Lawrence Murphy, William Cousins, Rembert Weakland and the Sedevacantism of Alex Gibney: Part 1
Part 1: 1950 to 1975
St. John School for the Deaf and Fr. Murphy
Father Lawrence Murphy was ordained at the age of 25 in 1950 and assigned to St. John School for the Deaf immediately after ordination. The school, built in the late 1800′s, was located in St. Francis, Wisconsin, just south of Milwaukee. Murphy, who could use American Sign Language “gracefully and beautifully,” was chaplain until he became the Director of the school in July, 1963. In the mid-1960′s he oversaw the construction of new facilities to replace the old buildings.
At the center of the building frenzy was Murphy, a gregarious Irishman, short in stature with a smile that could melt ice. Yearbook photos and newspaper clippings show him as a whirlwind of activity, accepting thousands of dollars for the school from civic groups, coaching basketball and giving speeches all over town about deafness and why people should contribute to St. John’s.(1)
Murphy left the school in September, 1974, the circumstances of his departure disguised by archdiocesan authorities as “temporary sick leave.”(2) Decades later, people would learn that the Archbishop of Milwaukee had been forced to remove him because of complaints that he had been sexually abusing deaf boys at the school. It was later estimated that he had sexually assaulted 100 to 200 boys during his tenure.(3)
Concerns about Murphy were first raised by Fr. David Walsh (d. 2005),(4) who, from 1955 until 1963, was a chaplain to the deaf in Chicago. In the early part of that period, several deaf Chicago teenagers who were attending the school made remarks that caused him to believe that Murphy “was taking advantage of them.” They said that he had gone into their dormitory at night, and had suggested that one of them should go to Murphy’s room for confession. Fr. Walsh did not discuss the details with them, but drove to Milwaukee to bring his concerns personally to Albert Gregory Meyer, who was the Archbishop of Milwaukee from July, 1953 to September, 1958.(5)
Some time after Fr. Walsh spoke to Archbishop Meyer, the Archbishop told him that Murphy had first denied the allegations, but later admitted them, and had been sent to “a retreat house” in northern Wisconsin. Murphy was then sent back to St. John’s, with instructions to “undue [sic] the harm he had done.” Subsequently, Murphy told Fr. Walsh that he should have approached him directly rather than going to the Archbishop.(6)
In Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God, Arthur Budzinski, one of Murphy’s victims, explains that he had disclosed Murphy’s assaults on him to Fr. Walsh when the priest came to fill in at the school when Murphy was away for a few weeks in 1963. He thought that he may have made the disclosure during confession, and describes an angry exchange between Murphy and Fr. Walsh upon Murphy’s return to the school. Fr. Walsh left and did not return, and the assaults continued.(7) The film draws on a letter written by Fr. Walsh in 1997 when it implies that Walsh reported the matter to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington D.C. in 1963.(8) For reasons that will be given presently, this is probably correct, though the date of the report is not provided in Fr. Walsh’s letter, and he made no reference to ever having visited St. John School.
William Edward Cousins succeeded Archbishop Meyer in 1958 and remained Archbishop of Milwaukee until he retired in 1977.(9) Bob Bolger, who attended St. John School from 1947 to about 1956, was one of Murphy’s victims. Thirty years old in 1973, he wrote to Archbishop Cousins in May to expose Murphy’s activities.(10)The Archdiocese timeline states that allegations against Murphy were brought to Cousins not in May, but in the fall of 1973.(11)
Victims go to the police
It was in the fall of that year that Mr. Bolger, joined by victims Arthur Budzinski and Gary Smith, went to the Milwaukee Police Department to report the sexual assaults by Murphy.(12) Arthur Budzinski was then 24. Mr. Smith, the youngest, was 22.(13) He had entered St. John in 1954,(14) and was sexually assaulted by Murphy 50 to 70 times from 1964 until his graduation in 1970.(15) His complaint was critical because Wisconsin law (the “statute of limitations”) prohibited the laying of sexual assault charges more than six years after the date of an offence, even if evidence existed to prove it. Police could not prosecute Murphy for offences against Bolger and Budzinski, but Murphy could have been charged for assaults on Smith committed after 1967.
Mea Maxima Culpa asserts that, after making their report, the three were left in a room at the Milwaukee Police Department for some time before they were told that they could go. Three weeks passed, and they heard nothing from the police.(16) What they did not know was that the complaint had been referred to St. Francis Police, which had jurisdiction over St. John School.(17)
Before continuing, it is important to note that, while police could not charge Murphy with offences against Budzinski and Bolger, their evidence was not irrelevant. The rules of evidence in Wisconsin, like other common law jurisdictions, allowed for the introduction of “similar fact evidence” for specific purposes. For example, if an accused were expected to claim that he had sexually fondled a boy “by accident” when helping him climb a tree, evidence that he sexually fondled several other boys while helping them climb trees could be led to show that the fondling was intentional, not accidental.(18)
The admission of similar fact evidence can be complex and is always contentious,(19) but that is primarily a problem for the prosecutor, not the police. Nothing prevented the police from taking statements from Budzinski and Bolger that could have been used as similar fact evidence in support of Smith’s allegations – if they had taken Smith’s allegations seriously.
However, the police dealt primarily with Bolger by means of notes passed back and forth, because he was the most fluent communicator of the three,(20) and it is possible that they did not understand the significance of Smith’s evidence. In any case, police neglected to take proper statements from the three men before deciding upon a course of action, and this had serious consequences.
Police investigation founders
Police did question Murphy, but, having failed to take detailed statements from the three witnesses, they were not prepared for the encounter. According to a deaf teacher who was at the school, Murphy told police that Smith was mentally retarded, and the complaint was not pursued.(21) Arthur Budzinski, interviewed in Mea Maxima Culpa, said, “Murphy had told them that it wasn’t true. That the kids were making it up. That we were just little troublemakers.”(22)
We do not know if these explanations of the failure of the police are accurate. However, even if the police thought that Smith was mentally handicapped, someone who is both deaf and mentally handicapped is especially vulnerable to sexual exploitation. The allegations warranted a particularly exacting investigation, not dismissal based on the word of the suspect.
Victims begin public protests
Whether Archbishop Cousins first learned of the allegations against Murphy in May or in the fall of 1973, there is no evidence that he did anything about them. However, the clock was ticking on Murphy. By the early 1970′s, victims who had passed through the school were becoming adults and beginning to experience the destructive effects of the abuse at his hands. They realized, in retrospect, how badly they had been treated, and they recognized that children at the school were at risk.(23) They began to take effective action in 1974.
