Exhibits Referenced in Bishop Sklba’s Deposition Ex. 48 Files requested by Jeff Anderson and Associates for the 2004 Examinations of Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Sklba (dated September 12, 2011 - updated November 1, 2011) ,4 Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church M e m o i r s o f a C a t h o l i c A r c h b i s h o p Remhert G. Weakland, OSB /\ W 3 u> ip - c o W i l l i a m B. E e r d m a n s P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y G r a n d Ra p i d s , M i c h i g a n / Ca m b r i d g e , UJSC _ c OQ © 200g Rembert G. Weakland AH rights reserved Published 2009 by To the ecumenical and interfaith community in Milwaukee, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. to the faithful of the Archdiocese ofMilwaukee, 2140 Oat Industrial Drive NJL. Grand Rapids Michigan 49505 / P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU UK. but especially to its priests; wrvw.eerdmans.com in gratitude. Printed in the United States of America 15141312111009 765432 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Pnblication Data Weakland, Rembert. A pilgrim in a pilgrim church: memoirs of a Catholic archbishop / Rembert G. Weaidand. p. cuo- Indudes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8028-6382-9 (doth: alk. paper) x Weakland, Rembert 2. Bishops — Wisconsin — Milwaukee — Biography. L Tide. BX4705.W3815A3 2009 282.092 — dc22 [B1 2009012119 Excerpts from Geoffrey Chaucers Canterbury Tales appearing in this volume are from the original text edited by A. C. Cawley. Everyman’s Library (New York: Alfred A. Knopf; 1968). Quotations from the modem English prose version are from THE CANTERBURY TALES by GeoSrey Chaucer, translated by David Wright copyright © 1964 by David Wright Used by permission of Vintage Books, a division of Random House. Inc., and reprinted by' per­ mission of Six/Sterling Lord Literistic, Inc. Copyright by Peters Fraser & Duniop AjA/V/ DJM Wright Tmst Managing Conflicting Models of Church Milwaukee ( 198 9-1996) the time the bishops assembled that spring at St. John’s Abbey in College- raise it here because over the years it has been frequently cited as evidence ville, Minnesota, articles had appeared everywhere in the press, Catholic of how the bishops were responding to the crisis. The document was titled, and secular, about cases of sexual abuse of minors by priests, especially the "The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting case of Father Gauthe in Lafayette, Louisiana. As difficult as it was to read the Problem In a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner.” In it Father - these stories, their publication aired the problem and required the bishops Michael Peterson of St Luke’s Institute elaborated on the psychological as­ to address it. pects of the: situation; Father Thomas Doyle, OP, wrote a canonical opin­ At that first discussion in 19 8 5 , psychologists and other experts spoke ion; and Mr. Ray Mouton, the attorney for the Lafayette, Louisiana, vic­ to the bishops and answered our questions. I do not see how any bishop af­ tims, contributed a legal appraisal. A short time after I had read the ter that meeting could have maintained that he was ignorant of the sever­ document, Father Peterson was passing through Milwaukee and came to ity of the damage to the victims or that he did not know of the likely possi- f see me. Although I had never met him, I knew of him through a relative he bility of recidivism among the perpetrators. Even if some bishops thought had helped face a difficult grieving period. We spent about an hour-and-a- the number of potential victims was being exaggerated, the number was half discussing his contribution to the document. still staggering. Some may have been lulled into thinking that we would At that time psychologists were making a clear distinction between find a new program to deal with this addictive behavior, just as Alcoholics pedophilia (sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) and ephebophilia Anonymous had dealt successfully with alcoholism. From these expert (sexual attraction toward adolescent minors), as he had in his paper. We presentations, it was evident that the possibility of such a remedy was out discussed in depth the question of recidivism, especially with regard of the question, given the deep-seated nature of the behavior. In addition, predatory ephebophilia, and if there were any real cures for any of the. no one could now say that young victims would not remember the abuse so-called paraphilias. He was very skeptical about the results of any such or that they would “grow out of it.” The wounds were too evident and visi­ claims. (With time I noticed the distinction between pedophilia and ble — thanks to the descriptions from the victims themselves. ephebophilia, helpful to psychologists but of no importance in the legal It became evident at that meeting that the bishops would not come up field, seemed to drop out of the discussion.) with a common program or approach. Many were reluctant to talk about I read the section by Father Doyle, which simply repeated the relevant incidents in their own dioceses and did not want to see a nation-wide so­ canons from the Code of Canon Law. Moreover, because Father Doyle was lution emerge. They held to the idea that each diocese was a separate en­ considered “light weight” as a canonist by his colleagues, I was reluctant tity responsible only to Rome. We bishops could exchange views but not to attach too much importance to it. Mouton’s section was interesting, but impose anything on one another. By that time it was clear, too, that the since the laws of each state varied so extensively. I did not spend much powers of a bishops' conference in the Revised Code of Canon Law of 1983 time on it. were very limited and that there was no way the conference could impose One way for a bishop to respond to an accusation of sex abuse was to a uniform procedure. convoke a canonical trial in the diocese and to dismiss a priest found This led to a growing gap in perception between the reality of the situ­ guilty. But at the time, Rome, already critical of the U.S. marriage tribunals, ation and the expectations of the press and the public. The press took it for i did not look favorably on local tribunals aimed at the dismissal of a priest. granted that the conference could and would come up with general poli- Moreover, were such trials possible, the priest would certainly appeal a de- cies for the whole country. I knew after that meeting that such a solution : cision for dismissal from the priesthood to the Roman ecclesiastical was not forthcoming because each diocese would claim its independeno courts. As marriage cases indicated, there was a wait of several years be­ and adhere to its own policies. Two additional factors were also evident fore these courts pronounced on cases. I could easily imagine the years a an attitude of secrecy was still very strong among the bishops, and Rom< . sensitive case such as asking for the dismissal of a priest would have taken'. had not yet grasped the seriousness of the situation. (A few years later, when I presented to Rome the results of such a local trial Later that year, I received in the mail a document written by three au that is exactly what happened.) We bishops discussed the possibility of a thors discussing the sexual abuse of minors in the U.S. Catholic Church. 1 4 national tribunal since many dioceses did not have sufficient personnel 349 s MAY 291 E ' @ T S i n r E lx ) .s _ . »K $3iv .«»" tfA^ YY vcu ^ 3.Q ^ j- j»rr t k £ .. ' v mv£\ V ^ v\Y:^ w JW&jivd* <?S- Sb<£fc ^ ^jayy jjjkiuA- >j*w j^vwi- cs* KvWJtvw> jYfma- oj± v^. iV a . OJJSL. ONJVKJ.WHV/fjUCA <J\JfeA^. x5^<tW $UA.iH 1^; eRA Air<v5fc-Jfi- JX/uiWsJL> "Vitfws- A /utfX - Jjj_ j^jij^y o _ *>£. .JA&-. .&, iW lR * OAfl— r^ V jX A3dtoU < w & jua&lfL ^avciP^su jvaJoOu^ J$k&. WbfL^ojtt-s— ,CUMk- 13c .^tejuS^^ Ex. 211 ADOM022192 \}S<ux. V iij L c^Js UM u ~lSU*V £ w » t -JS&- -ftJUL . ^5r\a»i^«- "iSiaL- r~:¥>am> ^ojo^A f .^ox-*_ actv QuhA -^ ^ sA- ip r j>i«waJtc^d!€^^^W3 k * A • \ s . r S W .4i— ( twsL C&. VUfi_. CsUA. Jfikl^SUMJL.. jis^ ^ A .4 iP^! ^ f ^ u . <swm^iS\A> i&t. jCsWr Ivw^ W assM^cx. JwJsVsl -to-* yy a~ Jimfc* cr<v Qj ^ A ft&CWL ^rOJCT-* "^5 &i&WUXSa~ ^ S L S C iij^ D ^ ^ kXJCV 0 $b\j&\At^k., ^fcUir ^vAWL Oi&y J&WAA^afc"; J^ J^ vM cL \js- fMAStfc 6»Jj^ W iwJ \ jsaK- V^AjL jJT WCv tjU/U> (jUrv— Q&te^ Cvj ^A v ADOM022193 iXsft. * W 5a.\a»^. u^5Dw^3L .. A ^ \ q t A ^ W c « W jv ^3^wx -^1^<lw_ C tfcjie*j '^A»A«-.^bea»v ^^.a ^SESa ^. ‘cA. JSVjK «.3A- >^>UA. AWWUJ-Sf <SiM> i f c - JTfljJjJk; J { u a „ Hdtp. " jur^wiiA. o & , jguw Be ftWkV.llfl»a.7 y/WaL >A Xi.&UA.jtitufckji-. ADOM022194 ADOMO14729 Reverend Michael G. Krejci Date o f Birth: April 20, 1952 Date of Ordination: July 15, 1978 Assignments: Associate - Our Lady of Good Hope - 7/18/78 Team member - St.