page 34 begins] that determines whether or not confidentiality is morally necessary or legally necessary as in any profession, I believe.

Q. What about sexual abuse of minors, has there been and are you aware that there has been a requirement that knowledge of sexual abuse of minors by clerics is required to or was required to have been kept secret?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question, compound.

THE WITNESS: No. We've always in Chicago for decades reported such matters immediately to the civil authorities. And when it's clear that there has been a crime, a sin committed, we go back to the parishes where a priest served even though he has been gone for many years or even perhaps out of priesthood and ask people to come forward who know of such crimes or if they perhaps themselves have been victimized.


Q. Cardinal, when you say that we've always for decades reported sexual abuse or suspected sexual abuse to civil authorities in Chicago, you've been in Chicago since 1997, right? [page 35 begins]
A. That's correct.

Q. So what leads you to make the assertion or form the belief that we in Chicago have for decades always reported to civil authorities?
A. When I came, I asked for a report on this situation and they told me that was the policy of the Archdiocese.

Q. Who told you that?
A. I believe one of the Diocesan attorneys who gave me the report.

Q. Did you read the deposition that we took of Bishop [Raymond E.] Goedert in this matter?
A. I did look at it, yes.

Q. Did it appear to you that his recitation under oath of his involvement with allegations of -- of sexual abuse made predating your installation as Archbishop has always been reported by the official of the Archdiocese to civil authorities?

MR. KLENK: I object to foundation. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I believe the times not only of the reporting but of the action -- at least some of them that Bishop Goedert was talking about meant [page 36 begins] that the incident was so far in the past that I don't think there was a legal obligation to report.


Q. Cardinal, you've been --
A. That was my understanding, anyway.

Q. You've been in education for many years?
A. I was, yes.

Q. And looking at your CV, at least when I reviewed it, you were in education from the early '60s and have worked in education as a teacher in various capacities for many, many years?
A. Ten years.

Q. And when did you first come to understand that as an educator either on the ground or as an overseer of education as a bishop or archbishop that you're required to report suspicions of sexual abuse, mandated to report suspicion of sexual abuse to civil authorities?
A. I learned of that obligation for clerics when it became an obligation in Illinois law.

Q. When did that obligation go into effect for clerics in general?
A. In Illinois?

Q. Yes. [page 37 begins]
A. Was it 2003 or 2004? I'm not entirely sure, sir.

Q. And when did that obligation go into effect for educators?
A. I'm not sure of that either. I was an educator at the college level. And I think the instruction in that, I suppose, was usually given to grade school, high school teachers but I -- I'm really not sure, sir. And I was an educator in different states. The state laws differ.

Q. When in time did you first come to believe or were you trained that you, as an educator or overseer of education, were a mandated reporter?
A. The issue never came up when I was formally in education as a college professor but any person, I should think, knowing of such a terrible crime would want to bring it forward.

Q. Well, my question to you, Cardinal, is do you consider yourself to be a mandated reporter as an overseer of Catholic education in this Archdiocese today?
A. I think of it first as a cleric now in law.

Q. My question to you is as an educator, [page 38 begins] when, in time, do you believe you first became a mandated reporter, that is, mandated by the civil law to report suspicions of sexual abuse?
A. I am not a professional educator. I'm not responsible in law for educational enterprises.

Q. You are responsible for overseeing all Catholic education in the Archdiocese of Chicago, are you not?
A. As ministries of the church, yes.

Q. And responsible for a training mandated reporters --
A. We have --

Q. -- ultimately?
A. -- systems in place now to be sure that everyone involved in our schools is trained using the viratue (phonetic) system [sic; transcript should read VIRTUS].

Q. Cardinal, in your 48 years as a priest, have you ever personally or at your direction made a report of suspected sexual abuse of a minor to civil authorities?
A. No.

Q. Cardinal, I'd like to direct your attention now to your work as the Archbishop Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Chicago. [page 39 begins]
        And when you became so in 1997, what did you do, if anything, to address the problem of sexual abuse relating to clerics in the Archdiocese upon your appointment?
A. I asked for a report on both the policies and the practice of the Archdiocese.

Q. And who gave you that report?
A. One of our lawyers.

Q. Who was that?
A. Mr. John O'Malley.

Q. Pardon me?
A. Mr. John O'Malley.

Q. Okay.
        And did you, as Cardinal then or Cardinal Archbishop, if you were, take any action responsive to that report?
A. The report indicated that the policies and the practice were responsible, were designed to protect children and I was reassured by it.
        They also had a written report that was public that was done in the early '90s. And at that time, we talked about updating that report to make a report to the people now, again, making public the situation in the Archdiocese. [See the Report to Cardinal Bernardin, June 1992.] [page 40 begins]

Q. And so did you take any action beyond what you just described responsive to the report that you requested?
A. I asked about the care of victims.

Q. Did you at that time --

MR. KLENK: Please -- please let him finish.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I thought you were turned away and I didn't want to talk. I asked about the care of victims and how I might be involved in that.


Q. And at that time in 1997 or shortly after, did you undertake any review of the files pertaining to offenders, clerical offenders, that had been accused of crimes of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese predating your installation?
A. No, I did not personally review those files. I was told about them.

Q. Who told you about them?
A. The lawyer.

Q. And what did he tell you?
A. He outlined the major cases that had been handled in the -- the Review Board process and [page 41 begins] results of them.

Q. At that time, did he tell you what clerics who had been accused of abusing and found to have been credibly accused of abusing a minor were still in ministry?
A. He did.

Q. How many were there?
A. There were, I believe, eight.

Q. And who were they?
A. I'm not sure I can tell you all the names, sir.

Q. I'll show you some documents later if you don't remember off the top of your head.
A. Do you want me to tell you the names that I can recall now?

Q. Well, I'll cover it so we can be more complete and fair.
A. Okay.

Q. Among those eight, did you take any action until 2002 --
A. I --

Q. -- to restrict or remove or investigate what they had done and why they were still in ministry? [page 42 begins]
A. The investigation had been complete and I asked about the restrictions and the monitoring to be sure children were protected and the explanation assured me that protections were in place.

Q. And you mentioned monitoring.
        You commissioned and had commissioned the child -- child -- Childers report, did you not?
A. I did.

Q. Specifically relating to monitoring?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Correct?
A. Yes. Monitoring of people who were already out of ministry.

Q. But who had been credibly accused but were still being under so-called monitoring of the Archdiocese, right?
A. No -- yes, if I understand you correctly.

Q. And that Childers report was commissioned by you and your office --
A. That's correct.

Q. -- because there was, in effect, a scandal around monitoring, public disclosure of private information about either the failure of monitoring or problems relating to it, correct? [page 43 begins]

MR. KLENK: Objection, compound, form of the question.

THE WITNESS: The one egregious time when the protections of children failed to our great shame was the McCormack case where I had thought he was being supervised and it wasn't adequate.


Q. So it was the McCormack case that prompted you to commission Terry Childers and -- to -- to -- to evaluate the monitoring program?
A. Yes, because it had been effective before that in our --

Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 49.
        Is that the report on the Archdiocese of Chicago?
A. I believe it is, yes.

Q. And you -- you read and reviewed this, did you not?
A. I did.

Q. Do you take issue with or dispute any of the findings or conclusions made in it?
A. No. He's -- no.

Q. Do you agree that there was then in this Archdiocese a gross failure in the implementation [page 44 begins] of a monitoring program of priests accused?
A. This is not just about priests accused, is it. It's about priests whom we know have been guilty of this great sin or crime. The standards here are those of accused criminals.

Q. I'm sorry -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, Cardinal, but I guess I wanted to ask you the specific question instead of a general question. I think you were going with the general.
A. I'm sorry.

Q. My question to you is -- is do you agree with the finding of Childers that there was a gross deficiency in the monitoring of priests of the Archdiocese by the Archdiocese?
A. It was inadequate if you're talking about supervising convicted criminals.

Q. What about those -- you're saying only those -- what about those -- you say convicted.
        What do you mean by convicted criminals?
A. People who -- whom the state has found guilty, that's his standard, and a priest's supposed police power and that's where the discrepancy is found.

Q. What -- do you believe the findings to [page 45 begins] have been made by Childers pertaining to priests credibly accused of sexual abuse and removed from ministry and on monitoring?
A. Yes.

Q. Was their [sic] gross deficiencies pertaining to them as found by Childers or not?
A. Certainly deficiencies, yes, sure, very much so.

Q. I'm going to show you what we've marked as Exhibit 204.
A. May I say that none of these priests so far as we know even with the inadequate monitoring committed another such grave sin.

Q. You may say that, Cardinal, but I may say that if you're not monitoring them carefully, you're not going to know; isn't that correct?
A. That could be the case. Doesn't have to be the case.

Q. If they're allowed to go out of the country and not -- and not -- not required to abide by the monitoring system, it's --
A. Oh, yes.

Q. -- it's very likely and also very possible they're comitting [sic] sexual abuse -- just a moment -- [page 46 begins] while being monitored and you're not going to know it, correct?
A. That's --

MR. KLENK: Object to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: But -- but sure, you're right, Mr. Anderson.


Q. I mean the purpose of monitoring, at least as it had been implemented and as reported by Childers, was to keep them from reoffending, right?
A. That's certainly true.

Q. And if you're not keeping an eye on them, you're not going to know if they're reoffending, right?
A. Not immediately anyway, yes.

Q. Okay.
        And you know enough about this topic now to know that once a cleric or an adult offends a child once that they're at risk for reoffending?
A. That's true.

Q. You've come to know that?
A. Yes, I have, sir.

Q. And that's been widely known by you and others in the positions of leadership here in the [page 47 begins] U.S. for a long time?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question, compound.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, let me talk about you.

MR. KLENK: Just talk about him. That's fair. He can't -- you don't want to know what the rest of the world knows.

MR. ANDERSON: You don't want to talk about the rest of them, right?


MR. ANDERSON: I'll be fair. Let's talk about you.

MR. KLENK: Please be fair.


MR. KLENK: Please be fair.

THE WITNESS: I think in the studies that I read after 2002 I came to that conclusion for the first time. I realized the recidivism rate was unacceptable to take a chance.


Q. What studies -- what studies were those, Cardinal, that you read that -- that revealed that to you for the first time?
A. I'm sorry. I don't remember the authors. [page 48 begins] I read many different reports on child abuse. I followed the John Jay study. All those formed in my mind the conviction that the recidivism rate was too great to ever chance allowing someone to recommit this crime. [See the John Jay report: The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons, by Karen Terry et al., prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice (Washington DC: USCCB, 2004). The discussion of recidivism begins on p. 99.]

Q. The John Jay study was in 2002 --
A. U-huh.

Q. -- was it not?
A. Well, it started in 2002 but in was in the years after 2002 I -- I really tried to learn more about this terrible crime.

Q. So if I'm hearing you correctly, you're testifying that it was really the recidivism rate and the risk of an offender who's offended once poses to reoffense really came to you for the first time post-2002.
        Is that what you're saying?
A. I think that's true. Yes, I think that's true.

Q. Let's look at Exhibit 204 and what we've done here is taken a portion, an excerpt, of a transcript of some comments attributed to you in an interview done with you or of you by Marianne Ahearn. [page 49 begins]
A. Uh-huh.

Q. After having been installed, I believe, as -- as president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops?
A. Could be.

Q. You are currently the president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops?
A. I am, sir.

Q. You are currently the Cardinal Archbishop presiding Ordinary of the third largest Archdiocese in the U.S., right?
A. I think that's true.

Q. This may not be a fair question to ask you but I need to ask it.
        It would appear to me and I'm asking you if you would agree that right now, by reason of the fact of your position as -- in this Archdiocese given its size --
A. Yes.

Q. -- and position -- by virtue of your position as the president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops that you are currently the most powerful and influential cleric in the U.S.?
A. Powerful, no. Influential, perhaps. [page 50 begins]

Q. Okay.
        Let's go to this interview. And I just took an excerpt of it. And I'm going to direct your attention to a portion in it.
A. Uh-huh.

MR. KLENK: Excuse me, Mr. Anderson, I think to be fair to the witness, where was this interview and when and --

MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think we supplied this earlier but -- to you all and I think Jim has been given this so that it could be reviewed so we don't have to waste time laying foundation but I'm happy to --

MR. KLENK: I would like to know for the witness's point of view.



Q. Do you remember giving an intervew [sic] to Marianne Ahearn?
A. Yes.

Q. And -- and in looking at this transcript -- you -- you had a chance to look at this?
A. I did just now. [page 51 begins]

Q. Okay.
        And directing your attention to it --
A. Yes.

Q. -- you begin by stating, well, I -- I am always sorry if people are upset, especially victims.
        Do you see that?
A. I see that.

Q. Then going down to the middle of this, I'm going to read a portion of this as it has been attributed to you and then I'll ask you if you said that, okay?
A. Sure.

Q. Looking to the body of the exhibit beginning with the word the fact, the fact is the fact.
        Do you see that sentence?
A. Uh-huh. I do. Thank you.

Q. I'm going to read that and then ask you if you recall saying it and if you do, I'll have some questions, okay?
A. Sure.

Q. Reading that portion, it states the fact is the fact remains that this abuse happened a [page 52 begins] generation ago for the most part, from 1973 through 1985. That's when it all happened so we're talking about it now.
        Do you recall that's what you said to Marianne Ahearn at that time?
A. I'm sure I did.

MR. KLENK: I think in fairness, you should continue reading the rest of the sentence, Mr. Anderson.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, it speaks for itself but if you'd like me to, Cardinal, I will.

MR. KLENK: I'd like you to.



Q. But it's not actual now except McCormack, of course, which is a terribly devastating period in my life and the life of the church.
        So is it correct to say that you're stating in this interview that excepting McCormack, this is all a problem that was a generation or more ago before 70 -- between '73 and '85?
A. So far as -- as --

Q. Is that what you're asserting?
A. Those are the statistics from the John Jay [page 53 begins] report.

Q. I'm going to ask you to look at Exhibit 1. And as this is handed to you, you'll recognize this to be the list publicly disseminated and known as the Archdiocesan priests with substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct with minors and --

MR. KLENK: Excuse me, Mr. Anderson. I have something that's marked Exhibit 1A. Is that the document we're talking about?

MS. ARBOUR: It's one. Sorry.

MR. KLENK: Thank you very much. Didn't mean to interrupt.

MR. ANDERSON: No. Thank you.


Q. And you'll see in the left-hand column, Bishop Goedert had marked part of this exhibit earlier but I'll just first ask you.
        I've reviewed this exhibit and this is the list of the substantiated allegations of sexual misconduct with minors, right, as substantiated by the Archdiocese?
A. I'm sure, it must be if -- if you've done that. I haven't read it but.

Q. And in it, my count is that there are 33 [page 54 begins] priests listed here who have been credibly accused and have been removed after you became cardinal?
A. There -- yes.

Q. Is it your position that those 33 or so priests that have been credibly recused -- accused and removed from ministry after 1997 stopped abusing?

MR. KLENK: Objection, foundation.

THE WITNESS: The -- I -- I can't say that's the case. I know of -- of a priest who abused -- an Archdiocesan priest who abused a child while, to my shame, I was Archbishop is McCormack.


Q. Is McCormack the only priest that has been credibly accused on your watch?
A. Oh, no, but there have been priests who have been credibly accused of crimes, sins that took place before I became Archbishop but only accused now since I've become Archbishop.

Q. Each of these 33 priests on Exhibit 1 were removed after your installation as Archdiocesan Cardinal but you're aware that each of them had been credibly accused of abuse that happened earlier, correct? [page 55 begins]
A. In order to be removed, the Review Board had to give me a finding that there was reasonable cause to suspect they had abused a child no matter when that happened.

Q. And would you agree, Cardinal, based on your knowledge of this topic, sexual abuse, that these priests once credibly accused are very likely to have reoffended?
A. It's quite possible.

Q. And then it's quite possible that they reoffended after 1985, is it not?
A. Some -- well, some are dead. Some are long gone in other ways. But abstractly speaking, there's always that possibility.

Q. And you're not going to know if they had reoffended after 1985 unless you, as Cardinal, either closely supervised them or removed them completely from ministry, correct?
A. Or unless they're dead.

Q. Well --
A. Or they're no longer here. They're laicized. No -- we have no supervision of the laicized priests. So some are in nursing homes, quite a few now, but what would you -- like -- I [page 56 begins] guess yes.

Q. Okay.
A. All I'm saying, sir, is that the circumstances are different from case to case.

Q. I'm going to show you what we marked as Exhibit 201.
A. Thank you.

MR. KLENK: Thank you.


Q. And we prepared this chart distilling the information given us by the Archdiocese --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And using Exhibit 1 and --

MR. KLENK: This is something you created then?



Q. And in it, we've identified priests removed or that have resigned after 1997 for allegations of sexual abuse made prior to 1997 when you became Archbishop, okay?
A. Yes, sir.

[Exhibit 201. See also assignment histories and links to articles on these priests.]

Q. There are 11 names identified here and the first column you'll see that the date when at least the file shows that they were first known to have [page 57 begins] abused is listed.
        Do you see that?
A. I do see that. Thank you.

Q. And then the right-hand column is when they are identified as having been removed from ministry.
        Do you see that?
A. I do, sir.

Q. You'll note here that most all of them with the exception of Daniel McCormack were removed in 2002 and that would have been at -- at the time of and response to imposition of the charter?
A. That's correct.

Q. You'll agree, would you not, Cardinal, that you in 1997 continued each of these priests in ministry after it became first known to the Archdiocese that these were offenders?
A. Yes, I -- they were in ministry when I came.

Q. And --
A. Partial ministry. Restricted ministry.

Q. Beyond requesting the report that you identified and that you got from John O'Malley, have you done or did you do anything about these [page 58 begins] priests known to you and to the Archdiocese who have now -- who were continuing in ministry and known to be offenders?
A. We maintained the restrictions that had been effective in protecting children.

Q. So you did it pretty much as it had been done by your predecessor?
A. In terms of limitations, yes.

Q. And didn't make any changes at that time?
A. At that time, I made no changes, no.

Q. Until 2002, correct?
A. That's correct. That's correct.

Q. I'd like to show you 2002 -- I'm sorry -- 202 and this is another little chart prepared by us that distills some of the information given us by your office that's -- that is an adavocation (phonetic) of priests removed after 1997 for allegations made on your watch after 1997.
A. Yes.

[Exhibit 202. See also assignment histories and links to articles on these priests.

Q. And you'll see, again, there are here one -- seven priests identified and in the first column, it's when the Archdiocese's files reflect they first knew -- that's files only -- and you'll see those dates there, Cardinal? [page 59 begins]
A. I do.

Q. And then on the right-hand column is when they left ministry or were removed by you from ministry and/or placed on restriction?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question. You can answer.

MR. ANDERSON: Well, we'll go left ministry or removed from ministry. Does that correct your objection?




Q. Now, you'll look at these and in the rot -- in the case of Robert Kealy, K-E-A-L-Y, you see, Cardinal, that it was first known in 2001 and/or 2002 but not removed from – until April 2006, some five or four years later, correct?
A. That's correct.

[Rev. Robert L. Kealy]

Q. Is it correct to say then that you, as the ultimate decider, Archbishop Cardinal, made the calculated risk to keep this guy in ministry after knowing that he had at least offended and been credibly accused of offending one child? [page 60 begins]
A. No, that's not correct, sir.

Q. Well, why did you keep him in ministry then for four, five years after it was first known to the Archdiocese?
A. Once an allegation of having abused someone when he was a minor occurred, it went to the Review Board and he was then taken out of ministry. There were apparently some allegations in his file that were not about sexual abuse of minors.

Q. And so in your view then, what prompted your removal from his ministry in 2006 when the files reflect it was -- he was first known to be an offender in 2001?
A. Offender of a minor child?

Q. Yes.
A. Then the Review Board must have decided that the allegation wasn't credible.

Q. So is it your view that this delay in taking action falls upon the Review Board and not on you?
A. No. No. It's certainly on me, you're correct, sir, but I need the corroboration of the Review Board's judgment that there is reasonable [page 61 begins] cause to suspect in order to responsibly remove a man from ministry.

Q. You appoint the Review Board and they answer to you as consulters, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Ultimately, you're the decider. You're the one who makes the decision. All they can do is make recommendations, right?
A. That is correct, I need the recommendations to decide.

Q. Okay.
        Look at John Robinson.
A. Uh-huh.

[Rev. John A. Robinson]

Q. You'll see that he was first known to have been an offender in June of 2002 and not removed from ministry by you until January of 2003.
        Why the delay there, Cardinal?
A. You'd have to go back and look at when the Review Board took it up and then when they made their recommendation but in this case, I'm sure I removed him very quickly after their recommendation.

Q. And do you remember the reason for the delay if this information is correct? [page 62 begins]
A. No. I'm sorry, I don't.

Q. Until 2002, did you, as the Cardinal Archbishop, make any effort to alert the community of faith and the public that you knew that you had these credibly accused offenders in ministry with or without restrictions?
A. I asked that question and it's mixed. In some cases, the whole parish knew about the allegation and that the Review Board thought it was an accurate allegation. In some cases, only the priests concerned was supervising the person in his limited ministry.
        None of these except one, I believe, had a ministerial appointment but they did help out.

Q. Okay.
        So it's correct to say then that at least until 2002, you made no effort to specifically warn the parishioners that these offenders and others known to the Archdiocese to be in ministry and/or -- let me rephrase that.
        It's correct to say that before 2002, you never made any effort to warn the parishioners that you had a number of offenders in ministry?
A. Many knew that there were some priests who [page 63 begins] had this allegation who were still in ministry but none of them, with one exception, had an appointment to a parish.

Q. Who's the one that -- when you say many knew, who is many and who did they know about if you didn't tell them?
A. The -- the -- the parish where John Calicott was pastor knew. In fact, it was the subject of many public discussions in the parish itself. That's the only one who had a pastoral ministerial assignment.

[Rev. John W. Calicott]

Q. And some people knew about Calicott because there was some media coverage concerning Calicott because of his refusal to leave and some controversy around him, correct?
A. I wasn't here at that time, sir.

Q. In any case, those people knew about Calicott because of actions taken not by you but by others?
A. By the authorities of the Archdiocese, I believe.

Q. So my question to you then --
A. But I wasn't here.

Q. My question to you then, Cardinal, is what [page 64 begins] action did you take before 2002 to warn and alert any of the community of faith or the public that you knew and your office knew that there were clerical offenders who were either in ministry or were being monitored by the Archdiocese?
A. I was told that the people who were responsible for protecting children knew and were satisfied with the restrictions in place.

Q. Who told you that?
A. Again, Mr. O'Malley.

Q. Well, O'Malley's just an advisor. He's not the one that decides this, right?
A. I believe so.

Q. So if there was a risk here, you're the one that decided to take it, right?

MR. KLENK: Please don't point at the witness when you ask questions.

MR. ANDERSON: That's -- I didn't mean to.

THE WITNESS: I -- I was -- no. That's all right, sir.


THE WITNESS: I was assured there was no risk.


THE WITNESS: I was operating under that [page 65 begins] assumption.


Q. And you, in any case, made the decision and the calculation based on the information given you, correct?
A. Yes, I acted or didn't based on the information I had.

MR. ANDERSON: Should we take a break here?

MR. KLENK: Yes, but before we do, I'd like to note your chart here, 202, shows Robert Kealy as leaving ministry in 2006 and first known in 2001, 2002. I think the correct record, it just occurred to me, is he left in 2002, not 2006 but this is -- these are charts that you prepared.

MR. ANDERSON: Yes. If we made a mistake, we'll take responsibility for it.

MR. PEARLMAN: Just -- just for the record, the Archdiocese's website says 2006.

MR. ANDERSON: We took it off the website information so --

MR. PEARLMAN: If that's not accurate, that's --

MR. ANDERSON: And that would be in Exhibit 1.

MR. KLENK: Okay. Thank you very much. [page 66 begins]

MR. PEARLMAN: But that may be inaccurate.

MR. KLENK: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: That one we moved fast on.

MR. ANDERSON: Okay. We'll take a break here.

MR. KLENK: Thank you very much.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record at 11:37 a.m. This is the end of videotape number one.

(A short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at 11:52 a.m. This is the beginning of videotape number two.

MR. KLENK: Before we get started, I checked on the break about this Kealy point. Kealy resigned in '06. I think that's what the website says but he was taken out in '02 which might cause a question for you. That's clear now.


Q. Cardinal, I'd like to go back for a moment to something you had said before the break and, that is, that in 1997 and until 2002, you had been lead to believe that the monitoring program that had been in place was effective, at least you were lead [sic] to believe that, right? [page 67 begins]
A. With the restriction in ministry and the fact that the civil authorities knew everything that we knew.

Q. Were you aware and had it come to your attention that prior to your appointment as Archbishop and Cardinal that Father Mayer offended while he was under monitoring or restriction?
A. I'm not sure of the details of that case because he was gone before I got here.

[Rev. Robert E. Mayer]

Q. Are you aware that Father Maday offended while under monitoring or restriction?
A. That, I was not aware of. I thought that Maday was in prison -- he was when I came -- and for an abuse that I was given to understand was the first reported but I -- you could be right.

[Rev. Norbert J. Maday]

Q. Are you aware that Father Vincent McCaffrey prior to your appointment in 1997 reoffended or offended while under monitoring or restriction?
A. I don't know the details of that. I don't know how he was monitored or restricted.

[Rev. Vincent E. McCaffrey]

Q. Are you aware --
A. He was gone also when I came.

Q. Are you aware or has it come to your [page 68 begins] attention that Father Marion Sneig, S-N-E-I-G, offended or reoffended while under this monitoring or restriction? [The priest's name is not spelled correctly here. He is Rev. Marion Joseph Snieg.]
A. No, I'm not aware of that. I think he was restricted and then taken entirely out after the Review Board saw the case but my understanding was that was the first case that we knew of.

[Rev. Marion J. Snieg]

Q. Are you aware that Father Robert Craig offended or reoffended while under this monitoring or restriction?
A. I was not aware of that. He was gone also when I came.

[Rev. Robert D. Craig]

Q. Are you aware that Father Fitzharris offended or reoffended while under this monitoring or restriction?

MR. KLENK: I would object to foundation but answer.

THE WITNESS: No, I -- I -- I don't know that. I don't know that they were monitored or restricted. They were out of ministry before I ever got here.

[Rev. Joseph L. Fitzharris]


Q. I'm going to direct your attention to Exhibit 203. [page 69 begins]
A. Thank you.

MR. KLENK: Thank you.

[Rev. Daniel McCormack on July 2, 2007, when he pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and was sentenced to five years in prison.]


Q. And this would be dated in February of 2006?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. It is a letter from you, as I read it, to Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ and that would be from you to the community of faith in Chicago?
A. That's correct.

Q. And directing your attention to the third paragraph, the last sentence, I'd like to read it and then ask you a question. It states it now seems that additional information was available that did not reach our offices. The process we had used well to remove predators was not engaged quickly enough.
        Are those your words?
A. They are.

Q. And what do you mean here?
A. I mean that the Defenbaugh report [i.e., Exhibit 106] showed how information that was available was not shared and, therefore, the judgments were made on the information available. It was not adequate and a [page 70 begins] boy was abused and this is -- this is something that I have to live with because it's a terrible crime and it was on my watch.