In a letter written years later, Fr. David Walsh could not recall dates, but his recollection of a number of incidents appears to refer to this period. He recalled that deaf members of a printers’ union demanded publication of accusations against Murphy in the local paper, and that young deaf boys had put fliers accusing him of sexually molesting boys on the windshields of priest’s cars at a clergy meeting. We do not know whether or not any of the priests who found the leaflets did anything as a result, though Fr. Walsh stated that Archbishop Cousins met with teachers at the deaf school.(24)
In March, 1974, fliers were distributed at St. John’s Cathedral during Archbishop Cousins’ 25th anniversary celebration. The fliers read: “Act Now. To get Lawrence C. Murphy out of St. John’s School is a victory of God and other deaf boys at St. John’s today.”(25)
Change of tactics
John Conway, a counsellor for the deaf, became aware of the circulation of the fliers and convinced the group to change their tactics. According to Mea Maxima Culpa, they hired a lawyer and collected “sworn affidavits” from Murphy’s victims.(26) However, what is identified as the only surviving document from this collection is in the form of a typed statement, not an affidavit,(27) and a 1974 news report describes the documents as “letters.”(28)
Mea Maxima Culpa, relying at least in part on Mr. Conway, claims that the statements were delivered to Archbishop Cousins, but the Church’s response was “silence.” The film states that, as a result, the men went to the cathedral and began distributing fliers. Only after this, says the narrator, did the Archbishop agree to meet with them.(29)
This, however, is incorrect.
Arlene Quant, owner of a Milwaukee printing company who had been told about Murphy by her deaf employees, became involved some time in April and helped with the collection of 15 to 20 statements. She called the Archdiocesan Personnel Bureau and delivered “a packet of letters” to an official there a few days later. Archbishop Cousins called her on 21 April and met with her the next day, as a result of which a meeting was scheduled.(30) Mea Maxima Culpa does not mention Quant, but all of this is consistent with Mr. Conway’s 2006 statement that, after they had gathered the letters, they called the Archdiocese, and, “To our glee, the archbishop was willing to meet with us.”(31)
This chronology was compiled by the reporter who was covering the story at the time and dealing directly with those involved. Her news story was contemporaneous with the events and therefore more likely to be reliable than unassisted recollections of witnesses decades later.
One’s first inclination is to attribute Mea Maxima Culpa’s misrepresentation of the sequence of events to confused recollections, a natural hazard likely to be encountered in reconstructing a chronology at a distance of almost 40 years. However, Alex Gibney had the reporter’s chronology of events. We know this because he shows her story, in part, in Mea Maxima Culpa, including the sub-title “Chronological Account,” but the chronology itself is not shown in the clip or mentioned in the film.(32)
It appears that Mr. Gibney deliberately ignored account in his possession because it was inconsistent with his pet theories. What he produced in the case of the events leading to the meeting with Cousins fits perfectly with the film’s subtitle (Silence in the House of God) and two of its central themes: the so-called “code of silence,” and the obsession of the hierarchy with the Church’s reputation. It does not square with the evidence he had in hand.
Meeting with Archbishop Cousins
Returning to the story, the meeting with Cousins occurred on 9 May, 1974.(33) Mr. Conway has provided three accounts of it.
He told a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter in 2006 that there were at least a dozen people in the room, including himself, the Archbishop, Murphy, Arlene Quant, some of the victims and staff from St. John School. There was no mention of anyone else.(34) Interviewed in 2010 for a New York Times story, he said “they were surprised to find the room packed with people, including several nuns and teachers from the school, two priests who said they were representing the apostolic delegate in Chicago, and Father Murphy himself.”(35) Finally, in Mea Maxima Culpa, he directly referred only to himself, the Archbishop, Murphy, and “two priests . . . described by the Archbishop as members of the Vatican.”(36)
With one exception, to which we will return later, these variations in the story are not significant.
Mr. Conway said he was “stunned” when the Archbishop admitted that he had known about the problem “for years.”(37) Recalling the meeting in Mea Maxima Culpa, he said that Archbishop Cousins “allowed that this problem had existed before and he mentioned that back as far as 1960 this matter had been addressed.”(38) However, Cousins said that he did not want to remove Murphy from the school because of his administrative and fund-raising abilities. He explained that he had decided to confine Murphy to duties that would not permit him to have contact with children. The statement shocked the victims and their supporters. When they insisted that Murphy had to be completely removed from the school, the tenor of the meeting changed.(39) From Arthur Budzinski’s account in Mea Maxima Culpa:
Murphy said “No. I take care of the budget and the money and everything.” And Archbishop Cousins got very angry. He started scolding and arguing with us. I’m thinking, “Whoa! I can’t believe this!” Where was his compassion? Where was his wanting to listen to this?(40)
Left out of Mea Maxima Culpa was Mr. Conway’s description of how faculty members and others present began to extol all of “the good things Murphy had done for the deaf community.” Not surprisingly, after about 90 minutes, Conway, Quant and the victims “walked out of the meeting in disgust.” Quant and Budzinski, emotionally overwhelmed, cried all the way home.(41)
On 18 May, the Catholic Herald Citizen announced that Murphy had resigned as the school director, had been relieved of pastoral and teaching assignments involving students, and would continue with other duties at the school.(42)
As noted above, the support for Murphy expressed at the meeting, especially from the deaf community, was not mentioned in Mea Maxima Culpa. It seems completely inexplicable. It can only be understood as a product of the diabolical dualism of Murphy’s character.
Murphy’s activities as a sexual predator were known directly only by the victims, and, though there had been many victims over the years, only three appear to have made themselves publicly known by this time. It is not clear how many people knew that 15 to 20 victims statements had been provided to the Archbishop, let alone the particulars of the allegations, and it is doubtful that the Archbishop shared them. The public perception, as reflected in media reports, was that a “small group of deaf men and others” had been attempting to have him removed.(43)
On the other hand, Fr. Murphy’s “public face” completely belied his hidden sexual perversity. One of the nuns who worked at the school, interviewed in 2006, recalled that Murphy “was very beloved.”
The children just loved him. For his birthday every kid got a bag of treats, and we had a movie, and that was big stuff. He would come around to the classrooms. He would come in, and he would make you feel like a million dollars. Never in my wildest imagination did I think the children were in danger.(44)
“By all accounts,” the 2006 story noted, “Murphy, who was fluent in American Sign Language, a tireless fund-raiser for St. John’s and a wonderful teacher, was much beloved by the deaf community.” Among other things, he had received the American Legion Award for Distinguished Service for Child Welfare.(45) Terry Kohut, speaking of the period before Murphy began to assault him, said “Murphy would hug children. All the kids just loved him, they always flocked to him. . . He was like a second father to me.”(46)
With the exception of Archbishop Cousins, the opinions of people at the meeting were divided according to what they knew of Murphy’s dual life, one hidden and perverted, one public and priestly, and Murphy’s supporters lacked the kind of awareness of sexual abuse that would have triggered suspicion rather than defensiveness.
