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
Globe coverage of the scandal has been divided into nine categories:

More documents:

Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily

Day 2, page 2

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.

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


Q: And he was working in the chancery at that point?

A: He was.

Q: Had he been removed from parish ministry because of allegation of sexual molestation?

A: No, he wasn't.

Q: "A reporter called asking if he might speak with Bishop Daily regarding an assignment of a priest. I told him you were at a confirmation, broad mental reservation as I think you were going to have one this evening," closed parenthesis, "but could I assist."

What is broad mental reservation?

A: That's a question of not telling a lie but at the same time not telling the whole truth.

Q: It's --

A: In other words, giving the impression on the one hand that I was not there and on the other hand that I was there but at a different time.

Q: Were you there that night or not?

A: God help me, I don't know.

Q: "Broad mental reservation" means making a statement not consistent with the church's order to protect the church?

A: No, that's a lie.

Q: Is a broad mental reservation the truth?

A: Let's put it this way: It's the impression that the truth is given. Is given, yes, it is the truth to a certain extent.

In other words, in this case he's indicating that I was at a confirmation. The broad part of it is that the confirmation is on that day and so the person hearing it might take it either way, might take it either in the broad context or specific context and make that kind of conclusion.

Q: Is it fair to conclude that at the time the call came in, you were not at confirmation; that's why Father Ryan uses the words "broad mental reservation"?

A: I believe so at that time.

Q: It wasn't factually accurate; is that correct?

A: Specifically at the time and the specific situation, that's true.

Q: Last paragraph, and you can read the whole memo if you like. It says, "I give this for your information so as to perhaps prepare RCAB" -- That would be Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: "For any," quote, "impending clouds in this matter."

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know what Father Ryan was referring to?

A: The only thing I can think of was relation to Father Shanley.

Q: Paul Shanley was giving out interviews to the New York Times; is that correct? Do you remember that happening?

A: Do I remember it happening?

Q: Yes.

A: Specifically, no. Should I remember, when did we talk about it?

Q: We are talking about when Paul Shanley went from his ministry to alienated youths to his parish at Newton.

A: He's at St. Jean's at this stage?

Q: Remember, we saw the April 12th letter we had previously that assigned --

A: Yes.

Q: Paul Shanley was not very happy about being assigned to St. Jean's; do you recall that at the time?

A: No, I don't recall that.

Q: Do you remember he gave interviews to various news media about his assignment?

A: I don't recall that.

Q: Were priests permitted to give interviews complaining about their assignments to the news media in 1979?

A: It's not a question of permission. It's a question of the right thing to do.

Priests were priests. You don't go around giving public -- complaining about their assignment. If they do, it disrupts the ruled order of the diocese and it would not -- should not be done unless there was really serious reason.

Q: Would you have been concerned if Paul Shanley in 1979 was giving interviews to the news media about his being assigned to St. Jean's of Newton?

A: I would be concerned.

Q: Do you remember whether -- but you don't recall that occurring?

A: I do not recall.

Q: Next exhibit, please. This is going to be Exhibit 55, a series of documents. At some point -- take your time and read the -- read the entire document, Bishop.

A: I am. First page.

Okay.

MR. McLEISH: What was the last number you had marked?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: 63.

MR. McLEISH: Let's mark this.

MR. MARC ROGERS: 64.

MR. McLEISH: Mark this as 65, then.

Q: Bishop, let me replace that. I'll put a new number on it, 65.

There you go, Exhibit 65.

A: You want me to read all of the material?

Q: Read the second page, which is your response to Paul Shanley.

A: Yes.

Q: I'll ask you some questions about that, but you are welcome to read it all.

A: Why don't we do that.

Q: That's fine.

The last page appears to be out of place but you can read that, too. I'm not going to ask you any questions about the last two pages.

A: Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

Q: In November of 1982, do you recall receiving the first page of Exhibit No. 55, which was a letter from Paul Shanley to you advising you about a woman who was giving what he calls annoyance calls?

A: Do I recall?

Q: Yes. Do you recall that?

A: No, no, I don't recall specifically, I just --

Go ahead.

Q: See, it says in the first sentence, "At the suggestion of Father Fred Ryan I'm writing to tell you the telephone company advised me it is powerless to stop the annoyance calls to this rectory from the Brockton woman." Do you see that.

A: Yes, I see that.

Q: He asks you for advice how to proceed with this.

A: I see that.

Q: And then "Father Fred Ryan suggested there may be measures short of a restraining order." Do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: You wrote back to Paul Shanley and the copy is hard to read but I think I can make it out. But did you not say, "Dear Paul: I'm sorry to learn of the harassment you suffered from a woman in Brockton by constant telephone calls. As Father Ryan suggested, I'm not so sure a restraining order would be helpful. For us here at the chancery office, we stopped harassing calls like that from the use of the" -- I can't read that.

A: "Tape."

Q: "From the use of the tape." What did you mean by that?

A: The call would come in and the person would leave their message or whatever they wanted to say, short or long, on the tape.

Q: "It is rather an impersonal situation but we feel it does screen out calls that are from demented people and people we cannot help over the phone. The other recourse is not to speak at all when she calls but merely to leave her hanging until she hopefully gets discouraged." Are those your words?

A: That's in my letter, yes.

Q: "If you wish to pursue the legal matter, let me know." Then it says "With Best personal regards for a happy holy Christmas and New Year's. Sincerely, Christ Most Reverand Thomas B. Daily."

A: Right.

Q: Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Did you make inquiry of Paul Shanley as to what this woman was complaining about?

A: No. I don't recall I have.

Q: You don't recall doing that?

A: No, I just -- well, okay.

Q: By 1982 you would have remembered, would you not, the 1977 letter from Miss Stevens that we have been through and the article in Gaysweek? Would that have been in your mind in 1982?

A: Because of this call?

Q: Just would it have been in your mind. You knew Paul Shanley was involved in both of those instances?

A: I surely would not have forgotten. Not in relation to this call.

Q: In December 20, 1982, the next month, okay, do you see that?

A: December 20th?

Q: Yes, 1982.

A: This is the next page it's on.

Q: These are notes --

A: Excuse me, may I interrupt? This says December 14th, the next page, doesn't it?

Q: No, that's your letter. The page following that is December 20, 1982.

A: Thank you, okay.

Q: Take a moment. Do you want to read that?

A: Okay, I read it. There's one problem.

Q: What is the problem?

A: The problem is that after number 4, the sentence of the next paragraph, it says, "FJR suggested" --

Q: That's Frederick J. Ryan.

A: How does he suggest to himself?

Q: I'm not sure. I plan to ask him in his deposition.

A: All right.

Q: The next paragraph I'm interested in, "FJR spoke to TVD." That would be who?

A: TVD is myself.

Q: That's staff on 12/20: "Let her stay hanging on the phone. Have him get his own personal attorney." The quote ends after "let her stay hanging on the phone."

A: But there's no quote after the second line.

Q: No, there is none. The quote "Let her stay hanging on the phone," was that something that you recall Mr. Ryan or you stating to the staff?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: You mean Father Ryan?

MR. McLEISH: Father Ryan.

A: It says to the staff. It says to the staff. I don't recall.

Q: You don't recall either way?

A: No.

Q: Was there any policy of the archdiocese that if individuals were calling in with complaints about priests that they would be left hanging on the phone? Did that ever happen?

A: Well, let me just say this. You add the thought complaining about priests?

Q: Right.

A: That's something very specific. If they were complaining about priests, then we would not leave them hanging on the phone.

Q: You would not?

A: No, unless it was bizarre. If it was in fact or determined to be someone who just, you know, and -- well, I don't know. We use the word "demented" or some psychological or something like that, but normally to have a complaint about a priest we would not unless we knew the case, the background and the whole thing.

Q: Well, you only had Paul Shanley's version that this woman was calling in placing annoying harassing calls; is that correct?

A: He's the one who initiated the call for Father Ryan.

Q: Right.

A: He notes in this. This is noted in Father Ryan's -- as you said, that it's been going on for some time.

Q: Right. But no one -- There's a name mentioned, Sheila Burke, do you see that?

A: I see that. a

Q: Did anyone ever undertake any inquiry that you are aware of to find out why this woman was calling and what her specific problem was, Bishop?

A: Not that I remember.

Q: Next exhibit, No. 66. Before we get to that, Bishop, have you ever heard of an organization known as the North American Man Boy Love Association?

A: As it's been referred to here, yes.

Q: When did you first hear of that organization?

A: Well, let me just say it would be speculation, but I would have to say it would have to be in regard to Father Chancellor because I know of no one else in the archdiocese.

Q: By May of 1983, Paul Shanley was -- remained -- was still at St. Jean's parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

A: May of?

Q: 1983.

A: Yes. Well, as I understand it, he went there from '79 to '83.

Q: And by May of 1983 were you aware of any restrictions that had been placed upon him having access to minors?

A: Specifically?

Q: Yes.

A: No. The only thing I would have to -- I get back to the original letter about which we had all of the discussions, the letter about disappointment by the cardinal.

Q: I'm talking about specific instructions that would prevent him in 1983 which would have unsupervised visits with children.

A: As I point out, they were specific in the nature of specifically teachings of the church regarding all kinds of moral situations, ethical situations, so forth. He was, it was a disappointed and instructed specifically to obey all of these instruction. See, that's the specificity of the instructions. If you say only the man/boy type of thing and then that kind of thing, that's something else again. The answer is "no," no.

Q: Do you know whether the pastor at St. Jean's was informed of the letter that you had received from Mrs. Stevens where Paul Shanley was alleged to have said things about pedophilia, bestiality and incest and the letter from Attorney McGeady concerning the gay man's article?

A: The pastor who was?

Q: The pastor at St. Jean's?

A: What was his name?

Q: I don't know.

A: Well, we can look it up. It seems to me you can look it up.

Q: I'm asking whether you have any awareness that when Paul Shanley went to St. Jean's, that the complaint from Mrs. Stevens and the letter from Attorney McGeady complete with the Gaysweek article, whether he was informed of those communications or given specifically --

A: I don't recall.

Q: Let's go to this exhibit, which is 67.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: 66.

Q: 66. This is -- Why don't you take a moment and look at that for me. Take a look at that.

A: Are we through with 65?

Q: We are through with 65, yes.

MR. O'NEILL: Do you want him to read all of the pages?

MR. McLEISH: Yes, he can read all of the pages. Actually I'm not going to ask him any questions about the -- I'm only going to ask him questions about the first four pages, because those are the only ones that involve him.

Q: And they are a little bit out of order, Bishop Daily. If I could direct your attention to your letter of June 1, 1983, in the sequence of documents, that's in the fourth page but it really should be the second page in the sequence of documents.

A: I see it. The point of view of time.

Q: The point of view in time. If you can read them in that order.

A: That's what, June 13th? Okay. Weston's letter was June 13th. My letter was June 1st.

Q: Weston's letter, the first page, this is coming from a minister?

A: Right.

Q: Not a priest but a minister in the Desert Christian Church, the first page of Exhibit 66, the Desert Christian Church, and he writes to Cardinal Medeiros "Isn't it a fact Father Paul Shanley represented you at the conference of NAMBLA North American Man Boy Love Association? There's an asterisk there?

A: He writes there -- he doesn't give the date. He writes received on May the 6th, I see.

Q: Where was it received?

A: Office of the Chancellor, Archdiocese of Boston.

Q: The Chancellor on May 6, 1983 was who?

A: The Chancellor in May of 1983 was myself.

Q: It was received also on May 5, 1983, at the cardinal's residence and not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence; do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: Is there initials where it says "not acknowledged" at the cardinal's residence? Do you recognize these initials?

A: Monsignor Helmick. Those, I read those, yes.

Q: Is it fair to state from the stamps that Pastor Weston's question to Cardinal Medeiros was referred by the cardinal's residence down to you; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And it was received by you on May 6, 1983; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And then we have on the fourth page of Exhibit 66, we have a letter marked "personal and confidential" -- I'm sorry, it's the fifth page, fifth page of Exhibit 66.

Again these are the copies you got from the archdiocese. They are a little cut off. I think we can make it out.

A: June 1st.

Q: June 1st, 1983?

A: Which one are we looking at now?

Q: The fifth page. Your letter to Pastor Weston.

"Dear Pastor Weston: I wish to acknowledge your communications of His Eminence Cardinal Medeiros and your question regarding Paul Shanley, a priest of this archdiocese, regarding the founding conference of NAMBLA." That's in quotes. "I can assure you Father Shanley did not represent His Eminence Cardinal Medeiros with NAMBLA. With regards, Thomas V. Daily."

Is that your letter?

A: I believe that's what it says, even with all of the smudges in it.

Q: These again were the letters we got, and if there's better copies we can produce them. I think that's what it says, though. Certainly by June 1, 1983, you had some awareness about what NAMBLA was?

A: Yes, I think so.

Q: You knew in June 1, 1983, that NAMBLA was an organization that endorsed sexual relations between men and boys; is that correct?

A: I would have to say yes, you know, I was confusing even now in my own mind NAMBLA from that other organization.

Q: Man Boy Lovers of North America.

A: I would have to say, given what we talked about this morning, yes, this is.

Q: You were aware --

A: I would think so. Without any specific remembrance, I don't think I was confused, I think I knew what this meant.

Q: NAMBLA you might have been familiar with it from news reports?

A: Would have.

Q: So you write back to Pastor Weston and you tell Pastor Weston that Paul Shanley did not represent His Eminence at NAMBLA?

A: Right, that's what it says.

Q: You did not deny Father Shanley was at the founding conference of NAMBLA; you just said he didn't represent His Eminence, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: Also the previous page you also alerted Paul Shanley or told Paul Shanley, you said, "Dear Father Shanley: I am enclosing an exchange of correspondence with the Pastor Hugh Weston I send it to you for your information," and you write "With best personal regards, I am Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily."

A: Correct.

Q: Would it be fair to say you did not ask Paul Shanley -- you sent it to him at St. Jean's rectory in Newton, you did not ask Paul Shanley whether in fact he attended the founding conference of NAMBLA, did you?

A: No, according to the correspondence. Okay.

Q: You did not ask him?

A: No.

Q: Correct?

A: No, maybe Father Medeiros did, but I can't say because I don't have documentation to that effect.

I think you have to keep in mind, it's a little confusing to me, if I may say so. The cardinal, we are talking about him going from the house to the cardinal's residence to the chancery office. It may well be that it lost in the times that man was referred to the cardinal, to the cardinal, even though it went to the house to the cardinal again at chancery office because he spent a lot of time in the chancery office and did a lot of his business and meetings and so forth in the chancery office.

Q: I'm not talking about the cardinal for the time being. I'm talking about you, okay.

It comes down I think, as you testified earlier, matters would be sent down to you from the cardinal's residence from time to time?

A: That's true, but I just -- I mentioned the other fact only because the cardinal did a lot of business out of the chancery office, most of it.

Q: My question is, is it fair to state from the correspondence you have in front of you you did not ask Paul Shanley whether or not he had actually attended the NAMBLA conference?

A: Specifically according to the documents, no, I can't recall having asked him. Not to say I didn't but I can't recall asking him.

Q: As the No. 2 man in Boston at the time you would have had the power to ask him; is that correct?

A: If anybody in Boston, I would have the power to act.

Q: Was there any reason why you did not ask him if he attended the founding conference of NAMBLA?

MR. O'NEILL: Wait, he hasn't said he didn't ask him. Let's not confuse the issue here. You are misstating his prior testimony.

MR. McLEISH: I don't mean to misstate.

Q: You testified from the correspondence, I think your testimony was you did not appear you asked Paul Shanley.

A: No. Excuse me, I do not recall whether I asked Paul Shanley.

Q: You wrote him a letter; is that correct?

A: That's the letter here, the one you are referring to, June 1, 1983, correct.

Q: You did not ask him in that correspondence whether or not he attended the NAMBLA conference, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: You cannot recall any other conversations you had with Paul Shanley about this letter from Pastor Weston, correct?

A: You have to give me that again now.

Q: You cannot recall as you sit here today any other communications, either written or oral, that you had with Paul Shanley about Pastor Weston's letter; is that a fair statement?

A: I do not recall.

Q: Then on the second page -- and this is received by the office of the Chancellor on June 13, 1983. This is Pastor Weston's response to your letter June 1, 1983 to him. Do you see that?

A: No. Where is it?

Q: Second page of Exhibit 66.

A: Second page back here. Excuse me. Okay, go ahead.

Q: Why don't you take a moment and read that.

A: Okay.

Q: It says this is Pastor Weston's response to your letter of June 1st, correct?

A: Pastor Weston's response to my letter of June 1st.

Q: Right.

A: Okay.

Q: You wrote to Pastor Weston saying that you assured him Father Shanley did not represent His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, and Pastor Weston writes back, received on June 13, 1983, office of the Chancellor: "Dear Most Reverend Thomas Daily: Was Father Shanley at" -- the word "at" is underlined -- "the NAMBLA conference? You said he did not represent Cardinal Medeiros but was he present? Was he later reprimanded? If" -- I think it's "no" or "if so."

A: No, "if so."

Q: "If so"?

A: "If so," question mark.

Q: Thank you. This comes from a minister out in California, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And we don't have in the records that have been produced by the archdiocese any response to this letter from you, so my question would be whether you recall responding to Pastor Weston?

A: Put it this way --

Q: Let me just finish. Do you recall responding to Pastor Weston's letter whether he asked you whether Paul Shanley was at the NAMBLA conference?

A: No, I do not recall and I have to say given the situation, I don't know. I obviously did not answer the question, put it that way.

Q: It's fair to state as of 1983 there's a question -- you best recall, your best recollection, there was a question in your mind in 1983 as to whether or not Paul Shanley working in St. Jean's parish in Newton may have attended a conference, the founding conference of the North American Man Boy Love Association? There's a question in your mind?

A: Yes, there's a question, but indication seems to me -- Well, ask the question.

Q: You did nothing that you can recall here today to pursue the issue of whether in fact he attended the founding conference of NAMBLA?

A: Not with according to Weston.

Q: You don't recall?

A: I don't recall it anyway, but obviously I did not answer the questions for Father Weston for whatever reasons I had at the time, not feeling obliged presumably or obliged to Hugh Weston to tell him whether or not he was there or not there.

Q: There was a minister writing to you with some expression of concern about Paul Shanley; is that true?

A: Yes.

Q: And certainly given the fact that Paul Shanley was at St. James in Newton without any restrictions in place on his access to minors, would it not have concerned you if in fact Paul Shanley had attended the founding meeting of an organization which endorsed sexual relations between men and boys? Would that have concerned you?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form. Go ahead.

A: My opinion, it would be out of order but I would see the investigation would be mine; not the question of being obliged to Weston but the obligation would be obviously between me and the priest.

Q: Were you somewhat annoyed at the tone of Pastor Weston's second letter to you?

A: No, just objectively I felt -- No, I don't know. I can feel that I was not obliged to answer the questions.

Q: But you also can't say whether you felt obliged to ask Paul Shanley out at St. Jean's Rectory parish in Newton, whether he actually attended that conference?

A: There's no documentation to that effect but that doesn't necessarily mean I didn't speak to him.

Q: He remained at St. Jean's; is that correct?

A: Correct. Until when, 19 --

Q: 1980. Sorry, 1990.

A: He was there until 1990?

Q: Yes, he was. Left in early 1990. I just want you to hold Pastor Weston's letter aside if you could just keep that near with Exhibits 42 and 44. We'll come back it.

A: That is 60.

Q: We'll find them for you.

A: This is 67?

Q: Yes, 67. Would you take a moment and look at this. This is -- the handwriting is hard but I think we can make our way through it.

MR. O'NEILL: At some time when appropriate I would like to make a telephone call.

MR. McLEISH: After this letter.

Q: You can read the letter and your response. Are you able to make out some of the handwriting? I know it's difficult.

A: Okay.

Q: Now, you'll see that the letter from Mr. Moynihan, you'll see he's -- on the last line of the third page of Exhibit 67, you'll see he's a communicant at St. Patrick's in Brockton?

A: Yes.

Q: He also writes to Cardinal Medeiros. This is received at the office of the Chancellor and this is in July. July 6, 1983. Do you see that?

A: Wait a minute, I don't see.

Q: At the top, the second page.

A: I beg your pardon. I don't have that. This is 67 you are talking about?

Q: 67. This is the letter from Moynihan, top of the second page. You see at the top it says "Archdiocese of Boston, received, Office of the Chancellor"; do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: You see at the top "Bishop Daily"?

A: Yes.

Q: I assume you were still the Chancellor in July of 1983.

A: July 5, 1983, yes.

Q: This is -- you recall that the letter from Pastor Weston came in in May of 1983?

A: Okay.

Q: Now, in -- this is another letter to Cardinal Medeiros that I take it it was sent down to your office; is that correct?

A: It says -- we can presume so, yes.

Q: There's actually a response from you to Mrs. Moynihan, is that correct, the following page?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form. The response is from Father --

A: The response was Father -- he was the Chancellor. He's probably deceased.

Q: It says "for Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily."

A: Yes.

Q: The initials under the response, T.V.D., do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Are those your initials?

A: Yes.

Q: E.M., who is that? Is that your secretary?

A: I had -- no, I have to assume that that is -- I don't know who E.M. is unless it would be his secretary. I don't understand that.

Q: Do you see your name circled -- not circled. Do you see your name on the front of the second page of Exhibit No. 67? It says "Bishop Daily"; do you see that?

A: The second page of?

Q: Exhibit 67.

A: Yes, all right.

Q: Whose handwriting is that, if you know?

A: I don't know. I would be guessing, it's not mine and I would be guessing if I were to say anything.

Q: Is it fair to state when this letter came down, it was sent down to your office for a response? Since the stamp "Office of the Chancellor" appears on the second page.

A: I don't think we can assume that because it may well be that Father Lil had it. That "Bishop Daily" may be his.

MR. O'NEILL: The question is response, not necessarily your response.

Q: Let's look at the response letter. The response letter comes from the Office of the Chancellor, do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Who was the Chancellor in July of 1983?

A: I was.

Q: There would be some times when you would have subordinates draft letters up for your response; is that correct?

A: Very rarely. I'm surprised. It must have been some kind of extraordinary circumstance where he stepped in. Very rarely did that happen.

Q: You can't say either way whether you saw the response letter that has the signature of Richard -- I'm sorry, Richard --

A: P.

Q: Litel?

A: Little.

Q: And he says "for Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily." He was writing this letter for you; is that correct?

A: That's what it says.

Q: Was it your practice to read letters that were being written for you in 1983?

A: Before sending or after sending?

Q: Before or after.

A: Not necessarily before. Afterwards I would.

Q: You would have seen this letter of July 13, 1983, perhaps after it had gone out?

A: Yes, because the cardinal obviously has to see it.

Q: So in this communication from Mr. Moynihan, he again brings to your attention the question of Paul Shanley in NAMBLA. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And in it's hard to read. In the handwriting on the second page of Exhibit 67, last paragraph, it says, does it not, "Among the speakers who voiced" -- See it? It starts, "Among the speakers who voiced their endorsement of sexual relations between" --

A: What page?

Q: The first page of the letter.

A: Yes, okay. Yes, I see it.

Q: "Among those speakers who voiced their endorsement of sexual relations between men and boys was" -- I think it's Canon Clinton Young, Pastor of Christ Church Cathedral.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Clinton Jones.

Q: Pastor of Christ Church Cathedral Episcopal in Hartford, and Father Paul Shanley, representative of Boston Roman Catholic Cardinal Medeiros, and the Reverend Robert Wently from the national office of the unitery Universalist Church. Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Then there is a question at the end. I'm sorry, second page. "I would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to confirm or deny the allegations made by Mr. Braunfeld" I think that is "that Father Shanley appeared at the NAMBLA conference." I can't read the next word. Something --

A: The conference -- no, conference.

Q: "Uttered the statement attributed to him that he personally endorsed the rightness of sexual relations between men and boys. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And then he says, "If the above is substantially correct, how can such perversion condemned by God and Bible be reconciled at a Catholic Church doctrine down through the ages?" And they list his name. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And so understanding that you may not have seen the response but understanding that your practice would have been to see -- to see this response, the response on the final page of Exhibit 67 from the office of the Chancellor, you would have seen something written for you afterwards?

A: Well, I would -- that would be just a courtesy.

Q: Does it not suggest that at least as of that date, July of 1983, Paul Shanley had not been asked whether he attended the NAMBLA conference? In the response written by Father Little?

A: Yes.

Q: And you remember that Mr. Moynihan wanted to know he was there at the NAMBLA founding conference?

A: Yes.

Q: It is stated "For information concerning Father Paul Shanley or his presence at the conference, His Eminence suggests you write directly to him at St. John's Church, 253 Watertown Street, Newton 02158."

A: I see that.

Q: Does that not suggest to you that as of July 13, 1983, despite this letter and the letter from Pastor Weston, no inquiry had been made of Paul Shanley whether he had attended the founding conference of NAMBLA?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form. Go ahead.

A: It would seem so.

Q: In light of what you knew about NAMBLA and in light of the fact that Paul Shanley is -- Let me back up.

MR. McLEISH: Let's take your break, Mr. O'Neill. We'll take your break now.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 12:12 p.m.

(Recess taken.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 12:30 p.m.

Q: Bishop Daily, I would like to focus now on the time period 1983 when you received the Moynihan -- I apologize for that. I would like to focus on the time period in 1983. We have been through Pastor Weston's letter; do you recall that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Which made reference to Paul Shanley -- questioned whether Paul Shanley attended NAMBLA; is that correct?

A: Yes, I recall that.

Q: That is a letter you responded to and saw?

A: Yes.

Q: You knew what NAMBLA was formed in 1983?

A: Yes.

Q: And its view was abhorrent to you, correct?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form.

A: I wouldn't use the word "abhorrent." I repudiated. "Abhorrent" that's fine.

Q: What word would you use to describe the views of NAMBLA on the propriety of boys having sex with men?

A: The bishop is opposed to anything that I know is correct, the law of teaching in the church, you know.

Q: You knew there was an allegation that Paul Shanley might have attended the NAMBLA conference, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: You can't recall anything specifically that you did to follow up on that in 1983, correct?

A: I can't recall, no. That's not to say I didn't but I can't recall.

Q: We had the 1977 letter which is Exhibit 42.

A: 42, okay.

Q: That's the Delores Stevens letter which she alleges that Paul Shanley made remarks about pedophilia stating that the adult is not the seducer?

A: Is she -- yes.

Q: And then she says -- she quotes Paul Shanley as stating that he can any think of no sexual act that causes psysic damage, not even bestiality?

A: Yes.

Q: Certainly you had not forgotten about that letter in 1938?

A: In '83?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: I can't recall what I had in my mind in 1938. I knew the cardinal was sick. I had him in mind. I know in my mind, you mean about this.

Q: Had you forgotten in 1983 that Mrs. Stevens had written to Miss Sweeney and been forwarded to you a letter in which Paul Shanley is reflected -- in Exhibit 42 is alleged to have said things related to incest, bestiality and pedophilia? Would that have been in your mind, if you know?

A: That I can't recall.

Q: In 1979 we had the letter from Attorney McGeady is attaching the Gaysweek letter; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Where Paul Shanley talks about children again, a boy feeling guilty when he had sex with an adult. We went through that this morning, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: That was something also that you had reviewed in 1979; is that correct?

A: We did that, yes. As I recall, yes.

Q: And you had -- then you had those, so there's a total of four letters on the subject of Paul Shanley expressing views that were abhorrent to you; is that correct?

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

A: As I say, yes, I -- I would say I repudiate the whole situation. But I mean, if you want to use the word "abhorrent," fine.

Q: What word would you be most --

A: I'm horrified by that kind of --

Q: Horrified?

A: Yes, horrified.

Q: You would be horrified if someone -- you would be horrified to have someone working as a parish priest who had actually said these things or who had attended the NAMBLA conference; is that correct? Would you be horrified about that?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of that question. At what point in time?

MR. McLEISH: In 1983.

A: Let's go back to "abhorrent." I think that, whatever, I think I would not be pleased, let's put it that way. I would be very displeased, because of just the idea of -- Well, what was said, what was reported, I would not be pleased at it at all.

Q: And these four letters, Exhibits 42, 49, 67 and 66, the four communications we have --

A: I have them all here. I have 49, 66, they contain --

Q: 62 is the Delores Stevens letter?

A: 40, this is 42.

Q: Yes, 42 is the Delores Stevens letter, that's 1977. 1979 is the McGeady letter with the Gaysweek article attached.

A: Okay.

Q: And then the Moynihan letter is July of 1983.

A: Correct, yes.

Q: Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And then the Pastor Hugh Weston letter is May of 1983; is that correct?

A: Yes -- no -- I beg your pardon. It's Pastor Hugh's.

Q: Pastor Hugh's, May 5th --

A: Where is Moynihan?

Q: He's Exhibit 66.

A: Yes, it's here.

Q: All right. And these are four letters that are not typical of the letters that you would have seen about a priest of the archdiocese; is that correct?

A: No -- that's correct. That's correct.

Q: You are not aware of any other priest who was accused of being a member of the North American man boy association?

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

A: I don't recall. I have no recollection of anybody, of any priest being associated that I know we -- under my jurisdiction.

Q: These were four letters from four different individuals, not just one individual; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And then you were still aware by the time of the Moynihan letter, which is the last letter we have in July of '83, that Paul Shanley is working at St. Jean's in Newton, correct?

A: In '83 he went there in -- yes, he's there.

Q: In '79?

A: Yes, he's there.

Q: Then you made the decision in November of 1983 to elevate Paul Shanley to administrator of the parish; is that correct?

A: Well, you can call it elevation. I wouldn't call it elevation. I would call it to the position of.

Q: Well, the pastor died in 1983.

A: Okay, the position of administrator.

Q: Right.

A: That's right.

Q: You appointed him as administrator which meant for a period of time he was the No. 1 person at that parish as of November 1983?

A: As administrator.

Q: As the administrator?

A: He was not a pastor.

Q: The pastor died. When the pastor dies who is in charge of the parish?

A: The one appointed as the pastor or administrator.

Q: Were you aware of anybody who was appointed as pastor when -- I forgot the name of the -- we can find out during the break. -- when the pastor at St. Jean's died?

A: No. The fact is -- what is the fact, the fact is that Paul Shanley was named administrator, that was by me.

Q: That was a promotion for him?

A: No, it's a recognition. And most important of all, something had to be done about the administrative of the diocese itself, the adding and subtracting of money itself, the monies for the school and all of the rest of the money with it. And the trust was administration and all along with that, obviously, the priestly ministry.

Q: Administrators, administrators are the second in command at parishes; is that correct?

A: Depending -- no, not necessarily. You mean as a title?

Q: Yes.

A: It's below Pastor.

Q: It's below Pastor, second in command like you were in Boston; is that correct?

A: No, you can't make that either. But to a certain extent you can.

Q: You can. Okay. So on November 4, '98 -- I'm showing you Exhibit 68; is that correct?

A: 68.

Q: That's your letter to Paul Shanley of November 4, 1983, where you state "Upon the recommendation of the Personnel Board of the Archdiocese, I'm ending your appointment as Associate Pastor of St. John the Avengelist of Newton and I'm appointing you as Pastor of that parish."

A: Correct.

Q: "As Administrator, you will be responsible for the total administration of the parish which includes all financial matters, the administration of the rectory, all policy decisions and all other matters relating to pastoral care of the people of the parish." Do you see that?

A: Correct.

Q: So he was the No. 1 guy at least as of that time, correct?

A: For the administration.

Q: Include -- and administration included, all other matters contained in the pastoral care of the people of the parish?

A: That's true, but he was not the pastor.

Q: Well, the pastor died.

A: The pastor died. He was not the pastor, he was administrator. He was the one to do the duties of a pastor, but he didn't have a title of Pastor which has an effect in canon law.

Q: He had the duties of the pastor because the pastor had died?

A: Correct.

Q: All I'm trying to establish, Bishop, when you appointed him administrator in November of 1983, there was no one who was above him at St. Jean's; is that correct? He was the acting pastor?

A: To do -- okay. In that parish.

Q: In that parish?

A: He was doing the duties of a pastor.

Q: And you appointed him acting pastor doing the duties of the pastor even though you had received the Moynihan letter asking about his attendance at NAMBLA, you had received the letter from Pastor Weston, you received letter from Attorney McGeady enclosing the article of Gaysweek, and you received the letter from Mrs. Sweeney which enclosed the letter of Mrs. Stevens about his views on pedophilia, incest and bestiality?

A: Correct.

Q: When you sent this letter of November 4, 1983 to Paul Shanley, you also state "I would also request that since this parish is without a pastor at this time, you assume the obligation of the messa pro populo, what does that mean?

A: It means that on certain days of the year we have to celebrate -- we are required as a pastor and as a bishop even to celebrate mass for the people, pro populo behalf, for the people. Those days would include every Sunday, would include major feast days throughout the year, and I forget how many days would be total. There would be that requirement for the very office you have the responsibility to pray for the people.

Q: He was going to be the celebrant for mass; is that correct?

A: He was going to have that obligation.

Q: Was that obligation usually the pastor's obligation?

A: Yes.

Q: Again would it be accurate to state when you made this appointment to him to be the acting pastor, this was in fact a promotion from his appointment as -- previous appointment as associate pastor?

A: If you want to argue that he was added responsibilities, he was promoted.

Q: Well, added responsibility.

A: I think it was a work situation. Be that as it may, it was an administrative situation. But, yes, that's your opinion, I guess.

Q: Well, he had more responsibilities? Let's leave it at that.

A: Yes, he had more responsibility.

Q: In Exhibit 42, 49, 66 and 67, didn't you have some concerns about Paul Shanley potentially coming into contact with young people?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: At what point in time?

Q: When you appointed him as administrator and acting pastor of St. Jean's in November of 1983, didn't you have some concern about that?

A: I would say I had some concerns but keep in mind that if I'm not mistaken, there were no -- there were no calls, complaints, evidence of actions by him in regard to this whole field, that it was all ideas, it was all him making big speeches, which you need a kick in the pants in, if I might say. It was all ideas and he was promoting these ideas but no actions as I recall, as I recall were reported from anybody regarding bestiality, incest, all of the things --

Q: Man/boy love?

A: Whatever it it, yes.

Q: So, you are stating it was acceptable for him to espousing his support for man-boy love as long as he didn't act on it?

MR. WILSON D. ROGER: Objection to form.

A: No, I'm just saying there was a difference between espousing and doing.

Q: Did you believe that someone who could espouse his endorsement of man/boy love would be suitable to a act as a pastor in a parish in Newton, Massachusetts in 1983?

A: In mentioning and to teaching to the faithful. I would object to that very strongly. You asked the question. I would object to his -- if he was doing that in the parish of St. Jean, Newton, I would object to that very strongly and I would think, too, that along with that objection would be those closer to the scene, namely the regional bishop and the vicar, the vicar in that area.

Q: Would it be acceptable for him to be appointed as a pastor if he was making statements of his man/boy love outside of the parish? You made a distinction, you said it would be --

A: That's right.

Q: Would it be acceptable for him to have the position of acting pastor in 1983 as long as the statements about man/boy love, his endorsement --

A: Not with my endorsement.

Q: Outside of the parish?

A: No.

Q: Would it be acceptable for someone to be appointed, like Paul Shanley, as action pastor of parish of the Archdiocese of Boston, as long as he was expressing his endorsement of man/boy love outside of the parish?

A: I would have to say, I would have a difficult time doing that.

Q: My question is since you had, you certainly acknowledged receiving the Pastor Weston letter and said that consistent with your practice, he would have reviewed the letter sent in response to the Moynihan letter at some point. Why then did you appoint this man as acting pastor of a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts in November of 1983?

A: Because it was a temporary situation that had -- presumably that had to be taken care of, the administration of the parish. Because, as you indicated, the death of the pastor, someone had to do the adding and subtracting and administering the material goods and needs of that parish, so that in, for a temporary time, which is the very nature of an administrator, pastoral administrator, that he was placed in that position at the recommendation of the personnel board.

Q: There were certainly other individuals in the archdiocese of Boston apart from Paul Shanley who could have come in on a temporary basis and become the acting pastor; isn't that true?

A: Yes, because there are a lot of priests.

Q: Right. So it wasn't -- Go ahead, finish your answer.

A: Well, what I relied on was the recommendation of the Personnel Board.

Q: I thought that the Personnel Board you testified yesterday would come to you for sort of a final chat when there were appointments that were being made. Wasn't that your testimony yesterday?

A: Before appointments were suggested to His Eminence, the cardinal?

Q: Yes.

A: That was the general practice after the Personnel Board met that they would check with me on these appointments to see if in my file there was anything precluding anybody's promotion or appointment as a pastor.

Q: And you had access, even though -- you had access not only to your own files but access to all of the files if you wanted with the archdiocese on particular priests, correct?

A: Yes. But be that as it may, when it came to -- when it came to access to the files regarding -- containing presumably, acts improper or inappropriate for a priest, I felt that I had them all in my office.

Q: And you may have had Father Shanley -- remember that 1966 complaint, that may have been in your files in your office?

A: That's right.

Q: That might have been in your files in your office, correct?

A: There's a possibility that it could have been. Well, as a matter of fact if there was complaint in that nature, yes.

Q: Would have been in your files?

A: Yes, I would say from my point of view at that time, mistaken or otherwise, if I felt that was the only place, I would say it should have been there, anything like that.

Q: The files were organized in your view, is that correct, in the archdiocese?

A: I beg your pardon?

Q: In 1983 the files were organized well; is that correct?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are talking about the files in the bishop's office?

Q: In the archdiocese office were files --

A: We had -- the files in my office were organized well, in regard to the drawer and a half that I had regarding my point of view, my knowledge, the inappropriate activity of priests.

Q: I think the "special cases" was the word you used.

A: I guess so.

Q: You might well have looked at that letter sent in by the priest of the Lasserlet Center before you made the appointment based on the recommendantion of the Personnel Board, correct?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection.

Q: Could have happened?

A: If there was something -- I could have made the appointment if there was information in there as administrator admitted to the diocese.

Q: Yes.

A: Yes, as a result I would have to say it wasn't there.

Q: There were complaints about John Geoghan in his file that you had knowledge of and he was eventually returned back into active ministry based on a letter that you sent; is that correct?

A: The question is the premise, is the premise true; did in fact I have complaints against John Geoghan in my file?

Q: Yes.

A: In my file?

Q: You did.

A: No, I don't think so.

Q: I don't want to belabor this. Apart from the Personnel Board, my question is that we are now looking in November of 1983. In May and July of 1983, the same year, there are letters that are coming into your office, one of which you responded to, one of which was responded on your behalf, raising the question of whether Paul Shanley had attended a meeting of the national -- sorry, of NAMBLA. You know what NAMBLA is? North American Man Boy Love Association.

A: I understand.

Q: So my question is: Since you knew what NAMBLA was and you don't recall having done anything as of right now pursuing whether Shanley had -- Father Shanley had attended these conferences, how could you have appointed Paul Shanley in November of 1983 acting pastor, the man in charge of a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts? How could you have done that?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form.

A: Because of the -- there was no -- there were no indications of actions regarding the actions that were mentioned and talked about and promoted in these meetings and so forth, and that the whole trust of His Eminence approached to him and mine is given the direction of His Eminence was to bring him into a situation where his ideas and opinions which were as we described earlier were changed to something normal and that that was the hope and that was the expectation.

Q: But you didn't establish by November of 1983 whether Paul Shanley's views on man/boy love had changed at all, had you?

A: Not that I recall. November of 1983?

Q: Right.

A: I'm just trying to think.

Q: If you take a look --

A: I'm just looking here because of the dates are important to me.

Q: If you take a look at Exhibit 67, it might help you. July of 1983, when Mr. Moynihan had asked whether Paul Shanley had been at the NAMBLA conference, the letter written by Mr. Little stated --

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Father Little.

Q: -- Father Little for information concerning his Paul Shanley or his appearance at the conference his Eminence suggests that you write directly to him at St. John's Church, that's the same as St. Jean's, 253 Watertown Street, Newton.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: What is the question?

Q: My question is: As of November of 1983 you hadn't spoken to Paul Shanley about whether any of his views on man/boy love changed, had you?

A: There's no indication here that I had.

Q: Looking back on it now, Bishop, with these letters that I have been through, do you believe that it was appropriate for you to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator and acting pastor of St. Jean's parish in November of 1983, given these four letters that we put in front of you?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. Are you asking him to form an opinion today as opposed to what his opinion was then?

MR. McLEISH: Not form an opinion; looking right now with all of this information, whether it was appropriate to assign Paul Shanley as acting pastor.

Q: Do you understand the question?

MR. O'NEILL: Including his present knowledge of the allegations against Paul Shanley; as he sits here today are you excluding that?

Q: Can you answer the question?

MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form.

MR. McLEISH: It's observed to trial.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Including everything he knows today?

MR. McLEISH: No, basically these four letters.

Q: Do you understand the question? On the basis of these four allegations that have been made against Paul Shanley from his beliefs in bestiality, incest, pedophilia, the McGeady letter, Gaysweek magazine about children feeling guilty when they have sex with men and men get sent to jail, on the basis of the two letters you received in May and July of 1983 about his attendance at NAMBLA, looking at those letters, do you still believe it was appropriate for you to appoint Paul Shanley as acting pastor of a family parish in Newton in 1983?

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

MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.

A: I would have to agree that it would be extraordinary. The only thing, the only saving feature of it is that we are talking about ideas and opinions in his promotion verbally, that the only saving feature is that, to my knowledge at the time, he wasn't involved in activities. But having even said that, if in fact he was promoting ideas and God knows at St. Jean's parish, that would be terrible. And there was no evidence he was at St. Jean's parish doing that; he was doing it in other parts of the country. But having said that, I would have very great regrets.

Q: You have regrets you made the appointment?

A: I think I would have done much better if I hadn't made the appointment.

Q: Fair enough. Is there any other information that has come to your attention apart from those four letters that would in any way support the appointment of Paul Shanley as acting pastor in November of 1983?

A: Well, the only thing that, you know, that could be said was it was an attempt I suppose, whether I articulated it or not, but in my own mind the practice the pastor, pastoral approach that His Eminence Cardinal Medeiros used from the point of view of trying to change the man's ideas in thoughts and approach to these situations to -- as he had himself said in his appointment in the beginning, to Monsignor -- I mean to Father Shanley as a priest in the parish in conformity with the teachings of the church, specifically --

Q: I didn't mean to interrupt. You don't know whether any of those efforts to change his views on man/boy love, bestiality, incest and his other thoughts in this area had been successful, correct?

A: Only from the point of view from His Eminence approached to him.

Q: You can ask someone to change their views. It doesn't mean you will be successful.

A: Correct. Nor does it mean this person has to be involved in these kind of actions either, remember.

Q: Well, Bishop, isn't it true that priests are held to standards by the Archdiocese of Boston not only in terms of what they do but what they say?

A: True.

Q: You can't be a priest if, for example, you are actively making statements that are contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

A: Most specifically within the confines of the diocese.

Q: Even if you are making statements contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church outside of the diocese but in various public forums, that is something also that would not make you qualified to be a pastor at a parish for the New York archdiocese?

A: I would have to say yes, but there's a different situation. Outside the diocese there would also be other safeguards of other dioceses and bishops who would make the appropriate inquiry, as they did, regarding Paul Shanley.

Q: Were there any safeguards in place when you appointed Paul Shanley as acting pastor in November of 1983?

A: Only the supervisory of pastoral concern of the local regional bishop in that area, the Episcopal vicar in that area.

Q: That's Bishop Mulcahy?

A: That's Bishop Mulcahy and an additional bishop I don't recall, but that's it. The priest, they would be the ones.

Q: But acting pastors, pastors have no day-to-day supervision. Do then acting pastors have -- you mean acting bishops? Acting pastors like Paul Shanley, they have no day-to-day supervision, they don't have someone every day?

A: No, given the responsibility and they are asked to do it. But there was -- presumably in one sense he was doing it because to my knowledge, there was no reaction, there was no evidence of any kind of not doing it.

Q: He was doing what? I'm sorry, I didn't follow.

A: Fulfilling his responsibility as a legitimate and endorsed administrator and priest in the parish.

Q: You are aware, are you not, that there are four -- sorry, 16 count indictments against Paul Shanley right now alleging four counts of rape, 12 counts of indecent assault and battery four acts of child molestation and rape occurring between 1983 and 1989? Are you aware of that, are you not?

A: I'm aware generally speaking, yes.

Q: These are criminal indictments. And so you also knew in 1983 that someone who might express their endorsement of man/boy love relationships might also be someone that could be considered a threat to the children; is that correct?

A: He might be, yes, I'm aware of that.

Q: But you went ahead and appointed him despite the fact that you had information before you that suggested that Paul Shanley had attended and quite possibly endorsed the views of the NAMBLA organization?

A: Correct.

Q: And you regret that?

A: I regret that.

MR. WILSON ROGERS: Time for lunch.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 1:00 p.m.

(Luncheon recess taken at 1:00 p.m.)

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

(Time noted: 2:04 p.m.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:04 p.m.

BISHOP THOMAS DAILY resumed and testified as follows:

CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. McLEISH:

Q: Okay, Bishop Daily, did you consider at all, before you made the decision to appoint Paul Shanley administrator and acting pastor at St. Jean's, sharing with the parishioners of St. Jean's the fact that you had received two letters about Paul Shanley's possible involvement with the NAMBLA organization?

A: At the time I did not but I don't recall.

Q: Was there any particular policy in place in the Archdiocese of Boston that would have prevented you from sharing Paul Shanley's possible involvement with NAMBLA with the parishioners of the archdiocese?

A: Nothing I can think of. That is a public organization. I don't think it did.

Q: Did you believe it would be important for the parents of these children such as Mr. Ford, who is sitting here to my right, to know that the person who was going to be appointed as their acting pastor had had allegations made against him that he was endorsing man/boy love organizations? Do you think it was important that they know?

A: That certainly in the aftermath, given my present situation, yes, I do.

Q: At the time you didn't think it was important?

A: Well, it wasn't considered as a process but the fact is I didn't, and at the time I didn't make a decision in that regard because I didn't think of it in the sense it wasn't presented to me in that sense. And so, you know, I think, I know what I know now, it would be a different situation because it's almost, if not nearly, policy.

Q: Well, you have a doctorate in divinity as I understand it?

A: No, it's an honorary thing, you know, I have no theological degree.

Q: Did you attend college?

A: Yes.

Q: Where did you go to college?

A: I went to Boston College for three semesters and I went to the seminary.

Q: And graduated from the seminary; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You knew when you were appointing Father Shanley as acting pastor and administrator, you knew he would come into contact with families, did you not?

A: Yes. I would, I presumed so because he was going to be in the parish.

Q: Part of the mission of Father Shanley as acting pastor would be to deliver the gospel to the Catholic laity; is that correct? The Catholic laity includes children?

A: It was my observation he did. I had a confirmation class there and he did deliver the sacrament confirmation there.

Q: You also know he did other things, do you not? You know now there were other things he did besides delivering sacraments?

A: Yes. You told me that today in more detail than I knew before I knew the father was arrested and so forth.

Q: But you didn't know there were four victims and 16 count indictments including four for rape?

A: Sure.


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