Skip to content

Lawrence Murphy, William Cousins, Rembert Weakland and the Sedevacantism of Alex Gibney: Part 3

Part 3: 1993

What to do with Father Murphy?

Mea Maxima Culpa notes that Weakland “inherited Murphy” when he became Archbishop, and did “absolutely nothing” with Murphy – “not a thing” – until after victim Terry Kohut wrote to Murphy in February, 1995 and sent copies to Weakland and Pope John Paul II. (1)

Weakland described the problem for Gibney’s cameras:

What do you do about Fr. Murphy?  It’s a question that kept repeating itself over and over again.  The statutes of limitation had expired.  So criminal charges in this in the courts were out of the question.  Statutes of limitations in the Church courts according to Church law Canon Law had expired long before the others. (2)

According to Mea Maxima Culpa, because victims kept asking the Archdiocese what it was doing with Murphy, Weakland ordered “psychological and criminological assessments” done on him, (3) but did nothing more until 1995.  As a result, the  audience is left with the impression that Weakland puzzled for years over what to do with Murphy, and then, prompted by Mr. Kohut’s letter in 1995, hit upon a solution.

That is not quite what happened.

October/November, 1992: The dam bursts

Recall that, in 1979, Weakland had kept Fr. William Effinger in active ministry after having been apprised of at least one sexual assault he had committed on an adolescent boy. (4)  Fast-forward now to 25 October of 1992, when WISN-TV in Milwaukee broadcast an admission by Fr. William Effinger that he had sexually assaulted a boy over twenty years earlier.  Effinger was immediately relieved of his duties. (5)  The station subsequently broadcast interviews with two more alleged victims.  It was like a dam burst.  The broadcasts elicited a flood of calls to county authorities from people identifying themselves as victims people who knew victims, (6) and for three weeks the issue of child sexual abuse by priests appears to have been the talk of the city, with numerous news articles and commentary in the papers. (7)

Weakland uncharacteristically submitted to an interview on the subject (8) and wrote a reflection that was published in the Milwaukee Journal. (9)  The Journal later published an open letter to Weakland from J. Peter Isely, who revealed that he had been a victim of clerical sexual assault. (10) The editor of the paper described Weakland’s letter as “eloquent and heartfelt,” while Isely wrote “with poignancy and special perspective.”  The exchanges, he said, were “unplanned, unprecedented and for many readers, probably unforgettable.” (11)

By the middle of November, another allegation had surfaced at Effinger’s former parish (12) and a civil lawsuit had been filed; (13) eight more would follow.  Eventually, a more recent victim came forward and Effinger was charged criminally in early January, 1993. (14)

December, 1992: St. Lawrence Seminary

Just before Christmas, the Milwaukee Journal published a two page exposé of historical sexual assaults on eight adolescent students by Capuchin friars at St. Lawrence Seminary preparatory school in Fond du Lac County.  Isely was one of them. (15)  Weakland had ignored Isely, (16) but Isley’s open letter had caused other victims, previously unknown to each other, to come forward. (17)  The police became involved immediately.  The District Attorney for Fond du Lac stated that he had reason to proceed against one Capuchin offender, and, perhaps, against others who had failed to report the abuse. (18)

The former students explained how complaints had been ignored by the Capuchin authorities and the abuse continued.(19)  When interviewed, Isley referred to factors that he thought had  made him vulnerable to sexual abuse: “boarding school isolation, his ingrained respect for priests and his lack of sexual knowledge.”  He explained his dependency on the friars, noting,  “[W]e were on our own up there.” (20)

Effect of the publicity

Both the Effinger and St. Lawrence Seminary cases were in the news periodically in 1993; (21) Effinger was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in July. (22)  Although Weakland had no jurisdiction over the seminary, both cases had a serious impact in the Archdiocese.  Among other things, a lawyer representing victims of clerical sexual abuse began an action to force the Archdiocese to disclose records of sexual misconduct by priests dating back to 1968; Weakland resisted. (23)

Isely’s description of the situation at the seminary would probably have resonated powerfully with any of Murphy’s victims from St. John School for the Deaf who happened to read them; they, too, had been at a boarding school, and even more isolated and dependent.  It is also likely that they became more confident that they would be believed as a result of the waves of publicity that had started in November.  Murphy himself later noted that accusations against him began to be made during this period. (24)

Fall, 1993: “Reinstatement” of restrictions

In any case, it appears that, after Murphy’s retirement in January, some of his victims began to gather and make themselves known to the Archdiocese.  The Archdiocesan chronology states that Weakland met with victims in the fall of 1993, after which he “reinstated” restrictions on Murphy. (25)  However, as noted previously, the only restriction that had been placed on him before his retirement was prohibition from celebrating mass in Milwaukee.

