Amazing connections


Download 315.51 Kb.
Date conversion20.11.2017
Size315.51 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5


March 13, 2002 — April 3, 2002

The Complete Text in Chronological Order with Commentary

Reading Copy—Preliminary Draft

July 18, 2003
A Production of

This edition of the Mahony emails

is dedicated to the “anonymous individual”

who made them public.

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me,
it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he were cast into the sea.
Mark 9:42

Keating and the Mahony Emails

Creating a Readable Version


Who’s Who

Photographs of Some Email Writers
The Emails
March 13, 2002

1. PR Challenges of the Haigh Settlement, Goldberg

2. Reporting Laws, Nussbaum

3. Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, McNicholas

4. Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, Goldberg

  1. Scheduling a Meeting to Discuss Reporting, McNicholas

March 14, 2002

6. Arranging Call to Discuss Fr. Tony Mcdonnell, Goldberg

  1. More on Tony Mcdonnell, McNicholas

March 19, 2002

  1. Fr. Dominic Savino & Fr. Peter Luizzi, Loomis

March 20, 2002

9. Background on Savino & Luizzi, Murphy

10. Responding to Delgadillo on Training, Mahony

11. Problems of Delgadillo Training, McNicholas

12. Whether to Remove Luizzi, McNicholas

13. Selecting Delgadillo Trainees, McNicholas

14. Response to Delgadillo (No Training), McNicholas

15. “Safe Folks” for Delgadillo Training, Mahony

March 21, 2002

16. Reporting Savino & Adding to the Rucker File, Murphy

March 22, 2002

17. Bishop Arzube’s Quiet Handling of Savino (?), Mahony

18. Summaries of Fr. Mcgowan & Fr. Hill, Cox

19. Carmelite’s Lawyer in Savino Case, McNicholas

20. Fr. Kearney of St. Francis High Removed, Loomis

  1. St. Francis High School: No Message, McNicholas

March 24, 2002

22. Fr. Granadino Accused and Removed, Cox

23. More Detail on Granadino’s Removal, Cox

24. Mahony Reacts to News About Granadino, Mahony

March 25, 2002

25. Likely Turnout for 3/25 Chrism Mass, Loomis

26. Parishes & Removed Priests at 3/25 Press Conference, Cox

27. Feedback on Prep for Chrism Mass, Cox

28. Only the Facts in Meet with Sheriffs, Murphy
March 26, 2002

29. Thank You After Meet with Sheriffs, Cox

30. Press Reaction to Exchange with DA, Mahony
March 27, 2002

31. Big Mistake of Not Pretending on 3 Priests, Mahony

32. Individual Reporting: How to Tell Parks, Mahony

33. Making Transcript in Hickman Accusation, Arviso

34. Plan for Responding to Hickman Accusation, Mahony

35. Message to Fresno PD on Hickman, McNicholas

36. Instruct Parks & He Will Leak the Letter, Mahony

37. Planning Letter to Parks, McNicholas

38. One Change to Parks Letter, McNicholas

39. Instructing and Leaking Again, Mahony

  1. Teachable Moment for Parks, Mahony

March 28, 2002

41. Planning Fresno PD’s Interview with Mahony, Mahony

42. Releasing the Parks Letter Ahead of the Curve, Mahony

43. Parks Letter on How We Act Now, Mahony

44. Clarification for Mixed-Up Media, Mahony

45. Reporting Wasn’t Contemporaneous, Cox

46. Warning Priests Who Were Reported to LAPD, Mahony

47. Cardinals’ Confidential Call with Gregory, Mahony

48. Priests Reported “Previously” Not “Duly,” Goldberg

49. Letter to Parks Is Excellent, McNicholas

March 29, 2002

50. Talking with Fr. Gael Sullivan, Loomis

  1. Sullivan Says No Arrest at St. Dominic Savio, Cox

March 30, 2002

52. Meeting Victims: Spiritual Victims’ Group?, Mahony

53. Making Sure That All 8 Priests Were Referred, Mahony

54. Handling an Accusation of Priest with History, Loomis

  1. Forgetting an Abuser; Feeding the LAPD; Baker, Murphy

March 31, 2002

  1. Excuses for Forgetting; Numbers; the Dear Sheriffs, Murphy

April 1, 2002

57. Stonewalling on Names Until Interest Wanes, Mahony

58. Refer Pat H Because We’d Be Vulnerable, Mahony

59. Informing Pat H Before Reporting Him, Mahony

60. Passing Along Baker’s Info, Cox

61. Evaluating Pat H and Putting Him in a Parish, Cox

  1. Contacting Pat H, Cox

April 2, 2002

63. Transcript Is Complete in Hickman Case, McNicholas

64. Reminder: Transcript Complete in Hickman Case, McNicholas

  1. Fresno, Fundraising, Confirmations, and R&R, Mahony

April 3, 2002

66. Interview with Stammer of the LA Times, Mahony

67. Msgr. Matt Kelly’s Past Difficulties, Mahony

68. Fr. Michael Wempe at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, Miller

  1. Priests As Mandated Reporters, Miller

A. “Mahony Ousts Priests,” Stammer and Lobdell, LA Times, 3/4/02
B. “Simple Suggestions for Mahony,” Lopez, LA Times, 3/13/02

C. “Chrism Mass Homily,” Mahony,” 3/25/02

D. “Rip the Veil of Secrecy, Editorial,” LA Times, 3/27/02

E. “LAPD Already Has Facts on Priests, Mahony Says,” Winton, LA Times, 3/29/02

F. “Victims Crushed in a Priestly Silence,” Lopez, LA Times, April 3, 2002
G. “Mahony Says Victims' Requests Led to Secrecy,” Larry B. Stammer, LA Times, 4/3/02

H. “Mahony E-Mail Talks of ‘Our Big Mistake,’” Garrison, LA Times, 4/5/02

I. “Mahony E-Mails Cite Fears Over Scandals,” Stammer and Winton, LA Times, 4/6/02
J. “Sheriff's Department Set to Wrap Up Azusa Priest Investigation,” NBC4.TV, 4/12/02

Keating and the Mahony Emails

Gov. Frank Keating’s criticism of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in a Los Angeles Times interview (6/12/03) and Keating’s subsequent resignation should prompt a fresh look at a batch of chancery emails that were leaked to a Los Angeles radio station in April 2002. The emails are of enduring interest for several reasons.

