Bright Lights Make Dark Shadows

Priests of Darkness Articles Index

Weirdload Articles
Night Gallery Art and Images

Weirdload Articles Index

Night Gallery Images Index

Weirdload Archives Homepage
For Lapsed and Former Catholics

Weirdload Archives Homepage

Wierdload: Renegade Catholic Homepage


SANCHEZ DEPOSITION

Part 3C

Previous: Sanchez Deposition Part 3B

Next: Sanchez Deposition Part 4A


3 [A recess was taken.]
4 MR. GOFFE: The time is 2:44. We are back
5 on the record. This is the beginning of tape number 8 in
6 the deposition of Archbishop Sanchez. The date today is
7 January 14th, 1944 -- 1994.
8 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop Sanchez, you
9 mentioned the Cursillo.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What is the Cursillo?
12 A. The Cursillo is a movement for spiritual
13 enrichment for the laity, Catholic laity. The full name
14 is Cursillo de Cristianedad. It means a small course or
a
15 short course of Christianity, a brief experience in
16 Christianity. It involves a long weekend with a
17 determined number of laiety. Normally, the program
begins
18 on Thursday evening, continues all day Friday,
Saturday,
19 until Sunday afternoon. It consists of lectures that are
20 delivered principally by laymen and laywomen. A
priest, a
21 spiritual director of the Cursillo, delivers one of the
22 lectures. And the purpose of it is to both inform that
23 particular group of laiety about their own faith, but
more
24 importantly, to help create a little more fire within
them
25 to build up that enthusiasm within their own Christian
Page 486
1 life.
2 And it has proven to be a very effective movement for
3 the laiety in this particular Archidocese. There have
4 been thousands of men and women who have made the
5 Cursillo.
6 They are separate, a Cursillo for men, and then
7 perhaps the following week, a Cursillo for women. We
do
8 want to have husbands and wives be able to attend the
9 Cursillo, but they are done separately so they can be
10 addressed as men or as women.
11 Q. Now, how often do these take place within the
12 Archidocese?
13 A. Well, it has differed over the years. Sometimes
14 they're as often as one a month. Other times it would
be
15 less often, perhaps eight times a year. There is a
16 preparation for the Cursillo that is necessary, so that
17 the team that is presenting the Cursillo is well prepared
18 for that weekend.
19 Q. And would the Cursillo take place at various
20 locations throughout the Archidocese, or would it be a
21 central location?
22 A. Normally it would be a central location, because
23 we didn't always have the facilities, since it includes
24 overnight accommodations for those making the
Cursillo.
25 So it would normally be one, perhaps two places, but
that
Page 487
1 would be the extent. We don't have that type of multiple
2 facilities.
3 Q. Now, would a priest be assigned to Cursillo
4 duty, if you will?
5 A. Sometimes a priest would be assigned as the
6 chaplain. It wouldn't be a full-time job. It would mean
7 that he should meet with the leadership, because it's a
8 lay organization principally, and the laiety themselves
9 have their board of directors, you might call -- it's
10 called the secretariate, and they have their president,
11 and they elect officers on a regular basis.
12 But the priest chaplain then meets with them when
13 they do meet as officers, but it's not a full-time
14 position for them. It's something that he is -- feels
15 that he can afford the time to be with them in this way.
16 Q. At any given time would more than one priest be
17 assigned to Cursillo duties?
18 A. Normally you have one chaplain, spiritual
19 director, spiritual chaplain, for them. But for each
20 Cursillo that is held for that weekend, a different priest
21 might be assigned for that, so that burden doesn't fall
on
22 one man, since it takes the whole weekend. And most
of
23 our priests are involved in parishes where the weekend
24 becomes quite busy for them. So they can't always free
25 themselves to be with a Cursillo. So you have different
Page 488
1 men who are familiar -- who have made the Cursillo
2 themselves and are willing to serve as the chaplain of
3 that particular Cursillo.
4 Q. When were you directly involved with the
5 Cursillo?
6 A. I made a Cursillo personally, I believe it was
7 about 1979, as an Archbishop, is when I made my
Cursillo.
8 And it was held in Santa Fe at the seminary. Prior to
9 that, I knew of the Cursillo, although I had not made it,
10 and would be able to recommend candidates, our lay
11 candidates, to make the Cursillo.
12 Q. Would you have done that when you were a pastor
13 in a parish prior to becoming Archbishop?
14 A. Yes, as a parish priest, because your candidates
15 come out of your parishes. So I would recommend
them.
16 Q. And what is the Search?
17 A. Search Program?
18 Q. Search Program.
19 A. The Search Program is also a weekend of
20 spiritual enrichment for laiety, but it's particularly
21 designated for young adults, young adults being anyone
22 from, say, 17 to about 30, in that age category. So the
23 young adults are then -- they make application to their
24 pastor, and the pastor makes application to the Search
25 committee. And whenever they feel they can
accommodate
Page 489
1 this particular individual, then they have a Search
2 weekend.
3 The weekends are similar to the Cursillo weekend.
4 It's the same format except it's designated for young
5 adults, single adults. It's been a very effective program
6 to get enthusiasm, again, religious enthusiasm, alive in
7 the young adults of our various parishes.
8 Q. With respect to the Search Program, are a group
9 of priests assigned to administer this program, or is
10 it -- is there a board of directors or a council that --
11 A. What I recall is they had their own board; some
12 adults on the board decides, the young adults, and a
13 spiritual chaplain or a spiritual director, much like the
14 Cursillo.
15 Q. Were you ever involved in the Search Program?
16 A. I was asked to be a chaplain on one occasion of
17 a Search Program.
18 Q. When was that?
19 A. I think it was the year -- perhaps in the winter
20 of 1972, January, February or March of that year, I
21 believe it was.
22 Q. During the -- when you came back from seminary,
23 were incardinated and installed in a parish in the
24 Archidocese of Santa Fe and at St. Pius, did you --
you've
25 indicated that by the time you got to be Archbishop,
you
Page 490
1 knew a good number of the priests; is that a fair
2 statement?
3 A. Yes, we had been serving together for 14 years.
4 Some were very close friends, others were coworkers
5 together, and others were more acquaintances, because
they
6 may have been older men that I simply did not -- you
know,
7 you don't hang around -- you hang around your own
group,
8 but you get to know them, but you're not close friends
9 with them.
10 Q. Prior to becoming Archbishop, did you know or
11 become familiar with Father Bob Kirsch?
12 A. I had heard of Father Bob Kirsch, but I had not
13 had opportunities to meet or to share with him at any
14 particular time. I can recall hearing one lecture that he
15 gave to a group of Sisters at the Immaculate
Conception
16 parish in Albuquerque on one occasion, and I think that
17 was the first time that I saw him functioning that way.
18 Q. When would that have been?
19 A. That would have been around '73.
20 Q. You had not seen him prior to that time?
21 A. I cannot swear that I had not seen him, because
22 there are gatherings for ceremonies at the Cathedral
when
23 all the priests will come together for our Chrism Mass
on
24 Holy Thursday, but I had not spoken with him or had a
25 chance to hear him.
Page 491
1 Q. Were you ever aware, prior to becoming
2 Archbishop, that Father Bob Kirsch was accused of
having
3 physically assaulted a woman, physically assaulting a
4 woman at St. Thomas Parish?
5 A. No, I wasn't aware of that.
6 Q. Have you ever become aware of that?
7 A. After I was made the Archbishop, I had heard
8 talk about it. I didn't know when that occurred, and I
9 never questioned Father Bob specifically about the
10 incident that I had heard about. But it must have
11 occurred or at least come to my attention, oh, a
number of
12 years after I was the Archbishop. It simply wasn't
talked
13 about. It must have been maybe around 19 -- I don't
know,
14 late '70s, early '80s, when I heard about this.
15-19 (DELETED)
Page 492
1-5 (DELETED)
6 Q. Father Ed Donnollan, did you know him prior to
7 becoming Archbishop?
8 A. Yes, I had heard of Father Ed Donnollan prior to
9 becoming Archbishop and in fact had met him on one
10 occasion. I was pastor at Mosquero at the time, and I
11 knew that he was operating a boys' ranch or a ranch for
12 boys, I should say, and the event happened. I had just --
13 I had gone deer hunting that morning and was fortunate
14 enough to shoot my deer. And after hauling him back to
15 the car for a mile and a half, I was just drained. I
16 drove back to the rectory, and I was covered with some
17 blood and drinking some water, and he walked in and
asked
18 why I was full of blood, and I told him I had shot a
deer.
19 He wanted to see it. And then he said "Gee, the boys at
20 the Ranch would sure enjoy a deer like that." So I gave
21 it to him. That was the occasion that I met him.
22 Q. When was that?
23 A. About 1970.
24 Q. Did you ever go to the Boys' Ranch?
25 A. No, sir.
Page 493
1 Q. In 1970, did you know the function of the Boys'
2 Ranch or what was -- what Father Bob's -- excuse me,
3 Father Ed's role was at the Boys' Ranch?
4 A. I really didn't know the particulars. I think
5 the general comment was that it was a ranch for
juveniles,
6 because Father Ed had served as chaplain at the boys'
7 school in Springer and had become familiar with the
8 officials.
9 And then at one point, Archbishop Davis apparently
10 granted permission to him to open a ranch, to put
11 facilities at the disposal of boys and to apply to the
12 State of New Mexico for a license to operate such a
13 facility, and apparently he was granted that.
14 I didn't know those particulars at that time. All I
15 knew was that he had a ranch for boys that seemed to
have
16 been for delinquents.
17 Q. But you later found that out --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was it your understanding, then, that Father Ed
20 Donnollan was the director of the Boys' Ranch at the
21 request of the then Archbishop Davis?
22 A. Yes. He had to receive that permission from his
23 superior before he could assume that position.
24 Q. And you, in fact, closed the Boys' Ranch?
25 A. When I was the Archbishop, I had that duty.
Page 494
1 Q. And can I assume, then, that Father Ed Donnollan
2 was at all times while he was operating the Boys' Ranch
3 under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of the
4 Archidocese of Santa Fe?
5 A. Well, there's a distinction that has to be made
6 there. As the director of the Boys' Ranch, he was really
7 under the supervision of the New Mexico Health and
Social
8 Services, because that was a program sponsored by the
New
9 Mexico Health and Social Services, and they would
send
10 their team to evaluate that Ranch, as they did to other
11 centers for their boys.
12 So he had to give accountability to them for his
13 operations. As a priest, he was still a priest of the
14 Archidocese of Santa Fe. But he was functioning in a
15 position of an administration or administrator of the
16 Ranch rather than functioning as a parish priest.
17 Q. But with respect to his conduct as a priest of
18 the Archidocese of Santa Fe, he was under the
jurisdiction
19 and supervision of the Archbishop of the Archidocese?
20 A. Oh, yes.
21 [The witness conferred with his attorney.]
22 Q. Archbishop, do you know how Father Ed Donnollan
23 was getting paid?
24 A. I would assume -- and I don't know this for a
25 fact, but I assume that if the Health and Social
Services
Page 495
1 approves any institution to exist, and they then license
2 them as a center for care of their boys, then the State
3 probably pays that center so much per capita for the
4 number of boys that are there. That's what I would
5 assume. Much like I would think that they subsidize
6 schools with textbooks; it's based on the number of
7 children who are in the school. Depending on how many
you
8 have, that's what you get per child for textbooks.
9 Q. While Father Ed Donnollan was the director of
10 that Boys' Ranch, do you know if he was receiving any
11 funds from the Archidocese?
12 A. No, there was no funding at all from the
13 Archidocese.
14 Q. When you became Archbishop in 1974, did you
15 undertake any review of either the background or
16 qualifications of Father Ed Donnollan or the status or
17 state of the program at the Boys' Ranch?
18 A. No, sir, I did not take any -- did not make a
19 review of his qualifications for that position. The man
20 had been working as its director for several years
21 already. I guess I simply presumed that the State of
New
22 Mexico was content or happy with what was taking
place at
23 that Ranch and with his directorship.
24 Q. You subsequently did conduct an investigation
25 upon receiving complaints about Father Donnollan,
correct?
Page 496
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. So you made no efforts to investigate what was
3 happening at the Boys' Ranch until you received
4 complaints; is that a fair statement?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. At the time that you had received information
7 concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by Father
8 Donnollan at the Boys' Ranch, did you instruct Father
9 Griego, or did you instruct anyone, to obtain a list of
10 the names and home addresses of the boys who were
then in
11 residence at the Ranch?
12 A. No, sir. That was not my responsibility or duty
13 at all.
14 Q. Why not?
15 A. I'm not Health and Social Services. Those boys
16 belonged to Health and Social Services.
17 Q. You were Archbishop, though?
18 A. But the boys were not under my charge.
19 Q. Father Donnollan was, correct?
20 A. As a priest, but not as a director of the
21 institute or the Ranch.
22 Q. Well, let me ask you this: If Father Donnollan
23 sexually abused any of the boys at that Ranch, do you
24 think you, as Archbishop of Santa Fe, had any
obligation
25 to those boys?
Page 497
1 A. I had an obligation to make this known to the
2 Health and Social Services and, with them, to work
3 together to see that whatever abuse had occurred, the
4 actions that were necessary to be taken would be taken.
5 Q. Did you feel that you had any obligation to
6 those boys?
7 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: A legal obligation or
8 social obligation?
9 Q. Any obligation. Moral, legal, whatever
10 obligation you felt.
11 A. I did not know of any specific incident of any
12 accusation against Father Ed Donnollan that he had, in
13 fact, abused this boy X, and I did not take up any
14 investigation to discover who that might be.
15 The allegations that I had principally centered
16 around poor management and possessiveness on his
part for
17 control and authority, and this seemed to come to me
18 repeatedly from both the staff and others around there.
19 I encouraged them also to make that known to the
20 authorities in Santa Fe or, at that time, in Raton, since
21 they had an area office, because this was the office
that
22 they had to report to.
23 The incidents that you're referring to, or any
24 allegations about possible sexual misconduct, was
simply a
25 reference that they thought there might be other more
Page 498
1 serious things going on at the Ranch. And I think this
2 was the subject of our conversation, then, with the
Health
3 and Social Services so that a proper investigation would
4 be made.
5-10 (DELETED)
Page 500
1-2 (DELETED)
3 Q. Was Father Donnollan, at the time he was
4 director of the Boys' Ranch, receiving a priest's salary?
5 A. No, sir, he wasn't. To the best of my
6 knowledge, he received no salary from the Archidocese
of
7 Santa Fe because, in fact, he wasn't working in any
8 priestly assignment for the Archidocese of Santa Fe.
9 Q. Even though Archbishop Davis was the one that
10 directed him to establish the Ranch?
11 A. Archbishop Davis, as far as I know, did not
12 direct him to establish the Ranch. I believe that Father
13 asked permission to work in that specific ministry as a
14 result of his work at Springer boys' home.
15 Q. So the Ranch was a ministry?
16 A. Not from the Archidocese of Santa Fe. It was a
17 group home approved by the New Mexico Health and
Social
18 Services for the sake of helping young boys who had a
19 delinquent problem or had problems in their homes.
20 [Exhibit 12 was marked for identification.]
21 Q. Archbishop, I'm going to mark, or I have marked
22 what I have been told to believe is your -- or led to
23 believe is the Archdiocese of Santa Fe's personnel file
of
24 Jason Sigler. And I marked that as Exhibit 12. I'd like
25 for you to review that with your lawyer to confirm the
Page 501
1 fact that it is his personnel file.
2 MS. KENNEDY: Let me just state for the
3 record, Mr. Bennett, I don't have with me that file as I
4 produced it, so I am unable to confirm that that is the
5 complete production from my office.
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Why don't we go off for
7 a minute.
8 MR. GOFFE: The time is 3:18. We will go
9 off the record.
10 [A recess was taken.]
11 MR. GOFFE: The time is 2:24. We are back
12 on the record. Pardon me, 3:24.
13 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, I had showed you
14 Exhibit 12, which has been represented to me to be the
15 personnel file of the Archidocese of Santa Fe of Jason
16 Sigler. Have you had an opportunity to review that
17 exhibit?
18 A. I did at this moment, and it appears to be his
19 file.
20 Q. Now, we were talking a little while ago about
21 your policy at the Archidocese while you were
Archbishop --
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. -- concerning review of the qualifications and
24 an evaluation of a priest from outside of the diocese
who
25 desires to be in residence inside of the diocese?
Page 502
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And you indicated to me that there were certain
3 steps that you felt were reasonable and prudent to go
4 through and that, in fact, you went through in evaluating
5 these types of priests. I would like just briefly, before
6 we talk about Mr. Sigler's file, to review those steps.
7 As I understand it, one of the steps is to make a
8 direct contact with the Archidocese of origin or of
9 incardination of this particular priest before faculties
10 are granted; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And another would be to conduct an interview of