Q. And do you agree the Defenbaugh report that you commissioned and you just referred to, effectively, faults you for the failures of this Archdiocese?
A. In the sense that I am responsible but I think it also shows that I acted on the information that was given to me.

Q. The next paragraph, I presume you're sending this to the community of faith because there's been a lot of public attention about the Defenbaugh report and the disclosure regarding McCormack, right? Is that right?
A. Yes, of course, that's --

Q. So you're offering an apology here, are you not?
A. I'm apologizing to every Catholic because that's a matter of great shock and embarrassment to the whole church.

Q. And so the next paragraph is your apology, correct?
A. That's right. [page 71 begins]

Q. I'd like to read that and ask you a question. It states I must apologize to all of you for the great embarrassment every Catholic must now feel in light of media scrutiny of these events.
        My question to you, first, is why didn't you apologize for failures by your office before media scrutiny?
A. I think that's understood but the letters I was receiving were always in reaction to what they had learned from the media. That's all that's intended there.

Q. The next sentence states and I quote, in particular, I am deeply sorry for the pain of those Catholics who are part of St. Agatha Parish.
        When I read this, can you tell me where you apologized to the community of faith, if you do, for the decisions that you made?
A. I went to St. Agatha's school and church when the allegations became public against him with the second arrest and apologized there and I continue to apologize as much as I can to both the school community -- many of them not Catholic -- and to the Catholics of the parish, yes.

[Cardinal George speaks to parishioners at St. Agatha's on January 30, 2006. At the "tumultuous" meeting, George mentioned that another priest besides McCormack was being investigated, but did not name Bennett.]

Q. Okay. [page 72 begins]
        So if I'm hearing you correctly, you made a personal apology to the Catholics that attended the meetings at St. Agatha but you chose not to make such an apology for your decisions to the community of faith at large in this document, correct?

MR. KLENK: Object, the document speaks for itself.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm sorry, sir. I don't draw the same conclusion. I would draw just the opposite conclusion from this document but perhaps I'm not reading it well.


Q. Well, maybe you can point to me where you apologize for your decisions or your mistakes to the community of faith?
A. I must apologize to all of you, the community of faith, for the great embarrassment every Catholic must now feel in the light of the fact that we made all these mistakes and they're all public. What the media scrutinized was our mistakes so certainly, it's an apology for these mistakes.

Q. Where do you say here that you made [page 73 begins] mistakes, Cardinal?
A. Do you want me to read --

Q. If you could point me to it. I'm just looking for it.
A. You know, I -- I went before the cameras and admitted my mistakes and apologized at St. Agatha's and I think this is a reprise of that.

Q. When you write this paragraph --
A. I pray that a failure to act more quickly on my part will not harm the Archdiocese itself. A failure to act more quickly on my part will not harm the Archdiocese itself.

Q. I'd like to refer you to the Defenbaugh and Associates report commissioned by you.
A. Thank you. Yes.

Q. And at the same time Defenbaugh and Associates were commissioned, you commissioned Childers to look at the monitoring --
A. That's --

Q. -- and we've already marked that exhibit, that was 49.
        The Defenbaugh report has been marked Exhibit 106; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir. [page 74 begins]

Q. And you've read this and so you are familiar with it, correct?
A. I read it many months ago now, yes.

Q. And my first question to you is do you dispute any of the findings made or conclusions reached in it?
A. No. In the course of months, sometimes other things come forward but this shows us where we made terrible mistakes in handling the McCormack allegations.

Q. Defenbaugh and Associates were commissioned by you to look at a very narrow issue and, that is, the Archdiocese's pertaining -- conduct pertaining to two priests that were selected by you, correct?
A. That was the focus but they included, as you can tell, general policies and their effect but those were the cases.

Q. And the -- their focus was then limited to Fathers Bennett and McCormack, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And. they were then provided information pertaining only to Bennett and McCormack, at least their files? [page 75 begins]
A. They had a chance to review any file that they wanted to.

Q. Well, the information that they got was all that which was provided by your office, correct?
A. I believe so. I wasn't part of that procedure as they were moved along.

Q. And are you aware of Defenbaugh and Associates having received information pertaining to the files of any other priest besides McCormack and Bennett?
A. I believe when the report was made to satisfy the requests of the big panel of experts that supervised our implementation of the Defenbaugh report, the report included satisfaction on his part that everyone who had been accused of sexual abuse and -- of a minor and the accusation was reasonably judged to be correct was out of public ministry.

Q. So it's fair to say that you limited it to Bennett and McCormack?
A. This focus is here, yes.

Q. Okay.
        Referring you to the exhibit and I'd like [page 76 begins] to direct your attention to the second page.
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And I've highlighted portions of that to save time. And at the bottom of it, the highlighted portion in it reads even after the arrest/detainment of Father McCormack on an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor in August 2005, Archdiocesan personnel delayed reporting his arrest/detainment to Cardinal George for almost three days even though Cardinal George was present within Archdiocesan territory and available for such information.
        Who is that that delayed this report to you as documented by Defenbaugh?
A. Normally, since he had been arrested and then released back to society by the police, it would have been at that point the Vicar for Priests who would have been involved in that and that was the case here.

Q. Father Grace?
A. That's correct.

Q. Who else knew before you were told of this besides Father Grace?
A. I believe he told the one in charge while [page 77 begins] I was gone, Bishop Rassas.

[Auxiliary Bishop George J. Rassas]

Q. Bishop Rassas?
A. George Rassas, yes. I think he was not yet ordained a bishop. He had been appointed but he wasn't yet ordained.

Q. He was then Vicar General?
A. Vicar General, that's correct, uh-huh.

Q. Who else besides Grace and Rassas?
A. I would imagine that the person in charge of investigating child abuse allegations was certainly notified also.

Q. And do you know who that was?
A. That would be Leah McCluskey.

Q. Anybody else?
A. Well, Leah would be in touch with the Review Board and would let the Review Board know what she knew. My canonical advisor to the Review Board probably also knew then.

Q. Who's that?
A. Father -- I'm sorry. I'm not thinking very well. I know his name. I'm very embarrassed. Dan -- I'm -- I'm sorry. I --

Q. Smilanic?
A. I beg your pardon. Smilanic, yes. You're [page 78 begins] correct, sir. Thank you.

Q. What about Lago?
A. Lago would not have been in the loop at that time. He was not responsible for these cases.

Q. Who is the point man for allegations of sexual abuse at that time if it wasn't Lago?
A. The person responsible for receiving the allegations, Ms. McCluskey and the Vicar For Priests.

Q. What about O'Malley?
A. Well, certainly, O'Malley would have known and did know because he is in good communication always with the civil authorities. So he would --

Q. So O'Malley knew before you knew?
A. I'm -- I'm sure he must have.

Q. I refer you to page -- [The page number is not provided in the deposition transcript. Anderson is referring to Exhibit 106, page 3.]
A. I would think he would anyway, I mean.
        Yes, sir.

Q. And at the top of it, I'd like to read it and then ask you a question. It states certain Archdiocese personnel had within its possession information from local law enforcement and the State's Attorney that the August 2005 allegation against Father McCormack was credible. [page 79 begins]
        When it is stated here that Archdiocese personnel had in its possession this information, who does this refer to?

MR. KLENK: Objection, foundation.

THE WITNESS: Would you then please ask the question again if you want me to answer.


Q. Who is the Archdiocese -- who is the Archdiocese personnel that had within its possession information from local law enforcement and the State's Attorney that the August '05 allegation against McCormack was credible?
A. I am not entirely certain but of the people we mentioned, I would believe it would be Father Grace and Mr. O'Malley.
        I did not know then.

Q. It goes on to state the recommendation for removal of Father McCormack of his pastoral duties and to sever Father McCormack's conduct with minors was not made until October 15, 2005 when the Review Board recommended that Father McCormack be removed from ministry.
        Why, Cardinal, was there a delay between August of '05 and October 15, 2005? [page 80 begins]
A. I think that's incorrect. Because when Father Grace told me, almost by accident assuming that I knew, that Father McCormack had been arrested, he also told me that his ministry was restricted to adults; that he could not be alone with minors and that a supervisor, a monitor, had been appointed. In other words, the restrictions that had been effective in our history here were in place already at the end of August regarding McCormack.

Q. Is it your testimony then, Cardinal, that you removed him from ministry as soon as you received any information that he was suspected of abusing a child?
A. No. I didn't say that, sir.

Q. And then what was incorrect then about the statement I just read to you?
A. The recommendation to sever Father McCormack's contact with minors was not made until October 15th. In fact, he was put under restrictions to not have contact with minors as soon as he was arrested.

Q. And those restrictions were simply somebody telling him not to be around kids alone, [page 81 begins] right?
A. That's correct. I presume they were spelled out. They always have been in these cases.

Q. It was the Review Board that recommended he be removed from ministry October 15th, was it not?
A. They gave me that advice, yes. I wish that I had followed it with all my heart.

[The deposition exhibits do not include the Review Board's actual recommendation that McCormack be removed. But the recommendation is documented in two exhibits. The Defenbaugh report above (Exhibit 106, page 3) dates the recommendation as October 15, 2005. A letter on January 28, 2006 from the Board to George below (Exhibit 126) states that the Board was "apprised of the situation" on October 15, 2005, and after assessing it, presented the removal recommendation to George on October 17, 2005.]

Q. You didn't follow it?
A. I didn't because I thought that they had not finished the case's investigation. They hadn't considered all the evidence.

Q. Well, if you don't follow their recommendations, why do you have them?5
A. Because they do wonderful work but their conclusions depend upon the evidence they've considered. If evidence isn't considered, then the conclusion isn't final.

Q. Well, the State's Attorney and Archdiocesan personnel, according to this in the first sentence, had information that this was a credible allegation in August of 2005?
A. I didn't hear that but I would also -- I did ask myself if they thought he was guilty, [page 82 begins] surely, the State would not have released him back to society to be a danger to children.

Q. So you made the calculation to, essentially, disregard the State's Attorney this was credible and Archdiocesan personnel that this was credible, didn't you?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.


Q. Well, you didn't act on it.
A. They didn't tell me that. They, themselves, released him back to society --

Q. Did you --
A. -- which is something I don't understand very well.

Q. You say they didn't tell you, Cardinal.
        Did you ever ask them?
A. No. I had the usual conduits of information that I relied on. I ask myself now why I did not more aggressively --

Q. Were you --
A. -- pursue it.

Q. Were you too busy with other things? [page 83 begins]
A. I had my responsibilities as Archbishop, yes.

Q. So when you ask yourself why you never asked the question when the State's Attorney had this, Archdiocesan personnel had this, they knew it was credible in August of '05, do you now ask yourself why didn't I ask? Why didn't I look? Why didn't I --
A. And I ask myself first why didn't they tell me.

Q. First, what's your answer to yourself? What answer do you give us today as to why you didn't ask?
A. I trusted in the system that I thought had served us well and I'm sorry that I did.

Q. What system did you trust in that failed?
A. The system of reporting immediately to the police. In this case, they knew and they had set him free which I interpreted to mean they didn't think he was a danger. The system that had us restricting ministry so that he had no contact with children and the system that put a supervisor in place to whom he reported to be sure that he was limiting his ministry while the investigation moved [page 84 begins] forward.

Q. Are the failures that you're referring to now, Cardinal, your failures or the failures of people who answer to you?
A. I think all of us failed in the end. I must take responsibility for it.

Q. In October 15, 2005, the review -- Review Board recommends his removal, correct?
A. They advised me to remove him without telling me they thought he was guilty.

Q. Well, they wouldn't advise you to remove him from ministry unless they received information that caused them or gave them reason to believe, correct?
A. No, that's correct. They didn't say that. Had they said that, that would have been the end. They didn't have the information necessary to pursue an allegation. They told me that.

Q. Who told you that?
A. Leah McCluskey. In making the advice, she said we have not finished the case. We can't finish it. We're stymied.

[Leah McCluskey in 2004.]

Q. But the Board on October 15th recommended to you remove him, right? [page 85 begins]
A. They advised that he be removed from ministry, that's correct.

Q. And that was the full board acting unanimously, was it not?
A. I believe it was. I don't recall the -- you know. You've read the report.

Q. And Leah McCluskey doesn't sit on that board. It was the -- it was your board that you appointed as consultors on this issue that unanimously made the recommendation of removal, correct?
A. They had --

MR. KLENK: Please don't -- please don't point at him.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm not pointing at him.

THE WITNESS: They advised that he be removed from ministry but they could not tell me they thought he was guilty --


Q. Well --
A. -- which was a condition for removing from ministry.

Q. Well, Cardinal, isn't guilt or innocence to be determined by the civil authorities? [page 86 begins]
A. Finally at the criminal case; yes.

Q. And when it comes to your priest in this case, McCormack, upon the recommendation of your Review Board that he be removed, you decided to take the risk to leave him in ministry, didn't you?
A. They had not finished their investigation. There was evidence I was getting from the school that indicated he had to be innocent. And as far as I knew, the police had finished their work and they set him free but they certainly knew about it.

Q. And you're referring to the evidence.
        Whose job is it then to collect the evidence that pertains to guilt or innocence?
A. The person who was in charge of the office for investigating who was Leah McCluskey.

Q. You chose to rely upon some evidence you said from the school that he was innocent.
        What evidence was that, Cardinal?
A. I was receiving allegations that he could not possibly have done this because he was not physically present in the school the two years earlier when the abuse was supposed to have taken place because he was laid up with an injured leg.

Q. Was that from Father McCormack? [page 87 begins]
A. No. I didn't talk to Father McCormack. It was Father Grace who had heard this from the school.

Q. So it was Father Grace that gave you the information that McCormack couldn't have committed the sexual abuse.
        Is that what you're saying?
A. There was an allegation to that point that had to be investigated, go back and check. That might not be true. In fact, it wasn't. And I asked the Review Board to finish their work to investigate that fact.

Q. Any other evidence upon which you relied to disregard in -- in making the decision to disregard the recommendation of -- of the Board other than what Grace told you?
A. May I say, sir, I did not -- I'm sorry. I did not disregard it. I said it wasn't yet ripe for a conclusion and there were other comments that apparently were coming from the school to say that in place in the school was a policy that forbade any adult to take a child alone outside of a classroom.
        The situation hadn't been investigated [page 88 begins] fully yet.

Q. You said there were other comments besides information given you by Father Grace.
        Comments by whom to whom?
A. No. All the information I had that I'm referring to now, sir, was from Father Grace.

Q. Okay.
        So in terms of the evidence upon which you relied in the decision to not follow the recommendation came from Father Grace is what you're saying?
A. The information. It didn't rise to the level of evidence. I wanted it to be investigated to complete the work of the Review Board. They never finished their process.

Q. Isn't that board appointed to investigate?
A. No. They receive the results of the investigation that's done by Leah. They scrutinize but they don't go out physically and investigate. We hire investigators sometimes.

Q. Leah is the investigator for the Board?
A. Yes.

Q. And they made recommendation to you based on an investigation she had done, correct? [page 89 begins]
A. I don't think so because they couldn't -- they said they couldn't finish the investigation. That was the problem. They were unable to finish the investigation.
        If they had finished the investigation, they would have given me a recommendation that he was guilty or not. They didn't do that.

Q. Cardinal, referring to the exhibit, moving down, I'm going to direct your attention and I think it should be highlighted. The sentence begins with to the contrary, individual specific protocols.
        Do you see that sentence?
A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. I'm going to read it and ask you a question. It states to the contrary, individual specific protocols for monitoring were not addressed by the Professional Conduct Administrative Committee which included the Vicar of Priests and the Professional Responsibility Administrator.
        Who is then the Vicar of Priests?
A. Father Grace.

Q. And who is the Professional Responsibility [page 90 begins] Administrator?
A. Leah McCluskey.

Q. Moving down, the next highlighted portion should be a sentence in the middle. It begins with the audit identified.
        Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. It -- it states -- and I'll then ask you a question -- the audit identified that had a complaint of misconduct on the part of Father McCormack in September of 2003 been properly dealt with at the time, it would have identified another alleged sexually abused minor by Father McCormack. There's then -- it looks -- it appears to be a typo but I read it to say but no further investigation this complaint, the September 2003 allegation was the watershed event which carried the Archdiocese further into a slippery slope due to lack of responsive and action on the part of the Archdiocesan personnel to another misconduct complaint against Father McCormack.
        I appreciate that's a long passage but when reference is made to the watershed event which [page 91 begins] carried the Archdiocese further into a slippery slope, what is your role in this chain of events described as a watershed carrying the Archdiocese into a slippery slope?

MR. KLENK: Objection to form.

THE WITNESS: I found about that complaint only after the second arrest. The audit found, if I may quote it myself, that Cardinal George did not know what he needed to know to make a definitive decision regarding Father McCormack because he was not advised of all the information in possession of his staff. I was not advised of that particular information that is described as a watershed event from years earlier.

[Exhibit 115. Cardinal George states in the deposition that he was not informed of the "watershed event"—i.e., the phone call of September 5, 2003 about McCormack's behavior with boys that is documented in this exhibit. The phone call was received by Mary Ann Zrust, who was the receptionist and secretary at the Vicar for Priests office. The stamp at the top of the document shows that the message was given to McCluskey at the Office of Professional Responsibility, who had her assistant to fax the message to Mr. John O'Malley at the archdiocesan Office of Legal Services. When was the document sent to the OPR and OLS? A stamp at the bottom of the message indicates that the OPR received it on January 19, 2006. This is also the day when, as the heavily redacted Exhibit 128 shows (see also the discussion on page 112 below), members of these three offices met to discuss McCormack, whose second arrest would occur the next day, on January 20, 2006. Apparently the Vicar for Priests office sent the 2003 message to McCluskey either in preparation for the McCormack meeting or as a result of the meeting.

Seven full lines—approximately 90 words—have been redacted from the meeting memo (see image at the right, and click to view a PDF). As the mediator states: "In a few places, the transcript and some exhibits have words blacked out. These are called 'redactions.' Their purpose is to protect the privacy of persons who are not directly involved in these cases, or to protect information that is required by law to be kept confidential." The vigorously redacted paragraph concludes with a sentence about McCormack's file. Perhaps the redacted portion relates to the 2003 phone message in that file.



Q. Let's go down to the next sentence I think highlighted. It says Cardinal George was not apprised of the entirety of information in possession of the Archdiocese staff regarding the credibility allegation.
        Is that -- is that what it says?
A. Yes, it does, sir.

Q. You were advised of some information? [page 92 begins]
A. Oh, sure, yes.

Q. And that information was that Father McCormack had abused a child?
A. No. It wasn't information, sir. That was an allegation and the police had it and set him free.

Q. And you were apprised that the police had detained Father McCormack for the crime of sexual abuse?
A. Yes, and set him free.

Q. And you -- and you were apprised of that by Father Grace?
A. Yes.

Q. And others?
A. Well, first of all, by Father Grace although he thought I knew when he did talk to me about it.

Q. And you assumed that because the police released him from custody that he was thus not guilty?
A. Well, they also didn't charge him and I did assume that, sir.

Q. Are you aware that Father Grace was apprised that it was a credible allegation? [page 93 begins]
A. He did not speak that way to me.

Q. Did you ever ask Dan McCormack if he had abused a kid?
A. No, I did not.

Q. To this day, have you ever?
A. No. He confessed in court so I'm sure he did.

Q. Are you aware that he is alleged to have abused up to 23 children?
A. I was not aware of that number, sir.

Q. At page four, the top of it -- It starts actually at the bottom of three. It begins the audit identified that on August 29, 2005, Cardinal George approved the official appointment of Father McCormack as Dean of the Deanery.
        That's a supervisory position, isn't it?
A. It is, sir.

Q. And that was effective September 1, 2005.
        It then goes on to state the office for the Vicar for Priests.
        And who was then the Vicar for Priests?
A. That would have been Father Grace.

Q. Had in their position -- possession. It says their possession. [page 94 begins]
        Do you know who besides Grace?
A. The other Vicar for Priests is Father Vince Costello.

Q. And it goes on to say in their possession derogatory information concerning Father McCormack which they delayed reporting to the Vicar General.
        And who is then the Vicar General?
A. Father Rassas.

Q. Now -- now bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. It then states the Vicar General was telephonically advised of the derogatory information but allowed the appointment to proceed without requiring further investigation into the allegation.
        So that would be Rassas?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The next paragraph highlighted portion beginning with audit review.
        Do you see that?
A. Additional allegations, that paragraph, sir?

Q. It begins with additional allegations --
A. I see. I see what you're saying. Thank [page 95 begins] you.

Q. The highlighted portion says audit review --
A. Yes.

Q. I'll read that and ask a question. Audit review of Father McCormack's seminarian files failed to locate any documentation of allegations of sexual misconduct or allegations of sexual abuse on the part of Father McCormack. However, interview of the former Vice Rector.
        Who's the former Vice Rector?
A. That would have been at that time -- again, before I got here -- but I -- I believe was Father John Canary.

[Rev. John F. Canary]

Q. Wasn't it Kicanas?
A. I had thought that Father Kicanas was the Rector.

Q. Okay.
        And it goes on to state of the seminary identified that three distinct allegations of sexual misconduct of both adults and of a minor on the part of Father McCormack were brought to the attention of the seminary officials in the spring quarter of 1992. The former Vice Rector recalls [page 96 begins] that these allegations were documented to Father McCormack's file.
        Have you seen that documentation?
A. Only the memo that the Vice Rector wrote at the time. I have not seen the original. And that came to my attention in January of 2006. I remember reading it and being very disturbed by it.

Q. And what was it that was in it that disturbed you?
A. What you've just read, sir.

Q. The memo reflected that there had been multiple allegations of sexual misconduct by McCormack in seminary, correct?
A. I believe there were only two when he was a college seminarian and then the immediate incidents of misconduct when he was in Mexico which was the only time there was any indication about a minor. The others were sexual misconduct with his peers in the seminary, I believe.

Q. So that would be three involving minors and there's some other adults?
A. No. One. I'm sorry, sir. One involving a minor.

Q. One involving a minor? [page 97 begins]
A. Yes.

MR. KLENK: Jeff, we're getting near 12:30 here. Whenever you reach a suitable stopping point.

MR. ANDERSON: Okay. I'll -- I'll go through this. I'm almost done.


MR. ANDERSON: All right.


Q. I'm going to show you what is marked as 206.
A. Thank you.

MR. KLENK: Thank you.


Q. And this is a Sun-Times article quoting a number of folks, among them, Bishop Kicanas, K-I-C-A-N-A-S. And it states referring to McCormack and his seminary days, quote, it would have been grossly unfair not to or -- have ordained him meaning Father McCormack.
        Based on your review of the memo you received and as reflected in the Defenbaugh report, do you agree with Kicanas's assertion?
A. No. [page 98 begins]

[Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas]

Q. He should never have been ordained, should he, based on that -- based on that memo you reviewed?
A. He would not have been ordained now and he should never have been ordained then.

Q. The last paragraph of this document states there was a sense -- and this is quoting Kicanas -- there was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from the experience. Kicanas said, quote, I was more concerned about his drinking. We sent him to counseling for that.
        It's correct to say that that memo that you reviewed and those documents regarding McCormack's seminary years belie the assertion made by Bishop Kicanas?

MR. KLENK: I would object to the extent that this deals with any report from a mental health advocate or he's done an analysis. I don't want him to do that because we are precluded by law, as you know, from getting into that sort of information.

MR. ANDERSON: I think you can answer, Cardinal. [page 99 begins]

THE WITNESS: This is a memo based upon report and the memo does say that his problem is drinking.


Q. It also says that he had sexually abused at least one minor --
A. Yes.

Q. -- and had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct
A. Absolutely.

Q. -- with others --
A. That's --

Q. -- while in seminary?
A. But -- and that's why he should have never been ordained. I agree with you, sir.

Q. And so he was not only a problem drinker, he was a pedophile?
A. I believe you're correct, sir.

MR. ANDERSON: Let's take a break.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record at 12:36 p.m. This is the end of videotape number two.

(A short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on the record at 1:08 p.m. This is the beginning of [page 100 begins] videotape number three.


Q. Cardinal, referring you back to Exhibit 106, the Defenbaugh report, I direct your attention to page 15 and in the middle of it -- it may be highlighted -- the paragraph beginning with during. I'm going to read that and then ask you some questions.
        During the review of the case files involving allegations of sexual abuse of minors by Father McCormack, it was determined that the Archbishop was not notified of the allegations/arrest of Father McCormack until three days after the Archbishop's return to the Archdiocese. During the preliminary activities and inquiry phase of the review process, the PRA sends a memorandum to the Chancellor.
        The Chancellor is --
A. Mr. --

Q. -- Lago?
A. Jimmy Lago, yes.

Q. It then says the Archbishop's delegate.
        And that is?
A. Father Dan Smilanic. [page 101 begins]

Q. And that's to the -- delegate to the Board, correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And then it says, the Office of Legal Services.
        And that would be?
A. Mr. O'Malley.

Q. And then it says the Victim's Assistance Ministry.
        And that would be?
A. Now it's Mike Honeycut. At that time, I think it was Mr. Ralph Bonaccorsi.

Q. Then Ralph Bonaccorsi.
        And then it says and the Vicar for Priests which would have been?
A. Father Grace.

Q. Grace.
        And it says advising them of the allegation and requesting file reviews.
        So all of these people received this information at that point in time, correct?
A. As a request for further information that they might have in order to bring the allegation together, that's correct. [page 102 begins]

Q. And all of these people are also mandatory reporters, are they not?
A. I am not entirely certain if every single one was.
        In this case, the police knew.

Q. The police already had this information --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that's where they got this information, correct?
A. No. The allegation was made directly to the police.

Q. Yes.
A. And so they had the victim, the accuser.

Q. And they're all aware of the police involvement?
A. I'm sure they must have been. I would think so, yes.

Q. And they're all working, effectively, for you. You've appointed each of them, have you not?
A. Yes.

Q. And they're all to keep you informed of -- of the important matters relating to Father McCormack and sexual abuse?
A. They followed a process. They informed [page 103 begins] according to the process.

Q. And is this a failure of these people or a failure of process?
A. Well, people have process responsibilities. All I meant to say was that the Review Board system was set up to be sure that the archbishop, whoever he might be, would not interfere in the process and so that sometimes there is -- it wasn't in the past an immediate notification. There is now.

Q. As a result of Jimmy Lago's failure to inform you of this information involving Father McCormack, did you take action against him?
A. His obligation was to give the files that he had to Leah McCluskey in order it [sic] put the allegation together. He did not have an obligation to inform me.

Q. He is -- he -- he was the Chancellor, was he not?
A. That means he's in charge of files.

Q. And as Chancellor, he is one of your consultors and advisors?
A. In the areas that he's responsible for, yes. [page 104 begins]

Q. And is it your position that the Chancellor did not have an obligation to inform you of information that he possessed that Father McCormack was suspected of having abused?
A. That was not part of his formal obligations at that time.

Q. And so do you fault him in any way for failing to report this information in his possession to you?
A. To me?

Q. Yes.

MR. KLENK: Objection, foundation. It assumes he had information in his possession then.

MR. ANDERSON: That this allegation was credible.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I don't know that he had that information.


Q. Have you taken any action against -- discipline of the bishop's delegate for his failure to bring information to you at this time?

