Back to Boston.com homepage Arts | Entertainment Boston Globe Online Cars.com BostonWorks Real Estate Boston.com Sports digitalMass Travel The Boston Globe Documents Boston.com Abuse in the Catholic Church
HomePredator priestsScandal and coverupThe victimsThe financial costOpinion
Cardinal Law and the laityThe church's responseThe clergyInvestigations and lawsuits
Interactive2002 scandal overviewParish mapExtrasArchivesDocumentsAbout this site
2014 update

Crux, a Catholic news site

A new site from the Boston Globe includes news updates on clergy abuse and other Catholic issues.
Globe coverage of the scandal has been divided into nine categories:

More documents:

Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily

Day 1, page 3

On August 21, 2002, Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., a former top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston, was deposed by lawyers for three men who claim they were sexually abused by the Rev. Paul Shanley at St. Jean's parish in Newton.

DAY 1 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
DAY 2 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3


A: Today's treatment $2,000. Something like that.

Q: I can't fully read that last.

A: Okay.

Q: You will see on the first page of Exhibit number 27, you will see that this is -- purports to be a report from a priest of the Lasolet, of Our Lady of Lasolet, reported that during the summer of 1966 said priest, and he is referring -- above you will see Reverend Paul Shanley. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Masturbated the boy.

A: Yes.

Q: "This was suggested after hearing the boy's confession in the rectory as the conversation centered on the boy's problems. It was presented to the boy as the lessor of two evils. The boy was asked to think it over. The boy left, thought it over and asked his parent's permission to go with said priest to a log cabin that the priest owns. The suggestion was that the boy masturbated the priest." Do you see that?

A: Yeah.

Q: Then it reports where the cabin is. It lists the name of the boy, which we are not going to read into the record here, and then it says on the following page, "Said priest brings teenager to said cabin over weekends every third or fourth week, more often in the summer. There is no set pattern. The boy mentioned above knows of two other boys who go with said priest without knowing if this is going on or not with them." And then there is two others that are listed. Do you see that?

A: Yeah.

Q: Now would this be the type of information that would be maintained in those confidential files that you just referred to? This --

A: Yes, yes. That's right.

Q: So as we sit here today, and again I would represent to you, and I think attorney Rogers would correct me if I am wrong, but I am not, that this record was produced to us in the first set of production by Father Higgins after approximately three hours of search. You can't say right now, Bishop Daily, sitting here today whether this record was actually in the locked files in your office, can you?

A: No. Father Higgins? Who is Father Higgins?

Q: Father Higgins is the current delegate on sexual abuse.

A: Oh, in the chancery office.

Q: But the confidential file was in your office?

A: A confidential file was in my office.

Q: A confidential file that related to matters such as these was in your office and you don't know whether Paul Shanley was included either way, correct?

A: I have to say I never saw this before.

Q: Well my question is when you started to believe that Paul Shanley was a troubled priest who needed help, did you look at the confidential file for Paul Shanley?

A: No, no, because I didn't read his trouble as being involved in this kind of activity.

Q: Well that's not -- my question is when you considered him to the troubled and in need of help, you did not go back and look at the confidential file?

A: My confidential file?

Q: Your confidential file.

A: No.

Q: Is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: And your confidential file was the confidential file maintained under canon law for the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: No. There was a confidential file that was -- that I found that I came to know as subsidiary to other files that I mentioned before, namely in the personnel department. Maybe the cardinal's own personal file and mine. You know, I came to know that it was a supplementary type thing that -- kind of like a double-check. And to explain, the personnel board met every Friday afternoon usually, normally. And when appointments were discussed and made and that kind of thing. And also appointments to pastors, especially to any kind of position. After -- excuse me. After the meeting was over, it would be around 5 o'clock, this priest's director or directors, most of the time two, would come to my office. Having been through the meeting, even as I would, come to the meeting and would check my file to see if there was anything in it that would preclude the appointment of any of the priests suggested in the personnel department meeting, personnel board meeting, for the position of pastor, et cetera. And that was kind of a -- that was the kind of a normal activity. It was kind of a safety valve. And from my point of view it was a supplementary. Now was there any other, was there any other place where there were files that would indicate such kind of material? I don't know. Unless, unless it was with the personnel department or in the cardinal's file or some other source. But I don't have knowledge.

Q: Bishop Daily, just to be clear, you don't know whether this particular complaint letter going back to 1966 was or was not in your files; is that correct?

A: I suspect that it wasn't. I mean reading it today I want to throw up. But I think that -- I suspect it wasn't.

Q: But you don't know?

A: I am not saying -- you are saying definitely? If you are asking me definitely, I would say no.

Q: You don't know either way? Now so I am trying -- just if you could help me, but matters like this about priest's abusing, masturbating boys, that's the type of material that would be in your files, though, I thought I heard you say.

A: Would be, but not exclusively now, you know.

Q: Where else would those files be?

A: I don't know. Unless they would be in the personnel department itself. The way this letter was referred.

Q: The personnel department might have its own set of files; is that correct?

A: Oh, yes.

Q: There is no indication that this particular document was in the personnel file. And I think Father Higgins' testimony was that it was in the confidential file.

A: Do you have -- okay. Do you have -- and where did you say this confidential file existed?

MR. W. ROGERS: No, no. He's produced files from 2002. And I think any inferences drawn, I that's inappropriate. The bishop has responded to your question. He suspects it wasn't there. He can't say whether it was or it wasn't.

MR. McLEISH: Maybe we can have a discussion afterwards. We have asked to see the actual folders in which these files were located, the originals, and to come to the chancery. I just want to put on the record that we have asked. I am sure you will accommodate us. But to actually physically inspect what files they came out of.

Q: But this was in the files of the archdiocese and Father Higgins testified that it was took three hours to locate this in 2002. My question to you is whether there were records such as this one about priests engaging -- allegations that priests engaged in deviant behavior in the files maintained in your office. I just want to be clear about that.

A: Yes. But not all of them.

Q: Not all of them?

A: And with all due respect, I would like to know where he got this one.

Q: Well it was produced to us.

A: Okay.

Q: And my question to you is you also said something about the personnel board, that the personnel board before they would sign off as someone as pastor, they would come to you for a kind of final check to see if there was anything bad in the files. Is that the way the process worked?

A: Correct. In my file.

Q: In your file?

A: Yeah.

Q: And they would come to you because they wanted to know that before they put someone in a position of authority such as pastor that there was no report of improper behavior by the priest; is that correct?

MR. W. ROGERS: In the bishop's file.

Q: In your file?

A: That's right. And I would -- and I had -- and I assumed if I didn't have it specifically, the authority, and I think I did have it, to veto any nomination of someone that I thought because of activity like this from the point of view of being a pastor.

Q: When you say activity like this, you are referring to --

A: Well any kind of deviant activity.

Q: When you say activity like this, you are referring to activity like what is reported about Paul Shanley in this letter from the Lasolet father; is that correct?

A: Uh-huh.

MR. W. ROGERS: You need to say yes.

A: Oh, yes. I am sorry.

Q: Because appointing someone as pastor puts them in a position of great responsibility; is that correct?

MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object.

MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.

MR. W. ROGERS: You are not talking about Paul Shanley? You are talking generally?

Q: I am talking about generally putting someone in a position as pastor puts them in a position of great responsibility?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: They have access to children; is that correct?

A: Yes, as a priest or any priest has that. But pastor is something else now.

Q: You would not want --

A: It's not the same.

Q: You would not want someone that had allegations such as is contained in Exhibit 27, you would not want someone like that put into the position of pastor until you were able to determine whether those allegations were true?

A: Precisely.

Q: And the fact that this was coming from an order priest, that would indicate to you, would it not, that at least the order priest felt that this could be a credible allegation?

A: Yes.

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form. But go ahead.

A: Yes.

Q: And you would put more credence on a complaint that was coming in from an order priest than you might from someone that you didn't know; is that correct?

A: Not necessarily, no. No.

MR. W. ROGERS: Should we -- it's five past 1:00. I suggest we break for lunch from :00 to 2:00 unless you have something that follows right into this.

MR. McLEISH: No, that's fine.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 1:01 p.m.

(Luncheon recess.)

A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:15 p.m. BY

MR. McLEISH:

Q: Good afternoon, Bishop Daily.

A: Good afternoon.

Q: Thank you for coming back this afternoon. Bishop Daily, would I be accurate in stating that this process that you described before the break of having you review the file in your office before someone was appointed pastor, that that policy continued up until the time that you left Boston for Palm Beach?

A: I would say it had to be in vogue because I was there. But whether we used it that often when Cardinal Law came, I can't say that. But I would say it was in vogue, yeah.

Q: So after Cardinal Law arrived, there was still a protocol of checking the files before someone was appointed pastor; is that correct?

A: I would have to assume so, yeah.

Q: And that's the way you have done it?

A: Yeah. Yeah, that's right, because it was from September to -- what was he?

Q: March until September.

A: September to March.

Q: '84. He arrived in March. He left in September.

A: Oh, I beg your pardon.

Q: He arrived in March. You left in September.

A: I left in September. Yeah. I can't recall frankly.

Q: Well do you recall --

A: Whether we were so assiduous. I can't recall whether I was that faithful to meetings of the personnel board even because I was anticipating leaving and getting ready to leave. And I got the appointment in June. I was gone in October. So for efficiency sake -- I am just sort of speculating.

Q: Sure. But you said -- I think you said you were assiduous and you meant that with respect to checking the file before someone was promoted to pastor?

A: I think that's a good word. It was part of the -- it was very much a part of the process.

Q: And that would include the confidential files; is that correct?

A: The one in my office.

Q: Yes. And the one where scandalous information such as we saw on that Lasolet letter?

A: That contained that information.

Q: All right. We are going to give you something that's been marked as Exhibit 21. We are out of order but there is a reason for it. This Exhibit 21 references an article I believe you have already read, but I would just ask whether you received this letter from Joseph Riley of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

A: Well I would have to say yes because my name is there and his signature is on there and I recognize the signature.

Q: So Father Daily writes to you attaching an article about Paul Shanley stating, "I know we all have plenty of problems already, but this kind of mindless destructiveness doesn't help." Do you see that?

MR. W. ROGERS: Joe Riley wrote the letter, not Father Daily.

Q: Joe Riley wrote the record. But it was sent to you; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you consider what Paul Shanley was doing in April of 1974 as being -- as involving mindless destructiveness?

A: It terms of Joe Riley, not necessarily. I shouldn't say -- mindless destructiveness? Joe Riley is a very good, wholesome Catholic and very sensitive to the issues of the time and was bothered tremendously by what he had read in the paper. That was my -- that was my -- that was my reaction to that.

Q: Bothered about Paul Shanley?

A: And the article and what it said about him.

Q: How he was quoted?

A: He refers to it, you know.

Q: How Paul Shanley was being quoted in the article?

A: Not so much quoted, but his activities as described.

Q: And did you share those opinions in 1974?

A: Not to the -- well I should put it this way. I guess I didn't -- I don't get as emotional as Joe Riley does, but I believe this is a very emotional statement. Not off the mark but very, very, you know, emotional.

Q: And Tom Flatley, is he an emotional person?

A: Well it's hard to describe people's, you know, people's, you know, I don't know because I know -- I don't see him every day. I think he gets mad once in a while. I think he gets excited once in a while, like we all do. But, yeah, I suppose he could be emotional. Overly emotional?

Q: Overly emotional?

A: How do you make those judgements? No.

Q: You were the one that used the words that Riley was emotional about this subject. My question is --

A: Yeah.

Q: My question is was he usually an emotional person?

A: Who, Joe Riley?

Q: Yes.

A: Yeah, I believe so.

Q: How about Tom Flatley?

A: I didn't see him often enough. I didn't see him that often. Joe Riley at the time was Massachusetts Catholic Conference.

Q: I show you Exhibit 28, please. Take a moment to look at that and the attachments.

A: Okay.

Q: All right. And it says -- go ahead, read the whole document.

A: Yeah. Okay.

Q: All right? Okay. So you see Tom Flatley again -- this is a complaint about Paul Shanley, right?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And you received that complaint from Tom Flatley? Second one from him?

A: Yes, May 7th.

Q: And he states in the letter that "I have known Father Shanley for years and during the days of his so-called drug rehabilitation I believe he introduced more kids to a permissive wrong way of life than a constructive and rehabilitative way." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And at the final sentence, he says, "I am writing to you" -- this is to Cardinal Medeiros. "I am writing to you in the hope that you could talk to this man before he introduces young people to a way of life that could be very sad to them." And then there is a response from the cardinal.

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Did you draft the response for the cardinal?

A: I believe I did. Okay.

Q: Now by this time, you've testified earlier, that you considered Paul Shanley to be a troubled man who needed help. When you received this letter from Mr. Flatley, did you undertake any specific action to speak with Paul Shanley? There is some handwriting on the front of this exhibit that I can't quite read.

A: Okay.

Q: Is that your handwriting?

A: It is, yeah. Let me see what it -- okay.

Q: Might be --

A: Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. In touch -- that's a W with a sign over it. "In touch with Father Shanley. Trying to bring him to the teaching of the church with apparent little success."

Q: So you weren't having much success with Father Shanley?

A: That's what that says.

Q: That's your handwriting, right?

A: Yes.

Q: And so did you think in 1975 after reading Mr. Flatley's letter, did you believe that Paul Shanley had introduced kids to a -- more kids to a permissive wrong way of life than a constructive and rehabilitative way? Did you agree with him on that?

A: Did I agree with him? No. But I don't know whether he did or did not. We had a reference to small groups going to -- don't we here? Small groups without --

Q: Well you see --

A: Without much impact.

Q: You know, I don't see that reference, but my question is you have a respected member of the Catholic community, Tom Flatley, correct?

A: Yeah.

Q: He is writing to you stating that he believes in 1975 that Paul Shanley has introduced more kids to a permissive wrong way of life than a constructive and rehabilitative way. And he says at the last sentence he is writing to the cardinal in the hope that you could talk to this man before he introduces young people to a way of life that could be very sad for them. I am just asking whether you shared that view of Mr. Flatley's.

A: Yes, in the sense that the response to Mr. Flatley says as much in the sense that there is these continued efforts to reach Father Shanley with his advisors and personally and to the full -- and bring him to the fullness of the model teachings of the Catholic church regarding homosexuality.

Q: And the front page of the letter talks about not having much success; is that correct?

A: What front page is that?

Q: Your notes.

A: That's my note. That's my note.

Q: Yes.

A: And I don't mention that in the letter, do I?

Q: No, you don't.

A: No, I think it's a letter that I wanted to keep in mind for myself presumably. Or even to tell the cardinal when I went to him for advice in relation to father -- to Tom Flatley.

Q: So it would be fair to state that by 1975 you had at least a concern that Paul Shanley might have a negative effect on young people? Is that a fair statement?

A: Given the information that I had at the time, yes.

Q: Did you send Paul Shanley out at that -- when you started to have that concern for any sort of medical evaluation or assessment in 1975, bishop?

A: No, because I was dealing with it personally and with the cardinal. Following the cardinal's directions and his own activity with Paul Shanley.

Q: Well what specifically do you remember doing after you got Mr. Flatley's letter?

A: I certainly either contacted or was in touch with the cardinal about the response. About what, you know, the proper response to Mr. Flatley in light of this matter.

Q: All right, let's go to the next exhibit, please. This is going to be marked as Exhibit 30. Again it's out of sequence. I apologize for that. Oh, could I just go back, bishop, to the Flatley letter, if I could?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Just go back for a second. The cover note, it says, "The attached letter from Thomas J. Flatley concerning Father Paul Shanley has not been acknowledged here at the residence." Why would there be a reason for not acknowledging Mr. Flatley's letter here at the residence? Why would that be said when --

A: I don't know. Well McQuinn, Father McQuinn sent it to me presumably for a response of the cardinal.

Q: But why --

A: The contact with the cardinal and consultation with the cardinal.

Q: Was there any effort to protect the cardinal from these types of writings that was in effect in 1975?

A: You mean what kind of writings?

Q: Writings complaining about Paul Shanley.

A: You mean letters?

Q: Yes, letters.

A: No, no. We had -- we didn't protect the cardinal from anything in that sense. We had an open relationship and I was -- and I couldn't because I couldn't function any other way and I know he couldn't. But I couldn't function in any other way. So we had an absolutely open relationship. As a matter of fact, we laid that down at the beginning.

Q: Was there ever a policy that any letter that was sent about Paul Shanley was not to be acknowledged as being received at the cardinal's residence?

A: No, there was no policy like that.

Q: Next document if we could, please, was the one I showed you.

A: Okay.

Q: Yeah, September 14, 1976. And you ask Paul Shanley to come in for a meeting at the chancery; do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: On September 27, 1976?

A: Yes.

Q: And the next document, please. It's Exhibit number 31.

A: Oh, excuse me. I am sorry. Thank you.

Q: All right. This is a letter, is it not, that you received, I think you might have been referring to earlier, where you got Al Hughes', Father Al Hughes' advice?

A: Yes, I think this is it.

Q: Is it Bishop Hughes at this point or is it Father Hughes?

A: No, he is strictly Father Hughes at this point. I am quite sure. Well I don't know. I think that's -- well I don't know.

Q: Might have changed right around then?

A: Could have been, yeah.

Q: So this was the letter that you were referring to earlier where you sought out some advice from Bishop Hughes about Paul Shanley?

A: Yeah.

Q: Is that correct?

A: Yes. At least where I received advice from him.

Q: Do you want to take a look at that letter?

A: I am, yeah. Thank you.

Q: Do you know a Dr. Quinn, by the way? Dr. Quinn, does that ring a bell to you?

A: Yeah, there is a Dr. Quinn. He was a psychiatrist, as I recall. You are going back 20 years, yeah.

Q: He is a consultant to the archdiocese; is that correct?

A: At that time he was at Saint Elizabeth's Hospital and he was functioning as a psychiatrist there. I don't know about consulting to the Diocese.

Q: Do you know whether archdiocesan priests have been sent to him, such as Father Birmingham and --

A: I don't know about --

Q: Excuse me. Such as Father Birmingham and other priests for evaluations?

A: I have to assume so, yes. I don't know about Father Birmingham as such, but father -- Dr. Quinn did administer to priests.

Q: Was there some reason why you could not have contacted Dr. Quinn about Paul Shanley?

A: No, there was no -- there is nothing permitting that, that I know of.

Q: So you had access to psychiatrists in the mid-1970s that could be brought in to consult on priests; is that correct?

A: They wouldn't be brought in. We would send the priest to them.

Q: Send the priest to them?

A: Yes.

Q: Now let's look at the next exhibit, if we could, please?

A: Which is?

Q: Thirty-one, I believe. Is it 31? Yeah.

A: That's Father Hughes.

Q: Yes, that's the letter that you were referring to -- I don't know whether it was. Was that the advice that you were referring to earlier that you got --

A: I think so, yes.

Q: And did you in this letter in any way tell Bishop Hughes that you felt that Paul Shanley was a troubled individual who needed help?

A: No, I can't recall doing that. He is take -- he is -- apparently.

Q: Okay, next exhibit.

A: No, apparently he's --

MR. O'NEILL: The court reporter needs to hear the word you said. Apparently.

THE WITNESS: Apparently.

Q: Here is 33. We jumped 32 for a second.

A: We are at 33 now?

Q: Yes.

A: Okay.

Q: We will switch that to this. This is October 22, 1976, okay? And do you want to take a look at that? In this letter you ask Father Paul Shanley to stop down, drop by the chancery to discuss literature which is being sent out by him to the priests of the archdiocese. Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Your letter of September 14th which -- 976, which we just had several exhibits earlier invited him to come down on September 27, 1976, for a discussion. Do you know whether this was a separate visit?

A: Where is that letter, in here?

Q: Yeah, it's two exhibits back.

A: Let me just read further.

Q: Here. Let me show it to you.

A: Was it in relation to --

Q: Yeah, here it is.

A: Oh, yes. Okay.

Q: Was this a separate visit then?

A: Yes, separate visit, separate purpose.

Q: And this is to discuss literature that is being circulated; is that correct?

A: Well, no. This was Father Shanley, September 14, 1976.

Q: No, the October '76 one.

A: Oh, I beg your pardon. Yes.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 2:34 p.m. (Recess taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:34 p.m.

Q: Do you recall, Bishop Daily, Paul Shanley at some point going to a place called The Exodus Center?

A: The Exodus Center?

Q: Yes.

A: No. That's -- okay, no, I do not. (Discussion off the record.)

Q: Okay, showing you what's been marked as Exhibit number 40 -- is that correct? I am sorry.

A: Where am I now?

Q: Okay, this is Exhibit number 41, which is a memorandum from Jean Sweeney dated November 2, 977. Then there is a letter of October 4, 1977, which is a letter to Jean Sweeney from Delores Stevens.

MR. W. ROGERS: Do we have copies of those?

MR. McLEISH: Yeah, we do. We do.

A: Are we through with these others, by the way? That is 30, 31 and all that?

Q: Yes. Then there is a letter from Jean Sweeney.

A: I have that. This's number 41, right? Oh, I'm sorry.

Q: Letter from Jean Sweeney, 44. I think the one you have is a letter from Delores Stevens. And we have copies.

A: I beg your pardon. I don't have anything from Delores.

MR. McLEISH: Here you go. Hand that out.

THE WITNESS: Jean and Jean.

MR. W. ROGERS: You got 41 and 44.

MR. McLEISH: 43 was a duplicate.

THE WITNESS: This is Delores, okay. I have 42, 41, 44.

MR. McLEISH: That's exactly right.

MR. MAFFEI: Eric, you didn't tell us which numbers go with which dates.

MR. McLEISH: Let's go off the record until we get this straightened out.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 2:41 p.m.

(Recess taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:46 p.m.

Q: All right, bishop, if you could take a moment and look first at Exhibit number 44, which is a letter from Jean Sweeney. I ask if you recognize that.

A: I see that -- I see the name and I recognize the, you know, the cardinal's name. I have the paper.

Q: You have seen that record before today; is that correct?

A: This one here?

Q: Yes.

A: I can't recall seeing this before.

Q: Have you seen it in preparation for your deposition?

A: Help me somebody because I don't recall seeing it, you know.

Q: Why don't you talk a moment and read it, if you would, bishop.

A: Sure. I read the one letter.

Q: And you will see that that refers to a report that Mrs. Sweeney has received from a woman who attended a speech at St. Luke's Episcopal Church on September 23rd; do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: And it also makes reference to a Reverend Shanley in the last paragraph; do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Then I would like you to look at Exhibit number 42, which is the letter to Jean Sweeney from Delores Stevens reporting on what was talked about at that meeting.

A: Okay.

Q: And you will notice on Exhibit 42, you see the handwriting on the top?

A: I do.

Q: And you will notice the similarity with the handwriting on the top of Exhibit 44?

A: I am not so sure I do see the similarity.

Q: All right, that's fine. That's no problem. If you could read Exhibit 42 for me, please, bishop.

A: I will read 42.

Q: You read that, bishop?

A: Yes.

Q: Take a look at Exhibit number 41 and read that for me, which is a memo from Jean Sweeney to Fathers Dolan and Sundhome about Paul Shanley's talk.

A: Okay. All right.

Q: All right. Let's look at Exhibit 42, if we could, which is the Sweeney report of -- I am sorry. The Delores Stevens letter to Jean Sweeney that was contained in the files of the archdiocese. Now I would like to direct your attention towards the bottom, about two-thirds of the way down the page. And according to Mrs. Stevens, she states as follows.

A: Two-thirds down?

Q: Two-thirds down. Starts, "He stated --

A: Okay.

Q: Starts, "He stated celibacy is impossible, therefore the only alternative is for gays to have sex with different persons whenever they want to." If such a statement were made, is that contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church?

A: Oh sure.

Q: Would that give you concern, Bishop Daily, if he made such a statement?

A: Yes.

Q: The next paragraph. "He spoke of pedophilia, which is a non-coerced sexual manipulation of sex organs, including oral genital sex between an adult and child. He stated that the adult is not the seducer. The kid is the seducer. And further, the kid is not traumatized by the act, per say. The kid is traumatized when the police and the authorities drag the kid in for questioning." Okay? Would you agree with me that that is a deviant statement?

A: That's a wrong statement. It's objectively wrong.

Q: Okay, well is it -- it's an expression of an opinion when he states, according to Mrs. Stevens, he stated that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer. And, further, the kid is not traumatized by the act, per se. The kid is traumatized when the police and the authorities drag the kid in for questioning. Is that, in your opinion, not only a wrong statement but a perverted statement?

A: Well it's perverse the truth.

Q: Would you be concerned about a priest making such a statement back in 1977 if he, in fact, made it?

A: I would be concerned.

Q: How concerned would you be?

A: Concerned enough to report it to the bishop to get his direction as to what we should do with him or what I should do with him, if the archbishop or the ordinary wanted me to intervene and act or to do it himself. You know, to intervene.

Q: And then it says afterwards, it says in the next paragraph, "He," meaning Shanley, "stated that he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And is that a statement that is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

A: Well incest or bestiality certainly are contrary to the -- but I am not a doctor from the point of view of psychic damage. But I would say that, you know, absolutely it's contrary to the--

Q: Well isn't is just -- he says here no sexual act -- he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality.

A: Oh, I see. Oh, yeah. I was concentrating on incest and bestiality.

Q: Well he says he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality. Does that statement concern you?

A: It does because there are, I would think -- that I would avert that there are sexual acts that do cause psychic damage.

Q: Including bestiality?

A: Yes.

Q: And incest?

A: Yes.

Q: And --

A: I would say that. That's just my observation. I am not a clinician, but that's what my observation --

Q: Just common sense, isn't it?

A: Yeah. Well I think that's -- that's my opinion, okay?

Q: Well it's in quotes. Do you see that in quotes about what Paul Shanley is alleged to have said?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: And do you -- if, in fact, Paul Shanley had said these things, would Paul Shanley in your view be in a position to be the pastor of a family parish at any Archdiocese church?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection. At this time?

Q: At this time, sir, yes. At any time.

A: Well certainly not at this time.

Q: At any time?

A: And unless he changed radically, he shouldn't be.

Q: You would agree with me that allegations such as these are extremely serious?

A: I would agree so.

Q: Have you ever received an allegation about a priest that's as serious as this one?

A: Well I can't recall. It's certainly possible.

Q: Can you think of anyone as you sit here right now?

A: You mean name? You want a name?

Q: Just one in your mind. Can you think of a situation where a priest is alleged to have said -- let's start with saying something. A priest is alleged to have said something as perverted as this woman from Rochester, New York, says Paul Shanley said at this presentation?

A: I can't think specifically of one, but I know they exist. You are asking me something very specific and I want to put it into a certain condition, make a concrete application. But having said that, I know that such things have existed.

Q: By priests?

A: By priests.

Q: Priests say things like this?

A: Well I hope they wouldn't. Maybe when they are drunk or something like that. But they would have to be out of their mind to say something like this.

Q: And if they weren't drunk or out of their minds -- even if they were drunk or out of their minds, you would want to investigate the matter further, would you not?

A: Yes, no question.

Q: Because you would not want someone like this to be in a parish ministry; is that correct?

A: Not in a priestly ministry to anybody.

Q: Priestly ministry to anybody?

A: To anybody, yeah. If you believe this and it --

Q: If he said it?

A: Teaching it or said it or whatever.

Q: Whether he believed it, he said it. Would that be enough to remove his priestly faculties, if he said such things?

A: Just the mere fact that he said it?

Q: Yes.

A: Under any conditions?

Q: Yes.

A: I would investigate the conditions, how he said it, when he said it, to whom he said it. I would get the information and if, in fact, it represented what it represents in him and in his future, yes.

Q: I asked you if he said these things.

A: The words? Yeah, I would withdraw him. If I was the ordinary I would withdraw him and investigate the matter.

Q: Would you consider him to be someone who might be a threat to children having said these things about --

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I have to stop for a second. (Discussion off the record.)

MR. W. ROGERS: Why don't we take a 3:00 break now.

MR. McLEISH: Sure, sure.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 3:00. (Recess taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video record at 3:17 p.m.

Q: I think there was a pending question. Let me withdraw it, though. If you look at Exhibit 50, bishop, you will see this is again something from Mrs. Sweeney. You will recall she was the woman who had sent in Mrs. Delores Stevens' report. And you will see in Exhibit 50, you will see the statement in the last paragraph, "Mr. Dash, I feel, confirmed the accuracy of Mrs. Stevens' report to me." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And you see up above in the first paragraph that Mr. Dash was apparently a reporter for the Courier Journal; do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And again these were obtained from the files of the archdiocese. So again I think the pending question at the time that you left, which I will come back to now, if these reports were true, would you have a concern that Paul Shanley could be involved in deviant behavior with children himself?

A: It's hard to say. First of all, I didn't investigate any of the reports.

Q: Right. You'd want to talk to Mrs. Stevens; is that correct?

A: Perhaps. Or more particularly the priests that are involved or the Diocese.

Q: The priests at the Diocese?

A: Or even -- maybe the bishop or his representative. Probably his chancellor or one of those people who would want to investigate, it seems to me.

Q: If they were, in fact, present?

A: Well, yeah. Well you can get their advice as to how legitimate it is.

Q: But certainly you would also want to talk to individuals who had -- who were present, physically present, when these alleged statements were made; is that correct?

A: That I would talk to them? No.

Q: Or someone.

A: Not necessarily.

Q: Someone?

A: I would ask somebody presumably. I would work through officials at the Diocese.

Q: The Diocese out in Rochester?

A: Yes.

Q: Now and you are aware at this time that Father Shanley is the, I think he was called the minister to alienated youth was one of his titles. Do you recall that?

A: Only yesterday and today, yes.

Q: Okay.

A: I had forgotten what his titles were.

Q: But you knew he was dealing with young people; is that correct?

A: Yes, yes. Street, what do they call them? Street, street children. Something like that.

Q: And you knew -- you still continued to believe by 1977 that he was a troubled priest; is that correct?

A: Well, yes. Trouble. You keep using that term. For me it's -- well how do you define trouble?

Q: I think you defined it earlier and I am going to go with your definition.

A: All right.

Q: I would like to show you Exhibit number 1. I know we are going a little out of order. We will be back on track soon.

A: Okay.

Q: Do you recognize this as a letter that you sent to Mrs. Jean Sweeney, this woman from Rochester, New York, who had taken the time to write to the cardinal?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: And this is your letter, is it not?

A: Yes, I -- yes.

Q: And you see handwriting at the top, it says file?

A: Yes.

Q: Is that your handwriting?

A: Yes. It may -- well I don't know. Could be Judy Devas (phonetic). She wrote big like that.

Q: Was she your secretary?

A: Yes.

Q: So this might have gone in Paul Shanley's file, is that what that word suggests, file?

A: Or a copy of it, yes.

Q: And it says at the bottom, return to TVD for -- for what?

A: For his eminence.

Q: For his eminence?

A: Yeah.

Q: Would you say that Mrs. Sweeney is -- you say your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office. That would mean your office, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: It concerns, as you know, a presentation made by Father Paul Shanley, a priest with the Archdiocese of Boston, September 23, 1997, at St. Luke's Episcopal Church, Rochester, New York.

A: Yes.

Q: It continues, "I am grateful to you for your letter and for the information which is enclosed. The position of the Archdiocese of Boston is that while Father Shanley enjoys the faculties of the Archdiocese of Boston, he alone must be held responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality. With the sincere hope that the above is helpful to you, I am in Christ, Most Reverend Thomas B. Daily, Auxiliary Bishop of Boston, Chancellor." Do you see?

A: I do.

Q: You did not undertake any type of inquiry in response to the allegations of Mrs. Sweeney that, and Ms. Stevens, that Paul Shanley had spoken of pedophilia stating that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer, and that he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest of bestiality. You didn't do anything to investigate the accuracy of that, Bishop Daily, did you?

A: Oh, I beg your pardon. I sent the material and consulted with the cardinal. You have it right here.

Q: Well it says right here, it says in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney, it says, "Your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office." Do you see that? It was referred to you. There is no indication in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney that you had spoken to Cardinal Medeiros about this.

A: But the thing is, if I may say so, again the note at the bottom says return to me for his eminence. In other words, the letter came to the cardinal in his house. It was referred to me. I responded and told the secretary to give it back to me so that I could tell the cardinal what had been done.

Q: Do you have a clear recollection of your conversation with the cardinal about this letter, Bishop Daily?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Is there any indication that you have from any of the documents or anything else that you have that you undertook any investigation to see whether Paul Shanley's remarks about pedophilia, kids being at fault when they are seduced by adults and no sexual act causing psychic injury, did you do anything that you can recall as you sit here today to investigate the accuracy of those remarks?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.

MR. McLEISH: It's noted.

A: No, the question is, I think, to get back to the process, I told the cardinal. That doesn't preclude my conversation with the cardinal, nor his action that he might have taken with other people in investigating the process. Or even with Paul Shanley, or even with the bishop of Rochester. I don't know that. But that' -- that's private information and that's -- and that would not be in the -- very well might not be in writing.

Q: Well, Bishop Daily, it's true that you can't identify as you sit here today one thing that you, Cardinal Medeiros or anyone did in the Archdiocese of Boston to investigate the allegations that were being made by Mrs. Stevens? You can't identify one thing that was done to investigate whether Paul Shanley said these things?

A: Let me just say this. I did -- I identified the note on the bottom to give it to his eminence, the Cardinal Medeiros.

Q: That's fine.

A: To take that -- to do that investigation.

Q: You don't know whether that was done, do you?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Now you had been assigned --

A: Even if I did, I am not sure I would say so. But I do not know.

Q: Well, okay, since you don't know, we don't have to get into that issue.

A: Okay.

Q: But on other issues such as some of the earlier ones we saw when you were meeting with Paul Shanley in the chancery, you were having discussions with Paul Shanley about certain issues? Do you recall some of the letters that we went over?

A: Generally speaking, yes.

Q: So you can't even state whether you invited Paul Shanley into the chancery to discuss this letter, can you?

A: This -- which letter, this letter?

Q: The allegation that's set forth in Mrs. Stevens' letter that Paul Shanley was making remarks about children having sex with adults, pedophilia, incest and bestiality.

A: But I also say that doesn't preclude the possibility that the cardinal invited Shanley.

Q: I am not asking about possibilities. I am asking only what you know.

A: Okay.

Q: You had been assigned on previous occasions to deal with Paul Shanley; is that correct?

A: On specific occasions.

Q: In fact, I think, and we are going to get to it tomorrow, that there was a delegation to you in certain areas to deal with Paul Shanley so that the cardinal would be protected in the event that there was an appeal or arbitration. Do you recall anything like that?

A: That was today. There was something in that letter today.

Q: Yes. So you were the person who was dealing with Paul Shanley on many of these issues to protect the cardinal in the event --

A: Oh, no.

Q: I am sorry. To protect the cardinal in the event of appeal or arbitration?

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.

A: That was advise given to me by Father Hughes, as I recall. That doesn't necessarily mean that I actually followed through on it. That was advice that, you know --

Q: I remember that.

A: Because -- excuse me. Let me just finish. That because of our open relationship -- the open relationship that I had with the cardinal, I was -- I was not of a mind, generally speaking, as policy, to hide anything from the cardinal.

Q: Bishop Daily --

A: Or to protect him in that sense.

Q: By the time Mrs. Stevens writes in this letter about bestiality, incest and pedophilia, you had met with Paul Shanley about some of the issues that we've discussed here today in your deposition? You met with him personally; is that correct?

A: Well I would like to hear you cite them.

Q: I don't want to go over it all again. There has been several letters. We went through them about an hour ago.

A: Well just give me a few of them. Just give me a couple of numbers.

Q: I would be happy to do that when we -- we can do that, if it's acceptable to you, tomorrow morning. We have already been through that, that you had met with -- there are letters at least indicating that you met with Paul Shanley. So what I am asking you is, is looking back on it now, do you think when you had an allegation that a priest was saying these heinous, deviant, perverted things that you did enough personally, second in command of the Archdiocese of Boston, to investigation whether these allegations were true or untrue?

MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object to the form of the question. And you are doing more and more of this and making a small speech, then coming in at the end with a question. And your reference to the fact that this correspondence regarding meetings, if the bishop asked you to put something in front of him, my recollection is there were letters scheduling meetings.

MR. McLEISH: Right.

MR. W. ROGERS: I don't recall we've gone through, and subject to correction, any correspondence that documents there was a meeting.

MR. McLEISH: All right, fine.

MR. W. ROGERS: And I think it's unfair to make a speech and then put a question.

MR. McLEISH: I am not making any -- I am asking a question.

MR. W. ROGERS: Well --

Q: Bishop Daily, you have Mrs. Stevens, you know, Delores Stevens, the woman out in Rochester, New York, writing in saying that Paul Shanley is talking about pedophilia, that it's the child's fault when a sex act occurs, that no sexual act causes -- he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality, and that celibacy is impossible. And my simple question to you is looking at this letter, and again we only have the records of the archdiocese that don't reflect anything about Paul Shanley being removed from any ministry. I am just asking you whether you believe that you personally did enough in response to Mrs. Stevens' allegation. That's my question.

MR. W. ROGERS: All right. Well I object to the form of that question. You indicate that Delores Stevens wrote in. She didn't write in. She wrote to Jean Sweeney. And so I think it is misleading and doesn't accurately reflect the documents you put in front of the bishop.

Q: Do you understand the question? Mrs. Stevens' letter was enclosed with Mrs. Sweeney's letter. It makes reference to it. You had a letter in your files that came to your attention from Mrs. Stevens that made all these allegations about Paul Shanley, about pedophilia, children being at fault when they have sex relation -- sexual relations with adults, the kid is the seducer and then Paul Shanley stating he can allegedly think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality. Do you see that? Do you see that, bishop?

A: Yes.

Q: You are already dealing with a priest that you considered to be troubled and in need of help and now this letter comes.

A: That was my opinion. But I think -- it seems to me, with all due respect, sir, that you refuse to accept the fact that this information was handed directly to his eminence.

Q: I accept the fact that it was handed to his eminence, but you were the second in command. And all that I am doing is asking you questions about what you did.

MR. W. ROGERS: All right. Ask a question, please.

MR. McLEISH: I am asking a question.

MR. W. ROGERS: What's the question?

Q: Looking back on it as the person who dealt with Paul Shanley before, do you think that you personally did enough to investigate the allegations set forth in Mrs. Sweeney's letter that include -- included Mrs. Stevens' allegations on pedophilia, incest, bestiality and all these other things? Did you do enough looking back on it right now to investigate?

MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form.

A: The one who would make that judgment because -- I am sorry.

MR. W. ROGERS: Go ahead.

A: The one who would make that judgement would be his eminence. And he is not around. In other words, he had the information. He would have told me what to do. He would have told me to make the investigation or he would investigate himself. So the question as to whether who did what enough refers to all of us, refers to his eminence all the way down.

Q: Well it says --

A: And you can make that judgment.

Q: It says right here in Exhibit number, I think it's number 51, it says that Mrs. Sweeney's letter to his eminence has been referred to this office. That would mean you, Bishop Daily.

A: Would refer to this office. Okay.

Q: So it had been referred back from Cardinal Medeiros to your office. And you write to Mrs. Sweeney and you talk to homosexuality. You see that? He alone must be responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: But that's not what Mrs. Sweeney was exclusively writing about. She is writing about things other than homosexuality. Do you agree with me?

A: She is writing --

MR. W. ROGERS: Insofar as what, that entire time or --

Q: Let's go through it again.

A: Could I refer to the letter of November the 17th?

Q: Let's just get through my questions and then you can go back to that. Okay?

A: Okay.

Q: Your counsel brought up a question of whether it was just homosexuality. Let me read it again. It's Exhibit number 42. "He stated celibacy is impossible, therefore the only alternative is for gays to have sex with different persons whenever they want to." Does that concern homosexuality? I guess it does, right?

MR. W. ROGERS: Well I --

Q: Does it?

MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.

Q: Well okay. Let's go on to the next --

MR. W. ROGERS: You asked and answered it and then asked if he agreed.

MR. McLEISH: Well I agreed with you, Mr. Rogers.

MR. W. ROGERS: All right.

Q: "He spoke of pedophilia, which is a non-coerced sexual manipulation of sex organs including oral genital sex between an adult and child. He stated that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer. And, further, the kid is not traumatized by the act, per se. The kid is traumatized when the police and authorities drag the kid in for questioning." Does that concern homosexuality, Bishop Daily?

A: It concerns an activity that I certainly wouldn't approve of.

Q: That's not my question. Does it concern homosexual behavior?

A: It concerns pedophilia.

Q: Does it concern homosexual behavior?

A: Pedophilia is different than homosexuality.

Q: So it does not concern homosexuality, correct?

A: Technically speaking, no. Pedophilia is an abuse by itself. Now she uses it, she uses in 977 when the old question of pedophilia in definition was being developed.

Q: My question was -- my question was, you just said it, pedophilia was not -- is not different from homosexuality; is that correct?

A: No, no, no, no. It's in the same family.

Q: It's in the same family?

A: It is different. It is different. I think that -- I am saying that subject to correction. But, but pedophilia is something very specific.

Q: But it's in the homosexual family?

A: But you might say it's in the general family, that's true. That's my understanding, though. I am not an expert. Okay?

Q: Then he says, "He stated that he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality." What's incest?

A: Well you know what incest is.

Q: Well I am asking, do you know what incest is?

A: Sure.

Q: It's sex between members of the same family, first degree of kinship?

A: Sure, yeah. Fathers, children and so forth.

Q: That doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, does it?

A: True, okay.

Q: Now bestiality?

A: This is a different sex.

Q: Different section?

A: I beg your pardon?

Q: I am talking about --

A: It has a definition of its own. Definition of its own.

Q: Bestiality is sex between men and animals?

A: Yes.

Q: Not in the homosexual family?

A: No.

Q: So you write back and you said in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney, you said, "He alone must be held responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality," yet you acknowledge that Mrs. Sweeney, containing Mrs. Stevens' letter, was making allegations separate and apart from homosexuality; is that correct?

A: Yes, that's true. And obviously I was mistaken.

Q: You were mistaken?

A: Because I wasn't perhaps up on to the whole question of pedophilia and the development had taken place in pedophilia and the treatment thereof. So I saw it, mistakingly so, as in the -- not only the family but something -- well in the family of homosexuality.

Q: And what about incest and bestiality, is that in the family of homosexuality?

A: No, it isn't.

Q: Was it ever in your mind?

A: No, of course not.

Q: So my question is is that you say, "He alone must be held responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality." And the truth is, is that that wasn't what Mrs. Stevens had written about exclusively in her letter, correct?

A: I refer you to the sentence. It stated that he could think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality. That doesn't mean that incest and bestiality is included in the family of homosexuality.

Q: I understand that.

A: But notice he is saying that. He is talking about psychic damage.

Q: Bishop, a letter had come in containing perverted, allegedly perverted statements.

A: Yes.

Q: My question is you just write back and say Father Shanley has to be held accountable for his statements about homosexuality, okay?

A: Sure.

Q: And it was referred, as your letter references, it was referred by Cardinal Medeiros to your office, meaning you; do you see that?

A: For a response.

Q: Well it doesn't say that. It just says --

A: Well it's --

Q: Referred to this office.

A: And I sent it back to him to let him know what I had said.

Q: Okay. And so my question is, looking back on it now, if it had been referred to your office, did you do enough to verify the allegations perverted -- of perverted, deviant statements made by Paul Shanley? Did you do enough, Bishop Daily?

A: Well --

MR. W. ROGERS: Wait a minute. I want to object. That's an argumentative question. And enough for what purpose? I don't understand.

A: Is it a question -- are you making a statement with the question?

Q: I am asking you, in your opinion, did you do enough to investigate the accuracy of the statements that were allegedly made by Paul Shanley.

MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.

MR. O'NEILL: You don't have to form -- let me instruct you, bishop. You don't have to form opinions for Mr. McLeish's benefit. He is asking you now to form an opinion as to what you were doing and what you did, whether in your opinion now in 2002 what you did in terms of these letters was enough back in whatever the year was. You don't have to form such opinions. You can if you want.

MR. McLEISH: He is not being asked as an expert.

Q: You were in charge --

MR. W. ROGERS: Did you strike that question?

MR. McLEISH: I don't know whether he is instructing him not to answer or not.

Q: Go ahead and answer the question, bishop. Go ahead and answer the question. Did you do enough?

A: No, I will follow the counsel's advice.

MR. McLEISH: Well are you instructing him not to answer that question, Mr. O'Neill?

MR. O'NEILL: No, I am not.

Q: You can answer that question, bishop.

MR. W. ROGERS: If you don't have an opinion, you don't have an opinion.

A: I don't have an opinion.

Q: You don't have an opinion whether you did enough or not?

A: No.

Q: And again how many children are being served by the Diocese in 1977, bishop?

A: How many children?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: What -- figures are figures. All you have to do is look at them directly. I don't know exactly, no

Q: Tens of thousands?

A: Well there are plenty of them.

Q: Can you think of any one thing that you did to put any restrictions on Paul Shanley's ministry after you got this letter from Mrs. Sweeney?

A: Only to inform his eminence.

MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object to the form of the question.

MR. McLEISH: Objection noted.

MR. W. ROGERS: There is no testimony that he had the ability to put a restriction on it.

MR. McLEISH: That's not an objection to form.

MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object to the form of the question.

Q: Let me ask that question. You could have made recommendations to put restrictions on Paul Shanley's ministry; is that correct?

A: What I did was I gave the information to the cardinal so he could put the restrictions. Or do what he wanted to do and make decisions, make conclusions and judgements about what he should do with Shanley. He could have inquired with me, also.

Q: Bishop Daily, as the number two person in the Archdiocese of Boston, you would have occasion to speak with Cardinal Medeiros who had a lot on his plate about clergy personnel problems from time to time; is that correct?

A: Well not necessarily, but from time to time we had things to talk about about personnel. I think he spoke more with the personnel directors than he spoke with me.

Q: This matter came back to you for response to Mrs. Sweeney and you responded; is that correct?

A: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

Q: You see that?

A: Yes.

Q: So my question is, is there anything that would have prevented you from speaking with Cardinal Medeiros, the clergy personnel board, the director of ministry of personnel about the possibility of putting some restrictions on Paul Shanley in light of the allegations that were made in Exhibit number 42?

A: There would be no restriction on me in saying anything to Cardinal Medeiros or really saying anything to anybody as advice or counsel.

Q: But you can't recall doing anything, can you?

A: I could not do anything without the authority of the archbishop.

Q: You could talk to the archbishop?

A: I could certainly talk to the archbishop.

Q: But you can't recall --

A: That's not to say I didn't talk to the archbishop.

Q: Or that you did, correct?

A: Right.

Q: You just don't remember?

A: Okay.

Q: Okay, this is number 46. Again I apologize for being out of order. Take a look at that if you would, please.

MR. W. ROGERS: This is new? We have not had this?

THE WITNESS: Do you want this?

MR. W. ROGERS: Do you have copies of this?

MR. McLEISH: Yes, you are getting copies.

A: Okay, question?

Q: So this is a letter from a Joseph Eltidge, as you see, to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, in which he says in the first paragraph -- last paragraph on the first page, "Needless to say, his talk was the occasion of scandal." Do you see that?

A: Okay.

Q: First page, last paragraph.

A: Oh, yes.

Q: "Needless to say, his talk was the occasion of scandal." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Then on the third page there is a memorandum to you from Father Helmick. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And is that your handwriting on the bottom right-hand corner?

A: Yes.

Q: And what does it say?

A: "Have a talk with Father Paul Shanley."

Q: "Cardinal, have a talk with Father Paul Shanley"?

A: Yes.

Q: And then it says in this memorandum that's sent to you from Father Helmick, middle paragraph, "Attached, also, is a letter the cardinal received from Mr. Eltidge dated December 22nd. This most recent letter has not been acknowledged at the cardinal's residence because of its mention of Father Shanley." Do you see that?

A: Yeah.

Q: So is it not the case, Bishop Daily, that there was, in fact, a policy that when letters came in to the cardinal's residence that mentioned Paul Shanley, they were not to be acknowledged?

A: No, they were to be handed on to me. That's why he sent it over to me.

Q: Okay.

A: And I made a note to have a talk with Cardinal Medeiros.

Q: Well the letter is coming in -- it makes specific reference to Father Shanley. Was there a standing policy with respect, in 1977, of letters that were coming in with respect to Father Shanley that those were not to be acknowledged at the cardinal's residence?

A: No way.

Q: Why does it say because of --

A: Not that I know of. I don't know that. The letter was sent to me.

Q: From Father Helmick, correct?

A: Yes, but as chancellor and vicar general, sure.

Q: So we would have to rely on why Father Helmick put that statement in there; is that correct?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to form.

A: Because Father Helmick obviously felt that I would be the one to be talking to the cardinal about it.

Q: Well it says --

A: He is the secretary.

Q: I don't want to belabor the point but it says --

A: No, but I think it's good to listen. Excuse me.

Q: That's fine. All right, next --

A: Can I say something else?

Q: Yes, sure. Absolutely.

A: If you turn to the next page and there is a note at the top that I wrote that says reported to the cardinal January 31 --

Q: Yes.

A: So the talk did take place.

Q: Well that was the talk about Mr. Eltidge's letter; is that correct?

A: Certainly.

Q: The letter that we just reviewed where you wrote back to Mrs. Sweeney didn't make any mention of the fact that you had spoken to the cardinal, correct?

A: No, this all has to do -- this all has in the same package and the same clipping has to do with Mr. Eltidge's letter.

Q: No, Mr. Eltidge makes different allegations. He doesn't talk about incest, bestiality or pedophilia.

A: Okay, be that as it may, I had a talk with Cardinal Medeiros.

Q: Yes, I understand that.

A: Concerning the contents of Mr. Eltidge's letter.

Q: And you say that, correct?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: But if you take a look at your letter back to Mrs. Sweeney, okay, you didn't say that you had spoken to the cardinal about it. What you said was that the matter had been referred to you, correct?

