Lawrence Murphy, William Cousins, Rembert Weakland and the Sedevacantism of Alex Gibney: Part 5
Part 5: 1998 – The End of the Road
May, 1998: The investigation continues
A synopsis of the case probably made in the last half of April, 1998, stated that three victims would be interviewed in late May and June, and Murphy was to be interviewed by the tribunal on 30 June. (1) On 15 May, 1998, Fr. Patrick Lagges, the canon lawyer representing Murphy, sent Fr. Brundage’s summary of the procedure to be followed in the interrogation of the accused and a list of questions to be put to the witnesses. Fr. Lagges cautioned Fr. Brundage that Murphy said he might not be physically able to withstand the trip and the interview on 30 June. Fr. Lagge had told him to get a medical opinion, and commented that Murphy did sound “awfully weak” and that his speech was “slightly slurred.” (2)
30 May, 1998: Meeting in Rome
Bishop Fliss had advised Fr. Brundage that he wanted to discuss the Murphy case with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during his ad limina visit to Rome. (3) Auxiliary Bishop Sklba and Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee were on ad limina visits at the same time. According to Mea Maxima Culpa, Weakland “had a private conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger.” (4) The remark was placed in a context obviously meant to persuade the audience that the conversation was about Murphy, and that Cardinal Ratzinger was personally implicated in what followed. However, Weakland provides an account of the conversation in his autobiography; they did not discuss Murphy. (5)
The Murphy case was the subject of a meeting on 30 May, 1998,with Archbishop Bertone, Secretary for the Congregation of the Faith on 30 May. Other curial officials were also present. This was the meeting at which, according to Mea Maxima Culpa, Weakland ‘pleaded his case’ for the laicization of Murphy. (6)
The three American bishops had asked to meet with Archbishop Bertone to seek his advice about the Murphy case, but the quality of the advice he could provide depended entirely upon their presentation of the facts. Minutes of the meeting were made in Italian. (7) Fr. Brundage later made a rough computer translation of the document, (8) which Weakland affirmed to be “an excellent summary” of the conversation. (9) According to the summary, neither Bishop Fliss nor Bishop Sklba contributed anything of substance to the discussion, so everything turned upon what Weakland told Archbishop Bertone – or did not tell him.
Weakland said that there were many victims, not all of whom had been identified, and that there was no information in the Archdiocesan files concerning the 1974 allegations. He said that there had been a threat of a civil trial, the imposition of a punishment, and that Murphy had been sent to the Diocese of Superior. It is not clear what was meant by “punishment;” this could be the recorder/interpreter’s reference to Murphy’s removal from the school. The deaf community, Weakland said, continued to be greatly indignant about the case “and it refuses every pastoral solution.” He added that Wisconsin law prevented civil or criminal trials because too much time had elapsed from the date of the offences. Murphy, he added, exhibited no remorse and did not appear to appreciate the gravity of the offences. Finally, he feared that there would be a great scandal if the case were reported in the media, noting that the offences originated in the confessional. Thus did Weakland, in the words of Alex Gibney, “plead his case.”
What was missing from this account was an explanation of the evidence or the strength of the case against Murphy. Weakland said there were “many” victims – not 100 to 200. Notably absent was the unanimous opinion of the canonists conducting the process that case was horrendous and that there was sufficient evidence to support laicization. (10) Weakland made no reference to the interviews by psychotherapist Kathy Walter, in which Murphy admitted his abuse of the confessional (11) and sexual assaults on the children. (12) And he did not point out that Murphy had lied in his letter to Cardinal Ratzinger by saying that he had not been restricted in his ministry, and that he had obeyed episcopal directives.
In Mea Maxima Culpa, Weakland emphasized his sympathy for the deaf community and the victims.
The deaf community in Milwaukee wanted to dismiss Fr. Murphy from religious life. So my heart went out to them. And it went out to the kids in particular because they had not been believed by anybody. (13)
It is thus most remarkable that, in ‘pleading his case,’ Weakland said nothing about the extent of the harm that Murphy had caused, which must have been made abundantly clear to him and to Bishop Sklba by the deaf community and Murphy’s victims, and certainly by the two letters he had received from Terry Kohut. Instead, Weakland’s description of the attitude of the deaf community portrayed them as being unreasonable and intransigent: certainly “difficult.” In effect, he presented the deaf community as part of the problem.
Based on Weakland’s account of the situation, Archbishop Bertone responded.