MR. KLENK: Object, again, foundation. It assumes he had information. [page 105 begins]


Q. Have you taken any action against the delegate?

MR. KLENK: You can go ahead and answer it.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
        His obligation is to see to it that in the process, the canonical rules, the charter are adhered to. It's not his direct obligation to bring me anything except the Review Board deliberations.


Q. Going back to then Chancellor Lago, is it correct that since this point in time referred to in the report, Lago has even been given more responsibility for dealing with sexual abuse of minors in the Archdiocese?
A. We learned that information wasn't shared. He is now the one to see to it that information is shared as broadly as possible among all those concerned.
        He has a new responsibility since the McCormack allegations.

Q. And the Vicar for Priests, Father Grace, is referred to here. [page 106 begins]
        What action, if any, have you taken pertaining to him based on the findings of Defenbaugh?
A. We discussed what went wrong and there have been corrections and I believe a letter is in the file to be sure that the memory of this is not lost.

Q. What action, if any, have you taken to -- pertaining to Father Rassas, now Bishop Rassas, in connection with this?
A. We also have discussed this, why was information not passed on and I believe the same memorandum to keep us aware of what went wrong has been placed in his file as well.

Q. So if I'm hearing you correctly, you placed a letter of reprimand in the files of Bishop Rassas and Father Grace?
A. Yes.

Q. Have you reprimanded anybody else for failure to report or act in connection with Father McCormack?
A. Again, we discussed it because of this report to show how seriously wrong the system went and I think letters have gone into other files too [page 107 begins] but I couldn't tell you which ones exactly.

Q. Well, then Father Rassas, the Vicar General, was promoted to Auxiliary Bishop following this failure?
A. That appointment was made in the summer before this happened. It's a Roman appointment, not mine. [According to the website Catholic-Hierarchy, Rassas was appointed on December 1, 2005 and ordained on February 2, 2006.]

Q. Cardinal, I'm going to direct your attention to -- to Bob Davies for a moment.
        Who is Bob Davies?
A. I'm sorry. I don't recognize the name.

Q. Let's get a document. I'm going to show you Exhibit 111.
A. Thank you.

Q. And you'll see that it is a memorandum from Leah McCluskey --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- regarding McCormack. It's dated in February of 2006 and it refers to some information earlier received wherein a Sister Mary Therese Cusack, C-U-S-A-C-K --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- imparted information and it -- to Mr. Robert, Bob, Davies at the second page, first [page 108 begins] paragraph -- the fourth paragraph. Excuse me. You'll see after speaking with blank, Sister Mary Therese Cusack contacted Mr. Bob Davies?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Who was the consultant for Holy Family School at the time?
A. Oh, okay. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that he's now assistant superintendent for the school?
A. No. I think he was removed from that position because this information wasn't brought forward when it should have been.

Q. And was that an action taken by you?
A. No. By the superintendent of schools who's responsible for the schools.

Q. And the superintendent of schools, ultimately, answers to you. You oversee the schools and education for the Catholic Archdiocese?
A. But I'm not involved in the schools. I make no appointments. I don't hire. I don't let people go. That is the job of the superintendent. It's not my responsibility.
        I supervise to see that they are Catholic schools. [page 109 begins]

Q. Right.
        You are the ultimate supervisor of the Catholic education in the Archdiocese?
A. Of the mission of Catholic education in the Archdiocese.

Q. And are you aware and did it come to your attention that on five different occasions, information came to Bob -- to the attention of Bob Davies that was suspicious of McCormack having sexually abused?
A. I was not aware of five. I had heard about the one incident after McCormack was arrested the second time.

Q. And as you sit here today, you're only aware of one instance -- one instance in which Davies received information from Sister Cusack or others --
A. I was aware of the information --

Q. -- that McCormack was engaged in conduct suspicious of sexual abuse?
A. I was aware of the information he received from Sister Cusack.

Q. On how many occasions did she bring him -- it to his attention that McCormack was doing or [page 110 begins] saying things that were suspicious of abuse?

MR. KLENK: Objection, foundation.

THE WITNESS: This is the first I see this memo, sir. I heard that she had received information at least once. That's all I know.


Q. And what did you understand Bob Davies's response to her to have been when she brought it to him?
A. He did not pass it on. That's the important fact, I believe.

Q. Did you read and have you learned that he said to her let it go?
A. I heard verbally an explanation of the incident; that the parent did not want it pursued and in that context, I believe he said we should let it go.

Q. Was that -- would that have been Davies's decision to make as an educator?
A. He -- he made a mistake and for that, he's been demoted and reprimanded. I presume -- I shouldn't presume anything. He made a mistake.

Q. At that time, Cusack would be a mandatory reporter? [page 111 begins]
A. Was she the principal at the time or was she --

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.

Q. Davies was working for Holy Family School at the time and the Archdiocese Office of Catholic Education so that would have made him a mandatory reporter in education?
A. I don't know the details of the mandatory reporting law for educators in the State of Illinois. I'm sorry. [See the U.S. government's Child Welfare Information Gateway for information on mandatory reporting laws in Illinois and other states. See also the Gateway's summary of the Illinois reporting law and nationwide summary of reporting laws.]

Q. And do you have any information that either of them ever reported to civil authorities the information received or perceived by either of them concerning McCormack?
A. I don't believe they did.

[An interesting aspect of Exhibit 111 is not discussed in the deposition. Sr. Cusack tells McCluskey that McCormack was assigned to say the all-school Mass at Holy Family school because Bishop Manz (photo above left) "informed her that Fr. McCormack 'missed kids,' as he [Fr. McCormack] was assigned to St. Joseph Seminary." (See excerpt above.) Later in the deposition (pp. 116-17), it is revealed that McCormack was made a dean despite a negative recommendation to Vicar General Rassas from Vicars for Priests Grace and Costello (Exhibit 117). Despite the advice of senior chancery personnel and McCormack's first arrest in August 2005, the priest became dean, and his superior was Bishop Manz. When McCormack was removed from ministry and his dean position in January 2006, the gap in Manz's dean line-up is reflected in the deanery structure shown below. Note that the excerpt above is from Exhibit 111 from the deposition. The photo of Manz and the Deanery Structure were not included in the deposition. They are reproduced here from the archdiocesan website.]

Q. I want to show you Exhibit 115.
A. Thank you.

Q. I'm showing you 115. This is a memo dated September 5, 2003.
        This would be two years before McCormack's arrest, Cardinal?
A. That's correct. [See our earlier note about this exhibit and its connection with Exhibit 128.]

[Clockwise from upper left: 1) St. Agatha's church with the rectory to the left; the sign on the church reads St. Agatha Catholic Church | Our Lady of the Westside School; 2) a close-up of the St. Agatha rectory; 3) Presentation church and the Presentation Campus of Our Lady of the Westside School; and 4) a close-up of the Presentation Campus doorway. McCormack pleaded guilty in 2007 to sexually abusing five boys, four at St. Agatha's and one at Presentation. One of those boys was being abused at the St. Agatha rectory when the archdiocese received a 2003 phone call complaining about boys in the rectory, as documented in Exhibit 115. That call was not returned by the three archdiocesan officials informed of it. McCormack also pleaded guilty to the 2003 sexual abuse of a Willowbrook boy whose mother's 9/15/05 phone call to the archdiocese is documented in Exhibit 124. McCormack was left in ministry at St. Agatha's for four months after that phone call and abused other boys. He had been arrested on 8/30/05 for the abuse of the Willowbrook boy but was released after refusing to answer questions. A senior archdiocesan official had talked with him on the phone twice and advised him "not to discuss the matter further with the police," as documented in Exhibit 118. Shortly after McCormack pleaded guilty on 7/2/07 and was sentenced to five years in prison, the archdiocese's list of persons alleging abuse by McCormack had reached at least 23, as documented in Exhibit 217. Many of these boys were from St. Agatha's.]

Q. And it concerns St. Agatha Parish and [page 112 begins] McCormack. And it is from a woman identified and it states I took a call from a woman who would not identify herself but gave me her phone number and it's stated in here, isn't it?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. So if somebody wanted to know who this woman was, it's not hard to find that out, is it?
A. They could have called that number, sir.

Q. Okay.
        The second paragraph says her chief concern is the number the teenage boys that are always in the rectory. This has been going on for more than a year and many others in the area are talking about it. It then goes on to state in the last paragraph, last weekend, Father McCormack took several boys to Minnesota for shopping, I believe.
        You would agree that the information in this memo from Mary Ann is suspicious of sexual abuse?
A. It raises a flag. It certainly does.

Q. And it should have been acted upon?
A. I believe it should have been.

Q. And wasn't?
A. I believe it was not. [page 113 begins]

Q. And Mary Ann Zrust, Z-R-U-S-T, is who?
A. At that time, she was the receptionist and secretary in the Vicars For Priest office.

Q. And that was Father Grace?
A. In 2003, I'm not sure that it was Father Grace.

Q. Well, it was the Vicar for Priest in any case?
A. Yes.

Q. There was -- there was more than one Vicar for Priest, though?
A. There were always two.

Q. So information of this type in this memo, Exhibit 115, certainly would have gone from the secretary to one of the vicars to whom she answered and it would have been either father -- in 2003, it would have been --

MR. ANDERSON: Am I in front of the camera?


THE WITNESS: That's okay.

MR. ANDERSON: I got to look -- I got to look at this chart here. I can tell you who -- 2003, Grace and Costello or Grace and Kaczorowski.

THE WITNESS: Yes. [page 114 begins]


Q. So it would -- had -- there at that time two Vicars for Priest?
A. Yes.

Q. And so whoever it was that she brought this to should have taken action on this and didn't, you know that now?
A. Yes. I regret deeply that action was not taken.

Q. Have you ever asked Grace, Kaczorowski or Costello why they didn't act on this action back then in 2003?

MR. KLENK: Objection, assumes that they were aware of it.

THE WITNESS: The anonymity, I think, perhaps might have entered into it but you really must have -- ask them. I can't speak for them. I'm sorry for it.


Q. My question to you, Cardinal, is did you ask them? They're answering to you. You're their boss. Did you ask them?
A. I inquired why there was no follow-up and -- [page 115 begins]

Q. And --
A. -- when I found this out, you know, after he was arrested.

Q. Who did you inquire you?
A. The Vicars for Priests.

Q. Who?
A. Father Grace.

Q. What was his explanation for his failure?
A. It was an anonymous report and in the context, got loss in a lot of other things, apparently.

Q. Did you say to him, Father Grace, giving the phone number is not anonymous. All you have to do is call her up and say, ma'am, what's your name? This is important information. Did you point that out to him?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. And his explanation was?
A. He made a mistake. He didn't follow-up.

Q. Father Grace or whoever it was that you confronted with this is -- is under the -- under the same requirements that you have been as a priest, that is, to keep certain matters secret and quiet to avoid scandal, correct? [page 116 begins]

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: That's -- that has nothing to do with this.


Q. Well, isn't the disclosure of sexual abuse by a priest scandalous if made public?
A. There is no accusation of sexual abuse here, sir.

Q. There's a suspicion of an accusation of sexual abuse here, isn't there?
A. I suppose a flag is raised as I said.

Q. So the Vicar for Clergy in 2003 in any case chose to keep it a secret and not report it to you or the civil authorities, correct?
A. I don't know that he chose to keep it a secret. What you're talking about here is behavior which is not sexual.

Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit 117 and you will see it is a memo of July 13, 2005 to Father Ed Grace and Father Vince Costello from then George Rassas now bishop.
        And Father Dan McCormack is being made a dean, correct? [page 117 begins]
A. Yes. That's in July as you'll notice. [As a dean, McCormack reported to Auxiliary Bishop John R. Manz. See our note on Manz. and the action he took because McCormack "missed kids" in 2000.]

Q. And look at the handwriting.
        Whose handwriting is that?
A. I can't tell you that, sir.

[Exhibit 117]

Q. As I read it, it says we suggested no because of boys in rectory letter.
        And you're the one that, ultimately, appointed McCormack dean?
A. That's correct. I didn't see this.

Q. And it's not because it wasn't available to you but it's because you didn't look or ask, correct?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question, compound.

THE WITNESS: The information wasn't given me and in every case, the question asked is is he vetted or isn't he --


Q. And --
A. The response came back yes.

Q. And Rassas didn't tell you, did he?
A. He didn't tell me about this, no.

Q. And he didn't tell you that it was suggested that he was not fit to be a dean because [page 118 begins] of boys in the rectory letter?
A. No, he did not tell me that.

Q. So he was made dean by you?
A. Yes, I appoint deans.

Q. And then you received information that McCormack was not fit and had been suspected of abusing boys, correct?
A. After his second arrest, I received this information that we're looking at now.

Q. And when did you rescind or did you ever rescind the appointment of Dan McCormack to his position as Dean of the Deanery?
A. When he's taken out of ministry, that appointment is automatically rescinded.

Q. And that -- and that was January, was it not?
A. That's correct.

Q. But you learned he had been arrested for criminal sexual conduct of a minor -- albeit released -- but arrested in October, correct?
A. Oh, I knew that at the end of August, sir.

Q. And in August when you knew that, you chose to keep him in the position of Dean of the Deanery as well as the ministry? [page 119 begins]
A. The police let him go, sir. He was innocent as far as they were concerned. We conducted an investigation on the presumption of innocence. He was freed with the civil authorities['] full knowledge.

Q. Cardinal, who told you that Dan McCormack was innocent?
A. The release to me meant they couldn't charge him and they had reason to believe that he was not a danger to children.

Q. You've never really believed in the zero tolerance policy, have you?
A. I beg your pardon, sir, but that's entirely inaccurate. I believe it.

Q. I want to direct your attention to 118. This is to the file from Ed Grace. It's dated August 30, '05. It states I was called at Queen of All Saints rectory by Reverend McCormack. He informed me that he was being questioned by police at the local police station, correct?
A. That's what it says, yes, sir.

Q. Concerning an allegation made against him by the mother of a ten-year-old boy. He put the detective on the phone to explain the circumstances [page 120 begins] to me, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Then it goes on to say in the last sentence of the next paragraph, Father McCormack succeeded in lowering the boy's pants and fondling -- fondled his genitalia.
        That's what it states, doesn't it?
A. It does.

Q. It goes on to state in the next sentence detective found the boy's story credible?
A. It does say that.

Q. It goes on to state I asked if Father McCormack was being detained. He said not at that time. And it is Father Grace that says I then suggested that given the hour, Father be sent home and return the next morning with an attorney to continue the interview.
        Cardinal, was it Father Grace's job as Vicar for Priests to suggest to the police that McCormack be released and brought home?
A. Not as Vicar for Priests, no.

Q. I mean, Father Grace is out of line here, isn't he?
A. I think it was very imprudent. [page 121 begins]

Q. And it is also your policy and your expectation that the Vicar for Priests will arrange to get the attorney for the -- the -- the accused child abusing cleric?
A. That does happen sometimes to be sure that a process is fair. We see to it that lay people, priests, others, even those who bring an accusation have civil counsel.

Q. It's also -- is it your instruction as cardinal to -- to Father Grace and others under your control to -- excuse me.
        Is it also -- let me ask you this, the next sentence says I then spoke with Dan again and advised him not to discuss the matter further with the police.
        So as I read this and as I just read it to you, Father Grace, your Vicar for Priests, is telling Dan McCormack don't talk to the police, don't tell them that you've abused these kids, don't tell them anything.
        Is that something that you approve of?

MR. KLENK: I object to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: No. That's not part of his [page 122 begins] responsibilities.


Q. It looks to me, Cardinal, like this is being -- Father Grace is trying to keep this secret and avoid scandal.
        Does it look that way to you?
A. It's a public arrest, sir. It's not a secret.

Q. I know but right now, the only ones that know are Father Grace, Father Dan and the police, right?
A. At this point, yes.

Q. So the parishioners and the community of faith don't know --
A. Not at this point.

Q. -- about this arrest, do they?
A. I don't know whether it was ever reported in the police register. I really don't know that.

Q. Well, you do know that Father Dan did get a lawyer and that was Pat Reardon because it's reflected in this memo?
A. Yes.

Q. The Archdiocese hired him, right?
A. We pay for a lawyer until there is a [page 123 begins] conviction or an arrest, in fact.

Q. Isn't it -- isn't it Father Grace's job to first protect the children instead of protecting the priest when the priest is accused of hurting children?
A. It is. I can't believe that he believed Father McCormack was a danger. He would have told me, I think, if he really believed that but you're right, the first obligation is to protect children. That's the obligation of the police as well, I believe.

Q. And it was the detective in this memo that found the boy's story credible. So what Father Grace believed, whether Dan was innocent or not, is really -- is not important.
        What the detective found is, though, isn't it?
A. I didn't see this memo until after the second arrest. In fact, until just a little while ago. Certainly, the witness of the detective had I received that would have meant the sequence of events was very different.

Q. Going to the second page of this memo, it states 9:30 a.m., I met with Dan at our office. [page 124 begins]
        That is at the office of the Archdiocese that is of the Vicar for Clergy?
A. That's correct.

Q. That's your office?
A. No. It's the office of the Vicar for Priests.

Q. It's in your offices, though, isn't it?
A. No. It's physically in another building.

Q. Oh, okay.
        It states I asked Dan to tell what the police had said to him and what he had said to them but nothing else and the but nothing else is in caps. Now, I read this to be recording that Grace is asking him, that is, McCormack, to tell him what he had told the police.
        How do you read this? What is -- what is Grace doing here and recording?

MR. KLENK: Object to the form of the question, the speech followed by the question.


Q. Let me put in this way, why is this in caps?
A. I don't know why it's in caps.

Q. Grace is telling McCormack to keep his [page 125 begins] mouth shut so that he doesn't get in trouble, so the Archdiocese doesn't get in trouble, right?
A. I don't believe that's true.

Q. Well, then what is true?
A. I think perhaps Father Grace's training as a defense attorney was instrumental in his reacting in this way but that's just conjecture on my part, sir.

Q. Wasn't it your job to make sure that Father Grace and other vicars and other leaders and educators in this Archdiocese were trained in the protection of children?
A. And they have been trained.

Q. And, again, at the next -- three paragraphs down, it -- it reiterates the detectives -- there are multiple detectives here -- witnessed the interview and found the boy credible. Now we have more than one detective. We have multiple detectives witnessing an interview of the child who's been abused and finding the child to be credible; is that right?

MR. KLENK: I object to the speech. I object to the form of the question. [page 126 begins]


Q. Is that the way you read this, Cardinal?
A. I read this a couple of weeks ago. I deeply regret that they, themselves, didn't keep Dan in custody.

Q. Cardinal, did you read this a couple weeks ago for the first time in prepping for this deposition?
A. It was one of the documents given to me, yes.

Q. So that was the first time you've seen this was in preparation for this today, right?
A. So far as I can recall.

Q. So now having seen this, is this going to cause you to do anything different in the future either as it pertains to Grace and the others in your charge?
A. I've already spoken to Father Grace about the responsibilities as the Vicar for Priests being to protect children and to search for the truth, not to -- to protect a priest as if he were a client.

Q. Look at this memo at -- at the bottom, it says today, 8-31-05. It says I contacted Pat [page 127 begins] Reardon and arranged for him to represent Dan.
        So he's contacting the lawyer and making arrangements for Dan McCormack to have a lawyer, right?
A. Yes, but there, that sometimes is the case.

Q. That's in accord with your policy?
A. When people need defense in a process, whether it's canonical or civil, for the sake of fairness, we often suggest that it might be good to have a lawyer.

Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit 124.
A. Thank you.

Q. I'm not going to -- I'm not going to -- this is Exhibit 124 and this is dated September 15, 2005, two weeks after the police find the allegation credible. And I'm not going to ask you to read this because I know you've had a chance to look at some of these things but my question to you is there were reports in the media, information disseminated by your office that the woman referred to here?
A. Yes.

Q. And we know who we're talking about here [page 128 begins] as the mother, don't we?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay.
        It's -- it's reported in the media and claimed that the family wouldn't come forward and that's why no action was taken responsive to her report.
        Did you make that claim to the media?
A. That was my understanding at the time. I did not have this memo.

Q. And who lead you to believe that at the time you made that representation to the public in the media?
A. Several times I kept asking whether or not we could pursue this case and do the investigation and each time, I was told they're still trying to the get the allegation together.

Q. Who was that?
A. Well, the people whom we've mentioned. Sometimes it was the Vicar for Priests or the lawyer or Leah McCluskey even was talking about the difficulties of getting an allegation in form to be tried by the Review Board.

Q. So this exhibit and other information, [page 129 begins] through it, you kind of realized you were misinformed then, correct?
A. I was not adequately informed.

Q. Exhibit 126 is from the Review Board dated January 28, 2006.
        This is addressed to you, Cardinal, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And it's from -- is this all the members of the Review Board --
A. I believe it's --

Q. -- appointed by you?
A. Yes, all the members at that time. Perhaps there's one missing.

Q. In any case, you received this.
        And did you know that you were going to receive this before it was sent?
A. No, I did not.

[In this excerpt from Exhibit 126, the quotations are from Cop: 'Why Didn't You Yank Him Out?' by Cathleen Falsani, Chicago Sun-Times, January 25, 2006; and Despite Accusation, Priest Kept His Job, by Jeff Coen and Charles Sheehan, Chicago Tribune, January 24, 2006. Below on page 133 of the deposition, the quotations are incorrectly identified as Cardinal George's words. The first quotation paraphrases a statement by Chancellor Jimmy Lago, and the second paraphrases a statement by Colleen Dolan, archdiocesan spokesperson.]

Q. It states Dear Cardinal George, I'm writing this letter on behalf of the Professional Review Board members who participated in January 24, 2006 teleconference regarding Father Daniel McCormack.
        It looks like the only one that was on [page 130 begins] the -- the Review Board was your delegate and that was Father Smilanic?
A. Smilanic.

Q. Smilanic?
A. Yes.

Q. Did he choose not to sign on to this purposefully or what?
A. I have no idea. I doubt that. I have no idea.

Q. The second paragraph --
A. He is not technically a member of the Review Board.

Q. He is the delegate?
A. Yes.

Q. In any case, is he the only one that's on the Board that's not a signer of this letter?
A. I thought there were eight members of the Board but perhaps not at this time.

Q. Well --
A. This is the Board speaking.

Q. Okay.
        The Board says in the second paragraph we are extremely dismayed that yet another claim of clerical sexual abuse of a minor has been brought [page 131 begins] to our attention and that action was not taken in a timely manner.
        What is your response to this?
A. I am very dismayed myself. This is terrible that more precipitous action was not taken so I share that concern. I understand it and I share it as my own as well.

Q. Have you ever written a letter responding to this letter to the Board?
A. I went and talked to them personally for several hours.

Q. When they state we are extremely dismayed that yet another claim.
        Yet another claim is referring to what?
A. I presume the Bennett case.

Q. And this one is first referring to the McCormack case, is it not?
A. It is.

Q. And then it's referring back to another claim?
A. Yes.

Q. And that refers back to Bennett?
A. Well, they didn't make that explicit but I presume in the context that's the case. I wouldn't [page 132 begins] know what other case they could possibly be talking about.

Q. Well, this is before Joseph Bennett was removed from ministry by you, Cardinal.
A. He was removed around this same time and we changed our policy to remove priests not after they offended but even while they were being investigated.

Q. In any case, on January 28, 2006, Father Bennett had not been removed from ministry, correct?
A. He was removed around that time. I'm not sure of the exact date, either just before or just after.

Q. It was February 1st, I think, that he was removed. That was after this letter was sent to you after the St. Agatha meeting.
A. If it was --

Q. Does that sound correct?
A. Yes, he was removed just after the St. Agatha meeting.

Q. And --
A. I'm not sure when this letter was received but. [page 133 begins]

Q. The -- the next paragraph goes on to talk about the media statements being made by you wherein you are quoted, correct?
A. I presume that's a quote from me. [The quotations are paraphrases of statements by Jimmy Lago and Colleen Dolan. See note above.]

Q. And then it goes on in the next paragraph to talk about the information pertaining to the Review Board and criminal investigation, correct?
A. Which paragraph, please, sir?

Q. Well, third paragraph is -- I'll -- I'll direct your attention to the fourth paragraph and that states our recommendations were presented to you on October 17, 2005 at the post-Review Board meeting.
        What is a post-Review Board meeting?
A. It's the meeting that I have with the head of the Office For Investigation, Leah McCluskey, and with my representative for canonical process to the Review Board, Father Smilanic. They come to see me after the Board to explain what the Board said.

Q. Okay.
        The Board then writes to you, you chose not to act on them and we now have a situation that reflects very poorly and unfairly on the Board. [page 134 begins]
        When they write that, you chose not to act on their recommendations, that is correct, isn't it?
A. That is --

Q. That was a choice that you made?
A. That is correct.

Q. Do you take responsibility for that?
A. Of course I must take responsibility for it.

Q. How many kids did McCormack abuse after you made that choice?
A. I believe that's being investigated now but at least one and probably two that I know of and there may be others.

Q. How many kids did Father Joseph Bennett have -- are suspected of -- of having abused and that have come forward after -- after you chose not to act?

MR. KLENK: Object to the form of question, compound.

THE WITNESS: If you mean how many allegations have been made against Joseph Bennett, currently, none. There were none made after the Review Board had its finding. And, again, they didn't have a [page 135 begins] finding here because they hadn't considered all the evidence as they themselves say, it is true there was not a formal presentation of this allegation.


Q. At the last -- next paragraph, the last sentence states and they write to you we take offense at the lack of truth telling.
A. I was mistaken in what I said. I didn't realize that they had as much information as they did. They still didn't have enough to pursue the allegation as they say.

Q. Well, they use the words lack of truth telling which is equivalent of a lie.
A. If I --

Q. Cardinal, let me ask the question.
A. I'm sorry. Please. I'm sorry.

Q. You're saying it was a mistake. They're saying it was a lie?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Right?
A. I presume they are.

Q. Exhibit 127 is DCSF pertaining to McCormack?
A. Uh-huh. [page 136 begins]

Q. And you've seen this now, have you not.
A. No, I've never seen this before. This is the first time.

Q. Well, it -- it means that -- it says that sexual molestation by McCormack at the second -- third paragraph as indicated finding means the DCSF investigation found credible evidence of child abuse, neglect. Credible evidence means that the facts gathered during the investigation would lead a reasonable person to believe that a child was abused or neglected.
        You didn't know that DCFS has ever made such a finding?
A. No, I did not. With all my heart, I wish they had given me this on December the 14th. They gave it to Dan McCormack. Had they given it to me, he would have been out immediately.

[Excerpt of Exhibit 127. This notice that McCormack was being listed as having molested a child was sent to him on December 14, 2005. It was stamped by the Chicago archdiocese as received on January 31, 2006, after McCormack's second arrest. In this deposition, Cardinal George states that he first saw this document two years later, on January 30, 2008, when he was deposed.]

Q. Father Grace communicated to you that he had been arrested and that the police had found the allegations to have been credible enough to -- to arrest and interrogate him, correct?

MR. KLENK: Objection, asked and answered.

THE WITNESS: And let him go. [page 137 begins]


Q. They let him go and so did you.
        You kept him in the ministry, didn't you?
A. I did it because there was no evidence.

Q. Well, how can you say that you would have acted on DCSF if you would have known it when you didn't act when Father Grace advised you of the arrest?
A. This is entirely different. They have a judgment there that he did, in fact, abuse a child. These are the people whom the State puts in charge of children. If they say that, then, obviously, this is the case.

Q. Didn't you put the Review Board to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse so they can make recommendations to you?
A. I did.

Q. And didn't they recommend Dan McCormack's removal from ministry?
A. They didn't come to a conclusion that he had done it.

Q. Didn't they recommend his removal from ministry, Cardinal?
A. They advised that, yes. [page 138 begins]

Q. They recommended it?
A. They advised it. They advised it.

Q. And you didn't follow it --

MR. KLENK: Please don't point at him.


Q. -- correct?
A. I couldn't follow it, sir.

Q. What kept you from following it?
A. There was no evidence. The investigation hadn't been completed.
        They completed the investigation.

Q. I'm showing you what's been marked 128. This is Archdiocese of Chicago memorandum from McCluskey regarding McCormack January 19, 2006 and it's a brief question but the first sentence says a meeting was held this afternoon in John O'Malley's office regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct made by blank against Dan McCormack. The following was present for the meeting, John O'Malley, Revered Grace, Diane Dunnagan, Dan Fitzgerald, Ralph Bonaccorsi and Dan Smilanic.
        Did you call this meeting?
A. No, I did not.

Q. And what did you understand the purpose of [page 139 begins] it to have been?
A. As you can see from the people to whom this is copied, these are the people who are the principals in getting the allegations together and pursuing them with the Review Board so that a final recommendation can be given to me.

Q. At the second page, you'll see at the first sentence it says Mr. Fitzgerald determined from officials at presentation campus that Father McCormack has been teaching a math class for four days per week at the school since September 2005.
        That's when he's supposed to be on monitoring, isn't he?
A. Yes, and restricted.

Q. Yeah.
        And then it says a parent named blank sat in Father McCormack's classes, quote, the first few, weeks, end quote. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that Father McCormack was also coaching boys -- the boys basketball team at this school until yesterday when Father Grace directed McCormack to cease contact with the team.
        So that was he was also coaching while [page 140 begins] under these so-called restrictions, right?
A. Yes, that's right.

Q. The last sentence of this says it was reported to Mr. Fitzgerald that Father McCormack took the boys to Dave and Busters.
        That's a bar and restaurant?

MR. KLENK: Objection, form of the -- foundation.


Q. Well, it says an arcade, restaurant and bar and then returned them home at the end of the day.
A. That's what it says.

Q. So just to get this right, he's under restriction while he's alleged to have been doing this as recorded in this memo, right?
A. That's correct.

Q. Under monitoring, right?
A. That's correct.

Q. And he's been teaching since September of 2005?
A. That's correct, unfortunately.

Q. And on monitoring since 2003 -- since September of 2005? [page 141 begins]

A. 2005, I believe. After the first arrest.

Q. Were you aware that Tom Walsh was supposed to have been the monitor for --
A. Yes. I asked who the monitor was and he is -- was the monitor.

Q. Were you also aware that Tom Walsh was at another parish and he communicated that it was difficult for him to be McCormack's monitor because he's at another parish?
A. I think, sir, that information isn't correct. He was a resident at St. Agatha's. That was my understanding but maybe --

Q. Tom Walsh -- Tom Walsh was living there but he wasn't working there. He was gone every day from --
A. I see.

Q. -- 2:00 to 11:00, wasn't he?
A. Yes. He was responsible for other pastoral duties.

Q. So if he's serving another faith community, another pastorate, how can he be monitoring McCormack?
A. I'm not supervising the monitoring but monitor doesn't mean you live with them every [page 142 begins] moment of the day, I believe.

Q. I'm referring you to the Defenbaugh report [Exhibit 106] page 21.
        Would you look back at that for a moment, Cardinal?
A. Sure. I think it's here. Uh-huh.

Q. And I'm going to -- have you found 21 yet?
A. I have. Thank you.

Q. Okay.
        This would be the first paragraph, the first full sentence. I'm going to read it and then ask you a question. The priest assigned to monitor advised the Vicar for Priests that he would not be able to actively monitor Father McCormack's activities as this priest was assigned full-time ministry at another church, was a teacher and coach at a different school and would be away from the rectory over the Labor Day weekend visiting family.
        It goes on to state the priest was advised by the Vicar for Priests to monitor Father McCormack when the priest was around the rectory and to advise that the priest was going to be away from the rectory for an extended period of time such as a period of absence of a week or more. [page 143 begins]
        It says the only follow-up this priest received was possibly one to two telephone calls from the Vicar for Priests within the first two weeks of this, quote, monitoring, unquote, and possibly one face to face meeting with the Vicar for Priests?
        Is this adequate monitoring?
A. No, of course not, sir.

Q. And Father Grace knew all this?
A. Yes.

Q. Let's go back to the Defenbaugh exhibit again and at page four. I'm now going to ask you about Father Bennett.
A. Sure.

Q. And look at page four, the last paragraph in it, it states the audit found that delays in removing Father Bennett from his pastoral duties were primarily the result of Father Bennett not having been provided canonical counsel. However, this mere fact is not sufficient for not having removed Father Bennett when the Review Board made its recommendation to Cardinal George.
        Now, it then states this action still could have been taken while awaiting advice of [page 144 begins] canonical counsel. The Cardinal should immediately remove a priest or deacon from pastoral duties as soon as there is a belief that children could be at risk and particularly at the recommendation of removal by the PRA or Review Board.
        Do you agree with this finding?
A. We have changed our policy because I agree with that last sentence. At the time, protocols did not permit me to remove someone who had not been canonically counseled. The process was not complete.

Q. And it is correct as stated here that you didn't remove Father Joseph Bennett immediately upon receiving information --
A. I did in the sense that I agreed to remove him. Then when he came to me and said that he had never had a chance to mount a defense, he had no counsel, I said then the form of the investigation is not complete and we must give him the counsel and permit him to defend himself.

Q. Is it -- is it because he didn't have counsel or because you didn't believe that Bennett had committed the offense?
A. Because he didn't have counsel. The [page 145 begins] process was not complete.

Q. Simply because of that?
A. The process was not complete, sir.

Q. And in the case of Joseph Bennett, you didn't follow the recommendations they made to you just as you did not follow the recommendation that they had made to you involving McCormack?
A. Without counsel, the recommendation was premature.

Q. So the counsel is to -- that is the canon lawyer for Bennett, the one accused, right?
A. He had no chance to defend himself against the accusation. It's an incomplete process.

Q. It's even more incomplete if it's not protecting the children, isn't it?
A. You --

Q. It sounds, Cardinal -- let me -- let me just ask you this, it sounds like you're more concerned about the rights of -- of the accused priests than you are the rights and the safety of the children out there. That's what it sounds like to me.
        What do you say to that?
A. I say you're mistaken, sir. It is the [page 146 begins] protection of the children that is always primary but within a process that presupposes some fairness.

Q. So is this zero tolerance?
A. Yes, it's zero tolerance. Once there is an allegation that is proven to the certain threshold of reasonable cause to suspect, a priest is removed and not returned.

Q. Look at Exhibit 134.
A. May I see that, please? Thank you.

Q. This is from Father Dan Smilanic, the delegate on the Board, among other things. Your delegate to the Board to McCluskey. It's dated January 24, 2006.
        And have you reviewed this?
A. No. I'm sorry. I didn't see this before.

Q. My reading of this is that canon law and the Archdiocese policies does not require a former -- a formal allegation from the victim for you to remove a priest or initiate the Review Board process.

MR. KLENK: Objection, compound question.


Q. My question to you is is that correct? [page 147 begins]
A. It's correct that we changed our policies in the light of the McCormack allegations to permit this kind of action to happen more quickly.

Q. Isn't it correct, Cardinal, that you have the power as the Ordinary on suspicion or for any reason to remove a cleric from an assignment on a phone call if you feel that there is a -- for any reason?
A. No, sir, that's not correct.

Q. That's not correct?
A. No.

Q. Okay.
        Is it correct to say that you have the power as the Ordinary to remove a priest from an assignment pending an investigation by the Review Board if there is a possible risk of harm to the community of faith?
A. Yes, with a process that would follow.

Q. But you don't have to have the process go forward. You can remove them while -- while the process is underway, can't you?
A. With one exception, sexual abuse of a minor. And since the process was formalized and the discretion of the bishop was taken away by the [page 148 begins] norms, the process was more delineated. A bishop didn't have the authority in these cases that he had in other cases as a result of the special norms.

Q. Cardinal, I might have misheard you but if I heard you -- if I think I heard you correctly, I think you said the norms took away your power to remove Bennett or McCormack from their assignment pending an investigation?
A. That's correct.

Q. So in other allegations except for sexual abuse you can do that but with sexual abuse, you couldn't? Is that what you're saying?
A. The discretionary power of the Ordinary was reduced by the Holy See in these cases.

Q. So, in effect, it's the Holy See's fault that you didn't remove McCormack and Bennett right away?

MR. KLENK: Objection -- I object to the question.

THE WITNESS: No, sir, you can't say that.


Q. Well, you're saying that it was the influence of the See upon -- upon the charter that [page 149 begins] prevented you from removing Bennett and McCormack, aren't you?
A. The processes that were given us to guarantee one strike, you're out, zero tolerance, also put in place some precautions to be sure that the allegation was substantiated. [Cardinal George is referring to Norm 6 of the revised Norms (Norm 7 of the original Norms).]

MR. KLENK: Do you want to take a five-minute break?


MR. ANDERSON: Let's do it. Let's take a five minute.


THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record at 2:08 p.m. This is the end of videotape number three.

(A short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at 2:21 p.m. This is the beginning of videotape number four.


Q. Cardinal, sometimes I -- I might be raising my voice here. I'm not trying to be rude.
        You understand that, sir?
A. I understand that, sir. [page 150 begins]

Q. I do get upset when I look at some of these documents and -- and some of these you looked at for the first time too.
        Do you feel upset when you look at some of this stuff as we've gone through it today?
A. What upsets me is the record of abuse, no matter when it happened. I truly do get upset about that as do you. That I haven't seen a particular administrative document, perhaps it would have been better had I seen it but whatever the reason, it wasn't shared. Unless it's something that gave me information that I should have had, then I -- then I get upset.

Q. Well, that the police found this to be credible on McCormack, things like that and --
A. I wish -- if that memo saying credible had come to me, I think I would have reacted differently, sir, but the police let him go. How would the police let someone go that they thought was a threat?

Q. Because Father Grace urged them to let him go. That's why they let him go. Father Grace said please let him come back tomorrow. [See Exhibit 118.]

MR. KLENK: Objection, we don't need to have an [page 151 begins] argument here with the witness.


THE WITNESS: I don't think that's accurate, sir. That isn't how I read it.

MR. KLENK: We want to ask fair questions here.

MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Let's move on. Let's move on.


Q. Let's look at Exhibit 54.
        This pertains to Father Bennett?
A. Yes, sir.

[Rev. Joseph R. Bennett, in a photo published in 1980.]

Q. And the date of this is November 12, 2002. It's a letter to Leah McCluskey and to the attorney -- James Serritella, the attorney for the Archdiocese, from Tom Fleischmann, an attorney for an individual who had reported to the Archdiocese that Bennett had abused a child?
A. Yes.

Q. And have you ever seen this before?
A. No, I haven't seen these letters here.

[Exhibit 54 documents an allegation received by the archdiocese in 2002 that Bennett sexually abused a boy beginning at age 15 in three parishes where Bennett was assigned in the mid- to late 1970s: 1) Our Lady of the Ridge in Chicago Ridge (assigned 1974-76); 2) St. Joseph and St. Anne's in Chicago (1976-78); and 3) St. Christina's in Chicago (1978-80). The third parish is not named in the exhibit but is identified by neighborhood. While Bennett was at St. Joseph and St. Anne's, he also worked as a chaplain at the Cook County Jail.]

Q. When you look at this at the third paragraph, you will see in this letter that enclosed is the report of the polygraph examination conducted by Steven Kirby and -- and attached to it [page 152 begins] was the findings in the polygraph that if you want to look, you may but I'll represent to you that the polygraph operator found that the victim was telling the truth when reporting sexual abuse by Bennett.
        My question to you is, Cardinal, did you ever know that -- that this victim had taken and passed a polygraph?
A. I don't recall ever having got that -- that information given to me.

Q. So this is the first time that you've heard that?
A. I believe so, sir.

Q. Is this also the first time that you're aware of this allegation? This involves a boy and his -- possibly his brother.
A. This came to me, as I recall, after the prior allegation that took such a long time to put together.

[Allegations of Sexual Abuse Committed by Rev. Joseph R. Bennett
As Documented in the George Deposition and Exhibits

This table was created by to show the Bennett sexual abuse allegations that are documented and discussed in the deposition of Cardinal Francis E. George. Allegations for which the years are specified or can be determined are given first in the table, which also displays the assignments during which Bennett is alleged to have abused. Then we list the allegations that do not specify the year of the abuse.

This table shows that the deposition itemizes 15 alleged victims of Rev. Joseph E. Bennett. In his questions, attorney Anderson conservatively counts 12 alleged victims. But he does not include the Filipino boy who Bennett allegedly stated was a victim (see Exhibit 54). Also, Anderson counted the allegation in Exhibit 94 as a single allegation, but the exhibit states that Bennett is accused of abusing "children." Thus Exhibit 94 alleges at least two victims and perhaps more. Exhibit 98 appears to mention two allegations, not one.

In his deposition, Cardinal George discussed with archdiocesan attorney Klenk when the allegations of abuse occurred in Bennett's career (pp. 290-91):

Q. What is your understanding of the time period when Father Bennett was allegedly involved in abusing minors?
A. This incident says from 1963 to 1964.

Q. Do you have any understanding of when other incidents in the allegations that were shown you?
A. I don't recall in detail but it was around the same time period or perhaps a few years later.

But in fact, as this table shows, Bennett is accused of abuse in the seminary and during 7 of his 9 assignments as a priest. The earliest alleged abuse occurred in 1963; the latest sometime between 1997 and 2006.

Exhibit Date Alleg-
Place of Assignment Years
Other Information
1 F 1963-64 86 2/6/06 Mundelein Seminary ?-1966 Alleged victim was 8-9 years old. Alleged abuse included oral sex. This allegation seems to be related to allegations 12 and 13 in Exhibit 94, but redactions make the connection difficult to establish.
2 M mid-1960s 90 2/8/06

Mundelein Seminary
St. John de la Salle

For general descriptions of Bennett's behavior at St. John's and his connection with the Audy Home, see the statements by two priests: Exhibits 100 and 91.

Alleged victim was 11-12 years old, an inmate at Audy Home and then altar boy at St. John's, where Bennett "grabbed my privates" and tried to get him to stay overnight at the rectory. "Other young males were involved" with Bennett at St. John's. The boy, now a disabled man, was invited to Bennett's 1966 ordination. States he was raped at Audy.
3 M mid- to late 1960s 89 2/9/06 St. John de la Salle 1966-74 The brief report states that the alleged victim was 54 years old in 2006. He would have been 14 years old in 1966, when Bennett came to St. John de la Salle. The report mentions a basement where the altar boy was allegedly abused.
1967-69 211, 64, 72, 73, 75 12/3/03 St. John de la Salle 1966-74 Alleged victims were sisters. Number 4was 7-9 years old. A nun at the parish is alleged to have been "a part of the abuse." Review Board advised George on 10/15/05 that Bennett be withdrawn from ministry. George postponed this action until 1/31/06.


1976-78 54, 59 by

Our Lady of the Ridge, Chicago Ridge
St. Joseph & St. Anne
Cook County Jail
St. Christina's

Victim 5 alleges abuse during the time Bennett was in these 4 assignments. It is not clear from the polygraph report whether Bennett was at all these assignments during the alleged abuse of Victims 6 and 7.

Abuse includes Bennett's performing oral sex on alleged Victim 6more than 20 times, starting when the boy was age 15 and doing yard work at the rectory. Although the alleged victim passed a polygraph test on 10/14/04, the Review Board found "no reasonable cause to suspect that the misconduct occurred." Number 6states that his brother, Number 7, said he was fondled by Bennett. Number 6also states that Bennett said he (Bennett) was engaging in sexual activity with a Filipino boy, who is Number 8on this list.
9 ? 1986 82, Depo p. 210 2/2/06 St. John de la Salle 1980-89 Cardinal George states in his deposition that this allegation, received by the archdiocese in 2006, is of abuse "reported to have occurred 20 years earlier," i.e., in 1986, when Bennett was back at St. John de la Salle, now as pastor.
          St. Agnes
Our Lady of Fatima
The deposition exhibits do not mention any allegations of abuse at these two parishes where Bennett was pastor.
10 ? between
93 2/2/06 Holy Ghost, South Holland 1997-2006 On 3/23/06 the archdiocese informed Shauna Boliker, Assistant State's Attorney of Cook County, that DCFS had informed the archdiocese of this allegation on 2/2/06. "The Archdiocese is not conducting an inquiry as DCFS is investigating."
11     92 2/24/06      
    94 5/3/06     The exhibit states that "children" were allegedly abused by Bennett. We list 2 in this table, but the number might be higher. These allegations seem to be related to allegation 1 in Exhibit 86, but redactions make the connection difficult to establish.


  98 by
    This memo mentions two apparently new allegations. The first was "just presented" to Bennett on 6/27/06 and will be up for Initial Review at the Review Board's next meeting. The second alleged victim was named by DCFS investigator Brigitte Broadway on 6/28/06 and was "not known to the Archdiocese of Chicago as a reported victim of Fr. Bennett."
Note: We remind our readers that the U.S. legal system presumes that a person accused of or charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, individuals who may be defendants in civil actions are presumed not to be liable for such claims unless a plaintiff proves otherwise. Admissions of guilt or liability are not typically a part of civil or private settlements.]

Q. I'm showing you 55. This is from Leah McCluskey, copy to Bishop Paprocki, Father Kaczorowski, Bonaccorsi, Lagges [sic; should read Leggdas] and O'Malley and to you?
A. Yes. [page 153 begins]

Q. What is this?
A. This is the report that there was insufficient information to make a finding of reasonable cause to suspect that Father Joseph Bennett engaged in sexual conduct with a minor so they're rejected the allegation. So, evidently, this was 2003. I knew of the allegation but I probably dismissed it from my mind because it was found not to be true at that time.

Q. Where does it say that the allegation was found not to be true?
A. There's insufficient information to make a finding of reasonable cause to suspect that Father Joseph Bennett engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor.

Q. So that you -- you interpreted this language to mean it was not true?
A. That is the language to say that they don't believe the incident took place.

Q. You'll see at the third paragraph in a vote of five to one, the Board recommends three things. In other words, after saying there's insufficient information to make a finding, they're still making a recommendation to you, right? [page 154 begins]
A. Yes.

Q. And the third thing in their recommendation is that the PFRA contact Father Kaczorowski, then Vicar for Priests
A. Yes.

Q. -- to determine who is monitoring Joseph Bennett --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- and to ensure it is not Father Leonard Dubi, D-U-B-I?
A. Yes.

[Rev. Leonard Dubi in a photo published in 1980.]

Q. In fact, Father Leonard Dubi was his monitor then, wasn't he?
A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, Father Dubi continued to be his monitor notwithstanding this recommendation in January of 2003?
A. That is correct.

Q. Why didn't they want him to be the monitor of Bennett?

MR. KLENK: Objection, foundation.

MR. ANDERSON: You can answer.

THE WITNESS: I can't answer for them. [page 155 begins]


Q. What do you think or know?
A. We --

MR. KLENK: Objection. You're not interested in guesses.

MR. ANDERSON: No. I'm asking what he knows.

MR. KLENK: Fair enough.

THE WITNESS: What -- what --

MR. ANDERSON: It's a recommendation to him.
        Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: What we knew was that Father Dubi was skilled in the 12 steps spirituality and, therefore, sensitive to self-deception and was in daily contact with Joe Bennett and, therefore, would do a good job as monitor which is why I presume that he was retained as monitor.


Q. Well, they're recommending against him being monitored -- to -- to ensure that he's not being the monitor?
A. Yes. I'm not sure they had that information about Father Dubi.

Q. So are you saying that Father Dubi would be good to be monitoring him notwithstanding the [page 156 begins] recommendation of the Board?
A. On the information that this man was in daily contact with him and was very honest and would call people to account, we thought that he would be a good monitor --

Q. Okay.
        So you made --
A. -- and it seems he was.

Q. You made the decision notwithstanding the recommendation of the Board to allow Dubi to continue to monitor -- monitor --
A. Well, he was just beginning to be monitored at this time. So evidently, they felt that even though they didn't think he had done it, nonetheless, they wanted to put precautions in place.

Q. Let me just ask you this, Cardinal
A. Sure.

Q. -- did you ask anybody on the Board why the Board didn't want Dubi to be monitoring Joseph Bennett?
A. I would have asked Leah McCluskey because that's my contact with the Board.

Q. What answer did you get if you did ask [page 157 begins] her?
A. I'm sorry. I don't recall that conversation. I recall a later conversation where we decided to name Dubi.

Q. If the Board found the allegation, as you believe, not to be true, why would they be monitoring him at all?
A. Because I think they were being super cautious which is truly wonderful.

Q. But you chose not be super cautious and continue him in ministry?
A. No. We monitored as the review -- as the Review Board recommended.

Q. And chose to have Dubi monitor him?
A. Dubi was a very good monitor.

Q. Okay.
        Look at 57. February 9, 2003 letter to Kaczorowski, then Vicar for Priests, from Joe Bennett.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. This is during the investigation of the first allegation made against Bennett?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. This, in fact, confirms that Dubi is [page 158 begins] continuing to be the monitor?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And if you read the first paragraph, you'll say that -- you'll see that he's going on vacation.
        It looks like he's traveling to Mexico, right?
A. That's correct, with his monitor.

Q. And leaving the country with him?
A. He's --

Q. With the monitor, is that -- is that the way you read it?
A. That's what it says, doesn't it? I believe.

Q. Okay.
        Look at 59.
A. May I see that, please?

Q. Were you aware, Cardinal, that Dubi and Bennett owned property together?
A. No, I was not at this time. I think I've heard that since but I'm not sure of that.

Q. You're aware that they were very close?
A. They were friends.

Q. And that's why you thought that Dubi was a [page 159 begins] good monitor for him?
A. That they were in good contact and Dubi is a very honest man with himself and others.

Q. Showing you Exhibit 59. It's April 28, 2003. This is another letter to you from Leah McCluskey cc'd to the same five individuals involving Bennett. In here, a decision is made and you'll see at the second paragraph, in a unanimous seven to one vote, the Board recommends that there is no reasonable cause to suspect that the misconduct occurred?
A. That's correct.

Q. To your knowledge, how many times has the Board reached that conclusion in connection with allegations of sexual abuse of priests while you've been Archbishop Cardinal?
A. I can't answer that question with any exactitude. I don't know. I've never counted it.

Q. Are you able to say if it's more than ten?
A. I'm sorry. I can't say that.

Q. And have you ever after they made such a determination as was made on April 28, 2003 ever on your own made an effort to review what they had done and to get additional information on your own [page 160 begins] to -- to -- to make sure that the kids may be safe?

MR. KLENK: Objection, that question is way overbroad. With respect to a -- to a specific incident?

MR. ANDERSON: Let me interrupt then. Let me.


Q. Have you ever after the Board made a finding of no cause to believe, such as this, asked them to continue the Investigation or to reopen it?
A. If new information came to me that I didn't think they had, I would do that.

Q. Well, have you ever done it?
A. No case comes to mind, sir.
        I do read what they report. They're very careful.

Q. I'm directing your attention to Exhibit 211.
        And this is memorandum, December 19, 2003 but it -- it refers to a December 3, 2003 phone call?
A. Yes.

Q. And you reviewed this, I trust, in preparation for today?
A. I'm sorry. I did not review this [page 161 begins] particular document.

Q. Okay.
        Well, let me just represent to you that it is a memorialization of a phone call received from a person on December 3, 2003 regarding the allegation of sexual misconduct against Bennett. During the call, the woman stated she did not wish to have her name released which she took back but it goes on to state after some conversation and an explanation of the process of formalizing an allegation of sexual misconduct, Ms. Blank named her alleged abuser as Reverend Joseph Bennett.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. This would now be another allegation --
A. That's correct.

Q. -- against Bennett?
A. That's correct.

Q. After the Board had made its determination?
A. About another case.

Q. And when did you learn about this allegation now having surfaced?
A. Well, they would have brought this to me once she brought it to the Review Board. [page 162 begins]
        May I respond?

MR. KLENK: Wait until there's a question.

THE WITNESS: May I respond to a question he asked before?

MR. KLENK: Sure. Sure.

THE WITNESS: You raised a very good question, have I ever gone back to the Board once they had decided there is no reasonable cause to suspect and asked them to review it again. I did that at least once that I can recall when the accuser came forward and explained that it was a different Review Board than the one we have now that had made that finding, that there was no reasonable cause, but that she wanted to reopen her case. I asked the Board to open the case again.


Q. Who was that? What priest?
A. It was against Father Bennett -- no, it was not. Again, these cases, some years back. It was another priest.

Q. Who?
A. I can't recall his last name. His first name is John. He's an elderly priest long out of
ministry. Retired. [page 163 begins]

Q. Okay.
        So did you -- did you do your clarification to your satisfaction? You wanted to clarify that?
A. Well, you had asked me a question and I said I can't remember. I remembered one case anyway where I did do that.

Q. All right.
A. For what it's worth.

Q. Now, going back the Exhibit 212, Cardinal.
A. Yes.

Q. Excuse me. 211. Isn't this, in itself, enough information sufficient to reopen and reevaluate Bennett's stature and status as a priest working in a parish in December of 2003?
A. This investigation did take place. They submitted this to the Review Board. It's of activity that happened in the '70s, of course, as was the other activity. [Cardinal George is mistaken—the two accusations allege abuse in different decades. Exhibit 54 was received by the archdiocese by November 12, 2002 and alleged the abuse of 3 boys in 1976-78. Exhibit 211 was received by the archdiocese on December 3, 2003 and alleged the abuse of 2 girls in 1967-69.]

Q. But isn't it enough to reopen the review -- Review Board determination that had been made earlier finding no cause?
A. The Review Board didn't suggest that.

Q. Do you know whether the review -- [page 164 begins]
A. But this was pursued.

Q. Do you know when the Review Board was made aware of the December 3, 2003 allegation recorded in this exhibit?
A. It must have been very quickly. Leah always does it very, very quickly, that kind of reporting.

Q. Do you know how long it took Leah McCluskey to formalize the allegation under her process or your process?
A. The allegation was formalized. It took a long time to investigate. As you can see from the allegation, there were many other people named and she had to visit many witnesses in different parts of the country.

Q. Look at Exhibit 62.
A. 62, please. Thank you.

Q. I'm showing you what we've marked as Exhibit 2 as our sealed -- as our sealed exhibit and on the name -- on it, I put the name of the --
A. Yes.

Q. -- individual that I referred to as Jane Doe Two?
A. Yes. [page 165 begins]

Q. So we know who we're talking about here?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Excuse me. Jane Doe One.
A. Yes.

Q. And I put the name on there so we won't use that name and we just agree this is Jane Doe One, okay?
A. Sure

Q. This document pertains to Jane Doe One as identified on that exhibit?
A. Yes.

MR. KLENK: Which -- which document are you referring to?