A: Give me that again. Well how does it say that it was referred to me?

Q: Let's read it. Do you have the letter that you sent back to Mrs. Sweeney? Why don't you just read? Here, I have it for you. Why don't you just read --

A: I have it here. September '72?

Q: Read the first paragraph.

A: Your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office. It concerns, as you know, a presentation --

Q: You have to slow down, bishop.

A: Okay, I am sorry. I beg your pardon. So go back to the beginning?

Q: Yes.

A: Okay. "Dear Mrs. Sweeney: Your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office. It concerns, as you know, a presentation made by Father Paul Shanley, a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, September 23, 1977, at St. Luke's Episcopal Church of Rochester, New York.

Q: That's fine. Or you can read the whole thing, if you want to, but my question --

A: That's okay.

Q: My question is in your letter to Mr. Eltidge, you indicate that his eminence is deeply grateful to you, meaning Mr. Eltidge, for your continued interest and candid expression. Do you see that?

A: I have to read that again. I am sorry.

Q: My only point, Bishop Daily, is that there is nowhere in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney to indicate that you'd even spoken personally to Cardinal Medeiros about the allegations that she was making, correct?

A: That's -- there is nowhere in this letter. That's not necessarily that that conversation didn't take place. Because I point out to you, if I may, that from December there was a gap between Mrs. -- her letter of October 25 and December 2. And there is no -- and I used to see the cardinal three times a week at least.

Q: Bishop Daily --

A: There is no reason why -- there is no reason why that wasn't brought up.

Q: We are not talking about conjecture or speculation. We are talking about facts. You don't know whether you ever talked to Cardinal Medeiros about Mrs. Sweeney's letter?

A: Let me just say this.

Q: No. You don't know either way?

A: There is no letter, there is nothing to prove that.

Q: Either way?

A: That's my conjecture. The possibility exists that I did because I was -- given the track record, given the fact that I was open with his eminence on all things, the real possibility that I did speak to him about Mrs. Sweeney's letter certainly exists.

Q: The possibility is that you did not?

A: Yes. Well let me just say this. I go back to December the 2nd on the bottom of the page, it says return to TVD for his eminence.

Q: The letter is returned TVD?

A: Yes.

Q: The letter is returned. I am asking --

A: For his eminence.

Q: The question is can you state outside of conjecture whether you ever spoke with Cardinal Medeiros about Mrs. Sweeney's letter?

A: I have no tape of the conversation. I have no notes that I did. No, it's true. But I point to the evidence again that the real possibility that had taken place, the foundation for a conjecture that it had taken place is right at the bottom of the page.

Q: The letter was to be returned to TVD for HK, correct?

A: For HE, yeah.

Q: For his eminence. The letter. Not to suggest that you had a talk?

A: Okay, all right.

Q: Next document --

A: But the second paragraph says, "I am grateful to you for your letter and for the information which is enclosed."

Q: My question is whether your statement that you think it's a real possibility you spoke with Cardinal Medeiros --

A: Yeah.

Q: The plain fact is that you just don't know?

A: Let me just say this. Let me say this. Based on my relationship with him, based on my -- okay, my relationship with him and the openness we had, it would have been very, very possible, more possible than other circumstances, that I did mention it to him because nothing was held back.

Q: And nothing was done to Father Shanley?

A: At that time --

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection. By who?

Q: By anyone in the Archdiocese of Boston except that he was allowed to remain as a priest in good standing with the full faculties of the Archdiocese.

A: If that was the case -- you know, I have no record of the cardinal removed his faculties.

Q: Ever?

A: He removed him from his positions but he didn't remove him --

Q: That's right. And we are going to get to that right now.

A: All right.

Q: Father Shanley's -- this is Exhibit 47. This is Exhibit 47.

A: Yes.

Q: Which is a letter from the Sacra Congregatio Pro Doctrina Treaty (phonetic)? Do you see that? Am I pronouncing that?

A: No. Sacra Congregatio Pro Doctrina Treaty. It's the sacred congregation for the doctrine of faith.

Q: It's in the Vatican; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Doctrine of the faith?

A: Yes.

Q: You don't often get letters in the doctrine of the faith about priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, do you?

MR. W. ROGERS: This wasn't to Bishop Daily.

MR. McLEISH: No, it was not.

MR. W. ROGERS: You say you do not often.

Q: As someone who had an open relationship with the cardinal, I am just asking whether letters such as this one were typical in your experience about individual priests.

A: They would be the kind of letter we would send if a priest was not acting properly or teaching doctrine that wasn't appropriate.

Q: So by 1978 Father Paul Shanley is a priest that is not acting properly in the sense that he is not following church doctrine?

A: Yes.

Q: He is troubled. Does he still need help in your opinion?

A: He --

Q: Did he still need help in 1978?

A: He certainly -- he needs a lot of help.

Q: Okay. Did he get that help?

A: Yes, I think he did.

Q: By being transferred over to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

A: No, I --

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. That's an argumentative question.

Q: How did he get help?

A: He saw the cardinal.

Q: Did he ever see a doctor, psychiatrist?

A: No, I think he saw the cardinal. He saw the cardinal.

Q: I see.

A: Okay?

Q: All right. Did you assist in responding to the response of this, of this -- to this letter from the -- do we call it doctrine of the faith? Is that the best way?

A: Did I assist in the what, the response to the doctrine of the faith?

Q: Yes. Did you assist in the response to that?

A: No. That's the one this the cardinal wrote to the doctrine of the faith?

Q: Yes.

A: Long letter?

Q: Yes.

A: No, I did not.

Q: Have you ever seen that letter?

A: I have seen it but I haven't had a chance to study it recently. That is within the last couple of days.

Q: Let's circulate it.

A: I am surprised you have that, by the way. But that's beside the point.

Q: Why are you surprised that I have that?

A: Because that's very privileged communication.

Q: Well I got it.

A: You got it.

Q: Exhibit 41.

MR. W. ROGERS: No, it's not Exhibit 41. What, we got two 41s?

MR. McLEISH: Let's put another number. Let's stick another number on it. That's my fault.

Q: It's Exhibit number 52 now, okay? You have seen this before today, have you not?

MR. W. ROGERS: He just said he has but he hasn't reviewed it.

A: It's on the record.

Q: When did you last see it?

A: I think it was yesterday, day before.

Q: I would like to refer you to page seven, if I could, please.

A: Okay.

Q: It says at the bottom of page seven, "I believe that Father Shanley is a troubled priest and I have tried to be understanding and patient with him while continually affirming both privately to him and publicly to my people that church teachings on sexual ethics." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: So would it be fair to state that Cardinal Medeiros, as of February of 1979, shared your view that Father Shanley remained a troubled priest?

A: This is the date of February 12, 1979?

Q: Yes.

A: It's a statement of the cardinal and it's -- he says I believe that Father Shanley is a troubled priest. So, yeah.

Q: And you believed that, too, as of February 979, correct?

A: I would have to say yes. I agree with the cardinal.

Q: The next exhibit, please, which is going to be number 48. Have you ever seen this letter before today?

A: No. I can't recall ever having seen this letter. This was written by the cardinal?

Q: I don't know. We don't know who it was written by.

A: It says at the end, "The Cardinal to put an appropriate" -- no, I don't know.

Q: Did you write this letter?

A: No.

Q: It says, "Cardinal to put an appropriate ending."

A: Yeah, someone else wrote it. But who, I do not know. It says in the front, "Confidential rough."

Q: Right.

A: I don't know what that is.

Q: Well I would like to refer you to one section of it, if I could, please.

A: Sure.

Q: This is on page five of this draft letter. We don't have -- I can tell you, we don't have a final version. We don't even know whether one was given. We don't have a final copy.

A: Excuse me, a final version of?

Q: Of this letter.

A: This letter here?

Q: Yeah, we don't have a final version. It was not produced to us at least.

A: Okay.

Q: Paragraph five. "I reject completely your accusation" -- paragraph six. "I reject completely your accusation that I am inflicting punishment on homosexuals and their families. In fact, as I continue to lead us in this work, that is the worst damage I could inflict on them in the long run."

A: I think he said, "As I continue to lead you."

Q: Yes, exactly.

A: In this work. Okay.

Q: Next sentence that I wanted to key on. "I shall pass over an amazed but laughable silence the threat you invoke against me concerning further public pronouncements, this time about our seminary. I urge and direct you to take a parish assignment, as many of our priests do in this time of such great need, where you will be out of the limelight and involved in the ordinary, everyday work of a priest, work seen only by a few, unnoticed by the media, but dear to the heart of Christ." Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Do you think that it was appropriate, given the troubles of Paul Shanley, that he would be assigned to a parish without any types of restrictions imposed upon him?

MR. W. ROGERS: At what point?

MR. McLEISH: Right now, February of '79.

A: Well are you sure there weren't any restrictions?

Q: I am asking you whether there -- are restrictions a possibility that -- a priest can be assigned to a parish with restrictions; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether any restrictions were placed on Paul Shanley in terms of his access to minors when he was sent to St. James parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

A: Well now you are specifying something.

Q: I am just asking if you are aware of any.

A: Well in the beginning you asked about restrictions in general, general restrictions. I would submit that it is -- it's a matter of assignment there were restrictions. But not regarding, you know, the --

Q: Access to minors?

A: Access to minors. I don't -- I have to review the letters, but I don't recall seeing anything like that.

Q: Well you will see here about his -- concerning further public pronouncements, this time about our seminary. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know whether Paul Shanley was blackmailing anyone in the archdiocese?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Did you ever hear anyone say that?

A: No.

Q: Do you have any idea what this reference is to about public pronouncement Paul Shanley was making about our seminary?

A: No, I do not.

Q: Did you consider this troubled priest in need of help as someone who could be properly sent, in 1979, to a parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

A: Let me say this. The -- well, that was a decision that was made by the cardinal.

Q: I am asking you your opinion.

A: You are asking my opinion? I am not going to give my opinion.

Q: Did you consider him to be appropriate to be sent?

MR. W. ROGERS: At what point?

MR. McLEISH: Okay, let's change the tape. Let me just finish this up and maybe we'll -- since we took a twenty-minute break, we will be done by ten after. I just want to finish this line.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 3:58 p.m.

(Recess taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 4:04 p.m.

MR. O'NEILL: What are we looking at?

Q: We are looking at the rough draft letter, bishop. Bishop, by February of 1979 you, I take it, had not changed your opinion that Paul Shanley was a troubled priest and in need of help; is that correct?

A: I would have to say yes.

Q: You had changed your opinion?

A: No, no, no, no. I just have a problem with troubled. What does it mean by troubled? I think he needed some help.

Q: He needed some help?

A: Yeah.

Q: Possibly mental health treatment?

A: Psychological help perhaps more.

Q: And you don't have any evidence sitting here today that he got it, do you?

A: No, I have no evidence.

Q: And given that he needed some psychological help and given the fact that you had seen the Delores Stevens' letter, did you consider it that Paul Shanley was in proper psychological condition to be assigned to St. James church in Newton, Massachusetts?

A: That would be a determination made by the cardinal. He obviously made it and assigned him. If I could get back to the other question, that's not to say because I didn't have any involvement in the psychological assistance for him, that doesn't mean necessarily he didn't get it or didn't seek it. Also, his -- let's leave it that way.

Q: You don't have any evidence that he sought it and or got it, do you?

A: No.

Q: You don't have any evidence that the Archdiocese required him to get it as a condition of going to St. James parish, do you?

A: No, no. As far as his assistance in getting psychological help, if he did get it, he could have received it privately. Or if he billed -- if he got bills for it, he could have billed the archdiocese and there would be records of that.

Q: But you don't have any evidence of that occurring?

A: I have no evidence of that.

Q: And you are also aware that the archdiocese, I think you testified earlier, could have insisted that he get psychological help, correct?

A: Yes, that's a possibility. I think that the archdiocese would have followed through and helped him get it.

Q: But that could have been required by the archdiocese as a condition for him retaining his priestly faculties; is that correct?

A: Well -- oh, I see, it's a condition for keeping his -- the Archdiocese could have done that. Not necessarily would have done it, but it could have done it.

Q: But you don't have any evidence that that occurred?

A: I have no evidence in front of me now or available to me right at the moment.

Q: And you certainly had been someone, as a close advisor, the number two man in the archdiocese, that would make recommendations to Cardinal Medeiros about the assignment of priests, is that correct, from time to time?

A: Let me just say this. That who was not exclusive? There were other sources of advice that he received. He had four, five bishops. He had episcopal vicars. He had 13 of those. He had obviously the priest's council. He had other sources. Even his private mail and private contact with people all could have and surely did advise him on various subjects.

Q: My question, bishop, respectfully, is not whether there were other people, but just that by 979, you had from time to time given recommendations to the cardinal with respect to the assignment of priests; is that correct?

A: No, not necessarily.

Q: You never gave a recommendation?

A: I can't recall off -- I can't recall immediately, no.

Q: As the number two man you can't recall ever giving a recommendation about the assignment of a priest?

A: If I was asked, I gave it. That would happen -- that would not have happened regularly.

Q: But -- okay.

A: It would happen rarely. Maybe -- infrequently. Infrequently certainly.

Q: I think, as we have established today, by 979 you had some involvement with Paul Shanley; is that correct?

A: You mean paper --

Q: The papers make it pretty clear.

A: The letters say so, yeah.

Q: And you certainly would know what would make a good parish priest; is that correct? When I say parish priest, I am not referring to pastor but someone --

A: I understand that. A priest of the parish. Yeah, sure. Oh, I would hope so, yeah, from my own experience.

Q: And did you believe or in light of what you had in front of you at the time, the letter from Mrs. Sweeney, your views that you have expressed here today as Father Shanley as someone in need of psychological help, did you believe that he was someone who was appropriate for a parish assignment in 1979?

MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object. You are asking for an opinion. If he has one. You know, did you have an opinion? Are you asking whether he has an opinion today?

Q: Did have you an opinion back then with all of your involvement with Paul Shanley as to whether or not he was appropriate for a parish assignment?

A: Did I have an opinion?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: If I did, I didn't voice it. And I can't recall having an opinion. If I voiced it, it would have been to the cardinal but I can't recall voicing it to him because the cardinal made the -- made the appointment.

Q: So even --

A: Obviously he felt.

Q: Even though you have stated that you got -- that you recall the Stevens' letter, you considered Paul Shanley in need of psychological help, you stated earlier you considered him to be troubled, you voiced, you, Bishop Daily, as the number two man, voiced no objection to Paul Shanley's assignment to St. James parish; is that correct?

MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. I think that's already been asked and answered. And I think --

MR. McLEISH: I don't think so.

MR. W. ROGERS: You asked him. He offered an opinion and he said he has no memory of doing it. So that's the same question.

Q: You voiced no objection, correct, Bishop Daily?

A: I agree with Paul. I will voice an objection.

Q: And was there any person at chancery who from the document -- that you recall and from the documents we have see here today in 1979 who knew more about Paul Shanley than you did?

MR. W. ROGERS: Was there?

MR. McLEISH: Yes.

MR. W. ROGERS: Okay.

A: From the documents?

Q: Yes.

A: Personality? Character?

Q: Yes, psychological problems.

A: That could be -- that could be discussed because -- especially among the bishops who would have known Paul Shanley because in seminary training formation, background.

Q: Okay.

A: And even in -- and even in his assignments. I don't know how long he was installed with Pat Sexton (phonetic), the monsignor there. So there were a lot of people who observed Father Paul Shanley much more than I did.

Q: From --

A: Well over the years. Over the years.

Q: Well I am talking about from 1975 on, was there anyone --

A: Oh, well that's a different story.

Q: From 1975 on, was there anyone at the chancery who had more involvement with Paul Shanley than you did as you can best recall?

A: No, I can't recall anybody who would have in the chancery building itself.

Q: Yes.

A: That's apart from now the personnel office and --

Q: Right, chancery.

A: Specifically chancery?

Q: Where you were.

A: Nobody had more than I, I would say.

Q: But you can't recall any objection?

A: Objection?

MR. W. ROGERS: Objection meaning?

Q: Any objection when he was sent over to the parish attended by Mr. Ford and his wife.

MR. W. ROGERS: You mean an objection voiced by Bishop Daily?

MR. McLEISH: Yes, by Bishop Daily. No objection.

A: No, because once the cardinal had made his decision, I assumed and I felt that that was his right. He did it and I didn't object.

Q: But you --

A: He already made a decision and put it in writing.

Q: But you had an open relationship with the cardinal, you could talk to him about anything, right?

A: Sure.

MR. McLEISH: That concludes it for today, Bishop Daily. Thank you again for coming in today. We look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 4:11 p.m.

(Time noted: 4:11 p.m.)


DAY 1 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
DAY 2 OF DEPOSITION
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy