|
|
|
|
           |
       | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law The following is the text of the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law in Suffolk County Superior Court on Wednesday, June 5, 2002. Law answered questions from attorneys for alleged victims of the Rev. Paul Shanley, who is accused of abusing several young boys while working as a priest in the Boston area.
DAY 1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
GREGORY FORD, et al., Plaintiffs,
PAUL W. BUSA, Plaintiff,
ANTHONY DRISCOLL, Plaintiff,
THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, before Kathleen M. Silva, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, commencing at 10:06 a.m.
APPEARANCES: Greenberg Traurig (by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, Robert Sherman, Attorney, David G. Thomas, Attorney, Courtney Pillsbury, Attorney, and Gina Dines Holness, Attorney) One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney One Storey Terrace Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs The Rogers Law Firm, PC (by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, Wilson D. Rogers, III, Attorney, and Mark C. Rogers, Attorney) One Union Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Attorneys for the Defendants Todd & Weld (by J. Owen Todd, Attorney) 28 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally
ALSO PRESENT: Colleen Surrette, Diane Nealon, Rodney Ford, Paula Ford, Anthony Driscoll, Andrew Magni, Father John Connolly, Father Christopher Coyne, Sandy Grossman, George Libbares, Wayne Martin
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Labbares. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. Today is June 5, 2002, and the time is 10:06 a.m.
This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law in the matter of Gregory Ford, et al., Plaintiffs, versus Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, and Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, versus Cardinal -- versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., Defendants, and Anthony Driscoll, Plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard Law, et al., Defendants, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of 10:07:40 Middlesex.
This deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is Kathleen Silva with K. L. Good and Associates of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts 02209. Counsel will now state their appearances and the court reporter will administer the oath. MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for the plaintiffs. MR. THOMAS: David Thomas for the plaintiffs. MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman for the plaintiffs. MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman for the plaintiffs. MR. MARK ROGERS: Mark Rogers on behalf of all defendants, including His Eminence, Cardinal Bernard Law. MR. ROGERS III: Wilson Rogers, III, on behalf of Cardinal Bernard Law and all the defendants. MR. ROGERS, JR.: Wilson Rogers, Jr., on behalf of His Eminence, Cardinal Law, and all the defendants. MR. TODD: Owen Todd on behalf of the Cardinal personally. MR. MacLEISH: Before you do the oath, we have some stipulations for the record. As I understand it, we are stipulating that all objections except as to form and motions to strike are reserved in this case until the time of trial. Mr. Todd, you also want to make another stipulation? MR. TODD: That prior stipulation will apply to the audio-visual deposition as well. MR. MacLEISH: That's correct. Mr. Rogers, you also wanted to make a continuing objection on First Amendment grounds; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Yes. We would interpose an objection as to any questions going to the internal workings of the Church, and to obviate the need of raising it on an ongoing basis, I'd like to agree we have a continuing objection to this line of inquiry. MR. MacLEISH: We have such an agreement. Could you swear the witness in. MR. TODD: And the objection of one party will stand for all parties, correct? MR. MacLEISH: That's acceptable. MR. ROGERS: Did we -- is it clear on the record that this deposition applies in four cases? MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. MR. ROGERS: I'm not sure when we did -- MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. That's my prior agreement with your son. It also applies to the case of Andrew Magni as well. Are we ready to swear the witness in? BERNARD F. LAW was sworn on oath by the reporter. *********
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH Q. Good morning, Your Eminence. A. Good morning. My name is Eric MacLeish and I'm counsel for the plaintiffs in these actions. To my right is Paula Ford, who is also a plaintiff. To my left is David Thomas, Robert Sherman, Mr. Rodney Ford, who is also a plaintiff, Attorney Jeffrey Newman, Andrew Magni, who is a plaintiff in another case, but is here by agreement of the defendants, and Anthony Driscoll. Both Mr. Magni and Mr. Driscoll are victims of Father Shanley. I'd like to thank you first for coming in here, and as is typical in depositions, I'd like to go over a few ground rules. Nothing exceptional, but a few ground rules. The first is if at any time during this deposition you care to take a break, if you'd like to take a pause, just tell me and we're happy to accommodate that. If at any point in time you want to go over your answers to any of the questions that you've given, modify or change them in any way, I'm going to give you that opportunity and you can just indicate that to me and I'll let you do that. I would like you to -- and this is something that happens frequently. It's not directed at you. If you could listen to the question and try to respond to the question. Your attorneys will have the opportunity for cross-examination. If at some point you care to give an explanation, I'll be happy to accommodate that. Finally, there is a problem that exists in many depositions, and it's certainly not unique to this one. The witness sometimes has a tendency to anticipate what the question will be and then answer before the question is finalized, which makes it difficult for our court reporter. Do you understand those instructions? A. I do, and I'll try to abide by them. Q. I appreciate that. If I refer to you as Cardinal, is that acceptable, Your Eminence? A. Sure. Q. Could you please state your name. A. My name is Bernard Francis Law. Q. And you are presently the Archbishop of Boston; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you're one of 17 cardinals in the United States; is that correct? A. I don't think there's 17 of us. Q. How many are there? A. I think there are 12 U.S. citizens who are cardinals. Q. And you're one of those 12? A. I'm one of those 12. Q. And you have held your position as Archbishop of Boston since 1984; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you were elevated to cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 1985; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, you're aware that a complaint has been filed against you in this matter by Paula, Rodney and Gregory Ford. Are you aware of that? A. I am. Q. Have you had the opportunity to review the complaint? A. I have not reviewed the complaint in its detail. Q. Okay. What we have in front of you as Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the complaint, and you'll see the caption in the complaint of Gregory, Paula and Rodney Ford. Do you see that at the front of this action? A. Yes, I do. Q. If you could turn, Your Eminence, to page 5 of the complaint, if you could, please. You'll see Paragraph 15, it states: "Father Shanley's sexual molestation of Gregory" -- and it states Gregory was born in 1977. "While Gregory was a minor between the ages of approximately six and twelve, Father Shanley repeatedly sexually molested him, approximately between 1983 through 1989." That last portion is in parentheses. Do you see that? A. I do, yes. Q. And you're generally familiar with complaints in civil lawsuits that to start a civil action, a complaint is filed? A. Yes. Q. And you're a defendant in a number of cases at the present time; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. You've been deposed previous to today; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Are you also generally aware that after a complaint is filed, there is an answer that gets filed on behalf of the defendant? A. I presume so. I don't handle legal matters, but... Q. Could you look at Exhibit 2, please, which is the answer that has been filed in this case, and let me ask first whether you've ever seen that answer that was filed on your behalf? A. Well, let me go through it. Q. Sure. Absolutely. Please take your time. A. (Witness reviewing document.) The answer to this is that I have not seen this document. Q. You've engaged attorneys on your behalf to file the answer; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that would be Mr. Todd and Mr. Rogers; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And Your Eminence, I've got a note from down at the end of the table if you could try to speak up just a little bit because this room does not have good acoustics. A. Yes. Q. If you could turn your answer to page 5, if you could, please. MR. ROGERS, III: Page 5 of the answer? MR. MacLEISH: Page 5 of the answer, that's correct. Q. Would it be accurate to state that you are generally familiar with the nature of the Fords' allegations against you and the Archdiocese of Boston? You're generally familiar with it? A. I'm generally familiar, yes. Q. You're generally familiar with the fact that they are alleging that their son Gregory, when he was a young child, was molested by Father Shanley, as you just read out of the complaint? A. I am aware of that. Q. And you're generally aware that the complaint of the Fords is that their young son was molested at the rectory at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts? A. I'm aware of the allegation that he was molested. I was not -- I don't have a recollection of where that molestation took place. Q. But you were aware that the acts of molestation are alleged to have taken place at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts? A. I'm aware they were alleged to have taken place by Father Shanley. Q. That's correct. And you've also been -- you were at St. Jean's Parish when it was still open on at least one occasion; is that correct? A. I believe that's correct. Q. Was that for the Silver Jubilee, so-called Silver Jubilee of Paul Shanley? A. I cannot recall what the occasion was. Q. Turning to Exhibit No. 2 and looking at Paragraph 5, it states as follows, and -- I'm sorry. Page 5, about halfway down the page, it states: "And further answering, the defendant says" -- A. Excuse me. I'm confused. Q. Sure. Absolutely. A. I have the wrong document. Q. Okay. You see there's numbered paragraphs and then there's two paragraphs without numbers. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to read from the second one. "And further answering, the defendant says that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care but, rather, the negligence of the plaintiffs contributed to the cause -- to the injury or damage complained of; wherefore, the recovery of the plaintiffs is barred in whole or in part or subject to diminution." Do you see that language? A. I do. Q. And you see in that language that it is stated by the defendant that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due care. Do you see that? A. I don't see that, but -- yes. I was below that. Yes, I see that. Q. And that it was, rather, the negligence of the plaintiffs that contributed to cause the injury or damage complained of? A. I see that. Q. And the injury and damage complained of here is the sexual molestation of a young child. You understand that, correct? A. I understand that. Q. Can you provide any factual basis to support the assertion that is contained in your answer that somehow the negligence of Paula Ford, Rodney Ford or Gregory Ford, in the words of the complaint, contributed -- the answer, rather, contributed to cause the injury or damages complained of? Do you know of any facts to support that? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form, but go ahead and answer. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead and answer. A. This -- no. My answer to the question is no. Q. Okay. As you sit here today, can you conceive of any facts that would support the assertion that a six-year-old child was somehow negligent in allowing himself to be abused by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. MacLEISH: Objection is noted. MR. ROGERS: The plaintiffs -- MR. TODD: The plaintiff is not a child. MR. MacLEISH: The plaintiff -- if you'll turn to the first page, the plaintiff is Gregory Ford. MR. TODD: And Paula Ford. MR. ROGERS: Paula Ford. MR. TODD: And Rodney Ford. MR. MacLEISH: Gregory Ford. Q. Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. We just read from the complaint, Your Eminence. Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. Are you aware of any set of facts that could conceivably support the argument that a six-year-old child could in any way be responsible for his abuse by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form. MR. TODD: Objection. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can answer. A. As I indicated earlier, Mr. MacLeish, I have not seen this document before now. Q. I understand that. A. I was being represented in this document by counsel. I did not enter into the formulation of that response, and so I haven't a basis upon which to engage in a response on this. If you're asking me personally if a six-year-old child could have contributed negligence in a case like this, I would say the answer to that is clearly no. Q. What about the parents, Cardinal Law? Can you in any way conceive of a set of facts that would support the assertion that the parents of a six-year-old child could somehow be negligent with respect to the sexual abuse of their child by a Roman Catholic priest? MR. TODD: Objection. Speculative. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. A. Mr. MacLeish, I can answer that theoretically. I cannot answer that with specificity to the parents of this child because I have no facts concerning the parents of this child. Q. Mm-hmm. A. But theoretically, I would suppose that one could presume that if parents were to put their child in the position of jeopardy for someone whom they suspected to be a risk, there would be some degree of negligence there. But I say that's a theoretical response. It in no way moves to the victim himself or herself, and it no way mitigates the responsibility of the person who would have committed the abuse. But could there be contributory negligence on the part of those who have supervision? I presume that, theoretically, that could be the case. But, again, I respond that under the terms of the specific case before us, I have no knowledge whatsoever of contributory negligence. Q. And you have never spoken to anyone, apart from your counsel, in which they have provided you with facts that would support the assertion that Paula and Rodney Ford were somehow, in your words, contributorily negligent to the abuse of their son; is that right? MR. TODD: Objection to his words. MR. MacLEISH: He just used those words in his last response, but your objection is noted. Q. You used the words "contributorily negligent" when you were talking about a theory on which parents would be liable? A. A theory, that's correct. Q. I'm asking you whether you have ever spoken to anyone, apart from your counsel, that would support the proposition that Paula Ford or Rodney Ford were somehow negligent with their son when it came to his alleged abuse by Paul Shanley? A. I have not spoken to anyone concerning that. Q. Now, you just talked about individuals who were in a position of supervision could be theoretically negligent for abuse that takes place of a young child. Do you remember your testimony? A. Yes, I do. Q. That would also apply to those within an institution that supervised that priest, such as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston? They could likewise be negligent if they were aware that the priest was inclined to engage in deviant behavior towards children. Would you agree with that? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. TODD: Objection. A. If they were aware that someone was a potential risk, and if that -- and they had not attempted to have that case reviewed by people competent to render a judgment as to whether indeed that risk was present or not, then, yes, they would be responsible. Q. Cardinal Law, since you were ordained and incardinated, you have had occasion, have you not, to be involved in situations involving the abuse of young children -- alleged abuse of young children by Roman Catholic priests; is that correct? A. I have had cases to deal with, unfortunately, yes. Q. You have even had cases where -- such as Father O'Sullivan -- where there has been a conviction for rape of a young child? A. That's correct. Q. And Father O'Sullivan was a Roman Catholic priest; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you just made a statement -- answer several questions ago. What I think you were referring to was there could be contributory negligence or negligence if the person -- the priest who was engaged in the molestation had not been subject -- and I forget your exact words, so I'll give you the opportunity to make it clear -- but some sort of medical review. Was that what you were stating? A. Mr. MacLeish, if you could be specific in your question so I could be clear in my answer. Q. Absolutely. In situations, Cardinal Law, where there are either credible or admitted allegations by a Roman Catholic priest that he has engaged in the sexual molestation of children and there is then a reassignment of that priest to another parish, do you believe that the parishioners of that parish have the right to know that the person who is now their pastor or working in the church has credible allegations or even a conviction against him of child molestation? MR. ROGERS: Objection. I object to the form. "Right" in what sense? Are we talking legal? Q. Do you understand the question? MR. ROGERS: Are we talking legal right? Are we talking moral right? MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted. Q. Do you understand the question, Cardinal Law? A. Mr. MacLeish, I understand your question. Q. Thank you. A. It's a very general question, and if you will bear with me -- Q. Sure. A. -- to give what I think is a general answer. As you know, we currently report every case of abuse, credible case of abuse to public authorities. And we also, as you will note, and has been reported in the newspapers, go to the parishes in order to address the situation to the affected parish. This represents a development in our 1993 policy. And you're aware of that policy, I know. In 1993 we formulated a written policy which was based upon our previous experience and based upon consultation. In that '93 policy we did not go -- the Archdiocese did not report, and that decision was taken because of the conviction that it was more appropriate that the victim or parent of the victim, in appropriate cases, would make that decision; and had we presented ourselves on that policy as going to report to public authority these cases immediately, we felt that we would inhibit some victims from coming forward. The reason for that reflects a -- the way in which these cases were handled. These cases tended to be handled with a desire on the part of the victim for confidentiality. We recognized that. I'm not talking here about legal settlements. That's a separate question. But what I'm talking about is the pastoral handling of these cases. And very, very often, persons came forward with a desire to deal with their situation and to deal with the removal of a priest, but they did not want to be party to something becoming public. That was the culture for handling those cases. I have said, and our policy demonstrates presently, that that culture was wrong, and that it's essential to deal with the parish. In our efforts now, we do that. We have people going to the parish immediately after having received an allegation, immediately after having put someone on administrative leave, even as we consider further the allegation, which is also presumably being studied by public authorities, and I think that's the appropriate way and the right way to go. That's 2002. In 1993, our written policy stands as it is, and we have learned in this area. I presume all of us have a lot more to learn as time goes on, and I'm grateful to God that we're at the point now where we are. I think it's the good place to be. I wish to God it were possible, as I have said on other occasions, to go back in time, but it isn't. I'm not able to go back in time. I think that it is essential that -- if the primary focus is the protection of children, which I think it must be, I think it is essential that parishes where priests have been guilty of sexual abuse, or where there have been credible allegations concerning sexual abuse of minors, I think it's essential that that information be shared with the parish. Q. Cardinal Law, how long has it been the primary focus of the Archdiocese of Boston on the protection of children? How long has that policy been in place? A. I can speak only in terms of my tenure. I would say that that has always been a concern, but, as I've spoken on previous occasions publicly, it does seem to me that, in retrospect, we tended to view cases in isolation and view the component parts of those cases. So one would deal with a victim. One would deal with the priest. What I believe has changed, from my perspective, is that the overriding concern, the moving concern for any credible policy -- any adequate policy, that there must be an overriding concern. I've used -- and that needs to be -- that focus needs to be the protection of children. It isn't as though you don't deal with a priest who abused the child -- that person has to be dealt with -- but that person is dealt with through the prism of the protection of children. And so that limits what is done. And that's one of the reasons why our policy of assignment has changed. The policy of assignment in this Archdiocese is that no priest who -- against whom a credible allegation of sexual abuse of a minor has been made may hold any assignment whatsoever. Now, that's a change. That's an evolution. That's an evolution that, frankly, some experts in the field might not agree with. But I believe it's the appropriate policy and it is our policy. Q. Could you answer my question now? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. TODD: Objection. Q. My question was quite clear. We can have it read back. My question was for how long has it been your policy and the policy of the Archdiocese of Boston that the primary focus is on the protection of children? That was my question. MR. TODD: And that was his answer. MR. ROGERS: And that was the answer. If you want to make a motion to strike, we reserved that. MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Rogers and Mr. Todd, you're not to make -- I don't think you were in court on Friday. Your objections are noted. Q. Could you now, Your Eminence, answer my question on for how long it has been the primary focus in the Archdiocese of Boston on the protection of children? You spoke in your answer -- which I would submit was non-responsive -- about the concern for the protection of children. There is a difference between the primary focus being on the protection of children and a concern, is there not? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. A. Mr. MacLeish, I attempted to answer your question, and I felt that I had answered your question. Q. Okay. A. In 1984, a primary concern in handling these cases was indeed the protection of children. In 2002, the primary concern in handling these cases was the protection of children, but we -- I have benefited from the experience of these intervening years, and I see it now in a very clear way that that primary focus demands certain things that I didn't feel were demanded previously. Q. So if I understand your answer, from the time that you started as Archbishop of Boston, the protection of children has always been a primary focus. Is that your testimony? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. But there have been other focuses, have there not, Cardinal Law? A. There have been and there are. Q. One of those has been to avoid scandal in the Church? A. That's correct. Q. And another primary concern has been to assist priests who have had allegations made against them, credible allegations of sexual misconduct? A. To assist priests, Mr. MacLeish, I'm not sure that I would put it that way. I would say to be responsive in a pastoral way to those priests in the context of what their behavior has been. So, for example, if a priest has had a credible allegation brought against him, we tested that with some medical evaluation, with treatment. By the time the '93 policy was in place, if there was to be a reassignment, that would be -- that was the subject of the review board, based upon medical evaluation and treatment and a report from the delegate. Q. You're aware that in 1988 there was an allegation made against Father Daniel Graham, and Daniel Graham admitted to the allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor. Are you aware of that? A. I am. Q. okay. And that was in 1988; is that correct? A. Well, I can't speak to the date, but I was aware of the fact that there had been an allegation. Q. And did Daniel Graham continue in ministry in Quincy after he'd admitted to molesting a minor? A. He was allowed to continue, yes, after intervention from -- by a medical source. Q. But you're aware that he admitted the allegation, are you not? A. That's correct. Q. And he was allowed to continue in ministry in Quincy, I believe; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And were the parishioners of the church in Quincy informed when Father Graham was their pastor that he admitted to molesting a child? A. Mr. MacLeish, the answer to that is no, based on my prior response, which I have already given you, that our present policy is to inform parishes. It was not the policy in '88, '89, '90, '91, '84, '85, '86, '87. Q. Just so I'm clear on your testimony, your policy during the 1980s was even in cases where the priest had admitted to having engaged in the molestation of a young child, that the parishioners at the church where that priest was serving would not be informed if the priest returned to ministry, correct? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. A. When there was a judgment based -- when there was a judgment by a medical professional indicating that this priest was not -- did not pose a risk, he was returned, and there was no information given to the community served. Q. Now, in the case of Father Graham, do you know when the medical assessment, if any, took place? Was it at the time the allegation was made, Cardinal Law? A. I cannot respond to that. I don't know. I'd have to check the files for that. Q. And it's true, is it not, that you personally made the decision to return Father Graham to ministry after this allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor had been admitted by Father Graham; is that correct? A. These cases, Mr. MacLeish, were handled directly for me either by the moderator of the Curia or by a priest delegate who had specific responsibility to follow such cases. I would make the appointment, but I would make the appointment based upon their recommendation. Q. All right. Now, just so I'm clear, you would -- in the case of Father Graham, you made the decision after you knew that Father Graham had admitted to sexually molesting a minor, you made the decision to return him or keep him in ministry without the parishioners at the parish in Quincy being informed? MR. TODD: Objection. That's been asked and answered. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. MacLEISH: No, it hasn't. A. I believe I answered your question, Mr. MacLeish. If you would rephrase it again so I'll be able to answer it. Q. I'd be happy to. I think your last answer, if I may, stated you were relying on the advice of others as a more general statement. I'd like to focus more specifically on Father Graham. Will you agree to do that? A. Certainly. Q. You made the decision after you became aware that Father Graham had admitted to molesting a minor that he should continue in ministry, is that not the case? A. As I stated to you previously, Mr. MacLeish, in the handling of such cases, including Father Graham's case, I depended upon the assistance of the moderator of the Curia and/or the delegate assigned to handle these specific cases. Any assignment of Father Graham would have been made upon their recommendation, and their recommendations would have been made upon the basis of a study of that case and an informed opinion that he did not pose a risk. Q. Now, Cardinal Law, you were the person -- you are the person within the Archdiocese, and you have been since 1984, to make decisions on assignments or reassignments of priests. You're the ultimate authority; is that correct? A. I am the ultimate authority, that is correct. Q. And sometimes you acted on the recommendations of others when it came to matters involving sexual misconduct by a priest; is that correct? A. Always on those cases I relied on the judgment of others working directly with the case. Q. You relied on the judgment of others, but you also were the person who had the ultimate responsibility. Would you agree with that? A. That is correct. Q. So when you were relying on the recommendations of others, you would speak with those who were making those recommendations; is that correct? A. I would speak or I would receive in writing a recommendation, that's correct. Q. And then you would act based upon the recommendation; is that correct? A. That's correct. MR. MacLEISH: Now, with -- let's just mark some exhibits in the case of Father Graham. (Law Exhibit No. 3, Review Board Memorandum, Case No. 62, 2/5/96, marked for identification.) MR. ROGERS: Mr. MacLeish, while they're marking these, off the record. I wonder if we could agree to take a five-minute break every hour? MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely. Whenever you want to take a break. Q. I'd like to -- I think you have it in front of you -- take your time in looking at it -- a review board memorandum of February 5, 1996, of Case No. 62. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. And was this prepared by your delegate, or was it prepared by some other person? A. I cannot be sure, but my presumption is that it would have been the delegate. This would have been within the purview of his responsibility to prepare such a... Q. Was your delegate Father Flatley at the time or was it Father Higgins? A. In '95 -- Q. This is '96. MR. ROGERS: '96. A. '96. I think it was Flatley. I can't be sure of that. I'd have to rely on the files. Q. I think you're right. A. But I would presume it was Flatley. Q. Okay. You'll see in the delegate's recommendation -- and feel free to read the whole document at your leisure if you want to right now -- but you'll see -- you see at the bottom, the delegate's recommendation that this be determined to be a case reported and handled appropriately before the present policy was in place, and thus one to which the policy does not apply. Father blank does not require further assessment and there should be no limits or restrictions on his ministry. Do you see that? A. I see that. Q. And this was produced by -- last Friday by the Archdiocese in a folder marked Daniel Graham. Do you now recognize this document, Cardinal Law, as the document that you received from the delegate which allowed Father Graham to return to ministry with no limits or restrictions? MR. TODD: Take a moment and read that. A. (Witness reviewing document.) This case is -- while the victim came forward in '88, the behavior took place in the late '60s and early '70s is the indication in here. I don't recall -- I don't have a present memory of seeing this piece of paper, but I'm sure that the substance of this was communicated to me. Whether it was communicated to me by handing me this or whether it was communicated to me orally, I can't say. Q. You mentioned one allegation. You'll see also in the paragraph above the delegate's recommendation, you'll see in September of 1992, there was a vague secondhand complaint about the present pastor of St. blank in blank. This report from a reportedly mentally-limited individual concerned sexual abuse approximately ten years earlier, 1982. Our attempts to contact this individual were not successful. Do you see that? A. Down below, yes. Q. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. There was one allegation that Father Graham had admitted to, but there was reference to a second allegation that couldn't be substantiated either way; is that correct? A. Yes. Well, the characterization in the report is of a vague secondhand complaint. Q. It came from a priest -- A. Which -- Q. I'm sorry. About the present pastor. A. About the present pastor of somewhere, and that this report -- this secondhand report was -- and that their attempts to contact this 10:47:42 individual were not successful. I presume the individual was the individual alleged to have been abused, although that victim did not come forward. It's a secondhand complaint. (Law Exhibit No. 4, Document, marked for identification.) Q. You didn't know at the time you received this document -- and I'm happy to give you Exhibit 4, Cardinal Law, which shows your action on that recommendation. MR. ROGERS: Do you have a copy? MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Do you have Exhibit 4? I think we just gave it to you. Let's pause for a second. Q. Let me withdraw the previous question, Cardinal Law. You, in fact, in Exhibit No. 4, accepted the recommendation of the delegate; is that not correct? A. I accepted the recommendations of the delegate and the review board. Q. And the review board. And did you ever ask -- do you have a recollection of ever asking anyone to explore further the second allegation against Father Daniel Graham that is referred to in the previous exhibit? Do you ever recall doing that? A. In this -- to answer your question specifically, no, I do not recall doing that. I do recall that I had asked, in June of '92, as this document states -- Document 3 -- that I wanted this case of Father Graham's to be looked at again in the light of the review of our files. I had confidence in those who were doing that, and this matter, including the reference of the September '92 secondhand vague allegation, was part of the report that was put before the review board, and so I did, with confidence, accept the recommendation of the delegate and the review board. Q. Okay. And subsequently, in fact, Cardinal Law, Daniel Graham was promoted to a higher position 10:50:12 where he was in charge of supervising -- after you accepted the recommendation of the review board in 1996, he was subsequently promoted; is that not correct? MR. TODD: Objection. A. It is true that on the basis of the recommendations of the review board, his case was considered closed, and, therefore, he would be viewed as any other priest would be viewed, and he was made a vicar. And vicars are made by -- I get a vote from the pastors -- the priests of the area, and based on that vote, I choose the vicar. I don't recall what the vote was on that occasion, but my practice is to take, if not the person with the highest number of votes, the person with the second highest number of votes. Q. And when you're a vicar, you're in charge of other parishes; is that not correct? A. When you're a vicar, you assist the regional bishop in his responsibilities. Q. Does that include supervising other parishes? A. Not supervising parishes, but acting -- no, because the pastor is responsible for the parish. Q. Right. A. But it might be a coordinating function if there's going to be some things done together assisting the regional bishop in parish visitations. Q. Is there some supervisory responsibility when one is promoted to vicar, as Father Graham was? A. There's not a supervisory provision. I would say no. The regional bishop would have a supervisory position. It would be more assistance, support in that -- it would be brother to brother, but it would not be a supervisory responsibility unless delegated by the regional bishop. Q. But you would agree with me that subsequent to the 1996 report, you promoted -- you made the final decision, based upon the votes of the other pastors in the area, to promote an admitted child molester, Father Daniel Graham. Is that not accurate, Cardinal Law? MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can answer. A. I appointed Father Graham as vicar, Mr. MacLeish, after a recommendation from my review board, which included the parent of the victim, which included a retired Superior Court Chief Justice, which included a psychiatrist, that this case could be considered closed; that this man did not provide -- present a risk; and that his case could be considered closed. I did appoint him after that as vicar, yes. Q. And the review board were individuals that you had appointed; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you knew when you appointed, just so we're clear, when you appointed Father Graham to the vicar position, you knew that he had admitted to molesting a child, is that not correct, Cardinal Law? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Now, you also -- MR. MacLEISH: The next exhibit, please. (Law Exhibit No. 5, Review Board Meeting Notes, 6/5/95, marked for identification.) Q. Now, there was another meeting of the review board, Cardinal Law, less than a year earlier than the February 1996 review board, dated June 5, 1995, there was a meeting at the Chancery on the same case. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Was it your practice at the time to receive copies of the meetings of the review board? A. No, not necessarily, unless they would be brought -- unless the delegate brought them to me. Q. And it was the delegate's responsibility to bring recommendations of the review board to you, is that not the case? A. That's correct. Q. And you'll see attached to this document, the first page of Exhibit No. 5, you'll see the delegate's recommendation less than a year earlier -- when I say a year earlier, a year earlier to the February 1996 recommendation -- you'll see in 1995 the delegate recommended that the priest not be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors; that he engage in therapy as recommended; that another ministry be sought where this priest's talents may be used. Do you see that? A. I do. Q. And then you'll see the cover sheet to the review board meeting, it stated that the board recommends that the priest not be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors; that he engage in therapy as recommended; that another ministry be sought where this priest's talents may be used. Do you see that? A. I do. Q. Now, do you know what changed between June of 1995 when the board recommended that Daniel Graham not be involved in a parish ministry that involves minors, and eight months later, less than eight months later, where the board recommended that he be engaged in a ministry without limitation or restriction and with full access to minors? What changed, Cardinal Law? A. I cannot respond to that. I would have to -- I would have to ask the delegate. Q. And the delegate would be Mr. Flatley? A. Father Flatley. Q. But as you sit here today, you can't identify any facts as to why this review board, that I understand you appointed, changed its opinion about Father Graham within a period of seven or eight months? A. No. Unless it was a matter of therapy and a professional recommendation, but I would -- as I say, I would have to seek the memory in the files of Father Flatley to answer that question. Q. Well, we have in fact sought them, but we'll get on to that a little bit later. MR. TODD: I object to the remarks. MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. MR. TODD: Just ask questions. MR. MacLEISH: I appreciate it, Mr. Todd. Q. Cardinal Law, that's purely speculation on your part that Daniel Graham might have received some sort of treatment between the first review board recommendation in June of 1995 that he not be involved in a parish ministry or ministry that involves minors and the recommendation that you adopted some seven months later that he be permitted to be involved in a parish that would involve having access to minors? MR. TODD: I object. I object to the form. A. It's a conjecture based on what the recommendation of the review board is. That's all. You've asked me how could that have happened. The review -- it says that he engaged in therapy as recommended. Q. Right. And you don't know whether he did -- A. I cannot -- Q. You have to wait until I finish. A. I cannot -- Q. You have to wait. You don't know whether he did within that time period, do you? A. I do not. Q. And did the thought ever consider to you -- ever come to you, Cardinal Law, in the case of Daniel Graham, that the parishioners at the parish where Daniel Graham was pastor, and at the parishes where he later had some responsibility as vicar, that would be important for the parents to know that the man who was their pastor had admitted to molesting a child? Did that thought occur to you at any time, Cardinal Law? MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative. A. Mr. MacLeish, I thought I answered that question previously, but I presume that this is -- you indicated to counsel a moment ago that this was not the trial, that this was a deposition. Q. It is, in fact. A. Sometimes I feel you're conducting it as though it were a trial. Q. No. We're talking about Daniel Graham specifically, not in general. A. Yes. Fine. MR. TODD: Now you're talking over him, Mr. MacLeish. MR. MacLEISH: I understand. MR. TODD: Good. So let him finish his answer. MR. MacLEISH: If the answers could be responsive. But go ahead, Cardinal. MR. TODD: Please finish your answer. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead, Cardinal Law. Finish your answer. MR. TODD: Please don't interrupt him when he's answering. MR. MacLEISH: Well, go ahead. Your Eminence, go ahead. Feel free to answer the question. A. I believe that I've answered that question previously, but I will be happy to answer it again. I did not, as a matter of policy, in 1984, '85, '86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, 2000, 2001 go to parishes on the occasion of dealing with a priest against whom an allegation of sexual abuse of a child had been made. I see now that that should have been done, but we did not do that. So it was not done in '88. I did not go to the parish. Did I think that I should have informed the parish and then not done it? No. I simply didn't have that as part of our response to these cases. We were dealing with a case admitted from the '60s or early '70s. It had, I thought, on the basis of the review board recommendation that I acted upon, I thought that that had been dealt with adequately; that he could be -- he could be placed in continued assignment without being a risk. And that was the critical question. Was it adequate in retrospect? No, it was not adequate in retrospect. But, unfortunately, you can't go back and you can't inject into the past knowledge and insight that you have in the present. Q. You would agree with me, Cardinal Law, that part of the mission of the Church is to serve the Catholic laity; is that correct? A. The Catholic laity and to serve others as well. Q. And the laity includes children, does it not? A. Yes, Mr. MacLeish. Q. And my question to you is, it's not what your policy was, Cardinal Law, but whether in this case of an admitted child molester, you ever considered in your own mind that it would be important for the laity in the parish where Father Graham was serving to know that he had admitted to molesting a child? MR. ROGERS: That question has been asked and answered. MR. TODD: That question has been asked and answered more than one time. MR. MacLEISH: No, it hasn't. Your objection is noted. MR. ROGERS: Yes, it has. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead, Cardinal. You can answer. MR. TODD: It's more than just objection. A. Mr. MacLeish -- MR. TODD: In repeating these questions, you're engaging in harassing and abusive interrogation. This is now the third time you've asked the same question. Cardinal, if you believe you have answered it fully, just indicate that and we'll move on. MR. MacLEISH: Let me withdraw the question, Cardinal, and put it a little more clearly if I could, as a result of Mr. Todd's request. Q. You've talked about what your policy was. I understand what your policy was, was not to go to the parishes. I understand that. And I understand your policy is different now. We're going to get to that later on. But my question is in your own mind, did you at any point consider that it might be 11:02:09 important in cases such as Father Graham's, where he had admitted to molesting a child, that the parishioners at the church where he was serving, at the parish where he was serving, should be the ones to make the decision as to whether or not they wished to have as their pastor someone who had admitted to molesting a child? That's a different question from the ones that I've asked you. I'm asking whether you ever had that in your mind. Do you understand the distinction? A. That is a different question, Mr. MacLeish, and I did not consider that. Q. But there were people within the Archdiocese of Boston that recommended that when these allegations started to surface, that there be some notification to the parishes; that a priest who had been removed or a prior priest who had served a parish, that the parishioners be notified. There were recommendations on that, Cardinal Law, were there not? MR. ROGERS: Objection. To the Cardinal? Is that the question? MR. MacLEISH: Within the Archdiocese of Boston. Mr. Rogers, if he doesn't understand the question, he can say -- THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish, allow me -- MR. MacLEISH: Excuse me. This is exactly the type of conduct that Judge Brassard -- I'm sorry you weren't at the hearing. I'm sorry Mr. Todd wasn't either. Your objection is noted, but if the Cardinal doesn't understand my question, he's free to indicate that and I will rephrase the question so he understands it. But suggesting the question is one he can't understand is not consistent with the rules. Again, I'd urge you to look at the rules and particularly the reporter's notes on conduct during depositions. MR. TODD: Let us respond to your -- MR. ROGERS: I appreciate -- first of all, since you're directing it to me, I appreciate the observation, but if I am going to take advice in how to conduct the depositions, you wouldn't be on the list of those I'd come to. MR. MacLEISH: That's an unnecessary ad hominem, Mr. Rogers. MR. ROGERS: In response to your unnecessary ad hominem. MR. MacLEISH: Well, it's really not -- mine was not -- be that as it may. If that's the way you wish to conduct yourself, finish, and we'll let Mr. Todd say something. MR. ROGERS: I'm finished. MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, is there anything else you'd like to say? MR. TODD: No. We'll just leave it and go on. MR. MacLEISH: Fine. That's fine. MR TODD: But these sermons and preaching to us is unnecessary. MR. MacLEISH: I agree. MR. TODD: To quote a better lawyer than perhaps -- more famous lawyer than either of us, we're not sitting here as potted plants. When we believe that your questions are repetitive, harassing and abusing the process, it is our duty to intercede and to protect our client from that. And we will be exercising that duty. MR. MacLEISH: I urge you to do that. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. MacLEISH: As it is, of course, my right to return to court -- MR. TODD: Of course. MR. MacLEISH: -- over these speaking objections. And this is a very serious case, Mr. Todd, very serious allegations. I'm trying to get answers from your client. Your client is not responding in all cases to my questions, and I hope that he will, but I'm perfectly content to move on or we can have further colloquy on this. MR. TODD: No. I'm going to respond. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Fine. MR. TODD: Every time you make a speech, I will be responding. MR. MacLEISH: And then I -- okay. Go ahead, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: We understand this is an important case. It is important for every one of the plaintiffs. It is important for every one of the defendants. It's important for every member of the Archdiocese. MR. MacLEISH: Sure. MR. TODD: And for everybody whose children -- has a concern about child abuse. It's important for everybody, Mr. MacLeish. We understand that every bit as well as you do. Now, the Cardinal has answered the questions fulsomely, thoroughly, and yet you repeat and ask the same question. MR. MacLEISH: Well -- MR. TODD: Now, don't interrupt me, Mr. MacLeish. MR. MacLEISH: You tell me when you're finished, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: You'll know when I'm finished, Mr. MacLeish. I'll let you know specifically. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. Continue with your speech. MR. TODD: My response to your speech. MR. MacLEISH: Presentation and your editorializing of the question. Please continue. MR. TODD: So he has been answering the question, and you're out of place to suggest on the record that he has not been. Now, if you're satisfied, we'll go on. MR. MacLEISH: Are you done? MR. TODD: Next question. MR. MacLEISH: Are you finished? There was a question pending before Mr. Rogers interceded. 11:06:09 Q. Do you remember the question, Cardinal Law? A. I think I do, but I'd appreciate your refreshing my memory. Q. I'd be happy to do that. Believe me, it is not my intent here to in any way embarrass or annoy you in any way and I will try -- A. You certainly are not embarrassing me, Mr. MacLeish, but I must tell you that I'm attempting to answer your questions -- Q. I appreciate that. A. -- as fully as I can. Q. I appreciate that. Let's continue then, okay. Shall we? A. Fine. Q. Now, isn't it the case that you are aware that there were recommendations within the Archdiocese of Boston from various individuals that as far back as 1993 there should be outreach to the parishes in cases where a priest had been removed for reasons involving sexual misconduct against a minor? Are you aware of any of those recommendations, Cardinal Law? A. As I sit here, I cannot recall recommendations with regard to that, but our 1993 policy -- and I apologize for raising policy, but I think it is important because it's the basis for my decisions. The 1993 policy stands as a public document of what we thought we should do. As I recall, even you had some positive things to say about what we were doing in 1993, and I appreciated that very, very much. Q. There were a lot of things that were said in 1993, you're correct. Cardinal Law, you have issued public statements in which you stated that you became aware of the allegations against Paul Shanley in or about 1993. Do you recall making public statements to that effect recently? A. That's correct. Q. That was the first time you had any knowledge about deviant behavior by Paul Shanley -- A. That's correct. Q. -- towards children? You have to wait until I finish the question. A. I apologize. Q. No problem. You're also aware, are you not, that the parishioners of St. Jean's were not given the information that you had in 1993 about Paul Shanley; is that correct? A. I am. Q. Now, there were recommendations -- I'd just like to -- because I'm not sure that I got the full response, and forgive me if I'm asking you a question again -- but do you know whether there were recommendations around the time of the policy that the policy be changed so that individuals such as Paula Ford, Rodney Ford, Mr. Busa, Mr. Magni, Mr. Driscoll, that they be informed about the information which you had -- A. Yes. Q. -- about particular priests? Do you remember any recommendations to change the policy? A. To your specific question, the answer is no, I do not remember. But as you probably know, that policy, in its elaboration, had the benefit of a lot of consultation; and not only that, but the policy itself was reviewed by the review board, and there was no recommendation brought forward by that review board that it be changed in that regard. MR. ROGERS: Can I suggest, we're an hour in. Can we take a five-minute break? MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely. Five-minute break. No problem. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:09. We are off the record. (Recess taken.) (Law Exhibit No. 6, Memorandum, marked for identification.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:21. We're on the record. Q. Cardinal Law, do you know a Sister Catherine Mulkerrin? A. Yes. 11:22:34 Q. Do you know where Sister Catherine lives at the present time? A. At the present time, I'm not certain where she is living. Q. She does not work for the Archdiocese of Boston anymore, does she? A. As far as I know, she does not. Q. And you know of Father John McCormack; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. He's now Bishop of New Hampshire? A. Yes. Q. He worked for you for some period of time as your delegate on sexual misconduct of clergy; is that correct? A. He did, and previously to that he was secretary -- I believe he was secretary of ministerial personnel and delegate, yes. Q. And he arrived in 1984, approximately; is that correct? A. Approximately, yes. Q. And he left his position as delegate and secretary of ministerial personnel in approximately 1994; is that correct? A. I believe that's correct. Q. And Bishop McCormack was one of the individuals that you relied upon in dealing with issues of clerical sexual misconduct; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. In fact, Bishop McCormack was one of those individuals who was working on the policy that you adopted in 1993; is that not also correct? A. That is correct. Q. In fact, was he the principal author of the policy? A. He was principally responsible, so I think you could say he was the principal author. Q. And you were aware in 1993 that Sister Mulkerrin worked for Bishop McCormack in his capacity as delegate; is that correct? A. Yes, I was aware of her service. Q. Did you ever speak directly with Sister Mulkerrin concerning issues involving sexual misconduct or the needs of victims of sexual abuse at any time? A. I don't have a present recollection of speaking with her directly, because the ordinary channel for that to take place would have been for her to be in contact with Father -- later -- with Father McCormack at the time, but it's conceivable that we had some conversation, but it wouldn't have been in the ordinary course of events that I would have been dealing directly with Sister Catherine. Q. But you would agree with me in 1993 and 1994, Sister Mulkerrin was on the front lines for the Archdiocese in dealing with victims of sexual abuse? Would you agree with me? A. She had a very important role. Q. Well, in terms of dealing with victims, was there anyone that had more of a role than Sister Mulkerrin? A. She would have been on the front line assisting Father McCormack, yes. Q. If you could just -- was there anyone who had more of a role in dealing with victims of abuse apart from Sister Mulkerrin? A. I don't -- I would presume not. Q. Okay. All right. I've got marked for you, Cardinal Law, Exhibit No. 6, which is notes on allegations pertaining to Father Matte. If I could direct your attention to page 2 of the document -- and you're free to look at any part of it that you wish to or read it in its entirety. I'd like to address your attention to one section. It says CEM -- which Bishop McCormack testified was Catherine Mulkerrin -- This may be by the books, but it feels like a second victimization. The burden is put on a minor all over again and now on his family. Quotation mark. Broken record by CEM. It has come to our attention that a priest stationed here between 19 blank and 19 blank may have molested children. Please contact dot, dot, dot, and then, in parentheses, parish bulletin. Do you see that, Cardinal Law? A. Yes. Q. Was it not the case -- A. May I look at this? Q. Sure. You may read the whole document. Absolutely. Take your time. A. Yes. Q. Cardinal, have you seen that document before today? A. I have not. Q. Do you recall at any point in time that Sister Catherine Mulkerrin was advocating that a notation of the type described in Exhibit 6 be put in church bulletins where priests who had been accused or admitted to sexual misconduct 11:29:08 involving minors had served? Do you recall anything like that? A. Would you repeat that question again? Q. Sure. You see the last paragraph of Exhibit 6? A. I do. Q. Do you understand what Sister Catherine is saying in that last paragraph? A. Well, I didn't until you pointed it out to me. Q. Right. A. I was a little bit curious. I presume what she is suggesting is that this be an insert in a parish bulletin. Q. This document, Exhibit 6, is a report of abuse by Father Matte; is that correct? A. Yes. And the predicate for Sister Catherine suggesting that is, I think, in the preceding paragraph, which faults the policies of DSS, DA for victimizing the young person again for having to come forward. And so she is suggesting that if this is put in the bulletin, perhaps other people would come forward and that person victimized would not be going through a second traumA. Q. And that other victims would come forward and get the help that they need. Is that not what she is suggesting? A. I would say that she is suggesting that, yes. Q. And she uses the word "broken record" -- A. That's correct. Q. -- to describe what she is saying to Bishop McCormack in this memo involving abuse by Father Matte? A. That is what I read here, yes. Q. That would suggest to you that they had had more than one conversation on the subject of putting a notation in parish bulletins that particular priests that had been stationed in those parishes had -- may have molested children. Do you agree with that? A. I think you can make that presumption from what's here. Q. So my question is, in light of seeing this document, do you recall yourself personally any individual within the Archdiocese of Boston in 1993, in 1994, who was suggesting that there be publication in church bulletins that a priest against whom there were credible allegations of sexual molestation, that there be some notation for the parishioners? A. I do not recall such a suggestion coming to me. Now, whether -- obviously if this suggestion was made, then there is someone in the Archdiocese making this suggestion, but I did -- I have no recollection of such a suggestion coming to me. Q. You testified earlier that one of the reasons that you wished to keep these matters confidential was so that other victims would come forward. Do you recall your testimony on that? A. I do. Q. Would it not be the case, based upon your understanding in 1993, that the publication or notification of some type of sentence in a church bulletin might also encourage other victims of sexual abuse who needed help to come forward? A. Yes. And that is why we do that now. I do believe, however, that -- to put in complete context what I said or what I meant to say earlier, the reasoning underlying the '93 policy had to do with keeping private the names of victims and not having those names come forward, and I think that remains a risk. But the answer to your question is yes. Q. Would there be any downside in terms of encouraging victims to come forward to put the type of notation in church bulletins that Sister Catherine is advocating in Exhibit No. 6? A. I think that's -- I think that's a good formulation. Q. It might help, for example, individuals who had small children who were not speaking about their victimization to approach their parents; is that correct? A. One would hope so. Q. It might allow individuals to get assistance, mental health assistance for their children who may have been molested if this type of notification had appeared in church bulletins? A. The reason why we -- not with this particular wording, but the reason why we are going to parishes where there is a credible allegation of sexual abuse by a priest at this point, and our current policy, is precisely to effect what you're suggesting. We did not do this earlier. Q. Right. And the purpose why you're doing it now is so -- as I just said -- is so individuals can get help at the earliest possible time. Is that a fair statement? A. The reason why we now make these presentations in parishes is to find out and respond to any victim -- any other victims who may be present in the parish. Q. How many parishes has the Archdiocese been to now to explain in the manner suggested by Sister Mulkerrin or a similar manner that a priest stationed there may have been involved in the molestation of children? How many parishes has the Archdiocese been to? A. Every parish that we have responded -- every parish from where we have taken someone out, and that includes new allegations that have come forward in recent months, and that also includes the taking out of persons who were in assignment, either pastoral assignment or -- well, if it was a parish assignment, and that would be Father Daniel Graham, about whom we spoke earlier. Others were in institutional or specialized assignments. They weren't in parishes. MR. MacLEISH: Mark this, please. (Law Exhibit No. 7, Excerpt of Deposition of Charles Higgins, marked for identification.) Q. Cardinal Law, I'm showing you Deposition Exhibit 7, which is a transcript from the deposition of Charles Higgins, Father Higgins, who is your delegate on sexual misconduct. I'd like to read you a section of the deposition and ask you a question about it. I'm starting, Counsel, on page 94 at line 14. "Do you have an opinion" -- there is the question: "Do you have an opinion whether that would be appropriate now, given it's the Archdiocese policy and all the knowledge you have about letting people know about these issues? Do you think it's important that it happen now? "ANSWER: My opinion would be that it would be to the best advantage to the victims to be able to reach them as best as we can in any event now, no matter who they happen to be and no matter where it happens. "QUESTION: Could you answer my question now? I'm talking specifically about going back and meeting at the various parishes where Father Shanley served, going back to Stoneham, St. Francis, Exodus Center, if it still exists, St. Jean's. "Would it be consistent with the current Archdiocese policy for someone from the Archdiocese to go back to those parishes to explain all of the information about Paul Shanley? "ANSWER: That would be appropriate. "QUESTION: And it would be in the best interest of the victims; correct? "ANSWER: That is correct. "QUESTION: But it hasn't happened? "ANSWER: That is also correct. "QUESTION: Has it happened with any parishes that you're aware of with respect to any priest? "ANSWER: Yes. "QUESTION: Which one? "ANSWER: Abington. "QUESTION: That would be Father Graham? "ANSWER: No, it would not. "QUESTION: Which priest?" Mr. O'Connor states: "Father, don't answer that. "MR. MacLEISH: That's inappropriate. We'll reserve on that. "QUESTION: What other parishes? "ANSWER: Quincy. "QUESTION: Quincy? "ANSWER: Kingston. That's all I can remember right now. "QUESTION: That's four? "ANSWER: That was three. "QUESTION: And you have 85 priests, 70 of whom are alive, who have allegations of sexual misconduct against them, as I understand it. Is that correct? "ANSWER: Correct. "QUESTION: Serving in at least three parishes on average, would you say? That would be a conservative number? "ANSWER: That would be conservative. "QUESTION: So you have as many as -- how many parishes are there in the Archdiocese of Boston? "ANSWER: 368. "QUESTION: It would be conservative to say that you probably have more than 200 parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston where some of these individuals with substantiated allegations of child molestation against them have served, more than 200? "ANSWER: That could be possible." Do you see that testimony of your delegate, Cardinal Law? A. I do, yes. Q. And your delegate in this identifies three parishes where there has been someone from the Archdiocese who has gone back to speak about priests who served in those parishes where there were allegations of child molestation. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Would you agree with me that your delegate, Father Higgins, would be in a better position than you to describe the number of parishes that you have gone back to to communicate that there may have been an individual priest in that parish who had molested children? MR. TODD: Objection. A. Yes. He would be the one I would rely upon to monitor this and be on top of it. Q. Well, you said in your testimony previously that you've been back to every parish and here Father Higgins can identify three. A. I said every parish against whom a credible allegation has been made in recent months, and those who were in position -- who were in place at the beginning of 2002 whom we then removed, and that, as I think I indicated, the only parish involved there was Father Graham. All the others were in non-parish assignments. But I could stand to be corrected on that by perhaps, one, by looking at the records. So since January of 2002, when we instituted our new policy, when we came forward with the names of everyone that we knew of at that point, and as you may recall -- you'd have no reason to recall -- but I made a statement that everyone had been removed from active duty against whom a credible allegation had been made, and then I think six other names came forward to me. And then we removed those six names and I went public with those six names. Every one of those six that we removed who was in a parish -- and I believe that Father Graham was the only one in a parish -- and anyone in a parish subsequent to that date, we have gone to the parishes. This past weekend, if I'm not mistaken, we were present in a parish where we removed someone and put them on administrative leave. Now, the question of whether we should go back now to -- as you point out -- to every one of these priests as well as every assignment in which they have been, I think that that's something that we really have to look at and do, but I can tell you that we're going to have to do this in a very well-defined plan. Part of our policy is, as we're developing it, and as is coming through from my commission, is to have present in each parish either a cadre or at least an individual who receives some training as a, if you will, an ombudsman person with regard to sexual abuse. So that we want to be able to extend our outreach into the parishes in a more effective way. We want to do that. We're committed to do that. It's essential that we have adequate personnel to do that. And to answer your question about do I think it would be wise, well, responsible to have this kind of outreach, my answer to that is yes, but it's going to take us a while to be able to do this in terms of the numbers involved. Q. All right. So you have not done it to date 11:42:29 except with respect to those individuals who were removed at some point after 2002? A. That's correct. Q. Is that your testimony? A. Moving forward, we are doing these as they come up retrospectively. Q. Go ahead. A. We have not yet been able to deal with that problem. Q. But you acknowledge that in 1993 Sister Mulkerrin was suggesting some outreach and notification. Do you see that? A. I see what she said here, and she is suggesting that, yes. (Law Exhibit No. 8, The Five Principles to Follow in Dealing with Acusations of Sexual Abuse, marked for identification.) Q. Cardinal Law, I'd like to show you Exhibit 8, if I could, and ask if you recognize this document as the five principles to follow when dealing with accusations of sexual abuse adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 1992? A. Yes. Q. You've been a member of the -- I think it was previously known as National Conference of Catholic Bishops. You've been a member of that since you came to Boston in 1984; is that correct? A. I have been. Q. You were -- actually worked at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops at some point, I believe, in the 1970s or '60s? A. As a priest, yes. Q. As a priest. Did you attend the conference in June of '92? A. You know, I cannot say whether I did or not. I presume I did. I've attended most of them, but I have been absent from some. Q. Would it be fair to state that after these five principles that were put out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, after it came out, the Archdiocese did not follow all of these principles? A. It would be fair to say that these are not reflected in our '93 policy, all of them. Q. And one of them is No. 5, "Within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the community." Do you see that? A. I see that, yes. Q. And the members of the community would include the Catholic laity, would they not? A. Certainly. Q. And you've already testified that you did not, between the time you formulated your policy -- let's actually go back. Since 1984 up until 2002, there was no notification to the parishes where these individuals served who had been accused of child molestation, no notification to the parishioners; is that correct? A. Certainly not by policy. Q. Right. And -- well, are you aware of any other way that people were notified? A. I am not, but I don't -- you know, I could stand to be corrected if some notification had been given, but not to my knowledge and not by policy. Q. But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops recommended in 1992 that there be some notification to the community, did it not? A. It did. It recommended that within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with members of the community. Q. All right. And there were dioceses in 1992 that incorporated policies of going back to the parishes where child molesters with credible allegations against them had served and letting the parishioners know that they had been removed because of allegations of misconduct. 11:46:04 You knew that happened in some dioceses, did you not? A. I can't say that I knew what the policies of other dioceses were relative to this issue at that time. Q. Were you generally aware that as a result of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the five principles that are set forth in this exhibit, some dioceses went back to the parishes where individuals, priests accused of sexual molestation had served, and told the parishioners why the priest had been removed? A. Mr. MacLeish, I do not have that knowledge now and I did not, to my recollection, have that knowledge then. Q. Okay. Did you understand or come to understand the reasons in this document why there was a recommendation that the diocese deal as openly as possible with members of the community within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals involved? Did you understand why that was important in 1992? MR. ROGERS: Objection. MR. TODD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. Q. Go ahead. A. It's difficult for me, Mr. MacLeish, to say what I understood or didn't understand about this in 1992. In 1992 I had determined that we needed to elaborate a written policy, and we were in the process of doing that. Q. But my question, Cardinal Law, I guess to put it simply, what would have been the downside of going to the parishes where individuals that you knew had been involved in the molestation of children, what would have been the downside to going back in 1992 to let parishioners, without disclosing the name of the victim, but just to let the fathers and the mothers know that within their midst had been someone against whom there had been credible allegations of child molestation? What would have been the downside of that? MR. ROGERS: Objection. A. As I sit here before you now, Mr. MacLeish, not only do I think that there is not a downside, but I think that there is only good to be derived by the communication of such knowledge, and that's why we're doing it. Q. But you didn't do it? A. But we did not do it in 1992. Q. And you did know that Paul Shanley had served in a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts, for a number of years before he left to go to California; you knew that in 1992, correct? A. In 1992, I did not know of a case of sexual abuse of a minor on the part of Paul Shanley. As I've responded to you to your earlier question, I learned of that in 1993 and we acted upon it then. Q. But you didn't act upon it in terms of going to St. Jean's and telling the parishioners what had happened, correct? A. That is correct. Q. And looking back on it now, do you understand that that was a mistake? MR. ROGERS: Objection. MR. TODD: Objection to the form. A. Looking back on it now, I think that it was a mistake in our approach, yes. Q. And you understand that because you didn't go back to St. Jean's, there were a number of children who now allege that they didn't tell their parents; that they felt that they were the only ones who had been molested by Father Shanley? Do you understand that? MR. ROGERS: Objection. A. I understand that we did not go back to St. Jean's Parish, and I also trust that you understand that I did not know of an allegation against Paul Shanley until 1993. Q. Would there -- go ahead. I didn't want to interrupt. In 1993 when you were aware of it, you still didn't go back or instruct anyone to go back to the parish where Paul Shanley had served for ten years to let the parishioners know, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, in 1992, Cardinal Law, you also became aware not only of allegations involving priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, but also you became aware of the allegations involving former priest James Porter; is that correct? A. Somewhere around then, whenever that broke, yes. Q. And you remember there was a fair amount of publicity about that case; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you spoke about that case, did you not, Cardinal Law, at the time? A. I probably did, because I was asked questions about it. It was very much before the press. Q. And you were critical of the press providing so much coverage over the story. Is that not a fair statement, Cardinal Law? A. I was critical about the exclusive way in which there was focus on this story, yes. Q. And you asked at one point for the power of God to come down on the media, and you singled out the Boston Globe for its coverage in the Porter case; is that not correct? A. I have a vague recollection of being charged to have said that, and I see that you have the text there, and I'd like to refresh my memory. Q. Certainly. MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this as an exhibit. (Law Exhibit No. 9, Document, marked for identification.) A. I didn't realize that you were involved in the Porter case, Mr. MacLeish. Q. Oh, well. A. I forgot that. Q. You forgot it. Okay. Yes, I represented 101 people in that case. A. Yes, I do recall. MR. TODD: Why don't you wait for a question. Q. Do you recall, as you -- MR. TODD: Are you finished reading it? MR. MacLEISH: Take your time, Cardinal. Q. Do you recall -- and I'm looking at the first column, Cardinal Law -- deploring relentless, and that's in quotation marks, news coverage of the abuse case involving a man who has since left the priesthood? He, that means you, asserted, quote, The good and dedicated people who serve the church 11:53:42 deserve better than what they have been getting day in and day out in the media, end of quote. Do you remember saying that? A. Well, I don't remember those exact words. I remember my frustration at the level and tilt of news coverage in thoses case, and I think what is here in the penultimate paragraph in that first column would represent the basis of my frustration, where it says -- where I am quoted as saying that the news media, quote, has covered the story irresponsibly to paint all the clergy in a negative way. And that was my concern. Q. That it wasn't balanced? A. That it wasn't balanced. Q. And do you remember also -- this is in the third column -- do you remember also, Cardinal Law, asking for -- to call down God's powers on our business leaders and political leaders and community leaders by all means. We call down God's power on the media, particularly the Globe. Do you remember saying those words, words like that? A. I don't remember saying words like that, but, you know, calling down God's power is not calling down God's wrath. Q. I'm not suggesting it is. A. Yes. And I don't think that would be a bad thing to do, even today, to call down God's power on the news media, including even the Globe, yes. I think that would be good. Q. And suffice to say that you, in learning and believing that the coverage was not balanced about the Porter case, you actually saw many of the articles and broadcast media coverage of the Porter case; is that correct? A. I was aware of it, yes. Q. And you were also aware, in 1992, in the Porter case, Cardinal Law, that there were individuals who were stating that up until the time that the case became public, they believed that they were the only ones who had been victimized by Father Porter. Do you remember hearing that, Cardinal Law? A. I have no active recollection of that. Q. Would it be fair to state, though, that by 1993 you had become more familiar with the topic of sexual abuse and how it affected victims? Is that fair? A. It certainly is fair, and it's in the light of these events that we moved to develop a written policy and a publicly-promulgated policy, and why we made that policy available to everyone so precisely -- precisely so we would encourage victims to come forward. Q. Well, you've already described -- I think I heard your testimony several minutes ago ascribing one inadequacy in the policy about not doing something along the lines of what Sister Catherine had suggested. That was an inadequacy in the policy; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. A. It was an inadequacy in the policy. It wasn't in the policy. I think that it -- certainly it is our policy now, and I think it's appropriate and good to do that. Q. All right. Now, did you not know by 1993, on the general topic of sexual abuse, Cardinal Law, that individuals who had been victims of sexual abuse sometimes believed that they were the only ones, and as a result, did not speak out? Was that a topic of which you were aware in 1993? A. Well, it's certainly something that I'm aware of now. Q. I'm asking about 1993. A. And at what point I became aware of that, I can't say. Q. Okay. Cardinal Law, you went to Harvard University; is that correct? A. I did. Q. You graduated in what year? A. '53. 1953. Q. And Cardinal Law, you also then went on to work in the civil rights movement; is that correct? A. Well, I went on to seminary after that. Q. You went on to seminary? A. For eight years. And then I was assigned as a priest to Vicksburg, Mississippi, and then assigned as an editor of the newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi. Q. Throughout that time period, Cardinal Law, was it your belief that as a Catholic priest, that you had an obligation to take action that would protect the safety of children? Did you believe that when you were acting as a priest? 11:58:47 A. Yes. Q. Did you believe or know that the sexual molestation of minors when you were serving in Mississippi was a crime? A. You know, I have to say that in my early priesthood, the sexual molestation of minors wasn't even on my radar screen. It wasn't the issue that it is today. Even the incidence of it was not something in those days that I knew. Q. I'm sorry. The question was in -- when you were serving in Mississippi, did you know that individuals who molested children, when they did that, committed crimes? A. Well, I thought I'd answered that question. The specific response to that is I wasn't -- as I said, it wasn't on my radar screen. I wasn't dealing with the case of -- sexual molestation wasn't something that was before me. It wasn't before us. It wasn't part of my responsibility. It didn't come up. Q. So it's your testimony then that you just -- you didn't think about it, and then you didn't know whether sexual molestation could be considered a crime? A. In 19 -- Q. The time you were in Vicksburg. A. Yeah. I honestly -- I have to say that I didn't think of it as I was an assistant there. Q. Did you know that at some level when you were you in Vicksburg, Mississippi, that there were instances where individuals were molesting children, sexually abusing them? Was that even a topic that you were familiar with? A. You mean any -- Q. At any time? Anywhere? MR. TODD: Not priests, just any people? MR. MacLEISH: Anybody. That's exactly right. A. I'm trying to think back, you know. Q. Take your time. A. You know, I'm sure that I was aware of this, but I have no specific recollection. Q. So you can't state with certainty, as you sit here today, that you knew when you were in Vicksburg that the sexual molestation of a child was a crime? You can't state that with certainty? A. Well, certainly, you know, if someone were to ask me is the sexual molestation of a minor a crime, my presumption is yes, of course, it's a crime. I couldn't cite you -- I couldn't have cited you the law -- Q. Right. A. -- or anything like that. But it's certainly not something that's tolerated by society. I would have been aware of that. Q. But again, I don't mean to press you on this, but I don't think you've answered the specific question of whether you can state that the molestation of children in the 1960s was something that you considered and knew to be a crime? MR. TODD: Objection. I think he's clearly answered it. A. I would have considered it to be a grave evil. I would have considered it to be a sin. I would have considered it to be contrary to the common good. I could not -- I can't say that I had active knowledge of the criminal code and could have addressed it in those terms. Q. I'm not asking you a specific section of the code. That would not be an appropriate question. In any general way, were you aware of it? A. In a general way, I would have presumed, yes, that it would have been a crime. Q. Now you, at some point, were reassigned from Natchez, Mississippi. I think that was in 1968; is that correct? A. From the diocese, right. Q. Then you returned back to Mississippi as vicar general in approximately 1971; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you served as vicar general in Jackson, Mississippi, for how long, Cardinal Law? A. Until '73. Q. What month in '73, do you know? A. Probably, I finished in November of '73. Q. Okay. As vicar general, did you have responsibilities overseeing other priests? A. I did. Q. Approximately how many priests? A. A -- Q. I'm sorry. A. A vicar general does pretty much what the bishop wants him to do in his name, and I would have assisted the bishop in personnel matters. Q. You would have been the bishop's eyes and ears over a priest serving in that diocese? A. I would have been his first assistant. I would have been his Bishop Banks, Archbishop Hughes, as they were for me here. Q. Sure. Did you know the Morrison family when you were in Mississippi, Cardinal Law? A. I did. Q. You knew Dr. Morrison; is that correct? A. I knew Dr. Morrison. Q. And you knew Mrs. Morrison; is that correct? A. I knew her. Q. You knew them socially as well as -- A. I knew them as members of the Church. Dr. Morrison, I think, was on the faculty at the University of the Mississippi Medical School. Q. Did you ever socialize with the Morrisons at all? A. I did not. Q. You knew their children? A. I did not. I knew that they had a number of children, but I was not -- I was not that close to the family, but I knew them. Q. You never knew a Kenneth Morrison, who is one of the Morrison children? A. I may have known him, but I could not distinguish between the children. Q. Did you write a recommendation for him to be admitted into college? A. I could have. Q. Did you know Father -- A. I -- Q. Go ahead. I'm sorry. A. I was just going to say that I'm asked a number of times, and have been, to do college appli -- to write evaluations. And my policy, at least as it's evolved, is to ask for a curriculum vitae and record of the student's achievements so that I can look at that and have some attestation that this is somebody that ought to go there. But the fact that I wrote an application doesn't necessarily mean that I know the person very well. Q. When you were serving as vicar general in Jackson, Mississippi, was it your goal to protect children? A. It was my goal to serve the bishop in every way I can, and, certainly, the mission of the Church includes protecting children as well as adults and old people and -- Q. Right. A. -- all people, yes. Q. Was one of your responsibilities to ensure that children were free from any type of harm perpetrated upon them by priests or other employees of the Jackson diocese? A. I would have served the bishop in those areas, yes. Q. Did you know St. Peter's Parish in Jackson, Mississippi? A. I did. It's a cathedral parish. Q. Did you know a Father George Broussard? A. I did. Q. Did you become aware, as a result of contact with the Morrison family, that Father Broussard was taking children to the Morrison lake house and sexually molesting them? A. I was not aware of that from knowledge that came to me from the Morrisons. Q. Were you aware of it through some other knowledge, Cardinal Law, that George Broussard was sexually molesting children in Mississippi? A. I certainly am aware of the fact that he left active ministry, and I am aware of the fact that -- as I recall -- I'm aware of the fact that there was inappropriate activity on his -- by Father Broussard, then Father Broussard, with regard to these -- some of the Morrison children. Q. When you say "inappropriate activity," inappropriate activity of a sexual nature? A. I don't know what the extent of it was, so I can't -- but certainly boundary violations, at least. Q. What do you mean by "boundary" -- I'm sorry. A. Boundary violations. Certainly there was inappropriate affection shown. I'm trying to reconstruct this. I know that he left active ministry. My presumption is that he left active ministry because of this, and I know that when I heard of this on his part, it came as a great shock to me. And my understanding of it was that this was a matter that was 00 handled between George Broussard and Dr. Morrison, and I can recall finding that somewhat strange, that something like this would have been dealt with in the way it was. Q. Cardinal Law, is it true that you were acting as vicar general when you heard that one of the priests of the Jackson diocese, George Broussard, was engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with the Morrison children? A. My coming to the knowledge of that and his departure from ministry and from his assignment -- I'm not certain what the sequence of events there is and what my involvement was and what my reaction -- how I came to know this, what I did. I know it's about the time that I leave the diocese. Q. But it's during the time you're serving as vicar general? A. It must have been, yes. Q. During the time that you're serving as vicar general, you learn that Father Broussard is engaged, as you described it, in some boundary violations with -- A. I -- Q. Excuse me. Let me finish the question. -- some boundary violations of some sort of sexual nature with the Morrison children; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And your response was to have Father Broussard, that you had some responsibility over as vicar general, deal directly with Dr. Morrison with this? A. No. Q. What did you do, Cardinal Law? A. I cannot tell you what I did. I can't recollect what I did. My presumption is that I discussed this with the bishop. However, what I do know is that this information, I think, came to me through George Broussard, not through Dr. Morrison, and it came to me as a -- as a closed matter, as an event that had taken place, and had been settled between them, and settled in a way that the family -- when I say "settled," that the family was convinced that whatever had happened was adequately taken care of, and that this was a -- that this was a unique occurrence. And as I say, I was surprised that a matter like this would have -- they were good friends. They remained good friends. Q. They remained good friends after the Morrison children were molested? A. They remained good friends after the event that had been reported to me, and I -- yes. Q. Cardinal Law, isn't it a fact that after this allegation of molestation came to you, Father Broussard did not leave active ministry, but was reassigned to a parish called Waveland? Do you know that parish? A. I do know that parish, yes. Q. Is it not a fact that after Broussard -- Father Broussard came to you and told you that he had engaged in inappropriate boundary violations with the Morrison children, that he was reassigned to Waveland? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. Go ahead. A. Yes. I don't -- I must say this is about the time that I leave the diocese, if I'm not mistaken, and -- and I don't have a clear recollection as to his assignment. I know he was the chancellor. I know that he did leave active ministry. I obviously am mistaken in thinking that he left active ministry at that point. Q. You know he went to Waveland? A. Well, I hear you saying that. Q. No. I'm not -- A. I presume that. I honestly don't have a recollection of where he went. Q. Cardinal Law, after Father Broussard came and told you about these allegations involving the Morrison children, of inappropriate activity and boundary violations, what specific action can you recall taking to put other potential victims on notice of Father Broussard's behavior? When I'm talking about victims, I'm talking about victims at the next parish where he went. Can you recall doing anything? MR. ROGERS: Objection. Go ahead. A. First of all, I can't -- I would not have assigned him to Waveland. That would not have been my responsibility. It would have been the bishop's responsibility, or to have assigned him to any parish. And I did not -- I did not personally inform people in Waveland or people at St. Peter's about this activity involving 12:14:57 the children of Dr. Morrison. MR. MacLEISH: All right. We're going to change the tape now, if you'd like to take a break. We'll come back and go until -- what's your preference, Cardinal? When would you like to go until for the lunch break? THE WITNESS: Whatever you decide. MR. MacLEISH: Do you want to go until 1:00? THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:14. This is the end of Cassette 1 in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:24. This is Cassette 2 in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're on the record. Q. Cardinal Law, just so the record is clear, before you left as vicar general of Jackson, Mississippi, you had had this conversation with Father Broussard; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you took no action to notify the individuals at St. Peter's Parish that you can recall at this time; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And did you also know a Father Thomas Boyce? A. I did. Q. And was Father Thomas Boyce also an individual who came to your attention as a priest who had molested children in Jackson, Mississippi, when you were serving as vicar general? A. I don't have an active recall of that, but if you bring the case before me, I might -- it might come to light. Q. I don't have any case to bring in front of you. I'm just asking whether you have -- your memory might be refreshed between now and the time we come back, which is fine. A. Yeah. I don't recall something that would have -- I don't recall -- I don't have the impression of Father Thomas Boyce as someone who was responsible for the sexual abuse of minors. Q. Well, I'm not asking for responsibility. I'm asking whether you're aware -- let me make the question a little bit broader. Are you aware of any inappropriate or boundary violations that were committed by Father Thomas Boyce against children while you were serving as vicar general? A. Yes. And I have no active recollection of that. Q. Fair enough. Now, did you ever speak with Dr. Morrison about this conversation that you had with Father Broussard where he told you that he had engaged in some inappropriate activity, including boundary violations with the Morrison children? A. I don't know that this answer will suffice to your question. Q. Sure. A. But allow me, if I may, and I must say that I have not thought of this for decades, so that I'm trying now to reconstruct what may have occurred. I recollect, in a very vague way, receiving the knowledge that George Broussard had been confronted by -- and perhaps "confronted" is too strong a term in terms of how it occurred -- by Dr. Morrison with regard to inappropriate behavior with one or more of Dr. Morrison's sons; and that Dr. Morrison, and I presume Mrs. Morrison, had satisfied themselves that Father Broussard was adequately dealing with this problem, and that he was not -- and that he did not present a further risk. Now, that's my -- that's my recollection. And I believe that that information came to me through Broussard, but it could have come to me through Dr. Morrison. It's conceivable that Dr. Morrison met with me as well. My recollection is that whatever occurred was dealt with in a way that was satisfying to the Morrisons. Q. Yet you also are aware, are you not, Cardinal Law, that there were allegations subsequently brought by other individuals about improper sexual misconduct by Father Broussard? Are you not? A. I am not aware of that. Q. You're not aware of any individuals alleging that their children committed suicide as a result of sexual molestation by Father Broussard? A. I am not aware of that. Q. So as I understand it, and now -- I think you said before the break that you thought that this came -- that this information came from Father Broussard himself. I take it after reflecting on it, it could have come from either Dr. Morrison or from Father Broussard? A. Or it could have come from both. Q. It could have come from both? A. Yes. Q. It's your testimony and belief -- and I want to give you time to think about this between now and the time we reconvene -- but it's your understanding right now that essentially you considered the matter closed because the father of the Morrison children felt that there was no more risk posed by Father Broussard. Is that your testimony? A. That's correct. Q. And what qualifications did Dr. Morrison have to make the assessment that Father Broussard was no longer a threat to children that you know of, Cardinal Law? A. Again, in retrospect, his area of medical expertise would not have given him -- would not have given him that kind of authority. But at the time, and we're talking about 1970, possibly -- Q. '73, I think. A. Well, '73, which is the year that I left, as I think I said. I probably finished in November of '73. So it was sometime before November of '73. We're talking about November of '73, and at that point, in a rather unsophisticated way, I would have relied on the judgment of a parent in this case. Q. The parent -- A. Who was a doctor. Q. The parent in this case -- he was not a psychiatrist, was he? A. No. He was -- I can't remember what his specialty was, but I'm quite certain it was not psychiatry. Q. And you knew in 1973 that child abuse, I think you said earlier, was a sin; is that correct? A. Certainly it was a sin, yes. Q. And -- A. But that wouldn't be dealt with by a psychiatrist. Q. I know. It would be dealt with presumably by the individuals in charge of that priest; is that correct? A. No, no. Well, no. When I say -- if I may. When I say that sexual abuse is a sin, what I'm referring to is that it is an act against God's law, and God's command, and one deals with that as a Catholic through the sacrament of penance. The scripture says judge not that you be not judged. So that in terms of where a person |