A document that appears to date from December, 1993 indicates that when Weakland (RW) reinstated this restriction, he broadened it to include a prohibition against any “public ministering” in Milwaukee, and added two further restrictions: no contact with the deaf community, and no contact with certain people. (26)

Restrictions on Murphy

A handwritten notation suggests that, some time in the fall, Bishop Richard Sklba (RS) advised Murphy that he was to have “no unsupervised contact with kids.” (27)  Publicly available documents do not indicate that any of these restrictions were communicated to Murphy in writing.

The additional restriction imposed by Sklba may have been the result of a “serious allegation” that had surfaced by the first week of October, 1993.  This may have come up as a result of a “day of reflection” hosted by the Archdiocese at which Murphy’s actions were “acknowledged” (28) and other victims asked to come forward.  Murphy was notified of the existence of the allegation near the end of the October. (29)  A letter dated 7 November, 1993 indicates that a couple of people were spearheading an initiative to identify his victims, perhaps as a result of the invitation at the day of reflection. (30)

November, 1993: Archdiocese handling of sex offenders exposed

It was at this point that the case of William Effinger burst once more upon the Archdiocese.  The Milwaukee Journal published details of the civil case against the Archdiocese filed by victims of William Effinger:

Time after time, officials of the Milwaukee Catholic Archdiocese were made aware of “believeable allegations”that Father William Effinger had sexually abused children and had a drinking problem.  But the troubled priest was moved quietly from parish to parish without anyone being warned of the allegations or of any harm he might cause. (31)

The story was based upon documents filed by the plaintiffs that the judge agreed to make public. In contrast, Archdiocesan lawyers obtained an order sealing all of the documents filed by the Archdiocese, including Weakland’s deposition.  A few days later, Weakland circulated a letter throughout the Archdiocese claiming that the Journal reports were “unreliable, biased and appear strangely vindictive.,” adding, “I am sure we have not heard the last of such malicious reporting.” (32)

Peter Isely responded by citing Weakland’s record and challenging him to reveal the documents his lawyers had sealed. (33)   There is no doubt that Weakland’s credibility suffered significantly as a result of the November disclosures.  In fact, when the documents were finally unsealed at the request of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2002, they showed that the paper’s 1993 report was substantially accurate. (34)

December, 1993: First limitations on public ministry

Returning to Weakland’s handling of the Murphy file, it appears the Bishop Fliss reviewed Murphy’s activities as the Effinger civil suits were being concluded.  He learned that Murphy was teaching 10th grade catechism without supervision.  It also appears from the entry in the document that Murphy gave him the impression that the deaf community had forgiven him, (35) something contradicted by an earlier entry in the document: “deaf community wants him out.” (36)

On 30 November, 1993 the Journal reported that the Archdiocese had settled civil suits with seven men and two women who had been sexually assaulted by Effinger. (37)  The next day, Bishop Sklba of Milwaukee wrote to Murphy and told him that he must not participate in public sacramental celebrations, must not have unsupervised contact with minors, and must not participate in parish religious education programmes. (38)

This directive could have resulted, in part, from the report from Bishop Fliss that Murphy was having unsupervised contact with minors, contrary to Bishop Sklba’s instructions.  However, the sequence of events suggests that the new directives to cease public participation in the sacraments and withdraw from educational programmes were a consequence of the Effinger case. The settlement had made clear the fiscal consequences of negligence, and the adverse publicity about the concealment of Effinger’s crimes may well have led to increased agitation among Murphy’s victims, who, as Mea Maxima Culpa states, would likely have approached the Archdiocese and asked what was being done with him.