He first observed that the significant lapse of time was a serious problem. Bishop Sklba later referred to this as “the time lapse between obtaining the information and acting thereon.” (14) Another complication was the fact that nothing further had arisen in the 24 years he had spent in the Diocese of Superior. Much more important – and quite understandable, in view of Weakland’s anaemic presentation – he said that there were “not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial,” which seems to refer to the sufficiency of available evidence. (15)
On the other hand Archbishop Bertone said that it was unacceptable that Murphy should be able to continue to celebrate the Eucharist for the deaf community in Milwaukee, and thought it appropriate to issue written instructions to Murphy to prevent him from saying mass except with the permission of both Weakland and Bishop Fliss. (16) Obviously, at this point, he had not been made aware of the restrictions that had already been placed on Murphy; perhaps he was later told about them.
With respect to evidentiary issues, Archbishop Bertone warned them about some of the difficulties involved in conducting a trial for solicitation in confession. It appears that he asked them to consider both the gravity of the evil involved and the need to have sufficient proof of it. In this regard, he observed that “the generous law of defense in the U.S.A.” had also to be considered. This suggests that it was more difficult to secure convictions in the United States than in other countries because tribunals were more receptive to defence arguments. (17)
Ultimately, Archbishop Bertone suggested that Weakland should have Murphy examined by three psychologists. If they concluded that he was a “typical pedophile” he could be declared “impeded from the exercise of orders.” (18) However, Fr. Gianfranco Girotti, undersecretary of the Congregation, said that if Murphy did not demonstrate “clear signs of repentance,” the case should go to trial. It was also suggested that Murphy should be given a spiritual director who could meet with him every one or two months. (19)
Archbishop Bertone reiterated two key points concerning Murphy: the importance of restricting the celebration of the Eucharist, and the need to elicit remorse from him and reform him. Before the meeting ended, Weakland explained that he would have great difficulty explaining all of this to the deaf community. (20)
Bishop Sklba summarized his recollection of the meeting in an entry in a log:
385. It became clear that the Congregation was not encouraging us to proceed with any formal dismissal on the basis of 24 years of apparent good conduct and the precept impeding exercise of orders currently in effect. We were also cautioned about the difficulty of the confessional, both in terms of the strict canonical definition of the crime as well as the time lapse between obtaining the information and acting thereon. Archbishop Bertone noted that disobedience of any precept forbidding contact with community members could form the basis for another canonical process. (21)
Both the “excellent summary” of the meeting and Bishop Sklba’s note indicate that Archbishop Bertone expressed reservations, cautioned them about the difficulties they might encounter in prosecution and suggested an alternative approach, but he did not direct them to stop the judicial process. (22) That decision was left in their hands.
Return to Milwaukee
There are few publicly available documents concerning what happened after the three bishops returned from Rome. We do not know if Murphy was interviewed as planned on 30 June. It seems that he was not, as Terry Kohut says that he was informed by the Church court “that Murphy couldn’t go to his Church hearing because he was too ill,” and wouldn’t live much longer. (23) The only known “hearing” was the interview that had been scheduled for 30 June. Whatever the status of the judicial process, Weakland began preparing “a pastoral plan that would address the needs of Father Murphy, the victims of the abuse, and the wider Catholic deaf community in Milwaukee.” (24)
On 1 July, 1998 Bishop Sklba learned that the deaf community was “urgently” requesting that Murphy be registered with the state as a sex offender, that some money be provided to his victims, and that he should not be buried as a priest. He was also told that Murphy had continued “a relationship” for two years after arriving in Boulder Junction. It was, presumably, a homosexual relationship, though the name and age of the other party was not noted. (25)
22 July, 1995: Process for laicization stopped
The decision to halt the process for laicization and proceed with a “pastoral response” was made at a meeting on 22 July, 1998. Participants were Weakland, Bishop Sklba, tribunal judge Fr. Brundage, Fr. Patrick Lagges (Murphy’s advocate), Archdiocesan psychologist Dr. Elizabeth Piasecki, Chancellor Barbara Anne Cusack, and Cyndi Deehr-Koob, and Jean Muloolly. The decision to halt the judicial process is not mentioned in Bishop Sklba’s notation of the meeting. (26) However, the cover sheet for the summary of the meeting faxed by Fr. Brundage to the participants states, “Archbishop Weakland accepted the recommendations that were made for a pastoral response to the Murphy situation” (27) and a subsequent memo from Barbara Anne Cusack referred to an expected abatement (ending) of the judicial process by Fr. Brundage. (28)
