|
|
|
|
           |
       | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law October 16, 2002, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston On October 16, 2002, Cardinal Bernard F. Law was deposed by Boston lawyer Roderick MacLeish Jr. in connection with civil lawsuits filed against Law by three alleged victims of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley. Questioning also took place on Aug. 13-14 and Oct. 11, 2002. Two previous days of deposition were taken June 5 and June 7, 2002.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
GREGORY FORD, et al.,
Plaintiff,
Superior Court
vs. Civil Action
No. 02-0626
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a,
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,
Defendants.
---------------------------------
PAUL W. BUSA,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action
No. 02-0822
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a,
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------
ANTHONY DRISCOLL,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action
No. 02-1737
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a,
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants.
THE SIXTH DAY OF THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by
the Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil
Procedure, before Kathleen L. Good, Registered
Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the
offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International
Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, on
Wednesday, October 16, 2002, commencing at 10:04
a.m.
K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES APPEARANCES: Greenberg TraurigALSO PRESENT: George Libbares, Videographer WITNESS CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH DIRECT EXAMINATION THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Libbares. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts 0. Today is October 16, 2002, and the time is 10:04 a.m. This is the continued deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law, Volume 6, in the following matter being heard in Suffolk Superior Court: Gregory Ford, et. al., Plaintiffs, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, Civil Action 02- and related actions. This deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is Kathy Good of K. L. Good & Associates. Counsel will now state their appearances and the examination will continue. MR. MacLEISH: Good morning, Cardinal, Eric MacLeish for the plaintiffs. MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., for His Eminence Cardinal Law. MR. TODD: J. Owen Todd, personal counsel for Cardinal Law. MR. MacLEISH: Good morning, Cardinal. THE WITNESS: Good morning. MR. ROGERS: Can I just interpose. Maybe I missed it, but when the introduction was being given, we do have an understanding and an agreement that this deposition is not just in the Ford case, but in all of the pending Shanley cases, do we not? MR. MacLEISH: It is in all -- we had an agreement on Magni and the three consolidated cases. I don't think we have an agreement yet on the W case or the R case, but I'm perfectly willing to talk to you about that. I don't see the need, absent some extraordinary circumstances, to bring the Cardinal back for depositions in those depositions. We have not yet reached agreement on that. We did reach it on four cases. CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH, cont.
Q: Good morning, Cardinal. A: Good morning. Q: Again, thank you for coming in today. I'd like to return to Exhibit 87, which is before you now, which is the letter from Bishop D'Arcy to you concerning John Geoghan, dated December 7, 1984. Would you like a moment to review that letter? A: I would, thank you. (Pause.) Q: Have you had the opportunity to review the letter, Cardinal? A: I have. Q: And do you remember meeting with Bishop D'Arcy in response to this letter? A: I don't recall meeting with Bishop D'Arcy in response to this letter. Q: As I understand it, it was your earlier testimony that in the matters relating to assignments of priests, you would typically rely upon your regional bishops; is that not correct? A: You know, I'd want to see if I could see that -- Q: Okay. A: -- testimony as to what I said. But we're talking here at a relatively early time in my ministry. Q: That's correct. A: And one of the issues that I see out of this letter is precisely to the point that you raise, and that is, what should be the involvement of regional bishops in assignments? And I believe that that's -- I believe that when Bishop D'Arcy speaks of helpful and constructive conversations on this with both Father Banks and Father Oates, it is with -- it is relative to what that participation should be. It was, in part, as a consequence of this, I'm sure, that it became routine. It certainly is routine now. And I can't say exactly when it became routine, but it was influenced by this, that before an assignment would be made, there would be -- the Personnel Office would be in touch with the regional bishop to determine what the regional bishop thought about that assignment. Q: Do you, as you sit here today, have a memory of receiving this letter of December 7, 1984, from Bishop D'Arcy? A: I cannot recollect receiving the letter. I can recollect the issue raised by the letter having been a matter to be discussed, yes. Q: All right. And just so we're clear, in Paragraph No. 1, what Bishop D'Arcy numbers as No. 1, he states: "Father Geoghan has a history of homosexual involvement with young boys. I understand his abrupt departure from St. Brendan's, Dorchester, may be related to this problem." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And this was right at the time when -- look in the first paragraph of the letter -- when John Geoghan had been assigned to St. Julia's in Weston. Do you see that? A: I do, yes. Q: And that was an assignment that was made by you; is that correct? A: It was. Q: Okay. And when you made that assignment, Cardinal Law, did you know that Father Geoghan had, in the words of Bishop D'Arcy, a history of homosexual involvement with young boys? A: I knew that there had been a problem at St. Brendan's. I did not know, and do not recollect knowing at that point, of an earlier history beyond that. But it was sufficient to have known of St. Brendan's, and he, as you know -- and I think we went over it last time -- was removed from St. Brendan's -- well, the letter says this here. Q: Yes. A: And it was -- he was not simply reassigned to St. Julia's, but there was assurance given, reliance upon medical review that this could be done safely. Q: All right. Do you recall that was done by Dr. Mullins and a Dr. Brennan? A: I don't recall -- I couldn't recall the names, but I'm sure that it's there in the records. Q: So your testimony, Cardinal, is that you were relying on medical advice, of course, but the final decision on the assignment was yours. Is that a fair characterization? A: Any assignment of a priest in this diocese has to have my signature. Q: Right. Including your assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's? A: Any assignment of a priest in this Archdiocese has to have my signature. Q: Okay. Now, do you remember in 1984, if we could focus on, again, on that period, Cardinal, whether you had in place any system that ensured you that the medical professionals that were providing you with advice were qualified in this particular area? When I say "this particular area," I mean assessment of individuals who had a history of sexual misconduct with minors? A: In 1984, and subsequently, I relied on those assisting me in administration of the Archdiocese in the areas of the kind of an issue that we're discussing now. That would have been originally the Moderator of the Curia, Vicar General. Later that responsibility would have devolved upon the Secretary for Clergy Personnel. Subsequently would have been the Delegate. But whoever the person was that was handling those cases, I relied on those persons to consult with, to refer to either physicians, psychiatrists or medical institutions that seemed -- that seemed worthy. I didn't enter into the decision as to this physician, that center. I really relied on those persons who would be more knowledgeable because they would be following up. They would have some reason to know these individuals. Q: So that would include, at the beginning, it would include Bishop Daily; is that correct? And then Bishop Banks, then Father McCormack; is that correct? A: In the very beginning, it would have included Bishop Daily for the length of time that he was here. And subsequently, it would have included Bishop Banks and Father McCormack. Q: Well, what did you do, Cardinal, to satisfy yourself that those three individuals had the qualifications to make recommendations to you concerning priests who had been the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct? MR. TODD: I object to the form. Q: Do you understand the question, Cardinal? A: Not exactly. Would you repeat it. Q: Let me try again. You testified that you relied upon certain individuals in ensuring that the professionals that were relied upon were qualified. Do you remember that testimony? A: Yes. Q: Okay. What did you do yourself to ensure that those individuals, Bishop Banks, Bishop Daily, Father McCormack, possessed qualifications to make recommendations to you on medical professionals that would evaluate priests accused of sexual misconduct? A: I simply relied on their general intelligence, their general knowledge, their recognition along with me of the importance of this issue, the importance of being able to get responsible assistance in reaching judgments, and trusted their judgment. Q: So you're not aware of any specialized training or expertise that Father Daily, I mean, Bishop Daily, Bishop Banks or Bishop McCormack, I'm sorry, Father McCormack, had in relationship to the assessment of individuals who had been accused of sexual misconduct with minors? MR. TODD: Object to form. A: I was relying on their general intelligence, their sense of responsibility, the fact that they would not simply open up a book and go to the Yellow Pages, but that they would use sound judgment in reaching these kinds of decisions. I didn't second guess them. Q: I understand. My question is: Were you aware of any specialized knowledge that they possessed in this area concerning individuals who'd been accused of sexual misconduct? I understand your acknowledgement of their general intelligence. I'm asking if you knew of any specialized knowledge they had. A: The reason why, Mr. MacLeish, these individuals were relying on those who would be qualified to render some judgments about this pathology, is that they themselves lacked it. Priests generally would not have this kind of expertise. As a matter of fact, I think I said in some earlier moment sitting here that one of the things that is very important is for priests themselves and for others to realize that priests generally do not have -- generally, do not have expertise as psychologists. They may, but that's incidental to their training as a priest. They -- one of the things that a priest should know is the need to rely upon others and that's what is in play here. Q: But, Cardinal, do you ever recall stating to either Bishop Banks, Bishop Daily or Father McCormack or anyone else in the Archdiocese that we need to get professionals in this field who have had experience in assessing individuals who have been accused of sex crimes? Do you ever recall that? A: I cannot, sitting here and going back 19 years -- which is part of what you're doing -- recall the specifics of a conversation in the detail or in the specificity that you're suggesting. On the other hand, I certainly do recall that in the general handling of this situation, it was clear from the perspective of my desire, but also clear from the desire of those working with me, that the assessments that we would receive would be the kind of assessments that could be relied upon with confidence because of the competence of the medical staff or of the centers. Q: All right. Cardinal Law, you always understood during this entire period from 1984 to 1989, that the sexual molestation of young children was something that was morally reprehensible? You always understood that? A: Morally reprehensible, certainly. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:20. We're off the record (Discussion off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:24. We're on the record. Q: Cardinal Law, just so that we're clear, you have testified that sexual molestation of children is morally wrong, reprehensible; is that correct? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. A: I think, yes, that what you're stating is true. That it -- this is a morally reprehensible act. Q: Okay. And certainly, you knew in 1984 that if it happened once with a child, there was the possibility that it could happen again; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. A: In 1984, I did not have the knowledge that I have in 2002. And I cannot sit here with certainty and say that in 1984, I knew that this could happen again. You know, was it possible that a person who had been guilty of an act of sexual abuse of a child, was it possible that with treatment and with reinforcement of spiritual motivation, that that person would be able to function safely? My presumption was that that was possible in 1984 and subsequently was. Q: And it was also possible that even with treatment and spiritual reinforcement, that person would re-offend again, correct? A: I would imagine that in terms of human behavior, it would be almost impossible to predict absolutely what the future is going to be in any kind of human behavior. Q: Right. So when you would receive these medical assessments -- and let's take the one with John Geoghan -- it was impossible for you to predict whether or not John Geoghan would re-offend again? MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative and asked and answered. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. A: It seems to me that what you're asking me is something that I have attempted to answer before. My memory may not serve me well. It may not have been in this deposition, this series of depositions with you. It may have been somewhere else. But the possibility -- but what happens, is the more the question is asked, the more I'm able to think about it. Q: That's fine. I don't think we've asked it with relation to John Geoghan, but if you could try to answer it. A: All right. The question, again, is whether or not -- Q: Let me start again. A: All right. Q: You indicated that it was possible for -- you understood in 1984, that it was possible that with treatment and spiritual reinforcement, the priest would not re-offend again. Is that the substance of your testimony several minutes ago? A: That it would -- but I also said that it is impossible to predict -- Q: Right. A: -- with a hundred percent assurance what a human being will do in any way in his life. Because first of all, we do have free will. Secondly, we are impacted by psychological and emotional conditions which sometimes go beyond free will. And so the best you can do in predicting human behavior, it seems to me, is amass as much evidence as you can from sources that you believe to be reliable, to indicate whether or not a decision that you must make is a reasonable decision or not. That's the most you can do. Q: Right. And with respect to the role of these medical assessments, after the medical assessment was received in the case of John Geoghan, you would have to balance the priest's interest in serving again as opposed to the risk that he would re-offend again. Is that not correct? A: Would you state the first part of that again. Q: Sure. Let's back up Cardinal. You've got a letter, December 7, 1984, from Bishop D'Arcy, expressing concern, as it says in the first paragraph, about John Geoghan's assignment as an associate at St. Julia's in Weston. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: This was a fairly unusual letter for you to receive from an auxiliary bishop; is that correct? A: It was, right. Q: And it recounts what Bishop D'Arcy describes as a history of homosexual involvement of Father Geoghan with young boys. Do you see that? MR. TODD: Objection. A: That's correct, yes. Q: And then it goes on, in the second paragraph, to state as follows. This is the third sentence, Cardinal. "It is difficult to deal with the situation because Monsignor" -- I believe that is Monsignor Rossiter -- "is a good priest. He is always there. He is concerned. He does the traditional things very well, but there are many complaints from good people and there have been since I have come to this region, and, indeed, long before that." That's referring to Monsignor Rossiter, I believe. Is that how you understood it at the time? A: That's correct. And it would be the way I understand it now. That there was -- yes. Q: Okay. And then you'll see on the second page, there's a portion that was blanked out by the Archdiocese, but it states, in the first full paragraph, it states: "I'm afraid that this assignment has complicated a difficult situation." Did you understand that to mean to be the assignment of John Geoghan, Cardinal? A: I understood that, yes. Q: It says: "If something happens, the parishioners, already angry and divided, will be convinced that the Archdiocese has no concern for their welfare and simply sends them priests with problems." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And at the time, Cardinal, is it fair to state that when Bishop D'Arcy was saying "if something happens," he was referring to John Geoghan re-offending? Is that the way you understood that? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection. A: I cannot answer what he had in mind there. Q: As you read it now, how do you understand it? A: Well, as I read it now, given the context of this deposition, obviously, I would be -- I would read it in the context of the deposition. But I think also it's important to point out that the problem -- I hesitate to say this because of the positive things that Bishop D'Arcy says about Monsignor Rossiter, in which I would concur -- but I think that he's talking about Monsignor Rossiter as possibly a problem in terms of the relationship with the people. Q: Well, if something happens, he's referring -- this is what he says: "If something happens, the parishioners, already angry and divided, will be convinced that the Archdiocese has no concern for their welfare and simply sends them priests with problems." Then he goes on to say: "On the other hand, if Father Geoghan is now removed, parishioners will quickly claim once that again Monsignor Rossiter cannot live with other priests." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: So looking at that paragraph, Cardinal, is it fair to state that your understanding is that when Bishop D'Arcy said "if something happens," he's referring about John Geoghan re-offending? MR. TODD: His present understanding? MR. MacLEISH: Present understanding. A: Yes. I would read it that way. Q: Did you ever call up Bishop D'Arcy and ask for a clarification of any portion of this letter, that you can recall, back in '84 or early '85? A: I do not recall calling Father D'Arcy, Bishop D'Arcy for a clarification because, as he has indicated already in the letter, "I have had helpful and constructive conversations on this with both Father Banks and Father Oates." Q: Right. A: There had been an intervention about which Bishop D'Arcy may not have been aware. I presume that he became aware in the course of discussions. Q: All right. But he wrote to you, Cardinal Law -- this is a letter that was sent to you, not Bishop Banks or Father Oates, correct? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. A: But it was appropriate to involve both Father Banks and -- Q: Of course. A: -- Father Oates. Q: Of course. And then in the second to last paragraph after the paragraph I just read, it states, from Bishop D'Arcy: "I am concerned about further scandal in this parish and further division and more misunderstanding by this assignment." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And you were -- did you share that concern about scandal, Cardinal Law, at this parish? MR. TODD: In 1984? MR. MacLEISH: Yes. A: In 1984, I -- in 1984, in handling this case, I handled this case as -- in a way that I felt was responsible, relying upon those in whom I had reason and have reason to have confidence. If I had been fearful that there was likely to be scandal resulting from the acting out, the sexual abuse of minors, the appointment would not have been made. Q: Right. I understand that. But was the subject of scandal at this parish something that you can recall being concerned about in 1984? A: May I ask -- I understand the word "scandal" is used -- Q: Right. A: -- in this letter. Q: That's by Bishop D'Arcy. A: And I can't tell you in what way he is using the word "scandal." Q: Okay. A: Given the context of the letter, it could -- it could refer to a scandal in the fact that there is a pastor that is not generally appreciated or at least not appreciated by a number of people because of his style. That creates a certain scandal. Q: It does? A: I don't see the word "scandal" here in this letter as being specifically related to the issue of sexual abuse of minors. You're not implying that, are you? Q: No. I think you would also concur with me if in fact John Geoghan re-offended and people learned about it at St. Julia, that that had the potential to create a scandal; is that correct? A: Certainly. Q: And you were concerned about preventing scandals, is that not correct, in 1984? A: I was concerned that nothing -- I'm concerned in 2002 as well. Q: Let's talk about '84. A: Fine. But you know, it isn't a time-conditioned concern. It's a continuing concern that priests function responsibly and well. And when they don't, when they don't, there is scandal in the classical sense of people having their faith and confidence in what the Church is about shaken because of the action of others. Q: Well, scandal suggests, by its very meaning, does it not, Cardinal Law, that the matter becomes, at least to some, whether it's the congregation -- let me withdraw that question. The word "scandal" by its very terms suggests the information that is the subject of the scandal becomes public in some way, correct? A: Well, people can take scandal -- you know, individuals can take scandal -- if one person takes scandal, it's a bad thing. Q: All right. Let's go on because I think we might get clarification later on in the letter from Bishop D'Arcy. A: Fine. Q: The second to last paragraph, three quarters of the way down, if you could follow with me. "While no parish can handle these shocking situations that we have witnessed recently, this parish is most vulnerable. I wonder if Father Geoghan should not be reduced to just weekend work while receiving some kind of therapy." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Now, that suggestion of Bishop D'Arcy's made in December of 1984, was that a suggestion that you in any way followed up on or implemented? A: As you will see from Father -- Bishop D'Arcy's own action, this letter was copied to both Father Banks and to Father Oates. Q: Right. A: And both Father Banks and Father Oates appropriately followed this up with discussion with Bishop D'Arcy. And so I'm certain that in those -- I'm certain, I'm morally certain, given what he says in that same paragraph that you've just referred to several times here again, and that first sentence, that that discussion was -- that that point would have been raised in those discussions. Q: Do you have any personal knowledge of that, Cardinal Law, that there was a discussion between Bishop D'Arcy, Father Oates and Bishop Banks on the subject of whether John Geoghan should be reduced to weekend work at St. Julia's while receiving some kind of therapy? Do you know that? A: I do not know the specifics of the discussion, but that there was a such a discussion, the letter itself attests. And they would have received copies of this letter. So I'm certain that that would have been weighed. Q: I'm asking, do you know, Cardinal Law, from your own knowledge -- which would include what you were told -- whether or not there was a follow-up meeting involving Bishop Banks, Father Oates and Bishop D'Arcy concerning the suggestion made in this letter that Father Geoghan be reduced to just weekend work at St. Julia's while receiving some kind of therapy? Do you know that? A: I do not know the content in that kind of specificity of the discussions that went on between Bishop D'Arcy, Father Banks and Father Oates, no. Q: Do you know whether there, for certainty, Cardinal Law, whether there even was such a discussion between Bishop D'Arcy, Father Oates and Bishop Banks? A: I cannot say that for certainty. Q: The question is, Cardinal Law, what -- since this letter was sent to you, and at the end, for the reasons that are recounted in the letter, there's a suggestion that's made by Bishop D'Arcy, he states: "I wonder if Father Geoghan should not be reduced to just weekend work while receiving some kind of therapy." I take it your testimony is that you don't recall at the present time whether you did anything specific to follow-up on that recommendation? A: I've tried to state many, many times here that in these matters, I relied upon my Moderator for the Curia, subsequently my Secretary for Clergy Personnel, and subsequently my Delegate to handle these cases, to follow these cases up by very specific intent. And I cannot, sitting here, tell you what discussions went on in what time frame between Father Banks and Father Oates and Bishop D'Arcy. But I feel quite certain that Father Banks and Bishop D'Arcy would have had a conversation concerning this matter. Q: But that's speculation, Cardinal? That's not -- A: That's -- Q: Excuse me. MR. TODD: Objection. Q: That's speculation. That's not based on your personal knowledge; is that correct? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. A: It's speculation based upon the modus operandi that had developed between these individuals and myself in pursuing this type of matter, yes. Q: Cardinal, when you made the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's, I think you testified that you were aware of one situation at St. Brendan's in Dorchester when you made the assignment where Father Geoghan was accused of sexual misconduct. Do you see that? Was that your testimony this morning? A: I certainly was aware that there was a problem at St. Brendan's, yes. Q: You'll see here that Bishop D'Arcy recounts that, on the first page, that "Father Geoghan has a history of homosexual involvement with young boys." Do you see that? A: I do see that. Q: And that would have been new information to you? A: I cannot recollect what my knowledge was at that time as distinct from what my knowledge is at this time. But my very vague recollection is that I would have been under the -- I would have been operating under the knowledge of the St. Brendan's situation at that time. Q: All right. And certainly, you had the power, after receiving this letter from Bishop D'Arcy, to remove the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's. You did have that power; is that correct? A: I had that power, yes. Q: You also had the power, did you not, to inform the parishioners at St. Julia's that there had been, in the words of Bishop D'Arcy, a history of homosexual involvement of John Geoghan with young boys. You had the power to do that; is that correct? A: I would have had the power to do that. Q: But consistent with your unwritten policy, you did not instruct anyone to do that; is that correct? A: I did not. Q: Okay. Are you aware, Cardinal Law, of action taken by other dioceses, such as the Diocese of St. Paul, to inform parishioners about past abuses committed by their parish priests during the 1980s? A: I am not. Q: You attended, I think we established, all of the NCCB and U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops conferences; is that correct? A: I'm not -- you know, if I said that, I would need to -- someone would need to check the minutes. I attended all that I was able to attend. Q: Right. A: There may have been some occasion when there would have been a conflict with a responsibility for something -- for example, if you're serving on a congregation in Rome and the congregation happens to meet at the same time, that may necessitate -- there are a few times when I've missed the general meetings, but I think I have a pretty good record. Q: Okay. And the meeting in 1985 at Collegeville, Minnesota? A: I was at Collegeville in 1985. Q: All right. Now, Cardinal Law, you'll see on the second page of Exhibit 87, the statement I just read just a portion of -- I'm going to read again -- "While no parish can handle these shocking situations that we have witnessed recently." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Now, you'll see that the word "situations" is in the plural; is that correct? A: I do. Q: And you had started in Boston in about April, March or April of 1984; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And I think we've already been through the O'Sullivan case, which occurred shortly after you arrived in Boston; is that correct? A: I believe so, yes. Q: And that was a case involving a priest who was accused of sexual misconduct with a minor; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Do you recall in 1984, as of December of 1984, whether there were also in front of you other situations apart from the O'Sullivan case and the Geoghan case involving priests accused of sexual misconduct? A: I must say that, again, as I sit here and try to put myself back in December 7, 1984 -- Q: Right. A: -- I don't remember. I don't remember the specifics of other cases or I don't remember other cases. Q: Okay. You do know, however, that after Bishop D'Arcy's letter was received, there was no change that was implemented with respect to Father Geoghan's work at St. Julia's. He continued as a full-time parish priest. You're aware of that, are you not? A: I'm aware of the fact that Father Geoghan was removed from St. Brendan's; that we received a medical report on him; that on the basis of that medical report, it was recommended that an assignment would be appropriate; and it was on that basis that that assignment was made. Q: My question was different, Cardinal Law. I'm asking you whether on the basis of Bishop D'Arcy's recommendations contained in Exhibit 87, the suggestion is "wondering if Father Geoghan should not be reduced to just weekend work while receiving some kind of therapy," you know now that that specific proposal, wondering, suggestion of Bishop D'Arcy was not in fact implemented for John Geoghan following December of 1984. Is that correct? A: I do not believe that that suggestion was implemented. As I indicated to you earlier, to an earlier question, I would feel confident that that suggestion would have been discussed with the person, with certainly Bishop Banks, Father Banks then, and Bishop D'Arcy. Q: But, again, you do not know whether any such discussion took place, but you do know that there was no change in the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's? A: That's correct. Q: All right. Now, you again stated that, in response to a question I just asked, that decisions were made about the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's on the basis, I think was your exact words, of medical recommendations. Do you recall that? A: Yes, I recall that. Q: Just to be clear, Cardinal Law, no medical recommendation that you ever received gave an unqualified bill of health to any parish priest who had been accused of sexual misconduct? MR. ROGERS: Objection. MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. Q: Do you understand the question? A: I understand the question, but in order to answer that question, I would have to have before me every single recommendation that I've received medically, the diocese has received. Q: Well, I'm not going to bring them all up now. We don't have all of them yet. But perhaps we will at some future time. I want to just be clear on the protocol. The medical report is received, but then would you not agree with me that there is the exercise of some judgment that is made, that was made in 1984 following the receipt of the medical report as to whether or not the priest was appropriate for parish ministry? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered many times prior to today. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead, Cardinal Law. A: As you know, because we've gone over this a lot, on many different occasions in these depositions -- and my answer would not be different now than it was the first time you asked me this -- the policy under which we were operating was that an accusation against a priest would be made; that accusation would in some way be assessed; and the priest would be evaluated and in some instances receive treatment. As time went on, the treatment would be -- would be very often in-patient treatment. And on the basis of that, there would be an evaluation and there would be some type of a report, a final report. And it would be on the basis of that that a -- that a judgment would be made, a recommendation would be made by either -- depending on the point of time -- the Vicar General or the Secretary for Personnel or the Delegate as to whether or not an assignment would be appropriate and what kind of a assignment, if there would be a limitation. After '93, that recommendation -- Q: Wait. A: If you'd let me finish my answer. Q: Sure, sure. Absolutely. A: Because I think it is pertinent, Mr. MacLeish. You may not think it pertinent but -- MR. TODD: Go ahead. Finish. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. Finish your answer. A: After '93, that recommendation of the Delegate -- and it would have been the Delegate in '93 -- would go before a review board consisting mainly of lay persons, including, among others, a retired chief justice of the superior court, the parent of a victim, psychiatrist, and then they would render their judgment. And it was after receiving that, that I would make a determination as to whether or not that recommendation would be followed. And that's -- that is how the process evolved. At the point in time, it would have been -- it would have been medical recommendation upon -- it would have been on the basis of that, that an informed judgment would be made by the appropriate person recommending what should be done. Q: An informed judgment made within the Archdiocese? A: Yes. Q: Now, you just stated several minutes ago that, you made the remark that it's impossible to predict human behavior. A: I did. Q: And certainly, you would agree with me from your knowledge of human behavior that one of the things that you look for in terms of determining the future of human behavior is what has happened in the past. Would you agree with that as a general statement? A: I would agree with that as a general statement with the understanding that two things can impact the future of our behavior. Q: Right. A: One is a medical intervention -- Q: Right. A: -- in terms of both of therapy and in terms of drugs, if it's a psychological problem. And then another thing that can impact is, while it's much, much -- it's impossible to predict -- Q: Right. A: -- but which does impact -- and I truly believe does change human behavior, the pattern of human behavior -- is the grace of God. Q: Cardinal, at least with respect to John Geoghan after 1984, neither treatment nor the grace of God, you would agree with me, changed his behavior? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. Q: Do you understand the question? A: I understand that you're asking me about 1984. But now you're moving forward -- Q: Right. A: -- in the life of John Geoghan. Q: Right, right. A: So with your indulgence, I too would like to move forward, and I'd like to move forward to the decision that I made in 2002, January, and which is the policy of this Archdiocese now. And that, I think, implicitly answers your question as to how I see that issue now. And that is that no one who has -- no one who has sexually abused a minor may have a position in the Church as a clergy person under any circumstances and -- Q: Go ahead. A: And I think that that would indicate to you that however the grace of God may be working in a person's soul -- and it is very difficult for us to say that -- that the nature of this pathology is such that one cannot take that risk. Q: Cardinal, my question was at least with respect to John Geoghan, you know, do you not, that there were individuals at St. Julia's after 1984 that have come forward to claim that they were sexually abused by John Geoghan. Is that correct? A: I cannot -- MR. TODD: That wasn't your question. MR. MacLEISH: No. I'm asking him a different question. You can answer the question. MR. TODD: Yes, but you said your question was. MR. MacLEISH: Well, he didn't respond to my earlier question so I'm trying another question. MR. TODD: I think he did. Okay. It's another question. MR. MacLEISH: It's another question. MR. TODD: Different question. MR. MacLEISH: Different question because I didn't get a response on the first. MR. ROGERS: Objection to your comments. Move to strike. THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish, I would really like you to repeat that earlier question because I'm trying to answer the questions as you put to me and I wouldn't want the record to suggest that I'm not trying to answer your questions. MR. MacLEISH: I'm going to withdraw that earlier question and we can come back to it on your cross-examination. But let's move forward. Q: You now are aware, regardless of what judgments were made about John Geoghan in 1984, there was a group of individuals that came forward to claim after 1984 that they were sexually molested by John Geoghan; is that correct? A: I don't have a specific knowledge of who has come forward and where those allegations were made. But in a general way, my answer to your -- in a general fashion -- my answer to your question is yes, without knowing the specifics. Q: Don't you know, Cardinal Law, from the case that was just settled, that there was a group of individuals included in that settlement of the Archdiocese who claimed that they were molested at St. Julia's in Weston after December of 1984? A: I'm aware that there were a number of cases settled, and I am really not able to apportion out where the -- where the actions occurred. Q: Do you believe -- A: I certainly -- no, I don't deny at all -- the answer -- I think I answered your question yes in a general way, I would have that knowledge, but I wouldn't have it in specifics. Q: Well, the Archdiocese itself in 1989, sent John Geoghan back to the Institute for Living for another assessment; is that correct? A: I believe I responded to that earlier, yes. Q: And that was in response to credible allegations of sexual abuse at St. Julia's occurring between 1984 and 1989; is that not correct? A: I'm not certain of that, as I sit here, as to whether the allegation -- you know, they wouldn't have needed to have been allegations for that, at that place for him to have been sent back. The important thing is that there were allegations, and because of those allegations, we removed him and we sent him to the Institute for the Living. Q: Cardinal Law, didn't you testify earlier in response to one of my questions about reaching out to parishes -- I think we went through Sister Mulkerrin's note to Bishop McCormack on that -- did you not testify earlier that there had been some outreach at St. Julia's, that that was one of the parishes where there had been outreach? MR. TODD: Objection. If you could show him. A: I'd want to see what I said with regard to that. I'm not certain that -- I may not have been referring to the outreach that we are now trying -- that we have in place at the present time. Q: All right. So as you sit here today, you can't state one way or another whether you know that there were allegations of sexual misconduct involving John Geoghan after 1984 when he was at St. Julia's Parish? MR. TODD: Objection. That was a mischaracterization of his testimony. MR. ROGERS: Objection. That's not a correct statement. MR. MacLEISH: Then the witness can answer. Go ahead, Cardinal. A: I believe I answered that question. I said that I cannot give you -- I don't have in my mind specifics, but in a general way, my answer to that question is yes. Q: So you would agree with me that whatever judgments were made back in 1984 about the future of John Geoghan's behavior, turned out to be incorrect? MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative. Q: Is that correct? A: Well, it depends on how you -- if you're telling me that they turned out to be incorrect because as a matter of fact he acted out later, that's true. If you mean that there was a fundamental flaw in the decision at the way it was reached or the intent, that's another matter. Q: All right. When these decisions are made, Cardinal, there is a balancing, as I think we've covered before, concerning the potential for re-offense versus the priest's desire to be placed in an assignment. Is that a fair statement? MR. ROGERS: Object to the form. MR. TODD: By "these decisions," you mean with respect to placement? MR. MacLEISH: Yes. A: It's not the way I would frame the question -- Q: How would you frame it? A: -- Mr. MacLeish, because it isn't a matter of balancing the desire of the priest. A person can have a desire and that can be absolutely irrelevant in terms of the risk that might be involved. It's a question of doing the best one can in a given circumstance of deciding what is appropriate given the history, given the -- given the advice one receives medically and otherwise. And where I am on that issue today is not where I was on that issue in 2002 -- I mean in 1984. Q: I understand. A: And I wish, as I've said before, that I could go back in time and revisit decisions and make them in the light of what I am firmly convinced is the appropriate way to deal with these issues as I sit here today. Now that's not possible. I can only tell you that at earlier points in time, there was a desire, there was an effort, there was an intent to act responsibly in a manner that appeared at the time to be a responsible approach to these issues. Q: Okay. MR. ROGERS: We're after eleven now. I suggest a five-minute break. MR. MacLEISH: Fine. If you could try to keep it as short as possible. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:02. We're off the record. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:13. We're on the record. Q: Cardinal Law, would it be accurate, therefore, to state, as I understand it, that you, throughout the period from 1984 to 1989, would rely upon others, specifically the three individuals I mentioned, Bishop Daily, Bishop Banks and Father McCormack, to bring to your attention any issues involving priests who were concerned with sexual misconduct? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. A: Yes. The answer is still yes to that question. Q: Good. And you would expect them to bring to your attention matters that were relevant and important with respect to those priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct; is that correct? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. Argumentative. A: Yes. They handled those matters. Q: Cardinal, I'm showing you Exhibit No. 88, which is a group of documents concerning Father John Geoghan. MR. MacLEISH: We've given copies to you, Owen and Will, earlier. You should have it over there. MR. TODD: It seems to end at 87. MR. MacLEISH: We've got 88. THE WITNESS: This is 88. MR. TODD: Separate from -- MR. MacLEISH: Yes, yes. I gave you a copy of it earlier. If you don't have it, we have another one for you. Q: Exhibit 88, Cardinal, which is a group of documents concerning John Geoghan that was obtained -- MR. ROGERS: Have you got one, Owen? MR. TODD: No. MR. MacLEISH: You don't have one? MR. TODD: No. MR. MacLEISH: Father Connolly is going to give you his. MR. TODD: The man has fibbed on the record. Q: If we could turn to the third page, please, Cardinal Law. This is a letter from Dr. Brennan which states -- this is December 14, 1984, it states: "Father Geoghan has been under my care for the past seven years. His emotional condition is stable and very satisfactory. There are no psychiatric contraindications or restrictions to his work as a parish priest." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Do you know Dr. Brennan? A: I do not. Q: Do you know whether he has any expertise in the area of psychiatry? A: I do not. Q: Consistent with your policy, would you have expected this opinion, in December of 1984, concerning John Geoghan to come from someone who had an expertise in psychiatry? A: As I indicated earlier before the break, I relied on those working with me -- in this instance, Father Banks -- in making the determination that the medical personnel contacted would be persons upon whom we could have reasonable reliance. Q: Right. And you understand that there are various specialties within the medical profession; is that correct? A: I understand that, yes. Q: And so you were assuming that the individuals who were being consulted about a priest accused of sexual misconduct had some relevant expertise in the area; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Okay. But you don't know whether Dr. Brennan had any such expertise, of your own personal knowledge; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law. This is a memo from the desk of Bishop Banks, dated April 28, 1989. Want to take a moment and read that. (Pause.)
A: Yes. Q: Have you seen that note before? A: No, I've never seen this note before. Q: This is the handwriting of Bishop Banks, is it not? A: It appears to be, yes. Q: And just, it states: "Dr. Brennan," and it says, "Only problem I knew about was ten years ago." A: That's correct. Q: "I advised him not to work with kids in his parish work." A: That's correct. Q: "I know of no reoccurrence." "Recurrence" Do you see that? A: That's correct. Q: "You better clip his wings before there is an explosion." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: "You can't afford to have him in a parish." Do you see that? A: I see that. Q: "Since '84, my contacts have been scaled back. I thought everything was under control." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And this was produced in the Geoghan case, this particular document, Cardinal Law. A: That's correct. Q: And was this information, assuming that this is what it purports to be, which is some notations concerning a conversation Bishop Banks was having with Dr. Brennan, was any of this information brought to your attention in April of 1989? A: I -- first of all, as I say, I've never seen -- Q: Right. A: -- this memo. And I have no recollection of hearing the specifics of this recommendation. I do know that Father Geoghan was sent to -- was removed at some point, and I don't know exactly -- as I sit here, I can't reconstruct exactly when that was, and sent to the Institute for the Living. Q: You are aware that doctors sometimes arrive at different conclusions and different diagnoses; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And you'll see that in the previous page that we just reviewed, in December of 1984, Dr. Brennan expressed that Father Geoghan had been under his care for the past seven years. Do you see that? A: That's correct. Q: Right. A: And -- Q: Go ahead. A: And I also -- Q: Yes. A: I think it's important to point out that final sentence of his letter. Q: Right. A: "There are no psychiatric contraindications or restrictions to his work as a parish priest." Q: Right. But you have no knowledge of this man's expertise, Dr. Brennan, do you? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. A: My answer to that is the same as it was several minutes ago. That's correct. Q: Okay. And then you have Dr. Brennan, in what appears to be a conversation with Bishop Banks in April of 1989, stating something rather different -- A: That's correct. Q: -- about Father Geoghan. Do you see that? A: Yes, I do. Q: And "You better clip his wings before there is an explosion." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: It also states that since '84, his contacts have been scaled back. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And "You can't afford to have him in a parish." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Would you have expected, consistent with your policy, that if there had been some change of view of Dr. Brennan, who had given an opinion in December of 1984, that that would have been something that would have been brought to your attention? A: Yes. Q: All right. Turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law. This is November 13, 1989, your letter to Father Geoghan. And it states: "I am writing to advise you that I'm reassigning you as parochial vicar at St. Julia's Parish in Weston. The effective date of this course of action is November 17, 1989." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: And this was after Father Geoghan had, as you said earlier, had gone to the Institute for Living for an assessment. Do you recall that? A: I do. Q: And you state in the second paragraph: "It is most heartening to know that things have gone well for you and that you are ready to resume your efforts with a renewed zeal and enthusiasm." Those were your words in November of 1989? A: That's what the letter states. Q: And this is a true and accurate copy of your letter to John Geoghan; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. You don't make any reference in this letter, Cardinal Law, as I understand it, to the fact that John Geoghan had been sent to the Institute for Living; is that correct? A: There is no reference to that here, specific -- no there is none. There is no overt reference. Q: Okay. All right. And there's no -- A: If I may say -- Q: Go ahead. Sure. A: If I may say, "It is most heartening to know that things have gone well for you and that you are ready to resume your efforts" would be an implicit reference to the Institute of the Living. Q: There's no reference to the fact that John Geoghan had been assessed at the Institute for Living for his -- as a result of his sexual misconduct. No reference to that in this letter. A: There is no explicit reference to the Institute of Living, no. Q: There's no reference to the reasons why John Geoghan was sent there; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. All right. The next letter, November 30, 1989, has been marked in the previous case, from Bishop Banks to Vincent Stephens, MD, at the Institute for Living. Do you want to take a moment and read that letter, please. A: Yes. (Pause.)
