Back to homepage Arts | Entertainment Boston Globe Online BostonWorks Real Estate Sports digitalMass Travel The Boston Globe Documents 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
Globe coverage of the scandal has been divided into nine categories:

More documents:

Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily

Day 2, page 1

On August 22, 2002, lawyers for three men who claim they were sexually abused by the Rev. Paul Shanley continued their deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., a former top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

                     COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
    GREGORY FORD, et al.,            )
                   Plaintiffs,       )            
                                     ) Superior Court 
    vs.                              ) Civil Action     
                                     ) No. 02-0626
    BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a      )
    CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,         )
                   Defendant.        )             
    PAUL W. BUSA,                    )            
                   Plaintiff,        )            
                                     ) Civil Action
    vs.                              ) No. 02-0822
    BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a      )
    CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al., )
                    Defendants.      )
    ANTHONY DRISCOLL,                ) 
                    Plaintiff,       )
                                     ) Civil Action         
    vs.                              ) No. 02-1737
    BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a      )
    CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et at., )
                    Defendants.      )              

Brooklyn, New York

Thursday, August 22, 2002

Reported by:
Job No. 138570

August 22, 2002
10:10 a.m.

Videotape deposition of BISHOP THOMAS DAILY, held at the Marriott Hotel, 333 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, before Diane Harty, a Notary Public of the State of New York.


Attorneys for Plaintiffs
      One International Place
      Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Attorneys for Defendants
      One Union Street
      Boston, Massachusetts 02108
      - and -

Attorney for Bishop Daily personally
      One Beacon Street
      Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Local counsel for Bishop Daily
      20 Court Street
      Brooklyn, New York 11201


      155 Federal Street
      Boston, Massachusetts 02110

PAUL JANSEN, Legal Video Specialist
Esquire Video Services


THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is tape No. 6 of the continuation of the video deposition of Thomas Daily taken by Roderick McLeish on August 22, 2002, at approximately 10:09 a.m. BISHOP THOMAS DAILY , called as a witness, having been previously duly sworn by a Notary Public, resumed and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. McLEISH:

Q: Good morning, Bishop Daily. Thank you for returning. Bishop Daily, would it be fair to state that when inquiries came in about a particular priest during the time that you were working for the archdiocese from 1973 to 1984, that you would from time to time consult records about that priest?

A: Possibly, yes. I would -- yes, possibly I would say yes.

Q: And you had access to all of the records; is that correct?

A: If I didn't have immediate access, I would try to get records.

Q: You continued to have that access right until the time you left for Palm Beach in 1986; is that correct?

A: The accessability was there.

Q: The accessability was there. And it remained there until you left for Palm Beach; is that correct?

A: Yes, nobody shut me off, let's put it that way. I'm not saying I actually used it, but the accessability was still there, yes.

Q: Just so I'm clear, from time to time you would actually look at the records of the individual priest; is that correct.

MR. O'NEILL: Does he have a specific memory of looking?

A: No, I had them. Whether or not I actually used it and how often I used it, but I would just say that I had that ability to ask for records of one sort or another.

Q: Would it be fair to state, understanding it occurred some time ago, that there were occasions upon which would you look at records of individual priests?

A: Very rarely.

Q: When you did look at records of individual -- let me ask you this: You described a number of locations yesterday where records might be kept. Do you recall your testimony yesterday?

A: Yes.

Q: Your files, an archive file, a personnel file, I think you listed three or four different locations where records might be kept.

A: Yes, yes.

Q: Would it be fair to state from your observation the records of the archdiocese of Boston were kept in an orderly fashion?

A: I could certainly speak for my own records. I assume records were, yes. My general assumption was that they would be in an orderly fashion.

Q: You never made any observations about there being bad recordkeeping in the archdiocese of Boston, did you?

A: No, but I never inspected myself of the records.

Q: But you looked at your own records?

A: Yes.

Q: And isn't it true, Bishop Daily, that when a matter involving a priest was referred to you by Cardinal Medeiros, one of your jobs was to go out and get the facts, problem with a priest, problem with a priest?


A: It depended on the cardinal's request what records he wants.

Q: You know William Helmick, do you not?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Who was William Helmick when you worked in the archdiocese?

A: He was a secretary. He started out -- we were secretaries together. He was secretary for a long time afterwards as almost and then after that I, when I moved to -- as I say, to the chancery office in '73 he continued as secretary.

Q: I've given you a copy of his deposition that I have given all counsel. On the top I would like you to turn, if you would, to page 211. I'm going read you a section of it and then I'm going to ask you a question. I'm sorry, I apologize. It's 113, 113. And it's referring -- there will be an exhibit it 28 refers to, which is this exhibit that's been marked Exhibit 44. You recognize -- Take a moment and familiarize yourself with that. That's the letter from Mrs. Sweeney.

A: Correct.


MR. McLEISH: Yes, 113.

Q: I'm going to read a section of this and you can -- you are welcome to look at other sections of the deposition if you want at some context but I'm going to start reading on line 8 and continue on to page 114. This is a deposition of Father Helmick similar to the deposition that we took here today where I was asking him questions. I will read you questions and answers and ask you a question. Do you understand the procedure?

A: Yes.

Q: This is my question starting on line 8 on page 113. So again there were circumstances, I just want to make sure I understand what the practice was, when a complaint came in about a priest, was it always stamped not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence?

A: This is from Father Helmick. This shows it was usually stamped not acknowledged at cardinal's residence but there's no stamp.

Q: But there's no stamp on this?

A: The reason for that would be that although I don't recall as I sit here, I would have read the letter and said this is really something serious and we should send this over with a memo to Mr. Daily so it won't get lost in the shuffle.

Q: So the procedure is you are testifying that the stamp not acknowledged at cardinal's residence was so to be taken seriously by Bishop Daily who would then bring it to the attention of the cardinal; is that correct?

A: From Father Helmick, and prepare a response get and get all of the background answer from Father Helmick, get the facts. When something came over to you that was stamped, not acknowledged, at the cardinal's residence, not a complaint was it your job as a general practice and policy to go out and get the facts and bring it back to the cardinal's attention?

A: Generally speaking, yes.

Q: So in the case --

A: That's normal procedure.

Q: In the case of the Sweeney letter which we went over yesterday, and here is Exhibit No. 42, this is the letter from Delores Stevens, do you remember that that talk about incest, bestiality, pedophilia. It was your job to go out and get the facts it was not about whether or not this complaint of Miss Stevens and Miss Sweeney whether or not the facts were there to support the complaint, that was your job, Bishop, was it not?

A: It certainly would be part of my procedures, that's right.

Q: But you can't remember doing anything to try to find out from Miss Stevens or Miss Sweeney or anyone else what the facts were about the speech that Paul Shanley made in Rochester, New York where he spoke of incest, pedophilia and bestiality?

A: No, because I accepted what was here.

Q: You accepted what was there? 1

A: Um hum.

Q: You accepted that Paul Shanley, you accepted that as true?

A: Yes.

Q: You accepted that Paul Shanley went out --

Can I have Exhibit 42 back, please. I have another copy.

You accepted that as true?

A: My general recollection is that I accepted it.

Q: You accepted as true that Paul Shanley in 1977 gave a speech in Rochester, New York where he stated that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer and the kid is not traumatized by the act per se, the kid is traumatized when the kid is dragged in for questioning? You accepted that as being said?

A: I accepted that as what Gene heard him say.

Q: Did you ever call -- actually Miss Delores Stevens?

A: I bed your pardon?

Q: Do you see the signature on page --

A: Yes.

Q: You accepted that's what Mr. Stevens heard him say?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever question Mrs. Stevens yourself or direct anyone else to question to see if she might have misheard what Father Shanley said?

A: I do not recall asking him to do anything.

Q: You accepted Ms. Stevens' statement when he stated he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality, closed quote; you accepted that as what Miss Stevens heard Paul Shanley state; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And you are also aware, are you not; there were names of newspaper reporters that were contained in some of the exhibits presented to you yesterday who were present at the speech of Paul Shanley? Do you have a recollection of that?

A: I don't recall that.

Q: Do you remember talking to newspaper reporters who could verify what Miss Stevens said?

A: I don't remember.

Q: You don't recall asking Paul Shanley what he said, correct?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. Argumentative and I think it is demeaning and insulting to say, "You don't even recall." I think it's inappropriate.

MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Wait. It may be noted but I don't want to get down a slippery slope here where we are going to have that type of questioning. If you want to ask factual questions, ask them. I will not let you ask questions that are insulting.

MR. McLEISH: I don't mean to insult you.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I'm not suspending anything. I will tell you, you are not asking questions in my presence that are insulting.

Q: Bishop, I'm not insulting you. You don't remember talking to Paul Shanley about whether what Mrs. Stevens said in her letter was true or not true?

A: Today I do not remember.

Q: And if you locate some record to indicate that you followed up in any way to this complaint from Miss Stevens, I would like you to bring it to my attention, okay?

A: Fine.

Q: If you think of any during the deposition any facts at all to suggest that you followed up in any way to this complaint for Mrs. Stevens, then I want you to bring that to my attention. Is that fair?

A: Depending upon what the complaint is and what the situation is. What the complaint is.

MR. O'NEILL: I would suggest he will respond to any questions you ask. He's not going to volunteer anything other than the question asked.

Q: Bishop, what I'm stating, I'm providing you with the opportunity at any point, if you at any point think of something responsive to my questions, I want it to be clear you are free to interrupt me and we can go back.

MR. O'NEILL: Thank you for your help. The bishop will answer questions. Don't answer that question. You made your point. Get on with the questioning.

Q: You understand we can go over anything you want to go over.

Now, Bishop Daily, I'd like to -- let's have the next exhibit, please, which will be No. 49. We're going to give you another exhibit, Bishop. I want you to hold on to Exhibit 42 for me. Hold onto that one. This is 49. This is a series of documents. You have 49 in front you, Bishop?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: This is a series of documents that was produced by the Archdiocese of Boston. The first one you will see a letter to Cardinal Medeiros from John J. McGeady. You will see it's stamped "Received cardinal's office of the secretary"?

A: It's stamped, that's right.

Q: It states that "Dear Cardinal Medeiros: I thought you should be aware of an interview that Father Shanley apparently gave the Gay Community News last month as it involves personal conversations between you and Father Shanley. I also included an item from Gaysweek in which Father Shanley is designated as your representative." Do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: Have you ever seen that letter before today?

A: No.

Q: The next -- MR. MARC ROGERS: You gave this one as 42. You gave a copy as 42, so what is this?

MR. McLEISH: That might have been 42 at another deposition. It's Exhibit 49. MR. MARC ROGERS: Yesterday it says 42.

MR. McLEISH: This is what you are saying: No, it wasn't, it was going to be marked but it wasn't. 42 was another exhibit. 42 is another exhibit. Exhibit 49, thank you, Marc. That's just your personal copy.

Q: What you have in front of you is Exhibit 49. See the second page?

A: Yes.

Q: That's a memo from Father Helmick to you; is that correct?

A: Correct.

Q: It says, "Attached" -- this is from Father Helmick to you April 6, 1979. "Attached to this memorandum is a letter the Cardinal received from Paul J. McGeady, Esquire, together with some enclosures from Gay Community News as well as a copy of my response. Then it goes on to say, "You will want to review this material and perhaps write a letter to Mr. McGeady for the cardinal's signature after you've spoken with His Eminence." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: It's marked "Received, Office of the Chancellor." Do you see that, the upper right-hand corner?

A: Yes.

Q: That would be you; is that correct?

A: Correct.

Q: There's some handwriting up at the top?

A: Yes.

Q: Whose handwriting is that?

A: That appears to be mine.

Q: What does it says?

A: "Cardinal aware 4/11." That's April 11th cardinal aware, Father Paul Shanley.

Q: There's some handwriting at the bottom, initials at the bottom. Whose initials are those?

A: Monsignor Helmick.

Q: You see it makes a reference. Father Helmick is bringing this to your attention. He indicates on this you will want to review this material; is that correct?

A: He's saying this but that doesn't necessarily mean he will do it. He doesn't give me -- he never did give me instruction. He may have given me a suggestion.

Q: He was your colleague; is that correct?

A: That's true.

Q: Was it your practice at the time when Father Helmick would send over something that was of a serious nature, you would review what Father Helmick suggested you review?

A: Depending upon the material and the fact that whether he had in fact talked to the cardinal about it or said anything or what have you, and I felt that the cardinal should be brought to the attention, even if he suggested it as he suggested, then I would do so.

Q: You write right at the top, "Cardinal aware"?

A: That's right.

Q: Does that suggest you reviewed the enclosures sent to you by Father Helmick?

A: It appears so.

Q: Let's turn to the enclosures, the first one. There's two. The first one is men and boys at the Boston conference, do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: The title, Bishop, "150" -- you see at the very top, "150 people turned up for the daylong series of panels discussing the issue of man/boy love. Organizer Tom Reeves expected several dozen." Do you see that at the very top?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: I would like to go down to the paragraph starting with E. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: It says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: turn over to the next page. I would like to read you a section and ask you a question.

"Father Paul Shanley, representative of Boston's Cardinal Medeiros for outreach to sexual minorities, told a story of a boy who was rejected by family in society but helped by a boy lover. When his parents found out about the relationship, the man was arrested, convicted and sent to prison and there began the psychic demise of that kid. He had loved that man. It was only a brief and passing time thing as far as the sex was concerned, but the love was deep and the gratitude to the man was deep and when he realized that the indiscretion in the eyes of the society and law caused this man to lose 20 years... the boy began to fall apart. 'We have our convictions upside down if we were truly concerned with boys. The 'cure' does far more damage.'"

Do you recall reading that statement?

A: No, I don't recall.

Q: Do you recall?

A: I can't say I did. That's not to say I didn't but that's --

Q: Do you recall reading the statement that "Even speakers representing various religions" this is on the first page of the article. "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs joined their endorsement of love between man and boy"; do you recall reading that?

A: I don't recall reading that.

Q: Go to the next page, page 17. It's marked down at the bottom. It says in the second to last paragraph, "At the end of the conference, 32 men and 2 teenagers caucused and formed the Man Boy Lovers of North America. A newsletter in a March meeting in New York City are planned."

Do you recall reading that in 1979?

A: No, I don't recall.

Q: Can you think of any reason today why if you had been so requested by Father Helmick, you would not have read these articles?

A: I can't think of a reason why I would not have read them. I can't read them but I can think of a reason why I did read them.

Q: Based on your practices and your procedures as they existed at the time in 1979, it's your belief you did in fact read that article that I just referred to you in 1979; is that correct?

A: I would think it would be normal procedure if he suggested I read them and he gave me the material and it's pertinent.

Q: You will see another article follows on the next page which is an article, comment and analysis, "Father Paul Shanley versus Cardinal Medeiros" from Gay Community News. Do you see that?

A: I see it.

Q: When you read the comment as contributed to Paul Shanley in the Gaysweek article that I quoted, as you sit here today do you find those comments troubling in any way?

MR. O'NEILL: You are asking for his opinion now?

MR. McLEISH: Yes, right now.

A: To what do you refer immediately? Do you want me to read the whole column?

Q: The parts I quoted. You are free to read it if you want to.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: He's not talking about the last page.

A: Comments and analysis?

Q: The portions we just read.

A: On the previous page?

Q: Yes, previous page.

A: What is the question?

Q: Let's start with the comment in this publication.

You'll see this publication is entitled "Men and Boys"; do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And it talks about 150 people turning up for a daylong series of panels discussing the issue of man and boy love.

A: Yes.

Q: You see there's quotes from Father Paul Shanley that are attributed to Father Paul Shanley?

A: Yes.

Q: You'll see that on the first page it says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you see Paul Shanley quoted on the following page?

A: Um hum.

Q: And we read the quotes several minutes ago?

A: Um hum.

Q: Looking at this article today, are you troubled by any of the comments that are attributed to Paul Shanley?

A: I am.

Q: And are you troubled, Bishop, because his comments about the man/boy -- the quote about the man/boy love suggests to you that as a result of law enforcement being involved, there began a psychic demise of that boy; does that concern you?

A: What is the question?

Q: Are you disturbed by the comments?

A: Yes.

Q: They appear to be stating, do they not, as we read them today, they appear to be stating that the cure to the issue of man/boy love does far more damage --

Let me put it a different way.

He talks about in this quote, what is allegedly attributed to him is that the sex -- you see this, the sex, it was -- he had loved that man, it was only a brief and passing thing as far as the sex was concerned but the love was deep and the gratitude to the man was deep. Are you concerned about those comments?

A: I am.

Q: And then it goes on to state, "When he realized" -- that's the boy realizes -- "the indiscretion in the eyes of society and law had cost this man perhaps 20 years... the boy began to fall apart." Is that a comment that disturbed you?

A: Yes.

Q: You understand the 20 years, meaning 20 years in jail, correct?

A: I would think it would be, yes.

Q: And did you read this in from the quotes that I just stated as suggesting in some way that there is an endorsement here by Paul Shanley of sexual relations between men and boys?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form.

MR. O'NEILL: You mean did he read that then or now?


A: I read this as -- I read this as -- at that time I can't recall what my reaction was but it -- obviously I'm disturbed now and I would have then. Then it seems to be probably I would suggest that I was disturbed.

Q: Were you disturbed then about the statement on the first page of the article, "Even speakers representing other religions voiced their love of man and boy" and Paul Shanley's name appearing in the following paragraph?

A: I don't understand the question.

Q: You see where it says on the first page of the article "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy" and then there's a section on Canon Clinton Jones? Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And then the very next reference is to the statement of Paul Shanley?

A: Yes.

Q: And you'll see it's described that Paul Shanley is the representative of Boston's Cardinal Medeiros for outreach of sexual minorities, you see that?

A: Yes, where is that?

Q: The first line second page. The first and second line?

A: Okay.

Q: Was Paul Shanley to your knowledge the representative of Boston Cardinal Medeiros for the outreach of sexual minorities?

A: No.

Q: Would that be the type of statement that disturbed you as well?

A: It is there and I am disturbed, yes.

Q: And you would have been disturbed back in 1979; is that correct?

A: I would think so.

Q: What did you do when you -- do you recall anything that you did, anything at all that you did after Father Helmick brought this article from Gaysweek to your attention?

A: I'll sure I had a conversation with the cardinal and informed him. It says that "cardinal aware."

Q: Right. Did you do anything to get the facts, though, of what Paul Shanley had actually said at that conference?

A: No, I think -- No, because I wasn't -- my conclusion was and is that there was a recite -- there was recitation of alleged facts. The facts are being reported by a newspaper that perhaps might be questioned, that their opinion's being uttered. And even now regarding this whole question of man/boy love and while -- I have no -- I have no reason to think they would be false but at the same time I would -- I question the fact -- I don't question. I would assert that we're talking about a situation and in that situation certain opinions and ideas that were discussed and talked about and recorded presumably by this conference, at this conference.

Q: Did you in fact talk to the person who wrote the article to see if the statements that you find disturbing that are attributed to Paul Shanley were actually made by Paul Shanley? Did you do that? Do you recall doing that?

A: No, I think they were talking about -- here we were talking about statements. We weren't talking about actual acts and we haven't verified that, in fact, the acts took place.

Q: My question, you were the person that testified earlier was the person to get the facts. Did you go out and get the facts?

A: Where was I?

Q: Remember we read Father Helmick's deposition when a matter came over to you such as the Sweeney letter, it was stamped "not acknowledged" at the cardinal's residence. One of your jobs was to get the facts. Do you remember that testimony?

A: Yes.

Q: My question to you is, did you go out and get the facts as to what Paul Shanley had allegedly said at this conference?

A: No. I accepted the fact that he was present and that he was saying these things that were disturbing. I accepted the fact he was present. I did not deny the fact, that fact. I had no reason to deny the fact, the gay community report of what had happened.

Q: Gaysweek it's called.

A: Gaysweek. What happened at this particular time and in this particular situation. It was a question of ideas and opinions that the newspaper was promoting obviously in regards to this being men and boys -- what is it?

Q: Man/boy?

A: -- conference.

Q: You see at the end the Man Boy Lovers of North America; do you see that?

A: Precisely. And it was an occasion for the newspaper presumably to promote their own policy.

Q: But they quote from Paul Shanley; is that correct?

A: They quote from Paul Shanley, yes, they do.

Q: And the article suggests, does it not, that Paul Shanley -- it says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy."

MR. O'NEILL: You asked that question four times.

MR. McLEISH: I haven't finished the question.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: You asked the question four times.

MR. McLEISH: If I can finish. When I finish the question you'll have your opportunity.

Q: When it says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy," were you concerned at all, Bishop, that Paul Shanley was actually endorsing sexual relationships between men and boys?

MR. O'NEILL: Does he have a memory that he was concerned then?

Q: Answer my question. The objection is noted.

A: I don't have a memory of reading and digesting this material. Anything that I say would be an assumption of material that reports an incident and it -- and promotes ideas and opinions and so forth relative to the whole question of the gay community and man/boy, whatever this -- whatever, you know, men and boys.

Q: This doesn't talk about the gay issue, Bishop, it talks about man/boy love.

A: Only the context which it was placed discussed in the newspapers.

Q: Bishop, you'll see at the end, I read "At the end of the conference 32 men and 2 teenagers caucused and formed the Man Boy Lovers of North America." Were you concerned that Paul Shanley might have caucused to form the Man Boy Lovers of North America?

A: If Paul shanley was there. If he was there and part of the group, I would have been interested.

Q: Did you undertake as you sit here today any steps to find out whether he was there and was part of that caucus to form the Man Boy Lovers of North America?

A: No, not the caucus. What I would have been disturbed was that he was at the meeting in the first place, whatever happened.

Q: If he had been at the caucus to form this further organization.

A: I would have been further disturbed.

Q: The question is, understand we are talking here about man/boy love. This is April of 1979, and understanding that you have a report in front you that Paul Shanley was in attendance and said certain things, did you undertake anything at all to find out specifically whether Paul Shanley had attended the conference or had been part of the caucus?

A: As you know, there's a note on the memorandum that says the cardinal was aware.

Q: Apart from making the cardinal aware of this article, did you do anything else that you can recall?

A: I gave -- I made the cardinal aware in case he wanted to give me directions as to further action, because if that was -- because that was my responsibility to do that. I was taking my orders from him and my direction from him because he's obviously the cardinal and bishop of Boston and he would direct me, whatever, counsel me, regarding the situation; but direct me as to what actions we should take or not take.

Q: You are not contradicting your earlier testimony that the procedure was in this type of instances you would get the facts?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of that question, and we have been over this now four times and there was nothing contradictory in what the bishop said and I think it's inappropriate to suggest there was.

MR. McLEISH: The objection is noted.

A: I can't say it was contradicted because I don't recall.

Q: Excuse me, it's a little distracting. I want to make sure. At this time in 1979 when these types of complaints came in as Father Helmuk testified, it was your job to go out and get the facts, was it not?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. That wasn't his testimony.

A: No. My objection was to get the cardinal's direction and if he said to -- asked me to go out and get the facts, I would have done it. Maybe I did, I don't know, but we have this.

Q: Next exhibit. This is Exhibit 53, Bishop.

A: Okay.

Q: Take a moment and look at that. Now, you'll see that Exhibit No. 53 is a letter April 12, 1979, to Paul Shanley from Cardinal Medeiros, do you see that, assigning him to St. John Parish?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you see it states that he is ending his appointment to the ministry to alienated view?

A: Yes.

Q: St. John the Evangelist parish in Newton, you are familiar with that parish, are you not?

A: Yes.

Q: You have been there?

A: Yes, once that I recall.

Q: It was a parish that had a school at the time, is that correct, 1979?

A: I don't recall but if you are saying -- if you say it is, then I would have to say "yes." I don't recall.

Q: The parish --

A: It's a small parish anyway.

Q: Small parish attended by families with children; is that correct?

A: I have to presume, yes.

Q: As are all parishes of the Archdiocese of Boston, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You would certainly assume that Paul Shanley when he was assigned to Newton would have access to children; is that correct?

A: I would. It would be an assumption because the children are there with their parents and all and in the parish it was the makeup of the congregation. I would have to assume through his ministry, priestly ministries, he would have access to parents and children.

Q: You would work in the parish; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You know there are times when parish priests would take children on an outing or overnight trip; that would happen from time to time?

A: Yes. I did it myself.

Q: You did it yourself; you took children on overnight trips; is that correct?

A: Not overnight; I always took day trips.

Q: There were occasions where a priest of the diocese would take kids overnight?

A: Yes.

Q: For a ski trip?

A: Yes.

Q: This would be without their parents, is that correct, on certain occasions?

A: Not necessarily. That could possibly be, yes. I'm saying possibly. I didn't follow all the ski trips and all, but you know...

Q: Were you generally aware -- I think you are now the No. 2 man in Boston -- there were occasions separate and apart from delivering the gospel and CCD classes in schools where priests would have the opportunity or children would have the opportunity for social interaction outside of the church with priests of the archdiocese; would that be a fair statement?

A: Yes, I would have to say that's a fair statement.

Q: That could include being overnight with a priest without the presence of parents; is that correct?

A: It could and I hear that it was in certain cases.

Q: All right. Now, you'll see the second page of Exhibit 53.

A: No. 53, yes.

Q: And again Mr. Father -- Attorney McGeady's letter, Exhibit 49, that's received on April 6, 1979, do you see that, the previous exhibit, Mr. McGeady's letter?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Received by whom?

MR. McLEISH: Cardinal's residence, received April 6, 1979.

Q: The previous exhibit, the one that contained the article about Gaysweek in which Father Shanley's --

A: Okay.

Q: You see it's received April 6, 1979?

A: Yes.

Q: It was received on the next page at the office of the Chancellor on April 9, 1979; is that correct?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: This letter assigning Paul Shanley to St. Jean's was within six days after the McGeady letter was received at the cardinal's residence; is that a fair statement?

A: That's the mathematics of it, yes.

Q: Then you see on Exhibit 53 a letter assigning "Paul Shanley to St. Jean's in Newton." You'll see it says, "Please notify Most Reverend Thomas B. Daily and the Chancellor and personnel director that you have received this letter." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: The protocol in effect is that when a priest is assigned to a particular parish that there would be some confirmation to you that he acknowledged the assignment; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: The next page is a document which appears to be a draft of the first letter. Is that Cardinal Medeiros's handwriting on that?

A: I see it as his handwriting, what my recollection is.

Q: You see the date was originally April 9th and then it gets scratched out for April 12th; do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: Within six days after Attorney McGeady sends in his letter to Cardinal Medeiros containing the article from Gaysweek, Paul Shanley gets assigned to St. Jean's parish in Newton; is that fair to state?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you consider at the time, given your receipt of the letter from Jean Sweeney which talked about incest, bestiality, pedophilia attributing it to Paul Shanley and the Gaysweek article which we have just been over that makes various remarks about man/boy love, did you consider it at the time that it was appropriate to assign Father Paul Shanley to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?


MR. O'NEILL: The statement of that question is attributed bestiality and incest to Paul Shanley it was certainly remarks about that.

MR. McLEISH: Right.

Q: You remember we went over yesterday and today the statements attributed to Paul Shanley where he said that there was no sexual act that could cause psychic damage, in his opinion, including bestiality and incest?

A: Yes, this is what he said.

It's important to me, the distinction this counsel brings out, that the interest between -- let's not get confused. It seems to me what he said and what he did or did or did not do. I want to keep that very much because it has bearing on the following, this assignment and the following time.

Q: Do you feel it's appropriate or did you feel it was appropriate in 1979 if in fact Paul Shanley was endorsing man/boy love and saying there was no sexual act that caused psychic damage including sexuality, bestiality or incest, those were words, they were words, Bishop, they are not acts?

A: Um hum.

Q: Did you consider on the basis of those words that it would be appropriate to place Paul Shanley as a priest in a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. Are you asking his opinion now as to whether it was or are you asking whether he had an opinion back then?

Q: Did you have an opinion back then, Bishop?

A: I'm sure I would have. If that was -- I'm just saying I would have. Did I elicit an opinion? Not necessarily, but God knows I would have an opinion.

Q: What would that opinion have been in 1979?

A: I would refute the whole incident of bestiality and incest.

Q: Given that Paul made these statements allegedly, and given you received six days earlier a copy of the Gaysweek magazine where further remarks were made about man/boy love, did you consider understanding they were just words, it was appropriate to assign Paul Shanley to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. That contains facts not before us. The dates were incorrect. Bishop Daily had not received any such documentation six days before, so I object to the form of the question. I think it's inappropriate and misleading.

Q: Let's go over this again. You are not -- we have been through the Gaysweek article. It was received at the archbishop's residence I think on the 6th and then it was received at the office of the Chancellor on the 9th; is that correct? You have a memo from Father Helmick?

A: Yes.

Q: Three days later Paul Shanley is assigned to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Given the Sweeney letter, which is Exhibit No. -- the Stevens letter, which is Exhibit No. 42, which you have in front of you, given the letter from Mr. McGeady which is Exhibit No. 49, given what was attributed to Paul Shanley as being said in the Gaysweek article, did you consider it appropriate in 1979 that he would be assigned to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form. You are asking did he have an opinion in 1979?

MR. McLEISH: It's not an opinion. Did he consider it to be appropriate.

Go ahead. Your objection is noted.

Q: Answer the question, Bishop, please.

A: Only if there was good reason for that, and what the cardinal's rationale was and he indicated by removing him from alienated -- ministry to alienated -- was to put him in a regular, regular -- I mean a room atmosphere and situation whereby in fact these man/boy type situations would not exist.

Q: How do you know the man/boy love situations would not exist? How did you know the man/boy love situation did not exist?

A: Because he would be, in the cardinal's terms, in a regular situation. He would be a busy priest doing what priests normally do.

Q: And that -- are you aware of any restrictions that prevented Paul Shanley when he was assigned to St. Jean's parish in 1979 from having unsupervised contact with young people? Are you aware of that?

A: Yes, from the point of view -- from the cardinal's instructions to him, which he wrote in longhand to emphasize the fact of his ministry and what he was to do and not to do.

Q: I'm not talking about what Mr. O'Neill pointed to you.

A: I had already --

MR. O'NEILL: He was looking for the document. Don't insinuate that I was -- Wait a minute. You are insinuating something with your sly smile --

MR. McLEISH: I am.

MR. O'NEILL: -- that I handed something to him. He was looking to for the document. I pointed the document was beside him. He was looking for the page. Do not try to insinuate yourself and make statements about me and my conduct in this deposition.

MR. McLEISH: Fortunately, we will have a record.

MR. O'NEILL: As you trundle out people to speak to the press and everything else you do, which I will call attention to Judge Sweeney.

MR. McLEISH: Fortunately we have it on videotape of what happened. We will have it on videotape and it will speak for itself.

A: I just want to say that --

MR. O'NEILL: You may not like what the bishop has to say but he has a right to say it.

MR. McLEISH: If you could confine yourself as the rules required. We have been through it before I think as Judge Persad told you make the objection and instruct the witness not to answer.

MR. O'NEILL: You are not a judge, thank God.

MR. McLEISH: That is unnecessary ad hominem and I ask that you refrain from doing that, but the rules are quite clear as you have been previously instructed so I ask you confine yourself by that.

MR. O'NEILL: You were instructed by Judge Persad. He instructed all counsel and I hope you abide by that and abide by the rules of this deposition.

MR. McLEISH: Are you concluded, Mr. O'Neill?

MR. O'NEILL: I am.

Q: Can you answer the question?

A: Can you repeat?

Q: I'm sorry for the interruption. Are you aware of any instructions specifically placed on Paul Shanley that would prohibit him in any way from having unsupervised contact with minors when he was sent to St. Jean's parish?

A: May I refer to what the cardinal wrote?

Q: You can certainly look at it.

A: It's part of the response.

Q: Certainly. Does it say anything about minors?

A: Just may --

MR. WILSON ROGERS: That's a separate question. Are you striking the earlier question? Which question is before the bishop now?

MR. McLEISH: The one I asked.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: The original question? Wait a second. Which question are you asking?

MR. McLEISH: He's confused so let's ask him another question.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Who said the bishop is confused?

A: I just said --

MR. WILSON ROGERS: That's the second question. He was confused by a series of questions.

MR. O'NEILL: You changed the question.

MR. McLEISH: We have different questions, Mr. O'Neill.

MR. McLEISH: Let's withdraw them and start again.

Q: My question is very specific, Bishop. Paul Shanley is sent to St. Jean's parish; is that correct?

A: Yes, by this letter.

Q: By this letter. I'm asking a very, very specific question if I could, Bishop. Are you aware of any restrictions that were placed on Paul Shanley when he was sent to St. Jean's parish that would specifically prevent him from having unsupervised contact with young people?

A: No.

Q: Thank you.

A: That's not to say there weren't any other restrictions, though.

Q: I'm not asking about other restrictions.

A: It's very important, it seems to me.

Q: I'm sure you will have a chance to testify on your cross-examination, but I'm asking you about the specific subject of whether there were any restrictions that were placed on Paul Shanley you can testify here under oath that you were aware of that prevented him from having unsupervised contact with minors. You can't identify any; is that correct?

A: Specifically unsupervised minors or restrictions? I still -- I would like to read what the cardinal wrote.

Q: You can absolutely read it.

A: For the record.

Q: If it relates to the question. If you need to look --

A: It doesn't do it directly, it does it indirectly. That's the point and that's the point I'm making.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Let him finish his answer. You reserve motions to strike so --

A: May I read?

Q: If it's responsive to the question, sure, if it relates to restrictions on minors, go ahead.

A: "It is understood your ministry at St. John's parish and elsewhere in this Archdiocese of Boston will be exercised in full conformity with the clear leadership of the church as expressed in paper documentsof the Holy Sea, especially those" -- it's not finished, but regarding sexual ethics. "The pastor or ministry of priests can hardly be effective apart from the healing and saving truth of Christ proclaimed by his church even when, quotes, the sayings may be hard, end of quote. I am confident that as an obedient priest you will render fine priestly service to the people of God." I wanted to read that paragraph.

Q: Sure.

A: Only because the end, the teachings of the church specifically in regard to morals and ethics, the whole question of illicit love relationships homosexuality, any of the other things we have been talking about, the point of view of child abuse are taken up and they are, they are very much a part of the positive faith taught to Catholics.

Q: I understand the cardinal's letter.

A: Thank you.

Q: My question is: Given the statements that were attributed to Paul Shanley from Mrs. Stevens in Exhibit 42, given the article that's contained in Gaysweek separate and apart from what the cardinal asked Paul Shanley, they were told, instructed him to do that you just read, were you aware of any specific restrictions imposed upon him that would prevent him from having unsupervised access to minors?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. That's the third time it was asked. It's been asked, it's been answered and if you don't like the answer, you certainly reserve the ability to file a motion to strike.

MR. McLEISH: Then instruct him not to answer the question.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I'm saying this is not productive. Read back the last answer because that's the same question.

Q: Can you answer my question, please.

A: Would you want to repeat the question?

Q: Bishop Daily, the cardinal's instructions to Paul Shanley say nothing about him having unsupervised access to minors; would you agree with me about that?

A: Specificly, word-by-word?

Q: Let's start word-by-word. No, is there anything word-by-word, there's nothing in the teaching of the scriptures that prevents priests from having unsupervised access to minors? When I say "unsupervised," do you understand what I mean? Being alone with a child. I'm not talking about having sex with a child. I'm talking about being alone with a child. There's nothing any theological which in itself prevents a priest such as Paul Shanley from being alone with a child, correct?

A: Let me just say this, if I may.

Q: If you can answer my question.

A: I will answer the question.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to these statements you are making. You ask a question, the bishop starts to answer and you give instructions. He can answer the question any way he likes.

MR. McLEISH: He has to respond to my question.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Wait just a minute. You asked the question, he answers. That's the --


MR. WILSON ROGERS: That is the rule. That's how the process goes. If you feel that the answer is nonresponsive either in whole or in part, you reserve motions to strike until the time of trial. What you're doing is you have a specific answer in mind you want and if the bishop doesn't answer the way you want, you interrupt.

MR. McLEISH: I just want him to answer the question.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I suggest you ask the question and refrain from giving instructions.

MR. McLEISH: I will handle the deposition the way I want.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: No, you can't finish. You are not going to interrupt the bishop, not while I'm here.

MR. McLEISH: He's going to answer my questions and if he doesn't answer my questions, I will ask the questions until he answers it.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are not going to interrupt his answers.

MR. McLEISH: Let's go back to the question. Do you remember the question?

Q: Can you answer the question?

A: I answered the question. There's nothing specific.

Q: There's nothing specific in the scriptures?

A: Excuse me. There's nothing specific here in instructing -- the instruction of the cardinal about it. That's the answer that I gave.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Can I ask that we take a five-minute recess. I did learn checkout time is 11:00, so we will take a five-minute recess.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 10:58 a.m. (Recess taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 11:16 a.m.

Q: Bishop Daily, given what you had read in the report from Mrs. Stevens as well as the report from Attorney McGeady, were you personally comfortable having Paul Shanley go to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts without any restrictions on his access to minors?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. I assume you are referring to his opinion back in 1979.

MR. McLEISH: No, it's not an opinion.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are asking a personal level. The question is, is it focused in 1979?

MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.

Q: Were you comfortable with that at the time?

A: From the point of view his assignment there because the cardinal made it, what he said, yes.

Q: You were, good. Now, it's true, is it not, that back in 1979 you were conducting some investigations for other priests over whether allegations against them concerning sexual molestation were credible; is that correct?

A: At the time specifically?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: The only one I could think of was John Geoghan.

Q: I would like to show you what we're going to be marking, again I apologize for this being out of order, Exhibit No. 63.

A: This is Exhibit 63?

MR. McLEISH: 63 in the Daily proceeding.

Q: Do you recognize that as a letter you wrote to Father John Geoghan in 1979?

A: I do.

Q: And in this letter you report that there were allegations made by a --

Let's call it Mrs. C. We will call it Mrs. Coveny of Walk Hills Street in Forest Hills.

-- you told John Geoghan which were "quickly proven to be irresponsible totally false, made by a woman who was well known without credence in the community"; is that what you wrote?

A: It's right there. That's what I wrote.

Q: That's in August of 1979?

A: August 23rd of 1979.

Q: You were assigned by the cardinal in that case to look at whether or not allegations made by a woman over sexual misconduct by a priest were credible; is that correct?

A: I don't remember the specific assignment but I took upon myself to check both these priests.

Q: Geoghan and Shanley?

A: Yes, so I could talk to the Cardinal and get their reaction.

Q: You were checking both Geoghan and Shanley?

A: No, I was checking Geoghan in this case.

Q: In 1973?

A: That's right.

Q: In light of the fact you were checking the credibility of the person who was making the allegation against John Geoghan, did it occur to you to check the credibility of Miss Stevens the woman who was making allegations against Paul Shanley?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. And try to link allegations of speech with allegations of conduct, I think is misleading.

MR. McLEISH: That's a speaking objection.

Q: Go ahead, Bishop.

A: No, I did not.

Q: You agree what Mrs. Stevens said was true is very serious; we have already been over that?

A: Regarding?

Q: Shanley alleged to have said in Rochester.

A: Yes.

Q: If he actually said those things, I think you said yesterday it would not be appropriate to have him in a parish; is that correct?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of that question.

A: I can't remember that. The time when you asked the question, my personal opinion was that I would find difficult to have assigned him.

Q: My question is: In August of 1979 we have some inquiries being made by you in the Geoghan case. A priest was also accused of sexual misconduct and my question is: Why if you did in this case some inquiry into the credibility of a complainant, why you did not make any inquiry into whether Miss Stevens had been a credible reporter?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question and I think it misstates facts because you said also accused of misconduct, inferring that Shanley had been accused of misconduct. I think that's an improper question and there is no foundation.

A: You want to re- -- you want me to answer that? I think there's a difference here, much closer to the Geoghan case, with people to whom I checked the name of the priest, not so much with the people in Rochester from the point of just distance. And it was my nature to rely on the testimony of priests because of the -- the two priests involved either had an indirect relationship with Father Geoghan and a very direct relationship with Father Geoghan from the point of view of Father Delaney in Forest Hills.

Q: In any event there were priests you mentioned in some of the correspondence about the speech that Paul Shanley gave in Rochester in 1977, do you remember that from yesterday?

A: Can you give me names?

Q: We don't need to go over them. If you want to, I can --

A: I just want to know specifically if that -- you asked me if I remember and I'm -- I can't remember. Pardon my old age. Short-term memory gets me once in a while.

Q: In any event, in 1979 in the Geoghan case you did some investigation with respect to what is in Exhibit 63 and determined it not to be credible; is that correct?

A: I did an investigation and I determined not to be credible at that particular time.

Q: Were you Vicar General in 1979?

A: 1979 I was.

Q: Now, can we have the next exhibit.

As Vicar General, Bishop, did you have the ability to end the employment of a particular priest that was assigned to a parish? Did you have that ability in 1979, 1980?

A: No, not directly under normal circumstances.

Q: I show you Exhibit 64 and ask if you recognize that.

A: Yes, I see it.

Q: Can you read the first paragraph.

Let me read it for you and ask you a question. It's a letter to John Geoghan. This would have been in February of 1980. We had the complaint about John Geoghan in the prior exhibit in August of 1979. Less than a year later. Do you see that?

A: Um hum.

Q: And it says "Dear Father Geoghan: I'm writing to inform you I am ending your employment as associate pastor in Forest Hills. I'm placing you on sick leave. The effective date of this action is February 12, 1980." Do you see that?

A: Um hum.

Q: Who is that, who is the author of that letter?

A: I sent the letter.

Q: At least as of February of 1980, you had the authority to end the appointment of John Geoghan as Associate Pastor of St. Andrew; is that correct?

A: Yes. And the reason, may I add?

Q: Certainly.

A: The last of this, down at the bottom, special mandate of the Ordinary, through special permission or mandate of the Ordinary. So there had to be some connection with the Ordinary, either generally the specific of the law that gave me the power to do what I did. That did not apply to the case of Father Paul Shanley.

Q: The mandate of the Ordinary, was that by a particular priest or was that a general area of responsibility that you would have had in 1980?

A: It was specifics of this particular situation. It is general order of the church. To actually ask me right now to quote a special mandate or give you interpretation, I'm not in a position to do it, but I would be happy to do it. The point is I had the power.

Q: You had the power in 1980 to remove John Geoghan as associate pastor; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You had the power in 1980 if you wanted to to end Paul Shanley's tenure at St. Jean's; is that correct?

A: Not without a special mandate.

Q: To get the special mandate, would that be something you would initiate?

A: Yes.

Q: You had the authority --

A: At least at the investigation I had.

Q: In 1980 you had the authority to initiate a request to His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, to have the authority to remove Paul Shanley as a priest of St. Jean's parish in Newton, Massachusetts? In 1980 you had the ability to ask for that?

A: Not to ask for it, to determine in law, it actually was contained in the law itself. I'm not so sure. I would have to check to determine whether the cardinal himself was ill or away or because of the law I had, the general law that I had that power or ability to do that.

Q: In February of 1980 you had the ability to do it in John Geoghan?

A: Because of the mandate of the special order.

Q: Can you think of why in 1980 you would not have the ability to remove Paul Shanley as priest at St. Jeans?

A: Yes. I didn't have a special mandate.

Q: Could you have asked for a special mandate?

A: The cardinal?

Q: Yes.

A: Not special mandate. I would go to the cardinal to ask. In this case is essentially different, the two cases.

Q: They are different in what sense?

A: In the sense that the cardinal is not available for whatever reason and the case of the special mandate to make that for me to consult and make him do the removal, whereas on the other hand I -- you know, I did not have that power from the point of view from Geoghan because the cardinal was around presumably and unless you can put him ill between '79 and '80. But be that as it may, he was not around and I did not need special mandate because the cardinal himself would do it. Those two things are essentially different.

Q: In February of 1980 the removal of Geoghan, John Geoghan, came from you; is that correct?

A: Removal of John Geoghan?

Q: Yes. You write, "I'm writing to inform you I'm ending your appointment as Associate pastor of St. Andrew Apostle parish."

A: Yes.

Q: Now let's go to the next exhibit if we could, please. Exhibit 54, Bishop.

A: I have read it.

Q: And you see the second paragraph that relates to Father Paul Shanley, the telephone call from the New York Times?

A: I see it.

Q: The reporter called asking if he might speak with Bishop Daily regarding an assignment of a priest. Do you see that?

A: Yes. That's the first paragraph.

Q: The second paragraph, it said, "He said he had an interview with Father Paul Shanley and would now like to the archdiocese." There's a word missing, "and would now like to the archdiocese." "Like to know," I presume.

A: Okay.

Q: And then this is from Father Ryan; is that correct?

A: Correct.

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

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