Levada, from Google Images

Asked about a priest who took minor boys skinny dipping, Levada says, “My memory is not that airtight.” Another priest was in treatment at House of Affirmation in Massachusetts for sex problems before coming to Oregon; it did not register in the bishop’s brain. Throughout the deposition the cardinal responds “I don’t recall,” and “I don’t remember.” Only when attorneys put hard evidence in front of the Cardinal does he suddenly have a memory, and then only for that one fact brought out by evidence

Today at 5 p.m. Rome time Cardinal William Levada gives a speech titled “Response of the Church to Cases of Sexual Abuse” after a day of meetings at The Vatican. “It is unclear whether the format will allow for any back-and-forth among the cardinals, or whether there would be any time for discussion given the limited window allotted,” Politics Daily and other news media have reported.

The main skill Levada can demonstrate to the cardinals is “How to answer questions under oath without revealing anything more than what opposing attorneys already have as evidence,” judging from the Cardinal’s own answers in a deposition taken January 2008, about sex crimes of priests in Portland, Oregon, where Levada was bishop before becoming Archbishop of San Francisco and then, just after the deposition, flying away to Rome never to return to American soil and be questioned again. Today Levada heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly The Inquisition).

Cardinal William Levada is an expert on evading the truth in deposition testimony, even after taking an oath on the Bible. Here are excerpts from the January 2008 deposition. (Attorneys Erin Olson and Kelly Clark appeared for plaintiffs, Paul Gaspari is attorney for the San Francisco Archdiocese, Mary McNamara represents Levada:)

Q: You indicated to Mr. Clark that during your tenure as archbishop of Portland that you met with a number of victims of clergy abuse.
A: I did say that, right.
Q: Can you tell me the names of any one of them.
A: I don’t recall that.
Q: Are you certain you actually even met with a victim?
A: To the best of my recollection, I did.
Q: But you can’t remember a single name.
A: Mm-mm.
Q: Can you remember the context of any of the meetings?
A: The context?
Q: Who the priest was, what was the person’s desires?
A: No, I don’t.

MR. MOREY: Q: During your tenure as the archbishop of Portland, were there any reports of the crime of solicitation sent to the Holy See?
A: I think I can answer no because I’m sure I would have remembered if I had done such a report.
Q: I may miss one, but during your tenure, there were reports of sexual abuse of children by priests Baccellieri, Perone, McCray, Goodrich and Also.
Ms. McNamara: Compound.
Mr. LENA: Compound. What is, I’m sorry, I’ve lost track of the question. [INAUDIBLE DISCUSSION]

***
Q: Okay, let me switch subjects and talk about Father [BLANK]
[Then 28 and a half REDACTED PAGES]

[Then we get to Erin Olson’s questioning of Cardinal Levada:]

Q: How about Father Donald Durand?
A: I received a report of child sexual abuse. I think it would be more inappropriate behavior.
Q: Can you describe the nature of the complaint?
A: I believe the report I received was one of skinny dipping in a river up towards Silverton or Salem someplace.
Q: Skinny dipping alone?
A: With minors, minor boys.
Q: Did you receive that from a known source?
A: I don’t recall. But that sticks in my memory for some reason. And my memory is not that airtight, as you know.
Q: Did you take any action in response to the complaint?
A: I’m sure I must have discussed it with Father Lienert.
Q: Would it be documented in a memorandum of sorts?
A: It could well have been. Certainly I think it would have been discussed with him.
Q: With Father Durand?
A: With Father Durand.
Q: Do you have any independent memory of that discussion?
A: No, I don’t.

***
Q: What did you do when you received the report about Father Goodrich?
A: Well, as I recall, he was not in a condition to be interviewed himself. But I’m not absolutely sure whether someone didn’t attempt to interview him. You know, I don’t know. There should be something in the record about it.
Q: Do you recall having a meeting with Father Lienert, Tom Selliken, and counsel for the archdiocese about how to proceed with that investigation?
A: I don’t recall such a meeting but that would be the normal thing.
Q: Okay, let’s talk a little bit about that. When a complaint against a priest was received by you during the course of your tenure as archbishop, what would be your first reaction in terms of what you would do?
A: If it came to me directly, I would call in the vicar for clergy and share this complaint with him, ask for any information and background and ask him to go through files. And then we would meet about what next steps to take.
Q: Was it always the case, with regard to the seven priests you’ve identified about whom you received complaints during your tenure, that you would convene a meeting to discuss how the investigation would proceed?
A: It would not necessarily- we would- the people that were mentioned, the archdiocesan attorney, oftentimes the risk management person, all of those persons would be involved in consultation. But whether we would always meet together, it’s not- I don’t recall that being the case.
*****
Ms. OLSON: Q: In Paragraph 3, exhibit 41 describes Father Grammond being upset because he’s being treated so harshly and I’m sort of summarizing it. In it he says: “Father Jim Harris was accused of child abuse fifteen years ago and nothing has happened to him.” Were you familiar with the prior allegation against Father Jim Harris?
A: No.
Q: Did you know Father Harris simply as his supervisor or more as a passing acquaintance?
A: No, I knew him as his bishop. I think Harris was already retired by this time.
Q: Did you receive information from Father Lienert, [Vicar for Clergy] after he got this rant from Father Grammond, that there had been an accusation made against Father Harris?
A: I don’t recall having that information before, before this indication, before hearing from, I’m sure I heard from Father Lienert about developments in the Grammond case.
Q: Do you recall learning from Father Lienert in 1992 that a prior accusation of child sexual abuse had been made against Father Jim Harris?
A: All I recollect is what’s in this memo.

(Read more at City of Angels Blog by City of Angels Lady reporting from the City of Angels)

With CofA Blog now in Albuquerque, we begin what should be an outpouring of information about the Servants of the Paraclete treatment center for priests with “psycho-sexual problems.” Started in 1949 with the best intentions of providing spiritual renewal and prison-like oversight of problem priests, Via Coeli in Jemez Springs morphed by the 1960s into a psychology-dependent almost New Age secular rehab that was so assured of its success treating pedophilia that it sent its priests into local parishes while they were still in treatment, thus creating an inordinately high number of victims of clergy sex crimes in the region around Jemez Springs in Northern New Mexico

Scanned at City of Angels Blog for you to click enlarge and read are minutes from a February 13, 1967, meeting held: “To present to the archbishop a plan whereby guest-priests under the care of the Servants of the Paraclete could enter into ministerial work in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe as a final step in a graduated program of rehabilitation begun at Via Coeli Monastery, and continued through the Paraclete houses in Albuquerque and Santa Fe.”

The minutes were among documents found during the discovery phase of the L.A. Clergy Cases that settled in 2007, where Cardinal Roger Mahony authorized payment of $660 million to 510 plaintiffs and avoided testifying in trials where these documents would have been released by much more mainstream media than City of Angels Blog.

The Archbishop of Santa Fe and Servants of the Paraclete leaders felt it prudent not to tell local parishes about the problems the out-patient priests brought with them, the minutes reveal, as you can read on Page 2:

“In placing men in the parishes, the Archbishop would use his judgment and discretion in informing the pastors only of what he thought they must absolutely know about the priest they were receiving, so that they might more effectively work with the man.”

The minutes continue: “No details or particulars of a clinical nature need be made known regarding the man’s past history.”

“The Archbishop seemed immediately receptive to the idea (of placing out-patient priests in parishes) and added his own personal interest in and concern for the work, then proposed the following parishes as suitable fur such a plan:

In Albuquerque:

Sacred Heart
St. Anza’s
San Felipe
Our Lady of Fatima
Queen of Heaven
Holy Ghost
Our Lady of Assumption
St. Francis Xavier
St. Bernadette’s
St. Theresa
Annunciation
Immaculate Conception
St. Charles
Holy Family
St. Edwin’s
Ascension
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Nativity EVM (Alameda)
St. Clement’s (Los Lunas)

(My God, how big was the population of Albuquerque in 1967 that they even had this many Catholic Churches. City of Angels will be absorbing local culture as we remain in Albuquerque.)

“The point was made that the program as so far stated might carry with it an inconvenience in terms of constant personnel changes in the parishes. The Archbishop remarked that there were enough parishes available to obviate that problem… He repeated that the priests of the archdiocese were ready and willing to help in this operation.”

(More from page 2-3, where as CofA Blog reads it, The Catholic Church through SotP experimented with the people in local New Mexico parishes, used them as guinea pigs to see if pedophile priests who completed treatment were ready for full-time assignments or not:)

“It was further agreed that the parochial assignment was to be of an indefinite nature, lasting as long as was necessary for the man to give evident signs that he had readjusted well to the ministry and was now deserving of a full time assignment, either in his home diocese, his religious community, or in whatever opportune situation he might be placed. It was agreed that should a man fail to measure up in his parochial assignment, he should be returned to a Paraclete house, preferably in the Canyon, where efforts at his priestly renewal might begin again.”

The Paraclete New Mexico Corporation?

Page 3 goes on to discuss teaching opportunities for the Servants of the Paraclete out-patients as “not feasible at the moment, with one possible exception, at St. Vincent’s Academy.” Also on Page 3: They’re adding four more rooms because of the “influx of guests,” the $10,000 cost would be referred to the Paraclete New Mexico Corporation.

The Archbishop “spoke of his admiration for the professional services being extended to the Paracletes by Dr. Frank Rowe (Howe? It’s hard to read this 1967 typewriter with its ink splotches), and Dr. John Salazar.”

Also on Page 3, the Archbishop, concerned about overcrowding and understaffing, “cautioned that we not allow a large number of specifically ill-adjusted emotional cases to accumulate in one place.”

(Continue reading, scan these minutes plus other Paraclete Documents at City of Angels Blog where we posted here: http://cityofangels8.blogspot.com/2010/11/paraclete-doc-guest-priests-enter.html  Monday, November 15, 2010

Paraclete Doc: ‘Guest-priests enter ministerial work and no details of a clinical nature need be made known’ Minutes from Feb 1967 Meeting

As soon as I heard that Melissa Huckaby murdered 9-year-old Sandra Cantu in a church basement March 27, 2009, I got a chill. The Santillan vs. Bishop of Fresno trial had been in progress the previous weeks in Fresno, right in the middle of the Highway 5 ride between Tracy, California, where the murder and rape took place, and Wasco, where the molestations by Monsignor Anthony Herdegen of the Santillan brothers took place. The murder weapon Huckaby used was a rolling pin used to press out communion wafers in the Clover Baptist Church. As soon as I heard about the murder, I felt there might be a connection, with the extensive news coverage of the jury trial especially when Cardinal Roger Mahony testified. As the jury began deliberation in Santillan vs. Bishop of Fresno, Melissa Huckaby interrupted her preparation to teach a Sunday School class and took Sandra Cantu on a ride to the church.

Today we are running Day Two of the testimony of Bishop John Steinbock in that trial at City of Angels Blog. The Bishop of Fresno’s first day of testimony is here in Part One of this series posted October 28, 2010.

This story of the connection between Cantu’s murder and the Fresno trial has been simmering at City of Angels Blog for a while. I’ve thought about going North to visit Huckaby in prison and ask her, was there a connection between the trial and the mania inside your head the day you murdered Cantu? Was it a coincidence that you murdered Cantu just hours after Catholic leaders did a PR routine under oath testifying they knew nothing of pedophile priest crimes? I thought of traveling to interview Huckaby and ask her those questions, but now City of Angels is going the other direction to Albuquerque, to write about Servants of the Paraclete starting next week. We can always visit Huckaby in prison years from now. She isn’t going anywhere.

Meanwhile here is more official transcript from March 23, 2009, day two of Bishop Steinbock’s testimony. Part 3, in this series “What Melissa Huckaby Heard” will be transcript of the trial from March 26, 2009, the day before Huckaby interrupted her work scissoring magazine pictures for a Sunday School project to murder Sandra Cantu in the basement of the church where her grandfather was pastor.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
CENTRAL DIVISION
Before the Honorable Donald S. Black, Judge
Department 97B

GEORGE SANTILLAN, individually and)
HOWARD SANTILLAN, individually, )
Case No. 03CECG04480
Plaintiffs,
-vs-
DEFENDANT JOHN DOE 1, DEFENDANT
JOHN DOE 2, DEFENDANT JOHN DOE 3,
and DOES through 100, inclusive,)

JURY TRIAL VOLUME IV

MR. ANDERSON: There is in the testimony of Bishop Steinbock and the cross-examination, an additional matter that I intend to cross-examine him on.
THE COURT: Well, Bishop Steinbock is here. Do you want him in the courtroom listening to this?
MR. ANDERSON: No.
THE COURT: Would you step outside, Bishop Steinbock.
MR. ANDERSON: The matter that I expect to come up, Your Honor, pertains to the testimony given by Bishop Steinbock late in the day when we- before we recessed. And in particular to the topic of all the things that he and they are doing. And among those, Exhibit 529, in which, and I quote from it, he makes assurances, “I want to assure everyone that I know of no priest active in ministry in our Diocese that has been involved in a sexual abuse of a minor.”
THE COURT: What is the date of that?
MR. ANDERSON: That’s 2002, Your Honor. I have the exhibit here if you’d like to see that.
MS. McGUIRE: Well, we redacted that.
THE COURT: Is that portion redacted?
MR. DE MARCO: That portion wasn’t redacted.
MR. ANDERSON: No. And — and I was asking about that as well. And, Your Honor, I intend to offer the finding — cross-examine the witness first, but offer the finding that was made in this court pertaining to Father Swearingen in which the jury found that he had committed sexual abuse against a minor.
THE COURT: But that was after 2002, wasn’t it?
MR. ANDERSON: It was. But he’s making an affirmative representation that this was the case then and has done nothing to revoke that, otherwise clarify it, and continues to make that representation. And I’m further prepared to offer proof that Swearingen is in ministry involving youth at the current time.
MS. McGUIRE: Your Honor, what is that — we’ve already been around this several times in motion in limine and agreed that the Court has ruled that no other cases will come in. How is that relevant?
THE COURT: But I also indicated the other day that it’s getting closer and closer. And the problem here, the problem is- and what I’ve learned since we first addressed this issue- is that the church has been making representations 12 about this. And I just- ultimately, I don’t know what I’m going to do with this, but it concerns me that the jury is- has been given the impression that there are no other cases like this.
MS. McGUIRE: Well, Your Honor, we can redact that out of the- the jury has not seen this.
THE COURT: But it’s already there. I mean, it was there — to some extent it was there in Bishop Steinbock’s testimony last week that he commissioned Mr. Gordon to do an- to do an investigation and-
MS. McGUIRE: But he –
THE COURT: -it came up clean.
MS. McGUIRE: He clarified that by saying it wasn’t Gordon that did the investigation; it was Father Avila.
THE COURT: I don’t know how much he clarified it, but 1 that’s what I’m concerned about and that’s what I’m listening for.
MS. McGUIRE: We can redact that out if they’re concerned about that. But now to get into issues involving Father Eric Swearingen and turn this case into what’s- what’s going on with him, I just don’t understand how that would be relevant. The Bishop hasn’t made any representations that there is no other priest that’s been accused in this Diocese. He’s made no representations in his testimony that there’s no other accusations being made against other priests in this Diocese.
MR. ANDERSON: Counsel — Your Honor, that’s for counsel to argue. The fact of the matter is the exhibit is in evidence. He had it read to every parish and has made affirmative representations to this Court and to this jury throughout his testimony, both yesterday- the last day we were in court and the day before, that there are no credibly accused priests out there.
THE COURT: What is the date of that letter?
MR. ANDERSON: The date of this is April 7th, 2002.
THE COURT: And when was Swearingen first accused?
MR. ANDERSON: September of 2002.
THE COURT: After that letter?

********************
Q: I’m going to ask you to read what you had read in all the parishes in the Diocese in April of 2002, beginning with “we.”
A “We are all shocked by the sad and unfortunate scandals in the church that have appeared in the media, even though the scandals are not as widespread as the secular media may suggest. The scandal still exists and troubles us all greatly. I want to assure everyone that I know of no priest active in ministry in our Diocese that has been involved in the sexual abuse of a minor.”
********************************

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah. And the jury verdict, of course, finding that he had committed the offenses was after that. However, on Thursday late, this Bishop- and Mr. De Marco has some of the testimony- made a number of representations to the jury, Your Honor, suggesting that they’re doing all these things to protect the children, among them safe harbor programs, outreach to victims, candor with the people. And not only to this exhibit, but the adjudication of Swearingen and the report made in 2002, late, and the subsequent adjudication and a finding that he had committed abuse clearly impeaches every one of those assertions. And frankly, Your Honor, I think Bishop Steinbock is- is misleading the Court and attempting to mislead the jury by saying that he’s done all the right things even more recently when, in fact, he put Swearingen back in ministry after that finding by the jury that this Court presided and continues him in ministry to youth. And I have evidence- it can be shown very briefly by cross-examination- of that very fact and very briefly. It is proper impeachment. It is a door opened by their witness and Bishop Steinbock, and we’re allowed to bring it out.
MR. DE MARCO: The testimony relating to conduct in recent days, recent years, is at pages 433 and 434 of Thursday’s transcript. But defense counsel asked him, “What are you doing now to protect children?” And he gave a laundry list of things and — creating the impression they’re taking responsible action now. That is a concrete thing that can be shown where they’re not looking out to protect children.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MS. McGUIRE: Your Honor, I just- under 352, I think it is –
THE COURT: Haven’t you — haven’t you — or hasn’t the Bishop created an impression that is to some extent impeached by this information?
MS. McGUIRE: Your Honor, I don’t believe so. I think what he -
THE COURT: Why?

(Continue reading through the end of Steinbock’s testimony at City of Angels Blog posted Nov. 4, 2010)

Behind closed doors and golden gates, The Vatican claims to know how to deal with pedophile priests. The Pope has made great strides in communicating with victims, says a letter from the official Vatican spokesman Sunday, citing “listening groups” at U.S. archdioceses as an example. Those groups have very few low attendance. In fact, first change The Vatican needs to make is to stop taking credit for any progress being made to stop pedophile priests. If it had not been for persistent pursuit by civil attorneys of these criminals, none of the truth about pedophile priests would be public today. No thanks goes to Catholic Church hierarchy, who use every legal means available to fight the victims.

“Think of us as an ally” Fr. Federico Lombardi repeats in his apparent impromptu letter to the Survivors Voice group protest Sunday October 31 at The Vatican.

One real thing the Church could do: In each region of the United States, take property the Church uses as retreats for priests and turn it over to an independent group to run as recovery centers for the victims of pedophile priest crimes. Take the spa like acreage where priests who commit these serial felonies can go for months at a time and let the victims run the properties as recovery centers for the victims, since many of us face worst behavioral and psychological results of the priests’ crimes than the priests who committed them. The Catholic Church could show it really has changed by admitting its guilt and taking genuine action for the victims, even if it means relinquishing some real estate assets.*

Apparently Lombardi was trying to deliver his letter calling the Church an “ally” to Survivors Voice as they stood outside on the sidewalk Sunday, but the protesters started jeering him and he had to retreat back into the building, according to news reports. But reading Lombardi’s letter just now in National Catholic Reporter I started jeering myself by the third paragraph, because once again the Church is buck passing. The Vatican admits it was wrong for about three sentences, then starts pointing the finger of guilt in the other direction.

Lombardi writes in paragraph three: “I feel encouraged by the attitude of the Pope to listen to the victims, and show the will to do everything necessary, so that the horrible crimes of sexual abuse may never happen again.”

Right away that’s a problem.

Because you can’t work on the future without first fixing the past. You can’t have the same guys who perpetrated the crimes now be in charge of the solution, yet that is what The Vatican has used its power and influence to ensure, and that is what makes victims jeer.

But great, Mr. Lombardi, (and be grateful I can call you “mister”) you say The Vatican is going to listen? Then prove it, show us, make a major change and do it in public showing us that you are finally listening.

Lombardi writes: “I know, you think that the Church should do more, and in a quicker way. From my point of view the Church has done, and is doing a lot. Not only the Pope, with his words and example, but many Church communities in various parts of the world have done and are doing a lot, by way of listening to the victims as well as in the matter of prevention and formation. Personally, I am in contact with many persons who work in this field in many countries, and I am convinced that they are doing a lot.”

Therein lies another problem. “Listening groups” at archdioceses don’t reach most of the victims, because most victims of pedophile priests don’t want to step foot in or near a Catholic building ever again. Most of us gag, some vomit, many double over in pain just when we see a clerical collar. How can you expect us to be able to come to the Catholic Church for healing when it’s the Catholic Church that traumatized us?

********************
Watch Al Jazeera Report video of interview with Gary Bergeron the night before Reformation Day 2010
*********************

Apparently Church hierarchy spend all their time cloistered behind security gates communicating with no one but each other. Yet they claim they have listened to survivors of pedophile priest crimes around the world. Lombardi cites these “listening groups” as a sign of all the good they’ve done, when in fact in most cities archdioceses have had to open listening groups up to “victims of child sex abuse in every situation,” because there weren’t enough participants among the real victims of real Catholic priest pedophiles willing to participate.

Still Lombardi says the Pope is already doing a lot by listening. And the mainstream media quote him like he can be believed.

Continue reading longer version of this story here at City of Angels Blog posted November 1, 2010.