Q. You'll see this is March 11, 2004 and it's written to McCluskey --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- in a follow-up of our meeting of March 2nd, I have not heard back from you regarding our immediate concern about the suspension of Father Bennett.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you see that? [page 166 begins]
A. I do.

Q. It goes on to state in the second paragraph, you advised us that you would bring this report of abuse to the attention of your supervisors including the cardinal that same day.
A. Yes.

Q. Did she?
A. I presume she did.

Q. Now, this is four months after the information surfaced in Exhibit 211, that is, another allegation and -- and Bennett is still in ministry at this point?
A. The allegation hadn't been investigated at this point to a satisfactory conclusion. As you know, [redacted] wasn't even a nun any longer, a woman whom you accuse also in this letter of horrific abuse all of which is unfounded at least at this point.

[Exhibits 62, 211, and 90 document allegations that Bennett abused children at St. John de la Salle church, where he was an associate 1966-74 and pastor 1980-89. Exhibits 91 and 100 contain descriptions by parishioners and a colleague of Bennett's conduct at St. John's in the late 1960s.]

Q. So are you choosing -- is it your testimony then that you, basically, made the choice to keep him in ministry and to the extent there's a risk, you chose to take it?
A. No. We thought there was no risk and there doesn't seem to have been. He was monitored. [page 167 begins] He was restricted. I chose to follow the protocol, sir, that we always have followed and protected children in the past and protected them also in this case.

Q. But he remains in a parish.
        You could have removed him at least from a parish and kept him on administrative leave, correct?
A. Not without the Review Board telling me they thought there was reasonable cause to suspect which they didn't at this time.

Q. Are you aware that at that time, Bennett was the only priest in -- in that parish?
A. I believe he was.

Q. Showing you 63.
A. He may have had a resident living with him but I'm not sure.

Q. This is dated May 14, 2004 and this would be a letter from me to Jim Serritella, the lawyer, and John O'Malley?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. And in it -- this is really a second letter expressing concern. The first being an exhibit I showed you. We state I discovered that [page 168 begins] Father Joseph Bennett is still at Holy Ghost Parish as of this moment. The records reflect that this matter has been brought forward and the finalized report with Leah McCluskey has already been made to the Review Board. I'm extremely alarmed that this priest remains in the parish given this information. On its face, this appears to be in direct contravention and violation of the policy, the practice and the charter of the Archdiocese. Please advise immediately.
        Was this letter brought to your attention, Cardinal?
A. No.

[Rev. Joseph R. Bennett]

Q. Exhibit 64 -- if you'll hand the Exhibit 2 back. She's going to hand you Exhibit 64 and if you hand me 2 back, I'm going to put another name on it.
A. Thank you.

Q. On Exhibit 2, showing that to the Cardinal and counsel, this would be the sister that I marked in Jane Doe Two, the sister of Jane Doe One.
A. Yes.

Q. And this -- this Exhibit 64, that's the name that's been blocked out here so -- [page 169 begins]
A. Sure.

Q. -- we know who we're talking about here?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And have you seen this?
A. I haven't seen it in writing. I was apprised of her having changed her testimony from not supportive of her sister to supportive.

Q. And in any case, at the time that this exhibit was prepared, it's correct that you have been advised and the Archdiocese personnel have been advised that there are now four possible victims of Bennett? [In fact, there were now five. Anderson is not counting the Filipino boy mentioned in Exhibit 54. See our table of Bennett allegations.]
A. Well, there were the victims whose cause was decided not founded and then there were the two sisters, one of whom was abused. The other one isn't a very clear case, is it?

Q. And this sister is corroborating a report made by -- by Jane Doe One, correct?
A. That was taken into account even though it had changed her earlier testimony that her sister wasn't accurate.

Q. Exhibit 65, March 29, 2005, a memorandum.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And at this time, Bennett is continued in [page 170 begins] ministry by you, correct?
A. He's during the investigation in his ministry with restrictions so that children are protected.

MR. KLENK: Can you just take a moment while I read this, Mr. Anderson?


MR. KLENK: Thank you.


Q. You'll see that the Review Board conducted an initial review regarding the allegation made by this individual. The claim is as follows, Father Bennett exposed himself to Ms. Blank. Father Bennett instructed Ms. Blank to perform oral sex on him. By a vote of eight to zero, the Board determined that this matter warrants additional investigation.
        Was this brought to your attention, this information?
A. This is the ongoing investigation.

Q. I know but was it brought to your attention?
A. I knew they were investigating this, yes, and had some sense of the complexity that's [page 171 begins] evidenced here.

Q. It goes on to state the Board also requested that PRA complete the following tasks?
A. Yes.

Q. And if you look at the last one, it states that Father Bennett's monitor is either Reverend Thomas Simma or Reverend Thomas Cabala and not Reverend Leonard Dubi?
A. That's correct.

Q. And they bolded the not.
        Did you see that?
A. I did. Well, I didn't remember reading this but I knew that was --

Q. And do you know why they bolded the not on Reverend Dubi?

MR. KLENK: Objection, foundation.

THE WITNESS: No, I don't.


Q. Well, somebody's trying to draw your attention to the fact that Dubi should not be monitoring Bennett?
A. Yes.

MR. KLENK: I'll -- I'll object to that. [page 172 begins]


Q. Is that correct, Cardinal?

MR. KLENK: I'll object to that. I mean, this memorandum was not sent to him so it's wrong to suggest that they were -- somebody was trying to direct it to his attention.


Q. Well, you're decisionmaker on -- ultimately on whether the priest remains in ministry under monitoring or not, correct?
A. If there's an allegation being processed, he is always monitored and restricted so that he doesn't have access to children. That's the policy. As well as notifying the State authorities, of course.

Q. So if the Review Board doesn't want this guy monitoring Bennett as is indicated here, you should be advised of that so you can do something about it, right?
A. I think I probably was told that.

Q. And you chose to continue Bennett in ministry under monitoring by Dubi?
A. Because he was in daily contact with him and was a very responsible monitor as he is. [page 173 begins]

Q. Look at 66.
A. I don't have that. I'm sorry, sir.

Q. I'm sorry. She's going to hand it to you.

MS. ARBOUR: I can only be in one place at once.


Q. Just briefly, you'll see that 66 reflects at the last sentence --

MR. KLENK: Can you take a moment while -- while I look at it here. I haven't seen this before.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm directing attention to the last sentence.


Q. If you'll see 66, I'll read it, PRA check with Father Grace to determine if Dubi is currently on sabbatical or not. Father Dubi is Father Bennett's identified monitor.
        At this time, were you aware that Dubi was on sabbatical?
A. 2005, I don't recall whether he was or he wasn't, sir. They didn't know either, apparently.

Q. Don't you think that that would be important to know? If he's on sabbatical, how [page 174 begins] could he be monitoring?
A. There should have been another monitor, of course.

Q. I'm going to show you 67. Before I do, I -- I think this would have been the third time the Review Board had questioned monitoring of Bennett and the adequacy of it with Dubi, isn't it? Does that sound correct, Cardinal? This is the third time the Review Board has questioned the adequacy of the monitoring in particular that Dubi is -- [Anderson is referring to Exhibits 55, 65, and 66.]
A. I was only aware of it once, sir.

[From the Dubi documents (click an excerpt above to view the whole exhibit):
     1) Priest alleges Dubi discouraged him from disciplining Bennett (late 1960s)
     2) Review Board advises George that Dubi not monitor Bennett (1/14/03)
     3) Bennett arranges Mexican vacation with Dubi (2/9/03)
     4) Review Board again advises that Dubi not monitor Bennett (3/29/05)
     5) Review Board is concerned that Dubi is on sabbatical while monitoring Bennett (7/11/05)
     6) Rassas asks Gary bishop to have Bennett monitored (2/1/06)
     7) Cardinal George didn't know that Bennett owned the Indiana house with Dubi (1/30/08)
Note that Rassas signs his letter as a bishop + but dates the letter 2/1/06, the day before he was ordained. Was Rassas getting into the episcopal spirit a bit early, or did he backdate the letter? If the letter is backdated, why? Note that Rassas states in the letter: "To the best of our knowledge, there have been no other reported allegations." This statement was arguably true on 2/1/06 (if the 2002 allegation described in Exhibit 54 is not counted), but it was not true on 2/2/06, because on that day, the archdiocese received another allegation (see Exhibit 82).]

Q. Okay.
        Let's look at 67. There's a highlighted portion here and I'll read it and this is an article about pastor not being monitored for years after allegation. Cardinal removes another priest. And the highlighted portion says Dwyer -- now, Dwyer is the public relations person?
A. He was in the press office of the Archdiocese at the time.

Q. Okay.
        Dwyer --

MR. KLENK: Excuse me, Mr. Anderson. I don't [page 175 begins] have any highlighting on mine. Where is this?

MR. ANDERSON: He does.

MR. KLENK: Thank you.

MR. ANDERSON: You bet.


Q. I'll read it, Dwyer said the first allegation against the priest was reported to the Archdiocese in March 2004 and a monitor was assigned in March 2005.
        Now, this is information disseminated to the public and given this reporter, correct?
A. Dwyer said that, yes.

Q. And that's not correct, is it?
A. My understanding is that when the allegations were brought forward, he was given a monitor but --

Q. But this was not the first allegation?
A. A priest is given a monitor whenever any allegation comes forward.

Q. I'm not talking about the monitor. I'm talking about the allegation.
        Dwyer said this was the first allegation that resulted in the removal of Bennett, correct? That's what he said? [page 176 begins]
A. That's true.

Q. Okay.
A. Now, I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. Which allegation are we talking about here?

Q. Well, we're talking about what -- what the public relations office, your public relations office is telling the public and I'm reading from what is being said by Dwyer. Dwyer said the first allegation against the priest was reported to the Archdiocese in March 2004.
        That's what he said, right?

MR. KLENK: Objection, this is -- this is hearsay. You're reporting what the newspaper reports he said.

THE WITNESS: That's what he said. In the paper, that's what he said.


Q. I read that correctly?
A. It's -- yes. It's not --

Q. Focus -- focus on that, not the monitoring.
A. Okay.

Q. Focus on that, the first allegation.
A. I see what you're saying, yes. [page 177 begins]

Q. Okay.
        In fact, Cardinal, as we have seen through the exhibits, at this point in time, there had been four allegations made against Bennett, not one and this was not the first, correct?

MR. KLENK: Objection, it's not clear what --

THE WITNESS: Yeah. Are you referring to the allegations that were dismissed by the Review Board? I'm not sure Dwyer knew about those.


Q. I'm referring to previous allegations in the documents that we just looked at and notwithstanding the Review Board, the fact is we looked at documents that show there had been four allegations made against Bennett of sexual abuse, not one as is being represented here?
A. The two unproven allegations perhaps weren't known to Dwyer.

Q. They were allegations nonetheless, were they not?
A. Yes.

Q. And Jane Doe One had made one in December of 2003, correct?
A. I don't have that paper but I take your [page 178 begins] word for it.

Q. And -- give me the paper, Exhibit 3, please.


MR. ANDERSON: Exhibit 2.

MS. ARBOUR: I think it's 211 that you're referencing.

MR. KLENK: Why don't you just wait until the question is asked.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm showing counsel and then you can pass it to the witness. I marked Jane Doe Three on here.

THE WITNESS: Jane Doe Three.

MR. KLENK: Thank you.


Q. And I just marked Jane Doe Three by a name on the Exhibit 2, correct, Cardinal?
A. That's correct.

Q. And you're aware that in the Archdiocese's documents, a report had been made by Jane Doe Three in March of 2004?
A. I wasn't sure of the date but she was another one whom I'd asked to take her case back to the Review Board because she was unhappy with the [page 179 begins] Review Board finding that she had not been abused.

Q. And you also recall that Mr. Fleischmann had brought forward the allegations of his client of two brothers earlier.
        So as of this date and the time Dwyer makes this statement, there are four allegations, correct?
A. If you include all those, yes, that's correct, sir.

Q. Okay.
        So who was it that instructed Dwyer to disseminate this information in this exhibit to the public?

MR. KLENK: Objection. Which exhibit are you referring to?


MR. KLENK: The newspaper article?

THE WITNESS: The newspaper article.


Q. Who was it that instructed Dwyer to disseminate this information as reflected in this exhibit?
A. I doubt anyone instructed Dwyer. Information that is brought to the communications [page 180 begins] department is then shared with the press as they always do.

Q. Who's responsible for making sure that the information given by Dwyer on your behalf is accurate?
A. The communications people usually try to be sure as best they can --

Q. Is this --
A. -- as I understand. I trust them to try to do that.

Q. Is this a statement by Dwyer an accurate representation of the state of the -- of the -- the number of allegations made against Bennett?
A. No. There were allegations -- unfounded -- made previously, uh-huh.

Q. Look at 72 and 73 together because they're related. And 72 pertains to Jane Doe Three and 73 pertains to Jane Doe One.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you. see that? First, directing your attention to 72 --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- October 15, 2005. At the second paragraph, it states the Board made the [page 181 begins] recommendation that in light of the information presented, there is reasonable cause to suspect the alleged misconduct occurred. The Board recommended that Father Bennett be immediately withdrawn from ministry and that restrictions and monitoring be imposed in accordance with Archdiocesan policies and procedures.
        Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
May I check, again, please, sir, on 72, is that Jane Doe Three?

Q. 72 would be, I believe, Jane Doe Three --
A. Would you --

Q. -- but -- but we're not sure of that but we --
A. Okay.

Q. But I guess the importance of this is not who it is but that the -- the Board recommended to you in light of this additional information, that you immediately withdraw him, right?
A. First of all, 72 and 73 are probably the same person and it's Jane Doe One.

Q. I think that -- why do you say that? They're two -- I think they're two different people [page 182 begins] but --
A. Perhaps. I'm -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your question.

Q. It's just the same date. Two different victims.
A. It is except in the case of Jane Doe Three, the Board did not find reasonable cause to suspect.

Q. Well, let's -- let's -- let's not --
A. It doesn't -- no. Please. Please. I'm sorry.

Q. -- worry about whether it's one, two or three. Let's worry about what the Board is saying to you --
A. Yes.

Q. -- and what you did -- and what you did about it.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay.
        In 72, they're saying the Board made a recommendation that he be removed?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Right?
A. Yes. [page 183 begins]

Q. And in 73, the Board similarly says that Father Bennett should be immediately withdrawn from ministry?
A. That's correct.

Q. So the same recommendation, two different allegations, right?
A. I don't know there's two different allegations.

Q. Okay.
A. I don't know that it matters for your --

Q. And look at the handwritten note here.
        There's your handwriting, isn't it?
A. Yes, I'm afraid it is.

Q. And what did you write?
A. I accept this recommendation, October 18, 2005.

Q. And in both instances, you wrote I accept this recommendation?
A. That's correct.

Q. And if you look at the handwriting, you'll see it's a little different. It's not identical?
A. You're right, sir.

Q. It's two different notes?
A. It does look two different. [page 184 begins]

Q. So we have two different findings, two different recommendations, two different reports here, right?
A. And two different acceptances of the recommendation.

Q. And two different acceptances. Thank you.
        74, I'll -- I'll show you.
        And before I do, was Bennett removed this day by you?
A. When I went to remove him, that's when I found out that the process was not complete because he had no chance to defend himself.

Q. So you --
A. I asked the Review Board to go over it quickly with the canonical defense necessary to finish the case. And in the meantime, the same restrictions to protect children would remain in place.

Q. So you chose to not follow the recommendation made to you by your board --
A. The Board --

Q. Just a moment. Let me finish the question.
A. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes. Go ahead. [page 185 begins]

Q. You chose to not follow the recommendation made to you by the Board in both Exhibit 72 and 73, correct?
A. Because the Board did not follow its own policies. Unfortunately.

Q. And so who told you and what lead you to believe -- just who -- that the Board protocols were deficient enough so that you should not follow this recommendation to remove this priest from ministry?
A. He, himself, said he had not defended himself with counsel and then I checked with Father Smilanic and he said that was true.

Q. So you relied upon Bennett?
A. No. I relied upon Father Smilanic who told me what Bennett said was true.

Q. You were aware that as a part of the process, Bennett had had a chance to respond to the allegations, were you not?
A. I presumed that he had.

Q. So why did the existence or nonexistence of a canonical lawyer make a difference at this point? Aren't you concerned about the safety of the kids, not the rights of the accused? [page 186 begins]
A. No. I'm concerned for the safety of the children, of course. They were guaranteed by the restrictions and the information given to the civil authorities but I had to have a case that was legally correct. I didn't have one.

Q. Cardinal, haven't you publicly stated that the protocols imposed and placed by the charter in 2002 protect -- well, nevermind. Nevermind. I'm going to withdraw that question.
A. Okay. I'm sorry.

Q. Cardinal, this business about needing a canonical lawyer, I have seen numerous allegations made and brought to the Board where no canon lawyer was ever present.
        Why is it that all of a sudden the process is deficient because Bennett doesn't have a canon lawyer in your view?
A. I'm not familiar with processes where they did not have a canon lawyer. I take your word for that. In this case, he protested that he -- the process wasn't legal and that would have been enough to invalidate the process.

Q. Okay.
        Let's go to 74, Cardinal. This is a brief [page 187 begins] memo.
A. I see.

Q. You have it before you. This is to you. It is from Laura in regards to Bennett and it is now November 2nd and it looks like the recommendation has been made to remove Bennett, correct?
A. Yes, and accepted.

Q. And accepted by you and now you are taking it upon yourself based on what Father Bennett told you to review it on your own?
A. No. I reviewed a number of cases that were particularly complex. This became --

Q. Talking about this one now. Let's -- let's focus on this.
A. Yes, but --

Q. This seems -- I read this to mean that you have now asked that the file be forwarded to you so you can review this on your own?

MR. KLENK: I object to the form of the question.


Q. Is that correct?
A. Well, I did ask for the file. [page 188 begins]

Q. Okay.
A. Because it was so terribly complicated and because I wanted to in fairness read the evidence of the victims themselves and not just take it in a report from somebody else or Father Smilanic.

Q. So that you're --
A. I wanted to hear the voice of the victims.

Q. You really have questions about whether it happened
A. No.

Q. -- and it --
A. I wanted to --

Q. Let me finish the question.
A. I'm sorry. Yes. You're correct. I'm sorry.

MR. KLENK: Some of his questions are quite long. Please pause.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.


Q. So you're referring to the complexity of it?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. The fact is that based on what [page 189 begins] Father Bennett has told you, you had questions about whether he had sexually abused?
A. No. I had questions about the form, the legal form in order to make a case that could be defended.

Q. So you're more concerned about the rights of Bennett and the process than you are about the children at risk if he remains in ministry?
A. No. The children at risk were, I thought, protected and they were in this case by the monitoring and the restrictions. I was interested in fairness, the same values that permeate any legal system.

Q. Up until this point in time, how many times have you reviewed a file after the Board had made a recommendation for removal?
A. I can't recall exactly.

Q. Would this have been the first?
A. I don't believe so.

Q. Can you identify any other time to date?
A. I'm sorry. I haven't had a chance to think through those number of cases that you brought forward.

Q. Look at 75. This is November 7, 2005 and [page 190 begins] this is from you to Leah McCluskey?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. I'm writing to you with regard to the matter of Reverend Joseph Bennett, a priest --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- who has been accused of sexual misconduct by blank.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. I had initially indicated that I accepted the Review Board's recommendation that there was a reasonable cause to suspect that the misconduct did occur. However, I have since reconsidered this matter --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- and would like to postpone a final decision for the time being.
        So what made you reconsider?
A. The voice of the victims and the witnesses' disagreement among themselves, the complexity of the case that I knew was going to be subject of a defense. I wanted to have the voice of the victims as the defense was made.

Q. It sounds like you -- had you interviewed any of these victims? [page 191 begins]
A. I did not personally interview those victims. That's why I wanted the --

Q. You were acting on your own here, were you not, not on the recommendation of anybody other than Father Bennett, were you?
A. I --

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question that Father Bennett recommended anything.

THE WITNESS: Father Bennett did not recommend this at all.


Q. Well, when you talk about the voice of the victims --
A. Yes.

Q. -- what is it about that that caused you to reconsider?
A. When you read an actual victim's testimony or you talk to a victim, it's very different from just getting a conclusion and I wanted to --

Q. Did you talk to any of these victims?

MR. KLENK: Please -- please let him finish his answer.

THE WITNESS: No. [page 192 begins]

MR. ANDERSON: I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: No. No. I read the witness they'd given to the Review Board.



Q. So the only person involved here between the victims and Bennett that you had talked to was Bennett, right?
A. I don't understand the question.

Q. You hadn't talked to any of the victims?
A. No. That's why I asked for their testimony.

Q. Okay.
A. This was the testimony that was going to be given to his lawyer.

Q. Now, before you said you changed your mind because Bennett didn't have a lawyer, a canon lawyer. Now, you're saying that you changed your mind because the voice of the victims and the complexity.
        Which is it, Cardinal?
A. No. It's the same. It's exactly the same. This complex case and the voice of the victims were going to be presented now for the [page 193 begins] first time to his defense lawyer. I wanted to hear it too.

Q. You wanted to what?
A. I wanted to listen to it as well from the testimony they had given. It was going to go to his defense lawyer.

Q. So you wanted to override the Board?
A. No. I didn't over -- do that at all. I did not override the Board.

Q. Well, you have that right, don't you? You're the cardinal.
A. I have the right to ask them to reconsider if I think they've made a mistake, yes, I could do that but I didn't think they made a mistake here. As it says, assure them this does not represent any lack of confidence in them for the fine work they do. I didn't override the Board.

Q. Did you ever doubt the facts or the allegations of the -- of the reports made by the victims?
A. There was contrary witnesses. The sisters did not agree among themselves. The sister who had been a nun at the time adamantly disagreed. In fact, denied under oath that any of this happened. [page 194 begins] It was a complicated case but I accepted their recommendation.

Q. Were you getting information from Bennett that conflicted with the accounts of the victims that caused you to -- to wonder whether or not he had abused?
A. I got no information from Bennett about the cases. His complaint was simply could I have a chance to have a canonical lawyer in my defense in order to complete the process.

Q. Did you receive information about the accounts given by the victim pertaining to certain physical characteristics of Bennett?
A. Not from Father Bennett himself.

Q. Well, did you hear it from Father Grace?
A. I read it.

Q. Okay.
        Showing you --
A. That was the voice of the victims.

Q. Showing you Exhibit 212. This is November 9th and this is a memo you reviewed?
A. No. This is memo to file, sir.

Q. Have you reviewed it before today?
A. No. [page 195 begins]

Q. I'm going to --

MR. KLENK: I -- I haven't seen this before.

MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. You can read it. I'm going to ask a question. I'll read it.


Q. The second paragraph says concerning Joe's 11-19 appointment with the Review Board.
        That means he's going before the Review Board, right?
A. Yes, with -- with an attorney if they can find a canon -- canonical lawyer.

Q. And it states he has a dermatologist, one, two, he has a typewritten report from the dermatologist --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- and three, I suggested points -- that means Father Grace is suggesting points -- that Father Bennett should make with the Board.
        Is that appropriate for Grace to be doing?
A. Well, perhaps not but he is the Vicar for Priests. He can speak to the priests about their cases.

Q. And you're the vicar for the vicar, right?
A. I'm the Archbishop. He's my vicar. [page 196 begins]

Q. Yeah, but you're his vicar?
A. No, sir.

Q. As the Archbishop, aren't you?
A. No. A vicar --

Q. In any case, you're his Archbishop?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. And you -- are you suggesting to him that he suggest to Bennett that --
A. No, I did not.

Q. Okay.
        You'll see that at 3a, he's suggesting that Bennett, number one, should make the following points with the Board, la, accuser spoke of birthmark. There is no birthmark.
A. That's in the dermatologist's report, I believe.

Q. B, accuser spoke of freckles. Even a child knows that, quote, freckles, unquote, are not purplish blue. They are brown.
        Did you know that freckles are not purplish blue?
A. I'm not sure either.

Q. I didn't know that.
        And, C, dermatologist characterized [page 197 begins] purplish blue marks as age spots not likely there at the time of the allegation.
        Now, these are all suggestions being made by Grace to Bennett to be brought to the Board, right?
A. Well, the dermatologist report is brought to the Board. It's in writing from the dermatologist, not from Grace.

Q. It looks like Father Grace is being an advocate for the priest, not the children now here, doesn't it?
A. You could draw that conclusion.

Q. Don't you?
A. I don't know Father Grace's frame of mind.

Q. This is the same Father Grace we talked about getting McCormack, isn't it?
A. He's a trained lawyer, sir.

Q. Well, look, you know, he's -- I'm protecting my clients because they're victims. Father Grace is protecting this offender.
A. At that point --

MR. KLENK: Excuse me. There's no question pending.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. [page 198 begins]

MR. KLENK: He just made a speech. Please ask a question, Mr. Anderson.
        Please wait for the question.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I'm sorry.


Q. Simply because he's a lawyer, does that excuse his protection of Bennett?
A. No.

Excerpts from Exhibit 212 and Exhibit 76: Rev. Edward D. Grace, one of the Vicars for Priests, coaches Bennett on 11/9/05 and 11/14/05, before a Review Board meeting. Bennett attended the meeting on 11/19/05, as shown in Exhibit 78. Grace had also coached McCormack during his first arrest on 8/30/05, advising him "not to discuss the matter further with the police" (Exhibit 118).

Q. Look at 76.
A. 76, please. Thank you.

Q. You'll see this is to the file, again, from Grace regarding Bennett, November 14th. Today I received a copy of Joe's dermatologist's report. I called Joe to suggest that he ask the dermatologist for a clarification, one, specifically, since Joe had stated to me that the scrotum marks were/might be aging marks, did the doctor have an opinion on whether the spots would have been present years ago at the time of the allegation.
        You're aware, Cardinal, that these -- this whole issue now is did he have freckles on his scrotum, right?
A. Yes, sir. [page 199 begins]

Q. Because the victim had reported that he had freckles on his scrotum?
A. That's correct.

Q. And now Father Grace -- now there is information from a dermatologist that's he got spots on his scrotum, right?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Grace is -- looks like he's trying to explain it away.
        Do you read it that way?
A. It could be read that way.

Q. The second point here is secondly, some mark bigger than a golf ball, smaller than a soft ball was alleged on his back.
        You're aware that the victim also said that he had a mark, a birthmark on his back, right?
A. Yes.

Q. And now the dermatologist has revealed that he's got a mark on his back but it looks like Grace is trying to quibble about the size of it.
        Do you read it that way?
A. I think that's a legitimate way to read it.

Q. It. turns out that, in fact, Grace has [page 200 begins] marks on his back, doesn't he -- I mean, not Grace, Bennett?
A. I presume he does. I --

MR. KLENK: Objection, foundation. I don't know how this witness knows that.


Q. Well, you're aware that that was an issue before the Board on -- on whether or not Father Bennett had marks on his back as --
A. Yes. Yes, I am.

Q. -- at least one victim has alleged?
A. Yes, I am.

Q. And when she was --
A. I believe it was a birthmark as the voice of the victim had it.

Q. The voice of the victim had said she thought he had a birthmark. She, of course, was eight years old at the time of the alleged abuse, right?
A. Sure. That's right.

Q. And the dermatologist, you're aware, on Exhibit 76 called it a keratosis, K-E-R-A-T-O-S-I-S, right?
A. Yes. I don't know what that means, sir. [page 201 begins] Here -- I see the word here.