Keating got on Mahony’s bad side recently by calling him a bishop “who listen[s] too much to his lawyer and not enough to his heart.” Sure enough, the leaked emails show Mahony intensely engaged with not one or two but five lawyers, and their exchanges are not motivated by a concern for the victims of sexual abuse. The emails illustrate Mahony’s early efforts “to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away,” as Keating would later say in his resignation letter. After some of the emails were read on the air by talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Champou, in a broadcast from the sidewalk in front of Mahony’s offices, the cardinal went to extraordinary lengths to suppress the documents, arranging a quixotic late-night hearing (4/4/02) with Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe.
When the judge refused to find for prior restraint and the emails were published, Los Angeles got an un-spun look at a diocesan administration famous for its devotion to PR. Although the emails were written during Lent and Easter, religious feeling is surprisingly absent. Instead, Mahony and his inner circle seem consumed by a desire to game and one-up the prosecutors and manipulate the press. Mahony happily describes in one email his use (so he seemed to think) of the very reporter to whom Keating would give his defiant last interview. Most depressing of all is the complete indifference shown toward the victims of abusive priests.
Creating a Readable Version

The emails are still available on the KFI Web site at, but they are not an easy read. The messages are not in chronological order, and many emails are nested in reverse order within subsequent replies. Lines are broken and the email addresses are difficult to keep straight. In order to help people read these important exchanges, the staff of has produced a reading copy of the file. We have placed the messages in chronological order and supplied cross-references to the original KFI file, so that our work can be easily checked. We have also removed the prevalent “reply” marks (<<<) and replaced the various email addresses with the last names of the participants. Titles have been added for the reader’s convenience, and the messages have been numbered. Our bracketed comments are carefully distinguished from the text, and an appendix of relevant documents is provided. We hope that the result is a readable and informative version. This is a preliminary edition—as questions are answered and documents released, will issue a fuller commentary. Please contact us with corrections and explanations

The KFI emails span a three-week period, beginning on March 13 and ending on April 3, the Wednesday after Easter. A Chrism Mass for priests, held on March 25, the day after Palm Sunday, figures in the exchange. See Appendix Document C for Mahony’s homily at the Mass, and Appendix Document D for the response in the LA Times.
On March 4, 2002, Larry Stammer and William Lobdell wrote in the LA Times that Mahony had removed six to twelve priests in February for sexual abuse allegations (see Appendix Document A). The Geoghan and Shanley cases had just broken in Boston, and the LA Times revelation prompted law enforcement authorities to press the archdiocese for an accounting of the priests involved. Reporting of such cases is governed in California by a 1997 statute, and several of the Mahony emails are dedicated to answering a request from Bernard C. Parks, the LA Chief of Police, who was concerned about compliance with that law. Mahony and most of his advisors want to “instruct” Parks that the statute mandates reporting by individuals, not by institutions like the archdiocese. Besides the 1997 reporting statute, the archdiocese was committed to a 1988 abuse policy, and Mahony was also bound by an agreement he was compelled to sign as part of the 2001 DiMaria settlement. See Appendix Document A for more on this background, and Appendix Document E for a description of the letter that was ultimately sent to Parks.

Some of the emails introduce the reader to priests like Baker and Wempe, whose cases would soon become huge problems for Mahony. Messages 60, 61, and 68, seem like routine communications that pass along contact info, summarize a reassignment, and communicate a phone message. But the routine they document served to hide abusers, transfer them with terrible consequences, and expose children to harm during hospital stays. Other abusive priests mentioned in the emails (Pat H. and Tony McDonnell) still remain unidentified, as Mahony continues to stonewall on the release of names, nearly a year later. This silence has likely prevented some victims from learning that their perpetrator has other victims, and is exposing others to harm. Mahony’s refusal to release names is related to his conviction that as time passes, interest in the crisis will wane. He expects that will happen by May 2002 (Message 66). Or July 2002 (Message 57).

The KFI emails revealed a false accusation of Mahony himself, which is treated almost boyantly by Mahony and his advisors, because it poses no threat. The contrast is stark between Mahony’s eagerness to be questioned on the subject of the Hickman accusation and his general counsel’s “just the facts” advice, when detectives come to call at the chancery about the priests whom Mahony removed back in February.
The emails also show the involvement of Mahony and his advisors in responding to accusations that come through on the new help line. See, for example, the Granadino investigation, which comes up in several messages; see also Appendix Document J.
On April 3, the last day of the emails, the Haigh case against John Lenihan was settled (see Appendix Document F). The settlement had been imminent all through the emails, and the very first email contains PR advice on the Haigh settlement from one of Mahony’s lawyers.
For reporters’ assessments of the emails at the time they first appeared, see Appendix Documents H and I.

Who’s Who
[Notes in brackets describe how email addresses were translated into last names by the editor.]
Craig A. Cox - A canon lawyer and the archdiocese’s Vicar for Clergy. He was formerly (through June 2000) the archdiocese’s Judicial Vicar. [Cox =
Charles Goldberg - Partner with Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons in Denver (; former Denver District Court judge (1974–78) and head of RJ&L’s Religious Institutions practice. (See their resource library at Goldberg has been the general counsel for the Archdiocese of Denver since 1982 and became the general counsel of the Diocese of Fargo in 2001. [Goldberg =]

Richard A. Loomis - Monsignor and director of the archdiocese’s Secretariat for Administrative Services. Formerly the archdiocese’s Vicar for Clergy (1995–2000) [Loomis = and and]

Roger Mahony - Archbishop of Los Angeles ( since 1985 and cardinal since 1991. Formerly bishop of Stockton (1980–85) and auxiliary bishop of Fresno (1975–80). [Mahony =]
John P. McNicholas - Partner with McNicholas & McNicholas in Los Angeles (, a firm that specializes in personal injury work. He taught at Loyola Law School, and his clients include the Holy See, the Apostolic Vatican Library, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. John Paul II gave McNicholas the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory the Great. McNicholas is a member of the Knights of Malta. [McNicholas =]
Judith Anne Murphy - A sister of the Congregation of St. Joseph and general counsel for the archdiocese. [Murphy =]
L. Martin Nussbaum - Partner with Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons in Denver, and member of RJ&L’s Religious Institutions practice. Nussbaum’s clients include the archdioceses and dioceses of Boston, Cheyenne, Colorado Springs, Denver, El Paso, Fargo, Jackson, Los Angeles, and Richmond. He has served as an expert witness in 1st amendment defenses. [Nussbaum]
Tod M. Tamberg - Director of the archdiocese’s Office of Media Relations. [Tamberg = and] - Unidentified addressee on a number of emails from Mahony and several replies from others. No emails in the PDF are from this person; s/he listens but doesn’t talk.