Q: Have you seen that letter before today, Cardinal Law? A: I have not seen the letter, but I am aware of the response from the Institute of the Living. Q: Right. Now, in November of '89, 1989, was the discharge summary from the Institute for Living concerning Father John Geoghan brought to your attention? A: As a matter of fact, I was concerned by the fact that we had not gotten a response from the Institute of the Living in a timely fashion. MR. TODD: That's -- THE WITNESS: Go ahead. MR. TODD: I'm sorry. As soon as you're finished, I want to make a statement. A: And I called and inquired about this. As I recall, I spoke with Father Gill, who was the director of the institute, and, in effect, received basically the understanding that Bishop Banks is referencing in the November 30 letter; namely, that it would be appropriate and safe for this priest, Father Geoghan, to be reassigned to parish ministry. I immediately called Bishop Banks -- and I said to the Institute of the Living personnel -- and I believe it was Father Gill -- that it really is necessary for us to receive in a very timely manner, a written, full, written report in this instance, in this case, as it was in every case. And then I asked Bishop Banks to go to the -- to himself go to the Institute of the Living and to meet with them, to review this case, because I wanted to be certain about it. I was concerned about it. MR. TODD: Hold it, hold it. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. MR. TODD: I would like to state for the record that all of the matters, issues, correspondence surrounding Father Geoghan was gone into in depositions of Cardinal Law on multiple days in the cases which Attorney Garabedian brought, and going over them, the same matters in this deposition, is the subject of my objection. MR. MacLEISH: All right. Okay. Well, I'm not Attorney Garabedian, and I've read his deposition and I'm trying to avoid questions that he asked. But if you're offering that the deposition in that case can be utilized in this case, Owen, then I'm perfectly happy to discuss that with you. MR. TODD: To the extent that you're conducting a discovery deposition, I submit that you know all of the information and answers to the questions you're asking, and if you don't know it, it's all available; and to go over examinations which have been conducted for many days on occasions prior to this is wasteful -- MR. MacLEISH: Well, I appreciate you -- MR. TODD: -- and harassing. MR. MacLEISH: It's not wasteful and I'm certainly not intending to harass the Cardinal. MR. TODD: I'm entitled to my opinion, which I've expressed. MR. MacLEISH: Your opinion has been conveyed and it's noted. We'll continue now. Q: Cardinal Law, when you made that call to the head of the Institute for Living, had a discharge summary actually been received by the Archdiocese of Boston? A: No. I think I indicated that the reason why I made the call is because it had not been -- Q: Right. A: -- and I wanted to know when we were going to get it. Q: Sure. Okay. And was that typical for you to be involved in communications directly with the Institute for Living? A: It was absolutely atypical. Q: Why did it happen in the case of Father Geoghan? A: Well, it happened in the case of Father Geoghan because Father Geoghan -- because of the history that is before us. Q: All right. Well, there were other priests that were sent to the Institute for Living, St. Luke's and Southdown -- I think we've been over some of them -- during the period from 1984 to 1989. Why was it that you were involved in this particular situation? A: My concern was that we had not received a report and it was -- and I felt that it was past time and we should have received a report, and, therefore, I made the call. Q: Well, my understanding is that you delegated most of these responsibilities to the Moderator of the Curia, Bishop Banks and Father McCormack during this period of time. Is there any -- A: That's right. Q: -- particular reason why you would have made the call? A: Well, I had a personal relationship with Father Gill. I knew Father Gill. And I just wanted to push this along so that we could get to some resolution here. Q: And your testimony is that during this conversation, you were told that it would be safe to return John Geoghan to pastoral ministry, parish ministry? I'm sorry. A: I was. Q: And that was an unqualified statement by the doctor that you spoke with? A: You know, I hesitate to try to reconstruct a telephone conversation. Q: Sure. A: And I have no notes of that telephone conversation. I discussed the telephone conversation with Bishop Banks. He, perhaps, would be able to corroborate what I say. And I have not discussed this with him since. But I received, as a layman here, but I received the impression in this telephone conversation that Father John Geoghan had responded in a most positive way to treatment, and that -- and that as a result of that, it was a -- it was a -- I don't think they used the term "classic case," perhaps even he used this term, "atypical pedophilia in remission." But the impression that I got is that Father Geoghan presented himself in a way that persons with this pathology would not ordinarily present themselves at the end of treatment. Q: Cardinal -- go ahead. A: And I wanted -- that, to my mind, was very significant in its ramifications in terms of assignment and I wanted absolute assurance about that before any action was taken. And for that reason, I didn't want simply the written record, but I wanted Bishop Banks to go down and have a discussion with him as well. Q: You said, "I wanted absolute assurances." Now, did you want absolute assurances that Father Geoghan would not re-offend? Is that what you're referring to when you just said that? A: Well, what I meant by that is that I had this telephone conversation. Q: Right. A: I thought I heard something akin to atypical remission of pedophilia, "atypical pedophilia in remission," and I wanted Bishop Banks to go there to discuss with them so that we could be certain how we should respond to this case. Q: But no doctor ever gave you, or, to your knowledge, Bishop Banks, absolute assurances that John Geoghan would not re-offend, correct? A: That's correct. Q: No doctor told you unequivocally that it would be safe to have John Geoghan reassigned to a parish ministry, correct? A: In the terms that you state, no. However, the understanding that I took from the term "atypical pedophilia in remission," a classic, as I recall the conversation, it was a classic case of someone responding to treatment and moving beyond the problem. Q: All right. The reason I'm asking this, Cardinal, is because you used in your earlier testimony several minutes ago, you used the term "safe" to describe what you were told by the doctors. That it would be -- doctor -- that it would be safe to reassign John Geoghan to a parish ministry. I want to be clear that no doctor ever used that word "safe" in an unequivocal fashion. A: That's correct. But I believe what I was attempting to say there, and I think I may have said there, is that it was a question of coming to some sort of moral certitude, reasonable certitude based on the evidence that you have before you. Q: A reasonable moral certitude that would take into account the progress that John Geoghan had made and balance that against the history of John Geoghan; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And the risk that he might re-offend again, correct? That was also one of the criteria that you looked at in making this reasonable moral judgment? A: The moral judgment was based on a diagnosis, discharge diagnosis of atypical pedophilia in remission. Q: I understand that, Cardinal Law, but in looking at the criteria that went into the judgment, one of the judgments that you were making -- one of the criteria you looked at was John Geoghan's past behavior, correct? A: Well, obviously the reason why the person is in treatment is because of past behavior. That's what you're checking out. Q: Exactly. Right. And one of the criteria you were looking at is whether the degree of certitude with which you could state that John Geoghan would not molest another child. Was that one of the criteria that you looked at? A: That's correct. Q: Another criteria that you looked at was the interest in having John Geoghan continue with his priestly work. Was that another criteria that you looked at? A: No. Q: Okay. Well, John Geoghan did not have to be, when he came back from the Institute for Living, reassigned to St. Julia's. He could have been assigned to a function job where he would not regularly have contact with children; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: In fact, some priests were assigned, as I remember during this period of time, to actually working in the Chancery so that they would not have contact with children. A: That's correct. Q: I think Father Bernard Lane was at one point assigned to the Chancery, was he not? A: He was. Q: But the decision was made after the Institute for Living report was received, that it would be appropriate to assign John Geoghan to work in a parish without any restrictions on his access to children; is that not correct? A: That's correct. Q: And that decision was made by you? A: That's correct. Q: And one of the factors, one of the factors, but not the only factor that you looked at was the discharge summary from the Institute for Living; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Can we turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law. A: Which page is that? Q: I'm sorry. Let me just go over -- the November 30, 1989, report, would that have reflected your views on the inconsistency between the oral report that you were given concerning the prognosis for John Geoghan and the written discharge summary? A: That's correct. Q: And it's accurate to state, as Bishop Banks states in the second paragraph, that he was a bit disappointed and disturbed by the report; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. He felt that the report was not consistent with his oral conversation? A: If I may say, I don't think -- well, I can't speak for Bishop Banks. I can speak for myself. Q: Right. A: Disappointment would not be in terms of the judgment rendered, but disappointment in terms of the judgment rendered in writing was different from the judgment rendered orally. Q: Well, you can't speak for Bishop Banks? A: No. But I can speak for myself. That would have been my disappointment. Q: But Cardinal Law, isn't it true that if there was a favorable report, you personally wanted to have John Geoghan back in ministry. Is that not correct? A: No, that is not correct. I wanted to do the right thing. Q: Okay. A: And if -- and I didn't want a favorable report as opposed to an unfavorable report. I wanted an accurate report. Q: All right. But, again, one of your options when John Geoghan came back was to put him into a place where he would not have contact with kids? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. Q: Right? A: The answer is the same now as it was a few moments ago, yes. Q: Good. Now, let's turn to the next page, which is the Institute for Living, Dr. Swords' letter to Bishop Banks of December 13, 1989, that followed Bishop Banks' letter to Dr. Stephens of November 30, 1989. Do you want to take a moment and look at that? A: Yes. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: Looking at this letter from Dr. Swords to Bishop Banks of December 13, 1989, do you ever recall seeing this letter prior to today? A: I do not recall seeing the letter, no. Q: It has not been brought up in previous depositions that you can recall? A: I don't recall it having been brought up. Perhaps it was, but I don't recall it. Q: And you'll see that Dr. Swords states, in the first paragraph, that he's responding to Bishop Banks' letter to Dr. Stephens of November 30, 1989. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Then he says: "Let me first say that we judge Father Geoghan to be clinically quite safe to resume his pastoral ministry after observation, evaluation and treatment here for three months." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And is that statement consistent with the oral representations, statements that were made to you in the telephone conversation you described earlier? A: As I recollect them, yes. Q: So it goes on, Cardinal Law, this letter from Dr. Swords, to state: "The probability that he would sexually act out again is quite low. However, we cannot guarantee that it could not reoccur." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And then it says: "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: So when you made the decision to reassign John Geoghan back to St. Julia's, you understood, did you not, that there could be no guarantees with John Geoghan that his sexual molestation of minors, his history of that would not reoccur, correct? A: As I indicated to you just a moment ago, I don't recall seeing this letter at the time, but the content of it would have been communicated to me. And whether or not it was stated explicitly to me by Bishop Banks that the Institute of the Living cannot guarantee that it would not reoccur, I don't know. But as I said earlier in our conversation, I know that no one can absolutely predict the future of human behavior. MR. TODD: Again, I want to state for the record this subject matter and these were gone into extensively in the Geoghan depositions. MR. MacLEISH: Which I did not take; which is another case. MR. TODD: Doesn't matter. They're available. MR. MacLEISH: You know, we're happy to talk about a stipulation that they can be used in this case, but under the existing rules, they could not be used in this case so -- MR. TODD: You know that statements of parties can be used, prior statements of parties can be used. You know that. But I won't -- MR. MacLEISH: We can discuss this all day but I suggest we move on. MR. TODD: Yeah. Q: Cardinal Law, you'll see in the next paragraph, it states: "The clinical decision to have him resume his pastoral ministry was ours, but the final administrative decision had to be yours." Is that correct? A: I read -- that's what this letter says, yes. Q: And how did you interpret -- I understand you didn't see this letter, but the substance of it would have been communicated to you. Was that particular sentence communicated to you? A: I don't recall that. I would interpret it the same way that the matter that we've gone over earlier today, that I -- that it is my responsibility to assign priests. Q: Right. A: I obviously do not give that to the Institute of the Living or anyone else. Q: And the Institute of Living, as far as you know, did not have any explicit knowledge concerning the number of children that John Geoghan might have access to were he to return to St. Julia's? MR. TODD: Objection to the form. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. A: My presumption is that they knew that as a parochial vicar, he would be doing parish work, which would put him in contact with everyone. Q: When John Geoghan was reassigned after this report from the Institute of Living where it is stated that the Institute for Living could not guarantee that his sexual misconduct would not reoccur, were there any restrictions that were placed on him by you or anybody else at the Archdiocese in terms of having access to minors? A: I think, Mr. Gar -- Mr. MacLeish -- Q: No, no. You almost said Mr. Garabedian there, Cardinal Law. A: Mr. MacLeish. I'm sorry, MR. TODD: Understandable mistake. MR. ROGERS: High praise. A: But the critical sentence here in terms of the decision that was made with regard to Father Geoghan's reassignment is the final sentence in the first paragraph where the Institute of the Living states: "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish." Q: All right. Go ahead. When that statement was made, Cardinal Law, you don't know when you read that, whether the Institute for Living was talking about from the perspective of John Geoghan or from the perspective of the parishioners, including the children of St. Julia's, do you? MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative. A: I would read that sentence and the sense of that to certainly include the well-being of the people in the parish, because the whole point of this exercise is concerned with that, the impact of a priest on a parish, on people, the possibility of very, very negative behavior and abusive behavior. And so that's what's at issue here. Q: Did you ever delegate to the medical professionals you were relying upon, the decision to make judgments about what was in the best interest of particular parishes of the Archdiocese? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. A: You know, I don't know -- I really don't know what you're asking there, but the answer to that is obviously no. Q: All right. So you're the one that -- let me just be specific here, Cardinal Law. Why was it then, since the Institute for Living stated, "We cannot guarantee that John Geoghan's sexual molestation, acting out with children would not reoccur," why was it that he was put back into St. Julia's by you without any restrictions in terms of his access to children? That's my question. A: And my answer would be, again, putting myself in the 1989 time frame, first paragraph of that letter, last sentence, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish." Q: Well, Cardinal Law, again -- A: "The discharge diagnosis of atypical pedophilia in remission refers to a condition in the past, but the symptoms of which have been for sometime no longer in evidence or under firm control." Q: We can both read selective provisions, sentences of this letter. My question is quite specific though. The Institute for Living states: "We cannot guarantee that his problem of sexual molestation will not reoccur." We agreed that that's what it said in this letter, correct? A: That's correct. Q: We agree that the substance of this letter was communicated by you to Bishop Banks, correct? A: Excuse me? Q: We agreed that the substance of this letter was communicated to you by Bishop Banks; is that correct? A: Yes. And that the substance of this letter was essentially my oral conversation with someone whom I believe to have been Father Gill at the Institute of the Living, prior to the letters. Q: We also agree that the Institute's letter accurately reflects that the final administrative decision on what to do with John Geoghan was yours, correct? A: Yes. I mean -- yes. Q: We also -- you've also previously stated that the protection of children in programs sponsored by the Archdiocese of Boston was a top priority for you from the time that you first arrived in Boston, correct? A: I don't know how many times I've answered these questions -- Q: Right. I understand. A: -- to you, and the answer is not any different now than it was the very first, second, third, fourth, fifth time you've asked that. Yes. Q: Yes. Okay. So my question to you, Cardinal Law, is that in light of all of those considerations -- let's start specifically. Why were there no restrictions placed on John Geoghan in terms of his access to children when he was reassigned to St. Julia's? MR. TODD: Do you believe you have answered that question? THE WITNESS: I believe I've answered it a hundred different ways. MR. TODD: Then I'm going to instruct him not to answer. This is becoming abusive. MR. MacLEISH: It's not being abusive. Q: My question is very specific, Cardinal. I'm talking about now -- you have not answered the question, with respect. MR. TODD: I believe he has. He believes he has. MR. MacLEISH: Well, you don't even know what the question is, Owen. Let me ask the question again. MR. TODD: When you start off saying I believe you haven't answered the question -- MR. MacLEISH: You've not -- MR. TODD: The question being -- MR. MacLEISH: Please don't interrupt me, okay. Q: Cardinal Law, the question is very specific. One of the options that you possessed, understanding that there were no guarantees that this behavior would not occur again, that you possessed in 1989 with John Geoghan, was to send him back to a parish ministry with some sort of restrictions on him in terms of access to children. That was one of the options, was it not? A: That was an option, right. There were other options. There were options not to assign him anywhere. There were options to assign him to something that was -- that would not put him, in the course of his work, in contact with children. Q: Do you recall giving any consideration to putting John Geoghan into a situation at St. Julia's or elsewhere where he would not regularly have contact with children? A: I, in the course of his -- to the extent that I reflected upon his future assignment in the course of his going to the Institute of the Living, I'm sure that I would have considered all possibility of options. Q: We're talking about now when he returns from the Institute of Living. A: That's right. Q: Do you have a conscious recollection as you sit here today of thinking about whether John Geoghan should have some restrictions placed upon him in terms of his access to children? A: Mr. MacLeish, you may view this as selectively reading from this letter, but all I can say to you is that the operative word from the Institute of the Living impacting the decision concerning his assignment is, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish." Whether or not you think that was wise, whether or not I think it is wise at this point is irrelevant to trying to see what the situation was at that point. It was on the basis of that recommendation, that finding, if you will, of the Institute of the Living, fully understanding that I had to make the decision, but that finding of the Institute of the Living carried a considerable weight in the decision to reassign him to St. Julia's. They knew that he was in St. Julia's. They knew that it was full pastoral ministry. And it was on the basis of that finding of that Institute, in which we had reason to have confidence, that he was reassigned. He would not be reassigned today. He was, in fact, ultimately removed from that parish, as you know. Q: I know. A: But it was at that time on the basis of that finding that he was reassigned. Q: Cardinal Law, did you place -- you placed considerable weight, as you just described, on that sentence in the first paragraph. Did you also place considerable weight on the previous sentence, which said, "However, we cannot guarantee that it could not reoccur"? Did you place any weight on that in making the decision to reassign John Geoghan to St. Julia's? A: First of all, as I think I told you previously, I don't recall seeing this letter. Q: So -- okay. A: But -- and the possibility of giving absolute assurance with regard to future human behavior is something that very few persons are able to do, and I don't know -- and so it would be -- you know, this kind of a sentence would be read in the context of that final sentence, which is the judgment that you understand, of course, that we can't be a hundred percent sure about what the future will -- how the future will unfold. However, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish." I think that that is their judgment -- Q: Okay. A: -- in terms of assignment. And it was upon that that we were relying. Q: But they're not the Archdiocese of Boston, correct? A: Correct. Q: When it says the words in that sentence that you've spoken to a number of occasions, "therapeutic for him to be" -- let's just focus on "therapeutic," if we could, Cardinal. The Institute is referring to therapeutic for John Geoghan. It's not referring to therapeutic for St. Julia's, correct? You'd agree with me? MR. ROGERS: Objection. Q: Do you agree with that? A: Yes, I agree with that. Q: So when it is stated, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him," do you read the first word "reasonable," or the third word, "reasonable," as being a reasonable decision for the parish or -- A: Absolutely. Q: -- or do you view it as a reasonable decision for Father Geoghan? A: No, I read it -- I would have accepted it at the time in terms of their discussion with me, because the whole point of the exercise is what is appropriate in terms of the risk here -- Q: Right. A: -- to people. And so I would see -- I would understand "reasonable" there as the parish. Q: All right. Well, in making the decision of the risk, as you put it, that's really your job, isn't it, Cardinal Law, not the Institute for Living's? It's your job to make a determination of whether the risks of doing this are worth it. That's your job, correct? A: It is my job to make the assignment. Q: Right. A: I rely on others to assist me in doing that. In cases of this kind, I relied specifically on Bishop Banks. He and I, through him, relied on the Institute of the Living in terms of an ascertation, given the pathological behavior, as to whether or not it was appropriate, reasonable, indicated that this person should be assigned or could be assigned. And that was the basis on which it was made. Q: But you would agree with me that the Institute for Living is not charged in any way with making a determination of the reasonableness of priestly assignments. That's your job? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered repeatedly. A: Mr. MacLeish, I don't want to appear exasperated here but I am -- Q: No. A: But I feel a little bit exasperated because, you know, there's a reasonableness on my part, but for me to make an assignment of this kind -- I am not a psychiatrist, I am not a psychologist -- I need -- the issue here for me at that point was whether or not someone who had manifested this kind of pathological behavior could reasonably be reassigned or would it be an unreasonable thing to do. Reasonable in terms of risk involved and all like that. And so you send somebody away to find that out. I can't make that judgment. Q: Right. A: Now, as a matter of fact, I now have made that judgment, and that judgment is as of January 2002, that one such acting out renders it unreasonable. And I think that that's an appropriate thing. I wish to God that that had been our policy much earlier. Q: Right. A: But at this point in time, what I was doing was relying upon, in this case, the Institute of the Living and -- Q: Go ahead. A: -- to indicate to me what is appropriate in the assignment of this priest. Q: So you were relying on the Institute for Living to make the decision on what was appropriate? A: No. Q: No. To assist you in making the decision? A: That's correct. Q: The word "reasonable" is not a precise term, you agree with me? MR. TODD: Is not what? I'm sorry. Not a what term? Q: It's not a precise term; it's a subjective term. Is that correct? A: It's a judgment term. Q: It's a term that implies that you have to look at a number of different factors in making a reasoned decision; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: All right. You know now, do you not, Cardinal Law, that after this reasoned decision that you made to send John Geoghan back to St. Julia's, that people have come forward that claim that they were molested since November of 1989? Do you know that, Cardinal Law? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. A: Yes. I think I've indicated already that we removed him subsequently when other allegations came forward. Q: Right. My question to you is: Are you not aware that individuals did come forward following your reasoned decision to put John Geoghan back into ministry in December of 1989? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. Q: That's my question. MR. TODD: That's the question you just asked and he just answered. MR. MacLEISH: No, no. A: Could you point out to me, Mr. MacLeish, in what way my answer was not to your question. Q: Yes. If you could just answer -- Cardinal Law, you testified earlier about individuals who came forward after 1984 who claimed to have been molested at St. Julia's. Do you recall your testimony on that subject? A: Yes. Q: My question now is trying to narrow that a little bit. You're aware, are you not, that in that group of individuals who came forward to claim that they were molested at St. Julia's after 1984, there's also a subset of that group who claimed that they were molested after you made the decision to return John Geoghan to St. Julia's in 1989? That's my question. MR. TODD: Question has been asked and answered. A: My answer is, as I tried to say earlier, I am aware of the fact that we received allegations concerning Father Geoghan after '89. Q: Okay. A: I cannot say with certainty, as I sit here, in what time frame those acts were alleged to have been committed. But the allegation themselves were sufficient to remove him. Q: I'm sorry. I'm being a little imprecise here. I'm referring to allegations that Father Geoghan molested children at St. Julia's following December of 1989, following your reinstatement. A: Yes. Q: Are you aware that there are such allegations of molestation of children at St. Julia's after this decision was made to put Father Geoghan back in St. Julia's? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. A: What I think I have answered already, but I will try again to make it clearer in my answer, is that I am aware that there were allegations which came forward after '89. I cannot recollect what time frame within which those acts are alleged to have occurred. However, the bringing forward of the allegations was sufficient to remove him, regardless of the time frame. Q: But you don't know whether those allegations, as you sit here today, the ones that came forward after '89, pertained to sexual misconduct by Father Geoghan at St. Julia's following December of 1989? A: That's correct. I cannot -- I don't have that specific knowledge in my mind. Q: Could you please turn to the next page, Cardinal Law. (Pause.) Q: This is a -- this is after Bishop Banks has left to go to Green Bay, November 28, 1990. Have you seen this document before? A: I think I may have seen the document in the course of these months, but I can't be specific on that. Q: Do you see the words -- it reflects a conversation with John Geoghan. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And it says John Geoghan reports: "He said he met with Dr. Swords and Dr. Brennan and both cleared him." Do you see that? A: I see that. Q: Yes. And then it says: "John would like to be a pastor." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: It says: "I told him to meet with Bishop Hughes to review the situation. Also, he should meet with the Cardinal for the same reason." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Then it says: "I said I would recommend him for pastorate, but decision left up to ACH and BFL." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: I take it that's referring to Bishop Hughes and yourself; is that correct? A: I think it would, yes. Q: So, again, in this type of situation where there had been an allegation of sexual misconduct and the person required an assignment as pastor, that decision would be left up to you; is that correct? A: I think we've already established, Mr. MacLeish, that it is the responsibility of the Archbishop to assign priests, period. You know, it's not a specific group of priests, but it's any priest assignment. MR. ROGERS: All right. Now, it's now 12 o'clock. I suggest we take a five-minute break. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Fine. THE WITNESS: Is it already twelve? MR. MacLEISH: Things go fast. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:00 p.m. This is the end of Cassette No. 1 in the deposition of Cardinal Law. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:09 p.m. This is Cassette No. 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're back on the record. Q: Cardinal Law, when you made the decision to reassign John Geoghan to St. Julia's, do you know how many individuals at that point had come forward to make allegations that they were sexually abused as minors by John Geoghan? A: I do not. Q: Do you know whether it was more than one? MR. TODD: I'm sorry. Are you asking did he know at that time in '89 it was more than one? MR. MacLEISH: Yes. In '89. Yes. A: I believe I knew that it was more than one, yes. Q: Did you know that it was more than five? A: You know, I don't know that. Q: Did you -- do you have a recollection of instructing anyone to prepare a report for you when you made the decision to reassign John Geoghan to St. Julia's without restriction in 1989, did you instruct anyone to make a report for you summarizing all of the allegations of sexual abuse that had been made against John Geoghan? A: I made no such specific recommendation about that case or any other case. I had confidence in the persons that were assisting me in this matter for that. Q: Right. As you described in your testimony, those individuals were charged with bringing to your attention important information that might bear on the assignment, correct? A: They were to help me in making my decision, yes. Q: And to provide you information that was relevant? A: That's correct. Q: And so my question is: Did you instruct any of them to summarize for you in any way the number of individuals as of December 1989, that were making allegations that they had been sexually molested by John Geoghan as minors? A: I think the answer to that, implicitly anyway, from my previous testimony to you about the procedure followed, is no. Q: So in looking at the various criteria that we've discussed here today that go into making a reassignment, you do not have a recollection that one of those criteria was the number of complaints that had been made against John Geoghan; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Could you turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law, which is a letter from John Geoghan of June 29, 1990. If you could quickly take a look at that and then the following page, which is your letter acknowledging receipt. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: So John Geoghan wrote to you in June of 1990 urging that his name be submitted to the Personnel Board for consideration as pastor; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you responded, did you not, on August 13, 1990, stating that you would communicate Father Geoghan's interest in being named pastor at St. Julia's to the Personnel Board; is that correct? A: That's correct. That's a pro forma kind of a letter when someone writes requesting a specific parish, because the decision isn't going to be made in that way. It goes through a process. Q: Right. It goes to the Personnel Board; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And that was the process in 1990; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And then there's also a review, was there not, in 1990, of the confidential file? Is that correct? Did that happen? A: A review of the confidential file? What are you referring to? Q: I'm referring to the confidential file that was maintained at the Archdiocese that was kept separately from the personnel file and contained matters relating to scandal, including allegations of sexual abuse. A: And you're asking me in general terms if there was a review of the confidential file? Q: Yes. Before someone was appointed to pastor, we've had testimony in other depositions that Bishop Banks or those individuals who had access to the confidential file, would make a review of it to determine whether there was anything you needed to know. Was that your understanding of the process, Cardinal Law, in 1990? MR. ROGERS: I object as to the form of the question. I don't think that's a fair characterization of the prior testimony. I think it's -- MR. MacLEISH: All right. Fine. MR. ROGERS: Maybe you'd like to point out what testimony you're talking about. MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Bishop McCormack's, Bishop Daily's -- A: Yes, I -- MR. MacLEISH: Let me answer your question. -- Father McCarthy and Father Helmick, I believe. But go ahead. MR. TODD: If you know. Q: If that's not your understanding of the process, then state that's not your understanding of the process. MR. ROGERS: Is that a different question? MR. MacLEISH: No. Answer the original question. MR. ROGERS: Which? Q: Cardinal Law, do you recall what I asked you? A: It would be helpful for me if you would rephrase the question. Q: Sure. Be happy to. Was it your understanding that before someone was actually appointed pastor, there would be a review of what was known within the Archdiocese as the confidential file? A: My understanding was that there would be review of all pertinent information concerning this individual. It would also have been my understanding that if there were pertinent information in the confidential file which would have inhibited an assignment from, as a pastor, or as a parochial vicar, that that person wouldn't be in place to begin with. Q: Right. A: So whether or not the confidential file was referred to every time an assignment was made, I can't answer that. Q: Okay. Fine. But at least as of August of 1990, you were prepared to consider John Geoghan, if it had been so requested by the or so -- sorry. Someone is walking by. Let me start again. (Pause.) Q: Cardinal, would it be fair to state that at least as of August of 1990, you were not ruling out the possibility that you might actually name John Geoghan as pastor of St. Julia's? A: I would rule out that possibility as of August 1990. Q: Why? A: Because of the -- by now, we have had the situations that had come forward in '89 and there was just -- you know, I would not have moved forward on it. Q: If John Geoghan was not fit to be pastor, why was he fit to be parochial vicar? A: Well, there are a lot of things that go into consideration of a pastor in terms of personality, in terms of leadership potential, and I do not believe that I would have actively considered appointing him as a pastor. Q: But you just stated, I thought, that you would not have considered appointing him as pastor because of the Institute for Living report. Did I misunderstand your testimony? A: Yes. Q: Okay. Turn to the next page, please, Cardinal. MR. TODD: Yes, what? Yes, he misunderstood your testimony? THE WITNESS: Well -- MR. MacLEISH: Well, you have cross-examination. The witness answered the question. MR. TODD: I'm just trying to clarify. MR. MacLEISH: Well, but you have that opportunity on cross-examination. MR. TODD: Is that what your answer is? MR. MacLEISH: Well, I object to that. I object to that. MR. TODD: Fine. We'll let it stand as being ambiguous. MR. MacLEISH: Fine. Well, that's your characterization. MR. TODD: It is. Q: Next page, Cardinal Law. A: December 30, '94? Q: Yes. Take a moment and see if you remember sending that letter to John Geoghan in December 30, 1994. (Pause.) A: I don't -- you know, again, I don't recall sending this specific letter. I'm sure that I did send it, but I am generally -- I generally recollect the situation where this took place. Q: All right. When you refer to "recent allegations" in the first sentence, I take it those are recent allegations concerning sexual misconduct? A: That's correct. Q: You don't describe the nature of the allegations in the letter, do you, Cardinal? A: I do not. Q: In fact, it was your practice not ever to describe in these letters the nature of the allegations when they pertained to sexual misconduct. MR. TODD: Objection. Q: Is that a fair statement? A: I think it would be fair to say that I would not refer to the specifics of allegations of any kind, but the person to whom I'm writing knows what is being talked about. Q: I'm not referring to specific allegations; I'm referring to the subject of sexual misconduct. It was not your -- A: I understand. Q: Excuse me. It was not your practice to, when you informed -- when you wrote letters such as this letter of December 30, 1994, to characterize the nature of the allegations when it was sexual misconduct; is that correct? A: I understood the nature of your question the first time, Mr. MacLeish, and I responded by indicating that when I wrote this kind of a letter, it wasn't simply sexual misconduct allegations that were not specified, but I wouldn't specify any kind of allegations because the person to whom I was writing would know what the reference was to. Q: I see. Okay. You, in this letter, you state, do you not: "I realize this is a difficult time for you and for those close to you." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Did you also believe when you wrote this letter that it was a difficult time for the victims of Father John Geoghan who had come forward and made these allegations? MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative and obviously -- A: You know, Mr. MacLeish, I just wonder if you want to rethink that question -- Q: No, I really don't, Cardinal. A: -- because, obviously, I did. But I'm writing to Father Geoghan. Q: Right. I would like to press the question. A: I'm not writing here to others. Q: Could you answer the question, please? A: The answer is of course. Q: Did you write to those victims of sexual abuse that had come forward to make allegations against Father Geoghan at that time, Cardinal? A: I did not. Q: Did you personally ensure that was some sort of support that was provided to those individuals that had came forward claiming that they were sexually abused by John Geoghan in 1994? A: Here again, I relied on the Delegate for outreach to victims, and it's an area where I think we do a much better job today, and we did in '94, a better job than we had done earlier. I cannot be specific as to what actually occurred at that point. Q: Well, Cardinal, I'm not asking about today. I understand what you do today. I'm asking about 1994. My question is very specific. My question is: What did you do, if anything, to ensure yourself that victims of Father Geoghan, the ones who had come forward, were getting the help that they needed? A: As I think I indicated, I relied on the Delegate to be the point of contact for the diocese in terms of the victims. Q: Well, in your letter to Father Geoghan of December 30, 1994, you also state: "If I can be of help to you in some way, please contact me." Those were your words; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: So you were offering to be of assistance to John Geoghan; is that correct? A: John Geoghan was a priest of this Archdiocese. If you'll note from the address where he -- Q: Right. A: He is not at St. Julia's at this point. He's already been removed from St. Julia's. He's been assigned to an office where he does not have contact with children. And having received yet further allegations, he was effectively retired at that point. And, yes, there is an offer to be of some help to him in what had to be also a very difficult moment for him. Q: I understand that, Cardinal Law, and my question is, you, personally, in this letter to him offered to be of help to him and offered to have John Geoghan contact you if he wanted to; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Did you send out any letter offering to be of help to any of the victims of Father John Geoghan who had come forward, that you can recall? MR. TODD: I object to that question as being insulting. It's obviously grandstanding. It can be serving no legitimate purposes of deposition, and it's harassing, clearly harassing. It has no legitimate purpose in this deposition. MR. MacLEISH: That's absolutely incorrect, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: It's correct, Mr. MacLeish. MR. MacLEISH: You're absolutely incorrect. Q: Can you answer the question, please, Cardinal? A: Yes. And I would agree with my counsel that this is a harassing question but I will answer your question. Q: I hope you don't think there's a harassing tone to it. You may think it's not a question that you wish to answer but -- A: No, no. I'm happy to -- Q: It's a very simple question. MR. TODD: No. You just interrupted his answer. MR. MacLEISH: And you just interrupted me, Mr. Todd. Let me withdraw the question and start again, Cardinal Law. We'll make it very easy. MR. TODD: Why don't you withdraw it and go on to something that's relevant. MR. MacLEISH: No, no. I appreciate that. This is very relevant to this case. MR. TODD: No, it is not relevant to this case. MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, what did you just throw? MR. TODD: Why don't we certify that question and take it the judge. MR. MacLEISH: Did you just throw something across the room here? MR. TODD: At the basket, and I made a basket, and you ought to congratulate me for that. MS. PATEL: You missed. MR. TODD: Oops. You put it in. MR. MacLEISH: Whatever, it's inappropriate. You can certify any question that you want. Q: My question is a simple question, though, Cardinal, of whether or not you can recall writing a letter to the victims that apparently had recently come forward against John Geoghan. That's my question. MR. TODD: What's the relevance of that question? How does it lead to -- MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, AS you well know, it is not related to a matter of privilege. MR. TODD: Are you refusing to answer -- MR. MacLEISH: No. I'm not required to answer. Judge Sweeney has already ruled on these issues. That's not the standard. MR. TODD: That's not true. MR. MacLEISH: If you're instructing him not to answer the question, then so instruct him and we will continue the deposition. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But I'm pressing the question. And what you're allowed to say is "Objection." If it's an issue of privilege, you can take the Cardinal outside. But it's a simple question. MR. TODD: No. That's a misconstruction about the rules. MR. MacLEISH: Fine. Then -- MR. TODD: Now you're interrupting, Mr. MacLeish. Misconstruction of the rule. The rule also talks about coming to the assistance of a witness when the questions are harassing and serve no -- insulting, scandalous and serve no useful purpose. MR. MacLEISH: So I understand your -- MR. TODD: But you may answer if you wish. MR. MacLEISH: No, no. I understand your question that it's insulting for me to ask Cardinal Law whether or not he wrote to any victim of sexual abuse at this time in 1994. I really don't see how that's an insulting question. MR. TODD: It's a grandstanding question. MR. MacLEISH: It's not. MR. TODD: It's not for any legitimate purpose involved in this case, but rather to adulate your ego and to appeal to your clients and the press and so forth. There's no legitimate purpose. MR. MacLEISH: Well, Mr. Todd -- MR. TODD: But answer, Cardinal, if you like. THE WITNESS: I would like to answer it, if I may. MR. MacLEISH: You'd like to answer the question? THE WITNESS: Yes. Q: Would you answer the question, though, whether you wrote the letter? That's really what my question was. MR. TODD: You answer the question as you understand it, in any way you wish. MR. MacLEISH: The question is very specific. MR. TODD: Answer it in any way you wish. MR. MacLEISH: No, no, that's not all right. Please answer the question that I posed. You have an opportunity for cross-examination. A: The answer to the question is that my interaction with victims at this point was carried out through the Office of the Delegate, who would have been Father Brian Flatley. So no, I do not recall any letters. But you will also recall from the fact that you have established in a number of different ways, with a number of different questions that it was my responsibility as the Archbishop to assign priests. This letter, very appropriately, to Father Geoghan, is a letter of assignment. Q: Okay. My question was whether you recall writing to any victims, and I take it the answer to that is no? A: The answer to that is no, but I would want the record to show that there was a point of contact established for me, a regular line of contact through the Office of the Delegate. Q: Do you know for a fact whether the victim that came forward with respect to Father Geoghan was contacted by the Office for Delegate, Office of the Delegate and some support was offered? A: I do not know that. Q: Okay. Could you turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: This is a letter of August 4, 1996, to John Geoghan from you that was sent; is that not correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you'll note that Father Geoghan was put on sick leave status. Do you see that? A: That's correct. Q: And was Father Geoghan put on sick leave status because of the allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made against him? A: Well, first of all, Father Geoghan was effectively removed from public ministry two years prior to this. Q: I understand that. A: So he is not functioning as a priest publicly. He's able to celebrate mass only privately. That means by himself. Q: Right. A: And this is continued. Why this status is changed to sick leave, I would think has less to do with any allegations, new allegations that may have occurred at that point, and more to do with his support, but I'm not -- his remuneration -- but I'm not certain about that. I'd have to rely -- I'd have to inquire as to others as to the specifics of why his designation was changed. The effect in terms of his ability to function remains the same. He was effectively removed from active ministry two years prior to that and that continued. Q: I understand that, Cardinal. As we've gone through in the Paul Shanley papers, there are various categories that the Archdiocese uses with respect to its personnel policies; is that right? A: That's correct. Q: One of them is sick leave; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And were you aware in August of 1996, whether there were any physical ailments that prevented John Geoghan from being a priest of the Archdiocese? A: Well, that wouldn't have been pertinent because his inability to function as a priest at that point had nothing to do with physical ailments. Q: Right. A: It had everything to do with the issue of sexual abuse of minors. Q: So would it be fair to state, as you sit here today, your understanding is that he was on sick leave status because of the prior allegations that had been made against him for sexual misconduct? A: I really can't answer that. Q: Okay. Fine. A: I'd have to check the records. Q: Fair enough. Next document. A: Is this the December 12 letter? Q: Yes. A: Yes. (Pause.) A: If I may -- Q: Did you review the letter? A: I did. MR. TODD: Why don't you wait for a question. Q: The document that is the last page of Exhibit 88, is this a letter that you wrote to John Geoghan while he was at Southdown in Canada on December 12, 1996? A: It is. Q: And you'll notice that in the third from the last paragraph, you state: "Yours has been an effective life of ministry, sadly impaired by illness." Is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And then you go on to state: "On behalf of those you have served well, and in my own name, I would like to thank you." Do you see that? A: That's correct. Q: When you wrote that statement, Cardinal Law, did you know at that point that there had been multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against John Geoghan from different people spanning a period of ten years or more? A: I knew that there had been a number of allegations, and that's why two years prior to this, he was removed from active ministry. Q: Right. A: I did not know the extent of it until this year when a great number of other allegations also came forward. Q: But you knew that -- you knew there was more than one allegation of sexual misconduct -- A: I knew -- Q: Excuse me. Let me finish the question. You knew there was more than one allegation of sexual misconduct against John Geoghan when you wrote this letter of December 12, 1996? A: My answer to that is the same as it was a few minutes ago to a similar question if I knew there was more than one in 1989. Q: Right. A: Yes. Q: Did you know that there were, in 1996, that more people had come forward in 1993? A: Did I know in '96 that more people -- yes. Q: You indicated before that in 1989, as you correctly noted in your answer, that there was more than one allegation against John Geoghan. A: Correct. Q: Now we're jumping forward to 1996. Between 1989 and 1996, had more individuals come forward? A: Yes. Q: And do you know by 1996 whether there were more than five allegations that you were aware of at that time against John Geoghan? A: In '96? Q: Yes. A: After he had been removed in '94? Q: Yes. A: I can't say how many I knew of, but I would imagine it would have been more than five. Q: Okay. But you considered his service to be an effective life of ministry, sadly impaired by illness; is that correct? A: I'd like to say a word about that paragraph. Q: Certainly. That's what you wrote, though? I read it correctly? A: I read "Yours has been an effective life of ministry, sadly impaired by illness. On behalf of those you have served well, and in my own name, I would like to thank you. I understand yours is a painful situation. The passion we share can indeed seem unbearable and unrelenting. We are our best selves when we respond in honesty and trust." This is an effort -- Q: Finish. A: "God bless you, Jack." Q: Right. A: This is an effort to be pastorally present to a priest who, in his life, did minister well to a number of people, and at the same time, who terribly abused children. It's a mixture of light and of darkness. And when you respond to an individual in the midst of that kind of a situation, you, I think, appropriately, as a bishop, try to remind that person that there has been some -- there's been good here; that your life is not defined simply by your evil deeds, but your good deeds are also there. And yet, it's a call for him to respond with honesty to his situation and trust. He is in the place, Southdown, where we hope -- we had hoped that he would be helped. The decision, of course, was that there was no possibility of his returning to active ministry. Q: Since you know that John Geoghan had committed evil deeds, Cardinal, did you in any way, in 1996, up until December of 2001, undertake any effort to locate other victims of Father John Geoghan who might be in need of assistance but who had not come forward to the Archdiocese? A: Again, I relied on the Office of Delegate to assist me in ministry to victims and to -- and to the priest who was the perpetrator. It was not our policy to -- I can't really say for certain what our policy was in '96, whether we went to parishes where this had occurred or not. But I'd have to check that out. Q: Isn't it true that that policy didn't commence or even come under discussion until January of this year when a series of articles were published in the Boston Globe? A: It is true, certainly, that in January of this year, we radically reassessed how we were handling this case and made significant changes, as you know, and are continuing to learn by our experience and I think are perfecting what we're doing. But I can't say with specificity what was or was not done in '96. Q: Cardinal Law, we've now concluded with the questions about John Geoghan. I just want to summarize where we are because we are focusing, again, on the '84 -- at least in part -- on the '84 to '89 time period and the number of priests that you were dealing with directly. And we've already established, I think -- and you correct me if I'm wrong here -- that you were personally aware of John Geoghan's situation and made the decision to assign him back into ministry. When I say the "situation," I mean the allegations of sexual misconduct against him. You were personally aware of the allegations involving Father Rosenkranz. That's Exhibit No. 77, if you'd like to look at it. A: Yes. Q: You were personally aware of the situation of Father Birmingham when you assigned him to be -- reassigned him from St. Ann's to St. Brigid's; is that correct? A: Correct. Q: You were personally aware during the same time period, 1984 to 1989, that Father Graham had admitted engaging in sexual misconduct with a minor. That's Exhibit No. 81, Cardinal, if you'd like to take a look at it. A: I'd like to look at that one. (Pause.) A: Did I see the back-up letter on that? Q: On Exhibit 81? A: That was -- that was the copy. Q: Right. Exhibit 80, Exhibit 80, if you want to take a look at that, which was copied to you on -- A: Yeah. Q: -- was the letter of an individual. A: And I believe my testimony, as you showed that to me, was that I did not recall seeing that copy letter -- Q: Right. A: -- but that it would have gone -- it would have appropriately gone to the person helping me with these kinds of cases. Q: You see Exhibit 81 is notations of Bishop Banks concerning the allegations that Father Graham admitted to. Do you see that? A: I see the memo of Bishop Banks, which was not a memo to me. Q: Right. A: And I do not recall seeing this except in the context of deposition. Q: Right. A: But, I see this. Q: Would it have been consistent with the practice at the time that when a priest admitted, in Bishop Banks' word, confessing that as a seminarian and young man he had been involved with a young man, and that this involvement involved sexual activity -- do you see those words of Bishop Banks' in the second paragraph of Exhibit 81? A: Yes. Q: Is that the type of matter consistent with what you've testified about your practice that would have been brought to your attention? A: And I would imagine that the substance of this would have been brought to my attention, including the conclusion here. Q: Sure. A: "I have asked Father Graham to meet with Dr. O'Hanley, and I have received from Dr. O'Hanley a report which allows us to continue to assign Father Graham to priestly ministry. I myself have no doubt that Father Graham has been honest in admitting his guilt and denying that any improper activity has taken place in the past 20 years." Q: Right. We went over that before and I understand that's there. What I'm really focusing on now are the priests we covered so far that you knew about in the '84 to '89 time period that had either admitted or had allegations, credible allegations against them concerning sexual misconduct, and were allowed to continue in ministry. A: And your question to me is what? Q: My question is Daniel Graham was one of those? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. And Joseph Birmingham was one of those? A: Yes. Q: And we've already been over Father Rosenkranz. A: Yes. Q: That was one of those? A: Are you giving me any new ones or -- Q: You know what. I'm going to give you a new one. A: -- is this the same material that we did yesterday? Q: It was actually two days ago. A: Whenever it was. Q: We're going to go to the next one. I just want to make sure we know where we are right now. So if I could continue. We also, during this same time period, Cardinal Law, Exhibit 43, you had the allegation of sexual assaults involving Father Rebeiro? MR. TODD: That book up there. Q: Yes, that book up there. We already covered this. A: Okay. Q: You remember Father Rebeiro? That allegation was sent to you -- A: The allegation recently came forward on him, yes. Q: There was an allegation back in March of 1984. Do you remember that? Your testimony on -- A: I remember this coming forward. What was my testimony on that? Q: I will tell you -- you're welcome to look at it. It's Exhibit 43 and Exhibit 44 if you would like to look at it. A: Could you refresh me on my testimony -- Q: Sure. A: -- I mean, if it's pertinent to the question you're asking me. Q: Sure. A letter was written to you, that's Exhibit No. 43, and you responded in Exhibit No. 44. You weren't sure, as I recall your testimony, whether you had actually seen Exhibit No. -- you had read it before you signed your name to it but it comes from you. A: That's right. Q: Now, I would like to turn to Father Tourigney, if I could, Cardinal. And we'll summarize all of this at the end so that we'll be clear. A: Okay. Q: Father Tourigney, Ernest Tourigney, do you know Ernest Tourigney? A: Yes. Q: Do you know him well? A: No. Q: Has he ever been down to Pocasset at the residence down there? A: To visit me? Q: Yes. A: No. Not -- no. Q: And were you also aware -- we're going to get you some documents here -- that during the period of 1988, allegations surfaced about Father Tourigney? A: I know allegations surfaced about Father Tourigney. I cannot -- I cannot put a time frame on that. MR. MacLEISH: Why don't we mark this next exhibit, which we've already marked Exhibit 89. Q: We'll go through this one, Cardinal, if we can. You'll see the first one is October 23, 1988. (Pause.)
Q: Is this Bishop Hughes' handwriting on the first page? A: You know, I don't think so. It doesn't -- Bishop Hughes is a little -- usually a little more careful in his handwriting than that. Q: You know, if -- A: I really don't -- I can't tell you whose it is. I would almost say it's Bishop Banks. Q: Right. All right. You'll see that the first sentence underneath Ernest Tourigney, it says: "When 14 (approached by Father T)." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And then you see: "There were later genital touches." That's several lines down. A: Yes. Q: Then it says: "He wanted me to masturbate him." A: Yes. Q: And then about a third of the way down, two-thirds of the way down, there's initials on the left-hand side which I don't know whether that refers to Bishop Daily. We haven't taken Bishop Banks' deposition yet. A: That -- MR. TODD: Wait a minute. Let's have a question. Q: Are those Bishop Daily's initials? A: You know, his initials are TVD. Q: Right. A: But I have no idea whether that -- whether he wrote that or someone else wrote that. Q: All right. Turning over to the next page, and you believe, again, that this looks to you like Bishop Banks' handwriting? A: Yeah. Let me say it does not look like Bishop Hughes and it does look like it could be Bishop Banks. Q: All right. Turn to the next page, if you would, please. These are notes that were produced by the Archdiocese, and you'll see a date October 24, 1988. "Ernie Tourigney basically agrees about relationship with blank." A: Yes. Q: And then it goes on, about quarter of the way down the page, it says: "Blank a friendship." This is the second one. "He was in grammar school. He was around all the time." I can't read that next sentence but maybe you can help me. A: Where is this now? Q: This is right here, about a third of the way down. A: "He is in Florida." Q: No, no. Yeah. "He was in grammar school." No, it's below that. The next one? A: "He was in grammar school. He was around all the time. Just" -- Q: Is that just "humps" or -- I can't read it. A: I can't make that out. Q: Okay. But you see in 1988, according to these notes, that there -- the first line there was a basic agreement, according to the writer of these notes? A: Excuse me? Excuse me? Q: The second page, Cardinal Law. A: Yes. Q: There's a -- it's stated, according to these notes -- and, again, we're going to depose Bishop Banks -- that Ernest Tourigney basically agrees about the relationship with blank. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Does that help to refresh your recollection as to whether or not there was some sort of allegations concerning Ernest Tourigney that were brought to the attention of the Archdiocese in October of 1988? A: Well, first of all, I don't recall having seen these at an earlier time frame. And I do recall that there were allegations against Father Tourigney. I do recall that he was removed from active ministry. But I don't recall -- Q: Right. A: -- the time frame so -- Q: Right. Do you know whether he was removed from active ministry as a result of the allegations that came forward in 1988? A: I can't answer that. I really don't have a recall on that. Q: All right. But assuming that these are the notes of Bishop Banks, and assuming that Ernest Tourigney admitted that he had been involved inappropriately with a minor, is that the type of information, consistent with your practice in 1988, that would have been brought to your attention? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection. MR. MacLEISH: You can answer the question. A: It's the type of information that would have been acted upon consistent with the policy. Q: Okay. Could you now turn, Cardinal Law, to what is designated by Bates stamp at the bottom as ET- . A: Excuse me. ET- ? Q: That's correct. This is a memo. This is a memo dated March 29, 1993, from Father McCormack to you, and the name of the victim is blanked out, but it states: "Your Eminence, Mr. Blank, who alleges he was sexually assaulted by Father Tourigney over a period of years, would like to meet with you sometime to voice his concern about the handling of priests who have admitted to sexual abuse." Do you see that? A: I see that. Q: Go ahead. Then there's another paragraph that you can read. A: Yes. Q: Do you remember receiving that memo from Father McCormack? A: I don't recall receiving it, but I don't -- but that doesn't imply that I question that I received it. I simply don't recall it. Q: I understand that. Now, you'll see -- if you could turn to ET- for me. A: ET- ? Q: Right. You'll see that this is a letter addressed to Bishop McCormack, , and you're copied on it on the second page as cc saying "Bernard Cardinal Law, certified return receipt." We can go off the record and I can tell you the name of this individual if it would be helpful, but I'm going to be asking you about a meeting that you had with this victim. Why don't you take a moment and read the letter to Father McCormack and see if that refreshes your recollection. A: Excuse me. It refreshes my recollection about what? Q: A meeting with the victim of Father Tourigney that you had. A: Whether I met with this person? Q: Yes, yes. A: Okay. Q: Actually, two individuals. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: Having read that letter that was produced from your files, does that -- does that refresh your recollection about a meeting that you had in 1992 with two victims of Father Tourigney? Do you see the last paragraph? A: Yes. First of all, I would have to say that I do not recall seeing this letter. Q: Right. A: And -- No. 1. No. 2, I do not recollect -- this doesn't -- MR. TODD: Refresh your memory. A: -- refresh my memory with regard to what may have -- what the visit that's implied in this letter. I am aware of the fact that I have met with victims of Father Tourigney and -- Q: If I gave you a name, would that be helpful? A: -- over a period of time. It could be or it could not be. I just don't know, you know. Q: We're almost up. I'll tell you during the break. But I do want to ask you a question, understanding that you don't have a recollection of receiving this letter. It states on the bottom of the first page -- A: As you know, the letter is addressed to Father McCormack -- Q: Yes, I know. A: -- and I was copied. Q: And it's copied to you, and it says "Certified, return receipt mail." It states at the bottom of the first paragraph: "The Archdiocese's refusal to formulate investigative teams to surface victimized children, in our minds, is a wanton neglect of its moral obligation to its members and society as a whole. We are mindful of the difficulties in pursuing this action; however, we must frankly state that the Archdiocese's reluctance to do so appears to be based upon potential political ramifications." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Do you remember any victims of sexual abuse that you met with in the 1992, 1993 period, do you remember any of them raising with you the issue of whether the Archdiocese should go out to the various parishes to try to surface the victimized children who had not come forward? A: I cannot put that kind of a recommendation or suggestion in that kind of a specific time frame. Q: Okay. You do remember -- you do remember in 1992 and 1993 that there was press coverage over the Father Porter case? You do remember that? A: Very much so. Q: And you were at times very critical of that press coverage; is that correct? A: Certainly one time. Q: Well, you felt as though it did a disservice to priests and besmirched the names of all the good priests; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: At the time you were making those statements, Cardinal Law, do you know how many priests within the Archdiocese -- this would have been in 1992 -- in total, had been accused of sexual misconduct? A: You mean how many at this point -- Q: Yes. A: -- had been accused in that time frame? No, I obviously did not know. Q: Was it fair to state there were more than ten priests that had been accused of sexual misconduct when you were criticizing the press coverage in the Globe over the Porter case? A: I cannot answer that with assurance. Q: Did you ever make any public statements, Cardinal Law, about the number of priests of the Archdiocese of Boston -- and this would have been in '92, '93 -- that had been accused the sexual misconduct? A: I don't believe I did. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Why don't we take your lunch break now and I'll give you the name of these people off the record if it would help you and then we'll resume. There is a chance -- not committing to it -- but there is a chance that we could conclude today, so if you'd like to take a shorter lunch break, that's fine with me. I think there's some chance. MR. TODD: Let's do that. Let's take a shorter lunch. MR. ROGERS: 55 minutes? MR. MacLEISH: 30 minutes sounds fine with me. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 12:57. We're off the record. (Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.) AFTERNOON SESSION THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:33. We're on the record. Q: We're going to now move to Bernard Lane, Cardinal Law, and we have Exhibit 90, which is in front of you. If I could direct your attention to the first page of that. (Pause.)
A: Yes. Q: You'll see this is a memo to Bishop Hughes. The handwritten date is February of 1992. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And this is from TJD. This is not to be confused with Bishop Daily, this is another Daily, Timothy Daily; is that correct? A: I think also Thomas. Q: Also Thomas, but no relation to Bishop Daily? A: No relation. Q: Not a brother or anything. Okay. What was Thomas Daily, not Bishop Daily, what was his position with the Archdiocese of Boston in or about 1992? A: 1992? Given the nature of this memo, I would want to say that he must have been working as an assistant to the Moderator of the Curia. Q: Okay. A: If you had asked me to place that assignment, I would not have been able to have said it was 1992, but I would presume that's what he was doing. Q: He was working at the Chancery? A: That's correct. Q: You'll see that this relates to Father Bernard Lane, and it says: "A study of his confidential file indicates there was an incident of rather lewd conduct back in 1978 when he was involved with Alpha Omega House. It seems that he was involved with a young resident whom he invited to his room and who asked him to disrobe, which he did. BL claims there was no homosexual activity, just touching." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: At the bottom paragraph, it indicates: "Since that time, he has been in Waltham and most recently pastor in Chelsea, Everett." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Could you turn to BL-008. A: Yes. Q: Do you remember meeting with Father Lane at some point? A: Well, I met with Father Lane on several occasions, yes. Q: In relationship to sexual misconduct? A: I don't remember dealing -- certainly in terms of an investigation, I would not have dealt with him on that. That would have been Father McCormack or Bishop Hughes. Q: Let's turn to BL- , if we could Cardinal Law. You recognize this is the handwriting of Bishop McCormack, do you not? A: Yes. I just wanted to look at this one, if I could. 02 -- Q: 12, . A: . This is it. The handwriting? Q: Yes. A: Yes. Q: You'll see -- MR. TODD: The question is whose -- did you answer? MR. MacLEISH: Whose handwriting? Q: Bishop McCormack's? A: I couldn't not say that. Q: You couldn't not say that? A: No. I don't know whose handwriting this is. Q: Okay. I believe it's Bishop McCormack's but I may well be wrong. A: I'd have no reason to say it isn't but I don't know. Q: All right. Well, you'll see the date 7/30/93. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: And you'll see there's a No. 1, it says "Bernard Lane." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: And then there's No. 2, down towards the bottom, says, "Surette and Bernie"? A: No. 2. Yes. Q: Do you know a Father Melvin Surette? A: I do. Q: And was he, as you know, also working at the Alpha Omega House in the late 1970s with Father Lane? A: I don't know that as a -- I could not verify that as a fact, but I know that he was involved in some kind of a social service outreach, yes. Q: And he has had allegations of sexual misconduct against him made; is that correct? A: That's correct. He's not actively involved -- he's not on active duty at the moment. Q: And he has not been since about 1993? A: That may very well be the year, yes. Q: You'll see again, Exhibit of Exhibit 90 is records produced from the Archdiocese. You'll see that underneath No. 1, Bernard Lane, you see the word "credible" there? A: I do. Q: You'll see under sub number No. 1 under No. 1, it says: "Lie down floor of office, relax." I can't read the rest of that up at the top there. "Remove pieces of clothes, shirt, et cetera," something, "naked in bed." Do you see that? A: I think it's "lying." Q: "Lying in bed." A: "Lying in bed." Q: Right. "At night." Do you see that? A: Yeah. Uh-huh. Q: And then you'll see, it says: "20 kids probably engaged in this." And then it says, underneath that, "Ejaculated on him." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Now, if we could -- MR. TODD: I'm going to object to just reading something and asking him whether he sees it and not asking any questions about it. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Your objection is noted. MR. TODD: Well, that was the point of my making it, that it would be noted. MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted. Q: Cardinal Law -- MR. TODD: We're wasting time reading documents and asking him whether he sees that. MR. MacLEISH: Cardinal -- I mean, I'm sorry. Let's just move on here. Q: You'll see the review board, in the , you see the review board on Father Lane? A: Yes. Q: June 6, 1994? A: Well, I see it as Case No. 37. Q: Yes. Case No. 37. And these were produced as part of the production in the Bernard Lane case. Were you aware in 1993 that there were allegations that Bernard Lane had been involved with activities with minors at Alpha Omega House whereby Father Lane made the children lie naked in bed and would have the children ejaculate on him? Were you generally aware of that allegation in 1992 or 1993, Cardinal Law? A: I was not aware of the specifics of the allegations, but I certainly was aware of the fact that there were allegations of improper conduct. Q: Well, did you know anything whatsoever about allegations that while at Alpha Omega House, Father Lane would have children ejaculate on him? Anything of that nature? A: I did not have that specific knowledge communicated to me, that I can recall. Q: Okay. Well, you'll see in BL- , you'll see this is a personal and confidential report of your review board; is that correct? Goes on for several pages? A: That's correct. Q: And this was the review board that you were relying on to make -- assist you in making decisions back in 1993; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: If you'll look, Cardinal Law, at the last page, do you remember receiving -- actually, this is, I believe, the Delegate's recommendation, but do you remember receiving a recommendation in June of 1994 that Father Lane not be involved in parish ministry? A: I don't -- I don't receive -- I don't recall -- I can't give you a time when I received this. I see on -- perhaps I'm not supposed to be looking at it -- but I see 109 -- Q: Yes, right. A: -- BL-109, which would indicate to me that that was the board's recommendation. Q: Right. The board's -- and the board stated, did it not, the board recommended that "There be no parish ministry and that there should be no public ministry in the near future. The priest should live in a residence with priests, be in regular contact with his monitor/advisor, and continue in therapy and spiritual direction. The case should be reviewed in two years." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And that, pursuant to your protocol, would have been forwarded to you. And the next document, which is , is your acceptance of the review board's recommendation? A: That's correct. Q: Is that correct? Okay. Then you'll see another -- 118 is a later meeting of the review board, May 4, 1995, where the board recommends that "the priest not be assigned to parish ministry; that he continue in spiritual direction; that he continue in therapy as long as he and his therapist agree this is indicated; that he be engaged with the Office of the Delegate in searching for opportunities for ministry which do not involve young people." Do you see that? A: I see that. Q: And, again, I don't have a copy of whether or not this was forwarded to you, but in 1995, was it the usual procedure for review board meetings and recommendations to be forwarded to you for approval? A: Yes. That was the standard procedure. I mean, the whole point was they were making a recommendation to me and so I needed to get the recommendation. Q: Okay. And you indicated that there was a doctor on this review board? A: I did. Q: Do you know his name? A: I could not give you -- I can't give you the names of any of the members of the review board. Q: Did you undertake any inquiry to ensure that when you assembled this review board, that there would be individuals from the field of psychiatry who had some expertise in assessing individuals who had been accused of sexual misconduct? A: Here again, I was relying on the assistance of my Delegate in developing that list of personnel. Q: I understand that, but did you remember instructing your Delegate to make sure that there were individuals on the review board with a medical background who had expertise in assessing or treating individuals who had been accused of sexual molestation? A: I do not recall giving that kind of a specific instruction. I think it would be obvious, however, that if we wanted a psychiatrist and if we wanted a parent of a victim and if we wanted a judge and if we wanted others -- Q: Right. A: -- whose background would bring some particular expertise to that, that the presumption was that you weren't going to get a psychiatrist who was a expert in gerontology. Q: The answer to the question is you don't have a specific recollection of having such a conversation? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. Could you turn to BL- . A: Yes. Q: Would it be accurate to state that all assignments as of 1999, even for weekend duty, would have to be approved by you? A: That all assignments -- I would make an assignment, which would be the general assignment of a priest. That's the assignment that I would give him, his fundamental basic assignment. I would not, you know, be assigning him beyond that point. Again, perhaps you could rephrase your question. Q: Well, sure. Take a look at the last paragraph of BL- . And this is in 1999. And it says: "Father Lane is currently performing no public ministry which would involve minors except for celebration of two Sunday masses at St. Linus Parish in Natick. He assures me that he does not have any contact with minors separate from the open form of liturgy. He performs no other ministry apart from the work he does at Regina Cleri." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Did you permit Father Lane to perform ministry in 1999 at St. Linus Parish in Natick? A: I would not have assigned him to St. Linus Parish in Natick. Q: Okay. A: I would have assigned him to his fundamental assignment. Q: So you had no knowledge that he had been performing weekend masses in 1999, the best you can recall? A: I do not recall that knowledge. Q: Okay. Do you know Father Paul Mahan? A: I do. Q: At some point, do you remember assigning Paul Mahan or assigning Paul Mahan -- approving his pastorship at St. Matthews in Dorchester? A: I can't recall when that was, but I did appoint him as pastor of St. Matthews. Q: Were you aware at that time that he had previously been director of the band in grammar school in St. Ann's in Dorchester? A: No, I was not. Q: Are you aware -- were you aware prior to assigning Father Mahan to St. Matthews in Dorchester that there were prior allegations of sexual misconduct? A: I have no recollection of any prior allegations for Father Mahan. My recollection is that when we received allegations about Father Mahan, that he was removed from active ministry. Q: Do you know a Father Jack Connoll? A: I do. Q: Is he an individual who has been accused of sexual misconduct? A: He has. Q: Has he been removed from ministry? A: He is not in active ministry, that is correct. Q: He's not assigned to any parish? A: No, no. Q: And was he at one point assigned to St. Marks in Dorchester by you? A: I would have to check the files on that. I don't know. Q: Well, was he also appointed by you as chaplain of St. John's Prep? Do you recall that? A: Again, I'd have to review the personnel files. Q: Okay. You have no independent recollection right now? A: No. Q: Do you know whether he's on the board of St. Mary's Hall in Milton or was? A: I could not answer that. It's that I don't know. Q: Do you know a Thomas Dunne? D-u-n-n-e. A: Could you say a little bit more about Thomas Dunne. Q: Director of youth ministry. A: Oh, Father Dunne? Q: Father Dunne. I'm sorry. Father Dunne. A: Yes, yes. Q: He was the director of youth ministry? A: Yes. Q: Is he presently the director? A: Still is. Q: And do you know whether he had any friendship with Father Paul Shanley that you're aware of? A: I am not aware of that. Q: Is he a Seleucian? A: He is. Q: Now, do you know Father Jon Martin? A: I do. Q: And you know about Father Martin in connection with the Reardon case; is that accurate? A: Yes, but my knowledge of him is not limited to that. Q: Okay. And you're aware, are you not, that there is an allegation that Father Martin himself was involved in sexual misconduct with a minor? A: I am -- you know, I know that he was removed from the parish. I know that he went into treatment. I know that he is not actively serving as a priest. But I cannot speak with any specificity about his allegation against him. Q: Are you generally aware that this year there was an allegation of sexual misconduct made against Father Martin? A: As I just indicated, I am not -- I could not give you any kind of specifics about that right at this movement. I just don't know. Q: I'm not asking about any specifics. Maybe I'm misreading your answer or I'm not doing the question properly. Are you generally aware, however, Cardinal, that there's been an allegation of sexual misconduct this year that has been brought against Father Jon Martin? A: Against a minor? Q: Involving someone under the age of 18? A: You know, I just have to check that out. Q: Okay. A: I know that -- I know he was removed and sent for observation, sent for treatment. But I can't recall the specifics. Q: All right. So we're going to move on to Father Gale right now, Cardinal. I have another exhibit for you. It's much thicker than we're -- the thickness does not reflect the amount of time I'm going to spend on this particular file, but I want to ask you whether you know Father Gale. A: I do, yes. Q: And you know that there have been allegations of sexual misconduct made against Father Gale? A: Yes. Q: And Father Gale is no longer in active ministry -- A: That's correct. Q: -- is that right? Now, you'll see on the first page of Exhibit No. 91, you'll see a letter dated March 7, 1979 -- A: Yes. Q: -- to the Reverend Thomas Daily about Father Gale. Do you see that? A: I see this, yes. Q: And they report sexual attacks. Do you see that? A: I see this. Q: Okay. On three sons, on their sons age 14 and 17. Do you see this? A: I do. Q: And this was sent by the office of the regional bishop to Bishop Daily. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: In March of 1979. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: You'll see on the second page, that these individuals indicated, at least one other boy has told them their son, that he too was attacked by Father Gale; is that correct? Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Now, did Bishop Daily inform you about any of these accusations, Cardinal Law, when you arrived here in Boston in March of 1984? A: I do not recall being given this information. Q: You are aware that Father Gale was not removed from active ministry until the 1990s. You're aware of that, are you not? A: Whatever the record would show, yes. Q: We're going to get to that. A: Yes, yes, yes. Q: But he was a parish priest for some period of time during the time that you were here in Boston; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Now, if you could turn to Gale page 11, please. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: Have you read it? A: Yes. Q: The first allegation you'll see pertained to St. Joseph's Parish in Quincy, the one that was on the first page. A: Yes. Q: This is now an allegation brought by -- well, it involves St. Jude's Parish in Waltham. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And it comes from a -- the individual reports it as a fire captain with the Boston Police Department and he's writing about the child of a lieutenant whom he claims was molested by Father Gale. Do you see that? Describes it as an assault? A: Yes. I guess I didn't pick up those indications that you just indicated. Q: But you see them know? A: Fire chief and all of that. But I did see the letter. Q: Right, right. A: Does it say that? Q: Yes. It says right at the top, it says: "Peace and all good and Christ Jesus. It is with great sadness that I write this letter to you, but it is a letter I feel compelled to write. I'm a fire captain with the Boston Fire Department." A: That's blacked out of the letter that I have. Q: We don't want to identify the victim but "I'm a fire captain." A: All right. I see. Q: I can read that to you. Was this brought to your attention -- A: It was not. Q: -- about Father Gale? A: I have no recollection of seeing this letter. Q: Okay. All right. If you could turn to Gale page 15. And again, I believe this to be Bishop McCormack's handwriting. I'm looking at the initials on the top, but, again, you probably know better than I would. I can't tell whether that's 9 a.m. or John -- JBM, but I think it's JBM. Do you see those initials? A: Yes. Obviously -- yeah. It looks like his writing. At first I was put off by the dates -- Q: Right. A: -- because he wouldn't have been there, but if it's taking notes from the file, then that's what I would presume that would be. Q: Right. And you'll see that he summarizes an incident, 1/83, or complaint, allegation, "Camp Fatima complaint about Dorchester boys and improper advances." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: And then the second page, I believe, makes reference to the letter that we just covered. Do you see that complaint? A: Yes. Q: Then 1981, I can't -- that's "Began seeing a doctor in Quincy." A: I see that. Q: And then 3/79, I believe is the first incident that we went over that is Gale No. 1. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Now, so we have allegations involving Father Gale at Camp Fatima, St. Jude's and another incident at St. Joseph's in Quincy. When you first arrived here in Boston, Cardinal, was there any sort of sit-down that you had with your cabinet or important individuals within the Archdiocese where you asked them to tell you affirmatively about any problems or issues, challenges that the diocese was facing? A: I met, certainly, with Bishop Daily, and he reviewed with me the state of the Archdiocese. I met with other individuals who had specific responsibilities, but nothing emerged as a problem with regard to this issue. Q: Is this -- the information that we've just covered, that, again, comes from apparently, according to Bishop McCormack and the documents as we've seen, three different sources about Father Gale, is this the type of information that you would have expected to have received or have summarized by Bishop Daily or other people when you arrived? A: What I would have expected is that if -- that such information would have had to have led to some kind of further examination, assessment, treatment and some kind of a judgment that if a person were in place, that it was responsible for him to be in place. My presumption would be that a problem would have been handled and handled appropriately. Q: Well, given the priorities that we have discussed extensively here in your deposition about protecting children, would you not have expected Bishop Daily to inform you that there were priests within the Archdiocese that had allegations of sexual molestation against them, coming, in the case of Father Gale, from three different sources? A: In 1984, my presumption would have been that anyone in an assignment was there appropriately. Had there been a problem, that it would have been handled appropriately. I would not have expected that there were people who were problematic who were in assignment. Q: Okay. Reflecting back on your situation in 1984, is the information that we just covered concerning Father Gale, those three allegations, is that the type of information that you wish you had had available to you in 1984? A: There's a lot that I wish would have been different in 1984 -- Q: Right. I'm talking about this. A: -- from the year 2002. Q: I understand. A: And this would be part of that, yes. Q: Okay. Could you turn to Gale 21, please. A: Yes. Q: This is a letter, I believe, from John McCormack to Robert Gale, indicating that he should be receiving a letter from you ending his assignment to the tribunal as of June 30, 1991. A: Yes. Q: Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: And it also goes on to state: "In the meantime, it would be good if you and I met next week and review the details of your plans and residences this summer." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Why was Robert Gale -- why did his assignment at the tribunal end as of June 30, 1991, if you recall? A: I cannot recall. Q: Okay. Could you turn to the next page, Gale 22. Is this a true letter -- this is dated June 26, 1991 -- a letter that you sent to Father Gale concerning his reassignment from the tribunal? A: Yes. I would have no reason to doubt that this is my letter. Q: Do you know, Cardinal, whether there were at this point credible allegations of sexual misconduct against Father Gale as of June -- A: New allegations or old allegations? Q: New allegations, new allegations. A: I'm presuming that that's underlying this action but I cannot be -- Q: Right. It was not until 1992 in the Porter case that the Archdiocese started its full review of all the old files; is that correct? A: Well, it was after -- yes. It was about that time that we did that. Q: Right. So if you could turn to the next page, please, which is Gale 26. A: Yes. Q: You'll see, again, what I believe is Bishop McCormack, in a chronology, which includes Camp Fatima. Does this help to refresh your recollection as to whether or not there were allegations in 1991 involving Father Gale? MR. TODD: Objection. A: Does this document? Q: Yes. A: No. Q: Yes. It doesn't make any specific -- A: No. Q: It doesn't make any specific reference -- A: No, no. Q: I have not asked Bishop McCormack about this yet. A: No. I'm afraid that I wouldn't know what underlies this. Q: It says at the top "Plan." Do you see that? A: Right. I do see that. Q: Do you remember placing any restrictions on Father Gale attending Camp Fatima? A: Here again, I would have -- I would have worked -- I would have been represented in my interface with Father Gale by Father McCormack. Q: Okay. All right. So could you just tell me what Camp Fatima is, what your understanding of it is? A: Camp Fatima is a wonderful camp which is in the Diocese of Manchester. Q: Right. A: And it's for children, young people -- and I don't know what the age is in order to go there -- Q: Right. A: -- who suffer some sort of mental -- Q: Right. A: -- developmental disability. Q: As I understand it, it occurs at the end of the summer after a regular camp that uses that particular facility, after the camp is concluded? A: I believe that is the case. Q: And it goes on for approximately two weeks; is that correct? A: I wouldn't know that. Q: And do you know whether there are allegations involving, apart from Father Gale, allegations involving sexual misconduct at Camp Fatima by priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, at Camp Fatima? Are you generally aware of that? A: I am not aware of that. Q: Could you turn to Gale 19, please. Want to take a look at that document, please. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: Were you -- was this a letter that you recall seeing or receiving back in 1993 concerning Father Gale's attendance at Camp Fatima? A: Excuse me. I must have the wrong letter. Q: I'm sorry. It's Gale No. 19. A: Oh. 19? Q: Yes. I apologize. A: Okay. (Pause.) A: I do not recall seeing this letter before. Q: Okay. You'll note that on the first page, there's a -- this is a letter that comes from the Reverend David O'Leary of St. Augustine's Parish in South Boston. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And it reports that in the fall of 1992, which is the last sentence on the first page, information came to Father O'Leary's attention about Father Gale molesting an individual at Camp Fatima. MR. TODD: Is there a question? MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Q: Do you see that? A: What paragraph is that? Q: Last paragraph on the first page. Let me read it. "A few weeks later at a gathering to evaluate EC week '92" -- that's exceptional children week at Camp Fatima -- "a very solid individual started to speak about Father Gale in a group of ten people. He said he was hurt that Father Gale was still allowed to be at camp. I mentioned that I had no first-hand knowledge to act on, only mounting second-hand information. This individual then shared how Father Gale would invite the high school waiters up to his cabin for a huge steak dinner and supply alcohol before and after EC week. This individual had heard rumors about being careful around Father Gale. This individual then shared how Father Gale had grabbed and attempted to place his hand down this individual's pants. This first-hand information came to me in the fall of 1992." Go ahead. Were you generally aware that there was some allegation made at some point in time that Father Gale had been molesting high school waiters up in New Hampshire? A: No, I am not. Q: All right. You'll note, as I just read this, was in the fall of 1992, Cardinal Law -- Do you see that? A: I do. Q: -- that this first came to the individual's attention. Could you turn to Gale 17, please. A: Gale 17? Q: Yes. A: Does it come after that? Q: No. It's previous. Before. A: 15, 21, 22. Oh, 17. Q: 17, right. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: Okay. Have you ever seen that letter before that was sent to Bishop McCormack? A: I do not recall seeing this letter, no. Q: Did you have -- I'm assuming that in 1992, if there was an allegation of sexual abuse and the priest was going up to Camp Fatima, that that information would be shared with the director of Camp Fatima. Was that a procedure? A: I cannot speak to what the procedure was. Q: There was a number of Archdiocesan priests that annually went up to Camp Fatima; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Okay. Father Kelly one of them, do you know? A: I wouldn't know whether Father Kelly went up or not. Q: Father Graham? A: I don't -- I really don't know that. Q: Okay. All right. Let's -- let me just make sure -- A: I know that Father McCarthy did, the personnel director did. Q: Yes, he did. A: He was a regular. Q: Yes, he did. He did. And there were -- the camp served vulnerable children; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: All right. So we're going to move on to Father Shanley but I just want to make sure that with respect to the testimony that you've given about the priests who had allegations against them between the period of 1984 and 1989, I just want to summarize where we are and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll try to refer you to exhibits. I think we covered earlier today and in prior testimony that you -- MR. TODD: Excuse me. What are you going to be doing? Summarizing testimony? MR. MacLEISH: I'm going to ask him whether the testimony is correct. Yes. Your objection is noted. MR. TODD: I haven't made an objection. I'm asking you what are you doing in this question? Are you rehashing testimony that you say he has given? MR. MacLEISH: I want to make sure that I have his accurate testimony. Okay? MR. TODD: No. It's not okay. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. The objection -- MR. TODD: The record -- MR. MacLEISH: Hold it. MR. TODD: The transcript will indicate whether you have accurate testimony. Paraphrasing testimony and asking him to comment on it when we have a written record is objectionable. MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted. This is cross-examination. Q: Cardinal, you understand that we went through -- we spent a fair amount of time in our last session and this session going through what was happening in the Archdiocese of Boston between 1984 and 1989. Do you recall that testimony? A: I believe I do, yes. Q: And I think at the beginning of the testimony, you, beginning of our session last time, you indicated that the problems of priests molesting children was not, in your view, a pervasive one during that -- I think those were your exact words -- during 1984 to 1989. Is that your testimony? A: It will -- whatever I said, that's what I said, yes. Q: Okay. But there were, as we've covered, there were situations that you were personally involved in during that same time period that my clients allege that Father Shanley was molesting their children. There were situations -- MR. TODD: Objection to "involved in." MR. ROGERS: Objection to form. Q: -- correct? A: Do you mean was I aware of some cases at that time? Q: Yes. A: To the extent that I have been aware of those cases that you put before me, yes. Q: Right. And that includes Father Birmingham, Father O'Sullivan, Father Graham, Father Geoghan, Father Rosenkranz and Father Rebeiro. They were all in that time period; is that correct? MR. TODD: I object. That's an unfair question. A: I believe that's correct. Q: And in each one of those cases, after there was an allegation of sexual molestation, in each one of those incidents, the priest was returned to active ministry in a parish; is that correct? A: I believe that's correct, in accord with the policy of review and trying to get some assessment of a person who would be qualified to give such an assessment with regard to the pathology, to indicate that such an assignment would not be -- was appropriate and reasonable, yes. Q: And that even covered situations such as the Father O'Sullivan one where there was a criminal prosecution; is that correct? A: I did not make the assignment of Father O'Sullivan, but that's correct, yes. Q: So in your April statement, when you said you wish you had known about the 1966 allegation involving Father Paul Shanley, you're not stating that if you had known about that, that Father Paul Shanley would have been removed from St. Jean's, are you? MR. TODD: Objection. A: What I am saying is that it would have been handled -- that it would not have been -- that it would have been investigated, there would have been some review of his situation, and I can't say whether he would have been assigned or not. It would have depended on what we -- what kind of word would I have gotten from either an institute such as the Institute of Living or Southdown or St. Luke's. Q: Well, we have been, and been produced in this case, records of about 15 priests, and the ones that we've covered are the only records that we have who had allegations against them between 1984 and 1989. And I would like to give you the same opportunity I gave you in the previous depositions to identify one priest who had allegations of sexual molestation against him in the same time period where Paul Shanley was at St. Jean's who was removed from parish ministry. MR. TODD: Objection. I think that's been asked and answered as well. THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I don't think I have answered it. I think it's been asked. Q: It has been asked and you indicated you -- A: The first time it was asked, it was asked in a more general time frame. Q: Right. A: Was I aware of any priests who had been removed. And here again, I, at the beginning of my return from the break, I'll give you the names of those generally, but for the specific time frame -- Q: '84 to '89. A: -- '84 to '89, I don't believe that there are any, but I want to be able to amend that when I come back after the break. Q: Certainly. My only question is -- and you're going to be cross-examined by your counsel -- but my only question for you is in the period that Paul Shanley was at St. Jean's -- A: '84 to '89. Q: That's correct. And that covers the beginning of 1984 right up through the end of 1989. A: Yes. And I would -- I don't believe so, but I would want to be able to amend that. Q: That's fine. And you do acknowledge that Father Thomas Doyle spoke to you about the general problem of sexual molestation at some point either before you started as Archbishop of Boston or shortly thereafter? A: Well, I acknowledged, I think, conversations with Father Doyle. I can't be specific about them. Q: Right. Cardinal, given the number of people that we've spoken about who, number of priests in this '84 to '89 time period that had allegations of sexual molestation against children and were put back into ministry, did you at some point start to think during that time period that there was more, as you put it, of a pervasive problem involving sexual misconduct in priests? A: It's hard, as I sit here, to say what I thought when, but, obviously, the establishment of a written policy, the establishment of an office, all indicates an effort to deal in a more systematic way with the problem that was more recurrent. I think that the case of Father Porter was a case that -- that helped many of us understand more clearly how pervasive this problem can be in an individual case, not just in terms of the number of perpetrators, just as the focus on the Archdiocese in January was an occasion to come to a clear understanding of the dimensions of the problem. I'm not sure that that understanding is yet run out as fully as it needs to. Q: But given the problems that came to your attention involving Father Birmingham, Father O'Sullivan, Father Graham, Father Rosenkranz, Father Geoghan and Father Rebeiro, did you at any point in time in that '84 to '89 time period, think in your own mind that there is a pervasive problem in the Archdiocese of Boston involving the subject of children being molested by priests? A: I think -- first of all, one such act is one too many. Then I think you have to look at each of those cases individually. In some of those cases, as I understood the case when it was presented to me, in some of those cases, I was before a case where -- as in the case of Father Graham -- the action took place several decades before. Q: Uh-huh. A: And there was evidence that this had not occurred since. Demonstrably, the person was doing good work, effective work. And in a case like that, I think, not without reason, was grateful to God that this terrible pathology in this instance had -- had been overcome and that this person was able to function effectively. And with regard to some of the other cases that we have dealt with, there was what, to my mind, was a bizarre and inexplicable method of interaction under the rubric of helping adolescents but -- Q: Which one was that? A: I'm thinking of the Lane and the Surette. But that also appeared to be something of the past. And there were a lot of bizarre kinds of therapies that were current in an earlier time frame, not simply and not principally within the Church, but generally in the area of sensitivity sessions and things of that sense. Q: Where you take off your clothes? A: Yes. Weird things, yeah. Q: And ejaculations? A: Well, as I indicated -- MR. TODD: Would you please let him finish and then follow up with questions. A: As I indicated to you, Mr. MacLeish, I was not aware of that claim. Q: Sure. A: But my point here is that you'd need to take each case individually and look at it and see where is the time frame when the allegation is being made, what was the nature of the allegation, what had occurred in the interim period to indicate whether you were looking at something that was a pervasive problem. Now, had I been facing in every one of these instances, allegations of contemporaneous activity, it would have been a different thing. But that wasn't the case in all of these situations. Here, again, hindsight is a magnificent thing. In terms of what I now see and what I now see in terms of all of these cases that have come to light is that one such instance is one too many in terms of the risk involved, and the person should not be allowed to function in ministry. But that was not the case in the time frame that we're talking about. Q: I understand that, Cardinal. What I -- let me ask you this. Between 1984 and 1989, is it accurate to state that there was -- the Archdiocese of Boston, in terms of numbers of children, served more children in various capacities than any other social service organization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Would that be a fair statement? A: I believe next to the state itself, in terms of social service provision, that is true. Q: So my question is, in light of all of the children that are -- that you're serving at the Archdiocese of Boston, and in light of the various cases -- and I'm not talking about just one in isolation like Father Graham -- but the various cases that keep coming to your attention in that '84 to '89 time period, did you ever consider, for example, the need to bring in outside consultants in the '84 to '89 time period to advise you about how better to protect children served in these Archdiocesan programs? A: First of all, with regard to the Archdiocesan programs, social service programs, in the social service agencies that we have, they have their own mechanism for review, for in-service training, for supervision. Q: Right. A: And when you ask me about that social service outreach, that would be through our social service agencies. Q: That's Catholic Charities -- A: Catholic Charities. Q: -- and North Shore? A: Yes. And allied agencies. Typically, you would not have priests involved in those roles. They would be, rather, people who would be trained social workers, although there were some priests who did have that credential, and Father Lane and Father Surette earlier along were in that organization. Q: What I was also referring to, Cardinal, was when I say social services, perhaps I didn't use the right definition. But I would include within that also the schools of the Archdiocese, the CCD classes of the Archdiocese and other programs for youth. When you include all those programs, would it be fair to state that you were the first or second largest social service organization in the time period from 1984 to 1989? A: I think so, yeah. Q: And so did you ever consider, for example, drawing on the expertise of Catholic Charities and their policies and procedures in dealing with the issue of these priests who had molested children that came to your attention in the '84 to '89 time period? A: I believe I've answered before that I relied on the Delegate -- Q: Right. A: -- to interact with the priests and to have assistance from appropriate medical personnel and to have assistance from institutions that had some specialty and expertise in this area. Q: But as you started to learn first about Father O'Sullivan in 1984 and then about Father Geoghan, then about Father Birmingham and the others that we've covered, as you started to learn that, did you ever think that there was some need for action, even if it just involved getting the priests together and saying: This is intolerable. This type of conduct is intolerable. Did that ever occur to you in the '84 to '89 time period? A: What we did in the '84, '89 time frame is attempt to respond case by case and to provide the kind of response that was, in our view, the view of the Delegate, a responsible way to deal with the case. Q: But to your knowledge, no outside experts were brought in on that '84 to '89 time period to advise, not with respect to specific cases, but really the whole picture of what the Archdiocese should be doing to ensure that children were protected? Do you understand my question? A: Well, I understand the answer that you want me to give. Q: Well, I just -- which is the truth. I want nothing more or less than the truth, Cardinal. A: Yes. Well, I'm giving you nothing more than the truth. Q: Right. A: You're not suggesting I'm not? Q: No. Nor are you suggesting, I hope, that I'm asking for particular answers. I just want to know if outside experts were brought in. A: Outside experts brought in? Q: Let me be more specific. We discussed, for example, that in individual cases, Father O'Hanley, I think his name came up in the Rosenkranz case and one of the other cases that we have discussed. And we've talked about the Institute for Living in the case of Father Geoghan. Those were agencies, individuals with expertise; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: But they were brought in in individual cases; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: Was there anybody in that '84 to '89 time period who was an expert and had the same information that you had and that your Delegate had about the number of priests that were involved in sexual misconduct with children? A: And the question? Q: Was there any expert -- I understand there were experts in individual cases. My question is: As this problem started to increase -- you said that one is too many and I couldn't agree with you more -- but as this problem started to increase, did you bring in an expert to look at, not just one priest, but the entire situation of these priests being involved with children? A: The entire situation of these priests -- Q: Right. A: -- being involved with children? What are you talking about here? We're dealing -- you know, in each instance, our policy -- which I wish had been different, but it was what it was -- Q: Right. A: -- our policy was that with each case, we had someone or some institution that we could rely on, with reason, to assist us and to assist him and to assist the Church and to assist children in the process. Now, beyond that, you're asking me now, did I rely on some expert to deal with these priests? What do you mean by that? Q: Let me withdraw the question. When you came to Boston, you've testified that you assumed all of the people that were appointed had been properly assigned; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And after you started in Boston in 1984, the cases that we've gone over at our last session and today came to your attention; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you started to understand that maybe some of the people that you assumed had been properly assigned were no longer appropriate for assignment? A: That's correct. Q: Is that correct? A: Right. Q: And that was not something that you believed when you started, right? A: That's correct. Q: And you were shocked when you learned that there were priests in Boston who had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors, correct? A: I was saddened. Q: Well, were you shocked? A: I was shocked, saddened, yes. Q: Were you shocked by the number of priests in the '84 to '89 time period that were sexually involved with children? A: You know, first of all, they were not involved in the '84, '89 time period. Q: Had been involved? A: They had been involved, but not in the '84, '89 time period. Q: Right. They came to your attention in that time frame? A: They came to my attention in that time frame. And that is a difference. Of course, I was profoundly concerned and shocked by the fact that there would have been one. Q: Given the fact that you were shocked, did it suggest to you that there was some sort of systemic problem that was going on in the Archdiocese of Boston involving this type of misconduct? A: I really did not believe there was a systemic problem. Q: I think you said at the last session that there was an average of one a year. Is that -- do you recall that testimony? A: One a year? Q: I think you said that when we last met. A: I think I did it in terms of the number that you were putting before me. I was simply reflecting on the number you put before me for that time frame. Q: Right, right. And that wasn't an acceptable level for you, by any means? A: I said one would not be acceptable, right. Q: So, again, the question is: Given that you were shocked by this, what you were learning, and given your priority of protecting children, did it ever occur to you simply to send out the message to the priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, a strong message in this '84 to '89 time period, that this type of conduct was totally intolerable? Did that ever occur? Did you ever consider doing that? A: It never occurred to me it was necessary to point out that this kind of behavior is intolerable. I think that -- I think, and I now think that that is -- that that is recognized. It's intolerable in terms of our understanding of what the commitment of celibacy is -- Q: Right. A: -- what the commitment to serve is, and our focus in terms of in-service training, of retreats, the expectation that every priest makes a retreat every year -- Q: Right. A: -- of the provision of a variety of ongoing courses of education and formation, is to strengthen that priestly life and ministry -- Q: Right. A: -- the seminary program, the method of assessing candidates who apply to the seminary. All of this has its focus on assuring that those who begin study for the seminary are capable of living this kind of a life. And our programs are directed towards strengthening that priestly commitment. So even though there may not have been a program within that time frame that looked specifically at the issue of the sexual abuse of children, it is not to say that there wasn't an effort to strengthen the quality of priestly life in ministry -- Q: Well, in the -- A: Which would have made this -- Q: I'm sorry. A: -- which would have been a protective measure. MR. MacLEISH: Take a break? Sure. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:34. This is the end of Cassette 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:44. This is Cassette 3 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're on the record. Q: Cardinal, before the break, you started -- you talked about in-service training programs and education in the area of sexual abuse. Do you recall that testimony? A: I do. Q: Did you, as you started to have an awareness of the problem that you were facing within the Archdiocese of Boston, in the '84 to '89 time period, did you start any in-service training programs in the area of sexual abuse? In that time period? A: In that time frame for that specific problem, no. Q: Did you, in the '84 to '89 time period, start any sort of special education programs in the area of identifying either victims of sexual abuse or perpetrators of sexual abuse? A: No. Q: In the '84 to '89 time period, did you call in any clinician -- this is separate and apart from the individual assessments -- to examine the -- to advise you on whether there were any policies or procedures that you could put into effect that would assist you in protecting children served in Archdiocesan programs from sexual abuse by priests? A: Well -- Q: This is '84 to '89 time period. A: Served by priests? Q: Yes. A: Here again, the underlying presumption in your question is that we were facing a major problem in terms of '84 to '89. And, again, I would submit that if you look at these cases individually in terms of the time frame where the allegation occurred and in terms of the knowledge under which, and the policy under which we were operating, I'm not certain that the judgment at that time would have been that we were facing a major, overwhelming problem. Q: Well, your first -- one of the first things you have to deal with is Father O'Sullivan who was -- pled guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, immediately, almost immediately after you started, and that was a current allegation, was it not, Cardinal Law? A: That was. MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. Q: Then you had to deal, after that, with Father Geoghan, at the end of 1984. We went over that this morning with respect to allegations about Father Geoghan about his parish in Dorchester; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: You then also learned, did you not, about Father Birmingham and the allegations against him after you had made him pastor of St. Ann's? You learned about that? A: That's correct. Q: And we already, I think, went through Father Rosenkranz and we went through Father Graham and you emphasized that one as a single incident. But you don't believe that with the number of priests involved and sometimes more than one allegations, you were facing a major problem? A: I was facing a major problem with those priests. I wasn't facing a major problem with the priesthood. Q: All right. So you didn't bring in -- whether it was a major problem, minor problem, however one would characterize it -- you did not consult any expert clinicians in the '84 to '89 time period who could advise you on ways that children could be protected from sexual abuse by priests. Is that an accurate statement? MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative. Asked and answered. A: I have attempted to answer your question already. I will attempt to answer your question again. Q: Yes. A: In terms of specific focus on the problem of sexual abuse, we did not have specific programs. In terms of a general encouragement, support of priestly life and ministry in a way that strengthens priestly commitment to celibacy and to service, we certainly did have programs and continue to have programs. Q: My question was about experts, whether you brought in any experts to help to advise you on policies and procedures during the '84 to '89 time period that would assist you in ensuring that children served in Archdiocesan programs were not molested my priests. Do you understand my question? MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. MR. MacLEISH: It hasn't been responded to. A: I understand your question. The answer to that specifically is no, it's been no, but I've tried to explain it more broadly so that the question wouldn't stand by itself as an incorrect characterization of the state of pastoral care that's being taken in this Archdiocese. Q: I'm not -- I'm just asking for the answer to the questions, Cardinal. I understand -- MR. TODD: And you got it. Q: Excuse me. Just to be clear, in the '84 to '89 time period, there was no such expert that was brought in? MR. TODD: He's answered that. MR. ROGERS: Objection. He just answered that. A: I've answered the question. MR. TODD: Just say you've answered. MR. ROGERS: He's done it several times. A: I just answered that question, Mr. MacLeish -- MR. MacLEISH: His answer was not responsive. A: -- and the answer is -- MR. TODD: That's fine, that's fine. A: The answer is no. Q: Thank you, Cardinal. Now, let's return, if we could, to Father Shanley. (Law Exhibit No. 92, Handwritten Document, 1/16/94, marked for identification.) A: Do you want me to read this? Q: Yes. If you would, please, Cardinal. (Pause.) (Law Exhibit No. 93, Personal and Confidential, Review Board, 12/6/93, marked for identification.) Q: Cardinal, would you also look at Exhibit 92, please, A: 93? Q: 93, sorry. 93. A: This is another case or is this -- Q: This is Paul Shanley's case. No. 33 is Paul Shanley's case. Have you seen Exhibit 93 and 92, Cardinal Law? A: I have seen both of those, yes. Q: Exhibit 93, we'll turn to first, if we could. This is a report of the review board for Case No. 33 which is Paul Shanley, dated December 6, 1993. I don't have any documents that suggest that this particular finding of the review board was forwarded to you, but do you have any general recollection of seeing Exhibit No. 93? A: I don't. Q: Okay. Would it have been the ordinary practice in documents such as Exhibit No. 93 for them to be forwarded to you for some sort of review? A: What would be ordinary -- no, because this would be -- this would be the Delegate's recommendation to the review board. Q: Okay. A: The ordinary would be for me to get what the review board -- the recommendation of the review board and that's at that point that I'd hear about it. Q: Okay. All right. But you wouldn't receive the report that the Delegate made to the review board? A: No. Q: Well, you'll see in this particular case, there was a complaint that two men around 40 years of age and the mother of a young man who died of blank reported that the priest had sexually abused, it's crossed out -- I can't tell what it says -- in their early teen-age years. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: The allegations basically involved his masturbating them? A: Yes. Q: And the response is, is that the lawyer reported that he did not dispute the substance of the allegations. A: Yes. Q: Did you ever begin to learn in 1993 that there were allegations made against Paul Shanley, who, by now was in California, that involved masturbation of individuals who were in their early teen-age years? A: The report that I -- that came to me about Paul Shanley was the report that precipitated his removal from active ministry. Q: And you stated -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. A: In California. Q: And you've stated that that occurred in 1993; is that correct? A: That was my recollection. And it could have been this report. I can't say that. Q: Okay. Exhibit No. 92, which you've read, is a letter of January 16, 1994, from Paul Shanley to Father McCormack. And I'd like to direct your attention to the second page, if I could, Cardinal. A: Yes. Q: It says: "I've heard no more from anyone about my proposal to offer a safe house to warehoused priests." Do you see that? A: Yes, yes. Q: Do you know what a safe house is -- A: Well, I know -- Q: -- in this context? A: I don't know what a safe house -- I don't know what he's talking about here. I've not seen this letter before. But I know what the term "safe house" means in other categories. Q: What does it mean in other categories? A: Well, it's that. It's a house where you can keep somebody under surveillance, I think, and protected from others and from -- and keep others protected from him. Q: Right. Did the Archdiocese of Boston consider establishing a so-called safe house for priests such as Paul Shanley in the 1993 period? A: I can't recall the time frame, but we did -- we did not only consider it, but had a group of these priests living together with 24-hour personnel present there and signing in and signing out mechanism and in-house therapy and things of that that kind. Q: Where was that located? In Milton? A: At one point in Milton. Q: And did that start in 1993? A: I can't recall the time on that. Q: And did the location change from Milton? A: It did. Q: Where did it change to? MR. TODD: Hold on. Is that something you want to divulge? MR. ROGERS: Not a problem. MR. TODD: Not a problem. Okay. Go ahead. A: I believe that -- I believe we rented a house in Georgetown. Q: Georgetown, Massachusetts? A: Yes. Q: Near Baldpate Hospital? A: I'm not sure of that. (Law Exhibit No. 94, Handwritten Document, 3/3/94, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 95, Personal and Confidential, Reverend Paul Shanley, marked for identification.) A: Where should I direct my attention? Q: Yeah. If you could look at Exhibit No. 94. This is the handwriting, we've established in another deposition, of Bishop McCormack, and I just want you to, if you could read -- did you get the Exhibit No., yes, 94. Do you remember Bishop McCormack ever reporting to you that Paul Shanley had admitted to the substance of allegations of sexual misconduct with adolescents? A: My presumption is that this would have been communicated to me. This would be after he is removed. Q: Right. That's correct. A: And I know that, you know, that Father McCormack and then others who succeeded him have maintained some type of sporadic contact with Paul Shanley but -- Q: Right. Do you know whether there was ever thought -- any thought given by you or Father McCormack or any other person to bring Paul Shanley back into what you described as the safe house that you had in Milton and then in Georgetown so that priests -- so he could be monitored and kept safe? A: I can't -- I don't recall a discussion around that subject with Father McCormack. Q: Okay. Do you have 95 there? A: Is that this? Q: Yes. Have you had the chance to see it? A: No. (Pause.) A: And this is a few days later than the other one. Q: Yes, it is, that's correct. It's 3/7/94. The handwritten report of Father McCormack was 3/3/94. (Law Exhibit No. 96, Memo, 8/30/94, marked for identification.) Q: Were you generally aware by 1994, early 1994, that there were a number of allegations against Paul Shanley? A: I cannot -- I can't recall what information I got about him after his removal. Q: Did you -- were you aware -- did Father McCormack tell you that those allegations involved both oral and anal intercourse? A: I never had that kind of specificity supplied to me. Q: Let's go to Exhibit 96, please. (Law Exhibit No. 97, Personal and Confidential, Review Board, 10/3/94, marked for identification.) (Pause.) Q: Have you reviewed Exhibit No. 96, Cardinal? A: I have. Q: And this is dated August 30, 1994. It's a memo to the file from John McCormack, and you see under Subparagraph 1, it reports that: "Father Shanley is so personally damaged that his pathology is beyond repair. It cannot be reversed." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Did Father McCormack, when he was your Delegate, communicate to you at any time that in his opinion, Father Paul Shanley was so personally damaged that his pathology was beyond repair -- or words to that effect? A: You know, I don't recall that. He may have. Here again, by this time, Father Shanley was out of priestly ministry. He never was returned to priestly ministry. There was no active consideration of having him in priestly ministry. But I don't have a recollection of this being communicated to me in those terms, but it might well have been. Q: You see also it states: "How do we protect others from him?" A: Yes. Q: Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: And did Father McCormack ever discuss with you how -- what the Archdiocese should do to protect other individuals from Paul Shanley at any time? A: I don't recall having that question raised in those terms, but a way in which we would do that, and one of the most effective ways that we could do that, would be to remove the person from public ministry, which we had done. Q: But why not put him into a safe house similar to the safe house that you described earlier in your testimony? A: That also would be a possibility, yes. Q: Did you consider that at any point in time with Father Paul Shanley? A: Here again, I would have relied on Father McCormack to come forward with recommendations as to how best to handle the case. (Law Exhibit No. 98, Review Board Meeting, 10/3/94, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 99, Confidential Memorandum, marked for identification.) (Discussion off the record.) Q: Do you have Exhibit 98, Cardinal Law? A: I do. Q: Could you review Exhibit No. 98 and 99? A: 98 and 99? Q: The only one you need to review in 98 is Case No. 33, which is Paul Shanley. A: All right. Yes. Q: You'll see also, if you look at Exhibit No. 99, you accepted the board's recommendation concerning Paul Shanley in a memorandum that is, I believe, stamped received January 9, 1995. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And you'll see the review board meeting of October 3, 1994? A: I do. Q: And this would be, Exhibit 98, the review board meeting would be the type of information that you would receive before you acted on the review board's recommendation? A: Excuse me. Would you just repeat that. Q: Sure. You would receive Exhibit No. 98 and then you would act -- something like Exhibit 98 -- A: Well, I would -- Q: -- and then you would act on it; is that accurate? A: I would either receive it or have that information communicated to me orally by the Delegate. Q: All right. By 1994, am I correct in stating that there were now allegations against more than 20 Archdiocesan priests, sexual misconduct? A: I would rely on your counting there. I wouldn't be able to say that for sure, but if you say so. Q: Okay. I don't know. I really, truly don't know. In any event, you'll see on Exhibit 99, you did accept the recommendations of the review board -- A: I did. Q: -- at its meeting in October? A: And I directed the Office of the Delegate to implement the recommendation. Q: Referring to the recommendations of the review board in Exhibit 98, the board recommends that he continue, A, to be on sick leave. Do you see that? A: Excuse me. Yes, I do. Q: And live out of state. A: Yes. Q: It's the second recommendation. And not do any ministry. Do you see that? A: That's correct. I see that. Q: You have looked at a number of these review board recommendations since 1993; is that correct? A: I have received a number of them, yes. Q: Probably far too many, I'm sure. A: Absolutely. Q: In all the review board recommendations that you've seen, have you ever seen a recommendation that the priest accused of sexual misconduct live out of state, as it is reflected in Exhibit No. 98 concerning Paul Shanley? A: I don't have a perfect recall of anything really. I don't recall any other, but there may have been. Q: Am I accurate in stating that the review board usually did not recommend that priests should reside out of state in presenting its conclusions to you? A: As I indicated, I don't recall this coming in other recommendations. Q: Can you think of any reason why the review board would recommend that Paul Shanley live out of state? A: Well, he was living out of state. Q: Right. A: And I would suppose that that would be a reason. Q: Well, it says the board recommends that he "continue." You see the word "continue" there? A: Yes. Q: There were facilities in Massachusetts that could take care of people like Paul Shanley; is that correct? Such as the safe house that you've described? A: Yes. In the time frame that it existed. I can't be sure of when that ceased to exist, but, yes. (Law Exhibit No. 100, Document, RCAB 1, marked for identification.)
Q: You're welcome to read all of this, Cardinal. I'm going to be focusing my questions on the upper third of the document, but you're welcome to read all of it. (Pause.)
Q: At some point, Cardinal, did you become aware that Paul Shanley had relocated to the City of New York? A: Yes, I did. Q: Who told you that? A: I cannot recall how I had that information. Q: Did you become aware that he was working in some sort of administrative capacity at a place called Leo House? A: I was. Q: And you understood that that was a transient hotel for Catholic travelers and other individuals? A: Well, actually, my understanding of what the Leo House was, was quite different than what it is. Leo House, in my recollection, was a place for priests who were visiting in New York, and religious males, and it was a place that provided lodging at a reasonable cost that would be much less than you would have to pay in hotels. I was not aware that it was a place where families could lodge and where children could lodge. My knowledge of Leo House was an older knowledge. Q: Well, these are documents that were obtained from your files. You see RCAB, the Bates stamp number down there, RCAB-511. I take it you never saw this document? A: That's correct. I have not seen it before now. Q: And you see that it says, you know, the upper top part of it: "Cribs for infants are available no charge. Window guarded rooms for children available." Do you see that? A: I see that. Q: Who told you that Leo House was a place for priests? A: I'm indicating that that was my general understanding just out of what I knew out of memory from Leo House, the way I had understood what Leo House was. My understanding of Leo House was that it was a place that was -- that had a limited clientele and that that was its purpose. Q: I'm asking for the source of that information, Cardinal Law. Who told you that or who wrote that to you or was it based upon your own -- A: Well, first of all, I'm not suggesting that someone gave me that information in the time frame that we're talking about. I'm talking about knowledge that it was in my apperceptive mass. And it came out of my understanding -- this was just the way -- if you had mentioned Leo House to me -- Q: Yeah. A: -- that's what I would have thought Leo House was. I would not have thought of it as a place that allowed -- that had women guests nor that had children. Q: All right. But you now are aware -- I take it your understanding of what it was, was not consonant with the facts when Paul Shanley was there; is that correct? A: That's correct. But I've come to that understanding subsequently. That doesn't -- yes. Q: Let's put it this way. I'm sorry. At some point, you became aware that Father Shanley was working in an administrative capacity at Leo House; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you understood that his supervisor at Leo House was a gentleman by the name of Francis Pilecki; is that correct? A: Well, I couldn't recall the name but I knew that he had a supervisor and that he was not the supervisor. Q: Right. (Law Exhibit No. 101, Document, 6/26/95, marked for identification.) Q: Have you had the opportunity to review Exhibit 101, Cardinal Law? A: I have. MR. MacLEISH: This was a document that was produced by the Archdiocese. I'm assuming, by the way, Will, that no portion of this was redacted. Q: But I would just ask you if you have ever seen this document? A: I have not. Q: Did anyone ever tell you, as is set forth in this document, that Leo House had some built-in risks for Paul Shanley? A: I do not recall that. Q: Did anyone ever tell you that it would be, quote, hard to defend if any public disclosure was made about it. New York City, possibly questionable supervision, transient guests, young people, not of our making, et cetera? Do you see that? A: No. Q: Did anyone ever tell you anything about that? A: No. (Law Exhibit No. 102, Memo, 9/13/96, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 103, Document, 9/25/95, marked for identification.) A: Yes. Q: Cardinal Law, have you reviewed Exhibit 102? A: I have. Q: Several minutes ago, you testified that it was your belief that Leo House was a place where priests reside. Do you recall that testimony? A: That's what I believed it was at the time that came to my attention that he was going there, that's correct. Q: Did you receive Exhibit No. 102, which is a memorandum to you from Brian Flatley, dated September 13, 1995, concerning Father Paul Shanley? A: I would suppose that I did. Q: And it states, in the first two sentences: "Father Shanley has been working in New York City at Leo House since February of 1995. One of his accusers keeps a close watch on Father Shanley, as he called here, upset that Father Shanley was working in a place where children reside." Do you see that? A: That's correct, that's correct. Q: So given the fact that you would have read Father Flatley's memorandum in 1995, would you like to modify your earlier testimony that you thought that Leo House was a place where only priests resided? A: No. That was correct. At the time that he went to Leo House, that was my understanding of what Leo House was. Q: Okay. But then you learned through this memorandum that Father Paul Shanley was working at a place where children resided; is that correct? A: I received this memorandum, and I presume that that must have registered with me. Q: All right. But you took no action to remove Paul Shanley from his position at Leo House; is that correct? A: I did not take an action to remove him at that time. Q: Of all the various priests who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them, can you identify any other situation where a priest was allowed to function either in a parish or some other setting where children resided, apart from Paul Shanley? A: Would you repeat that question, please. Q: Sure. You'll see here that we've established now that Reverend Flatley sent you a memo in September 13, 1995, that suggests that Paul Shanley is working at Leo House, a place where children reside. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Now, my question is whether with respect to any other priest like Paul Shanley accused of sexual misconduct, can you recall any other situation where, after the allegations were verified, the priest was allowed to reside in a place where children were also present? A: Well, I think we've gone over some of the cases -- Q: Right, right. A: -- where there were reassignments after -- Q: Right. A: -- intervening indication that this would be not inappropriate, yes. Q: Do you know whether any experts were consulted as to whether or not it was appropriate for Paul Shanley to be working in a place where children resided in 1995? A: First of all, as I indicated to you, when I found out that he was at Leo House -- Q: Right. A: -- it was not -- it was my understanding, obviously erroneous, that this was not a place -- that this was a place for priests and religious brothers. Q: Right. A: And the change was something that I had not been aware of. When this memorandum goes on to indicate that Monsignor Murphy called Monsignor Edward D. O'Donnell, Vice-Chancellor for Priests' Personnel and asked his advice, he said that he visited Shanley and indicated that he would find it inconceivable that there would be any unwholesome activities occurring there. Q: He's not a doctor, is he? A: No, he's not a doctor. He's someone who would have had some responsibility for Leo House for the Archdiocese. Q: After your review of Exhibit 102, did you go back to the review board and ask the review board to consider whether Paul Shanley working at the Leo House, a place where children resided, was an appropriate placement for him? A: I did not. That would have been something that would have been the initiative of the -- as a matter of fact, as you know, he left Leo House. Q: After approximately two years? A: He did not assume this responsibility of director. Q: No, he did not. Do you know -- did you find out who the director was, Francis Pilecki? A: Well, I see the name here. Q: Right. Do you know who Francis Pilecki was? A: I do not. Q: Did you make any inquiry as to whether or not the supervisor at Leo House was someone who was appropriate to supervise Paul Shanley? A: No. I would have relied on the Archdiocese of New York. Q: Okay. Well, do you know that Francis Pilecki is -- do you now know that Francis Pilecki is a convicted child molester -- A: I didn't not know that. Q: -- former president of Westfield State College? A: I did not know that. Q: Brian Flatley never told you that? A: No. Q: Next exhibit. A: If he did, I don't recall it. I should say that. And I think I would. Q: Cardinal, this is a long letter from Paul Shanley. You're welcome to read the whole thing. I'm going to only be asking you questions about the second page, the paragraph that is the last -- well, it starts, "As you and John McCormack will attest." A: Let me just go through it quickly. Q: You can read the whole thing. (Pause.) (Law Exhibit No. 104, Letter to Shanley, 11/20/95, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 105, Leo House, 12/14/95, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 106, Letter to Shanley, 2/29/96, marked for identification.) Q: Have you had the opportunity to review the exhibit, Cardinal? I'm sorry. A: Not quite. Q: I'm sorry. A: Yes. Q: Could you look at the second page for me, and the paragraph that starts, "As you and John McCormack will attest." Let me just read it and ask you a question. "As you and John McCormack will attest, I've scrupulously abided by every rule and restriction given to me. Even though I strongly disagree with the admonition that I may never again say mass publicly, I have never done so. I submitted, reluctantly, to the evaluation in Connecticut. I returned from California and my support group. I have abided by my promise not to mention to anyone the fact that I too had been sexually abused as a teen-ager, and later as a seminarian by a priest, a faculty member, a pastor, and ironically by the predecessor of one of the two cardinals who now debate my fate." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And this is not a letter to you. This is a letter to Brian Flatley. A: Yes. Q: Did Brian Flatley ever inform you that Paul Shanley was alleging that he had been sexually molested by a priest, a faculty member, a pastor and by either your predecessor or the predecessor to Cardinal O'Connor? A: To my recollection, that information came to me in the course of depositions and all of this material coming to light. I don't -- and I think I would have recalled such a charge and I do not recall that. Q: Do you know -- A: But I do recall hearing it before now, however, because I've heard it in relation to depositions. Q: Sure. Do you know, Cardinal Law, whether or not Paul Shanley was at any point attempting to blackmail the Archdiocese of Boston? A: I do not -- I'm not aware of that, but I have -- I have no knowledge of that. Q: Right. Next exhibit, please. I just want to take a moment and look at Exhibit No. 104, if you would, please, Cardinal. A: Excuse me? Q: Take a minute and look at Exhibit No. 104. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: You stated -- this is a letter that you sent to Paul Shanley on November 20, 1995; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you state: "This has been" -- in the second paragraph -- "This has been a tumultuous year for you, Paul. It must be discouraging to have someone following you and making inconsistent demands." Do you see that? A: I see. Q: Were you referring to a victim of sexual abuse who had been making inconsistent demands towards Paul Shanley? A: I must say that in all likelihood, this letter was prepared for me by Father Flatley, and I would imagine, given what I saw earlier, that that's what that has reference to. Q: Okay. All right. Next exhibit, please, which is 568. A: 568? Q: I'm sorry. This is going to be Exhibit No. 105. (Pause.) A: Yes. Q: Cardinal Law, looking at Exhibit No. 105, this is a letter from Sister Anne Karlin from the Sisters of St. Agnes. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Sent to you, addressed to you, that was produced from your files. Do you see that? A: I see that. Q: It does not contain the stamp "Not acknowledged at Cardinal's Residence." A: That's correct. Q: Okay. Would it be fair to state, or do you have a recollection of receiving this document? A: I do not have a recollection of receiving this document. Q: This is a document in which the Sisters of St. Agnes, who run Leo House, indicate that they received a report from the Boston area indicating that Paul Shanley was a child molester. Is that correct? A: That's what the letter states, yes. Q: And this, again, is not the typical type of correspondence that you would be receiving in 1995. Is that a fair statement? A: That's correct. Q: Is this the type of important communication that your personal secretary might have brought to your attention? A: Or would have brought it to the attention of the Delegate. Q: It states in the last paragraph: "Here I am with this time bomb. I have shared this information with one other sister. Would you be so kind as to clarify Father Paul's integrity and reputation and character. It will be difficult to realize that he would have such a sad condition as imputed above." Is that correct? A: That's what the letter says. Q: And you understood from Leo House that these were the nuns that had actually been operating Leo House for some number of years; is that correct? A: Well, I really -- I was not that aware of what community ran The Leo House, no. I would not have been aware of that. Q: If you had read -- I don't know whether -- the letter states in the second paragraph that the Sisters of St. Agnes from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, have managed this place for one hundred years. Do you see that? A: Yes, I do. Q: And do you recall anyone ever speaking to you about this allegation or this question that was posed by these nuns who had been running Leo House as to whether or not Father Paul Shanley was a child molester? Did anyone ever speak to you about that? A: As I indicated to you, I don't recall seeing this letter. Q: But you would agree with me that it would be important that the nuns who were running this facility, in response to this type of communication, get completely accurate information, correct? A: My presumption would be that those responsible for Leo House would have been privy to a full account of what the situation was. Q: After this letter was sent? A: Well, before the letter even. Q: Well -- A: But certainly after. Q: Right. This letter states, does it -- it poses the question of whether it's true that Paul Shanley is a child molester; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Does that not suggest to you that this was new information to the Sisters of St. Agnes? A: Yes. Q: Do you know why the Sisters of St. Agnes were apparently not informed when Paul Shanley went to work there that there were credible allegations, admitted allegations of child molestation by him? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. A: I do not know who was informed of what. I would -- my presumption would have been that those responsible would have been informed. Q: Okay. Let's look at Exhibit No. 106, please. A: Yes. Q: Is Exhibit 106 a letter that you sent to Paul Shanley on February 29, 1996? A: It is. Q: And you'll see it's addressed to Paul Shanley at The Leo House; is that correct? A: It is. Q: And going back to Exhibit 102, you were informed at -- the date of this letter, I'm sorry, of 106, your letter to Paul Shanley, is February 29, 1996, correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you first learned that Leo House was a place where children resided in Father Flatley's memorandum to you of September 13, 1995; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: So approximately five months later, Paul Shanley is still working at Leo House? A: Yes. Q: Okay. You state as follows in your letter to Paul Shanley. You state: "This letter provides me with an opportunity to thank you in my name and in the name of the people of the Archdiocese for the ministry which you offered, both in parishes and in a specialized way over the years from your ordination in 1960 until your sick leave began in 1990." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: "For 30 years in assigned ministry, you brought God's word and his love to his people and I know that that continues to be your goal despite some difficult limitations." A: That's correct. Q: When you were using the word "difficult limitations," you were referring to his admitted sexual misconduct with minors? A: I was -- first of all, it's likely that this letter was drafted for me by Father Flatley. But I would see it, and I would intend it to refer to his, yes, to his condition, his pathological condition. Q: When you were using the words "despite some difficult limitations" -- A: Yes. Q: -- you were referring to sexual molestation of minors? A: That's correct. Q: "That is an impressive record and all of us are truly grateful for your priestly care and ministry to all whom you have served during those years." A: That's right. Q: "Without doubt, over all of these years of generous and zealous care, the lives and hearts of many people have been touched by your sharing of the Lord's spirit. You are truly appreciated for all that you have done." Those were your words in your letter to Paul Shanley of February 29, 1996? A: That's correct. These are my words to a priest who, in the course of his many years of active ministry, did, in effect, preach God's word, share God's love to a number of people in an effective way. Q: And committed unspeakable evil? A: And committed unspeakable evil, that's correct. And one of the reasons why he's retired, one of reasons why he's not on active ministry at that time is because of that. And he knew that. The reason why he was retiring at that point was because of that. And he knew that. It's a question of trying to be pastoral and reconciling to somebody who still remains a human being even though he has done terrible, terrible things, which -- and he's paying the consequence of that by not being able to serve as a priest, and appropriately so. But at the same time, there were -- there were acts, priestly acts in his lifetime, which were not of that nature. Q: And for those against whom he had committed unspeakable evil, what did you do at or around this time to assist or support them, Cardinal Law, personally? A: Well, one of the things that, perhaps most effective that was being done is that he was removed from active ministry. And by this action, was being removed from any other kind of activity. Q: So you continued to believe that your words to Father Paul Shanley as reflected in this letter of February 29, 1996, were appropriate ones to send at the time? MR. TODD: Objection. A: I think the intent is appropriate. Would I phrase it differently as I sit here now? Probably, yes. Q: Well, my question is specific and I'm not sure that you answered it. What, as of this time, Cardinal Law, February of 1996, were you specifically doing, if anything, to reach out and help the victims of Paul Shanley's unspeakable evil? A: Here again, as I've indicated before, this letter is an attempt to deal with the perpetrator and to deal with him in a way that would put him beyond the ability of inflicting harm on others. I think that that is a very effective and important action to take. In finalizing that decision and communicating that, the fact that one attempts also to be pastoral in dealing with the perpetrator, I think is to be expected and is required. With regard to outreach to victims, again, that was the responsibility of the Delegate's Office. And as you yourself have indicated, we had several persons who worked in that office with the Delegate, among them, Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, and she acted with great effectiveness, I think. Q: Sister Catherine, I think, had left by 1994 and was replaced by Sister Rita, as I understand it; is that not correct? A: That's right. Sister Rita McCarthy, who did very good work. Q: So my question is in terms of what you personally did for the victims of this unspeakable evil, have you concluded with your answer? A: I have. Q: Okay. Were you aware when you wrote this letter to Paul Shanley, were you, in your conscious memory, were you aware of where his last assignment had been in the Archdiocese of Boston as of 1996? A: I think I was, yes. Q: So you knew that he had been at St. Jean's -- A: Yes. Q: -- in 1996 -- A: Yes. Q: -- for a significant period of time? A: Yes. Q: Okay. All right. (Law Exhibit No. 107, Memo to Law from Murphy, 6/5/97, marked for identification.) Q: Cardinal, the next exhibit, which is 598. What number is this? 107. Before we get to that, Cardinal, you do agree with me that as of the time you wrote to Paul Shanley in terms of ensuring that he would not commit acts of sexual violence again, you knew he was living at that time or working, rather, at a place where children resided as of February 29, 1996? A: I believe I knew that, yeah. Yes. Q: Okay. Exhibit No. 107. Do you recognize this as a memorandum sent to you by Reverend Murphy on June 5, 1997, concerning Paul Shanley? A: I was aware of the fact that this offer came, yes. Q: Yes. And Father Murphy writes that: "Father Shanley is a retired priest of the Archdiocese. He admitted to past sexual misconduct with minors. He's currently assistant director of Leo House, a transient residence for priests, religious and immigrants. Father Shanley lives in an environment where the resident staff of seven is aware of his past behavior and is watchful of him." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: Then it asks for: "Father Shanley has been offered the position of director of Leo House. He would like to accept it." And Father Murphy asks you for your permission for Father Paul Shanley to be named director of Leo House; is that correct? A: Yes. And he recommends it. Q: Yes. And you accept it, do you not? A: Well -- I was not pleased with this possibility. I was willing to approach the Cardinal about this possibility. Q: Cardinal O'Connor, that would be, correct? A: That's correct. And a letter was prepared for my signature, which never went, because in the intervening time, it was clear that the Cardinal was not open to that and that was good for me and so I never sent the letter. Q: Well, you were prepared to go along with it if Cardinal O'Connor had no objection; is that correct? A: I did not go along with it, but, yes, I would have sent that letter. MR. MacLEISH: The letter, can we have the letter for the Cardinal, please. This is Exhibit 108. (Law Exhibit No. 108, Draft Letter to O'Connor from Law, 6/12/97, marked for identification.) A: Yes. I've read this. Q: And, this is the draft letter that is signed by you and then the words "Not sent" appear. A: That's correct. Q: And whose handwriting is it where it says "Not sent"? A: I wouldn't know whose handwriting that is. I think it could be Father Murphy's. Q: Do you know when that handwriting was entered? A: No, I don't. Q: Well, this is the letter that you signed following your discussion with Father Murphy; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you state in the letter that was not sent, you state that: "If you do decide to allow Father Shanley to accept this position, I would not object." A: That's correct. Q: Okay. So you were leaving it in the hands of Cardinal O'Connor, but you did not have an objection to Paul Shanley being named director of Leo House; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: You did not have such an objection even though you were aware that Leo House was a place where children resided; is that correct? A: Well, I believe one of the earlier documents that you just showed me indicated that there were no children -- No, no. There was some reference in one of the documents to the fact that there were not children presently there. MR. TODD: Excuse me. Just a minute. I want to talk to the Cardinal for a minute. THE WITNESS: To me? Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:55. We're off the record. MR. MacLEISH: There's a pending question. I would like him to finish the answer to the question, please. MR. TODD: Cardinal, come out. MR. MacLEISH: I object. There's a pending question. THE WITNESS: May I? MR. MacLEISH: Certainly. Well, No, I'm not assenting to it, but your counsel -- I'm not going to block the entrance. (Discussion off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:56. We're on the record. A: Yes. Q: There was a reference that no children were at Leo House, Cardinal Law? A: I thought that there was a reference in one of these documents. (Discussion off the record between the witness and Mr. Rogers.)
MR. MacLEISH: Well, could we have the Cardinal's testimony, Will? I mean -- THE WITNESS: He's looking -- MR. ROGERS: He's looking for a document. THE WITNESS: All he's doing is he's helping me. That's not -- that's not very -- MR. ROGERS: Okay. THE WITNESS: -- helpful. That's a document from Paul Shanley himself saying that you may wish to mention you never saw -- came across a child. A: The other pertinent information with regard to his acting out is the fact that there is some medical attestation that his ability to act out sexually would be impeded by his prostate condition. Q: When you took the break right now, did you discuss the subject matter of your deposition testimony with your counsel? MR. TODD: I'll answer that on the record. We were discussing a matter that is presently pending, I think presently pending before the appeals court in connection with the privilege. MR. MacLEISH: All right. Okay. Q: Cardinal Law, in September of '95, you get the memo from Reverend Flatley indicating that children reside at Leo House. Had that perception of Leo House changed by the time you signed the letter of June 12, 1997, Exhibit 108? A: By the time of the letter of June 12, 1997, I had the knowledge that was contained in the '95 thing. I also had the knowledge that medically his own situation had changed in terms of sexual activity. Q: Who told you that? A: That's in the documentation that we reviewed today. I can go through it and -- Q: No. A: -- and find it. Q: You believe that because there was a -- some problem with his prostate, that Paul Shanley would no longer be a threat to children. Is that your testimony? A: I had the impression from some of that information that he would not be a threat sexually; that he would not be a -- that he would not be acting out sexually. That was my understanding. Q: Did an expert tell you that or a medical doctor? A: Well, I believe that that's based on a medical -- I believe that's what's here is based on a medical -- certainly Father Shanley wouldn't have -- I mean, Father Murphy or Flatley wouldn't have had the ability to make that kind of a judgment. Q: Okay. Was it your understanding in 1997 that individuals who act out sexually against children are doing so because of some sexual urge that would be ameliorated by a deterioration of their prostate? A: You know, generally, I was under the impression that the psychosexual urge was sometime -- somehow connected to -- the physiogony and the psychology were linked. I may be wrong on that. Q: But no expert told you that? A: But that was my -- a medical note here would have told me that. Q: All right. Okay. I take it you spoke, before Exhibit No. 108 went out, with, as I understand it, with Cardinal O'Connor, and the decision was made not to go forward with Paul Shanley as director of Leo House. A: That's correct, that's correct. Q: Did you ever have occasion, during the course of your 20 years in the Archdiocese of Boston, to speak with another Cardinal concerning the assignment of a priest in any particular area? MR. TODD: Objection. Q: I guess -- let me put it more simply, Cardinal. In 1997, you and Cardinal O'Connor had two of the largest dioceses in the United States; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: My question is: Can you recall any other situation involving a priest accused of sexual misconduct where you and someone at the level of Cardinal O'Connor are discussing the future of that priest? A: Father -- well, first of all, you have to understand that Cardinal O'Connor was probably my best friend. Q: I know. A: And we were in contact a lot of time. Q: Ever about a priest? A: Well, there was never another occasion to be in contact with him with a priest. Q: Right. A: But as a matter of fact, this issue was an issue which was before him, and it seemed to me a normal thing for me just to talk to him about this. Q: So when you pick up the phone, you decided that Paul -- and spoke to Cardinal O'Connor -- you decided that, collectively, that Cardinal O'Connor was not going to go along with Paul Shanley being named director of Leo House? A: The decision was that this would not be the thing to do. Q: And part of the concern was negative publicity; is that correct? If something were to happen involving Paul Shanley? A: The concern was the appropriateness of the appointment. Q: Was part of it negative publicity, Cardinal? A: It could have been. Q: All right. (Law Exhibit No. 109, Letter to Shanley from Murphy, 9/6/97, marked for identification.)
MR. MacLEISH: Let's just do our last exhibit here, which is No. 109. A: The issue was -- Q: Go ahead. A: -- whether, you know, Father Shanley, who was in a secondary role, should assume the primary role, given his background. And that was -- that was a problem. That was a problem for me. It wasn't something that I was comfortable with, and, clearly, Cardinal O'Connor was not comfortable with it. And I was very comfortable with his decision. Q: Well, Cardinal, you were not going to object to it if Cardinal O'Connor went along with it? A: That's correct. Q: Let's look at Exhibit 109, which I think is going to be our last one. Just very quickly, have you -- did you ever see this letter before today? A: No. I don't recall seeing this, but it's conceivable it may have been put before me in another deposition. I don't know that. I don't -- Q: It states, in the second paragraph -- this is from Father Murphy to Paul Shanley -- "The restrictions against living with a roommate and not living near children or known homosexuals were prudent while you were under such close scrutiny by" -- and then there's a blank. That's a victim's name that we redacted. "But I feel comfortable in lifting those now. You may have a roommate and you may live wherever you choose." Cardinal Law, in September of 1997, was Reverend Murphy free to lift restrictions imposed on Paul Shanley without the approval of the review board? A: No. Q: Cardinal, have you ever spoken with anyone, including your counsel, on the subject matter of whether you have documents that were responsive to the subpoenas and document requests that have been sent out in this case? I don't want to know the substance, just whether you've ever consulted with your counsel or anyone else concerning the subpoena that was issued in February of this year for documents or other document requests that have been filed in these consolidated cases? MR. ROGERS: I think we need to have a conversation on a privilege issue. MR. MacLEISH: Well, the subject matter is not privileged, Will, but that's fine. If you need to do it, you need to do it. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:05. We're off the record: (Pause.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:08. We're on the record. Q: Cardinal Law, have you had any discussions with anyone, including your counsel, on the subject matter of documents that would be responsive to the first subpoena issued in this case or any of the document requests that have been issued in these consolidated cases? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form, but go ahead. A: And you mentioned a date earlier, didn't you? Q: Yes. February. The subpoena was issued in February. A: And I guess that my own hesitation before counsel suggested we talk was being able to focus on the date. Q: Sure. A: But to my knowledge and recollection, I have had discussions about these requests. Q: With whom? A: Counsel. Q: Counsel. Anybody else? A: Well, with those working with me to help provide the documents that are being requested. Q: Okay. Have you -- have you been involved in any search of records yourself for items that might be responsive? A: I have not been. Q: Do you have filing cabinets in your office area? Not in your actual office, but outside of your office? A: Yes, we've got filing cabinets. Q: You may recall your testimony in our first day together about the affirmative defense concerning negligence by the Ford family. Do you remember that testimony? It was in the answer. A: Would you refresh me on the answer. Q: Well, I just want to ask whether or not you have -- you have any knowledge about amending your answer, your first affirmative defense, which asserted that some or all of the damage in this case could be attributable to Mr. Gregory Ford or his parents? MR. TODD: That's not a fair characterization of the affirmative defense. The question has been asked and answered. The Cardinal has spoken two or three times about his personal feelings on that particular affirmative defense. Q: But you haven't changed your affirmative defense, have you, Cardinal? A: I think what I said with regard to that, and which I would repeat -- and it was in response, I thought to a specific question from you -- Q: Uh-huh. A: -- that in no way would I impute responsibility or guilt to a victim of child sexual molestation, would I impute the guilt or responsibility on that person, and that remains my position. Q: Okay. You're not aware of any additional facts or circumstances that would suggest in any way that Mr. Ford or Mrs. Ford were negligent with respect to the injuries suffered by their son? A: I am not aware of any. Q: But you have not changed your answer, have you? A: My answer as to what? MR. ROGERS: Which answer? MR. MacLEISH: The answer to the complaint. Sorry. The answer to the complaint. Q: You've not changed your answer to the complaint? MR. ROGERS: I believe the answer has been changed. MR. MacLEISH: Oh, really? Then I stand corrected. Let me just think for a second. Q: Would you agree with me, Cardinal Law, that from the period from 1984 through 1989, that the parishioners were urged by the Archdiocese to have their children attend religious education classes? A: Yes. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. And I don't have anything further. Thank you very much for coming in. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. MacLEISH: This concludes the deposition in this case unless you have questions for the Cardinal. MR. ROGERS: No. MR. TODD: No. MR. MacLEISH: Thank you very much. MR. TODD: Just on the record, I'm going to review the record. But at the present time, I don't have any. MR. MacLEISH: Well, you'll have the transcript soon, I'm sure. MR. TODD: I'll answer your question as soon as I've read the transcripts. MR. MacLEISH: I'm concluding it. Okay? THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:12. This is the end of today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record. (Whereupon, the deposition ended at 4:12 p.m.) Excerpt from Rule 30(e): Submission to Witness; Changes; Signing. When the testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him, unless such examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties. Any changes in form or entered upon the deposition by the officer with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them. * * * * * * * * * * * I, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, have examined the above transcript of my testimony and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this _____ day of __________________, 2002. _________________________________ Sworn and subscribed to before me this ____ day of ________________________, 2002. _________________________________ Notary Public My Commission Expires: _____________________
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I, Kathleen L. Good, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that there came before me on the 16th day of October, 2002, the person hereinbefore named, who was by me duly sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of his knowledge touching and concerning the matters in controversy in this cause; that he was thereupon examined upon his oath, and his examination reduced to typewriting under my direction; and that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am neither attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; and further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in the action. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 18th day of October, 2002.
___________________________
My Commission Expires: April 17, 2003
|
|
|