13 this particular priest before he is installed; is that
14 accurate?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who would generally conduct that interview?
17 A. It normally would be the chancellor who would
18 meet with the priest. Occasionally it might be myself.
19 Q. And other than interviewing the priest,
20 requesting faculties, even before a supply ministry
were
21 authorized, or contacting the archidocese of
22 incardination, were there any other steps that you felt
23 reasonable and prudent to undertake?
24 A. No, the first step would be the contact of the
25 diocese of origin to verify who he is and that he is
Page 503
1 legitimately a priest of that diocese in good standing, so
2 that he is accurately representing himself, and inform
3 them what, in fact, the priest is asking of us and see if
4 they agree to that.
5 The priest may very well be asking for faculties for
6 one year because he's attending the University of New
7 Mexico, and he'd like to be able to help on a weekend
8 while he's here, faculties such as that, or he might be
9 asking for us to consider him for an assignment in the
10 Archidocese; and for that, we would need not only the
11 verbal approval of a bishop or the chancellor, but we
12 would then ask for a written statement from them that,
in
13 fact, he has served effectively, etc., and that they
would
14 recommend him for assignment in our Archidocese.
15 Those are the initial steps that we would take
16 besides the interview of the individual personally.
17 Q. And I assume these steps would be undertaken to
18 determine whether or not the priest making application
for
19 faculties would pose any health risk to the parishioners
20 of the Archidocese of Santa Fe?
21 A. Yes, I think it's all part of the package, that,
22 in fact, if he is a priest in good standing, we have to
23 assume that he is not a risk to anyone and that his own
24 health is not at risk. He's not suffering from a poor
25 heart or a bad liver or something of this nature. So all
Page 504
1 of this information is to guarantee or at least to assure
2 the diocese, the receiving diocese, that the man who is
3 seeking a position with you can, in fact -- is, in fact, a
4 priest in good standing and can, in fact, do the work that
5 is being asked of him.
6 Q. I assume that in making those types of
7 inquiries, you would also want to know whether or not
the
8 priest had committed any acts of moral turpitude on
boys
9 at previous parishes where he may have served?
10 A. Either that or any other kind of actions which
11 would reflect negatively upon his character. He might
be
12 given to drink. He might be a very poor driver or --
13 there's a lot of things that can come across in a letter
14 from a diocese.
15 So the letter of inquiry is specifically to receive
16 any facts that we should know about the individual
before
17 accepting him, especially toward incardination.
18 Q. Has there been a circumstance while you have
19 been Archbishop that a priest came to the Archidocese
of
20 Santa Fe from another archidocese and was placed or
21 reported to the Servants of the Paraclete prior to
making
22 a request for faculties in the Archidocese of Santa Fe?
23 A. There are priests who had been at the Servants
24 of the Paraclete for treatment; and at the request of the
25 Servants of the Paraclete, we were asked if, in fact, we
Page 505
1 could provide a place for ministry for them, usually on a
2 temporary basis, that being for weekend ministry, for
3 three, four weekends. Or in some instances they may
4 request, "Is it possible to have him remain in your
5 diocese for about six months?" Those would require
6 special meetings with the staff or representative from
the
7 Servants of the Paraclete to receive from them what the
8 situation may be regarding that individual priest and
what
9 assurances we might have that he is functioning well
and
10 effectively at this time.
11 Q. And would that be in addition to your normal
12 process of inquiry with the archidocese of
incardination?
13 A. The Servants of the Paraclete would be asking us
14 to assume responsibility in their name. In other words, I
15 will have contact with the -- in fact, the Servants of the
16 Paraclete normally then write to the diocese of origin
17 because the man really is under the responsibility, as it
18 were, of the Servants of the Paraclete until he returns
to
19 his home diocese.
20 By asking us to accommodate them for a weekend, we,
21 in effect, become part of the healing ministry, giving
22 them an opportunity sort of as a halfway position before
23 returning to their diocese.
24 The assurances are received both from the Servants of
25 the Paraclete and permission granted from their
original
Page 506
1 bishop for that to take place.
2 Q. Well, my question is, when you have a priest who
3 comes to your attention or at least makes application for
4 temporary faculties while or after being treated at the
5 Servants of the Paraclete, do you make contact, as you
do
6 with other priests from other diocese coming into your
7 Archidocese, do you make contact with the archidocese
of
8 origin --
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. -- of incardination to determine whether or not
11 there might be anything in this priest's background that
12 may adversely impair the interests of your
parishioners?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Just so I'm clear, you not only rely upon the
15 information given to you by the Servants of the
Paraclete
16 concerning this individual, you would also contact the
17 archidocese of incardination to obtain whatever
18 information that archidocese might have?
19 A. And their permission, actually, because the
20 priest is not under my authority, but rather under the
21 authority of his own archbishop or bishop.
22 Q. And do you feel that that process, when a priest
23 in residence at the Servants of the Paraclete is
involved,
24 is also a reasonable and prudent thing to do to protect
25 the interests of your parishioners?
Page 507
1 A. To receive them for ministry in the Archidocese
2 directly?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Are you asking my opinion now or opinion before
5 or --
6 Q. Your opinion now. I mean, is that a reasonable
7 and prudent thing to undertake prior to installing a
8 priest or allowing a priest to have faculties to minister
9 in your parishes?
10 A. You have to be prudent and take as many
11 precautions as you can, especially today. Knowing as
we
12 do know today, that there are many problems in
different
13 people's lives, thorough letters of recommendation
need to
14 be received before opportunities are offered to any
priest
15 who requests that permission to work with us.
16 Q. And this has been your practice since you have
17 been Archbishop?
18 A. I've tried to maintain that, yes.
19 Q. Did you know whether or not the procedure that
20 you've described was the practice of Archbishop Davis
21 before you?
22 A. I would have to assume that it was, because that
23 is normal procedure for any diocese to receive priests
for
24 them. They would have to make contact with the
bishop of
25 origin to see that they have a man in good standing
before
Page 508
1 they can grant him faculties. It's pro forma type of
2 work.
3 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to refer to certain
4 documents in Exhibit 12, and first I'll show you a letter
5 dated August 17th, 1970.
6 MS. KENNEDY: May I ask, first, Mr.
7 Bennett, are those individual pages numbered, of
Exhibit --
8 MR. BENNETT: No, they're not.
9 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Why don't we just number
10 them.
11 MS. KENNEDY: I would just like to indicate
12 for the record when I produced the personnel file of
Jason
13 Sigler in other pending Sigler litigation, they all had a
14 document number computerized on the bottom of them.
If
15 your copies do not have that document number, then
there
16 is no way I could ever verify, without an individual
17 page-by-page review, as to whether that's a complete
copy
18 of the personnel file, just so the record is clear.
19 MR. TINKLER: Mr. Beach produced them, not
20 you.
21 MR. BENNETT: These documents were produced
22 by Mr. Beach.
23 MR. BEACH: I got them from Karen. The
24 numbers are right down here, if you'll look down here.
25 Maybe in the photocopying, it didn't get every page,
but
Page 509
1 there should be a number at least on some of the pages.
2 MR. BENNETT: What I'm going to do is
3 number in the upper right-hand corner by number -- or
4 actually I'll do it by letter, marking from first to last
5 alphabetically.
6 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) I've now, Archbishop, marked
7 these exhibits, letters AA through OO -- excuse me, A
8 through OO respectively. I'm going to refer to document
B
9 of Exhibit 12, which is a letter dated August 17th, 1970,
10 addressed to Father Tobin on letterhead of Our Mother
of
11 Mary Church, Wellington, Texas. The signature is
missing.
12 I understand the signature to be that of Jason Sigler.
13 But your counsel can correct me if I'm wrong.
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Your counsel doesn't
15 know Jason Sigler's signature, so I'm not sure he can
16 correct you.
17 Q. Let me show you this letter. And my question
18 is, after reading that letter, if you can tell me whether
19 or not that letter indicates that -- well, first, let me
20 ask you this: Who was Father Tobin?
21 A. I presume he was a member of the Servants of the
22 Paraclete. I'm not certain what position he held. He
may
23 have been director of the house at Jemez Springs, but
I'm
24 not certain.
25 Q. In reading this letter, does it indicate to you
Page 510
1 that Jason Sigler was residing or at least undergoing
some
2 type of contact with the Servants of the Paraclete in
3 August of 1970?
4 MR. KONRAD: Are you asking for his opinion
5 from reading the letter?
6 MR. BENNETT: That's correct.
7 MR. KONRAD: I'm going to object to the
8 question as ambiguous, residing or having contact with.
9 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: The document speaks for
10 itself. This is a document, as I understand, from Exhibit
11 12-B. The letter is not written to the Archbishop.
12 There's no reason to believe that the Archbishop ever
13 received the letter or has ever seen the letter before.
14 I guess I'm -- Mr. Bennett, the question is a
15 bit vague. It's a bit difficult to see how this witness
16 can be of any help to you in this regard.
17 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Well, when I read that letter,
18 Archbishop, I get the impression that Jason Sigler is
19 writing to Father Tobin concerning the fact that he was
20 serving or had recently served in Abiquiu. Do you get
the
21 same impression?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll object. It's
23 asking for speculation by its very nature, and this
24 witness similarly is not competent to answer this
25 question, as the letter is not addressed to him, and it
Page 511
1 has nothing to do with him, at least on its face.
2 MR. BENNETT: It's part of the personnel
3 file of the Archidocese.
4 Q. So I'm not -- I just want to get your
5 impression, if you shared the same impresstion that I do.
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Calls for speculation.
7 I'll object.
8 A. It appears to me that what he is saying is that
9 he's thanking Father Tobin for a check of $35, or a
check
10 that was directed to the Parish of Abiquiu, and he said,
11 "Thank you, this could help me, because I receive only
10
12 cents per mile traveling to and from Via Coeli, plus the
13 Mass and the baptismal stipends."
14 So he's thanking Father Tobin for whatever donation
15 he made. It appears that he is in residence at Via Coeli
16 but has celebrated Mass at Abiquiu apparently on a
Sunday
17 or so.
18 Q. And that was the same impression I had,
19 Archbishop. So it appears, at least from looking at this
20 letter, that Jason Sigler is serving in the Archidocese of
21 Santa Fe in the fall of 1970?
22 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for
23 speculation and interpretation of the document he
didn't
24 write, didn't receive.
25 Q. Is that what it appears to you?
Page 512
1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Same objection, and the
2 question is vague, by -- what do you mean by "serving"?
3 He's clearly not incardinated.
4 A. He had no priestly assignment. I think what he
5 was doing was with the permission of his own superiors
6 apparently in Via Coeli. He had volunteered to help at
7 Abiquiu on weekends, and that was taking place. But
there
8 was no assignment to him to any particular areA.
9 Q. No, I understand that. But he was performing a
10 supply ministry, if you will?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. From Via Coeli to the parish in Abiquiu?
13 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for
14 speculation. This witness has already testified he has
no
15 personal knowledge of any of this.
16 Q. Is that what it appears to you from that
17 document?
18 A. From reading it.
19 Q. And let me show you Exhibit 12-C, which is a
20 letter dated December 7, 1970, addressed to James
Peter
21 Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe, from Reverend
William F.
22 Tobin, Superior, and ask you if that letter also seems to
23 indicate that Father Jason Sigler is a resident at the
24 Servants of the Paraclete in late 1970?
25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Object to the form of
Page 513
1 the question. It calls for speculation on the part of the
2 witness and a matter about which he has no personal
3 knowledge. This letter has not been sent to him, nor is
4 there any evidence he's ever seen it before today.
5 A. The only thing that I would point out is that he
6 uses the expression "a guest here," and he writes it as a
7 Superior. I don't see a letterhead on it, but I would
8 assume it may be a Superior of Jemez Springs.
9 MR. KONRAD: Object. I would object to the
10 form of the question and move to strike the answer as it
11 was plainly a guess.
12 Q. Now, let me show you Exhibit 12-D, which is a
13 letter dated June 20, 1973, written on St. Thomas
Apostle
14 parish letterhead, addressed to Lucien C. Hendren,
15 Chancellor, Archidocese of Santa Fe, signed Father
16 Jason E. Sigler. And could you please tell me what you
17 believe that letter to refer to?
18 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll object to the
19 question. It again calls for speculation on the part of
20 this witness. It calls for a matter upon which he has no
21 personal knowledge. This letter is not addressed to him
22 nor is it written by him, and the witness is asked to
23 speculate as to the meaning of the letter for which he
has
24 no -- of which he is not a party.
25 Q. Well, Archbishop, I hope you understand my
Page 514
1 question here. These letters appear in the personnel file
2 of the Archidocese of Santa Fe, and you being the
former
3 Archbishop, I'm asking for your impression of what
appears
4 in the Archidocese files. So could you please tell me
5 what that letter appears to represent?
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Same objection.
7 A. Again, since this letter was not addressed to
8 me, and it was signed by Jason Sigler, just from what I
am
9 reading, it appears that Jason Sigler is writing to the
10 chancellor of the Archidocese -- and that's the address -
-
11 to express his own feelings about the Archidocese of
12 Santa Fe, that he feels that the weather in this area of
13 the country is good for his health and that he might be
14 thinking of applying at some time for possible
15 incardination.
16 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, I'm going to show
17 you document 12-E and ask if you can please tell me
what
18 that appears to be?
19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Same objection as to the
20 question regarding Exhibit 12-E --
21 Q. Let me just go ahead and describe this a little
22 better. It's a letter indicated June 22nd, 1973, to the
23 Reverend Monsignor N.J. Chartrand, Chancellor,
Archidocese
24 of Winnipeg, from James P. Davis, Archbishop of
Santa Fe.
25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Calls for speculation,
Page 515
1 beyond the competence of this witness, and asks for an
2 opinion about matters of which he has no personal
3 knowledge.
4 A. Once again, my reply is that the letter was
5 written by my predecessor, not by myself, before I ever
6 became the Archbishop, and addressed to apparently the
7 chancellor of the Archidocese of Winnipeg in Canada,
8 saying that Father Jason Sigler is a priest of that
9 Archidocese in Winnipeg, has expressed a desire to be
10 incardinated, and the Archbishop is asking him to send
his
11 curriculum vitae and any information that would be of
12 assistance to look at his request, a courtesy letter.
13 Q. Well, it's more than that, isn't it? It's a
14 request --
15 A. It's a courtesy to Father Sigler.
16 Q. Correct, but it's a request for information?
17 A. Oh, yes. As I had said, it's a request for
18 information, but a courtesy to Father Sigler.
19 Q. All right. Well, let's talk about this. Isn't
20 this a request to the Archidocese of Winnipeg for
21 information concerning Father Sigler similar to the
policy
22 that you've described before when a priest applies for
23 faculties?
24 A. Yes, sir, it is. It's part of that.
25 Q. And let me show you document 12-G, which is a
Page 516
1 letter dated June 22nd, 1973, to the Reverend James A.
2 Murray, Chancellor, Diocese of Lansing, from James P.
3 Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe, and let me ask you what
you
4 believe that to be.
5 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
6 speculation on the part of this witness, calls for an
7 opinion for which he has no personal knowledge, and it's
8 speculative.
9 MR. KONRAD: I join in the objection. I'd
10 like to clarify something. I mean, do we have the gang-
up
11 objection where if one person objects, everybody else
12 automatically can argue it, or do you want everybody
to
13 pipe up?
14 MR. TINKLER: Frankly, all you can do is
15 object to the form of the question. It's a deposition.
16 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) Archbishop, let me ask you
17 this: Have you reviewed this personnel file of Jason
18 Sigler before today?
19 A. I saw part of a file when I was deposed by Mr.
20 Pasternack about, I suppose, nearly two years ago, a
year
21 and a half ago. I had not seen the file prior to that
22 time.
23 Q. Are you saying you'd never reviewed the
24 personnel file of Jason Sigler prior to a deposition
taken
25 of you by Mr. Pasternack?
Page 517
1 A. That's right, sir.
2 Q. All right, go ahead. What does that letter
3 represent to you?
4 A. This letter is similar to the last letter, a
5 letter from -- yes, Archbishop Davis to the Chancellor of
6 the Diocese of Lansing informing him that Father Jason
7 Sigler, who had spent time in that diocese, is interested
8 in possible incardination. He's asking for any
9 information of service record while he served there.
10 Q. Again, does that appear to be part of the
11 process that you've described in inquiring into the
12 background of a priest asking to have faculties in the
13 Archidocese?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Did you know, or do you know, that Jason Sigler
16 was ministering or in residence at the St. Thomas
Parish
17 in Abiquiu from some time in 1970 until some time in
1974?
18 A. No, sir. I was not aware of where he was
19 ministering. Like many priests in the Archidocese,
20 they're assigned to different parishes. I had never met
21 him before, and I wasn't certain of his presence or
where
22 he was actually assigned.
23 I was working at this time in the northeastern part
24 of New Mexico, in Mosquero, far removed from any
other
25 priests, and it simply was not my personal interest to
Page 518
1 know who Jason Sigler was.
2 Q. At any time since that time, has it come to your
3 attention that Jason Sigler was in St. Thomas parish in
4 Abiquiu between 1970 and 1974?
5 A. When we had the deposition to which I've
6 referred previously, this information was provided.
7 Q. Do you have any reason to dispute that Jason
8 Sigler was serving in the parish, at St. Thomas parish, in
9 Abiquiu during those time periods?
10 A. I am not certain about the time periods that you
11 have mentioned. I have no idea under what category he
was
12 serving, whether it was for supply ministry or as an
13 associate pastor. But I was informed that he had served
14 in St. Thomas parish.
15 Q. During that time period?
16 A. I'm not certain about the whole time period, but
17 he had served in St. Thomas parish about that time, but
I
18 wasn't aware of the years that you have just stated.
19 Q. But now having looked at his personnel file,
20 does it appear that he was serving in St. Thomas parish
21 during that time?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: If he can tell from the
23 personnel file, or if he knows from his own personal
24 knowledge? Which is it, Mr. Bennett?
25 Q. Does it appear from what you've seen here in the
Page 519
1 personnel file that that was the case?
2 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'll object. It asks
3 for speculation and obviously is a matter about which
the
4 witness has no personal knowledge.
5 A. I could not state for certain, but reading the
6 letters which you asked us to read, it appears that he
was
7 referring to supply ministry at one time in 1970. A
8 second letter contained the letterhead of St. Thomas
9 parish. I don't recall the date on that second letter.
10 And that's all that we have at this moment to go by.
11-13 (DELETED)
Page 522
1-13 (DELETED)
14 Q. Nor do you know from this file whether or not a
15 call was placed to the Archidocese of Lansing,
Michigan?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. In fact, all you know from looking at this file
18 is that the first communication of record is in 1973 with
19 the Archidocese of Winnipeg and the Archidocese of
20 Lansing; isn't that correct?
21 MR. KONRAD: Well, objection. That assumes
22 that in the past 20 years, there have been no
documents
23 lost or misplaced.
24 MR. TINKLER: Or destroyed.
25 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: And that assumes that
Page 523
1 all communication has been written.
2 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) My question is, Archbishop
3 Sanchez, from looking at this file, there's nothing to
4 indicate to you that any contact was made with those
two
5 archidocese prior to 1973; isn't that correct?
6 A. The documentation that you have shown here
7 appears to be a limited documentation, because it
begins,
8 as you say, in 1973. I would have to assume that before
9 the Archbishop would have allowed any person to serve
in
10 any of the parishes, that contact would have been
made
11 with his diocese of origin.
12 Q. You would hope that that would be the case,
13 right?
14 A. That's my assumption.
15 Q. But you don't know that that was the case with
16 Father Sigler, do you?
17 A. I don't know that it was, and I don't know that
18 it was not.
19 Q. You certainly can't tell from the personnel
20 file, can you?
21 A. No, we cannot.
22 Q. In fact, what you can tell from the personnel
23 file was that there was inquiry made in 1973?
24 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object, asked
25 and answered.
Page 524
1 Q. Is that a fair statement?
2 A. Because Father Jason Sigler had requested a
3 process towards possible incardination.
4 Q. Let me show you Exhibit 12 or document 12-K,
5 which is a letter on the Diocese of Lansing chancery
6 stationery dated June 28, 1973, addressed to Reverend
7 James P. Davis, Archbishop of Santa Fe, signed by
Reverend
8 James A. Murray, Chancellor.
9 First, let me ask if you've ever seen that letter
10 before today.
11 A. This was brought to my attention in a previous
12 deposition.
13 Q. And you had not seen that letter prior to that
14 deposition?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. In this letter, Chancellor Murray informs
17 Archbishop Davis that Father Sigler allegedly became
18 involved "in re turpi" with some boys in the parish. Let
19 me repeat that, that Father Sigler allegedly became
20 involved "in re turpi" with some boys in the parish in
the
21 Archidocese of Lansing. What does "in re turpi" mean?
22 A. Much like what it sounds, in things of
23 turpitude, things that are not proper, improper actions.
24 Q. What does this sentence mean to you? What type
25 of action does this sentence refer to when it references
Page 525
1 Father Sigler and some boys?
2 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection. It's
3 speculative and requests information from beyond this
4 witness' knowledge.
5 MR. TINKLER: What it means to him is
6 beyond his knowledge?
7 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: With regard to Father
8 Sigler was the question.
9 Q. (By Mr. Bennett) When you read this sentence,
10 what does that mean to you?
11 A. Sir, that there was some kind of contact with
12 boys which was considered wrong.
13 Q. Probably sexual contact?
14 A. Possibly.
15 Q. Because we're talking about moral turpitude,
16 aren't we?
17 A. Moral turpitude, yes.
18 Q. If you had made inquiry to an archidocese where
19 a priest applying for faculties in your archdiocese had
20 been, and you received information that that priest had
21 been involved "in re turpi" with some boys in that prior
22 archidocese, would you grant him faculties to serve in
23 your parishes?
24 MR. KONRAD: Objection, calls for
25 speculation.
Page 526
1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection.
2 A. I would have followed it up for more information
3 as to what that meant and circumstances surrounding the
4 allegations and what, if any, consequences there were. I
5 would need more information. That's a very brief
6 expression that could involve anything or very little.
7 Q. Would that alert you to --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Would that alert you to a concern that you might
10 have for your own parishioners?
11 A. I would -- it would be a moment to reflect on
12 this person who was applying for incardination, and I
13 would have to ask them for more information.
14 Q. And if that further information revealed that
15 Father Sigler had sexually molested the boys, would
you
16 then grant him faculties to serve in your parishes?
17 A. I cannot answer it yes or no, because a person
18 who has been guilty of any type of molestation,
depending
19 on what kind it was, especially at the age that we're
20 speaking of in those years, if that person had gone
21 through what we might consider to be a program of
22 rehabilitation that was considered to be solid and with
23 professionals; and if they, in turn, had recommended
that
24 this man gave every evidence that he has overcome his
own
25 weakness and would serve, under supervision,
effectively;
Page 527
1 and they would recommend that he be given an
opportunity,
2 then with that type of assurance, it would cause, I think,
3 myself to reflect upon that situation. It would not be
4 the same as though there were no recommendation.
That's
5 why I said I could not reply yes or no, because there is
6 that possibility.
7 Q. With the assurances you've described, would you
8 grant that priest faculties?
9 A. In the 1970s? In the 1970s?
10 Q. 1974, 1973.
11 A. No --
12 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
13 speculation.
14 Q. One year prior to becoming Archbishop.
15 A. From what I would have known then, which was not
16 very much, about any type of sexual molestation of
17 children, with the assurances from professionals, I
would
18 have been inclined to give him an opportunity at least
for
19 weekend coverage to see how he would, in fact, act.
He
20 would have to be monitored. I would have hesitated to
21 give him a full-time assignment.
22 Q. So you would have granted faculties, but they
23 would have been limited in nature; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Limited to weekends?
Page 528
1 A. Well, it depends on what the need happened to
2 be. It's hard to -- you're asking for speculation and to
3 try to set up an imaginary setting. I think the term
4 "limited" is perhaps the best expression.
5 Q. Weekend ministries and supervised would be
6 limited?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Or, as you said, monitored?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Monitored by whom?
11 A. Monitored by the priest with whom he would be
12 working.
13 Q. And if you wanted the priest with whom he would
14 be working to monitor him, would you advise that
15 supervisor priest of the situation, the problem?
16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
17 speculation, facts not in evidence, and about which
this
18 witness has no personal knowledge.
19 Q. If this situation had come up the minute you'd
20 walked into office as Archbishop in 1974, would you
have
21 made those recommendations?
22 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
23 speculation.
24 A. When you come into a brand new situation, Mr.
25 Bennett, you have to get information, and that's what I
Page 529
1 would have sought at that time. I would have had to
speak
2 with the Servants of the Paraclete. I would have had to
3 speak with the others who are listed in these
4 correspondences.
5 Q. And then after having spoken with them, you
6 would -- you may grant faculties; is that correct?
7 A. I may have on a limited basis.
8 Q. That you've described?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that limited basis would entail perhaps, at
11 least at the outset, weekend ministries?
12 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, asked and
13 answered.
14 Q. That were supervised, correct?
15 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Asked and answered.
16 A. That's what I would have wanted.
17 Q. And that would have been the prudent thing to do
18 at that point in time; is that right?
19 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
20 speculation.
21 A. I would say yes, it would be prudent.
22 Q. And the reason you would have applied those
23 limitations, if you did, in fact, decide to grant
24 faculties, would be to protect your parishioners; isn't
25 that right?
Page 530
1 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Speculation, objection.
2 A. Yes, because of the allegation that was included
3 in one of the letters. But I have to insist, again -- and
4 I think you're minimizing it and not commenting on that
--
5 and that is that if, in fact, the man had gone through a
6 long period, over several months and perhaps longer,
7 perhaps extending beyond a year, of in-house therapy
under
8 the guidance and supervision of professionals, that that
9 man would have been helped to a point that the risk
10 becomes less or minimized in the exposure, at least
that
11 was the understanding, I believe, of most of us in the
12 1970s.
13 Q. But you still would have been careful?
14 A. I think we always have to be careful.
15 [The witness conferred with his attorney.]
16 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, may I
17 propose a 10-minute break, and then go to 5:00?
18 MR. BENNETT: Proposal accepted.
19 MR. GOFFE: The time is 4:11. We will go
20 off the record.
21 [A recess was taken.]
22 MR. GOFFE: The time is 4:29. We are back
23 on the record.
24-25 (DELETED)
Page 531
1-22 (DELETED)
23 Q. What is the purpose of keeping a personnel file
24 on a priest?
25 A. To keep the information that is necessary to
Page 532
1 follow his priestly ministry. It provides the bishop with
2 just an outline of who the man is, where he was born,
3 where he attended his school, what center he took his
4 theological studies in, any special degrees that he may
5 have received for special ministry and expertise. It
6 provides the dates of his ordination and the churches or
7 schools or whatever assignments that he may have
received
8 throughout his priestly life.
9 It contains, in other words, a curriculum vitae for
10 him, not only in one sheet, but with letters and
11 references, ordination certificates, scholarship or
12 reviews of his accomplishments while in the seminary,
any
13 special awards that he has received or recognitions
14 received, anniversaries celebrated, permissions
requested
15 to return to see family because of illnesses or someone
16 who has died. It contains, in other words, just a general
17 outline and history of important things that need to be
18 recalled in the journey of that priest throughout his
19 priestly life.
20 Q. Would one of those important things that might
21 need to be recalled incidents of alleged sexual abuse?
22 A. It could be placed in a general file, the
23 personnel file of the priest. The Code of Canon Law of
24 the Church requires that items of sensitive nature
should
25 not be placed in the general file but should be kept in a
Page 533
1 special file for the sake of the reputation of the
2 individual involved. So that it's not kept with ordinary
3 file papers of the curriculum vitae of the priest.
4 The Archidocese of Santa Fe, at least while I was the
5 Archbishop, we did not make an effort to place those
type
6 of documents, whenever they would arise, separately
from
7 the regular file. And so whatever we had or kept in the
8 regular file of the priest were the documents that would
9 outline his work in the parish.
10 Q. Why would it be important to keep documents
11 concerning allegations of sexual abuse in the priest's
12 file, regular or special file?
13 A. I think any allegation that was made and any
14 allegation that was disproved, those allegations are
kept
15 there because this is part of a serious action on the part
16 of that priest. And if the action is going to have to be
17 taken on his behalf, for instance, that he will be sent to
18 a center for therapies, psychotherapy, for his healing,
19 then it's noted that this has taken place for him.
20 Q. Why is it important to keep a record of that?
21 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
22 answered.
23 A. Because we have deaths of archbishops, and we
24 have deaths of chancellors, and we have transfers of
25 archbishops and transfers of chancelors; and unless you
Page 534
1 have a document like that, a person won't always see
that.
2 When you have a record of a priest that we try to
3 keep, it is normally looked forward that this is a record
4 that the man will always have with him. Documents, as
I
5 said, that are of a highly sensitive nature may or may
not
6 be placed there, according to the individual bishop,
7 because the Code of Canon Law actually recommends
that
8 they do not be kept there. If another bishop decides that
9 he will, he might include that.
10 Q. But in your case, you made the decision not to
11 keep such documents in a special place, but to place
them
12 in the general personnel file?
13 A. I felt that documents that I had received
14 regarding priests could be placed there, in their file.
15 There are other documents that aren't of a personal
nature
16 that are normally placed in what we call the file of the
17 parish where he is serving. And those documents
pertain
18 more to his ministry in that parish: Assigned as pastor
19 to that parish on this date; that that parish, under his
20 leadership, built and dedicated a parish hall; any
21 activity that deals with the parish. We have a parish
22 file, as well.
23 Q. You wouldn't keep any documents relating to
24 allegations of sexual abuse in a parish file, would you?
25 A. No, not intentionally, no.
Page 535
1 Q. Those types of documents would be placed, under
2 your reign as Archbishop, in the personnel file of the
3 priest?
4 A. Under my tenure as Archbishop, thank you.
5 Right.
6 Q. And my question is, why is it important to have
7 a document concerning an allegation of sexual abuse in
a
8 priest's personnel file? Why is it important to keep it?
9 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
10 answered.
11 Q. What's the reason for keeping that type of
12 document?
13 A. It documents the individual's failure and will
14 serve to follow him as he goes along his ministry. So
15 that if the bishop who has dealt with him and has
provided
16 for therapy or for whatever healing was necessary and
has
17 taken action with him, he can refer to that at any later
18 date that he chooses to.
19 Q. Wouldn't a reason to refer to that allegation of
20 sexual misconduct at a later date be to see whether or
21 not -- if he'd had another or subsequent allegation of
22 sexual misconduct, to be able to see whether or not
he'd
23 done it before?
24 A. That, like I say, so at least that there is a
25 continuum of information on the given priest.
Page 536
1 Q. Why would it be important if you had an
2 allegation, a pending allegation of sexual misconduct
3 against a priest, why would it be important to have
4 available to you any prior allegation of sexual
5 misconduct?
6 A. I think you answered that question yourself. So
7 that if there has been a second fall, that can be referred
8 to.
9 Q. Why would you want to know if there had been a
10 second fall, and it wasn't just a first fall or third or
11 fourth?
12 A. I used that as simply a speculative answer to
13 your speculative question. I didn't mean to limit it to
14 just two. It could be whatever number.
15 Q. Let me ask it this way: If it were brought to
16 your attention that a priest had engaged in sexual
17 misconduct or sexually molested one of the children of
his
18 parish, would it be important for you to know whether
or
19 not he had done that before?
20 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, calls for
21 speculation.
22 A. I think in any case it's important to know what
23 that person has done, what his life has been.
24 Q. Why?
25 A. I think that there's a difference between a
Page 537
1 person who has engaged or has fallen once into a
2 particular area of mistake, different from another who
has
3 fallen a second time.
4 Q. What's the difference?
5 A. He has repeated.
6 Q. What significance does that have?
7 A. It indicates that the therapy that he has
8 received -- and I have to presume that therapy was
given,
9 since we're dealing with speculative cases -- that
therapy
10 assisted him, but for whatever reason, this man has
11 committed a second fault and is going to have to be
12 treated more seriously and be monitored more severely.
13 Q. I understand from prior testimony -- please
14 correct me if I'm wrong -- that there were certain
15 documents you got from the therapists of priests who
had
16 sexually molested children that you destroyed?
17 A. Yes, sir. And I'd like to explain why. Because
18 if therapists who would send documents to me would so
19 indicate that these were confidential, even if they
20 contained no -- what I would call serious matter, but
they
21 felt that all documentation that was sent to me was, in
22 fact, confidential and should be destroyed by myself or
23 else returned to them for destruction.
24 Q. Well, my question is, as Archbishop of Santa Fe,
25 why did you comply with that request?
Page 538
1 A. I have to understand that that is a -- not only
2 a request on the part of the psychotherapist, but perhaps
3 there is a state law guaranteeing the privacy of
4 individuals, and a psychotherapist does not have the
5 permission to release any confidential information from
6 his patient without the specific approval of that patient
7 and limit it only to one person.
8 It would be as though someone would ask you to
9 release information from a client who has come to you,
an
10 attorney/client privilege. You do not have the right to
11 release that, I don't believe, unless your client so
12 grants permission. And if he grants permission only to
13 one person, then I believe that you would be obliged to
14 follow that directive. I'm not certain if there's a law
15 governing that, but I presume there probably is.
16 Q. Well, at the time you destroyed these types of
17 documents from therapists concerning priests who had
18 sexually molested children --
19 A. They weren't -- excuse me.
20 Q. -- did you know that there was a law requiring
21 you to destroy to those documents?
22 MR. KONRAD: Objection. That assumes that
23 he ever did destroy the documents pertaining to priests
24 who had sexually abused children, and there's never
been
25 any evidence of that.
Page 539
1 A. Documents that I would receive would pertain to
2 many different needs of the priests. They were not just
3 sexual misconduct. They had been referred to therapy for
4 a variety of reasons. And when the therapeutic counselor
5 or psychiatrist would send a report, he would feel that
6 this information should be kept confidential and was
7 allowed to be released only for me to see and requested
me
8 to destroy that.
9 Q. You have -- excuse me, go ahead.
10 A. This, to me, was in keeping with the
11 confidential nature of the therapist/patient privilege.
12 Q. You had, in fact, seen therapists' reports
13 relating to priests who had sexually molested children;
14 isn't that correct?
15 MS. KENNEDY: I'm going to object as
16 ambiguous if we don't have a date on it.
17 Q. Any time during your tenure as Archbishop.
18 A. I would not be able to answer that question
19 automatically without reflecting, because not in every
20 case did I receive reports from therapists, and that
21 question that you've asked is presuming that in every
22 case, especially in sexual molestation, was I given
23 written reports.
24 Q. No, it's not. The question is asking you, isn't
25 it true that during your tenure as Archbishop, you did,
in
Page 540
1 fact, receive some reports from some therapists of
2 priests?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Of priests who had sexually molested children
5 concerning their therapy?
6 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Tinkler, are you
7 talking about the original report?
8 MR. BENNETT: I'm not Mr. Tinkler.
9 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: I'm sorry, Mr. Bennett.
10 Are you talking about the original report or the copy of
11 reports? Or perhaps when you use "reports," it's not
12 particularly clear to me, and I'm sure it's not to the
13 Archbishop, whether these are copies or the originals.
14 Q. It doesn't make any difference to me. You can
15 answer the question, Archbishop.
16 A. Yes, I have received reports from centers of
17 therapy regarding a priest who had been accused of
sexual
18 molestation, and it was a report, a general report, of his
19 presence, and they again made their request that this
20 report be destroyed.
21 Q. And you did that? You destroyed them?
22 A. And I destroyed them.
23 Q. And so if you die, and the next Archbishop comes
24 along, and this priest has another allegation of sexual
25 misconduct, can the new Archbishop, then, look at the
Page 541
1 priest's personnel file and find those reports?
2 A. Not the reports from the psychotherapists. I am
3 presuming -- and that has to be an assumption -- that the
4 center of treatment or the psychiatrist in question has
5 preserved copies in their own files. That's why they felt
6 free to send me a copy.
7 Q. But you can't find it in the priest personnel
8 file in accordance with your policy; isn't that right?
9 A. Not the reports on the therapeutic treatment of
10 the priest, no.
11 Q. In hindsight, with respect to all of these cases
12 involving sexual molestation of children, do you wish
you
13 had kept some of those reports?
14 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection, speculation.
15 Q. Well, let me ask you this: Would it have been
16 prudent to keep copies of those reports?
17 A. I don't think in every instance it would have
18 been prudent to keep a copy of what I would call
ordinary
19 reports, because sometimes they were just nothing. And
20 that just multiplies a person's file.
21 Perhaps on hindsight, as you say, it might have been
22 prudent to keep at least the dates when the person was
23 first evaluated and that type of an evaluation, if they
24 would have granted us permission to do that. I think
that
25 would help us recall details for that individual.
Page 542
1 Q. Did you ever request permission of either the
2 priest or the therapist to keep copies of those reports on
3 file in the Archidocese office?
4 A. No, sir. I complied with the request as
5 directed.
6 Q. You complied with the stamped request on the
7 document itself; isn't that right?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. You never called anybody and said, "What about
10 this stamped request on this document. Do you really
mean
11 that?"
12 MS. KENNEDY: Objection, asked and
13 answered.
14 Q. Did you?
15 A. No, I didn't. That's not my nature. It may be
16 the nature of lawyers to contest things of that nature,
17 but it was not my nature in receiving a report from a
18 therapist, a therapist that I have respect for. He's
19 treating a priest professionally. He's giving me an
20 update report on what the man has been going through,
his
21 improvement, etc. And whenever that had a stamp on it
22 that indicated that, I felt that it was my responsibility
23 to follow that directive and not contest it. I did not
24 think of contesting it.
25 Q. So that was something that didn't occur to you?
Page 543
1 A. No, sir, it did not.
2 Q. And did you think about the interests of your
3 parishioners at the time you destroyed those reports?
4 A. I think I had thought about the interests of the
5 parishioners when I had the man in therapy. That was
the
6 important thing. That's more important than a report, to
7 me, that's simply updating what the man is doing.
8 I think that the therapist is working professionally.
9 He's the expert. He's working with the man trying to help
10 him, and all he's doing is informing me of his progress.
11 Q. So when you destroyed those reports, did you
12 think about the interests of your parishioners or not?
13 A. Absolutely, absolutely. That is precisely why I
14 had the man go to therapy in the first place.
15 Q. Well, my question is: Was it in the interests
16 of your parishioners to destroy his therapists' reports
17 and not put them in his priest personnel file?
18 A. That's a speculative question, and I think
19 you're assuming that no matter what is put or not put
into
20 a file is going to result in harm to people. And that's
21 an assumption that I could not accept.
22 You asked me to give an example, to cite whether or
23 not I had received at least a single report, in general,
24 and I can recall receiving that regarding a priest who
was
25 accused of sexual misconduct.
Page 544
1 You asked if I had destroyed that document, the
2 report from the psychotherapist, and I said yes. And
3 that, to me, is following the directions of those who are
4 treating a man and hopefully helping him to improve his
5 life in the future. It's not like it's a blank approval
6 or an attempt to hide what this man is doing or not
doing.
7 The therapist would be able to explain or provide copies
8 because they keep copies. I have to assume they keep
9 copies.
10 Q. You don't know that?
11 A. I know that what they've sent me is not an
12 original. I'm sure -- they're giving me a report. They
13 have to keep a report because they're treating the man
14 from day to day to day, and I would assume they have
to
15 have some follow-up on their day-to-day reporting.
16 Q. When you sent Father Sigler to the Servants of
17 the Paraclete in 1978, did you review his priest
personnel
18 file?
19 A. No, sir, I did not.
20 Q. And at that time, I believe you testified that
21 there were no allegations of sexual misconduct?
22 A. It was not at that time. It was about two years
23 ago, a year and a half ago, when we had a deposition
with
24 Mr. Pasternack, and the question was asked, and I told
him
25 that the allegations that had been brought to my
attention
Page 545
1 and had been brought to my attention repeatedly
concerned
2 his personal lack of self control, his anger problems, his
3 voice, the use of bad language, insulting towards people
4 and that repeatedly. And when people asked to meet and
5 discuss the shortcomings of Father, I sent my Vicar
6 General to meet with him for that purpose.
7 Q. So you didn't feel that it was prudent to review
8 his personnel file to see if he had exhibited a lack of
9 self-control at any time in the past?
10 A. I did not think about reviewing his personnel
11 file. It wasn't a matter that I didn't think it was
12 prudent. I simply didn't reflect upon that. I was
13 concerned about what the concerns of the people would
be
14 and whatever they were going to say about Father
Jason
15 Sigler.
16 Q. Would it have been prudent to review his
17 personnel file at that time when considering those
18 complaints?
19 A. It certainly seems like it would be a prudent
20 thing.
21 Q. And when you sent Father Sigler to the Servants
22 of the Paraclete, had you at least confronted -- had him
23 confronted for molesting children at St. Therese?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In 1981?
Page 546
1 A. Right.
2 Q. Did you review his personnel file to see if he
3 had been involved in any similar activity in the past?
4 A. No, sir. I did not review the file there. I
5 was very hurt, very disappointed, and I had terminated
his
6 faculties and his stay in the Archidocese immediately.
7 Q. Would it have been prudent to review that file
8 at that time?
9 A. I am not certain how prudent -- I'm not certain
10 what it would have served, because I made it clear to
him
11 that he would have no further assignment and that he
was
12 to return to Jemez Springs until his own bishop would
13 decide what to do with him. But as far as I was
14 concerned, he was done in the Archidocese. And that
was
15 the reason I was more concerned about that than I was
16 about any files. It just didn't occur to me to review
17 files.
18 Q. All right. Did you request of Father Sigler,
19 either yourself or through your agent, that he provide a
20 list of the boys that he had molested at St. Therese
21 Parish?
22 A. Together, Father Hunt and I, who -- Father Hunt
23 was the pastor who brought the incident to my
attention.
24 We confronted Father Sigler. And after Father Sigler's
25 admission, Father Hunt and I discussed the issue.
Father
Page 547
1 Hunt being the pastor and also having taken special
2 training, studies in counseling, must have indicated the
3 need to see if there were additional victims. And so I
4 instructed him to meet with Father Sigler, before he
would
5 leave, to get any names of anyone else and to discreetly
6 try to find out from among parishioners if, in fact, there
7 were other victims that needed assistance.
8 Q. Did Father Hunt get the list?
9 A. Father Hunt indicated under testimony that he,
10 in fact, did get a list of about -- I can't recall, four
11 or five others, and that he made it a point, since it was
12 my request of him, to meet with the child and the
family
13 in each of the instances.
14 Q. Was the list in writing?
15 A. I never saw a list myself. He did not turn that
16 list over to me. I'm certain that I don't have a list at
17 all. But he indicated that -- he had reported to me that
18 he had met with all of the people and had told them
19 exactly what had taken place, transpired, and that the
20 Archidocese had removed Father Sigler from St.
Therese
21 parish immediately. He would not return. And it
seemed
22 to me that the situation apparently ended there.
23 Q. So at that time, how many boys did you know were
24 molested by Father Sigler at St. Therese parish?
25 A. I believe the testimony that Father Hunt gave
Page 548
1 indicated a list of four or five. I don't, in fact, know
2 how many were, in fact, molested or when they
interviewed
3 the boy, together with the parents, what their response
4 was.
5 Q. But Father Sigler had told Father Hunt that he
6 had molested four or five?
7 A. Father Sigler gave him a list of boys that he
8 felt that he had been close to, and I imagine that was a
9 molestation.
10 Q. And was that four or five boys?
11 A. Four or five boys.
12 Q. So at that time, when you realized that Father
13 Sigler had molested four or five boys at St. Therese
14 parish in 1981, why did you not go back to his
personnel
15 file to see if he had molested boys in the past and in
16 order to determine whether or not you should contact
the
17 families at previous parish assignments to advise them
18 that he was a pedophile?
19 A. Your question has -- it's twofold. One, why did
20 I not go back to the file. And I repeat, that the concept
21 of reviewing a file was not uppermost in my mind in
that
22 incident. I was concerned about the person and what
had
23 taken place.
24 But secondly, I was not aware of any the other
25 specific incidents having been brought to my attention
Page 549
1 while Father Sigler served in the diocese, and
Archbishop
2 Davis had not mentioned any incidents while he was the
3 Archbishop, either.
4 So that it was my assumption that this was the first
5 occasion that it's been brought to our attention that, in
6 fact, Jason Sigler had victimized children and that it
had
7 entailed more than one victim.
8 Q. But if you'd have looked at the personnel file,
9 you would have immediately come upon the June 1973
letter
10 from Father -- or Chancellor Murray in the Archidocese
of
11 Lansing indicating that he had molested boys in
Lansing,
12 Michigan?
13 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Objection. That
14 misstates the evidence. The evidence is that the letter
15 states "in re turpi" with young boys. The testimony from
16 the Archbishop is that "in re turpi" can mean a number
of
17 things, not necessarily molestation, as you have
18 indicated.
19 Q. What would "in re turpi" --
20 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: But rather acts of moral
21 turpitude.
22 Q. What would "in re turpi" have meant to you in
23 1981 with respect to Father Sigler?
24 A. It would have meant to me, if I'd have read that
25 letter, that he had engaged with boys in things that
were
Page 550
1 wrong, perhaps fondling. That's exactly what I would
have
2 thought.
3 Q. Wrongful sexual contact?
4 A. That's a good legal expression, wrongful sexual
5 contact.
6 Q. That's a good accurate expression, isn't it?
7 A. I think it covers a broad field.
8 Q. Of which, if you would have read "in re turpi"
9 in 1981, a letter concerning Father Sigler, it would have
10 covered the field of wrongful sexual contact; is that
11 correct?
12 A. It would have -- that type of word would have
13 expressed everything.
14 Q. And therefore, if you would have read that
15 letter from Father Murray, you would have known that
this
16 was not the first time Father Sigler had molested boys
and
17 that there may be other boys in his wake in the
parishes
18 in which he had served; isn't that right?
19 A. Possibly.
20 Q. So would it have been prudent to review Father
21 Sigler's personnel file in order to determine whether or
22 not such information was there when he was caught
23 molesting boys in 1981?
24 A. I think, as I mentioned this morning, hindsight
25 is always 20/20 vision. A person doesn't always think of
Page 551
1 every action to take that might assist in dealing with a
2 situation or dealing with other possible situations.
3 Sometimes you're confronted with an issue, and you're
4 surrounded with other responsibilities and obligations
5 that you do not think of every possible thing that you
6 could do. That may have been one thing I could have
done.
7 There may have been other things that I could have
done,
8 as well.
9 Q. Would that have been a prudent thing to do?
10 MR. WINTERBOTTOM: Mr. Bennett, it's 5:00
11 o'clock.
12 A. I will respond for this. On hindsight, it would
13 have been helpful to know more about Father Jason
Sigler
14 by reviewing his file.
15 Q. Not only helpful, it would have been the prudent
16 thing to do; is that correct?
17 A. Prudent. It seems to be a prudent action.
18 MR. BENNETT: Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
20 MR. GOFFE: The time is 5:01. This
21 concludes today's deposition. We are at the end of tape
8
22 in the deposition of Archbishop Sanchez. We are off
the
23 record.
24 [The deposition recessed at 5:01 PM]
25
Page 552


Previous: Sanchez Deposition Part 3B

Next: Sanchez Deposition Part 4A


Weirdload Archives Homepage
For Lapsed and Former Catholics