Paul M. Albee - Secretary to the cardinal (appointment announced 9/8/98). Recipient of one email from Mahony, asking that someone check the back files of Fr. Matt Kelly. [Albee = and]

Paula Arviso - Employee of McNicholas & McNicholas whose assistant keyboarded the Pat Gordon transcript. [Arviso =] - Unidentified employee of McNicholas & McNicholas, copied on a 3/13 scheduling email sent by John P. McNicholas.
Lucille Miller - Executive assistant to Craig A. Cox in the Office of Vicar for Clergy. Informed Loomis of two calls while Cox was away.


harles Goldberg
L. Martin Nussbaum

Msgr. Richard Loomis Roger M. Mahony

John P. McNicholas

1. PR CHallenges of the Haigh Settlement
[A very interesting email from Goldberg on the “public relations challenges” of the imminent Haigh settlement. Indents and bullets are supplied by editor.]

03/13/02 12:09PM

[To: Tamberg]

[No Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 30]
Hello Tod,
What follows is obviously highly confidential at this moment in time:

It appears that we will soon (Friday is the target) accept the outstanding offer to settle the Haigh matter for $1.2 million dollars in exchange for a complete, comprehensive release of all claims. As of this moment, there is no reason to believe that this settlement will be confidential. The settlement sum will be paid 80% by the Diocese of Orange and 20% by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Subject to our self insured retention obligation, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' portion of the settlement will be paid by our insurers who insured the Archdiocese in 1978-1979. The same carrier insured us post 1979 until The Ordinary Mutual was formed.
Here are the public relations challenges:
1. At the moment we have not asked that this settlement remain confidential. Unless there is a strong contrary view, we do not anticipate asking for confidentiality.
2. Regarding the 80/20 split, the question arises whether we inform Ms. Freberg at the time of acceptance of her offer (which will likely occur on Friday, March 15th) of the precise split? Do we hold that information and release it to her later when the releases are prepared and executed? Do we keep the 80/20 confidential. We are leaning toward disclosing the split in the acceptance letter to Ms. Freberg subject, of course, to your advice from >>> a p.r. perspective.
3. Here are some the questions that come to mind that the press will likely raise:

  • Why is the Archdiocese of Los Angeles ("ADLA") contributing at all to this settlement?

  • Who is the ADLA priest who is accused of sexually molesting Ms. Haigh? Where is he now?

  • If he is not in ministry, why not?

  • When was he removed from ministry?

  • What were the reasons for his removal?

  • Tod, we think we know who he is but, at this moment, are not absolutely certain who it is. Further, we have never indicated to Ms. Freberg that we know who he is although she has asked repeatedly?

  • Why is Ms. Haigh receiving $1.2 MM when the victims in Boston may receive less than $300,000 per victim? Did you report Ms. Haigh's allegations to the police under the Child Abuse Reporting Statute?
  • Why are you paying so much money when her claim appears to be so old? Where is Fr. Lenihan now?

  • When was he removed?

  • Is he going to be laicized by Rome?

  • Is this settlement being paid by insurance?

4. Note that Ms. Freberg could go public upon receipt of our letter and prior to any releases being executed. These are some of the issues that we need to conference with everyone about between now and Friday. Please let us now when we can all gather fo discuss these sensitive p.r. issues.

Charles Goldberg, Esq.

Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP

1200 17th Street, Suite 3000

Denver, Colorado 80202


The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is attorney-client privileged, work product, or otherwise confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you.
[A very useful summary of the reporting laws, which disparages Lopez but described his 3/13 “screed” as an “overly lenient description of the Archdiocese’s reporting duties.” For the “screed” itself, see Appendix Document B. Compare Mahony on individual reporting in Message 32.]

From: Nussbaum

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:32:27 -0700

To: Mahony,Loomis, Tamberg, Cox, Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg

Subject: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 27]

Privileged Attorney-Client Communication
In addition to the possible public relations issues identified by Chuck, I would suggest we need to put on the agenda discussion of the additional issues below related to the Haigh settlement. As suggested by Chuck, I think we would benefit from several or all of us convening a meeting to discuss how to handle these issues. Tod, will you attempt to convene a meeting of the appropriate set of people. (I have a court appearance on Friday morning which will occupy me from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. (Pacific time). Otherwise, I am available on both Thursday and Friday of this week.
1. Should ADLA announce the settlement in advance of Ms. Freberg and thereby, get in front of her on this story?
2. When and how should ADLA coordinate with the Diocese of Orange re PR issues and the settlement?
3. Other questions which may come from the press:

a. Who is the ADLA priest mentioned in the complaint? What has been done to find him?

b. Has ADLA reported the ADLA priest mentioned in the complaint to law enforcement? Has ADLA complied with the reporting law as regards Lenihan and the un-identified ADLA priest?

c. Is the ADLA priest mentioned in the complaint still in service?

4. I would also note that Steve Lopez's screed in today's LA Times, while predictable in its criticism of the Church, is really rather surprising in his overly lenient description of the Archdiocese's statutory reporting duties. He contends that the statute:

a. Does not require clergy to report instance of child abuse which occured before 1987 (we think the correct date is 1996 , when the legislature added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters);

b. Does not require clergy to report if the victim is an adult when the cleric learns of the earlier abuse (Lopez says that a prosecutor told him that this is how the statute reads. I think that this is only a possible interpretation of the statute which requires "mandated reporter" to report whenever he or she "has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been a victim of child abuse . . . "); and

c. Does not require clergy to report unless "a minor makes a complaint (I see no support in the statute for this interpretation. Accordingly, I read the statute as requiring clergy to report regardless whether a minor complains.

5. With all the vultures circling, we should continue to closely analyze whether ADLA's personnel are complying with the reporting statutes:

  1. See paragraph 3(b) supra.

b. Does ADLA, for example, require its mandated reporter employees to sign the statutorily-prescribed form which puts the employee on notice of his statutory duties. Section 11166.5 requires this. Does ADLA maintain copies of these forms?

c. When ADLA's mandated reporters report, do they do so both verbally and in writing. (A written report is good risk management and is also required by 11166(a). In fact, the written report must be on the state-prescribed form. See Section 11168.)

6. As a point of information, I would note that even if ADLA were inclined to release information about previous reports to law enforcement, any such actions would violate the statute which makes the release of any such reports a criminal misdemeanor punishable by not more than 6 mos. in jail and a fine of $500 or both. See Section 11167.5. Further, if ADLA had made reports to the three sheriffs mentioned in the LA Times' articles and editorials, the sheriffs would violate the statute if they released the names of any individual or entity which had made a report. Section 11167(d)(1) which states: "The identity of all persons who report . . . shall be confidential and disclosed only among agencies receiving or investigating mandated reports, to the district attorney . . .", etc. It also states that "No agency or person listed in this subdivision shall disclose the identity of any person who reports under this article." Section 11167(d)(2).

7. Finally, I continue to fear that the next wave of this press feeding frenzy may well focus on clerics who have had romantic or sexual liaisons with other adults. I think it prudent to begin reviewing personnel disciplinary files to assess the scope of any such problem.

[RL&S confidentiality statement; see Message 1.]

[From:] McNicholas

03/13/02 03:41PM

[No Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 26]
I am available Thursday 9:00 am -11:00 am and from 2:00 PM until the end of the day.
I am travelling on Friday.


From: Goldberg

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:05:11 -0700

To: McNicholas,

Subject: Re: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 25]

As for me, I am available anytime Friday and tomorrow from 1 P.M. (PDT) and thereafter.
[Goldberg contact info.]
[RL&S confidentiality statement; see Message 1.]

[Teleconferencing is a pricey option.]
[From:] McNicholas

03/13/02 06:09PM

[No Subject] [WKFI PDF p. 25]
Can we teleconference Thursday at 2:00pm?

[McDonnell is an as-yet unidentified priest.]
From: Goldberg

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:49:10 -0700

To: McNicholas

Cc: Mahony,Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Nussbaum

Subject: Re: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 24]

I just received a call from Tod who is in the midst of some training exercises with priests; he told me he and Fr. Dick will be calling me at 3:30 P.M. (PDT). He gave me no options. Are you available. If so, I'll see you are tied in. Let me know.

Most importantly, does the description of the priest you interviewed, Rev. Michael Anthony McDonnell provided by Katherine Freberg in her letter dated March 12, 2002 (Martin faxed this to you yesterday). Does Rev. McDonnell fit the description of one, 20 years ago who was short, stocky, possibly in his 40's, tight curly hair? Please let us know ASAP by e-mail in advance of our call today so we can begin to think of how we craft our p.r. responses.

[Goldberg contact info.]

[RL&S confidentiality statement; see Message 1.]
From: McNicholas

To: Goldberg

Cc: Mahony, Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Nussbaum

Sent: 3/14/2002 11:24 AM

Subject: Re: Press & Reporting Issues Related to Haigh Settlement [WKFI PDF p. 24]
1. I'm on for 3:30 PM today.

2. It is possible that Tony McDonnell could have fit that description 20 years ago. I repeat, "possible." He told me very forcefully that he was never involved with minors. Lets discuss.



From: Loomis

To: Murphy, McNicholas

Sent: 3/19/2002 9:27 PM

Subject: Storm on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 35]

Sister & John,

I have learned that the Carmelites at Crespi High School are currently preparing an announcement for faculty, parents and students concerning Father Dominic Savino's removal from active ministry. Father Savino is the President of Crespi HS. I do not know when the announcement will be made but it will undoubtedly draw a great deal of public attention. The Carmelites are introspective as an order and may not think to warn us before notifying the school community.

Also, though hearsay has it that these allegations are from years ago and all alleged victims are now adults, I certainly hope they have thought of obtaining legal advice regarding the reporting laws.
If Monsignor Cox is not in direct communication with the Provincial, I suggest that he ought to speak with Father Quinn Connors at tomorrow's workshop and establish direct communication on this matter. Since Father Connors was out here for our workshops and is himself a former Provincial, he was delegated by the current Provincial to confront Father Savino with the allegations. If you agree with my concerns, would a call from legal counsel to Monsignor Cox be better than one from me to set this in motion?
A complicating fact: I believe that Father Peter Liuzzi is being assigned to Crespi Carmelite HS as a faculty member. A representative of the "Lay Catholic Mission" has approached a Carmelite priest who occasionally helps here at Saint Charles to question "the wisdom of assigning Father Liuzzi to an all-boy school." On top of that, Father Liuzzi and Father Savino have lived in the same community house for as long as I have worked at the ACC -- not quite seven years. They are close friends. I am not sure how many people know these facts and I would not want to tip my hand.
Everything in this "complicating fact" paragraph would be tracked right back to me. I would not want it made public if it can be avoided. But my thought is that one issue might ignite the other in the press, both secular and retro-Catholic.