Psychological assessment

The impact of the Effinger case also explains Weakland’s sudden decision, after 16 years, to have Murphy professionally evaluated. Psychotherapist Kathy Walter interviewed him for 13 hours from 7 to 9 December. (39) The Archdiocese appears to have given her a list of known victims. (40)

Murphy told Ms. Walter that he had had a homosexual affair in minor seminary that continued up to 2 years before ordination, and that he resumed sexual activity with the boys at St. Johns. (41)  He admitted to sexual contact with 19 boys from 1952 to 1974, the number of contacts ranging from 1 to 25 times each, though in some cases he admitted it was possible that there had been more than 25 contacts. (42)  Ms. Walter documented Murphy’s use of the confessional for the purpose of identifying potential sex targets. (43)

The interviews disclosed evidence that Cousins perjured himself when, in his 1975 deposition, he denied that be believed the allegations:

Although documentary evidence is lacking, client’s self-report of his meeting with Archbishop Cousins in 1974 indicates that the Archbishop considered the complaints (of sexual abuse) against the client believable. (44)

Murphy denied having been involved in any sexual activity since arriving in Boulder Junction in 1974, (45) but Walter recommended that enquires be made to confirm that. (46)  She had heard that he had been accused of assaulting about 200 boys and thought that number “likely to be fairly accurate.” (47) He evinced no sense of the extent of the harm he had caused. (48)  She concluded that he was sexually attracted to male adolescents (49) and needed sex offender treatment, but believed that he was not a good candidate for it and would be uncooperative. (50)

Ms. Walter warned that Murphy could be publicly exposed for his past behaviour, which would naturally lead to questioning about his current status as a priest.  She also pointed out that, after her assessment, if he continued as a priest and, through his ministry had sexual contact with a minor or vulnerable adult, the Archdiocese would be legally liable. (51)

29 December, 1993: Limitations imposed by Weakland

In view of the report, it is not surprising that the restrictions imposed by Bishop Sklba were affirmed by the Bishop of Superior on 16 December. (52)  Following a meeting with members of the deaf community in the last week of December, including some of Murphy’s victims, Weakland wrote to Murphy to further specify the restrictions:

1.  Refrain from all unsupervised contact with minors.

2.  To cease until further notice all public ministry including the celebration of Eucharist in other than a private setting with only another priest and/or your housekeeper in attendance; the celebration of any other sacraments will require my explicit permission in each case; until further notice the faculty to hear confession is revoked;

3.  To avoid all persons, places and situations that, from past experience, have been occasions of serious temptation in the area of sexual morality;

4.  To cease all interpreting for the deaf/hard of hearing in a public setting. (53)

Service for the deaf community

In late 1993 and early 1994 the Archdiocese established a “special treatment group” for Murphy’s victims that included the offer of individual therapy. (54)  News of the restrictions placed on him was circulated in a newsletter in the deaf community, with a text telephone (TTY) number that the deaf could call to get further information.  The newsletter report and TTY message were understood by at least some to mean that Murphy had admitted to molesting 34 boys and had been laicized. (55)  This was not true, since Walter’s notes are clear that Murphy admitted to sexual contact with only 19 students – not 34 – and Murphy had not been laicized.  It is possible that the newsletter and message were misinterpreted.

Attitude of the bishops

In notifying Murphy of the serious allegation against him that had been made by the first week of October, Bishop Sklba advised him to speak with Fr. Thomas Venne and Dr. Elizabeth Piasecki “so that your own rights might be properly safeguarded . . . and that justice and compassion might be provided for all concerned.”  He concluded with the comment that “this matter continues to be difficult for all of us.” (56)

When, on 16 December, Bishop Fliss of Superior reaffirmed the more significant restrictions imposed by Bishop Sklba two weeks earlier, stated:

Please know that it pains me deeply to inform you of these restrictions because I know how frustrating and disruptive this must be for you.  I am most grateful for your many years of pastoral service to so many in Boulder Junction.

. . .I can count on your understanding and cooperation in this very difficult matter and [know] that God will bless you richly with the graces you need to endure this terrible ordeal. . . (57)

Weakland was less solicitous when he wrote at the end of the month, but, in the sequence of his closing sentence, the welfare of the victims came last:

I know that this is not an easy moment for you, but we all must do what is best for you, for the Church, and, of course, for the Catholic deaf community. (58)

What Weakland did not do

There is no evidence that Weakland followed the psychotherapist’s recommendation to verify that Murphy had had no sexual contact with anyone in Boulder Junction.

There is also no indication that the Archbishop was contemplating any further action against Murphy, even though the psychotherapist’s report had documented his abuse of the sacrament of confession.  Weakland had the names of at least 19 victims and could have directed that they be interviewed to obtain direct evidence of solicitation.  Indeed: he was, like Cousins, obligated by Crimen Solicitationis to deal with such cases as quickly as possible. (59)  He did not do so, probably because he was, at best, ambivalent about the laicization of priests guilty of sexual misconduct with minors.

As far back as 1989 he said that he did not think that all priests involved in sexually abusing children should be removed from ministry. (60)  When interviewed in October, 1992, when the Effinger case was erupting, he remarked that even if the process of laicizing priests accused of sexual abuse were streamlined, he was not certain that he would ever use it.  “That would be easier,” he said, “but I’m not sure that it would be the best route for all involved.” (61)

By February of 1993 it appears that the public reaction to Effinger and the St. Lawrence Seminary case had caused him to change his mind.  At the annual meeting of Project Benjamin, the Archdiocesan response to clerical sexual abuse, he said that “men who are truly pedophiles need to be removed from the priesthood.” (62)

However, this must be qualified by statements he made months after he received the psychotherapist’s report on Murphy: that “true pedophilia among priests is rare,” and that most of those in trouble “were attracted to teenage boys.” (63)  That was precisely Ms. Walter’s diagnosis of Murphy.  It seems that Weakland saw no reason to proceed further against him because, on his view, he was not a ‘true pedophile’ and had been sufficiently restricted in his priestly functions.


The restrictions imposed on Murphy by Weakland at the end of 1993 could have been imposed at any time after he became Archbishop in 1977.  However, for 16 years, the only restriction on Murphy was a prohibition from saying mass in Milwaukee, so as to prevent controversy there. The restriction was primarily of benefit to Weakland.

Apparently as a result of publicity associated with notorious cases in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Murphy’s victims began to make their complaints known to the Archdiocese by the fall of 1993.  As a result, Weakland reinstated the original prohibition against saying mass in Milwaukee, supplementing it with two further restrictions on contact with the deaf community and named individuals.  Somewhat later, Bishop Sklba advised him that he was not to have unsupervised contact with minors.

The imposition of more significant restrictions and the ordering of a psychological assessment appear to have been the result of increased concern about civil liability and public perception following the Effinger settlements and the surrounding adverse and publicity.  In communicating the restrictions to Murphy, the bishops involved expressed notable concern for Murphy and little or none for the victims.

By the end of 1993, “the Vatican” still knew nothing about Murphy. The two empty chairs Mr. Gibney presents in Mea Maxima Culpa serve only to distract the audience from asking what Archbishop Weakland did (and did not do) in the year following Murphy’s retirement.

12 March, 1993


Next- Part 4: 1994 to May, 1998


1.   Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (1:06:31)

2.   Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (1:08:26)

3.   Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (1:06:31)

4.    Cooperman, Alan.  “Wisconsin Archbishop kept silent on predator priest.Washington Post, 14 April, 2002.  (Accessed 2013-02-28)  Weakland disputes the account of his conversation with the family.  See Deposition of Archbishop Emeritus Rembert G. Weakland, O.S. B., 5-6 June, 2008, p. 266 (Accessed 2013-02-02)

5.   Rohde, Marie, “Sheboygan priest on leave after claim of sex abuse: Effinger admits to offence that man says occurred 20 years ago.”  Milwaukee Journal, 26 October, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03 )

6.   HaHarrington, Kevin and Mark Lisheron, “Kenosha officials get 25 calls regarding sex abuse by priest.”  Milwaukee Journal, 29 October, 1992. (Accessed 20130-03-03)

7.   Zahn, Michael and Marie Rodhe, “At least 3 lawsuits here allege sex abuse by priests.Milwaukee Journal, , 29 October, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Rondy, John, “Priest didn’t complete work ordered by court. Milwaukee Journal, 30 October, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Rohde, Marie, “Sex-abuse victims urged to come forth: Weakland makes plea and apology in visit to Effinger’s former parish.”  Milwaukee Journal, 1 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Editorial, “Priests who become problems.”  Milwaukee Journal, 2 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Rondy, John, “New priest answers to parish: Members question how he’ll help them to heal after allegations against priest.”  Milwaukee Journal, 3 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Rohde, Maris, “Priest sex cases have cost $650,000, Weakland reveals: Archbishop says he wants to dispel rumors about settlements, insurance.”  Milwaukee Journal, 6 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

$10,000 bail set for priest in sex case: Virgina man charged with fondling boy in pool, taking nude photos.”  Milwaukee Journal 6 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Lawsuits accuse 2 priests of assault.”  Milwaukee Journal, 6 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Letters, “Priest cartoon shows Journal bigotry.”  Milwaukee Journal, 7 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Letters, “Child abuse affects all walks of life.”  Milwaukee Journal, 11 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Berry, Jason, “How the Church’s need for priests attracts some men fleeing sexuality.Milwaukee Journal, 7 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