Victims go to the District Attorney
Bob Bolger, Gary Smith and Arthur Budzinski went to the court house and again began distributing fliers. As portrayed in Mr. Gibney’s flim, they featured a picture of Murphy’s face, and stated: “Warning: Serial child molester is free around Wisconsin!” and “Abolish the statute of limitations from the sex crime law!” According to Mea Maxima Culpa, Bolger put one of the flier’s on the District Attorney’s desk.(47)
The District Attorney was E. Michael McCann, who, in 1976, was described as “having been born in a blue suit.”
Unconcerned about his dress, too busy to look in a mirror, his shirt tail slips out, his tie of the month is pushed aside. After a day in the office his clothes look as if they were previously worn by a pedestrian who had been struck by a bus. . . . The wrinkled district attorney, talking in tough street language, asks many times to be off the record. He is a very intense, almost humorless man. He is so serious, his coat of arms could be a scowl.(48)
When McCann retired in 2007 he was the longest- serving district attorney in the United States, best known outside Milwaukee as the prosecutor of cannibalistic serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.(49) He was a practising Catholic. When interviewed in 1998 he described his faith as the “biggest joy in my life.”
The older I get the more meaningful it is to me. I go to Mass virtually every day . . . It enriches the day, makes me a better person, gives me the courage to do what’s right for other people.(50)
1974 was his sixth year in office.(51) The degree of his religious conviction and extent of his religious practice at that time is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that it was important to him, if less pronounced than in his last years on the job.(52)
Response of the District Attorney
McCann did not meet the victims. They spoke with his assistant, Deputy District Attorney William Gardner. Gardner later said that he did not recall being given any information about offences committed within the six year period specified by the statute of limitations.(53)
However, consistent with Mr. Conway’s account, the New York Times document archive includes Gary Smith’s typewritten statement dated 15 May, 1974 that refers to assaults Murphy committed on him up to his graduation in May, 1970.(54) Given the determination of the victims to press the matter at the time, it is difficult to believe that this statement would not have been among those brought to the attention of Mr. Gardner.
Gary Smith states that he gave it to Gardner, who “didn’t seem interested.”(55) John Conway insists that they stressed assaults on Gary Smith precisely because they had occurred within the limitation period (which seems to concede that the other offences were not). Challenged on this point by a reporter in 2010, Gardner accused Conway and the victims of “making up stories.”(56)
That accusation, perhaps the product of exasperation and poor memory, was unwarranted. If anyone is making up stories about the Murphy affair, the weight of the evidence suggests that it is not Mr. Conway or the victims. Another explanation may account for the conflicting stories.
The meeting with Cousins took place on Thursday, 9 May, but Gary Smith’s statement was not typed until Wednesday of the following week. If the victims went to the District Attorney’s office on the Monday following the meeting with Cousins, Smith’s statement would not have been among those provided. Gardner could have properly concluded that the limitation period had expired in all of the cases provided to him, and reported his conclusion to Mr. Conway. If Mr. Conway and the others then realized that they had neglected to provide a statement from Smith, they could have typed it on 15 May and taken it to Gardner. This would account for Mr. Conway’s clear recollection of emphasizing Smith’s complaint.
On the other hand, Mr. Gardner may have had reservations about accepting a statement that appeared to have been drafted in order to circumvent the statute of limitations. It would have been natural for him to wonder why it had not been provided with the other statements, especially since Smith had been involved with the group from its inception. Smith may have perceived Gardner’s caution as a lack of interest.
Further, if read strictly verbatim, the latest date provided in Mr. Smith’s statement is “1967 or 1968,” and that lack of certainty about the date would have precluded prosecution. It is also true that the assaults the statement describes as having occurred in his senior year were in New York City and Washington D.C., not in Wisconsin. However, the statement describes, in general terms, an ongoing series of assaults between 1964 and 1970. It should have been a simple matter to have the police take a new and detailed statement to resolve the question of dates and jurisdictions. That was not done.
The only surviving record of the case in the District Attorney’s office is a card dated 17 July, 1974 and apparently bearing E. Michael McCann’s initials. It notes a request “to have EMM talk to Gardner relative to his decision to issue warrant against [Lawrence Murphy] for allegedly sexually molesting many boys at the school.” McCann asserts that the card confirms only that he and Gardner discussed the case, and that nothing came of it because of the statute of limitations.(57)
Nonetheless, the note seems to indicate that, at that point, Gardner had decided to issue a warrant, a decision that he would not have made unless he knew of at least one case that was within the limitation period. The note also suggests that Gardner changed his mind about the warrant after a conversation with McCann.
Here, again, there is a possible explanation consistent with what is known and that does not impute bad faith to any of the participants.
If Gardner had acted on Smith’s statement, the entire case against Murphy would have rested on that statement alone. If defence counsel succeeded in raising a reasonable doubt about Smith’s evidence, by suggesting, for example, that he had fabricated the dates in order to circumvent the statute of limitations, the case would have collapsed. It would not have been unreasonable for McCann to advise Gardner to try to find evidence of other recent offences rather than proceeding on the basis of a single statement, particularly when facing an accused who had the kind of public reputation enjoyed by Murphy. If other victims came forward, a strong case could then be made with all of them together, and similar fact evidence from past victims could have been obtained.
This would explain why Gardner went to the senior boys’s dormitory at St. John School and interviewed about a half dozen boys. Mea Maxima Culpa does not explain how they were selected, but it is reasonable to believe that Gardner asked school authorities to identify students most likely to be responsive during an interview. That supposition is supported by Dorm Supervisor Jim Heydendahl’s comment that two of the group were very strong debaters, and that he was surprised that they did not speak up when others insisted, “No, no, nothing’s going on.”(58) With that, the District Attorney’s office ended its investigation.
The question of bias
Mea Maxima Culpa clearly implies that McCann and Gardner failed to take the complaints seriously “because McCann and Gardner were devout Catholics.”
John Conway: Gardner, his comment to me was, “John, we are talking about the life of a priest here. We’re not gonna just go, headlong into ruining this man’s life.”(59)
As reported by Mr. Conway, Gardner’s comment can be understood as an indication of bias. However, it can also be understood as referring to the ethical obligations of police and prosecutors, particularly in a jurisdiction that imposes statutory time limits on prosecutions.
The first ethical issue is associated with proceeding on the basis of a single statement that is perceived to be problematic in some respect, or at least open to significant challenge. It would have been unethical for McCann to authorize prosecution in such a case if conviction were not reasonably assured, especially if the life of the accused – priest or not – would have been ruined whether or not he was convicted. He explained this in an interview before his handling of the allegations against Murphy became a public issue:
A defense attorney might defend a client who appears guilty, but a prosecuting attorney will only prosecute if there’s enough evidence to indicate that the accused is guilty. “Most criminals know that they’re guilty,” he says. “You prosecute them honestly—you don’t fabricate evidence….You wouldn’t start a case without having the evidence to secure a conviction. That’s a fundamental, ethical responsibility.”(60)
Second, Gardner could, perhaps, have pressed the students he interviewed to be more forthcoming, but this would have risked compromising the evidentiary value of statements made on the grounds that they were produced and shaped by suggestive or coercive interview techniques. He could also have persisted in questioning other students at the school, but this may have been difficult to justify if the students who were believed to be most likely to make disclosures had said nothing was happening. Gardner would have had to balance the risk of destroying the reputation of someone who might be innocent against the likelihood of obtaining evidence of wrongdoing. Such decisions are unavoidably subjective, and Gardner could not simply adopt the perspective of the victims, who knew that Murphy was guilty.
Third: the effect of the statute of limitations on the policy of police and district attorneys has to be taken into account, together with the fact that the office of district attorney in Wisconsin is a political office filled by election. As noted above, it would have been legitimate to question other students and even adult graduates of the school to obtain similar fact evidence to support a charge concerning an offence committed within the limitation period. However, in the absence of such an offence, statements obtained from students or adults about offences beyond the limitation period would have been worthless to the prosecutor, and it would have been unethical to go looking for them. Had Gardner continued to question students in such circumstances, he would likely have been accused of attempting to ruin Murphy’s life. Indeed: it is difficult to see what other conclusion could have been drawn, except, perhaps, that the investigation was politically motivated.
The problem does not arise in jurisdictions like Canada, which do not impose statutory time limits on prosecuting sex offences. In those jurisdictions, police are ethically justified in interviewing any potential victim, regardless of the date of the offence, knowing that the statement may potentially result in a charge. Faced with the kind of complaint made to McCann and Gairdner, Canadian police, as a first step, could have arranged for all past students of the school to be interviewed.(61)
The final weeks
The victims and their supporters did not give up. According to the timeline provided by Mea Maxima Culpa, Arlene Quant wrote to the Apostolic Delegate on 19 May, 1974.(62) During the summer they continued to meet with priests and representatives of the Archdiocese and to write letters. Faced with what they perceived to be stonewalling by the Archdiocese, they threatened a lawsuit.(63)
August, 1974 proved to be the watershed month for Murphy.
It was probably in late August that Fr. Walsh was approached by a deaf man in Chicago who told him that Murphy had given him a list of homosexual bars and contacts in the city. Fr. Walsh was left with the impression that the man was feeling guilty and wanted him “to take action to defend deaf persons and put an end to Father Murphy’s activities.” He called Archbishop Cousins, and, in response to his direct questions, said that he believed that Murphy “was still active and was influencing deaf persons.”(64) It is highly unlikely that Fr. Walsh’s call contributed significantly to what followed. Cousins had been given far more detailed, first-hand information about Murphy by the victims in May, and had refused to remove him then.
The critical incident was the result of Gardner’s enquiries at the school. While unsuccessful in eliciting disclosures at the time, they had given students reason to reflect on the situation, and to hope for a change. Some time after Gardner’s visit, students disclosed to senior dorm supervisor Jim Heydendahl that Murphy had been assaulting them. Heydendahl confronted Murphy, who admitted that he was “molesting boys.” Heydendahl met personally with Cousins to give him the news. He told the Archbishop that he had “dates and times,” and that he was going to the parents.(65) If Heydendahl was asked by the interviewer for Mea Maxima Culpa whether or not any of the “dates and times” fell within six year limitation period, his response did not make it into the film.
Cousins promptly removed Murphy from his position at the school. Murphy later told a psychotherapist that Cousins considered the allegations believable.(66) By 5 September he and Murphy had come to an agreement. Murphy’s departure would be disguised as a period of “temporary sick leave,” and he would move to Boulder Junction, Wisconsin, almost 300 miles away, in the Diocese of Superior. It was agreed that at the end of November he would contact Cousins about his future plans. Arrangements were made for the short term continuation of his salary and benefits. There is no record that the reasons for his departure were communicated to anyone in the Diocese of Superior.(67)
In acting has he did, Cousins arguably violated a directive from the Holy Office (later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that was in effect from 1962 to 2001 called Crimen Sollicitationis.(68) It concerned the investigation and prosecution of Canon Law offences committed by priests: sexual solicitation during confession, homosexual acts and bestiality by clergy, and sexual exploitation of pre-adolescent children.(69) The directive required bishops “to ensure that causes of this sort henceforth be introduced, treated and concluded as quickly as possible before their own tribunal.”(70)
Meanwhile, Mary Zahn at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had been contacted by Arlene Quant and told about the circumstances that had led to Murphy’s change of assignments in May.(71) Perhaps having heard something further about what was going on, Zahn interviewed Murphy by telephone on Friday, 13 September, and asked him if he had “resigned under pressure.” Denying that, he said, “I’m going on a rest. I’m following doctor’s orders.”(72)
Zahn’s story was published the following day, but, on the advice of their lawyers, the editors – contrary to the statement in the Archdiocesan Chronology - refused to publish any reference to the sexual assault allegations. Murphy left the diocese the week after the story broke.(73) It appears that the reasons for his departure were not disclosed to the Bishop of Superior.(74)
Report to civil authorities
There is no evidence that the new allegations against Murphy were reported to police. Someone appears to have reported them to the District Attorney’s office because the Archdiocese states that they were reviewed by a “Deputy District Attorney” in the fall of 1974.(75) This must have been a review of materials voluntarily provided by the Archdiocese, and there is now no way to determine if the materials were complete. We do not know, for example, if they included the report of Murphy’s confession to Jim Heydendahl. William Gardner later said that he believed the allegations and would have charged Murphy but for the statute of limitations.(76)
Two years before Mea Maxima Culpa appeared, McCann responded to the accusation that his religious affiliation caused him to ignore complaints about Murphy. He countered that, over the course of his career, he had charged “several priests and an elderly nun.” Concerning the Murphy case, he said that he “examined the archdiocese’s files for anything that could be charged, and reviewed an attorney general’s opinion to determine what if any action could be taken against the archdiocese.”(77)
Unfortunately, at a distance of almost forty years, faced with conflicting accounts and with only fragmentary records, it is not possible to satisfactorily answer all questions about how the Murphy file was handled by the Milwaukee District Attorney’s office.
The first lawsuit
In 1975, a year after Murphy’s departure, a reporter for The Milwaukee Journal writing a story about St. John’s school interviewed administrators and church officials. They had nothing but praise for Murphy. “It was as if,” Mary Zahn wrote, “the complaints never happened.”(78)
Nonetheless, in 1975 Gary Smith and his father began a lawsuit against Murphy and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. According to Mea Maxima Culpa, “nuns from the school and other supporters of Fr. Murphy within the deaf community” began to pressure Gary Smith to drop the lawsuit. The film claims that a Sister Martha Ann(79) visited him in his apartment, where he was without an interpreter, and convinced him to sign “an unusual document:”
I Gary J. Smith, have persecuted and threatened the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. I have given serious thought and consideration to my past actions, and realize the harm to the community and mental strain I have caused to persons involved. I promise to stop from this day and forever these actions against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence C. Murphy and St. John’s School for the Deaf. (27 May, 1975)(80)
Lawyer Jeff Anderson, interviewed on Mea Maxima Culpa, said that he is not only deaf, but “marginally literate,” and that he was “coerced and tricked” into a settlement.(81)
However, the date of the document signed by Smith at the nun’s behest was May, 1975, and the case was not finally settled until September, 1976.(82) Mea Maxima Culpa says nothing about what happened between May, 1975 and September, 1976. Instead, it invites the audience to believe that the case was “mysteriously dropped” immediately after Smith signed the document.
That is not what happened, and, once more, Alex Gibney knew it.
Gibney had a deposition from Archbishop Cousins taken in proceedings in the case in late August, 1975 – three months after the apology signed by Gary Smith. Mr. Gibney (and, presumably, lawyer Jeff Anderson) knew that the court case was not dropped because of Sister Martha Ann’s intervention, though it seems to have been a particularly despicable example of the pressures being brought against Smith.
Smith was represented by Milwaukee lawyer James Collis, who believed Smith’s allegations against Murphy. The fact that the case was still proceeding in August demonstrates that Collis did not allow his client to be “coerced and tricked” into settling the case in the manner suggested by Mr. Gibney and Mr. Anderson.(83) It would seem that Mr. Anderson owes his professional colleague an apology for the slur on his reputation.
Cousin’s complete deposition is not available. Mea Maxima Culpa reveals only slivers of it, the narrator offering an explanation:
When asked what steps he had taken to determine the veracity of the allegations, Cousins said that he had interviewed Murphy and the school staff. When the lawyer asked if he had interviewed students, Cousins admitted that he hadn’t bothered to talk to them. After all, he said, the students are deaf.(84)
This is not quite accurate. The Archbishop’s answer, only partially revealed in Mea Maxima Culpa, was “Students are deaf. In most cases their testimony could not be accepted.”(85)
The significance of this is unclear, since we don’t have the context that would be provided by the full text of the document. Given Mr. Gibney’s demonstrated propensity to misrepresentation, one should be cautious in drawing the adverse inference he invites us to accept.
Ironically, it may be that Mr. Gibney’s narrow focus on one question in the deposition in order to emphasize Cousins’ apparent incompetence or stupidity caused him to overlook more significant information.
In his deposition, Cousins stated that he interviewed the school staff about the allegations against Murphy. What Fr. Walsh revealed is that, when interviewing them, he used Murphy as the interpreter!(86)
It is impossible to attribute this to mere colossal stupidity; Cousins was not a stupid man. There are two possible explanations. Either he conducted his enquiries in a manner designed to bring about the result that he thought most desirable, or he had already decided that the allegations were not credible and conducted purely pro forma enquiries for the sake of the record.
Most important, Cousins swore that he did not find the allegations against Murphy credible, and that Murphy had “sacrificed himself for the school” after “harassments and threats.”(87) Since Jim Heydendahl told Cousins that Murphy admitted to “molesting boys,” and Murphy himself said that Cousins found the allegations believable,(88) it is clear that Cousins lied under oath.
Moreover, when questioned about the current whereabouts of Murphy, he said that he did not know where he was.(89) Yet Cousins knew that Murphy had gone to Boulder Junction, and he had agreed that Murphy would be able to draw a salary from the Archdiocese’s St. Michael’s Priest Fund,(90) which had been established to provide for priests who were “temporarily or permanently disabled.”(91) The fund was still sending cheques to Murphy, so the Archdiocese must have had his address. Moreover, the memo outlining the arrangements for his pay and benefits included a handwritten annotation with his Boulder Junction telephone number. The annotation is dated “1975.”(92)
It is just possible that Cousins was not lying when he said that he did not know where Murphy was. Murphy was not in court that day, but his lawyer was, and he said that his client was not a party to the proceeding because he had “not been properly served.”(93)The most probable explanation for Cousins’ alleged ignorance of his whereabouts and the fact that Murphy had not been served is that the Archdiocese was served notice of the action first, and promptly notified Murphy to disappear before he could be cited.
The lawsuit was settled out of court in September, 1976, but the settlement prohibited disclosure of its terms.(94) Archbishop Rembert Weakland, Cousin’s successor, attempting to prove that civil authorities were as negligent as the Church in dealing with sexual abuse, would later describe this case as having been “thrown out of court by the judge.” (95)
“The Vatican”: 1963
Mea Maxima Culpa does its best to convince the audience that “the Vatican” was aware of the Murphy case since at least 1974. It is now time to review the evidence provided by Mr. Gibney to support his accusation.
The first point is the letter written by Fr. Walsh, in which he says that he reported Fr. Murphy’s “use of the confessional to provide homosexual activities” to the Apostolic Delegate after consulting a “moral professor.”(96) Unfortunately, he does not say when this took place, and he does not state that he was ever at the school.
However, Arthur Budzinski, who was first molested at the age of 12 in 1961 while in confession,(97) clearly recalls having told Walsh about it, and dates the disclosure to 1963. Walsh’s reference to “the use of the confessional” is consistent with what happened to Mr. Budzinksi. Further, Mr. Budzinksi’ thinks that he made the disclosure to Fr. Walsh in confession. This would have raised the problem of the seal of confession, and would explain why Fr. Walsh consulted a moral theologian to help him decide what to do. In short, there is no reason to question the accuracy of Mr. Budzinski’s account.
Although Mea Maxima Culpa implies, by means of images of letterhead, that Fr. Walsh wrote to the Apostolic Delegate, we do not know that he wrote; he may have telephoned. And here a question arises: why the Apostolic Delegate? Why not Archbishop Cousins himself?
The answer could well be that this occurred in the middle of the Second Vatican Council, and Archbishop Cousins was in Rome. Communication through the Apostolic Delegate may have been the best way to communicate sensitive information to him.
Since Cousins was responsible for the safety of the children at the school and was also Murphy’s superior, it would have been natural for the Delegate to advise him of the report about Murphy, and there is evidence that he did. Archbishop Cousins admitted during the meeting of May, 1974, that the problem with Murphy had been raised as far back as 1960. His later denial that he said this was part of his perjured testimony in the civil proceeding and is not credible.
However, there would have been no reason for the Apostolic Delegate to forward Fr. Walsh’s report to someone in “the Vatican,” unless that was routinely done. And if an official in “the Vatican” did get such a routine report, the most reasonable response would have been to ensure that Cousins had been notified so that he could take action. There is, in fact, no evidence that “the Vatican” was aware of Murphy’s activities prior to Cousins meeting with the victims on 9 May, 1974.
“The Vatican: 1972″
Mea Maxima Culpa opens with the screen title, “Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1972.” The title fades, and fingers typing on a keyboard appear. The text of the first part of a letter written to Angelo Cardinal Sodano by victim Terry Kohut is typed onto the screen as dawn shots of “the Vatican” appear. The typing identifies Murphy as an American priest who molested deaf children, and identifies the writer as one of them.
Sliding seamlessly and gracefully from the opening title into the victim’s letter to Cardinal Sodano, the film creates the illusion that “the Vatican” received word of Murphy’s attacks on children in 1972. The letter, however, was not written in 1972, but over twenty years later, in March, 1995.(98) Thus, the opening film sequence cannot be considered evidence of anything other than Mr. Gibney’s artistic talent. Unfortunately, the opening could become a distraction, because some might see it as an attempt to mislead the audience beginning in the very first frames of the film.
“The Vatican”: 1974
The evidence that Mr. Gibney offers to prove that “the Vatican” learned in 1974 that Murphy was a sexual predator is the description he provides of the victims’ 1974 meeting with Cousins. In particular, he emphasizes that two priests who were “members of the Vatican” were present, and uses two empty chairs to represent them in the film.(99)
“Members of the Vatican” is what John Conway said the Archbishop called them in Mea Maxima Culpa,(100) but he had previously said that they introduced themselves as representing the Apostolic Delegate in Chicago.(101) In a 2006 account did not mention them at all.(102) From no reference, to representatives of the Apostolic Delegate, to “members of the Vatican:” it seems that Mr. Conway’s recollection on this most critical point has developed over the years, corresponding, finally, to Mr. Gibney’s claims about the role of “the Vatican.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Conway’s veracity is not in question. There is no reason to believe that he made up the story about the two priests or that he was deliberately distorting the facts, even if his memory was somewhat fuzzy. The first point in his favour is that, in 2010, he used the term “Apostolic Delegate.” That was the title of the office in 1974, when the United States did not have diplomatic relations with the Holy See, but not in 2010, when he was interviewed for the New York Times story; by then there was a papal pro-nuncio. If he had been retrospectively filling in blanks in his memory in 2010, he would likely have used the term then current: nuncio. The fact that he said the two priests represented the Apostolic Delegate, not the nuncio, is the first indication that, in giving his account, he was drawing on authentic memory.
The second indication of Mr. Conway’s truthfulness is what appears to be his mistake. He said the priests identified themselves as representing “the Apostolic Delegate in Chicago,” but the Apostolic Delegate had always been located in Washington, D.C., never in Chicago. It is very unlikely he would have made this mistake if he were making the story up, and just as unlikely that he would have accidentally said “Chicago” when he meant “Washington,” especially since Chicago is only about 90 miles from Milwaukee.
We are thus on solid ground in accepting Mr. Conway’s recollection that the two priests at the meeting were from Chicago, and that they were representing the Apostolic Delegate.
But why from Chicago?
If the Apostolic Delegate wanted an objective account of what was going on in Milwaukee, he could not very well expect to get it from priests under Cousins’ jurisdiction. He could have sent someone from Washington, but that would have been expensive, and those available to go may not have known anyone in Milwaukee. However, he could have asked two priests from the neighbouring Archdiocese of Chicago to attend on his behalf, especially priests who knew people in Milwaukee who could provide them with additional information. If they introduced themselves (or were introduced by the Archbishop) as being “from Chicago, representing the Apostolic Delegate,”what first seems to be a mistake by Mr. Conway actually confirms the substantial accuracy of his recollection.
Why would the Apostolic Delegate be represented at the meeting at all?
The most likely explanation is the very public nature of the conflict. The distribution of fliers in March caught the attention of Conway and probably many others, and likely generated a good deal of local gossip. It would not be surprising if one or more people wrote to the Apostolic Delegate, quite apart from anything the victims and their immediate supporters were doing. Alternatively, Cousins himself, recognizing the explosive potential of the situation, may have asked the Delegate to have someone attend the meeting.
On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that “the Vatican” would have sent two priests to Milwaukee to sit in on a meeting between the Archbishop and a group of people complaining about one of his priests, especially since the Second Vatican Council had emphasized the role and responsibilities of diocesan bishops.
Bishops. . .govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power . . .This power . . . is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. . .
The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.(103)
In sum, it is reasonable to believe that the Apostolic Delegate was represented at the meeting by two priests from Chicago, and that they reported their observations to him. But does this prove – as Alex Gibney would have his audience believe – that “the Vatican” learned in 1974 that Murphy was a sexual predator?
In a word, no.
Laurie Goodstein and Alex Gibney summarize their best evidence near the end of the film in order to make the charge stick, Ms. Goodstein providing the voice-over for Mr. Gibney’s graphics:
The victims and their advocates met with Archbishop Cousins in 1974. [Photo of Cousins]
And there were representatives of the Vatican in that meeting.
[Shot of crucifix in cloak room]
They were introduced to two men who said they were from the Papal Nuncio’s office.
[Shot of two empty chairs]
There was a way that the Vatican was informed of that case as early as 1974.
[Goodstein on screen](104)
In the first place, Goodstein cannot say that Vatican were informed, but only that “there was a way” that they could have been informed. What is offered as proof turns out to be mere speculation.
Second, as outlined above, the two visiting priests were most likely from Chicago and attending on behalf of the Apostolic Delegate. To claim that they were “representatives of the Vatican” is rhetorical overkill, and it is more than a stretch to conclude that they delivered a report of the meeting to “the Vatican.”
Suppose, for example, someone from a U.S. trade mission in Lyons were asked by the American ambassador in Paris to attend a meeting about a dispute in a neighbouring trade mission. It is unlikely that the visitor would be considered a representative of the government of the United States, and even less likely that anyone would expect a report of the meeting to be sent directly to the President of the United States and his cabinet.
Nonetheless, for the sake of argument, suppose that the two priests at the meeting reported their observations to the Apostolic Delegate, and that he forwarded their report to “the Vatican.” What would the report have said?
Here we cannot rely on Mea Maxima Culpa alone, because Mr. Gibney does not tell the whole story about the meeting. He does not tell his audience that the room was packed with at least a dozen people. He does not tell his audience that those present included several nuns and teachers from the school. He does not tell his audience that these people took the side of Murphy and the Archbishop. He does not tell his audience about the public perception at the time: that a “small group” was trying to oust Murphy from the school.
What the visiting priests would have seen was contentious disagreement between two groups, the larger group supporting Murphy, and a smaller group attacking him. Those actually working with Murphy clearly thought that he had contributed much and had much more to contribute. The Delegate’s observers would have seen people adamant that Murphy was a sexual predator, and others just as certain that he was not, or who, at least, were sceptical about the accusations or minimized them. Moreover, they would have seen no one at the meeting produce evidence of current or even recent abuse.
It would have been especially evident to them that the deaf community was split on the question, a small number wanting Murphy out, and a larger number supporting him; recall the fond memories of Murphy encountered by the reporter a year after he left, and that Gary Smith was later pressured by many of them to drop his civil suit. Archbishop Weakland observed that, even in his time, “the older deaf people did not believe it and that pitted them against the youngsters.”(105) The division in the community was illustrated in Mea Maxima Culpa in the confrontation between Grace, Murphy’s deaf housekeeper, and Bob Bolger.(106)
Further, observers would have seen the Archbishop offer a compromise to address the concerns of both groups: to remove Murphy from contact with the students, thus ensuring their safety, while leaving him in charge of fund-raising and alumni, so that the school would continue to benefit from his other talents. Finally, they would likely have been assured by the Archbishop that he had conducted an “investigation” and was personally satisfied that the allegations were “unsubstantiated.” We do not know if the Archbishop showed them the statements provided by the victims. Cousins’ subsequent conduct suggests that he probably did not.
An accurate report of the meeting between Cousins and the victims and the surrounding circumstances would have included all of this information, and assurance that the priest at the centre of the controversy had been removed from contact with students at the school. In the unlikely event that “the Vatican” did receive such a report in May, 1974, what action would have been appropriate? With the Archbishop directly involved with all concerned and monitoring the situation, there would have been no reason for anyone in “the Vatican” to intervene. Arelene Quant is reported to have written on behalf of the victims to the Apostolic Delegate on 19 May, 1974,(107) but she could not have provided more information than was disclosed at the meeting ten days earlier.
In the end, what Mea Maxima Culpa offers as “proof” that “the Vatican” knew about Murphy in 1974 consists of elaborate speculation, careless rhetoric and two screenshots of two empty chairs.
12 March, 2013
1. Zahn, Mary, “Shared Secrets Reveal Much Suffering in Silence.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 26 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
2. Memorandum dated 12 September, 1974 from Fr. Robert G. Sampon re: Fr. Lawrence Murphy. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
3. One document gives an estimate of 100-150 [“Synopsis of the case against Fr. Murphy.” Undated summary, ca. April, 1998.(Accessed 2013-03-09)] Another suggests 200 as “likely.” [Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 5. (Accessed 2013-03-09)]
4. Obituary, Chicago Tribune, 17 August, 2005: Rev. David Thomas Walsh, C.SS.R., Saturday, Aug. 13, 2005. (Accessed 2013-02-23.)
5. Albert Gregory Cardinal Meyer (1903-1965) (Accessed 2013-02-20)
6. Letter dated 10 June, 1997 from Fr. David Walsh to Fr. Thomas Brundage (Accessed 2013-02-20)
8. Letter dated 10 June, 1997 from Fr. David Walsh to Fr. Thomas Brundage (Accessed 2013-02-20)
9. Archbishop William Edward Cousins (1902-1988) (Accessed 2013-02-20)
10. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God- Production Notes: Timeline. (Accessed 2013-02-22)
11. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence Murphy Chronology. (Accessed 2013-02-21)
12. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence Murphy Chronology. (Accessed 2013-02-21)
13. Zahn, Mary, “Shared Secrets Reveal Much Suffering in Silence.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 26 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
14. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God- Production Notes: Timeline. (Accessed 2013-02-22)
15. Zahn, Mary, “Shared Secrets Reveal Much Suffering in Silence.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 26 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
17. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence Murphy Chronology. (Accessed 2013-02-21)
18. Pouros, James G., Criminal Law – Evidence of Prior Misconduct: Whitty v. State. Marquette Law Review 51:104-112 (Accessed 2013-02-22)
19. Hahn, Nicholas J., Wisconsin’s “Greater Latitude” Rule: A Back Door to Unconstitutional Propensity Evidence. Wisconsin Law Review 2012: 1403-1433 (Accessed 2013-02-22)
21. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
24. Letter dated 10 June, 1997 from Fr. David Walsh to Fr. Thomas Brundage (Accessed 2013-02-20)
25. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
27. Statement dated 15 May, 1974. (Accessed 2013-03-12)
28. Zahn, Mary and William Janz, “Priest Leaving School for Deaf.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 14 September, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-26)
30. Zahn, Mary and William Janz, “Priest Leaving School for Deaf.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 14 September, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-26)
31. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
32. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God. (00:31:01-00:31:18). Compare to Zahn, Mary and William Janz, “Priest Leaving School for Deaf.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 14 September, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-26); Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
33. Zahn, Mary and William Janz, “Priest Leaving School for Deaf.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 14 September, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-26); Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
34. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
35. Goodstein, Laurie and David Callender, “For Years, Deaf Boys Tried to Tell of Priest’s Abuse.” New York Times, March 26, 2010 (Accessed 2013-02-23)
37. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
39. Goodstein, Laurie and David Callender, “For Years, Deaf Boys Tried to Tell of Priest’s Abuse.” New York Times, March 26, 2010 (Accessed 2013-02-23); Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
41. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
42. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
43. Zahn, Mary and William Janz, “Priest Leaving School for Deaf.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 14 September, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-26)
44. Zahn, Mary, “Shared Secrets Reveal Much Suffering in Silence.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 26 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
45. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
48. Quoted in Nunnally, Derrick, “Man of contrasts: McCann leaves office on his own terms: Nation’s longest-serving DA says exit not hastened by problems with police.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 21 December, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-25)
49. Nunnally, Derrick, “Man of contrasts: McCann leaves office on his own terms: Nation’s longest-serving DA says exit not hastened by problems with police.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 21 December, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-25)
50. Dangel, Mary Jo, “E. Michael McCann: Milwaukee’s Aggressive and Compassionate District Attorney.” March 1998 Issue of St. Anthony Messenger Magazine Online. (Accessed 2013-02-22)
51. Nunnally, Derrick, “Man of contrasts: McCann leaves office on his own terms: Nation’s longest-serving DA says exit not hastened by problems with police.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 21 December, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-25)
52. Jane Hampden interviews E. Michael McCann. 89.7 WUWM Public Radio, Milwaukee, 17 January, 2007 (Accessed 2013-03-12)
53. Johnson, Annysa, “DA failed to charge Murphy in abuse case, victim says: McCann says cases were too old to prosecute.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 31 March, 2010. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
54. Statement dated 15 May, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-21). Smith’s has been removed from the document on the New York Times site, but it is visible in other reproductions of it.
55. Johnson, Annysa, “DA failed to charge Murphy in abuse case, victim says: McCann says cases were too old to prosecute.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 31 March, 2010. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
56. Johnson, Annysa, “DA failed to charge Murphy in abuse case, victim says: McCann says cases were too old to prosecute.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 31 March, 2010. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
57. “Victims: Priest Could Have Been Charged in Wisconsin, Minnesota.”Duluth News Tribune, 1 April, 2010 (Accessed 2013-02-23). The card could be taken as suggesting that the victims did not approach the District Attorney until the summer. If this were the case, the previous explanation for the conflict between the stories of Gardner and the victims would not hold.
60. Dangel, Mary Jo, “E. Michael McCann: Milwaukee’s Aggressive and Compassionate District Attorney.” March 1998 Issue of St. Anthony Messenger Magazine Online. (Accessed 2013-02-22)
62. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God- Production Notes: Timeline. (Accessed 2013-02-22)
63. Zahn, Mary and William Janz, “Priest Leaving School for Deaf.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 14 September, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-26)
64. Letter dated 10 June, 1997 from Fr. David Walsh to Fr. Thomas Brundage (Accessed 2013-02-20)
66. Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 4. (Accessed 2013-03-06)
67. Memorandum dated 12 September, 1974 from Fr. Robert G. Sampon re: Fr. Lawrence Murphy. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
68. Office of the Sacred Congregation, Instruction On the Manner of Proceeding in Causes involving the Crime of Solicitation. 16 March, 1962. (Accessed 2013-09-12)
69. Office of the Sacred Congregation, Instruction On the Manner of Proceeding in Causes involving the Crime of Solicitation. 16 March, 1962, para. 71-74. (Accessed 2013-09-12)
70. Office of the Sacred Congregation, Instruction On the Manner of Proceeding in Causes involving the Crime of Solicitation. 16 March, 1962, para. 2. (Accessed 2013-09-12)
71. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
72. Zahn, Mary and William Janz, “Priest Leaving School for Deaf.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 14 September, 1974. (Accessed 2013-02-26)
73. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
74. Letter dated 9 July, 1980 from Coadjutor Bishop Fliss to Rev. Joseph A. Janicki. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
75. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence Murphy Chronology. (Accessed 2013-02-21)
76. Zahn, Mary and Tom Heinen, “Priest who resigned amid abuse claims found a new life.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2 February, 2002. (Accessed 2013-02-23)
77. Johnson, Annysa, “DA failed to charge Murphy in abuse case, victim says: McCann says cases were too old to prosecute.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 31 March, 2010. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
78. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
79. Obituary: Czarnyszka, Sr. Martha Ann, OSF. May 21, 2011, at age 78.. (Accessed 2013-02-25)
82. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God- Production Notes: Timeline. (Accessed 2013-02-22)
83. Zahn, Mary and Tom Heinen, “Priest who resigned amid abuse claims found a new life.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2 February, 2002. (Accessed 2013-02-23)
85. Zahn, Mary and Tom Heinen, “Priest who resigned amid abuse claims found a new life.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2 February, 2002. (Accessed 2013-02-23)
86. Letter dated 10 June, 1997 from Fr. David Walsh to Fr. Thomas Brundage (Accessed 2013-02-20)
87. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
88. Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 4. (Accessed 2013-03-06)
89. “Director quit post as sacrifice – Cousins.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 26 August, 1975. (Accessed 2013-01-26.)
90. Memorandum dated 12 September, 1974 from Fr. Robert G. Sampon re: Fr. Lawrence Murphy. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
91. Articles of Association and Bylaws of the St. Michael’s Priest Fund of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee (27 December, 1937) (Accessed 2013-02-27)
92. Memorandum dated 12 September, 1974 from Fr. Robert G. Sampon re: Fr. Lawrence Murphy. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
93. “Director quit post as sacrifice – Cousins.” Milwaukee Sentinel, 26 August, 1975. (Accessed 2013-01-26)
94. Zahn, Mary and Tom Heinen, “Priest who resigned amid abuse claims found a new life.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2 February, 2002. (Accessed 2013-02-23)
95. Deposition of Rembert Weakland, 5 June, 2008, p. 52 (Accessed 2013-03-01); Weakland, Rembert G., A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, p. 352.
96. Letter dated 10 June, 1997 from Fr. David Walsh to Fr. Thomas Brundage (Accessed 2013-02-24)
97. CNN Larry King Live, Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal. Transcript of programme aired on 30 March, 2010. (Accessed 2013-02-26)
98. Letter dated 5 March, 1995 from Terry Kohut to Angelo Cardinal Sodano (Accessed 2013-03-09)
101. Goodstein, Laurie and David Callender, “For Years, Deaf Boys Tried to Tell of Priest’s Abuse.” New York Times, 26 March, 2010. (Accessed 2013-02-23)
102. Zahn, Mary, “Staring Abuse in the Face.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 27 March, 2006. (Accessed 2013-02-20)
105. Deposition of Archbishop Emeritus Rembert G. Weakland, O.S. B., 5-6 June, 2008. p. 57 (Accessed 2013-02-26)
107. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God- Production Notes: Timeline. Accessed 2013-02-22.