Rev. Msgr. Richard A. Loomis

Director, Secretariat for Administrative Services

3424 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Voice: 213 637-7890

Fax: 213 637-6890


From: Murphy

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:10:38 -0800

To: McNicholas

Subject: RE: Storm on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 35]

Please put a call into Msgr. Cox. He is in santa Barbara today with the last Boundaries Workshop. The carmelite priest below is well know in the Valley and is a therapist. Presently, some of our priests go to him. An adult came forward and made a complaint that he was molested as a minor. The priest denied this charge but from what I know admitted another which happened years ago. When you reach Msgr. Cox, see if you can find out who their lawyer is and deal with him\her. For the Carmelites (and ours) best interest, they should call this in to law authorities. If the Order does not have some police contact, then suggest Detective Barraclough. As to the other priest, he is the priest who ministered at the ACC to gay and lesbian Catholics. He stayed on the narrow line until he wrote his book. He is gay and the Catholic Mission (the off the wall right wing throw-away newspaper) has been gunning for him for years.
Thank you,

Sister Judy

From: Mahony

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:16:56 EST

To: Nussbaum, Murphy, McNicholas, Goldberg, Loomis, Tamberg,

Subject: Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 33]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication
I would appreciate your drafting a response to Delgadillo for me. We should take him up on his offer to assist training sessions--we will need those for teachers, parish staffs, youth folks, etc.
That would give us the opportunity to give them the summary of the law and to have them sign that form which the Act requires anyway.
I say--let's go for it!


[McNicholas is concerned that if the city attorney gets involved in training, Q&A sessions could open the church to “uncontrolled ‘free’ discovery” like that of a grand jury. McNicholas also raises the Constitutional issue of the city attorney’s involvement in an “ecclesiastical function.”]

From: McNicholas

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:13:49 -0800

To: Mahony

[forwarded by McNicholas to Loomis on 3/20/2002 1:13 PM]

Subject: Re: Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 32]
I am working on a draft. However, I think we should discuss his offer in the third paragraph. We have taken the position that we have complied with the statutory reporting laws and continue to do so. We are, even now, cooperating with investigations initiated by the Los Angeles Police Department and by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office. Sr. Judy, as you know, has met with both agencies and has established a god working relationship with them.
So, what am I worried about having the City Attorney ("C.A.") conduct training sessions with clergy, et al.? I am concerned about direct contact with our clergy and lay personnel. For example, training sessions usually have a question and answer period. Judging from the reception of Di Maria settlement, the monetary amount and the non-monetary terms, a question and answer period could be problematic and "misunderstood" by the Deputy City Attorneys providing the training. The third paragraph is, in my opinion, the kind of investigation done by Grand Juries. In essence, the third paragraph provides the C. A.'s office with uncontrolled "free" discovery.
Martin [Nussbaum] called me as I was preparing the e-mail. He agrees with the above and sees a Constitutional issue as well: this is an ecclesiastical function; we should not hand over our authority to the C. A.
We suggest that we provide him with our policies and welcome suggestions. . [sic] We then can make a choice to include them or not. If we include them we have the imprimatur of the City Attorney.
Best regards


[Note that the Carmelites fail to report because it’s out of SOL.]
From: McNicholas

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 3/20/2002 1:03 PM

Subject: Re: Storm on the horizon [WKFI PDF p. 34]
Dear Sister,
I spoke with Msgr. Cox. On the subject of who should report the matter to the authorities, he wants to talk to you first. He is of the opinion that you should be the one to report it because of your working relationship with Det. Barraclough. I disagreed but acquiesced to his request--there being no choices. He also said that you and he agreed that this is not reportable under the statute.
The Carmelite's attorney is Jim Geoly, Warren, McKay & Serentella in Chicago. (I got this from Fr. Kevin McBrien, O. Carm., whose name was given to me by Msgr. Cox. Fr. McBrien told me that the Carmelites did not report it because of the statute of limitations.)
Msgr. Cox is opposed to the removal of Fr. Liuzzi who teaches a one hour course once a week at Crespi reasoning that if he was good enough to be on the Cardinal's staff, he is OK to teach at Crespi H.S. (Disagree.) All homosexuals are not pedophiles. (Agree.) If the Cardinal was to tell the Carmelites to remove Fr. Liuzzi, that is his decision. There has never been a claim about Fr. Liuzzi.
I left a short version of the above on your Audex.
Let's discuss.

From: McNicholas

To: Mahony

Cc: Murphy, Loomis; Nussbaum

Sent: 3/20/2002 3:02 PM

Subject: Response to Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 38]

As I draft a reply, the thought occurs to me that perhaps we could designate someone or a few select individuals for the training suggested by Delgadillo in the third paragraph of his letter(?).

Let's discuss.


From: McNicholas

To: Mahony

Cc: Murphy, Loomis, Nussbaum

Sent: 3/20/2002 4:25 PM

Subject: Reply to Rockard Delgadillo, L.A. City Attorney [WKFI PDF p. 37]
Dear All,
I offer the enclosed draft reply to Mr. Delgadillo's letter for your suggestions.
In the interest of consistency I have borrowed generously from the Pastoral Statement and from the March 13, 2002 letter to the District Attorney, Steve Cooley.
I did not include a paragraph accepting in part Mr. Delgadillo's training offer. In my last e-mail I suggested a partial acceptance by designating someone or a trusted select few to receive the training and then to train others. Such a paragraph is easily grafted onto this or whatever letter you decide to send.


[Mahony suggests using “’safe’ folks” from the archdiocese to go through a “dry run” of the training that Delgadillo proposes, with those “folks” leading the real training for others. This so that “it doesn't sound as if we are rebuffing him.”
From: Mahony

To: McNicholas

Cc: Murphy, Loomis, Nussbaum

Sent: 3/20/2002 8:11 PM

Subject: Re: Response to Delgadillo letter [WKFI PDF p. 14]
Yes, we could take some "safe" folks from the AD, maybe at the ACC, and have them go through their session to see what it's like.
We could tell him that his staff could do a dry run for us, and we in turn, could then do the training for the rest of our lay employees.
I like the idea. It doesn't sound as if we are rebuffing him.


[Murphy’s email arranges to have a copy of Rucker’s police report put in his file -- at this late date?! Murphy paraphrases Tammy Helm’s mother on the case: “the mother of Tammy references her phone calls with Bishop Manning. The gist of the phone conversations is that Bishop Manning wanted the church to take care of the matter, and he would see that it was done properly .It appears that based on this representation, the mother refused to press charges and wrote: ‘I just want the Father helped and feel the Church can best do it.’"
From: Murphy

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:33:44 -0800

To: Mahony

Cc: McNicholas, Loomis, Cox

Subject: Update [WKFI PDF p. 38]
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
1. I made contact with Detective Barraclough and told him to expect a call from a Fr. McBrien about a complaint from an adult victim re a Carmelite priest that happened over 20 years ago. The priest at that time had been a teacher at Crespi High School. I said the complaint had come through our hotline and referred to the Carmelites. Although this complaint does not fall under the mandating reporting law, I wanted our lines of communication to stay open. I then contacted Fr. McBrien and encouraged him to contact Detective Barraclough. Hopefully contact was made.

2. John had been in contact with the Carmelites attorney in Chicago. Comments were made re their proposed letter to the Carmelite High School Family. In conversation, John was told that the priest in question had molested a teenager when he was a parish priest at St. Jane Frances de Chantal Parish in 1979. This is a parish staffed by the Carmelites. The matter was handled quietly, the priest was sent for treatment, and the Archdiocesan contact was Bishop Azube. John, if you could follow up with this with the attorney to see if they have anything in writing. Msgr. Cox can you check to see if anything in the Carmelite files. It is amazing the connections.

3. John retrieved his old file in the Tammy Helm civil litigation against us and sent me a copy of the police report I will make you a copy, Msgr. Cox, to place in Fr. R's file. Throughout the El Segundo Police report, the mother of Tammy references her phone calls with Bishop Manning. The gist of the phone conversations is that Bishop Manning wanted the church to take care of the matter, and he would see that it was done properly .It appears that based on this representation, the mother refused to press charges and wrote: "I just want the Father helped and feel the Church can best do it."
All for now.
Sister Judy

[Note Mahony’s jokey comment on yet another report of abuse: “Never a dull moment!!”]
From: Mahony

To: Murphy

Cc: McNicholas, Loomis, Cox

Sent: 3/22/2002 6:59 AM

Subject: Re: Update [WKFI PDF p. 13]
Privileged Client--Attorney Communication
Sr. Judy:
Many thanks for the update. Sad to learn of the St. Jane Frances de Chantal connection, as well as Bp Arzube.
We need to investigate fully to see what is there in the files. John may need to interview Bp Arzube.
Never a dull moment!!

From: Cox

To: Loomis

Sent: 3/22/2002 10:03 AM

Subject: Fathers McGowan and Hill [WKFI PDF p. 23]

Would you please be so kind as to print out (or email) and supply me the summary you did of the records of these two priests? The Cardinal and I meet with Tim on Monday of Easter week. I am trying to schedule a trip to see Pat in the near future.


From: McNicholas

To: Murphy, Mahony

Cc: Loomis, Cox

Sent: 3/22/2002 11:55 AM

Subject: Re: Update [WKFI PDF p. 38]
I have calls into Jim Geoly, the attorney who is handling this matter for the Carmelites.
Regards to all,


From: Loomis

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:45:53 -0800

To: Murphy, Tamberg

Cc: McNicholas

Subject: St. Francis High School [WKFI PDF p. 40; appears twice in PDF]
Sister, John & Tod,
Father Chris Kearney (sp?), OFM Cap., a former faculty member at St. Francis High School (not the principal), has been removed from his position at San Lorenzo Seminary, due to allegations of past abuse of minors.
From what I found out from Msgr. Cox, he was discussed on one of the talk shows and the Capuchins did a quick check. Also, an anonymous complaint came in on Orange's 800-line about a Father Chris, but there was no last name and no further reference as to what school. Due to whatever they found out, Father Chris has been removed by the Capuchins. Msgr. Cox sais that this Father Kearney used to supervise Saturday detention. Kids could get leave early if the would wrestle with him. The winner was the one who could grab the other's testicles while wrestling. :-P
Msgr. Cox told me that the Capuchins were supposed to be sending us a copy of whatever they were going to announce this weekend. (The "this weekend" reference came from Bishop Curry who was told they were announcing it this weekend.)

That's all I know at this point. Msgr. Cox will call the Capuchins this afternoon and see what their plans are.

Rev. Msgr. Richard A. Loomis

Director, Secretariat for Administrative Services

3424 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90010

Voice: 213 637-7890

Fax: 213 637-6890

From: McNicholas

To: Loomis, Murphy, Tamberg

Sent: 3/22/2002 2:32 PM

Subject: Re: St. Francis High School [WKFI PDF p. 40; appears twice in PDF]

[No message - perhaps McNicholas’s message (a reply to “St. Francis High School”?) was redacted before the PDF was made.]

From: Cox

To: Mahony

Cc: Loomis, Murphy

Sent: 3/24/2002 3:11 PM

Subject: Allegation Against Rev. David Granadino [WKFI PDF p. 22]
As I believe Sr. Judy Murphy communicated to you, on late Friday afternoon an anonymous complaint came in our 800 number alleging that Fr. David Granadino was abusing altar servers. As you are also aware, the L.A. County Sheriff's Office has been investigating an unnamed priest at St. Francis of Rome, Azusa.
Given that the hotline message provided the name of apriest, Monsignor Loomis and I arranged to meet with Fr. Granadino at 2:15 p.m. today. In accord with his duty as Auditor, Monsignor Loomis is preparing his formal report to you and will communicate that to you on Monday.

In summary, I can say that Fr. Granadino denied forcefully any misconduct. He was shocked and chagrined by the allegations. When asked to provide for us a roster of the altar servers in order to asisst the Sheriff in their investigation, he showed no hesitancy whatsoever. He will fax that to me right away, andI will have Sr. Judy provide that to the Sheriff. I will ask Sr. Judy to communicate with the Sheriff to stress the need for them to act quickly.

Fr. Granadino reluctantly accepted the need for him to move out of the parish for a brief time while the investigation is underway. Given that it is Holy Week and with Easter around the corner, this was agonizing for him. I offered several options, and he agreed to go to St. Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo. I was particularly pleased with that. It is a supportive environmnet, with good spieritual directors he can consult, and if he has to stay there through Holy Week and Easter will enable him to take part in the liturgies of the Triduum. I have already spoken with Abbot Francis and made the arrangements for Fr. Granadino to go there Monday afternoon.
Obviously, Fr. Granadino is hurting. We both encouraged him to be in touch with his counselor and spiritual director.
I will keep you posted.

From: Cox

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 3/24/2002 3:18 PM

Subject: Fr. David Granadino [WKFI PDF p. 22]
You should have received a copy of my email to theCardinal on this.
Fr. Granadino firmly denies any misconduct. He will be faxing me the server roster on my confidential fax. I'll have that to you ASAP Monday morning. Monsignor Loomis will have his summary of the conversation with you.

When you communicate the roster to the Sheriff, I'd appreciate it if you could strss the urgency that they act quickly and discreetly. This is Holy Week and Easter. Fr. Granadino's absence is paerticularly noticeable and creates burdens on others in our most sacred and busiest of times. If there is something to the allegations, then we want to be sure he is removed from ministry. But if the allegations are unfounded, the sooner that can be established and he restored to ministry, the better. If he is innocent, I am most concerned that his reputation not be damaged more than it will already be by having things drag on and on and on. I know we cannot require the Sheriff to act promptly, but if we can at least

communicate the importance that they act promptly that would be appreciated.

If the Sheriff's office needs to speak with Fr. Granadino, he will be at St.

Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, and available to them. The phone there is (661)

944-2178. In fact, my sense is that he will be eager to tell his story to the


I'll keep you posted.

From: Mahony

To: Cox

Cc: Loomis, Murphy

Sent: 3/24/2002 3:44 PM

Subject: Re: Allegation Against Rev. David Granadino [WKFI PDF p. 13]
Privileged Client--Attorney Communication
Really sad news. I am pleased with his openness to the process, and his willingness to provide the altar server list, etc.
Let's hope that the investigations can proceed quickly so that this can be finalized as early as possible. The Sheriff's dept will want to speak to each altar server, I presume.
It's too bad that the allegation did not at least specify a name or two--someplace to begin with.
Thanks for your work on this!

From: Loomis

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 9:33 AM

To: Cox, Murphy, Tamberg

Subject: LBPD [WKFI PDF p. 20]

We have the Long Beach police on board for this evening's Chrism Mass. I explained that there would be a large contingent of clergy, including 400 to 500 priests, five bishops and the Cardinal. They also know that lay people from all over the Archdiocese will be there representing their parishes. ’’I also informed them that media coverage will be heavy due to the announced topic of the sermon: the child abuse scandals in the Church -- and that there would almost certainly be demonstrators from SNAP or other victim organizations, as well.

My contact is Lt. Jerry Gadbaw, who is the assistant to the Chief of Police in Long Beach. If he does not command the operation himself, he will make sure that someone competent is in charge and will make sure we have open lines of communication.

[Prepping Mahony for the 3/25 press conference after the Chrism Mass. Cox is concerned that Mahony avoid saying that “none of the ‘priests removed’were in parish ministry.” First, that would allow “news organizations” to narrow the search for names. Some [does Cox contradict himself?) were in “parish ministry,” others were “assisting in parishes,” some were “resident in parishes,” and all were “doing Sunday supply at times.” Second, for those in “predominantly parish ministries” whose ministries were “restricted,” Mahony will be attacked by the press. Cox recommends Mahony avoid any reference to type of ministry, saying instead that “no priest was put into any ministry where we had any concern that he would be a danger to young people. If asked to say more than that, you can respond by going back to your principles about not disclosing names.”]
From: Cox

To: Mahony

Cc: Loomis, Tamberg, Murphy

Sent: 3/25/2002 10:14 AM

Subject: Press Conference [WKFI PDF p. 21]
I just finished meeting with Tod and we spoke about the press conference you will be having this evening. You are in my prayers.

Tod has briefed me with regard to the kinds of dialogue about questions and advice that you have received up to this point. I want to add one comment that is -- to my way of thinking -- very important. To say or even give the impression that none of the "priests removed" were in parish ministry creates multiple problems. First, it "narrows the search" for any news organizations that are trying to ferret out names. It would realistically almost certainly "out" one or more. Even those not in parish ministry were assisting in parishes, and you could be challenged about that. Some were resident in parishes. Not being assigned full time to parishes does not mean there was no parish ministry. If you say something that the press later decides was inaccurate, they will be merciless in attacking. All the men involved were doing Sunday supply at times. In the popular mind set that will be seen as parish ministry. Secondly, should some names be "outted" of men who were in predominantly parish ministries, even if restricted, the distinction will not carry any weight in the press. You will again be attacked mercilessly.

I recommend that in your press conference you make no indication whatsoever of the "type" of ministry involved, but indicate that no priest was put into any ministry where we had any concern that he would be a danger to young people. If asked to say more than that, you can respond by going back to your principles about not disclosing names.
I will be arriving at the parish around 3:15 today and will remain there through the time of the press conference in case I will be needed.

From: Cox

To: Loomis

Sent: 3/25/2002 10:22 AM

Subject: RE: LBPD [WKFI PDF p. 20]

Well done. Thanks.
From: Murphy

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:58 PM

To: Cox, Loomis

Cc: Mahony

Subject: 8:00 AM visit [WKFI PDF p. 19]
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication

Well, Men, here's the drill. William Bevins to be known as Bill and Thomas McNeil to be known as Tom will be at the ACC at 8AM to interview Msgr. Cox and Msgr. Loomis. Badges are down at the mezz. level and instructions left was for them to call you Msgr. Cox when they arrive and you will direct them from there. Your extension is on the badges. I will leave the tape of the anon. call on your chair Msgr. Cox to be given to the Sheriffs. The addresses were faxed to Sergeant Boyett. As to the interview, remember Sergeant Joe Friday - "Only the facts sir, only the facts." Listen to their questions and take your time answering. Do not volunteer information. This is not a session to be chatty. I am not sure if you will inteviewed together or separate. I believe in the spirit of cooperation, therefore, I will not be present and besides 8AM is against my religion. You both will be fine. I'm afraid this investigation will take some time. I was asked when Easter vacation began, etc. If they decide to go the school route, I see no activity until April 8th. Sergeant Boyett interviewed a victim today for this case. The DA's office is involved but a specific DA has not been appointed. Sergeant Boyett said this is happening because the Sheriffs want to avoid mistakes. It will not be inappropriate to push for a speedy investigation at the end of the interview. The number 94 has them scrambling. At the end of the day, Sergeant Boyett left a long message on my audix which will be typed out tomorrow praising our cooperation and how happy the Captain is. I guess they figured out that honey works better than vinegar.

All for now.
Sister Judy

[This email claims attorney-cient privilege for an exchange among chancery employees, with no lawyers on the distribution.]
From: Cox

To: Murphy

Cc: Loomis

Sent: 3/26/2002 7:32 AM

Subject: RE: 8:00 AM visit [WKFI PDF p. 19]
Attorney-Client Privileged Communication
Sister Judy,
Thank you for the advice, and all your extraordinary efforts in these months. I haven't taken the time to express my appreciation and admiration for all you have done.
Msgr. Loomis and I will keep you posted.

From: Mahony

To: Tamberg, Loomis, Murphy, Cox

Sent: 3/26/2002 5:13 PM

Subject: Re: Letters [WKFI PDF p. 12]

No problem with releasing the DA letter exchange.
Yes, the media will be disappointed! But they will also be disappointed with the Parks letter and our response--since no names will be given out.
We can chat tomorrow.


[The “big mistake” isn’t lying about Baker and transferring abusers. Mahony is criticizing Murphy for not “consulting” quickly with the police about three unreported priests, so that Mahony could claim that all 8 priests had been properly reported “over the years,” which of course is not true. Mahony fears “that [otherwise] I will get hauled into a Grand Jury proceeding and I will be forced to give all the names, etc.” For the Parks letter, first mentioned here and in Message 30, see Appendix Document E.]

From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Nussbaum, Goldberg, Loomis, Cox

Sent: 3/27/2002 7:00 AM

Subject: Our Big Mistake [WKFI PDF p. 11]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication
Sr. Judy,
As the drum beats continue from every side for us to release the "names," I must still point to what I consider our greatest tactical mistake of the past few weeks.
If I recall, of the 8 priests involved, 5 had already been reported to local law enforcement agencies. That leaves 3.
Recall also that I pressed for you to meet with Det Barraclough and "consult" him about the other 3 so that we could state without hesitation that all priests no longer in service had been reported to various law enforcement agencies.
You resisted quite strongly that suggestion.
I hope you have changed your mind by now! By doing it back then, we would not appear to be crumbling under public pressure. It was a huge mistake on our part.
If we don't, today, "consult" with the Det. about those 3 names, I can guarantee you that I will get hauled into a Grand Jury proceeding and I will be forced to give all the names, etc.
I must now insist that this matter is no longer open for discussion. You must consult with the Det. about those 3 cases.
In my response to Parks, I want to state that every single case of the few priests was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency over the years.
I must be able to state that--even publicly. And soon.
I'm not sure you grasp the gravity of the situation and where this is heading--not only with the media, but with the law enforcement and legal folks.
The best place to state it would be in my letter to Parks, and then in a follow-up letter to Cooley.

If we don't take immediate, aggressive action here--the consequences for the AD are going to be incredible: charges of cover-up, concealing criminals, etc., etc.

PLEASE make this task your highest priority this morning! I have reached the point where if I cannot guarantee that all 8 have been appropriately reported, then I will have to call the Det. and do it myself--today.
There is no middle ground on this one; we are losing the battle because we are somehow "hiding" those 3. The best way is to "consult" with the Det. about them, and let them decide what needs to be done next.
Thanks for listening. This public media pressure will never stop until we can announce that those few priests have all been reported to the appropriate authorities over the years.

[Mahony outlines the picture that he wants to present - the cases are few and old.]
From: Mahony

To: Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis, Loomis, Cox, Goldberg

Sent: 3/27/2002 9:33 AM

Subject: Re: Our Big Mistake [WKFI PDF p. 1]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication
Sister Judy,
Thanks so very much! I truly appreciate your getting this task done.
John: when drafting the letter to Parks, we need to state very clearly something along these lines: "In those few old cases involving allegations of the sexual abuse of a minor, each case has been referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency for their review and investigation. We have no cases, old or new, that have not been referred appropriately."
I think we also need to refresh Parks' memory about other aspects of the statute, including the fact that the responsibility for mandated reporting is an individual mandate, that the statute states clearly that confidentiality must be maintained [11167.5 (a) and (b)].

Since we have only 2 cases of the 8 that fall within the LAPD, I think our best approach is to tell him that and give him the LAPD case numbers for those two cases. We need to inform him that since they investigated the cases, they would have all the information, even more, than we would have.

We need to review a draft of that letter today, if at all possible.
Many thanks to all! What a Holy Week--filled with Good Fridays, no Easter Sundays!!

From: Arviso

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:08:23 -0800

To: McNicholas

Subject: Phone message - Pat Gordon [WKFI PDF p. 43]

Phone message on 3/27/02 at 11:06 am:
Pat Gordon Message: My assistant is working on the transcript as I speak. It may take her all day and tomorrow to complete the tapes. I should be able to get the statement to you by tomorrow some time. Any questions call me.
From: Mahony

To: Tamberg,, Murphy, McNicholas, Loomis

Sent: 3/27/2002 11:26 AM

Subject: Fresno Statement [WKFI PDF p. 10]

Privileged Client--Attorney Communication
I am sending along an updated possible press release/statement.
I agree fully with you: should we get any inquiries from the media about the Fresno matter, I need to hold a press conf. The press conf would do two things:
1. I would read the statement about Fresno, and respond to questions. Hopefully, we would have more info about what the Fresno PD is doing, as well as a transcript of the interview to hand out.
2. I would also state that with regards the small group of priests no longer carrying on priestly ministry, each and every case was duly reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency over the years.
Please review the updated Statement and make suggested changes.


  1   2   3   4   5

The database is protected by copyright © 2017
send message

    Main page