Q. Right.
        And you see that on Exhibit 76, don't you?
A. Yes, I do. I see it here.

Q. Let me show you Exhibit 213. We took this off the internet --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- because we didn't know what a keratosis is either. And so when we looked at this, this gave us a picture of what -- what is described as a cluster of keratosis.
        Do you see it now?
A. I do.

MR. KLENK: Objection, is this something that's purported to be of Father Bennett?

MR. ANDERSON: No. No. This is to help us understand what keratosis means.

MR. KLENK: Oh, you went for medical advice to the internet. Okay.

MR. ANDERSON: If you've got an objection, make it. I'm going to ask a question.

MR. KLENK: Please do.


Q. We got this from the Mayo Clinic so we [page 202 begins] could understand what is a keratosis. I didn't know the word either, Cardinal, so, you know. And this -- this picture is -- purports to represent a cluster of keratosis, that is, spots.
        When you look at one of those, what does it look like to you?
A. A spot on the skin.

Q. It looks like a birthmark, doesn't it?
A. I wouldn't know how to distinguish a spot like that and a birthmark.

Q. I wouldn't either.
        How would a nine-year-old?
A. Yeah.
        Well, in fact, the Review Board said reasonable cause to suspect based upon the physical evidence and I accepted that and then put the case together and sent it to Rome.

Q. And in fact --
A. I took him out of ministry.

Q. Father Grace, however, was the one that was trying to keep this from being adjudicated against Bennett, wasn't he?
A. I think you'd have to ask Father Grace that. [page 203 begins]

Q. Okay.
        Why don't we just -- you know, 78 is the memorandum of the Review Board where you met with them and -- and, essentially, the Review Board said the medical evidence was against Grace and Bennett and you --

MR. KLENK: Not so fast. I don't know if this man's ever seen this before.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I don't see what you're saying is in here. Where is what you're saying in here, please?



Q. Let me just ask you this --

MR. KLENK: Could you let him take a moment to read the document that you just --

MR. ANDERSON: No. No, I don't want to take -- we don't need to.

MR. KLENK: You don't want him to read it?

MR. PEARLMAN: Hold on. Let's just say it different.

MR. ANDERSON: Let me --

MR. PEARLMAN: If he remembers the meeting. He doesn't need the document. [page 204 begins]

MR.. KLENK: Fair enough. Fair enough.

MR. ANDERSON: Let me just ask the question.


Q. Do you remember meeting with the Board as this document reflects?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay.
        And is the document -- okay.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And -- and as a result of your meeting with that board, you became aware that the Review Board believed the medical evidence and thus the account of the victim?
A. I knew that when I accepted the recommendation before this meeting.

Q. When -- how long before the meeting?
A. You had the date on the other document, sir. This is a December 3rd meeting. I think it was in November, wasn't it? I'm not sure. We just had that document.

Q. And when you accepted the recommendation --
A. October 15th, wasn't it?

Q. On October 15th, was Bennett still in [page 205 begins] ministry?
A. Yes.

Q. And you continued him in ministry?
A. Until the Review Board process was complete --

Q. Look at --
A. -- and then I removed him.

Q. -- Exhibit 79.
The Review Board process was still ongoing when you removed Bennett?
A. Yes. We changed the policy as a result of the McCormack case.

Q. Look at 79. And this is another letter from me to the Archdiocese and Leah McCluskey. And this would be another letter of alarm and concern wherein I state when I met with you in our offices in connection with another matter on October 24th, I asked you about the status of this matter and you reported to me that it was being given immediate consideration by the Cardinal at that time and would let us know immediately. And I asked that your prompt attention to this be greatly appreciated.
        Was this letter brought to your attention, [page 206 begins] Cardinal?

MR. KLENK: I would object to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: Well, this is the first time I've seen this letter.

        Let's just take let's just take a few minute break here.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record at 3:23 p.m.

(A short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on the record at 3:38 p.m. This is the beginning of videotape number five.


Q. Cardinal, you had said, I think, several times that Father Dubi was a suitable monitor for Father Bennett and I think you maintain that to that -- to this day?
A. I believe so, yes.

Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit 100 and this is testimony taken in a canonical trial in a canonical matter under oath from Father Kub. And I'll direct your attention to just a portion of it [page 207 begins] at page five beginning at -- actually, it's five at the top.
A. Uh-huh.

[Rev. Francis Q. Kub in a photo published in 1980.]

Q. Question, may I ask you who the friend was? Answer, Father Lenny Dubi. Question, and how did Father Len Dubi approach this topic with you? Answer, pushed me in a corner and said keep your nose out of Bennett's business. Question, did you share with Len the substance with -- did you share with Father Dubi the substance of your concerns, why you were concerned? Answer, yes I did. Question, and how did he respond to you? Answer, it's none of your business he said. Question, so he did not respond to your line of argumentation? Answer, no, he did not respond to my line of argumentation at all.
        My question to you, Cardinal, is do you -- did you know about Dubi and Father Kub's account of Dubi's conduct in response to --
A. Not when --

[Rev. Leonard Dubi in a photo published in 1980.]

MR. KLENK: Excuse me. Are you finished with the question?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes. [page 208 begins]

THE WITNESS: No, I did not when I appointed him monitor -- when the Vicar For Priests appointed him monitor.


Q. Is this the first time anybody has brought this particular testimony involving Dubi and his relationship to Bennett and response to this matter to your attention?
A. No. I have seen this.

Q. Just recently in preparation for today?
A. Perhaps a couple weeks ago.

Q. So you still think that Dubi was the guy to be monitoring Bennett?

MR. KLENK: What was -- what's the date -- what's the date on this? Does it have a date for a foundation?

MR. ANDERSON: This would be August 7, 2006.

MR. KLENK: Thanks. Thanks.

MR. ANDERSON: And the cover on it is Archdiocese Chicago.


Q. In connection with Father Bennett, you had indicated earlier that there had been no [page 209 begins] allegations made against Bennett since his removal; is that right?
A. I think there are further allegations that have come forward since he was first removed about the case we were speaking about but I -- I'm sorry.
Go ahead.

Q. And when Bennett was removed, it appeared in the newspaper and became published --
A. Yes.

Q. -- for the first time that Bennett had been accused, right?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Yes?
A. Yes.

Q. And the date of Bennett's removal by you was?
A. It would have been in -- in January 2006 or the first part of February 2006.

Q. And that was several years after the first allegation against him had been actually lodged, correct?
A. The one that the Review Board found unsubstantiated.

Q. And showing you 82. [page 210 begins]
        This would be another allegation and by my count, allegation number five made against Father Bennett of sexual abuse?
A. That is reported to have occurred 20 years earlier.

Q. Yes.
        But it now came forward --
A. Yes.

Q. -- as a result of --
A. That's right.

Q. -- public disclosure of Bennett having been accused which had earlier been kept quiet, right?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: We always told everybody when we removed a priest from ministry.



Q. So now the public and the community of faith know that Bennett has been accused as a result of --
A. Not just --

Q. Just a moment. [page 211 begins]
A. I'm sorry.

Q. Let me ask the question.
        At least now, 82 came forward with an allegation -- Exhibit 82 shows that another allegation -- another victim came forward, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And this, by our count, would now have -- be allegation number five that we've talked about against Bennett?
A. If you take all the allegations, proved and unproved, yes.

Q. Okay.
        Showing you Exhibit 84. This says February 3, 2006 and this is a letter from you to the Bishop of Indiana then -- actually, your Vicar for -- for Priests, Vince Costello?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And I presume he wrote this with your permission?
A. I asked him to be sure that Bennett had a monitor where he was living and that the Bishop knew.

Q. And --
A. I haven't seen this but -- [page 212 begins]

Q. This letter appears to reflect that you and Father Costello are attempting to permit Bennett to live out of state?

MR. KLENK: Excuse me. Can I take a moment to read this?


Q. And work out of state; is that correct, Cardinal?
A. Not to work out of state, no. He's removed from ministry.

Q. To live in Gary, Indiana?
A. In a home that he has there.

Q. And are you aware that that's a property owned with Dubi, Father Dubi?
A. I was not aware of that.

Q. Showing you 85.
        By the way, in order for Father Bennett to live in Gary, Indiana, it requires both your permission as his Ordinary and the permission of the Ordinary of the Diocese in which he's going to reside, correct?
A. No.

Q. Can he live -- can -- can one of your priests live in the Diocese of another bishop [page 213 begins] without securing the permission of that bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. So it wasn't necessary to write to the Bishop of Gary -- Gary, Indiana -- Indiana then to get permission for him to -- to live there?
A. Not for permission to live, no.

Q. Then why was permission being sought?
A. We were notifying him for the safety of children that this is a priest who we have found to be reasonably suspect and for the sake of the protection, here are all the restrictions placed on him and would you please be sure that he does no does no ministry. You do need permission for ministry, not to live. And we wanted to be sure he would not ask for permission to minister by telling the Bishop what the circumstances were.

Q. If a priest is living outside the Diocese and he is in residence as -- nevermind.
        Let's go to Exhibit 85. This is a letter from Bishop then Vicar General Rassas --
A. Yes.

Q. -- to Reverend Melczek?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. A priest of the Archdiocese, Reverend [page 214 begins] Bennett, pastor of Holy Ghost Parish in South Holland has been placed on leave. As of this moment, he has been asked to reside at the home that is within the Diocese of Gary. His address is. The next paragraph, the incident in question occurred about 30 years ago and surfaced about two years ago here in the Archdiocese. The circumstances have been under review for some time but the information is not completely clear. For this reason, he has not been canonically removed from his parish. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no other reported allegations related to him.
        First, that last sentence, to the best of our knowledge, there have been no other reported allegations related to him is just not true, is it?
A. This is February 1st. The other, allegations came in after that as did the Review Board finding but the prior unfounded allegations were, of course, a couple years earlier, yes, as I recall.

Q. As of this date, there have been two allegations that have been founded now and two allegations that have been made but unfounded, [page 215 begins] correct?
A. Unfounded, yes. I wasn't aware on February 1st that the Review Board had founded the other allegations. That was later, wasn't it, that same week?

Q. In any case, this refers to allegations and we have established that at least four, perhaps more, allegations have been made at the time of this letter?
A. There were the two that you mentioned, yes.

Q. Showing you 86. This would be the Archdiocese's documentation of additional allegations against accused Father Bennett.
        And by my count, if you agree, this would be -- or do you agree this would be allegation six against Father Bennett?
A. I'm not sure, sir. It says third party so I presume it was. The others, I think, were brought forward by the accuser themselves.

Q. Okay.
        But this is, none the -- nonetheless, the document -- Archdiocesan documentation of another allegation against Bennett? [page 216 begins]
A. Yes. I don't know what the date -- this is April. It's 1997 -- of 2007 rather, yes.

Q. You can see that the date the allegation was received was February 6, '06.
        Do you see that?
A. Oh, yes, I see.

Q. At this point in time, has the Archdiocese or you requested that the original determination made of no cause be revisited?
A. We were visiting the further allegations and all we needed was one and they were proceeding very quickly. With one allegation, we can take him permanently out of ministry and so it was important to finish the current allegations.

Q. We're going to show you Exhibit 89. This is a summary time line of an allegation against Bennett. The date of this allegation received is February 9, '06.
        And this, by my count, ours so far, at least, would be number seven, correct? Allegation number seven against Bennett?
A. I don't see the name of the accuser so I really am unable, to --

Q. Well, no, I don't either -- [page 217 begins]
A. -- respond.

Q. -- because it hasn't been provided but my question, Cardinal, is that it is documentation -- Archdiocesan documentation of another allegation of sexual misconduct made against Bennett and it's documented as such on another date?
A. It is another date?

Q. Yes. This is February 9, '06.
A. Yes, but we had other allegations, didn't we, from --

Q. That was the 6th of February. This is the 9th.
A. I see. Well, then this is another allegation.

Q. I'm showing you now 90 and this is a memorandum from Leah McCluskey regarding Bennett. It's cc'd on the second page to the delegate on the Board, the Vicar of Priests and Assistance Ministry and it details on February 10th that two voice messages had been received on February 8th and an allegation of sexual misconduct by Bennett.
        So this would be allegation number eight?
A. Unless since the date is February 9th it's the same as the one you just showed me. [page 218 begins]

Q. Showing you 91.
A. He was, of course, removed at this time, wasn't he? I think. I'm sure he was, yes.

Q. Cardinal, you just said we just need one report to take action, didn't you?
A. Yes.

Q. Well, think back to those two women that were the original victims -- or two boys that were the original victims and who made the original report, first report against Bennett and think about what -- think about the fact that no cause had been found as it pertained to one of those who passed a polygraph.
        Doesn't it seem at this point in time that you had a duty to go back to them through their lawyer and otherwise and say, hey, we better take a look at this --
A. I think we --

Q. -- and we better minister to them?
A. I think we should revisit that, yes.

Q. Yeah. Thank you.
A. Yeah.

Q. Showing you 91. This is from [redacted], copied [page 219 begins] to McCluskey and is sent to the Vicar for Priests Costello.
        I'd very quickly like to read the second paragraph because it just contains some information.

MR. KLENK: Excuse me. I just take a moment. I need to read this.

MR. ANDERSON: I will read it and then I'll -- I'll ask a question while you read.


Q. Three of the people mentioned that they had knowledge of Father Joe Bennett being sexually active with women in the parish when he was here back in the late 1960s and later when he was pastor. One of the people mentioned that when he was a teenager here in the late '60s, his teenage friends often spoke of going to the rectory and being given alcoholic drinks by Father Joe Bennett. The last sentence in the next paragraph says the four people who came forward told me these things with the understanding that I would pass it on.
        Is this information that was brought to your attention, Cardinal?
A. I don't recall this being brought to my [page 220 begins] attention. It's February 14th. None of the forms stated they had been directly involved personally --

Q. Yeah.
A. -- with the alleged misconduct.

Q. But this is more alarming information, isn't it?
A. Oh, it -- it -- it creates an --

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question. I'm sorry. You can answer it.

THE WITNESS: Well, it -- it -- it creates an atmosphere of sexual misconduct surrounding a name.


Q. Showing you 92. This would be a memorandum dated February 27, '06 and it attaches a copy of a new allegation received by their office on February 24, '06.
        So this would be another allegation against Bennett which would, by my count, be allegation number nine, sound correct?
A. By someone unknown.

Q. Showing you Exhibit 93. This is March 23, '06, a letter to Shauna Boliker, Assistant State Attorney, from John O'Malley, the director of legal [page 221 begins] service for the Archdiocese, copied to others. And it states please be advised the Archdiocese of Chicago received a notice of investigation from the Department of Children and Family Services dated February 2, '06 on behalf of, quote, unknown two minor, unquote. The unknown minor alleged that an Archdiocesan priest, Father Joe Bennett, had sexually abused him/her at Holy Ghost Church in South Holland.
        What do you know about this?

[Holy Ghost church in South Holland. Exhibit 93 confirms to the State's Attorney of Cook County that the archdiocese was notified by DCFS on 2/2/06 of an investigation of child abuse by Bennett at Holy Ghost.]

A. The date is unknown. The accuser is unknown. Someone received a call at the DCFS that told us and we told the State's Attorney according to our policy to share any information with the civil authorities even in this case about an act whose date is unknown and the accuser is unknown but I think we depend, therefore, on DCFS to do the investigating.

Q. Okay.
        And if this is a minor, that is, somebody under the age of 18, this is recent, isn't it?
A. Well, that is unknown. The date of birth is unknown.

Q. But it's being referred to as a minor, [page 222 begins] isn't it?
A. How would you know it if it's unknown? The date of birth is unknown. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be difficult. It just that -- it says date of birth is unknown. Date of alleged abuse is unknown. The minor is unknown.

Q. Well, that's, you know, one of the reasons I'm inquiring of you, Cardinal, because I think you've said that you really want to protect these children.
A. Absolutely.

Q. And if -- if this is a minor, that means that is a recent allegation and I guess I'm asking you that -- if you know anything more about this than what -- what is reflected in the document?
A. I --

MR. KLENK: Objection -- objection to the form of the question and the assumptions in it.
        Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I don't and the document doesn't know anything about it either.


Q. Well, now that you reviewed this document and I presented it to you -- and I presume for the [page 223 begins] first time you've seen it -- what would you -- what are you going to do about this?
A. It was given, I'm sure, to Leah McCluskey to open a file for an unknown accuser whose date of birth is unknown and a date of the alleged incident is also unknown. And it's important to have those files because then when other information comes in, you have a framework to put it into.

Q. It's even more important to have some of these facts known, whether there is a minor out there who has been abused by Father Bennett and get some facts known, isn't it?
A. To the extent that it's possible to know that, yes. DCFS is investigating, apparently.

Q. What is the Archdiocese doing about it?
A. We are saying if someone unknown previously comes forward with a date for the alleged abuse which is still unknown and is willing to say that he or she was a minor when the abuse took place, we have a case that we can investigate.

Q. Look at 94.
A. I don't know what else --

MR. KLENK: We don't have 94.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I don't have 94. [page 224 begins]


Q. This is dated May 3, 2006, a memorandum again, Archdiocese, copy to a number -- the same individuals. May 3rd, PRA received a phone call today from Ms. Brigitte Broadway of the department regarding Mr. Blank allegation of sexual misconduct of a minor against Reverend Bennett.
        This would be, by my count, now 11 allegations against him?
A. Joe Bennett is withdrawn.

Q. Yes.
A. This is old actions which I'm sure are being investigated now so that the victim can be helped. That's the protocol.

Q. And you'll look at the third paragraph from the bottom, it states Ms. Broadway stated that she was calling to clarify if PRA had or had not spoken with blank and/or knew of his claim that Father Bennett had molested his children.
        Children is in the plural, isn't it, so that's more than one?
A. Yes.

Q. So there's -- okay. Let's look at number 98. This, again, is another memorandum. This one [page 225 begins] dated June 29, '06. Ms. Broadway expressing her frustration and at the third paragraph, Ms. Broadway then asked PRA the following questions, what is the status?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And at the second page, the paragraph indented right above the last paragraph begins with ask PRA. I'd like to read that and ask you a question. Ask PRA if anyone at the Archdiocese of Chicago has spoken with either Ms. Blank or Ms. Blank. PRA provided Ms. Broadway with Dr. Michael Bland's name and contact information.
        This appears to be another victim so that would be, if it is, victim 12, correct?
A. I don't know if it's another victim. The first paragraph would lead me to think it might be Jane Doe One and Jane Doe Two.
        This is testimony to our ongoing cooperation with DCFS, the civil authorities, in trying to pursue every bit of information that they get and that we get. And in that sense, to reach out. This is the Victim's Assistance Ministry report of how they had reached out to the victims to try to be of some help. [page 226 begins]

Q. And that outreach that you're referring to by Victim's Assistance Ministry is done privately between them and the victims, right?
A. Yes. It's counseling. It's spiritual help. Privately, it's known --

Q. Cardinal --
A. The lawyers know it.

Q. Okay.
        Cardinal, as of June 29, 2006, what had the Archdiocese done to reach out to the public and the community of faith to inform them that other victims of Bennett have come forward?
A. We've informed every parish where he has been stationed that if there are other victims, they should come forward which is why [redacted] in the other parish has come forward with other information.

Q. To date, the only news accounts that have been publically [sic] disseminated by the Archdiocese is been -- has been Dwyer's statement there was one allegation that resulted in his removal, that's it?

MR. KLENK: Objection.
        Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: I tell you that's -- that's not [page 227 begins] true.


Q. Well, tell me, Cardinal,. then if there is any other information --
A. The withdrawal was public.

Q. Just a moment. Let me ask the question.
A. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sure.

Q. That's okay.
Tell me, Cardinal, if there's been any other information disseminated by the Archdiocese representatives, your office or otherwise, other than that given by father -- the public relations, Mr. Dwyer, that -- that there was one allegation resulted in Bennett's removal?
A. I'm sure there were other reports when he was removed. That was one story. Whenever we remove a priest, there are. reports in the paper and explanations. given.

Q. But what has the public been told?
A. In the paper, they can read the fact of the removal for reasonable cause to suspect that he had abused a minor.

Q. For one allegation, right?
A. No. That's just one story you read. The [page 228 begins] papers were full of these stories.

Q. I know but has there been any dissemination by you or the Archdiocese beyond that which I showed you there was one allegation?
A. Yes, of course.

Q. There -- of course? Why do you say that? Where is it? I haven't seen it.
A. We go to every single parish where he served and said there have been allegations against him and we have reasonable cause to suspect and, therefore, he's removed from ministry. Would other victims please come forward. That's dissemination it seems to me, sir.

Q. Cardinal, I got to tell you, you know that I've been working across the table with the Archdiocese in connection with these cases for a long time.
        You know that?
A. I respect your work, sir.

Q. And you got to know -- and this is a question -- I am absolutely shocked to have gotten this information that I've reviewed with you this week and to have seen now that there are as many as a dozen allegations against Bennett. It came as a [page 229 begins] complete shock to me and I'm tracking everything that you are doing on this issue.
        Why is it that this comes as news to me when you claim that people -- all these other people know this?

MR. KLENK: I object to the form of the question.


Q. What do you think?
A. Well, you learn, don't you, sir, of allegations when accusers come to you and ask to be defended which you do well. In every one of these cases, the Archdiocese is addressing with the help of another lawyer or yourself the claim. The Victim's Assistance Ministry is outreaching to them. The civil authorities are informed.
        Bennett is out of ministry permanently.

Q. But the people out there believe that there was only one allegation. I was lead [sic] to believe that the Archdiocese thought there was only one allegation until this week, Cardinal.
A. Well, the people who are writing in know there are more than one allegation and that all goes into the newspapers, sir. [page 230 begins]

Q. I'm going to show you 81.
        Do you have doubt whether Joe Bennett committed sexual abuse against minors, Cardinal?
A. No. I share the Review Board's conviction.

Q. That he abused minors?
A. Yes.

Q. How many do you believe he abused?
A. Well, you've presented a good number here. I don't know of all these cases. I wasn't aware -- haven't had findings in all these cases. So I usually wait for the Review Board's finding before I make up my own mind but I would say -- yeah, the -- the ones that the Review Board has found reasonable cause to suspect, I'm sure of those. The others are still being investigated.

Q. Okay.
        Cardinal, I have presented to you in making this case to you the documents that the Archdiocese has retained and I just received this week.
        Wouldn't you agree that it's time for you and us to make this information that we just shared here on the record known to the public? [page 231 begins]
A. Every time the Review Board comes up with reasonable cause to suspect, we look at where we should bring that information next. So I think the information is public, sir.

Q. If it's not --
A. His name is on the list It's been in the newspapers. Others have come in because it is public. The very fact the people come forward, doesn't that mean, I think, that --

Q. Well, others came forward because his removal was made public and his removal was, according to Dwyer, based on one allegation. We now know that there are at least a dozen.
        And so those victims who are still suffering in silence who may not have come forward and those that did and weren't believed the first time, don't you think they need to know as well as the public that this priest may have abused this many kids?

MR. KLENK: Objection, compound to the form.
        You can answer.

THE WITNESS: To the last thing, I believe the public does know, sir, and that's why we're getting more allegations. [page 232 begins]


Q. You know that --
A. I think -- go ahead. I'm sorry.

MR. KLENK: He was going to finish his answer.

THE WITNESS: Go ahead.

MR. ANDERSON: No. You finish, please. I didn't meant to interrupt.

THE WITNESS: I agree with you that we should go back and check again in the case of the two where a prior Review Board had found there was no reasonable cause to suspect, to reach out to them as possible victims.



Q. Well, I'm -- I'm asking you to consider and having your representatives consider making a further public dissemination that elaborates on the information that I've presented to you and the case that I made here today. I'm asking you to consider doing that.
        Will you consider that? [page 233 begins]
A. Of course, I'll consider anything that we can do to be sure that more victims come forward and know they're not alone.

Q. You understand and you've come to understand that victims of abuse by clergy and any authority figure suffer in silence and they blame themselves and they think they're the only ones, right?
A. I -- I have heard many say that. That's why the importance of making this so public because then they have a chance to know I'm not alone. I don't have to imagine I'm the only one. That's very important, yes.

[Exhibit 81: Letter from Cardinal George to one of Bennett's supporters. "Of course, I hope Fr. Bennett is innocent — who would not? Rather than with me, I suggest you talk to his accusers."]

Q. Okay.
        Cardinal, I'm going to show you 81.
        Do you have that before you?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. Okay.
        This is from you to a Mr. [redacted; archdiocese also redacts "Mr."].
        And what is this? Is this a response to a letter received?
A. This is a response to a man from South Holland [archdiocese redacts "South Holland"; Anderson does not] who was very adamantly convinced that Father Bennett was innocent and was being [page 234 begins] mistreated by the Archdiocese in being removed.

Q. And -- and you did respond to him and provide him with the information -- with this information in this letter, right?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the second paragraph, you say as you may know, the Archdiocese of Chicago follows the national protocols for investigating allegations of sexual abuse against a priest.
        Did you and your Archdiocese follow the -- the national protocols for the investigating the allegation made against Bennett?
A. Yes, we did.

Q. It then says the allegations -- excuse me -- the allegation.
        That's singular, isn't it, not allegations?
A. Yes, because that's all he was talking to me about. He was talking to me about Jane Doe One.

Q. Well, he was talking to you about one allegation because there's only been one allegation that's been made public, right?
A. No, because it's the only one that he had a personal opinion about as far as I know from his [page 235 begins] letter.

Q. Okay.
The sentence says the allegation -- and you wrote the allegation against Father Bennett was made about two and one half years ago and the investigation has taken an extraordinary long period of time because of its complexity.
        That's what you wrote?
A. That's true.

Q. And, actually, it's taken four years, not two and a half years, correct? [George's letter to the Bennett supporter (Exhibit 81) is dated July 14, 2006. The archdiocese received the initial phone call from Jane Doe One on December 3, 2003 (Exhibit 211). As Cardinal George states, her allegation was made about two and a half years before George's reply to the supporter. However, the lie detector allegations (Exhibit 54), which were communicated to the archdiocese by November 13, 2002, were three and three quarter years before George's letter to the Bennett supporter. Anderson is referring to those allegations.]
A. I don't believe so but I'd have to go back and check the dates. I'm sorry if that's incorrect. I believe, again, we're talking about Jane Doe One.

Q. Then you write normally, the investigation is finished and a decision has been made before the future of a priest is decided. In the case of Father Bennett, because the investigation had taken so long, there were external pressures.
        What external pressures?
A. The change in the policy because of the McCormack case. He was asking why when it wasn't completed he was still taken out. We changed our [page 236 begins] policy.

Q. And when you say that the -- because the investigation had taken so long, the fact is, Cardinal, the investigation took so long because once the Review Board made its recommendation, you chose to get the file and delay it and do your own?
A. I didn't do an investigation. I wanted to see what the victims were saying because it did take a very long time for Leah to visit all these people in Washington, in San Antonio. The victims were scattered across the length of the land. It took a long time to get the investigation even before the Review Board in complete form. Longer than usual.

Q. The next paragraph says with you, I hope that Father Bennett is innocent of these allegations.
A. I always hope that an allegation is not true because it means somebody's been hurt.

Q. Well, if you just told me that you believe he had did it -- done it as you did here under oath today, why didn't you tell Mr. [redacted; archdiocese also redacts "Mr."] you believe that this allegation was -- was true and that there were many more allegations that have been made? [page 237 begins] Why didn't you tell him?
A. Because I didn't know of all the allegations that you brought forward at the time that I wrote this letter.

Q. How many did you know of as of July 14, 2006 when you wrote this?
A. What I had in mind was Jane Doe One, that was what the letter -- his letter to me which was a very strong letter in his defense. I was trying to respond to that.

Q. You then write the Review Board does careful work but should the Holy See find he is innocent of these charges, he will be returned to active ministry unless there are charges to be investigated -- excuse me -- unless there are other charges to be investigated.
        So you're implying here that there are no other charges to be investigated?
A. No. I can't tell people about other, victims. I can't divulge that kind of information and I was in a sense telling him that even though you may think he's innocent here, there are probably other charges to be investigated.

Q. You can tell him there are multiple [page 238 begins] allegations against Father Bennett, some of which have been found to have been -- cause to believe were true and further allegations to be investigated, couldn't you?
A. Would you go over that again, please?

Q. You could have told this person in July of 2006 that there were two substantiated allegations and there have been other allegations that are being investigated that have been brought against Bennett?
A. I did tell him that by saying unless there are other charges to be investigated.

Q. No. You said unless there are other charges to be investigated. You didn't tell him there are other charges being investigated?
A. No, but that's enough to tell him that just because he's concerned about one case doesn't mean it's the only case.

Q. You chose these words, didn't you, Cardinal?
A. And that's what I meant to say.

Q. Look at the P.S. P.S., we have no choice but to send the case.
        When you say we have no choice -- [page 239 begins]
A. That's right. That's the protocol.

Q. -- but to send the case to the Holy See for review, that is the regulation for every case?
A. That's true.

Q. You then go on to say, of course, I hope Father Bennett is innocent. Who would not?
A. I hope all the charges are not true because it means that somebody's been abused. That's a terrible, terrible development in someone's life. You always hope that the allegation isn't quite what the accuser says it is.

Q. Well, hope is one thing but facts are another and the facts are that there have been multiple allegations against this priest and instead of telling this writer this, you told him that you're hoping he's innocent, right?
A. I would hope that he would be innocent. I don't believe it but who would not, that's what I said.

Q. Then why didn't you tell this writer that you -- that not only you didn't believe it, that your board didn't believe it and that there were multiple allegations? Why didn't you do that?

MR. KLENK: Please don't point at the witness. [page 240 begins]

MR. ANDERSON: I didn't.

THE WITNESS: I think the letter says that in a form that a very, very angry friend and defender of Father Bennett might take to heart. That's what I was hoping to do here.


Q. The last sentence I'm going to read and then I'd like to ask you about it. You state rather than with me, I suggest you talk to his accusers.
        Cardinal, are you telling Mr. [redacted; archdiocese also redacts "Mr."] to contact these victims and intimidate them or interrogate --
A. No.

Q. -- them and talk to them?

MR. KLENK: Objection.

THE WITNESS: No, I'm not saying that.


Q. What are you saying to him?
A. He wanted to know the details of the allegations, what was said and I can't divulge that. It would be wrong to divulge that. The only one -- he knows the -- he knows the accuser. If he wants to get the kind of information he wants, he [page 241 begins] can't get it from me.

Q. This is, obviously, a man of faith that had contacted you that you are writing back and you are giving him guidance to contact the accusers.
        And you used the word accusers, right?
A. That's correct.

Q. You don't use the word victims who have been found to have been credibly believed by me and the Review Board, do you?
A. No, I don't.

Q. You call them accusers like this is unsubstantiated, don't you?
A. It's the word he used in his letter to me.

Q. This is not good, is it, Cardinal?
A. It could have been better written, yes.

Q. Cardinal, don't you think you ought to correct this? You ought to write this guy and say, look, I've got some more information and the information is as we've established here today, we know there are multiple accusers, we know that your board has found it to be true and we know that you believe it to be true and --

MR. KLENK: Please don't point at this witness.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm just -- [page 242 begins]

MR. KLENK: You are.

MR. ANDERSON: I apologize for pointing. I'm just using my hand to direct my question.



Q. Don't you think it's time to write Mr. [redacted; archdiocese also redacts "Mr."] and set the record straight here?
A. I think I will make inquiry about him and I had thought even when I wrote this that the time was going to come when we would go back and I would go back personally to South Holland after the Holy See has returned the case to us, as I'm sure they will, with permanent removal and explain the whole situation to everybody once again.

Q. Okay. Thank you, Cardinal. I appreciate that you're going to do that.
A. Yes.

Q. And I appreciate that you're going to do that soon because --
A. Well, I was supposed to do it in two weeks and we don't have the case back and the present pastor said it's best to wait until we have the case back.

Q. Cardinal, there was a priest by the name [page 243 begins] of Raymond Skriba, S-K-R-I-B-A?
A. Yes.

[Rev. Raymond F. Skriba]

Q. And do you recall that the Review Board found that there were credible allegations that had been made against him; that you continued him in ministry after that finding?
A. He was removed from ministry as he is now and I thought it was on the basis of what the Review Board found.

Q. Don't you recall that before you removed him and after they made the finding of cause to believe that you asked the Board to go back and take another look at it?
A. If I did, it was because other information had come to me either from the parish or from someone else that meant the discussion wasn't completed.

Q. And do you recall then that you did not remove him immediately on the recommendation but rather did so later after you had asked them to reconsider?
A. I don't recall all the details but it would have been on the basis of further information that I wasn't sure they had considered. [page 244 begins]

Q. And at least, initially, you agreed then that you did not follow the recommendation of the Board in connection with Skriba?
A. Well, I did but I --

Q. Not initially?

MR. KLENK: Please -- please let him finish.

THE WITNESS: I did but I wanted them to be sure they had all the information.


Q. In the -- and there's several other cases where you did not follow the recommendation of the Review Board and we've talked about McCormack where you didn't?
A. That was advice. It was not reasonable cause to suspect. I asked them to finish the investigation.

Q. And October 15, '05, the Board found and recommended removal and you did not follow that?
A. Because they didn't couldn't tell me that there was reasonable cause to suspect. The investigation wasn't finished but I wish I had. You're -- you're -- what you're saying is -- is I've taken to heart. I'm very sorry.

[Rev. Norbert Maday]

Q. In connection with Father Maday, the [page 245 begins] Board recommended laicization, did they not? [The deposition transcript consistently misspells Maday's name as Mayday. We will render Maday’s name as Maday.]
A. And he has been laicized.

Q. And you --
A. I'm not sure that the Board recommended that, sir, but we have acted to laicize him.

Q. Do you have recollection that the Board having recommended to you on three different occasions in 2000 that Maday be laicized and you declined to follow that?
A. I don't recall that. Maday was in prison when I came to the Archdiocese so I've never talked to him and I don't recall all the incidents of the further allegations that have come since he's in prison.

Q. When was Maday laicized?
A. A few months ago.

Q. When did you petition for it?
A. Some months before that.

Q. So it was this year sometime -- or late last year?
A. I don't remember the exact date.

Q. Are you aware that Maday is in prison now?
A. I believe he's in protective custody of [page 246 begins] the State of Wisconsin at our request.

Q. And he had been and was in prison for three counts of sexual assault on a minor and one count of intimidation of a witness?
A. I wasn't sure of the last one. I knew he was in prison, I was told when I got here, for sexual abuse of a minor child.

Q. Other than him being a priest of the Archdiocese, do you have any special relationship with or to him?
A. No. I've never met him.

Q. Do you know how many allegations of sexual abuse have been made and/or recorded by the Archdiocese against Father Maday?
A. I don't know the number but they are multiple.

Q. My staff has counted between 35 and 45.
        Does that come as a shock or news to you?
A. I didn't know it was that high but I knew there were a good number.

Q. That's actually a bad number, isn't it?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Did you participate in any way or help in trying to get him civilly committed? [page 247 begins]
A. Yes. When his 20-year term was coming to an end and the State was going to release him, because I'd come to know of the case in more detail and the many allegations were coming forward and because he would not take the treatment that the State wanted to give him, I consider him a danger to children and I made that case to the State and asked him to keep him in some sense in custody to protect children.

Q. Cardinal, the attorney for the State of Wisconsin who is attempting to civilly commit Maday contacted me and reported to me that you and your office was refusing to provide them with the information concerning Father Maday so they could civilly commit him.

MR. KLENK: Objection. I'm sorry.


Q. Have you at any time become aware that those that are trying to commit him are under the belief that you're refusing to cooperate?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question and evidentiary assumptions in it.

THE WITNESS: I wrote a letter, maybe two, asking that the State of Wisconsin not release him [page 248 begins] for the protection of children. I don't understand what you're telling me. It's news to me.


Q. Well, I'm representing to you that they contacted me three months ago and said they were petitioning him. He was scheduled to get out of prison and they were petitioning to civilly commit him.
A. Yes.

Q. They were trying to get files and allegations regarding Maday so they could commit him as a predator, sexual offender after his release.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And they told me that your office would not give them the files so they got them from me.
        Do you know anything about that?
A. No, I don't. I asked them to do just that. I wrote two letters, I believe.

[Exhibit 21]: Cardinal George thanks Governor Tommy Thompson for granting Maday an "extraordinary" privilege in prison.

Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit 21. Now, this is dated September 8, 1997 and so this would be shortly after your appointment and installation as cardinal -- as Archbishop of Chicago, correct?
A. Yes. [page 249 begins]

Q. And this is a letter to then the Governor of Wisconsin where Maday is incarcerated --
A. Yes.

Q. -- Tommy Thompson?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And the first sentence, you say thank you for your personal thoughtfulness in granting an extra -- extraordinary permission for the body of Catherine Maday to be brought to the Fox Lake Correctional Facility for the viewing of her son Norbert. It was an exceptional act of charity.
        Are you seeking some special privileges be granted Father Maday?
A. I asked that he be able to see the body of his mother whose death apparently, as I was told, had affected him grievously.

Q. Was it granted?
A. Yes, it was. That's why I wrote this letter of thanks.

Q. Showing you 22. It says October of '97, a month later the same year. And the Vicar for Priests, then McBrady, at -- I presume with your permission writes to Robert Maday -- excuse me -- Norbert Maday in prison, Dear Norb and I'd like to [page 250 begins] read from the second paragraph in the middle. I met with Warden Berge and Associate Warden Benik who, as you know, oversees treatment programs. They were both adamant that no special program would be designed for you or any other inmate.
        Were you seeking through your Vicar for Priests then some special treatment for him?
A. No, I was not. He was seeking special treatment for himself.

Q. The next paragraph says that the Archbishop would like you to go to the Oshkosh program because he feels this is your best opportunity.
        Is this -- does that mean that's his best opportunity for early release?
A. It meant his best opportunity to come to terms with what he had done which he still refuses to do.

Q. The last paragraph says the Archbishop hopes you will accept the parameters of your confinement and avail yourself of this program which offers the possibility for early release?
A. Yes.

Q. So the -- the benefit is to Maday to -- [page 251 begins] to do this program so he can get out early, right?
A. Yes. This was '97 before the full extent of his crimes was evident and the attempt was to make him come to recognize the evil that he had done, the abuse of children, which he could not do. And one way to force him to do that was to say this is the only chance you have as you appeal for an early release. If you don't take this, there will be no chance of early release.

Q. It doesn't say that in your in -- in -- the letter, though.
        The end game here in the letter is to secure an early release, isn't it?
A. No. The end game is to get him to go to treatment.

Q. Okay.
A. Early release is the carrot that is dangled in front of him to keep the hope of early release there.

Q. Let's look at 23. This is another letter but this one is from you directly to Father Maday --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- at prison. He's still a priest of the [page 252 begins] Archdiocese, however?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And it's dated May 23, '98. Second paragraph you state, as one of my priests, you know our relationship is very special to me?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. At the last sentence of --
A. Is a very special one.

Q. Excuse me. I'm sorry. I misread.
        Third paragraph, last sentence, you state entrance into this program is one sure way you can possibly change your entire future and then you state as your Archbishop, I insist you enter the Denier's Group. Know that I urge this for your own good, right?
A. That's correct.

Q. Then there's your handwritten note to him.
        Would you read that?
A. I still look forward to our meeting and I've asked Father Coughlin to look into the question of your lawyer's actions or better, lack of action.

Q. What are you referring to here?
A. I was told when the Maday case, among [page 253 begins] others, were -- was first presented to me when I asked for a review of all our cases that this was someone who was incarcerated in Wisconsin without a fair trial. That's what was told me. So I was under the impression that he was guilty but that there were circumstances that elicited some kind of sympathy and I think I was still somewhat sympathetic to him here as I am not now.

Q. So you then laboring under the belief that he had been perhaps wrongly incarcerated or --
A. No, I did not believe that. Nobody told me that. They believed he did it but that he hadn't had a fair trial.

Q. And that he -- okay.
        I'd like to show you 25. This is December 1, '98 now and from the Professional Fitness Review Administrator to Co-Vicar for Priests, Coughlin. In the second paragraph, she states in reviewing the files, his stipend was decreased to $200 in November. As Father Maday requested, we will increase this to $300 a month.
What this seems to reflect and as copied to Paprocki, Maday is being paid by the Archdiocese while he's in prison; is that right? [page 254 begins]
A. He gets a small stipend -- did as long as he was a priest of the Archdiocese, yes.

Q. I'd like to show you 26. This is dated May 20, 1999.
A. I wasn't aware of that exact detail because I hadn't seen this before but nonetheless.

Q. This is a three-page letter from Reverend Daniel Coughlin who was then the Vicar for Priests, correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. And this is to Mr. Smith at the Parole Commission for the State of Wisconsin where Maday is incarcerated?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. The first paragraph, your vicar states -- and this is with your permission, of course, he writes, correct?
A. I have never seen this before.

MR. KLENK: Objection.


Q. But it's with your -- under your authority that your -- your Vicar sends a letter such as this?
A. In the -- a general fashion, yes. [page 255 begins]

Q. Okay.
        Let me just ask you a couple questions about it. The second -- the first paragraph, last sentence, the Archdiocese established the Vicar for Priests office in '84. One of the principles of the office is to care for priests who have been accused of serious misconduct. The last -- I guess I have no question there. I'm sorry I asked that.
        The third paragraph, last sentence, it says the Review Board oversees the entire file -- excuse me -- entire life situation of such a priest for the duration of his priesthood even if he's released by the court or other public body.
        That's a correct statement of fact, is it not?
A. I'm not sure what it means. If it means that someone who comes out of prison and he is still a priest is subject to the restrictions of the Review Board, yes, that would be true.

Q. If you'll look at the second page, you'll see that the Vicar for Priests is making a number of representations to the parole board. And I guess I'll just in the interest of brevity direct you to the last paragraph of the third page. [page 256 begins]
        He states we would be pleased to receive Norbert Maday into the Archdiocese of Chicago system outlined above. We would also accept financial responsibility for his maintenance, monitoring and then something is blocked out. This would relieve the State of Wisconsin from the financial burden of caring for Maday.
        Would he, Coughlin, have made such representation without acting outside of authority given him by you?
A. He has authority as vicar but I didn't approve this letter.

Q. And now that you've read it, what do you think of it, at least what you've seen?
A. What he is doing, I believe, is telling Commissioner Smith here are the restrictions under which Maday released from Wisconsin prison would live; that he would never be alone with minors; that he would have to keep a log; that he would be monitored; that he could not move without permission of the Professional Fitness Administrator; all of these restrictions to tell him that even if the State of Wisconsin paroled him, he would still be subject to restrictions and [page 257 begins] supervision by the Archdiocese. I think it's a straightforward statement in 1999. Maybe Father Coughlin thought that he was going to be released or at least they should know in the Parole Commission what his life would be like when he was released.
        More recently, as I've said, we asked that he not be released.

Q. Well, you're aware that the recent report commissioned by Childers by you in the Archdiocese reflected factual findings and the conclusions that the monitoring program in place by this Archdiocese was grossly deficient?
A. That's true. I accept that and that's why we wouldn't write a letter like this today.

Q. Showing you Exhibit 28. This is an October '99 letter from the Vicar for Priests McBrady to [redacted]. Cardinal George asked that I respond to your letter. Second paragraph, the Vicar for Priests office continues to be in contact with Father Norb and we are looking for ways to bring about his freedom; is that right?
A. This is 1999. The assumption that he hadn't been given a fair trial meant that people [page 258 begins] were concerned about his not being subjected to his full 20-year sentence and I think that was written in this context.

Q. At the time that this letter was written under your authority, did you ever go back to the Maday file, pull it out and see what was in it?

MR. KLENK: I object to the form of the question.
        Go ahead and answer.

THE WITNESS: I went to the Maday file when we began to get more allegations in the early 2000s. I'm not sure exactly when I first asked to see the file, 2003, 2004. We were getting a number of allegations and I began to realize that this man had seriously abused many, many innocent children.


Q. And so the first review you ever did of the Maday file or any investigation into whether he was innocent or not or had had a fair trial or not and/or had abused kids was in 2002 or three?

MR. KLENK: Objection, compound question.

THE WITNESS: No. No, that's not true as you say it, sir. Evidently, [redacted] and others believed he was innocent and they wrote to [page 259 begins] support him in many ways. I did not believe he was innocent. I had been told he didn't have a fair trial but he was not innocent.


Q. I'd like to show you 29. This was dated January 12, 2000. This is a letter directly from you to Norbert Maday in prison.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And second paragraph, you state the very calling to mind of Isaiah's words in the year of jubilee echo my prayer for the release of prisoners. As you know, Father Dan Coughlin and the lawyers have something underway. I pray these efforts will bear fruit.
        At this time, what outreach, if any, had you or effort had you made to discern how many victims Maday had?
A. I was told of the allegations that he pled -- that he had been convicted of. I didn't know, I believe, of many others at that point.
        This is a father's letter to a son in prison, a sinful son, and it was designed to give him some hope and encouragement. He just lost to death his best friend as well as his mother. [page 260 begins]

Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit 30. This is a memo to you from McBrady, February 2000, and the first sentence says this is the appropriate time for you to speak with Bishop Wycislo regarding Norb since the paperwork has now been filed with the governor's office.
        So McBrady is suggesting you should contact the bishop where Maday is serving his time in -- in -- which is Green Bay. Bishop Wycislo is the Bishop of Green Bay as you know.
A. That's correct.

Q. To try to intervene on -- on -- on Maday's behalf with that bishop, right?
A. That's correct.

Q. And this was being suggested to you and you -- you were doing this because there was some -- some public criticism of the Archdiocese of Chicago for attempting to influence the way things were done and the incarceration of Maday?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Is that right?
A. That was -- was told me. I wasn't aware of that.

Q. Look at the last bullet point there. It [page 261 begins] states it's important for Bishop Wycislo to intercede with the governor in his own name and not merely convey our message. We feel this is important because at the time of the media coverage regarding the prayer service for Mrs. Maday at the prison, the media take on the story was that Chicago was attempting to influence the way things are done in Wisconsin.
        So -- so, basically, you're -- you're being advised to contact Wycislo to do it to take the heat off here, is that it?
A. In fact, I didn't contact the bishop.

[Exhibit 31: Letter from Cardinal George to "Norb" Maday. "Hopefully, some good souls will see that the six years of incarceration you have already endured are enough to satisfy the state and any sense of justice."]

Q. Okay.
        31, March 6, 2000, a letter from you to Maday again. Second paragraph, as you know, we are trying in Wisconsin to make some definite efforts to have a sentence reduction in your. case.
        What efforts are you making?
A. They did some conversations which I'm not aware of. This letter was to try to convince him to go to the Denier's Group, which he would not do, as a condition of his even being considered for early parole and to encourage him personally. It was in 2000. [page 262 begins]

Q. In the middle of the last paragraph, you state it would be great fulfillment of millennium spirit to see your captive heart set free.
        What does that mean, Cardinal?
A. It means that if he goes to the Denier's Group and owns his own behavior, he will be free in a way that is impossible as long as you refuse to accept responsibility for your actions.

Q. When you wrote this to Father Maday, had you written anything to any of his victims wherein you expressed prayers for them and that it would be great fulfillment of the millennium spirit and that you wanted to help them set them free from the captive damage that Maday had imposed upon them?
A. Our Victim's Assistance Ministry is designed to do that and I talk to everyone who asks to talk to me.

Q. My question is did you ever take any initiative to write them when they hadn't demanded or personally requested it?
A. At this time, I wasn't aware of their names. It all happened before I came to Chicago.

Q. But their names are in the file but you never went and looked? [page 263 begins]
A. No, I didn't.

Q. 32 is a letter to Maday and it's not signed on our copy because this is a carbon copy that was produced.
        Do you know if this is written by you or by the Vicar For cleric -- Priests?
A. I'm really not sure.

Q. Okay.
        The third paragraph says --
A. Oh, it wasn't written by me, obviously, was it?

Q. No, it doesn't look like it.
A. No.

Q. It looks like it's written by Vicar for Clergy. It's referring to you, however?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.

Q. And it says Dear Norb, third paragraph, our attorney, John O'Malley, continues to monitor developments to gain your early release. As you well know, these things never move quickly but I can assure you it is in progress and the Cardinal remains committed to doing whatever needs to be done.
        Is that -- is that the state of affairs at [page 264 begins] least --
A. This is still the year 2000 and, again, these are letters written to encourage him to cooperate with the authorities and to get the psychological help he needs.

Q. 34, I'll show you quickly, is a letter directly from you to Norbert Maday dated September 7, 2000. The last sentence in the first paragraph says let us pray for an early release.
        So you're still working and praying for his release, early?
A. This is the year 2000.

Q. Got it.
A. The last several years, I'm working and praying that he not be released for the protection of kids.

Q. I'm going to skip a couple and go to 2002 now, February 4th. And this is another letter from you to Maday in 2002. The second paragraph --

MR. KLENK: Could you identify it please for the record, Mr. Anderson.

MR. ANDERSON: 39. I'm sorry.


Q. Do you have that before you, Cardinal? [page 265 begins]
A. I have that. Thank you.

Q. Second paragraph, you state we have tried as you know a number, of avenues to see if your sentenced [sic] might be reduced or parole be given early. So far, we have not had any success but we'll keep trying and I personally hope that you will not lose hope.
        So you haven't reviewed the file yet of Maday or you have?
A. No, I have not.
        This is a letter from a bishop to a priest to try to be a father to a son.

Q. Did -- did it occur to you in 2002 what it would mean to the victims that he had been convicted of having abused as children if you had been successful in facilitating the early release of this convicted offender?
A. The victims were being cared for by the Victim's Assistance Ministry. And, in fact, later, I did talk to some in a larger group. The fact that he would never function as a priest again was what most of the victims that I spoke to were most concerned about, not whether he was in prison or not. [page 266 begins]

Q. Those victims that you referred to that you spoke to, did you ever let them or anybody outside your control group ever know -- ever let them or anybody outside of your control group know that you were trying to secure the early release of Maday?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question.
        Please answer.

THE WITNESS: It never came up.


Q. Exhibit 40. This is a memorandum. This was now June 25, 2003.
        Would this be a point in time where you have now reviewed the file or have yet to review the file of Maday?
A. I reviewed in this sense, the report from the Review Board itself in this rudimentary fashion of what the cases disclosed in general.

Q. Okay.
        And this is a summary of the discussion from the Professional Fitness Review Board meeting in June of 2003, correct?
A. That's correct. [page 267 begins]

Q. And the last paragraph after stating that they conducted a second stage of an allegation that he had fondled genitals and gave minors alcohol and pot and that he was in bed with somebody who is blanked out at a hotel. Last paragraph, they state in a unanimous six-oh vote, the Review Board recommended to uphold their first stage review recommendation that there is reasonable cause to suspect the alleged misconduct occurred. Further, the Board reiterated their earlier recommendation that Mr. Maday be laicized.
        Is that -- did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, you did, sir.

Q. Did you follow the recommendation of the Review Board in 2003 to initiate the petition for laicization?
A. The list of those who would be laicized was being assembled. Until 2002, as you know, sir, a priest had to be asked to be laicized. Often after 2002 at the bishop's request could he be involuntary laicized and we were beginning to put the list together.
        Father Maday has been involuntarily laicized now. [page 268 begins]

Q. Well, I was under the impression that for misconduct and de lex or violations of the canons and crimes that the Ordinary has the power and the ability under the -- the 1913 code of canon law as revised in 1983 to petition Rome for laicization involuntarily.

MR. KLENK: Objection, that's not a question.


Q. Is that incorrect?
A. I believe that's incorrect.

Q. In any case, the Board in this exhibit says that they reiterated their earlier recommendation that he be laicized and it's your testimony that you couldn't petition for laicization then?
A. In 2003, we were beginning to get the cases of involuntary laicization together but we had to first ask if they would voluntarily be laicized. That was part of the demands of the process from the Holy See.

Q. So it took four years until late 2007 to petition that?
A. Well, it took a long time for a man who was in prison and, therefore, of no danger to [page 269 begins] anyone to get the case together. We had to be sure he would not ask and it took too long probably but he is laicized now.

Q. Well, if you had been successful in securing his early release, he would have been a danger to -- to these kids, wouldn't he have?
A. Yes --

MR. KLENK: Objection.

THE WITNESS: -- I suppose but in this case, we were not going that way.


Q. 42 -- [This exhibit was not discussed after the break and was not included in the documents released by the archdiocese and Anderson.]

MR. ANDERSON: I'm going to take a brief break here.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record at 5:01 p.m. This is the end of videotape number five.

(A short break was taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on the record at 5:23 p.m. This is the beginning of videotape number six.


Q. Cardinal, I need to go back on something here and try to clarify it. [page 270 begins]
        Regarding McCormack, I believe you testified that you could not remove him from ministry because the norms prevented you from doing so?
A. Until the process was completed but the authorities knew and he was restricted and monitored and --

Q. Okay.
A. -- the protection of children was in the process.

Q. And I believe you also said that in connection with Bennett, you removed Bennett before the Board investigation was completed?
A. I removed him and then I discovered that they hadn't fulfilled their own protocol in the investigation.

Q. But you removed him before the Board investigation was completed, did you not?
A. The -- the second time? That was because we changed our policies and asked the priests to step back voluntarily which is our policy now.

Q. Cardinal, the removal of McCormack was on January 21, '06. The removal of Bennett was February 1, '06. That's ten days. [page 271 begins]
        In that ten days, did the norms change?
A. Yes. We recognized that we had to ask a priest to step back while the investigation is going on instead of only after we know that he has offended.

Q. The bottom line, Cardinal, is that the norms didn't change. You decided to change the way you were doing business when it came to removal of priests because of McCormack?
A. We went beyond the norms and still are beyond the norms.

Q. Bottom line is that -- the norms are only guidelines. You're not required to follow those and you, as the Cardinal --
A. That's -- I'm sorry.

Q. Are you required to follow them?
A. I am.

Q. You., as Cardinal, had the power and at all times had the power, notwithstanding the norms, to remove McCormack if you thought he posed a risk of harm to children, correct?
A. No. A bishop must always follow the norms and laws of the church.

Q. Did you say that the norms actually [page 272 begins] changed then between January 21, '06 and February 1, '06?
A. Our application of the norms was altered so that we could ask him to voluntarily step aside and he did.

Q. So the norms didn't change?
A. No.

Q. You changed the way you wanted to handle the problem, correct?
A. We are still within the norms because the priest voluntarily steps aside. He's not removed until after the Review Board makes its decision and that's within the norms.

Q. So you had discretion, if you wanted to, to have removed McCormack just as you did Bennett, correct?
A. I did not feel that the norms permitted it.

Q. But you did it anyway in the case of Bennett?
A. We applied the situations' norms to say would you please step down. That's different from formal canonical removal.

Q. There was nothing that prevented you from [page 273 begins] having done that with McCormack, was there?
A. Except that the norms that permit us to impose this penalty also say you can remove from ministry an offending priest, not an accused priest.

Q. Did Father Stepek voluntarily step down?
A. Yes, he did.

[Rev. Robert A. Stepek]

Q. Is that because you would have begun the review process if he had not?
A. Would you say that again, please?

Q. Is that because you would have begun the removal process if he had not?
A. They would have begun to investigate. They did that right away. We asked him to step back during the investigation instead of to be monitored in place while -- until the investigation was finished, yeah.

Q. I'm going to -- are you suggesting by that answer then if the priest doesn't step down on his own having been accused that you're required to leave him in ministry?
A. I would try to find some way to be sure that he was not in ministry now while the process of investigation was going on. I haven't had to [page 274 begins] find one so far because they've cooperated.

Q. In other words, if you have the will, there is a way, Cardinal, right?

MR. KLENK: Please don't point at the man.

THE WITNESS: Within the process and the norms, a bishop must obey the rules of the church. We're all in a society of law in the church too.


Q. In other words, if you have the will and you want to, there is a way within the norms and the process of the church to remove an offender who --
A. Not always. You have to -- I'm sorry.

Q. Just a moment.
        -- to remove an offender from ministry who may pose a risk of harm to children, right?
A. Within -- within the rules that govern my conduct.

Q. Cardinal, I'm going to show you 214. Now, this is a document that we had supplied that is in connection with another case. No case pertaining to this Archdiocese. It is a document filed with the court by another cardinal pertaining to some -- some practices that these two cardinals are talking [page 275 begins] about. So I'm going to ask you if -- if -- about -- about this.
        So just to be brief on this, I'll represent to you that this is a declaration of Cardinal Norberto Rivera who is, as you know, the cardinal in Mexico City.
A. Yes, I know.

Q. And it also is in connection with a case involving Cardinal Roger Mahoney [sic] who you know to be the cardinal in L.A.?
A. Yes.

Q. And this document was filed in a case where both of them are named as defendants and Cardinal Rivera filed this, I'll represent, to explain his actions in that connection.
        And I direct your attention in this affidavit to the third page of it and the bottom of the affidavit. I'm just going to read a passage as recited by Cardinal Rivera under oath. However, because I suspected that Father Aguilar might be homosexual, I cautioned that the motivation for Father Aguilar's trip to Los Angeles was, quote, family and health reasons, unquote. The phrase family and health reasons was used within the [page 276 begins] church to warn that a priest suffers from some sort of problem. [See our Aguilar page for Cardinal Rivera's affidavit and dozens of other documents in the case.]
        My question to you, Cardinal, as a cardinal and former bishop and former Vicar General of the Oblates order, is it or was it -- is that correct? Is that phrase, family and health reasons, somehow used within the church by bishops and cardinals to warn if a priest suffers from some sort of problem?

MR. KLENK: I would object to the form of the question. Also, that it's not likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence in any dispute.
        You can answer.

THE WITNESS: I don't recognize that as some kind of phrase to indicate a problem other than family and health reasons.


Q. I've looked at a lot of files that have been maintained by the Archdiocese and there are often references to a problem, the problem and the like.
        Is there a code or a phrase such as the problem reoccurring and the problem being used among leadership in the church that's code for [page 277 begins] sexual abuse?

MR. KLENK: Objection, form.

THE WITNESS: I know of no such code. I don't use it. Never have. I'm not sure what they use in Mexico or what they may have used in years past even here but there is no such code that I'm familiar with or was ever introduced to.


Q. Is there a code of secrecy among the clerics and the bishops in particular to keep offenses by their clerics secret to avoid scandal?
A. No.

Q. Why, Cardinal, until recently did you not make known the names of all of the offenders that have been known to this Archdiocese for so many years public?
A. They were made known when they were removed from ministry and everyone was alerted to that fact. Their names appeared in the newspapers and have many times. Their names are public in the -- the website so that if somebody wants to check about the history of a priest to know if there was an allegation substantiated against him, that name is on our website. [page 278 begins]

Q. Cardinal, isn't it correct that when priests were removed before 2002 from ministry by the Archdiocese for suspected sexual offenses, the parishioners were told they were being removed but they said it was for problems unspecified?
A. I don't know what the past practice was.

Q. I'm saying before 2002.
A. When I came, the practice was to notify the parishes if we withdrew a priest for this crime and to say why he was removed. That's what I was told.

Q. Can you tell me one instance, cite one instance between 1997 and 2002 where the parishioners were told the priest was being removed because he was suspected of or had committed sexual abuse?
A. I don't know right now that I can recall any such removals.

Q. Cardinal, I'd like to -- I'd like to draw your attention to Exhibit 208. This is a lawsuit that we filed against the Archdiocese and naming the Catholic Bishop and this was served and made public on January 31, 2006. You became aware of this action, did you not? This action was [page 279 begins] specifically to require this Archdiocese to make public the names of those offenders who had been found to have had credible allegations made against them to be made public and known to the community of faith.
        Do you recall this suit?
A. I don't recall it as such. I recall the fact that there was such a suit to make public the names of all the offenders.

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.

Q. And you can see on the date of this that it was filed on or about January 31, 2006.
        Is it correct, Cardinal, that as of that time, the names of the offenders known to you and the Archdiocese --

MR. KLENK: Please don't point.


Q. Isn't it correct that the names of the offenders known to you and the Archdiocese had not been made public as of January 31, 2006?
A. Oh, they were public. They were in the newspapers. They were on our website. They were public. [page 280 begins]

Q. Is it your testimony that the names of the offenders were posted on the website?
A. Well, all the priests were on the website and anyone could write and ask for a complete file of the priest's history and then they would know if there was an allegation against him or not.

Q. Isn't it correct that before February 1, 2006 if somebody wanted to know if a priest had been credibly accused, they had to write the Archdiocese and request the information?
A. That's true.

Q. And isn't it true that there was no website that they could look on at that time that would tell them that information unless they requested it?
A. That's true.

Q. And isn't it also true that, ultimately, after this lawsuit was filed, that -- that you and the Archdiocese did create a website where those names were posted?
A. Separately as a list. Given the fact that they were all out there anyway, with the exception of a few priests who were accused only after they had left the ministry, we decided it was good in [page 281 begins] the present circumstances to publish a list as such. [On March 20, 2006, the Archdiocese of Chicago posted a partial list of Archdiocesan Priests with Substantiated Allegations of Sexual Misconduct with Minors. A marked-up copy of this list, in a later version, was introduced in Cardinal George's deposition as Exhibit 1. The exhibit includes seven priests added since the original posting of the archdiocesan list: Bennett, Czalka, McCormack, Steel, Stepek, Thomas, and Turlo. In the context of George's deposition exchange with Anderson, it is noteworthy that in the original March 20, 2006 list, both McCormack and Bennett were not included, although McCormack had already been indicted for molesting 3 boys, and the archdiocese knew of multiple allegations against Bennett. For the release of the list, along with the Defenbaugh and Childers reports, see Cardinal: I Should've Done More, by Cathleen Falsani, Chicago Sun-Times, March 21, 2006. Before the release of the March 20, 2006 list, the archdiocoese's two main reports contained summary statistics but no names of accused priests: the Ten Year Report released on January 16, 2003; and Cardinal George's undated letter and related Information Sheet, both released in connection with the John Jay report on February 26, 2004.]

Q. What prevented you, as Cardinal Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago, of making those names public until you did put them on your website sometime in 2006?
A. They were public, sir.

Q. I'm talking about a listing of the names.
A. To put a separate list, is that what --

Q. Yes.
        What prevented you from having put the list that you had already compiled and had in your possession and making it public and known to the public by posting it before 2006?
A. A concern that the process wasn't perfect and reasonable cause to suspect is a very, very low threshold and, therefore, it wasn't perhaps fair to bring out the names of deceased people who had had no chance to defend themselves, the names of priests who had already left the ministry. A concern of that nature about fairness.

Q. You didn't want to post that information until 2006 because you wanted to protect against false allegations and rash removals, right? [page 282 begins]
A. Perhaps in part but that is hard for me to reconstruct my mind-set. I'm sorry.

Q. I quoted you when I said protect against false allegations and rash removals.
        Do you remember using those words?
A. I don't remember but as I said, in part, that would have been something that shaped my thinking on this.

Q. I'm going to show you what we've marked Exhibit 217. Again, this is a document that came from Archdiocese files pertaining to McCormack. And while the names have been, obviously, deleted as has birth -- dates of birth, Review Board action has been, at least, delineated in some instances. Charges, DCFS action and claims have all been delineated here.
        Have you ever reviewed this document?
A. No. I --

[Exhibit 217. Rev. Daniel McCormack Matters As of July 10, 2007.]

MR. KLENK: I'm not sure -- is this an Archdiocese document? There's no Bate's.

MS. ARBOUR: Because they covered up the writing when they copied it.


MR. KLENK: Sorry to interrupt. [page 283 begins]

THE WITNESS: I have not seen this document before, no.


Q. Our read of -- reading of it is that there appears to have been 23 individuals who have made allegations of sexual abuse pertaining to McCormack?
A. I don't see that here but I'll take your word for it.

MR: KLENK: That's their reading of this.

MR. ANDERSON: Yes. That's the way it appears to us to be a reading of it as it's been deleted by the representatives of the Archdiocese.


Q. In any case, there are -- to your knowledge, Cardinal, how many allegations against McCormack have been made?
A. I don't know.

Q. Cardinal, what in your job as the head of the community of faith of the third largest Diocese in this country is more important than finding out who he has abused and ministering to them?
A. There are nothing that's more important and that's being done by the people whom we talked [page 284 begins] about all afternoon. The process in place to take each of these -- four of them have been decided as reasonable and the rest are still being investigated that you have on here. There are only 12 or so on here that I read but the process is in place to try to address that, sir. And it's very important that it be addressed. We have taken each allegation as they've come forward and tried respectfully to address the victim and then to determine the facts of the case.

Q. I had showed you some earlier documents in connection with Father Maday and others where you are personally writing to the offender accused and in his case, convicted, that is, a letter from you to him.
        Do you recall these letters to Maday, for example?
A. I do.

Q. You told me that -- when I asked you that -- about -- what about the victims, you said that you delegate that to the -- to the Victim's Assistance Ministry people, correct?
A. It begins there. I'm often involved in the final discussions and I ask to be involved so I [page 285 begins] can apologize and try to see if, in fact, we have met the needs of the victims as much as we could.

Q. Why is it, Cardinal, that you can write directly to the perpetrators accused to -- to try to help them such as get Maday out of jail or whatever when you don't write directly to these victims at the beginning of the process?
A. Because somebody has to tell me information that I might base a letter on and it isn't always sure what a victim will make of such a letter. Sometimes victims resent being addressed by a bishop out of the blue. We ask the victim when can the cardinal apologize, when can the cardinal come into the process. That is asked right at the beginning.

MR. ANDERSON: That's all I have.

MR. KLENK: I -- I have a few questions.



Q. I want to ask you a few questions. We've been sitting here all day. This is not our time to respond to every point but I would like to touch on some things.
        Do you recall being shown a series of [page 286 begins] letters involving Norbert Maday?
A. Yes.

Q. I want to show you a letter that Mr. Anderson didn't show you and I would mark this Exhibit A.

MS. ARBOUR: There is an A. You can go E if you'd like.

MR. KLENK: We'll call it AO -- AOC 1.

[Exhibit AOC 1: Letter from Cardinal George to Parole Commission.]

(Whereupon, AOC Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)


Q. Cardinal, the court reporter has placed in front of you what's been marked AOC 1. It's a letter dated April 11, 2007 to the Parole Commission in Wisconsin and it's from Francis Cardinal George.
        Is that your signature?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Did you send this letter on or about the date that it bears to --
A. Yes, I believe I did.

Q. What is the purpose of this letter?
A. The purpose of this letter is to tell the [page 287 begins] Parole Commission in Wisconsin that it is dangerous to allow Maday to be out of custody and that we are unable to monitor him or control him in any way. He is going to be laicized, as he has been, and we believe for the safety of children, Norbert Maday should remain in custody.

Q. I'd like to go through the reasons you set forth for that in this letter. If you'd look at the last paragraph on the first page of Exhibit 1 beginning my first reason.
        Could you read that for the people?
A. My first reason is the protection of the vulnerable. For the safety of young people and for the peace of mind of the citizenry, Norbert Maday would require a comprehensive program of monitoring. This Archdiocese lacks the resources to monitor him. Equally significant, this Archdiocese lacks the coercive police power to effectively enforce such monitoring. This is also why I'm seeking to have him dismissed from the priesthood.

Q. If you would turn the page of the letter and I'd like you to read to the people your second reason? [page 288 begins]
A. My second reason is that the ministry and life of this Archdiocese would be gravely affected by simply receiving Norbert Maday back into our system as a priest even with restrictions and conditions. The position of a Catholic priest is a position of public trust, not just for Catholics but for all people. To have him present in the midst of the Archdiocese as a priest, even though permanently withdrawn from public ministry, undermines the credibility and ministry of us all.

Q. And there's a final reason that you have for the Parole Commission not to release Mr. Maday.
        What is that?
A. Finally, given the history and the widespread knowledge of his situation, it would be a cause of scandal to the Catholic faithful and to all people if he were to return to the Chicago metropolitan area and remain a priest. Because the facts of his case are so public, it is no longer possible for this Archdiocese to house him at an ecclesiastical facility.

Q. What changed between the time you wrote this letter and the ones that Mr. Anderson showed [page 289 begins] you earlier today?
A. Two things. At least one is we began to receive more allegations and the Review Board found them reasonable. It was reasonable cause to suspect and there were many of them and they were terrible. Secondly, the lack of acceptance of responsibility for his own behaviors, his continued denial that he'd done anything wrong meant that he was dangerous and is dangerous.

Q. I'm going to change subjects now to another subject that was raised to you. There were questions about Father Bennett. I'm going to show you what's -- was marked as Exhibit 86. 86 is one of the exhibits that was shown to you and on that Exhibit 86, there is a date of the alleged incident that the abuse occurred.
        Could you read that for us? What date is that?
A. 1963.

Q. What is your understanding of the time period in which the alleged abuse of Father Bennett occurred?
A. Would you repeat that, please?

Q. What is your understanding of the time [page 290 begins] period when Father Bennett was allegedly involved in abusing minors?
A. This incident says from 1963 to 1964.

Q. Do you have any understanding of when other incidents in the allegations that were shown you?
A. I don't recall in detail but it was around the same time period or perhaps a few years later.

Q. So that was 35 years ago?
A. Yes, those incidents would have been. [The most recent alleged abuse discussed in this deposition occurred during Bennett's assignment 1997-2006 as pastor of Holy Ghost church in South Holland (see Exhibit 93). See also our table of Bennett allegations, which shows that Bennett is accused of sexually abusing children in the seminary and at six of his eight parish assignments (including alleged abuse in both assignments at St. John de la Salle).]

Q. Do you recall being asked questions about weighing what's important, the rights of priests versus protecting children?
A. Yes.

Q. And you recall a series of questions being asked about why you didn't talk to victims but wrote letters to priests.
        Do you recall that?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you care about victims of -- abuse of minors?
A. Yes, I really do.

Q. What does the Archdiocese of Chicago do to care for the victims of those who have been abused? [page 291 begins]
A. Well, when an allegation is made, even before we know that there's reasonable cause to suspect, the Victim's Assistance Ministry is encouraged, even if they're not contacted directly by the accuser, to reach out and to offer spiritual help, counseling, to speak with the accuser and to try to discover how we might help. Part of that help, of course, is monetary settlements and part of it also is a conversation with me if that will not be burdensome to the victim.
        My experience is that sometimes victims are so injured by the church that for a cardinal to come into their lives at any time is not really helpful but I've also experienced times when because of the good work of the Victim's Assistance Ministry, my conversations with them, I think, have been helpful to them.

Q. Do you and the Archdiocese of Chicago want victims that have been abused by priests to come forward?
A. Absolutely.

Q. Why is that?
A. For the healing and for freeing someone so they don't go through life with this enormous [page 292 begins] burden. It always stays with them even when they seem to be in control of their life. If you touch a certain button, it's as if it happened yesterday for many of them. And so the more that they can understand that they're not alone and that there is some help, at least -- and sometimes it's quite successful and sometimes less -- the better off they will be and the better off all of us will be.
        This is some way of trying to make some reparation for this terrible crime against these victims.

Q. Does the Archdiocese of Chicago -- how does it make it known to victims that you have assistance available to them?
A. We have regular announcements in the Chicago New World, the Catholic paper, and also in the parish bulletins. If you go to our Archdiocesan website, there are many, many pages of information on how allegations are processed so the person isn't caught by surprise. The phone numbers are all there, the names of the people to contact. And every priest knows those numbers. Every receptionist at a rectory has those numbers in front her or in front of him so that if a call [page 293 begins] comes in, it can be directed to the people who can be of help.

Q. I want to switch to another subject now.
A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Anderson asked you some questions about what was marked as Exhibit 106. Could you get it there in front of you? Here we go. I'm going to hand it to you.
A. Oh, yeah.

Q. Exhibit 106 is the Defenbaugh and Associates report?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Who is Daniel Defenbaugh?
A. He's a former FBI man who -- which is well known and I think respected as an investigator. I believe I mentioned he had investigated the Oklahoma City bombings to try to get to the facts of that case. Other very complex cases he's been involved in. So we wanted to know what went so wrong in the case of McCormack, why did this terrible injury take place and we asked him to come and make a report.

Q. So you asked Mr. Defenbaugh to make a report? [page 294 begins]
A. Yes.

Q. And -- and why did you ask Defenbaugh and Associates to come in and take a look at the Archdiocese and what happened in these cases?
A. So we would know what went wrong and we could then correct the situation so it wouldn't happen again.

Q. What did you do with this report that's marked Exhibit 106 after you received it?
A. We released it to the press. We had a press conference that presented it to them and it is now on our website. It's public.

Q. And does this report recommend any changes in how cases are treated in the Diocese?
A. The judgments have been taken to look at our policies and make changes in the way we treat the cases. We put together a group of 12 people including a victim and a plaintiff's lawyer and experts, some of who have been involved early on as the Archdiocese addressed this in the early '90s before I came, to see that the policy recommendations that were indicated here have, in fact, been put into place in the Archdiocese. They made a report after a year to analyze not just [page 295 begins] Defenbaugh's work but our work in response to it. [See the February 15, 2007 Ad Hoc committee report, released on February 21, 2007.]

Q. You'll set that aside. I have just one more area I want to touch on. I know it's late here.
        Could you find Exhibit 127 which is in front of you. Tell you what, I'll give -- I'll give you mine so we can move this along. Here we go. I've handed you what's been -- take a look at that. Got it?
A. Yes.

Q. I've handed you what's been marked as Exhibit 127?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And would you tell me what that is?
A. This is a notification from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services given to Dan McCormack on December 14, 2005, not given to the Archdiocese until January 31, 2006.

Q. And this letter from DCFS was sent to who?
A. Dan McCormack.

Q. And this letter states in the -- looks like the third full paragraph, an indication means that DCF investigations found credible evidence of child abuse and neglect. Credible evidence means [page 296 begins] that the facts gathered during the investigation would lead a reasonable person to believe that a child was abused or neglected.
        Was this letter sent to -- to you?
A. No, it was not. No, it was not. This is very painful.

Q. Was this letter sent to the offices of the Archdiocese of Chicago?
A. No, it was not.

Q. Had you received this letter, what would you have done?
A. Had I known that DCFS was investigating, that would have been reason to remove Father McCormack from ministry. Had I received this, that would have been the equivalent of the Review Board and he would have been out and that's why I find it very painful to know that somebody did believe and had concluded that he had abused a child and we were not apprised of that information.

Q. You say you find it painful.
        Why -- why is that?
A. Because children were abused after this date when DCFS knew that he had most probably abused a child. [page 297 begins]

MR. KLENK: I have no further questions.



Q. Cardinal, you said that had you known DCF was investigating, you would have removed McCormack but you did know that the Chicago Police were investigating McCormack and you didn't remove him, did you?
A. I did not know they were investigating. They had released him.

Q. But you knew they had arrested him and that means that they were investigating him.
        You knew that, didn't you?
A. No, I did not.

Q. You didn't know they had arrested him?
A. Yes.

Q. You didn't know they had detained him?
A. Yes.

Q. You -- what do you call the police interrogating him and arresting him if it's not an investigation? What do you call it?
A. The conclusion of their investigation was they released him. That was -- they had terminated their investigation, I thought. [page 298 begins]

Q. You were just asked about the Defenbaugh report [Exhibit 106] that was made public by you?
A. Yes.

Q. And when was that made public?
A. I believe shortly after we received it.

Q. And what's the date on it? That's okay.
        It was in 2007 or six?
A. Six, I think. I don't see any date here. I'm sorry. [The Defenbaugh report was released by the archdiocese on March 20, 2006.]

Q. In any case, this report was prepared by you at your request under intense public pressure over the McCormack scandal, correct?

MR. KLENK: I object to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: Well, it's fair enough but it was also internal pressure. We wanted to know what went wrong, a system that had worked, that had been effective in protecting children suddenly didn't work.


Q. If you really wanted to know what went wrong when you made this report public, why didn't you have Defenbaugh make known to you and to the public what happened with Bennett that we've [page 299 begins] revealed to you here today?
A. I think he does go into the Bennett report.

Q. He reaches a conclusion but he doesn't detail any of the facts pertaining to Bennett that underlies his conclusion or make reference to the files that we've reviewed together here today, does he?
A. I don't recall that but I'll take your word for it. Those facts, of course, are decades old reported more recently. So I think there was a difference and perhaps -- I can't speak for Defenbaugh -- he thought the two cases were very different in the case --

Q. Well, because the facts of Bennett were so old, are you suggesting that somehow because you know it happened in '63-'64 that Bennett somehow stopped abusing people in '63 or '64?
A. I'm not suggesting anything.

Q. Then why not make those facts as old as you think they may be public knowledge so it -- so it can be aired?
A. When he was removed, the facts without going into details to expose a victim were made [page 300 begins] public.

Q. You were asked about caring about victims and what the Archdiocese has done.
        If you care that much about victims, why don't you make all the information that we have shared with you today and that has been shared with us just recently concerning all of this public and why haven't you?
A. Mr. Anderson, I care very much about victims. I've talked to them. I really do.

Q. Why don't you make this stuff public?
A. What stuff?

Q. The exhibits we reviewed here today that have just been revealed to us concerning Father Bennett, concerning Father Maday, concerning Father McCormack, concerning Father Skriba and others.
        Why haven't these files been made known to the public?
A. The question is to take incidents that involve minor children and publish them as stories?

Q. Are you done with the answer?
A. I'm sorry. I answered with a question.

Q. Okay. [page 301 begins]
A. But it's -- it just seems to me not to be the thing to do. The victims themselves would not want to see their stories paraded in public, I think. They should make that public if they want to. I don't think we have a right to make those stories public.

Q. The information that we've shared with you today is not accessible to these victims about what the Archdiocese knew and when they knew it and what they did and what they didn't do with it. Only you have this information and your representatives, Cardinal.
A. I am not aware of that. I think if someone asked are there other victims, they're told that there are. When information is asked for, provided you're not violating someone else's privacy, my understanding is that it's given.

Q. Cardinal, you were shown by counsel AOC 1 that is the -- the Maday letter of April 11, 2007. And you said that you released this letter for a number of reasons --
A. This is not what you're talking about here.

Q. I know. [page 302 begins]
        And one of the reasons was because the facts of this case are so public, right?
A. I'm not sure this letter was released to the public.

Q. I'm referring to AO one -- AOC 1, the one --
A. This is -- this is a private letter to Alfonso Graham.

Q. Just a moment. I'm referring to the exhibit you were given earlier and shown earlier, that's the Parole Commission in Wisconsin letter.
You made that public?
A. I'm not aware of the fact that we made this public. This is the April 11, 2007 letter.

Q. Yes. Okay.
        You wrote this letter -- excuse me. You didn't make this public.
        You wrote this letter for the reasons you stated, right?
A. Yes.

Q. The primary motivating reason that you wrote this letter on April 11, 2007 was because you and this Archdiocese was under intense public scrutiny concerning your handling of sexual abuse [page 303 begins] of the priests, correct?
A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Well, you state in the last letter because of the facts of his case are so public.
        You're referring to the Maday case or the McCormack case?
A. This is about Maday.

Q. Okay.
A. We had publicized the allegations as they came forward when we went to parishes where the victims had lived.

Q. The fact is that you didn't make this information public until April 11, 2002 because it -- 2007 because scandal could be avoided by not making this out and known to others?

MR. KLENK: Objection to the form of the question.

THE WITNESS: Would you please repeat the question?

MR. ANDERSON: I'll withdraw the question.


Q. I'm going to refer you to 45. You'll see that 45 is dated January 20, 2007.
A. Uh-huh. [page 304 begins]

Q. This pertains to Maday and this is a Review Board meeting that is four months before the letter to the Parole Commission in Wisconsin, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You'll see that at the second paragraph, the Board also made the following recommendations regarding Father Maday based upon the information provided that the cleric is scheduled to be released from prison in October 2007. And recommendation to you number two there is on a nine-zero vote that Cardinal George -- George writes a letter and follows up with a phone call to the Wisconsin Prosecutors Office to state that the Archdiocese of Chicago recommends and supports that Father Maday's sentence is extended.
        In fact, you wrote this letter because the Review Board recommended it, correct?
A. Not only the Review Board, the Vicars For Priest, everyone concerned and I as well thought that he was a danger.

Q. And why did it take you four months to do it after they recommended it?
A. The man was in prison and the authorities [page 305 begins] of the Archdiocese including our legal department made it very clear, I was told, and finally I wrote a letter but, you know, we actively worked not to permit this man to be released and he's not.

MR. ANDERSON: That's all I have. Thanks, Cardinal.

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 6:12 p.m. This is the end of videotape number six.


[page 306 begins]

  ) SS:

        I, Liza Marie Regan, a notary public within and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, do hereby certify that heretofore, to-wit, on the 30th day of January, 2008, personally appeared before me, at 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2200, Chicago, Illinois, FRANCIS CARDINAL GEORGE, in a cause now in Cook County, Illinois, wherein DOE, et al. are the Plaintiffs, and CHICAGO ARCHDIOCESE is the Defendant.

        I further certify that the said witness was first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the cause aforesaid; that the testimony then given by said witness was reported stenographically by me in the presence of the said witness, and afterwards reduced to typewriting by Computer-Aided Transcription, and the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of the testimony so given by said witness as aforesaid.

        I further certify that the taking of this deposition was pursuant to Notice, and that there [page 307 begins] were present at the deposition the attorneys hereinbefore mentioned.

        I further certify that I am not counsel for nor in any way related to the parties to this suit, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome thereof.

        IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF: I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 6 day of February, 2008.






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