McNally, Joel, “At last, a papal no-bull.”  Milwaukee Journal, 12 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Braddock, Stephen E. “Despite all, religious life remains an honorable calling.”  Milwaukee Journal, 15 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Schulteis, Janell R., “Violation of trust is biggest disgust.Milwaukee Journal, 16 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

Briggs, Marry, “Writer captured survivors’ concerns. Milwaukee Journal, 22 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Schmit, L.J. “Forgiveness heals troubled hearts.” Milwaukee Journal, 22 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Schoonenberg, John W., “Dedicated priests found in abundance.” Milwaukee Journal, 22 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

8.   The reporter commented: “Weakland’s candor was an abrupt departure from the unwritten archdiocesan policy of making only the most minimal public statements” in such circumstances. Rohde, Marie, “Weakland rethinks his decision on priest: Church’s reaction to reports of sex abuse has evolved, archbishop says.”  Milwaukee Journal, 28 October, 1992. (Accessed 2013-03-03)

9.   Weakland, Rembert, “The Education of an Archbishop Continues.”  Milwaukee Journal, 7 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

10.   Isely, J. Peter, “Dear Archbishop: A survivor of sex abuse replies.”  Milwaukee Journal, 15 November, 1992. (Accessed 2013-03-03)

11.   Gissler, Sig, “Archbishop and survivor trade insights on sexual abuse.  Milwaukee Journal, 22 November, 1992. (Accessed 2013-03-05)

12.  Associated Press, “New sex allegation raised in Sheboygan: Claim against Effinger disclosed at mass at Holy Name Church.”  Milwaukee Journal, 10 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

13.   Rohde, Marie, “Man files suit in sex abuse by priest: Roeder has accused Effinger of numerous assaults 23 years ago.” Milwaukee Journal, 13 November, 1992, (Accessed 2013-03-03)

14.   “Catholic Priest Charged.”  Telegraph Herald, 7 January, 1993. (Accessed 2013-03-02)

15. Rohde, Marie, “8 men tell of sex abuse by friars: Former prep school students say nothing has changed despite complaints.” Milwaukee Journal, 20 December, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Rohde, Marie, “Over and over again: He recalls at least 50 sex episodes.Milwaukee Journal, 13 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Rohde, Marie, “A try: Complaint went nowhere.”  Milwaukee Journal,, 13 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Leader says victims will get help.”  Milwaukee Journal,, 13 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Rohde, Marie, “Shattered dream: Priesthood was his life’s goal.Milwaukee Journal, 20 December, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

16.   Berry, Jason, “Activist’s challenge to archdiocese began with Weakland.”  National Catholic Reporter, 31 January, 2012. (Accessed 2013-03-05)

17.    Berry, Jason, “Activist’s challenge to archdiocese began with Weakland.”  National Catholic Reporter, 31 January, 2012. (Accessed 2013-03-05)

18.  Rohde, Marie, “D.A. may charge friar, others.”  Milwaukee Journal,, 21 December, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Rohde, Marie, “Officer to talk with seminary students: Detective wants boys to know that complaints are being taken seriously.”  Milwaukee Journal, 23 December, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

19.  Rohde, Marie, “A try: Complaint went nowhere.”  Milwaukee Journal,, 13 November, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

20.   Rohde, Marie, “Shattered dream: Priesthood was his life’s goal.Milwaukee Journal, 220 December, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

21.    Rohde, Marie, “Some sex abuse victims kept silent: But overall, ex-students’ spokesman approves of report done for order.”  Milwaukee Journal,, 28 May, 1993. (Accessed 2013-03-05)

Rohde, Marie, “Capuchin friar takes difficult job in wake of abuse reports.  Milwaukee Journal, 8 June, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

22.    Rohde, Marie, “Priest begins sentence for sexual assault of teen.”  Milwaukee Journal, 20 July, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-05)

23.    Zahn, Michael R., “Archdiocese fights disclosure demand.Milwaukee Journal, 17 February, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-11)

24.  Letter dated 12 January, 1998 from Lawrence Murphy to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Accessed 2013-03-12)

25.    Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence Murphy Chronology. (Accessed 2013-02-21)

26.  Deposition of Rembert G. Weakland, 5 June, 2008, p. 56-57 (Accessed 2013-03-01)

27. Undated, point form summary, ca. December, 1993(Accessed 2013-03-05)

28.   Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence Murphy Chronology. (Accessed 2013-02-21)