It was decided that Murphy would be asked to agree to a private funeral with closed casket at St. Anne Parish in Boulder Junction. He would also be “requested” to write a letter of apology to the deaf community, and that a statement from the Archdiocese would be prepared to accompany the letter of apology. The Archdiocese would try to determine the extent of his personal assets, apparently reflecting an intention to use those assets to compensate his victims. (29)
The group planned to use formal canonical directives (precepts) to enforce the desired burial arrangements, and to “restate and tighten” the precepts issued by Weakland in December, 1995. An attempt would be made to negotiate these with Murphy, but, if he did not agree, the summary stated, “the Archbishop may directly approach the Pope to have him laicized.” With respect to “pastoral care for the deaf community,” they planned a “careful acknowledgement of abuse” in the community newsletter and continued payment for victim counselling. Oddly, under the same heading, a press release was to be prepared “in event of media coverage.” (30)
Members of the group charged with implementing the decisions went to work over the next three weeks. A letter had been sent on or shortly after 13 July by Archbishop Bertone, with the minutes of the meeting of 30 May; (31) it arrived before the end of July. By about the beginning of August, Fr. Brundage had made a rough translation of the minutes and had discussed the case with Bishop Fliss. (32) On 14 August, Chancellor Barbara Anne Cusack advised Weakland that all of the proposed precepts had been drafted and approved by Fr. Brundage. She said that they would begin the administrative process to have Murphy declared impeded from the ministry as soon as the judicial process was stopped (“abated”). Weakland approved the prepared documents. (33)
The next day, Fr. Brundage sent Bishop Fliss a copy of the English translation of the minutes provided by Cardinal Bertone (34) and drafted a letter for Weakland, (35) which was finalized and signed on 19 August. In it, Weakland stated that he had instructed Fr. Brundage to end the judicial process and would begin the process of having Murphy declared “irregular for ministry.” He stated his intention to strengthen existing restrictions to prevent Murphy from contacting the deaf community, and to “strongly urge” him to write letters of apology to known victims. He noted that he had made plans for funeral arrangements that would be “pastorally sensitive” to both Murphy’s family and the deaf community, and that the Archdiocese would continue to pay for counselling for victims. (36)
Two days later, Murphy died.
It is instructive to pause, at this point, to consider Weakland’s later public statements about what happened.
Writing to a victim on 10 September, 1998, he said:
Prior to Fr. Murphy’s death, the archdiocese had been actively pursuing a legal Church case against him. When Bishop Sklba and I were in Rome last May, we spoke very strongly and at great length about it with Vatican officials. His recent death, however, put an end to the case. (37)
Sworn testimony he gave in 2008 included the following passage:
. . .we sent it [the case] on to Rome, and once in Rome, it would have been 1998, because I was there for an Ad Limina visit and we had a meeting in the congregation for the doctrine of faith with their Canonists in which this case was discussed, which I pleaded that even though he was retired and in ill health, that he be reduced to the lay state to bring some kind of closure to this in our deaf community, and instead it dragged and he died about six months later. (38)
Recall that in Mea Maxima Culpa Weakland first erroneously attributed a year’s delay to Cardinal Ratzinger’s office. (39) He then went on in the film to describe the meeting in Rome, and what followed afterward:
This meeting was held in the last week of May. In the middle of the summer, toward August, we get a letter that this case would not go forward because Fr. Murphy was quite ill. I felt awful having to go back then to say “There is nothing more I can do.” I, I felt awful about that. (40)
Mr. Gibney brings lawyer Jeff Anderson on screen to pay qualified tribute to Weakland:
Weakland actually made an effort to do what any ordinary citizen would do. Get the guy out, and protect others. However, he did it without sacrificing his standing in the clerical culture and with the Vatican. (41)
All of this seriously misrepresents what happened, and all of the misrepresentations, not coincidentally, serve to present Weakland as Archbishop-Do-Right and “the Vatican” as the problem.
Laurie Goodstein: turning the story on its head
New York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein provides her take on all of this in Mea Maxima Culpa. Referring to the documents lawyer Jeff Anderson chose to release to her, she says:
These documents seemed to turn the whole story that we’d been writing all these years on its head. Up until then, what we thought was that American bishops were at fault. With these documents for the first time we saw communication between American bishops and in particular the office run by then Cardinal Ratzinger, in which American bishops are pleading with officials in the Vatican, repeatedly, saying “Help us get this priest out of the priesthood. The victims are asking us to defrock him.” And the response from the Vatican is to have compassion for the priest, and almost no thought at all about the victims, and you see that in these documents. (42)
This was essentially the message she conveyed in her story in the New York Times, (43) which provoked outrage from defenders of the Catholic Church, including a rebuke by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. Responding in Mea Maxima Culpa to a video clip of his remarks, (44) Goodstein says, “It appeared to me that Mr. Donohue didn’t even read the story.” (45)
That was fair comment. But it is equally fair to suggest that Ms. Goodstein didn’t read the documents, or that she didn’t understand them, or that she thought they turned the whole story on its head because she was standing on her head when she read them. The documents demonstrate that, in the Murphy case, at least two American bishops in Milwaukee were at fault. The documents demonstrate that these bishops did not once ask “the Vatican” to “defrock” Murphy, or to help them get him out of the priesthood: not even once. The documents demonstrate that the decision not to laicize Murphy was made in the U.S.A., in old Milwaukee, not by “the Vatican.”
We will return to Ms. Goodstein’s accusation that the response from “the Vatican” was to “have compassion for the priest, and almost no thought at all about the victims,” after seeing Murphy laid to rest.
August, 1998: Murphy’s funeral
Weakland had advised Archbishop Bertone that he had made pastorally sensitive plans for Murphy’s funeral. What he neglected to tell him was that the plans had been finalized only a week before his death, and that Murphy had not agreed to them. (46) Murphy probably knew nothing about them before he died, and one can be almost certain that his family did not. On 2 September, when Weakland wrote Archbishop Bertone to advise him of Murphy’s death, he reported on the funeral:
Although we thought the family had agreed to a private funeral mass at the chapel of one of our cemeteries and that the casket would be closed, they did just the opposite, defied our agreement, invited people from the deaf community to attend, had the casket open and Father dressed in full vestments. The Mass was celebrated by the Auxiliary Bishop of Milwaukee Richard Sklba. Bishop Sklba, in his carefully prepared words, alluded to the good work Father Murphy did, but also, in deference to the deaf community present, that some shadows had been cast on his ministry.
In spite of these difficulties, we are still hoping we can avoid undue publicity that would be negative toward the Church. (47)
Note the reference to an “agreement” that was “defied” by the family. Weakland sent a copy of the letter to the Papal Pro-nuncio in case the Murphy family lodged a complaint with him, since “they never took seriously the multiple accusations of sexual abuse of boys against Father Lawrence Murphy that have been reported to us and verified.” (48)
But the existence of this alleged “agreement” is brought into question by Weakland’s letter to one of the victims:
It is important for you to know that I had issued specific orders regarding the funeral arrangements for him, some of which the Murphy family chose to ignore at the time of his death. (49)
No mention of an “agreement” here: just “orders.” This is a reference to the precepts that had been drafted but never put into force. The family does appear to have agreed to a private funeral in a cemetery chapel. What follows is part of Bishop Sklba’s eulogy, which was later printed in the Archdiocesan newsletter for the deaf:
. . .His entire priesthood was devoted to the deaf community. When I first met him in the autumn of 1960 . . . he talked about St. John’s. He loved the school and its community very much. He did so much wonderful work for the youngsters and staff.
But not everything he did was good. I say that not to offend or hurt, but because it’s true. Painful accusations were made. They surfaced again in recent years, with increased bitterness. I don’t know the whole story, but I do know that the amount of damage became clear and that Father Murphy was in the process of writing letters of personal apology. The matter hadn’t yet been resolved when he died.
So to protect your grief from disruption and to respect your sorrow, this had to be a very private funeral. I can’t tell you how badly I feel about all this, for I knew Larry for almost 40 years and liked him very much. . . (emphasis added) (50)
It would seem, from this, that those making the accusations were the ones causing the pain, and that these accusers persisted and became even more bitterly accusatory as time went on. Did this demonstrate compassion for the victims? Or was the compassion to be found in the admission, “not everything he did was good”?
What was missing from these “carefully prepared words”? For that, we turn to Mea Maxima Culpa and the “painful accusations” of Terry Kohut:
I was afraid to tell my mother because I didn’t think she would believe me. She’d say ‘A priest would never do something like that to children.’ I kept it a secret. My mother had already been through so much pain. My brother had been electrocuted. My father had hung himself. My mother had been through so much pain and I didn’t want to hurt her. (51)
I would lay awake every night shaking in fear . . .I was just a little kid. You were all I had. No one at home signed. I could not communicate with them. I turned to you and what did you do? You molested me, that’s what. You told me that my mother no longer loved me and only loved my brother who had died. You isolated me from the one person who possibly could have rescued me. (52)
No, not everything Murphy did was good.
In what he thought would remain a private letter, Weakland identified the focus of his concern and his compassion:
I did not want a public funeral Mass. . . in order to avoid the kind of publicity that would simply have dragged his name across the pages of the press in a way that we don’t need. I am sure you understand the sentiment among so many members of the deaf community and how emotional they are about this issue. I talked in Rome at great length about how to handle all of this, so that we would not create any more negative publicity towards Father Murphy than need be. I can readily assure you, Sister, that if I had permitted a public funeral of the kind that was wished for, it would have been awful in terms of the reaction and how the press would then have dealt with all that is out there. To protect Father Murphy’s good name I had to do what I did and keep this as quiet as possible. So far we have succeeded in preserving his reputation, and I hope we are able to do so in the future. . . please do not agitate the community to the point where the press would simply destroy his name. We need healing now in the deaf community . . . so that we can put this chapter behind us and move ahead. (53)
The evidence for misplaced compassion
We can now usefully return to Laurie Goodstein’s accusation that, particularly in contrast to the American bishops, responses from “the Vatican” demonstrated “compassion for the priest, and almost no thought at all about the victims.” The evidence relevant to this assertion is found in three documents: the minutes of the meeting of 30 May, the letter from Archbishop Bertone sent with the minutes, and Archbishop Bertone’s response to the news of Murphy’s death.
With respect to the meeting of 30 May, it is true that Archbishop Bertone and other curial officials did not discuss the plight of the victims. There are two reasons for this.
First: Weakland did not draw attention to the injury done to the victims or to their suffering: only to the ‘indignation’ of the deaf community and the fact that it was refusing “every pastoral solution.”
Second: Bertone was responding to a request for advice about a canonical process, so his focus was on the nature and sufficiency of evidence, problems associated with proving the offence, and the problem presented by the accused himself. Bluntly, in this kind of discussion, the harm suffered by victims is secondary. The fact that a victim has suffered terrible injury is not relevant to determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence to convict an accused, or in evaluating problems that can arise because of the rules of evidence. In this respect, canon law is no different from the law of the land.
Finally, Archbishop Bertone’s stress on the need for Murphy to develop a sense of remorse and a desire for reform might be understood as demonstrating compassion, but it is difficult to see how this differs from the stress often placed on the remorse and reform of offenders in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
Turning to Archbishop Bertone’s letters, when he forwarded the minutes of the meeting of 30 May, 1998, he closed with the hope that Murphy would “demonstrate a willingness to cooperate in the solution to this painful case which will favour the good of souls and avoid scandal.” (54) When acknowledging news of Murphy’s death, he said, “The Dicastery commends Father Murphy to the mercy of God, and shares with you the hope that the Church will be spared any undue publicity from this matter.” (55)
That is the extent of the compassion demonstrated by “the Vatican” for the priest.
Archbishop Bertone’s final letter can be criticized in two respects. His failure to demonstrate concern for the victims can be seen as insensitive, and his hope that the Church would be spared “undue publicity” may reflect misplaced priorities. Alternatively, his closing remarks may simply have been an acknowledgement of Weakland’s principal concerns.
Ms. Goodstein can use the documents to make the case that there was inordinate concern for the priest and almost no thought at all about the victims, but she cannot make that case against “the Vatican.” The documents cannot possibly support that charge against “the Vatican,” even if one reads them standing on one’s head between Mr. Gibney’s two empty chairs.
12 March 2013
1. Synopsis of case against the Reverend Lawrence Murphy, undated, ca. April, 1998 (Accessed 2013-03-08)
2. Letter dated 15 May, 1998 from Fr. Patrick Lagges to Fr. Thomas Brundage (Accessed 2013-03-08)
3. Note undated, ca. 1-15 May, 1998 from Fr. Thomas Brundage to bishops (Accessed 2013-03-08)
7. Riassunto dell’incontro dei Superiori CDF gli Ecc.mi Presuli interessati al caso del Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, sacerdote accusato di sollecitazione in Confessione, 30 maggio, 1998 (Accessed 2013-03-08)
8. Resumé of the meeting of the Superiors of CDF with the prelates interested to the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitation in Confession (30 May, 1998) p. 1 (Accessed 2013-03-09)
9. Letter dated 19 August, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (Accessed 2013-03-08)
10. Notes dated 31 October, 1997: Investigation results. (Accessed 2013-03-08)
12. Notes of Kathy Lyn Walter, p. 2. (Accessed 2013-03-06)
14. Bishop Sklba’s log (Entry 385) (Accessed 2013-03-08)
15. Resumé of the meeting of the Superiors of CDF with with the prelates interested to the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitaton in Confession (30 May, 1998) p. 1 (Accessed 2013-03-09)
16. Resumé of the meeting of the Superiors of CDF with with the prelates interested to the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitaton in Confession (30 May, 1998) p. 1 (Accessed 2013-03-09)
17. Resumé of the meeting of the Superiors of CDF with with the prelates interested to the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitaton in Confession (30 May, 1998) p. 2 (Accessed 2013-03-09)
19. Resumé of the meeting of the Superiors of CDF with with the prelates interested to the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitaton in Confession (30 May, 1998) p. 2 (Accessed 2013-03-09)
20. Resumé of the meeting of the Superiors of CDF with with the prelates interested to the case of the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, a priest accused of solicitaton in Confession (30 May, 1998) p. 2 (Accessed 2013-03-09)
21. Bishop Sklba’s log (Entry 385) (Accessed 2013-03-08)
22. See also Statement by the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico. Lombardi, regarding the Murphy case. 24 March, 2010 (Accessed 2013-03-09)
24. Letter dated 19 August, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (Accessed 2013-03-09)
25. Bishop Sklba’s log (Entry 491) (Accessed 2013-03-12)
26. Bishop Sklba’s log (Entry 522) (Accessed 2013-03-12)
27. Fax for Bishop Fliss from Fr. Tom Brundage dated 7 August, 1998, 10:20 am (Accessed 2013-03-08)
28. Memo dated 14 August, 1998 from Barbara Anne Cusack to Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Sklba (Accessed 2013-03-08)
29. Bishop Sklba’s log (Entry 522) (Accessed 2013-03-12)
30. Memo faxed 7 August, 1998, from Fr. Thomas Brundage to Archbishop Weakland, Bishop Sklba, Barbara Anne Cusack, Cyndi Deehr, Liz Piasecki, Patrick Lagges, Jean Mullolly, Follow-up to the meeting regarding Fr. Lawrence Murphy, July 22, 1998. (Accessed 2013-03-12)
31. Letter dated 13 July, 1998 from Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone to Archbishop Rembert Weakland. (Accessed 2013-03-08)
32. Letter dated 15 August, 1998 from Fr. Thomas Brundage to Bishop Fliss (Accessed 2013-03-08)
33. Memo dated 14 August, 1998 from Barbara Anne Cusack to Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Sklba (Accessed 2013-03-08)
34. Letter dated 15 August, 1998 from Fr. Thomas Brundage to Bishop Fliss (Accessed 2013-03-08)
35. Draft letter dated 15 August prepared by Fr. Thomas Brundage for Archbishop Rembert Weakland (Accessed 2013-03-08)
36. Letter dated 19 August, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (Accessed 2013-03-05)
37. Letter dated 10 September, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to _____ (Accessed 2013-03-09)
38. Deposition of Archbishop Emeritus Rembert G. Weakland, O.S. B., 5-6 June, 2008, p. 53 (Accessed 2013-03-02)
43. Goodstein Laurie, “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys.” New York Times, 24 March, 2010 (Accessed 2013-02-20)
46. Memo dated 14 August, 1998 from Barbara Anne Cusack to Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Sklba (Accessed 2013-03-08)
47. Letter dated 2 September, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (Accessed 2013-03-09)
48. Letter dated 2 September, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Archbishop Agostino Cacciavillan (Accessed 2013-03-09)
49. Letter dated 10 September, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to _____ (Accessed 2013-03-09)
50. Hand in Hand, October, 1998. (Accessed 2013-03-09)
52. Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God (1:05:22-1:06:10). The film presents only parts of the letter. The film version of the original text is slightly modified and adds an additional detail not found in the original (that Murphy told him that his mother only loved his brother who had died), probably disclosed by Kohut during the filming. For the full text of the original, see Letter dated 12 February, 1995 from Terry Kohut to Mr. Lawrence Murphy (Accessed 2013-02-20)
53. Letter dated 16 October, 1998 from Archbishop Rembert Weakland to Sister _____ () (Accessed 2013-03-09)
54. Letter dated 13 July, 1998 from Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone to Archbishop Rembert Weakland. (Accessed 2013-03-08)
55. Letter dated 28 September, 1998 from Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone to Archbishop Rembert Weakland. (Accessed 2013-003-09)