29.   Letter dated 28 October, 1993 from Bishop Richard Sklba to Fr. Lawrence Murphy. (Accessed 2013-03-05)

30.  Letter dated 7 November, 1993.  Identifying particulars removed.  (Accessed 2013-03-05)

31.  Rohde, Marie, “Officials believed priest abused kids but kept quiet, records say.” Milwaukee Journal, 9 November, 1993. (Accessed 2013-03-02)

32.  Rowen, James, “Weakland calls Journal story ‘biased’: Letter to priests, pastors attacks report’s accuracy.”  Milwaukee Journal, 15 November, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-02)

33.    Isely, Peter, “Exposing pedophile priests.”  Milwaukee Journal, 21 December, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-02)

34.    Cooperman, Alan.  “Wisconsin Archbishop kept silent on predator priest.Washington Post, 14 April, 2002. (Accessed 2013-02-28)  Weakland disputes the account of his conversation with the family.  See Deposition of Archbishop Emeritus Rembert G. Weakland, O.S. B., 5-6 June, 2008, p. 266 (Accessed 2013-02-02)

35.  Murphy later told the psychotherapist interviewing him,  “They’ve forgiven me and I’ve forgiven them.”  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 22. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

36.  Undated, point form summary, ca. December, 1993(Accessed 2013-03-05)

37.  Zahn, Michael R. and Marie Rohde, “Church settles several suits over Effinger: Allegations by 9 people had spanned 20 years.”  Milwaukee Journal, 30 November, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-02)

38.    Bishop Sklba’s letter is not among the documents on the New York Times website.  It is quoted in Letter  dated 16 December, 1993 from Bishop Raphael Fliss to Fr. Lawrence Murphy,(Accessed 2013-03-05)

39.  Invoice dated 20 December, 1993 from Kathy Lyn Walter to Dr. Elizabeth C. Piasecki (Accessed 2013-03-05)

40.    Possibly the “List of known victims in the St. John’s case.”  ( ) Accessed 2013-03-06

41.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 3. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

42.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 2. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

43.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 14.; p. 20; p. 21 (Accessed 2013-03-06)

44.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 4. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

45.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 4. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

46.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 6. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

47.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 5. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

48.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 7. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

49.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 5. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

50.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 8. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

51.  Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 9-10. (Accessed 2013-03-06)

52.    Bishop Sklba’s letter is not among the documents on the New York Times website.  It is quoted in Bishop Fliss’s letter.  See Letter from Bishop Raphael Fliss to Fr. Lawrence Murphy, dated 16 December, 1993 (Accessed 2013-03-12)

53.  Letter dated 29 December, 1993 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Fr. Lawrence Murphy (Accessed 2013-03-05)

54.  Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Lawrence Murphy Chronology. (Accessed 2013-02-21)

55.  Late in 1994, victim Terry Kohut was still under the impression that Murphy had been “defrocked” and that he had confessed to molesting him and 34 others boys.  Letter dated 7 November, 1994 to Rembert Weakland. (Accessed 2013-03-12) The on-line letter has been redacted to remove Kohut’s name, but it is part of a single digital file that includes two other letters from him, one of which was presented, in part, in Mea Maxima Culpa.  The text of the letter also mentions a number of points made in the subsequent letters.

56.  Letter dated 28 October, 1993 from Bishop Sklba to Fr. Lawrence Murphy (Accessed 2013-03-05)

57.  Letter  dated 16 December, 1993 from Bishop Raphael Fliss to Fr. Lawrence Murphy (Accessed 2013-03-05)

58.  Letter dated 29 December, 1993 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Fr. Lawrence Murphy (Accessed 2013-03-05)

59.  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)

60.    Rohde, Marie, “Weakland unveils project to aid people affected by abuse.  Milwaukee Journal, 17 May, 1989 (Accessed 2013-03-09)

61.    Rohde, Marie, “Weakland rethinks his decision on priest: Church’s reaction to reports of sex abuse has evolved, archbishop says.”  Milwaukee Journal, 28 October, 1992 (Accessed 2013-03-03)

62.  Rohde, Marie, “Weakland says he favors removal of pedophiles from the priesthood.” Milwaukee Journal, 12 February, 1993 (Accessed 2013-02-28)

63.  Umhoefer, Dave, “Scandal casts new light on Weakland’s statements.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6 May, 2002 (Accessed 2013-02-28)


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: