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

Crux, a Catholic news site

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

More documents:

Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
June 5, 2002, Suffolk County Superior Court

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

Day 1, June 5 | Day 2, June 7

Boston.com Video:
Law on the negligence of children and parents contributing to abuse (11 mins.)
On church policy regarding priests accused of abuse (8 mins.)
On accused priest allowed to remain in Quincy parish (6 mins.)
More on Law's handling of Quincy priest molestation case (12 mins.)
On notifying parishes of abuse allegations against their priests (4 mins.)
On bishops' policy on abuse allegations and the Shanley case (7 mins.)
On allegations against and publicity about former priest James Porter (7 mins.)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX

GREGORY FORD, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Defendant.
---------------------------------

PAUL W. BUSA, Plaintiff,
vs.
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al. Defendants.
-------------------------------------

ANTHONY DRISCOLL, Plaintiff,
vs.
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al. Defendants.

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 stands in relationship to God, it's not for me to judge or for you to judge or anyone else to judge. It's for that person to deal with God directly on that.

However, the social implications of a sin are something that we have to deal with in the public forum. And it's at that point that -- when -- it's at that point that those responsible have to make certain acts.

So, for example, if a person is removed from ministry, and if a person may not go back to ministry, that isn't making a judgment as to where that person may stand in terms of his personal relationship with God. He may have repented, have forgiveness, may really be trying his best he can to live a good life, but the fact is that he may not serve, because whatever his relationship with God, there's certain social consequences to his behavior that have to be dealt with.

Q. Thank you for clarifying that.

In terms of the person who had the responsibility as the eyes and ears of the bishop over Father Broussard, who would that person have been at the time you learned of this allegation of inappropriate boundary violation behavior between Father Broussard and the Morrison children? Who would that person have been?

A. At that point, Father Broussard, I believe, was the chancellor, and so while I had the title of vicar general, we really divided responsibilities, and he handled everything that had to do with temporalities. I handled things that had to do more with the pastoral life of the Church, the mission of the Church. And we would have, in a sense, been equals as assistants to the bishop.

But I would say that the -- but the bishop, to the extent that he relied on someone, would have relied really on the two of us with regard to personnel placement.

Q. I'm sorry. When you were talking about personnel issues before, I don't think you mentioned Father Broussard. I think -- as I understood your testimony, you were talking that you were the principal person who had personnel responsibility as vicar general.

A. I was the vicar general, but what I'm saying to you is that the ultimate personnel responsibility obviously is with the bishop, as it is with me, as we've indicated in these cases, and it was there as well. I had certain responsibilities as vicar general.

Father Broussard had certain responsibilities for the diocese in terms of temporalities. And the bishop in a smaller diocese would really rely on the counsel that the two of us would bring. What I'm trying to suggest to you is that Father Broussard's relationship to the bishop was a rather direct relationship as well.

Q. In addition to yours?

A. In addition to mine.

Q. Cardinal Law, in 1973, you were out of Harvard University for approximately 20 years?

A. That's correct.

Q. You had good judgment and good common sense?

A. I would -- you know, no one is a judge in his own case.

Q. Well, you were serving in a supervisory senior capacity?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were there because of your judgment and your abilities as a priest; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you learned from the chancellor or through Dr. Morrison that there is some -- and let's -- we can call it inappropriate activity or we can call it sexual molestation. Which would you prefer for us -- inappropriate activities, boundary violations, sexual misconduct, which would be a better word for you?

A. I cannot tell you what it is that occurred, but I know it was inappropriate, and it had a sexual connotation, yes.

Q. With minors?

A. With minor children of the Morrisseys' -- of the Morrisons'.

Q. So you learned from Father Broussard or Dr. Morrison that Father Broussard has been involved in this misconduct and you do nothing; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.

A. I cannot tell you that I did nothing. My presumption is that I would have -- that I would have either directly or recommending to Father Broussard that he directly inform the bishop.

Q. Well, do you have a present recollection, as you sit here today, of doing anything after you learned about the information of Father Broussard? Not speculation of what you think you did. But as you sit here today, do you have any recollection of doing anything after these allegations from Father Broussard came to your attention when you were vicar general in Jackson, Mississippi?

A. Well, as I sit here, I have no specific recollection of doing nothing or doing something, but I can tell you that my presumption is that I would have -- either myself or through Father Broussard, whom I would have suggested do this directly himself, inform the bishop.

Q. But you just don't know whether you did? You just can't remember?

A. I cannot remember that I did.

Q. Okay.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this as an exhibit, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 10, Letter, 6/1/02, marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal Law, I'm going to show you a statement that I received from Kenneth Morrison. I'd like for you to read it, if you would, please. This is one of the Morrison children.

A. I certainly don't recall being Uncle Bernie.

MR. TODD: Wait for a question.

MR. ROGERS: Wait for a question, yeah.

Is there a question?

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. Have you finished? I want to make sure the Cardinal has finished reading it.

THE WITNESS: I've read it, yes.

Q. This is a statement of Kenneth Morrison, Cardinal Law. Are there any specific portions of this statement that you are now able to state you remember with certainty are inaccurate?

A. Well, with certainty are inaccurate, I don't know, but I -- it's not a very essential matter, but I may have been referred to somebody as Uncle Bernie, but I know that they never called me Uncle Bernie, so -- the other matter here is that -- as I indicated earlier, I was not certain whether it was from George Broussard or from Dr. Morrison or both that I got this information.

I think what is being said here is evidently being said by Kenneth Morrison later in life, 2002, referring to a time when he was quite young, and I believe his father has since deceased.

Q. Right. How do you know that?

A. Well, because I have heard that.

Q. Who told you that?

A. Oh, I can't tell you who told me that, but, you know, I maintained contact with Mississippi through the years, and I recall that he is dead.

Q. His wife is alive?

A. I did not know that. Good.

Q. I'm asking you, and I think you perhaps answered the question, Cardinal Law, whether you can state with certainty whether there is any portion of Mr. Morrison's statement that you know is inaccurate as you sit here today?

MR. TODD: Other than what he's already said?

MR. MacLEISH: Well, yeah. I mean, I think his preliminary statement was that he couldn't say with certainty. I just want to give him the opportunity, and you can come back on the second day of your deposition --

A. That's right, but, of course, I cannot comment on the behavior of Broussard relative to Kenneth after the reporting that I was aware of.

Q. The reporting to you?

A. That's right.

Q. By Mr. Broussard -- Father Broussard, Dr. Morrison or both?

A. That's correct. But there's nothing here that I would have reason to question. 12:43:04

Q. And you do have some recollection, as you sit here today, that Father Broussard, after engaging in this sexual misconduct, did end up somehow at another parish before he resigned from active ministry?

Do you have a general recollection of that, Cardinal Law?

A. Yes. Sitting here and hearing the questions you have put to me, I do.

Q. All right. Now -- and if you remember any more action that you took -- not presumptions, but recollections of actions that you took with respect to Father Broussard and his sexual misconduct with the Morrison children or others, if you remember anything like that that you did receiving that report, I want you to interrupt me, and we can go back and we can allow you to supplement your answers.

A. Thank you.

Q. Does that sound fair?

A. Thank you.

Q. Would it be accurate to state then that as far back as 1973 you became aware, Cardinal Law, of the possibility that clergy would engage in sexual misconduct with minors? Would that be a fair statement?

A. That's correct.

Q. And when you went -- you went on after you left Mississippi, you went on to the Springfield-Cape Girardeau Diocese in Southern Missouri; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Let's go back to Mississippi. When you were in Mississippi acting as vicar general, were there any other allegations of sexual misconduct by clergy that came to your attention apart from those involving Father Broussard or the one involving Father Broussard?

A. During the time that I was there, there is not another case that I can recall at this moment. I believe that there was a case that I heard of after I left that involved -- of a priest there in the diocese.

Q. Do you remember the name of that priest?

A. I hate to mention it in the event that my memory may fail me.

Q. Would you like to --

A. I'd like to be able to --

Q. Fine.

A. -- check my memory on that name before bringing that name forward.

Q. Fine. That's fair. Would you do that before we reconvene on Friday?

A. Yeah.

Q. Is that a fair request?

A. Sure.

Q. So you learned afterwards about that allegation, after you left as vicar general?

A. It's not that I learned about the allegation afterwards, but I learned about the case afterwards. You know, that there was a case dealt with sometime after I left the diocese with a priest in the diocese, but I don't recall, and my memory doesn't -- I have no active memory of having knowledge of that case prior to my departure.

Q. Okay. You just used the term "I have no active memory." I think I understand what you're saying, but I just want to make sure that I do, and --

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember. Okay. That's fine.

Are you familiar with the doctrine of broad and strict mental reservation?

A. Yeah.

Q. Can you describe what that doctrine is, please?

A. I'm not sure that I can describe it accurately. It feels like I'm in a moral theology exam here.

Q. Well, I don't want --

A. Why don't you ask me what -- if you could put the question in another way and let me respond.

Q. Fine. Do either of those doctrines, moral or strict mental reservation, justify not telling the truth in certain situations?

A. May I respond, Mr. MacLeish, in this way, and I hope that it gets to what your question is asking: I am making neither broad nor narrow mental reservations in my response to your questions.

Q. I understand that.

A. I am trying to respond to your questions as completely and honestly as I possibly can.

Q. Okay.

A. And I have no reason to make mental reservations.

Q. But do you agree with me that the doctrine of broad mental reservation does, under some circumstances -- and I'm not suggesting in any way that it's happening here -- does permit 12:48:03 someone who is a priest, an ordinary, a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, to make statements that are not technically true?

A. First of all, I would deny that that principle is a principle for priests or for bishops or for cardinals. If it's a principle -- if it's a moral principle, it's applicable to anybody, but what I am saying to you is as I sit here before you under oath, I am making no mental reservations about withholding what I know to be the truth when you ask me a forthright question.

Q. I'm not suggesting otherwise. When you went to Springfield-Cape Giradeau -- have I pronounced that correctly?

A. Well, it's good enough. Giradeau.

Q. Did you again confront situations in your capacity as bishop there where there were allegations of misconduct -- sexual misconduct by clergy that you can recall?

A. Yes.

Q. How many such situations were there, Cardinal Law?

A. Certainly there was one.

Q. Do you remember the name of the priest involved?

A. Leonard Chambers.

Q. Okay. Do you remember the name of his victim? I think "victims" would be the better way to put it. Victims.

A. Well, I didn't know victims. I thought there was one.

Q. Do you remember his name?

A. And I -- I cannot recall.

Q. Okay. Do you remember how this came to your attention?

A. Either directly by the father of the victim or through the chancellor of the diocese, having been approached by the father of the victim.

Q. And the action that you took was to reassign the priest; is that correct?

A. The action that I believe we took was to get a -- to send him for an evaluation and to get an assessment as to whether or not an assignment would be appropriate, and he was reassigned.

Q. He was sent to a different parish?

A. That's right.

Q. Where no one knew that he had previously admitted to sexually abusing a minor child?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A. That's correct.

Q. And in the case of Leonard Chambers, the allegations were not about boundary violations, they were of a more serious nature, is that not true, Cardinal Law?

A. That is not my recollection. I think they were serious, but I don't -- I cannot recall the actual allegation.

Q. And now, you were the bishop at this time?

A. I was.

Q. So when Leonard Chambers returned from the assessment facility, he was sent back to another parish by you? You were the person responsible for making the assignment?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you remember the name of the facility that Leonard Chambers was sent to for this alleged assessment?

A. He was sent to -- on one occasion I think it was the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico and I think another -- it was a facility in, I think, Cincinnati, Ohio, but I'm not certain.

Q. Did Leonard Chambers go on to have further allegations made against him at his new assignment?

A. I do not recollect that in my tenure there as bishop.

Q. But you don't remember in any way alerting the parishioners at the new parish to which Leonard Chambers was sent?

A. I did not do that.

Q. Did you alert the pastor about the fact that Leonard Chambers had been at a parish --

A. I think he was --

Q. Excuse me.

A. Excuse me. Go ahead.

Q. Did you alert the pastor of the new parish where Leonard Chambers was sent that he had molested -- admitted to molesting a child while at his previous parish?

A. He went as pastor.

Q. He went as pastor, so he was in charge, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And he had, as pastor, no limitation or restrictions upon him as pastor with respect to his access to minor children; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And this, again, was another case, the second 12:53:08 case of someone who had admitted to the molestation of a child; is that correct?

A. The second case...

Q. The second case that you were confronted with since you became vicar general and then moved on to bishop, the second case of a priest who admitted to molesting a child?

MR. TODD: Objection.

Q. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you also became aware in -- from Dr. Morrison and from the victim of Leonard Chambers about how the children who had been molested by these two priests, how they had reacted to the abuse. Is that a fair statement?

A. No, I don't think that that is a fair statement.

Q. Well, Dr. Morrison, do you ever recall speaking with him in which he indicated his anger that this priest had molested his son?

A. I indicated earlier to you my surprise at the reaction, and I, frankly, with regard to the Morrison situation, was surprised at the way in which that situation was handled by the family, by Dr. Morrison, by Father Broussard, and how, after the fact, the friendship and relationship continued.

Q. How do you know it continued, Cardinal Law? You said this was at the tail end of your tenure as vicar general.

A. Because I do have a recollection of my being surprised that that friendship continued, and the letter that you just showed me certainly confirms that in the fact that there were -- that the visits continued.

Q. It doesn't say the friendship continued, does it?

A. Well, the letter does not say the friendship continued, but it would indicate that my memory is correct.

Q. Well, you, at least, because you're someone who has graduated from Harvard College, you're a person with good judgment and common sense. You certainly knew in 1973 in the Morrison case that the sexual abuse had the potential to harm a child, did you not?

A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. And you certainly knew from the victim of Leonard Chambers that sexual abuse in that case had harmed the child who was molested there, did you not?

A. Well, I -- you know, yes -- you have a different kind of a case here.

Q. Right. Why was it different?

A. Well, there's an age difference. In the case of the Morrisons, you're dealing with very young children. In the case of Father Chambers, as I recollect, the victim was older.

Q. Still a child?

A. Still a child, absolutely. Still a gravely sinful act. But the -- you know, as I recollect my encounter in this case, at the moment that the case was brought forward, there was not brought forward a -- there was not brought forward on the part of the father the terribly negative effect on the person, but, certainly, I am aware of the fact, or was aware then, that such an act has a negative effect on the victim --

Q. Did you offer --

A. -- which can vary.

Q. When you were vicar general in Jackson, because you understood about the negative effect that this could have on a young child, did you offer -- do you have a clear recollection of offering psychological help or assistance to the Morrison family?

A. No. The Morrison family, in this case, presented itself as dealing with this situation, and I would have had -- you know, I had confidence in the father. I had confidence in the mother.

Q. So the answer is you didn't offer -- you don't have any specific recollection of offering counseling --

A. That's correct.

Q. Excuse me.

-- of offering counseling assistance to the Morrison family, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. As you sit here today, you're not sure whether you learned of the details of this from Dr. Morrison or Father Broussard; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you certainly, in the case of someone who is admitting an act of sexual misconduct with a child, you, being a person of common sense and good judgment, wouldn't necessarily take the 12:58:33 word of the individual who had admitted to sexual misconduct in telling you what the family of the victim needed or didn't need, would you?

A. No, I would not.

Q. Did you have confidence, Cardinal Law, that Father Broussard would not molest again?

A. I did.

Q. Did you seek out any sort of expert opinion in order to provide you with guidance as to whether or not Father Broussard was at risk of molesting other children?

A. I must say to you, Mr. MacLeish, that the handling of such a case really was a matter that was in the hands of the bishop, and not in my hands. It was my responsibility, the way we operated, to bring information to the bishop, and he would handle the case.

Q. But you don't even remember whether you brought it to the attention of the bishop. I thought you said that several minutes ago. You can have a recollection of it --

A. I have no active recollection of having done so myself or having done so through Father Broussard.

Q. With respect to --

A. But --

Q. Excuse me. Go ahead.

A. Excuse me.

Q. Absolutely.

A. But the bishop was informed, I have no doubt.

Q. All right. With respect to the victim of Leonard Chambers, do you have an active memory of offering to provide psychological assistance or mental health counseling to the victim of Leonard Chambers?

A. I do not recollect what kind of assistance was offered. I know that there was a discussion, in part, through me, in part, I think through my chancellor, Father Reidy, with the father, and it was our desire to be as helpful as we could be and as responsive as was needed. I'm not certain that this kind of help was desired or requested on the part of the father.

Q. You simply have no memory either way?

A. No.

Q. You don't have any memory of offering it either?

A. I remember the fact that we had very positive contact with the father.

Q. But you do have a clear recollection of getting treatment for Leonard Chambers; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. How long did the treatment last, Cardinal Law?

A. I couldn't say.

Q. Was it a week?

A. I believe it was more than that.

Q. And --

A. I cannot -- I have no recall on that. I'd have to check the records.

Q. Did you consult with any other clinician -- apart from the individuals at the treatment centers that you think you sent Leonard Chambers to -- did you consult with any other professional within the diocese, mental health professional, before you reassigned Leonard Chambers as pastor to a new parish?

A. I don't recollect that. I would presume that I would have acted on the clinicians where he would have been evaluated.

MR. MacLEISH: It's 1:00, Cardinal Law. Is this a good time to take a break or would you like to break?

MR. ROGERS: There's fine.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:01. We're off the record.

(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(Law Exhibit No. 11, Responses of the Defendant, Bernard Cardinal Law, to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions, marked for identification.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:02 p.m. We're on the record.

Q. Good afternoon, Cardinal, and welcome back.

Would it be fair to state then that by the time you came to Boston in 1984 as Archbishop of Boston, you had personally been involved in two cases involving abuse of a minor by a priest?

MR. TODD: Objection.

Q. Would that be a fair statement?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A. Yes.

Q. And you mentioned earlier that you had heard of another case as well. Did that -- had you heard of that case by the time you arrived in Boston as Archbishop?

A. Yes. My recollection -- and I did not have an opportunity to do that over lunch -- but I intend to do it to refresh my memory on two points with regard to this type of question. One, is you mentioned the name, I think, of a Father Boyce.

Q. That's correct.

A. And I want to check that out.

Q. Right.

A. And then there is the name of someone else that I have in my head as someone I heard about as having been a subsequent case after I left Mississippi, and I want to just check that out.

Q. Okay.

A. And I'll bring those names forward as I meet with you again.

Q. Thank you very much. And you also knew, did you not, about the case involving Gilbert Gauth in Louisiana by the time you arrived in Boston in 1984?

A. Gilbert?

Q. Gilbert Gauth. He was a priest in Lafayette, Louisiana, accused of sexually molesting boys. It was a case, again, where there was a substantial amount of publicity.

A. I don't have a memory of that case.

Q. Have you ever, prior to the time you arrived in Boston in 1984, attended meetings of any conferences where the issue of sexual abuse of children had been a topic?

A. I don't have a recollection of such a meeting.

Q. Did you attend any such meeting in 1973 that you're aware of?

A. In 1973? No, I don't recollect that.

Q. Without going into the substance of it, did you also attend any briefing given by the general counsel of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops on sexual abuse before you arrived in Boston in 1984?

A. Well, I have a question here as to whether lawyer/client privilege wouldn't pertain here.

MR. ROGERS: Maybe we ought to take a --

MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. This is a question about the subject matter which does not fall under the privilege. The answer is a yes or no answer. I'm not asking for the substance of communications, only whether --

A. I'd like to -- I'd really like to check that out with my counsel, if you don't mind.

MR. ROGERS: Do you want us to take a break?

MR. MacLEISH: Why don't we do it during the normal break and come back instead of everybody taking their microphones off.

Q. Cardinal Law, you also knew, did you not, how children that were brought up around the Catholic parish were taught to respect and obey priests, were you not, by the time you arrived in Boston in 1984?

A. And even before.

Q. And even before?

A. Yes.

Q. So being someone with common sense and good judgment, you knew, when you came to Boston in 1984, that a sexual abuse by a priest for someone who was a member of the Catholic laity would have a special impact on the children because of the way children are taught to regard priests. Is that a fair statement?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A. I've said on many occasions that the particular gravity of this act on the part of a priest is the betrayal of trust that is invested in the priest, as analogously, the betrayal of such trust by a parent or the betrayal of such trust by a police officer or the betrayal of such trust by a teacher.

Anyone in whom people invest trust, to betray that trust, particularly of a child, has devastating consequences. And I was certainly aware of that with regard to priests and with regard to others as well.

Q. And you were aware then in 1984 of the devastating consequences that could occur when a child was abused by a priest?

A. I think all of us have become much more aware since 1984 of the devastating effect of sexual abuse, but I certainly was aware of the fact that it had a very deleterious effect, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, when you arrived in Boston as Archbishop, this would have been the third or the fourth largest Catholic diocese in the country at the time?

A. That's correct.

Q. Was it the third or the fourth? I've seen various --

A. Well, it's either the third or the fourth, depending on how substantial the numbers are that are given.

Q. Okay. And you knew when you arrived in Boston that there were over 400 parishes and approximately 215 schools within the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?

A. I did.

Q. And you knew that tens of thousands of children were served at the CCD classes of those parishes and at those schools; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were already familiar with betrayals of trust by priests that had occurred in other places that you had worked; is that correct?

A. In very isolated instances, yes, I was aware of the fact that this occurs.

Q. Do you know a Father Thomas Doyle?

A. I do.

Q. Did you know him in 1984 and 1985?

A. I believe that I did. I can't tell you exactly the year when I first met him, but I think by that time I would have met him, yes.

Q. And you understand that he prepared a document which has been referred to -- I think it's called either the handbook or the manual, that was sent to every diocese by St. Luke's Institute in 1985; is that correct?

A. Well, I don't have an active recall of that document, but I have seen reports of that fact in recent months.

Q. You don't have any recollection, though, either way, of receiving what is referred to as the manual -- when I say "the manual," I'm referring to The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy, Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Way, final draft compiled on June 8, 9, by Mr. Ray Mouton, JD, and Reverend Thomas Doyle, OP, JCD.

A. I do not have a recollection of having studied it. I cannot, sitting here, tell you that I have a recollection of having received it. The date, again -- would you give me that date again?

Q. Sure. It was prepared June 8, 9 of 1985, and according to some of the evidence that will be in this case, sent to the Archdiocese of Boston by the St. Luke's Institute in December of 1985.

A. Yeah. I don't recall having read it. I would -- had I received such a document, it would have either gone by my direct indication or by those who were helping me handle the mail, it would have gone either to the secretary of ministerial personnel, who would have been Father John McCormack, or it would have gone to the moderator of the CuriA.

Q. And in 198 -- in 199 -- in 1985, rather, did you chair a committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops -- the Committee on Research on Pastoral Practices?

A. I did.

Q. And do you remember a Cardinal Kroll? Do you know Cardinal Kroll?

A. I do.

Q. Is it true that Cardinal Kroll spoke to you and Bishop Quinn about Father Doyle's work on sexual abuse in the clergy?

A. I don't recollect that.

Q. Did you ever indicate to anyone that you would set up a project -- this is in 1985 -- with a special subcommittee of your committee concerning clerical abuse by clergy?

A. I don't recollect that.

Q. Okay. Do you know an Archbishop Levada?

A. I do.

Q. Who is Archbishop Levada?

A. He is the Archbishop of San Francisco.

Q. Where was he in 1985?

A. Oh, I can't remember. I'm not even sure he was a bishop in 1985. I'm really not certain where he was in 1985.

Q. He was the secretary to your committee at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops; is that correct?

A. Bishop Levada? Archbishop Levada?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't recall what he was doing in 1985. I'd have to check the records.

Q. But you don't know whether he was ever secretary to the committee that you chaired?

A. Well, as I recall, he would not have been a staff -- he never was a staff person of the conference, and so we wouldn't have had a secretary to the committee. The committee would be a group of bishops. If he was a bishop member of the committee, it's -- he would have been a member of the committee.

Q. Right.

A. He would not have had the title of secretary.

Q. But my question is --

A. I cannot recollect whether in 1985 he was a bishop or not.

Q. My question -- I think you may have answered it, but just for the record, so it's clear, you have no recollection whatsoever of having any involvement with setting up an ad hoc committee to deal with the issue of sexual abuse in the clergy. Is that your testimony?

A. I have no recollection of that. However, it's conceivable that our committee did set up -- that I did set up a subcommittee. I just have no recollection of that.

Q. And records pertaining to that committee would be within your personal files or the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?

A. Not in my personal files but in the Conference of Bishops.

Q. Now, Cardinal Law, you've acknowledged that when you arrived in Boston, you were -- the Archdiocese of Boston was serving children in a variety of capacities, CCD classes, schools, and camps as well. Were there camps?

A. Yes. We have -- we have a camp in Hull within the diocese. We have a camp in Hull.

Q. Did you have that in 1985?

A. Yes.

Q. And given the tens of thousands of children that are being served when you arrive in Boston in 1984, what written policies, if any, did you put in place when you arrived in order to minimize or mitigate the possibility that children would be sexually abused by either employees of the Archdiocese or priests?

A. Well, Mr. MacLeish, as my earlier answers would clearly imply, our written policy was not put in place until 1993. So from 1984 to 1993, there was not a written policy in place.

Q. All right. Was there any practice with respect --

A. Excuse me.

Q. Go ahead. Sorry.

A. There was not a written policy in place with regard to how the Archdiocese dealt with priests, with the institutions where the priests were serving. I would need to review the policies of schools to see if there were specific policies for schools during that period.

Q. I wasn't referring to what you testified to earlier, Cardinal, about policies with respect to priests. I'm now speaking about policies that were designed to prevent children from being molested by either employees of the Archdiocese or priests.

Was there any such written policy in place between 1984 and 1993?

A. No.

Q. And was there any practice of obtaining a criminal background check for individuals who were involved in unsupervised contact with children to see if they might have been convicted of crimes relating to sexual molestation --

A. I would have --

Q. Excuse me.

-- in Massachusetts or other states?

Go ahead.

A. I would have to check the record to see at what point those background checks were required.

Q. You just don't know either way right now whether those were instituted between 1984 and 1993?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, you have issued several statements in connection with the Shanley case, and, in fact, in other cases as well, such as the Geoghan case.

Are you generally familiar with those statements?

A. I believe I am.

Q. Let me provide you with --

A. If I'm not, I think you'll remind me.

Q. That would be correct.

MR. ROGERS: What exhibit is this?

MR. MacLEISH: 12.

(Law Exhibit No. 12, Statement, /20/02, marked for identification.)

(Law Exhibit No. 13, Document, marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: 11 is here, but we didn't deal with it.

MR. MacLEISH: No, we didn't, and the reason we didn't deal with it, just so you understand it, Cardinal, is because you answered the question that was in it.

Q. Showing you Exhibit 12 -- and we tried to obtain this in your website, but it's not there. I apologize. This is the one from the Globe Web page. But if you could take a look at this and see --

A. It's not on our Web page?

Q. No, it's not on your Web page.

A. Well, it will be.

Q. If you could take a look at it and see if this is the statement that you issued on May 20, 2002.

A. Always needs to edit here.

Q. Have you had the chance to examine Exhibit 12?

A. I have, yeah.

Q. Is Exhibit 12 a copy of the statement that you issued on May 20, 2002?

A. Yes.

Q. I'd like to turn to the second page, if I could, please, Cardinal, and the fourth full paragraph.

A. Yes.

Q. The last sentence:

"Furthermore, we have brought forward the names of all living priests known to us against whom credible allegations of sexual abuse of minors have been made."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Have those names been brought forward to the former parishioners of those priests in a public manner?

A. The answer to that question you already know, Mr. MacLeish, is no, that we have not brought 14:21:06 forward the names of all living priests known to us against whom credible allegations, to the parishes, but we have those that have currently come forward. And I have indicated that that is something that we need to do, but it's going to be -- we have to get the personnel in place, and it certainly is our intent to do that.

Q. Certainly. I understand that. I just wanted to clarify that there had been no public disclosure of the names. In that sentence, you're talking about revealing the names of all living priests to law enforcement and public authorities.

MR. TODD: Excuse me. When you say "public disclosure," you don't mean through newspapers and through the Attorney General's Office?

MR. MacLEISH: No, I don't mean through the Attorney General's Office or newspapers. What I mean is --

MR. TODD: That is a public disclosure, but you're referring to --

MR. MacLEISH: I'm referring to public authorities. Disclosures to -- I'm sorry. Go ahead, Cardinal. You explain it for all the lawyers here.

A. The last sentence of that paragraph has to be seen in the context of the first sentence of that paragraph, which is the topic sentence.

Q. Fine.

A. And it is speaking of mandated -- mandating reporting to public authorities, and so it's public authorities there that is envisaged and it's to the public authorities that those names have come forward.

Q. And I think Father Higgins testified that there were names of 70 living priests and 15 priests that were deceased.

A. I'm not aware of his testimony in that regard. I think I saw it a moment ago, but I would certainly stand by what he says.

Q. Right. Okay. Would you turn to the first page, please.

A. Yes.

Q. And in the bottom paragraph on the first page, you state "In the process," and this is in the middle of the paragraph:

"In the process, my credibility has been publicly questioned and I have become, for some, an object of contempt. I understand how this is so and I am profoundly sorry that the inadequacy of past policies and flaws in past decisions" -- and I think that may be "and past decisions."

A. "In."

MR. ROGERS: "In past."

MR. MacLEISH: It says "in," but I'm just trying to make sure it's not --

MR. ROGERS: It says "in."

MR. MacLEISH: I know it says "in." I acknowledge that.

Q. Is it supposed to say "in" or is it supposed to say "and"?

A. I think "inadequacy of past policies and flaws in past decisions."

Q. I'm sorry. "And flaws in past decisions." Let me read it again.

"In the process, my credibility has been publicly questioned and I have become, for some, an object of contempt. I understand how this is so and I am profoundly sorry that the inadequacy of past policies and flaws in past decisions have contributed to this situation. I wish I could undo the hurt and the harm."

Do you see those words?

A. I do indeed.

Q. Those words were written by you; is that correct?

A. Those words were written by me and they express what is in my heart.

Q. And we've made some distinctions, or you've made some distinctions in your testimony here today, between mistakes that were made with the benefit of hindsight and mistakes that were made at the time.

Do you acknowledge, Cardinal Law, now, that in the period from 1984 to 1993, that you made mistakes which you now consider to be errors of judgment at the time as opposed to errors of judgment in hindsight?

MR. ROGERS: I object to the form, but go ahead.

Q. Do you understand what I'm asking you, Cardinal?

A. I think I understand what you're asking, Mr. MacLeish. And it's not an easy question to answer adequately. And it's certainly not an easy question to answer with a yes or with a no. We a -- I attempted, and those who assisted me attempted to do our level best in handling these kinds of cases in a way that would avoid risk to potential victims, and we see -- I see that some of the things that we did were not adequate to that task.

Now, should I have known better on the basis of information available at that time? Should I have known better? Well, you know, the fact of the matter is I didn't know better, and I acted as best I knew how with the advice that was -- upon which I was relying and which I had reason -- and which I had reason to have confidence.

So to my mind, this is hindsight, hindsight. I have an accumulated insight in this problem now which I didn't have in 1984. The number of cases that I had dealt with myself personally before that date was rather limited, and the general understanding of this case -- of this problem at that time was quite distinct than where it is today.

Q. Have you completed your answer, Cardinal?

A. I believe I have.

Q. Just so I'm clear, the mistakes that you think you made are only mistakes that you believe were mistakes when looked at with benefit of hindsight; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, Cardinal, could you turn to the second page of this exhibit.

A. Yes.

Q. And you state that when you arrived in Boston in 1984, "I assumed that priests in place had been appointed appropriately -- had been appropriately appointed. It did not enter into my mind to second-guess my predecessors, and it simply was not in the culture of the day to function otherwise."

Do you see that?

A. I remember the words. What paragraph is that?

Q. It's the bottom paragraph.

A. Yes, I see that. Yes. I'm sorry.

Q. Now, you had, as you previously testified, moved -- reassigned, after his assessment, Leonard Chambers as pastor to another parish in the diocese of Springfield when he returned from his assessment, correct? 14:27:59

A. Correct. On the basis of that assessment.

Q. On the basis of that assessment and after an admission by Mr. Chambers that he had engaged in deviant acts towards a minor, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So in light of that, what basis did you have to believe that all of the priests that were within the Archdiocese of Boston at the time had been properly assigned?

A. I don't believe, Mr. MacLeish, that the example you cite disproves what is written here, but I think, rather, it proves my point.

In the action of Father Chambers, his reassignment was based upon evidence that -- rather, recommendation that I received from an institution in which I had reason to have confidence, and that was the basis upon which that change had been made.

Q. Okay. Going to the next page, Cardinal, you state -- and this is in the second full paragraph -- you state, towards the bottom of that paragraph, about when you first became aware of the allegations against Father Shanley. You state:

"The 1993 allegation was my first knowledge. I wish I had known in 1984 and I wish I had been aware of the 1966 report. It is only possible to act based on what is known, however."

Do you see that language?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you understand what the 1966 report was when you wrote that language?

A. I do now.

Q. When you wrote this statement, did you understand what the 1966 report was?

A. Well, I certainly was aware of it because I referenced it.

Q. That's exactly right. And that was a report of sexual abuse about -- concerning a minor that was sent to the Archdiocese of Boston by a priest from the LaSalette Center.

Do you know that to be the case now?

A. That's correct. I know that to be the case now.

Q. So if you had been aware of that 1966 report, you would have taken some action; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the action that you would have taken would have been the removal of --

A. I would have --

Q. Excuse me. Let me finish the question.

-- the removal of Paul Shanley from ministry?

A. I would have examined the case, and I would have sent the man away for -- in 1984, we're talking about 1984, what would have happened in 1984 had I known that, what would have happened is he would have been sent away for an evaluation. He would have been sent away, in all likelihood, for treatment, and I would have been dependent upon the recommendation of that institution as to whether or not he was someone who would place others at risk.

Q. Now --

A. We're talking about 1984, not 2002.

Q. I understand that. Between 1984 and 1993, there were a number of Archdiocesan priests that were sent away for evaluations; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, for example, Father O'Sullivan was sent away for an evaluation; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You remember Father O'Sullivan, do you not?

A. I remember the case, yes.

Q. Father O'Sullivan had been -- pled guilty to raping a child; is that correct?

A. I understand that that's the case, yes.

Q. And you understood it in 1985 --

A. Yes.

Q. -- shortly after you arrived in Boston; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Father O'Sullivan was sent away for an evaluation; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in sending individuals away for these evaluations, it was the Archdiocese of Boston that chose the places to which these individuals were evaluated. Is that not also correct?

A. That's correct, because we wanted to be able to have confidence in the institution.

Q. All right. Well, was there any clinician that was retained in 1984 or 1985 or 1986 that advised you on where it might be appropriate to send a cleric accused of sexual misconduct to be evaluated? 14:32:28

MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.

Q. Do you understand the question?

A. Yes, I can -- I think I understand your question. Your question is, was there a local professional or a professional somewhere else in the psychiatric field or the medical field whom we asked to help us in assessing the institutions to which people were sent or the appropriate institution for a specific individual.

Q. You put it better than I did.

A. I myself did not do that. The person assisting me in the handling of these cases would have been the lead agent, if you will, in choosing the institution. I know that they were regularly in contact with psychiatrists locally, but to what extent, and whether as a matter of policy each placement was individually reviewed by a clinician locally, I am not aware of that having occurred on a regular basis.

Q. All right. Well, the principal facilities to which these individuals accused, sometimes admitted, sometimes convicted -- in one case convicted -- of abuse were, as I have read the records of the twelve priests we have so far, St. Luke's Institute was one of them; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Southdown in Toronto?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the Institute for Living?

A. That's correct. Those were the principal ones, yes.

Q. You would agree with me that it would be important, just as there are differences between what one lawyer might tell you or what one doctor might tell you, it was important that all these assessments be done in a way that would ensure that you received an independent opinion about the suitability of the priest to return to ministry; is that correct?

A. Absolutely.

Q. But you're aware that psychiatric facilities don't give recommendations on whether or not a priest is suitable to return to ministry. That would always be a decision for you to make; is that correct?

A. Certainly they are not going to make the decision, put this man in ministry or don't put this man in ministry, but there certainly are indications given as to whether or not this would be appropriate.

Q. But the final decision was yours, was it not, Cardinal Law?

A. That's correct.

Q. Psychiatric facilities are there to make assessments of individuals to determine whether they suffer from some form of mental illness or psychiatric condition; is that correct?

A. I would say that these particular institutions, which have a very particular clientele, in responding to someone sent by a diocese for this very specific purpose, do, in their evaluations, give clear indication as to whether or not it's appropriate to place this person in ministry. So I think that your description is more limiting than what I would have understood -- than I understand those recommendations or evaluations to be.

Q. Cardinal Law, you understood, when these individuals were sent away to institutions, that there could be no prediction given by any of these institutions with a degree of certainty that the individual who'd engaged in sexual misconduct in the past would not do it again in the future?

A. Mr. MacLeish, I simply don't have the professional competence in this area. I am not a psychiatrist, I'm not a psychologist, and in order to make a decision as to whether or not someone can appropriately be assigned, I have to depend on those who have that competence.

Q. And who is that?

A. Well, that's why -- obviously the people who evaluate at a place like St. Luke's, like Southdown, like the Institute for Living, I was dependent upon those persons to indicate to me whether or not it would be responsible to place such a person in ministry.

Q. Well, was there any evaluation that you ever saw or that anyone ever told you about that stated with certainty that individuals sent for assessments were not at risk to reoffend? With certainty, Cardinal Law, with certainty?

Do you understand the question or do you want me to rephrase it?

A. No. I understand the question. Your question 14:37:13 is did any evaluation ever come with 100 percent guarantee that nothing else would ever happen, and, obviously, the answer to that is no. No one would make that kind of a pledge or a promise.

Q. And you knew, when you were receiving these assessments, that since we were talking about the likelihood of engaging in future aberrant deviant behavior toward children, there couldn't be any 100 percent guarantee. You knew that in 1984 and you knew it up through 1993; is that not correct?

A. Through 1993, and the policy which you yourself have praised, it was possible to reassign people, and that reassignment was on the basis of these kinds of evaluations and recommendation of the delegate and review and recommendations by the review board. And that was our policy.

Q. Go ahead.

A. In 2002, that is not our policy. And it's precisely for the reason that you bring forward. There are those -- and there are those in the field who would dispute the position that I think you and I both hold at this point, and that is that someone having been guilty of this kind of deviant behavior should not be reassigned under any circumstances. That is our current policy, and I think that's a position you hold. There are professionals who would disagree with that. But I believe that that's right and that's appropriate.

Q. Cardinal Law, I'm not really referring to the present policy. My question was from 1984 through 1993 you were aware that there was no guarantee that the individuals you were sending out for assessments and returning to ministry would not reoffend again, didn't you?

A. I was aware that there was no 100 percent assurance that anyone could or would give. However, I am also -- I was also aware that there could be a very reasonable probability that this person would not be at risk. And as a matter of fact, as I've tried to indicate, there are professionals today who would hold that position, and there are others in decision-making positions who would say because of that, so-called zero toleration policy is incorrect.

I have come -- and I know you don't like me to reference another time frame -- but I have come in 2002 to see that as -- that zero toleration policy is the only adequate way to protect children.

Q. All right. Well, let's, if we can, if it's possible, Cardinal, focus on 1984 to 1993 for the time being.

Can we agree upon that?

A. Yes.

Q. I understand your present position, and you're absolutely right, I think it's the correct position. You've articulated my views well. But can we just focus on 1984 to 1993? You testified that in these cases, you received assurances that there was a reasonable probability that a reoffense would not occur; is that correct?

A. I think that's an accurate way to phrase it, absent seeing the evaluations themselves.

Q. Yet, in making the decision on whether to put the interests of reassignment ahead of the potential for reoffense against children, that was your decision; that was not the decision of St. Luke's, Southdown or the Institute for Living. Is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection to the form.

Q. Do you understand the question, Cardinal?

A. I do the assignments; St. Luke's does not. That's correct.

Q. So in looking at whether or not to reassign a priest -- let's start with Father O'Sullivan, if we could. Father O'Sullivan was convicted of rape, sent for an evaluation and then he was reassigned, I believe, as an Archdiocesan priest to the Diocese of Matuchen, New Jersey; is that correct?

A. The finding was that he could be assigned without risk; that he had responded well to treatment; and the decision was that it would not be good for him to remain locally because of the publicity attendant to the case and the possible scandal that that can cause.

So he had family in New Jersey, which is important in terms of support to the priest himself, and with the concurrence of the bishop there, he received an assignment in that diocese.

Q. He was still an Archdiocesan priest?

A. He was still a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston.

Q. And you said --

A. With the concurrence --

Q. With the concurrence?

A. The assignment was not made by me. I couldn't assign him to work in that diocese. That would have to be done by the bishop there.

Q. And the concurrence, that would be Bishop McCarrick; is that correct?

A. I believe it was Bishop McCarrick at the time.

Q. He had full disclosures about the facts concerning Eugene O'Sullivan concerning the conditions of his probation, Cardinal Law?

A. My understanding is he had full knowledge.

Q. What is that understanding based on?

A. Well, it would be based on the way that cases like this should be handled, and I would have wanted them to have been handled. I wouldn't send someone like this to another diocese without letting the bishop know what the situation was.

Q. Could you point to any piece of paper in Father O'Sullivan's file in which it is stated that Bishop McCarrick was informed that Eugene O'Sullivan had been convicted of rape, and as a condition of his probation could not be in any parish assignment where he would have access to minors? Is there a piece of paper that says that, Cardinal Law?

A. First of all, I have not reviewed his file. So I don't know what is or is not in his file. It may very well be that such explicit reference to what was communicated isn't there, but there may be a reference to a communication of the situation or of the case to the bishop, and that would imply that.

Q. But this is simply at this point conjecture on your part; you don't know what was said to Bishop McCarrick?

A. I don't have the file before me. I have not reviewed the file prior to our meeting here, so I can't say what's in there or not in there, but I can tell you that it would be, in this kind of a case, my intent that the bishop would be informed of all pertinent information.

Q. I'm asking you specifically at this point whether you can state with certainty that Bishop McCarrick was informed about Father O'Sullivan's conviction of rape in 1984. He was sent to the Diocese of Matuchen in 1985. Can you state with certainty that Bishop McCarrick was informed that Eugene O'Neill -- Eugene O'Sullivan -- I'm sorry -- was a convicted rapist and had certain terms of probation which prohibited him from having access to minors?

A. I cannot confirm what was communicated in its detail to Bishop McCarrick in 1985.

Q. Did you ever instruct anyone to look through the file on Eugene O'Sullivan in order that you might provide the Diocese of Matuchen with full disclosure concerning all details of his background? Did you ever do that, Cardinal Law?

A. I don't know if I did that or not. I had people helping me in carrying out these cases, and -- if I say, you know, we need to communicate with a diocese, I don't say we need to say A, B, C, D and F to the diocese. I would expect them to be forthcoming to the authorities in the other dioceses.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this exhibit, please

(Law Exhibit No. 14, Report to Cardinal Cushing of 1964 Re: Eugene

O'Sullivan, marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal Law, I'd like to show you Exhibit 14, which is a document that was produced by the Archdiocese on this past Friday concerning Eugene O'Sullivan, and it's a report to Cardinal Cushing of 1964. You can read, if you like -- the salient paragraph that I'm going to point you to is the third from the bottom in which it states:

"Several days after the August 15 date, one of the other altar boys, aged 12, was asked if Father O'Sullivan had been touching you down there and admitted he had done so with him, his 13-year-old brother and several other boys."

Have you ever seen this document before?

A. I have not.

Q. Do you know whether this was the -- information was in any way transmitted to Bishop McCarrick down in New Jersey?

A. I do not know that.

Q. In 1984, if you had been in Bishop McCarrick's position -- and let's assume he knew that Eugene O'Sullivan had been convicted of rape -- is this also, what is reflected on this letter of 1964, some 20 years prior to his conviction, would that be the type of information you would also want to see before receiving a priest from another diocese?

A. Mr. MacLeish, in a very effective way, you are building a case, and I understand that. This is 1964 that this letter was written. It's a letter to Cardinal Cushing.

Q. Right.

A. His successor, Cardinal Medeiros --

Q. Right.

A. -- died in 1983. I succeeded Cardinal Medieros. It was not in the ordinary means of -- it was not ordinary procedure in those days to go back to prior episcopates to check the files of people in place.

I would have assumed that my responsibility in the '80s was to communicate to Bishop McCarrick all that I knew about this case, and that's what I did, I'm sure, through either -- either through my own personal 14:48:40 contact with him or through others, communicated what I knew. I did not know this.

Q. Well, this was in your records, Cardinal Law. This was in your records that were produced to us last Friday, that the allegations of Eugene O'Sullivan started in 1964, continued, and at the time Bishop McCarrick would have received Father O'Sullivan, there was a 20-year span between the first allegation and his conviction of rape in 1984.

And I'm not trying to build a case, Cardinal Law. What I'm asking you is whether or not this is the type of information that if you were receiving someone such as Father O'Sullivan, a convicted rapist, you would have liked to have had in front of you?

MR. TODD: I'm going to object to the prologue there, which is all your testimony, and you're referring to this record here as the Cardinal's records. I assume you mean the Archdiocese's records.

MR. MacLEISH: I stand corrected. These records were produced by Archdiocese.

MR. TODD: What I'm objecting to is your prologue that precedes questions.

Q. Do you understand the question, Cardinal Law?

A. I do.

MR. TODD: Was there a question?

A. I do.

Q. Is this the type of information you would have wanted to have seen if you were in Bishop McCarrick's position receiving a convicted rapist?

A. This is the type of information, myself, I would have liked to have seen. Hopefully it's the kind of information that will be kept in a much more adequate way moving forward through the experience that we're presently having, yes.

Q. With respect to Exhibit 14, Cardinal Law, do you know where that particular document was removed from when it was produced to our office on Friday by the Archdiocese of Boston?

A. No, I don't.

Q. You know that records relating to sexual molestation and scandal are sometimes kept in a file that might be referred to as the confidential file or the secret archive?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had access to the secret archive in 1984; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you look in the secret archive in 1984 or tell anyone to look in the secret archive in 1984 to see if there were other allegations about Father O'Sullivan before you sent this man convicted of rape in 1984 to the Diocese of Matuchen in 1985?

A. No.

Q. So you don't know with any degree of certainty, do you, Cardinal Law, whether Exhibit 14 was something that you might have been easily able to retrieve in 1985, do you?

A. No.

Q. All right. Let's go to --

MR. TODD: May I ask you, was this marked --

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, we're going to get back to that.

Q. Cardinal Law, do you know whether the assessment that was done of Eugene O'Sullivan was actually provided to Bishop McCarrick? Do you know whether it was provided?

A. I do not know that.

Q. Was there any policy in place at the time that when a priest involved in sexual misconduct was going to another diocese, that the actual evaluation would accompany that priest before he was sent to the diocese?

A. First of all, I think that they were -- and you would perhaps have better knowledge of this than I, but I think that there may be only two such priests, and I don't believe that in either case the evaluation was sent. I don't believe so.

Q. Do you know whether or not --

A. However --

Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. However, I feel confident that the substance of the evaluation would have been communicated.

Q. Do you know -- you would agree with me, would you not, that in evaluating Father O'Sullivan, it would be important for the evaluation team to have access to all relevant information existing within the files of the Archdiocese concerning prior instances of sexual misconduct.

Would you agree with me about that?

A. I would agree with you that all relevant information should be communicated in some form, yes.

Q. Well, if you're sending someone to a treatment facility to be evaluated as to whether or not that person, after an instance of sexual misconduct, can be returned to ministry, you realized in 1984 and 1985 that records pertaining to other misconduct of a sexual nature by that priest would be relevant to the assessment; is that correct?

A. I think so. I think that's a logical conclusion.

Q. Well, did you take any steps in the case of Father O'Sullivan or any of the other priests that were sent for assessments between 1984 and 1993, did you take any steps to ensure that there was a search done of the confidential file which would have contained such information that could be sent to the assessment facilities?

A. First of all, Mr. MacLeish, as I indicated, if a priest was in place when I got here in '84, my presumption was that that priest was appropriately in place. If an allegation came of -- that this priest had been guilty of the sexual abuse of a minor, we examined that case and we dealt with that case.

My presumption is also that files on that person would have been -- would have been reviewed, but, clearly, as events have shown, particularly in the Shanley case, and now in the O'Sullivan case, there were matters that went back many years that were not readily and immediately available, and that's a shortcoming in the way in which, at least in those two instances, these cases -- these allegations were tracked.

Q. Cardinal Law, I think you just testified earlier that Exhibit 14, you don't know whether you had access to that particular letter, the 1964 allegations of sexual misconduct, at the time Eugene O'Sullivan was sent for his evaluation. Didn't you just indicate that --

A. I said I did not recall seeing that letter, that's correct.

Q. So my question was -- and you agree with me that the allegations of sexual misconduct would most likely be contained in what was referred to as the secret archive or the confidential file; is that not correct?

A. Possibly, yes.

Q. And the secret archive, in fact, I believe there's internal church guidelines of what goes into the secret file; and matters that relate to scandal, matters that relate to criminal activity go into that secret archive; is that not correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Wouldn't, in 1985, a logical place to look for information about prior sexual misconduct be the confidential file or the secret archive of the priest?

A. If one suspected prior conduct that was irregular, yes.

Q. Well, so my question is in the case of Eugene O'Sullivan, who was convicted for rape, was it not -- was there any policy that you put in place as Archbishop and later Cardinal that required that before a priest went to an assessment facility or was sent, as in the case of Eugene O'Sullivan, to another diocese, the confidential file was examined?

A. I do not recall putting in place such a policy --

Q. Now --

A. -- but --

Q. I'm sorry.

A. But it would be very logical that the persons immediately responsible for reviewing and helping me in these cases would look for all pertinent material.

Q. My question is did you ever instruct them, understanding --

A. I did not specifically instruct them.

Q. -- that you knew that matters relating to sexual misconduct might be found in the confidential file, secret archive, whatever the correct term is?

A. I knew that that's where such material would be filed.

Q. And are you in any way blaming any of the individuals that work for you for not doing an adequate enough job --

A. I am not.

Q. -- in any of these cases?

A. I am not.

Q. We'll go through a few of them in a moment. Let's mark this.

(Law Exhibit No. 15, Handwritten Document, marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal Law, I'd like to show you Exhibit 15 and ask if you've ever seen that document before?

A. I have.

Q. When did you last see it?

A. I last saw this document this morning, and it was the first time I've seen it since I probably wrote it.

Q. This is your handwriting on --

A. It is.

Q. Excuse me.

-- on some portion of this document, although not all of it; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. This was a handwritten note that you sent to Bishop Al Hughes regarding your thoughts on the O'Sullivan case as the Boston Globe was about to write a story on Father O'Sullivan's transfer to New Jersey?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the notes on the left-hand side indicate -- are the handwriting -- personal handwriting of Bishop Hughes; is that correct?

A. I believe that's his handwriting, yes.

Q. And Bishop Hughes was the auxiliary bishop at the time or an auxiliary bishop?

A. He was an auxiliary bishop and he was assisting me as moderator of the CuriA.

Q. And you knew at the time you wrote this letter that the Boston Globe was about to write an article about how Eugene O'Sullivan, convicted rapist, had been sent down to the Diocese of Matuchen?

A. I don't -- I don't recall what immediately precipitated this memo, but it does reference the possibility of a story being in print, and it is suggesting that -- I'm indicating what I think it is that -- how we should address this issue.

Q. Okay. And this was approximately a year after the article I showed you earlier in the Boston Globe where you felt that the coverage on the priest abuse cases was not balanced enough?

A. That's correct.

Q. So these notes reflect some of the points that you thought ought to be made; and you talk, do you see, about two-thirds of the way down, about a news conference -- do you see that -- which would make the following points?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then there's handwritten notes on the left-hand side from Bishop Hughes in response to the points that you were making. Is that a fair statement?

A. That's correct.

Q. Let's go to the first one. You said:

"In 1985, Father O'Sullivan came to me to report allegations and to acknowledge" -- I can't read -- "the substance of them."

A. To them, yes.

Q. And you're aware that in 1984, Father O'Sullivan had been convicted of rape -- I'm sorry -- had pled guilty to rape and received a sentence that had certain conditions, no prison sentence, but conditions of probation. Is that correct?

A. I cannot recollect that detail at this point, but...

Q. You do acknowledge that at some point it came to your attention that a priest of the Archdiocese --

A. I'm certain it did.

Q. -- was convicted of rape and pled --

A. What was the month of that?

Q. It was October of '84.

A. October of '84. Thank you.

(Law Exhibit No. 16, Globe Article, marked for identification.)

Q. Here is, just for your reference, the Globe article that appeared the day after your notes of July 16, 1993. If you could just go to Paragraph 2, marked Paragraph 2 of your notes, you state as one of your following points to be made:

"This was my first knowledge of this. No previous reports had been received."

Did I read that correctly?

A. Had been received.

Q. And then there's Bishop Hughes' notes on the left-hand side which says:

"Certain? There were previous reports."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And so you don't know whether Bishop Hughes was referring to Exhibit 14, the reports that went back to 1964, do you, Cardinal Law?

A. I don't. Or the '84 --

Q. Right.

A. -- matter.

Q. All right. And then you state in Paragraph 4:

"He was sent for assessment and treatment."

And then on No. 5:

"On the strength of the results, it was decided he could function without risk with the support of" -- and these are your copies, unfortunately, not mine. Maybe you can help me with the rest of that sentence?

A. I think it's "counselors and spiritual direction."

Q. And this was something that could be done, as you put it at the time, without risk.

Do you see that?

A. That's what I said.

Q. And that wasn't based upon any statement that was made by a clinician concerning Father O'Sullivan, was it, Cardinal Law? That was your assessment that he could function without risk?

A. I'd have to see what the assessment says, which you may have there.

Q. I don't.

A. But the previous line, No. 4, it says:

"He was sent for assessment and treatment."

And then 5 says:

"On the strength of results, it was decided he could function without risk."

Now, whether or not the assessment specifically said he may function without risk, I don't know, but --

Q. Do you see Bishop -- I'm sorry.

A. But the idea that I had, as I wrote this memo, was that the idea was there in the assessment.

Q. Well, didn't we just go over this earlier, and it was your recollection that you never had a guarantee from any of the assessment facilities that the priest would not reoffend? Didn't we just go over that several minutes ago, Cardinal Law?

A. Yes. That they would not give you an assurance that never, a hundred percent foolproof. But on -- at the same time, as the policy in our diocese, and in many other dioceses was at that time, there was the possibility of reassignment, and a prudent judgment was made that this could be done prudently without risk, without likely risk, and this perhaps is not as accurate and full as a statement as it might be. And, again, that's to the point of the change in our policy.

Q. I understand.

A. And the reason that we've changed it --

Q. I really understand the reasons why you've changed it, and I'm talking now about what you were thinking in 1993.

You see Bishop Hughes' notes, "Can't find report."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And you agreed with me earlier that psychiatric facilities such as Southdown, St. Luke's or the Institute for Living don't make the ultimate decision on assignment of a priest.

A. That's correct.

Q. It's you who makes that decision?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so it was you who decided that Father O'Sullivan could function without risk, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. It was not any psychiatric facility?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in making that decision, you had to balance the interest of returning the priest to ministry against the risk that he might reoffend and victimize another child, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in this case, you were dealing with someone who had been convicted of rape, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you then go on, and if we could turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law, these are the continuation of the points that you thought should be made, possibly at a news conference, as you have said on the other page. You say in Point No. 9:

"Bishop Banks held a more extensive" -- I'm sorry. Let's go to No. 8. "I contacted the Bishop of Matuchen, reviewed the case and asked if he would consider allowing him to serve." Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you look at the case file before you had this conversation with the Bishop of Matuchen?

A. I did not look at the case file. I would have had the substance of it reviewed with me by Bishop Hughes or by Bishop Banks.

Q. Would that have included, can you state with certainty, the confidential file which might contain allegations of prior sexual abuse?

A. The 1966 -- no.

Q. 1964. No. I'm talking about the confidential file. When you reviewed the file, reviewed the -- reviewed the case, as you put it, with the Bishop of Matuchen, Theodore McCarrick, did you know for certain whether Bishop Hughes or the person who was briefing you had obtained the confidential file which would contain the information about sexual misconduct in the past?

A. No. The only thing that I could absolutely assume is that what had occurred since 1984 had been totally communicated.

Q. But you don't know that for a certainty, do you? I think we've established you just don't know either way whether the information that was contained in the confidential file, portions of which were given to our office on Friday, was something that you had in front of you and that you gave to Bishop McCarrick in 1985 before Eugene O'Sullivan went to New Jersey?

A. First of all --

MR. TODD: Hold on. There's no question here. You started: "I think we have established" --

Q. Have we established that, Cardinal Law?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A. You know, I'm very confused as to what you're asking me at this point.

Q. Cardinal Law, I thought I heard you testify earlier -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- stating that you could not state with certainty that when Eugene O'Sullivan went to New Jersey in 1985 anyone at the Archdiocese had inspected the confidential file which would contain information about prior sexual misconduct.

Did we establish that already?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A. I'm not sure we did.

Q. I'm sorry then. Let's try to establish that. The confidential file, as you've said earlier, contains information that could include allegations regarding scandal and sexual misconduct by priests, among other things; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Did you tell anyone, between 1984 and 1985, that before Eugene O'Sullivan or any other priest could be sent to another diocese, there had to be an inspection of the confidential file, that you can recall here today?

A. Mr. MacLeish, I assign people to specific tasks, and I have confidence that they're going to fulfill those tasks appropriately and well, and I assigned the moderator of the Curia and later Father McCormack to assist me in such cases.

I had confidence in them when I asked them to do that. I have confidence in them now.

Did I specifically tell them all of the things that they were to do? No, I did not. Did I specifically say to them: You are to go back into the confidential files, back through the days of Cardinal Medeiros, back through the days of Cardinal Cushing? No, I did not. And whether they did or whether they didn't, I cannot say.

Q. Okay. Who had access to the confidential file, Cardinal Law, in 1984, 1985 who had access to them?

A. The moderator of the Curia would have had access. I would have had access.

Q. The confidential file has limited access; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the moderator of the Curia was Bishop Hughes at the time?

A. In 1984 it would have been Bishop Banks.

Q. And then --

A. I think Father Banks at that time.

Q. All right. So in Point No. 9, it states, you see, Cardinal, it states --

MR. TODD: Can you hold on?

MR. MacLEISH: Yes, absolutely.

MR. TODD: Do you want to break?

MR. MacLEISH: Break.

MR. ROGERS: Take a five-minute break.

MR. MacLEISH: Sure. Absolutely.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:10. This is the end of Tape 2 in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:22. This is Cassette No. 3 in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're on the record.

Q. You wanted to make some addition, modification, and I'm pleased to give you that opportunity.

A. Thank you, Mr. MacLeish. Simply to state that while that -- that '64 allegation letter that you showed me addressed to Cardinal Cushing, while it should be in the secret file, I cannot, with assurance, say to you that that's the place where it was retrieved. And part of the difficulty we have found through this whole process is that files on these cases are in a variety of places, and one of the things that, please, God, will occur as a result of this process is that our files will be in a much more appropriate state than they were as we went into it.

And the other point that I just wanted to make is that when I enumerated -- when I wrote this memo to --

MR. TODD: Exhibit 15.

A. -- Archbishop Hughes, which is Document 15, I was setting down on July 16, '93 my recollections in elaborating these points, and Bishop Hughes very appropriately was helping my memory with the facts in his own comments.

Q. Was this a subject matter you just talked about with your counsel during the break?

A. No, not -- what I did is I said I wanted to make those points.

Q. Okay, fine.

A. And I asked them if it would be appropriate for me to do that.

Q. It certainly is. And I appreciate that. In this case, again, Cardinal Law, I just want to make it clear my understanding of the confidential secret archive file is that there are matters in those files, much of which has been produced on Friday and in the Shanley matter, that is of a scandalous nature, and that is where the scandalous material, as I understand the guidelines of the Archdiocese and other dioceses, scandalous material is supposed to be kept separately in what is referred to as a confidential file.

MR. TODD: Objection.

A. That's correct, but what I pointed out just a moment ago, Mr. MacLeish, is that we have found in recovering documents in response to requests from courts and in this whole process, we have found that documents were not always where they should have been. So that whether or not, in fact, this document came from that file or some other file, I cannot say.

Q. You just don't know either way?

A. It was appropriate for it to have been in that file, but I cannot say that that's where it was.

Q. We just don't know either way?

A. I do not know.

Q. Okay. And so in Point No. 9 it says Bishop Banks held a more extensive interview with Bishop -- I would take it that would mean the Bishop of Matuchen?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that was your memory at the time?

A. That's correct, and it was correct at --

Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was going to ask you the question. And then Bishop Hughes corrects you and says Bishop Banks says that he never talked with Archbishop McCarrick. You did the conversation with Archbishop McCarrick, is that what Bishop Hughes told you?

A. That's correct. And that's what I presume occurred.

Q. But that was not your initial memory?

A. That was not my initial memory.

Q. So you would concede that your memory on these matters has not always been infallible; is that correct?

A. I've never claimed an infallible memory.

Q. Okay. I understand. Going down to right underneath Point No. 10, Cardinal Law, it states:

"Absent a written record of my having stated that I would" -- well, it's cut off on the copies we were provided.

"Absent a written record of my having stated that, I would be loathe to state categorically that I explicitly referred to 15:27:10 this in my conversation with the Bishop."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were referring to your conversation with the Bishop of Matuchen in No. 8 when you made that remark?

A. No -- yes. I think what is absent, if I may try to -- I think it's, "Absent a written record of my having stated that" --

Q. That --

A. -- "I would be loathe to state categorically that I explicitly referred to this in my conversation with the Bishop."

Q. And that would be Point No. 8?

A. That would be point -- I think that would be Point No. 10, that -- I think that still refers to Paragraph 10, the first paragraph of 10.

Q. I should state that my presumption was that any pastor he would assist would be apprised of the situation.

A. That's correct.

Q. You would not be the person to have the conversation with the pastor; that would be someone --

A. I would not.

Q. Are you certain when you say, "Absent a written record of my having stated that, I would be loathe to state categorically that I explicitly referred to this in my conversation with the Bishop" --

A. Well, what I'm saying there is that my presumption was that any pastor that would be assisted by this priest, by O'Sullivan, would be apprised of the situation, but that I was not prepared to state that I communicated that presumption to Bishop McCarrick, unless there was a written letter from me in which I stated that, because I just wouldn't rely on -- I wouldn't rely on my memory for having done that.

Q. So back in 1993, you were not certain that when you spoke to Bishop McCarrick, you had given him the terms of Father O'Sullivan's probation, namely that he not have access to children in a parish ministry. You weren't sure whether you told Bishop McCarrick that, isn't that true?

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

Q. Do you understand the question, Cardinal?

A. I understand the question, but I am not certain -- that's correct. I am not certain what I communicated absent a written record, and there doesn't seem to be one.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 17, Note, marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal, showing you Exhibit 17, do you recognize this as the handwriting of Bishop McCormack?

A. I don't recognize it as his writing, but I would have no reason to dispute it if you tell me it came from him.

Q. I believe it did. It came from your files, but I believe this to be his handwriting, but I could be wrong. In any event, it references "Gene, 7/17/1993." That would be one day after your notes, Cardinal?

A. Yes.

Q. And you'll see No. 3, it says, "Never had a youth group. Taught children occasionally in the classroom."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you learned, did you not, on July 17, 1993, that despite the conditions of probation, Eugene O'Sullivan did not have any restrictions placed on his ministry, correct?

A. I'm not sure that this was given to me on June 17 -- July 17, '93.

Q. Okay. You subsequently learned, when the Globe -- strike that.

When the Globe was writing its story, you prepared a memorandum on talking points or points to be made in response to the Globe article that a convicted rapist, Gene O'Sullivan, had been sent down to New Jersey, and the terms of the probation had not been fully communicated to the people in Matuchen; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Object to the form.

A. I'm not sure that the article had been written.

Q. No. It was about to come out?

A. Yeah. And I wouldn't have known what was going to come out in the article at that point when I wrote this.

Q. You know that sometimes reporters, before they do the story, they try to get both sides of it and contact individuals that they're reporting about, correct?

A. I know that that sometimes happens, but I do not know that that happened in this case.

Q. Would you go back to the previous exhibit, Cardinal, which is the Globe story that appeared one day after your notes. Do you want to take a moment and read that to see if that helps refresh your memory?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Cardinal Law, you knew on July 16 that there had been some contact with a representative of the media who was doing a story on a convicted rapist, Eugene O'Sullivan, an archdiocesan priest who had gone down to New Jersey, and despite the conditions of his probation, he was not in a situation where he had -- strike that.

He was in a situation where he continued to have access to children, correct?

MR. TODD: I'm going to object and ask you, Mr. MacLeish, where does it appear that any such thing was a condition of his probation?

Q. Cardinal Law, do you understand the question?

MR. TODD: Do you understand what conditions of probation are legally?

THE WITNESS: I --

MR. MacLEISH: No. You'll have an opportunity to cross-examine, Mr. Todd.

MR. TODD: No. It's a very unfair question to suggest as a predicate that there are conditions of probation.

MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted.

MR. TODD: No. This is more than an objection.

MR. MacLEISH: Are you instructing him not to answer the question?

MR. TODD: No. I'm instructing you.

MR. MacLEISH: No, you're not instructing me anymore, Mr. Todd.

MR. TODD: Are we both going to talk at the same time or are you going to allow me to talk? I had something to say, if you'll allow me to say it.

MR. MacLEISH: You can say objection, which is what --

MR. TODD: No, I can say more than objection.

MR. MacLEISH: You can? Continue, Mr. Todd, and we'll take it up with the Court.

MR. TODD: Thank you.

Now, it's unfair for you to suggest in the question that there are conditions of probation where you haven't presented him with anything that suggests that there were conditions of probation.

MR. MacLEISH: Let me ask the question.

MR. TODD: Thank you.

Q. Cardinal Law, were you aware there were conditions of probation for Father O'Sullivan when he pled guilty to raping a child?

MR. TODD: I'm going to object to that question.

A. You know, I don't know that I can say that I was aware of that.

Q. Were there any restrictions on his -- I'm sorry.

A. I, again, I depended upon others to handle these cases for me and to review them. I didn't second guess them. Perhaps I should have. And I know that in agreeing to his serving in New Jersey, it was certainly my understanding that what we were doing was appropriate, was legal, was not in violation of parole restrictions.

Q. So you didn't --

A. I could have been wrong.

Q. So you didn't understand -- this was a man who had been one of your priests who was convicted -- pled guilty to raping a child. You knew that in 1984 when you arrived?

MR. TODD: I'm going to object. You have said that about 23 different times.

MR. MacLEISH: Now we're going back over -- you know --

MR. TODD: You keep on saying this. You keep on repeating over and over.

MR. MacLEISH: It happens to be true.

MR. TODD: Yes, but it doesn't become any more true the twenty-third time you say it.

MR. MacLEISH: The objection is noted.

MR. TODD: My objection is to your harassing and badgering and in the forms of your questions suggesting as predicate things that are not true.

MR. MacLEISH: All right. Let's go back over that.

Q. Was Eugene O'Neil convicted of rape? Was he convicted?

MR. TODD: What I'm alluding to, Mr. MacLeish, is that you continue to say that there are conditions of his probation. Now all I'm reading from the material you put before me is that the Court asked or suggested things, but when you say "conditions of probation," that has a legal meaning, I assume you know.

MR. MacLEISH: Then there are other -- Mr. Todd, are you concluded now? Can I ask the witness a question?

MR. TODD: Yes.

Q. So I take it, just so we're clear on the record, you're not aware of any restrictions, conditions of probation or other limitations that were placed on Eugene O'Sullivan after he pled guilty to raping a boy?

A. I had depended, Mr. MacLeish, on others to assist me in these cases, and I would have presumed, and do presume, that anything we did in relationship to placement would have been not in violation of legal requirements.

Q. Okay. Do you know whether that was followed in the case of Eugene O'Sullivan?

A. I can only say what I have just finished saying, that I presume it would have followed.

Q. You can't state that with certainty, though, can you?

A. No, I cannot.

MR. MacLEISH: Can we have the next exhibit for the Cardinal, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 18, Letter, Received /2/85, marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal Law, I'm showing you Exhibit 18. If you want to take a moment to take a look at that.

Have you read the letter, Cardinal Law?

A. I have.

Q. You'll see at the top it says "Archbishop's residence, Received May 2, 1985," and then it says "Not acknowledged at residence."

Do you see those two stamps?

A. I do.

Q. Those were stamps that were utilized in 1985 and in the years thereafter; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in this particular document, do you have an explanation as to why the stamp "Not acknowledged at residence" appears?

A. No. I don't have a particular reason for that, but I can give you why it is that that stamp would ordinarily have been placed on some mail.

Q. Please do so.

A. There's a great volume of mail that comes into the house. I'm assisted in the mail by others. And if a matter belongs -- if a matter, for example, having to do with schools comes in and demands some specificity, some follow-through, it would be not acknowledged at residence, sent to the secretary for education, they would be asked to deal with this either in their own name or to prepare a letter for me, if that was going to be the appropriate response.

And in this case, it would have been sent, appropriately, to Father McCormack because of the nature of the letter.

Q. Was there -- because of the nature of the letter. Was there an unwritten policy at the Archdiocese of Boston when you arrived that matters that related to accusations against priests, including accusations of a sexual nature, were not to be acknowledged as being received at your residence even if they were sent to you directly?

A. No. The policy didn't specify the area, but it was general that if the matter was such that I needed someone else to help with that matter, it was their responsibility primarily to deal with it. The letter would go to them. They would review it. They would reflect upon it. They would in some instances be able to act on it immediately in their own name. In some instances my involvement would need to be present, and it would come back to me in an appropriate form.

Q. And it would come back to you for you to make some decision, if, for example, it involved a serious accusation against a priest? Would that be something in 1985 that would come back to you for further action?

A. If there were a serious accusation against a priest that was a credible allegation, yes, that would come back to me.

Q. In December of 1984, do you recall promoting Father Shanley to pastor at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

A. I've had that recalled to me in these past weeks as I prepared for my deposition.

Q. And you knew then, in April of 1985, that Father Shanley was the pastor at St. Jean's Parish with unsupervised access to children; is that correct?

A. I knew he was pastor, and I had no knowledge in 1985 of his having had an allegation brought against him of having sexually abused a child, and I did not have such an allegation until 1993.

Q. That wasn't my question, Cardinal.

A. I know, but I think it's very pertinent.

Q. I appreciate that, and your counsel has the opportunity to cross-examine you. At the present time -- the answer was non-responsive.

MR. ROGERS: Wait. All motions to strike have been reserved until time of trial. If you feel an answer is non-responsive, we've waived raising it now.

MR. MacLEISH: No, no. We are perfectly free -- this is cross-examination, Mr. Rogers -- to direct the witness's attention to answer the question.

Q. My question, Cardinal, was whether or not you were aware in 1985 that Paul Shanley had unsupervised access to children as pastor of St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts. Were you aware of that?

A. I don't quite understand the question.

Q. Let's hold on for a second. Just hold on for one moment, please. If you'd go back to Exhibit No. 11 for me. Could you turn to page 7, Cardinal Law. These are your admissions.

Do you see your signature on the last page of Exhibit No. 11?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. You reviewed these admissions before you signed this document; is that correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Could you please read -- I'll read Request 29, and you can read the response. Okay? Request No. 29:

"Cardinal Law knew that Father Shanley would have unsupervised access to children when he promoted him to pastor."

What was your response?

A. My response is that I did know.

Q. Could you just read your response, please.

A. Well, it says:

"The defendant admits that he knew that Father Shanley would have unsupervised access to children when he appointed him as pastor."

Q. Were you aware of any limitations placed on Father Shanley's access to children between the time you appointed him as pastor and April 29, 1985?

A. I was not aware of any limitation, because there was no need in the knowledge that was available to me to have any limitation.

Q. Okay. Cardinal, would you please take a look at the Higgs letter again, Exhibit No. 18, and you can't state with certainty whether you ever reviewed this letter in 1985 with any other person?

A. I cannot.

Q. Either way? You can't state either way?

A. I cannot.

Q. And you would -- would you rely upon the memories and writings of Bishop McCormack in that regard?

A. I would.

Q. All right. And you'll see in the first paragraph, this is a complaint about Paul Shanley.

Can we agree on that?

A. Yes, and I've read the letter.

Q. And Mrs. Higgs -- this woman in Rochester, New York, writes to you stating about a talk that Father Shanley gave in Rochester, New York, and it states in the first paragraph:

"He made some outlandish statements regarding the people involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not merely in orientation. Here are some of the statements; some are on tape."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. So Mrs. Higgs, you would agree with me, has some sort of a tape of some portion of the talk. Is that a fair characterization of what --

A. She says, "Here some of the statements; some are on tape," so I have no way of knowing which statement is on tape and which statement is her memory of what she heard.

Q. And no inquiry, to your knowledge, was ever made of Mrs. Higgs to find out what she had on tape, is that correct, Cardinal?

A. My presumption is that Father McCormack would have made appropriate inquiry concerning the allegations contained here and would have come to some satisfactory resolution.

Q. All right. It states here, attributed again to Paul Shanley:

"When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. Children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones."

Do you see that?

A. I do see that.

Q. Would you agree with me that if Father Shanley had made that statement, he was making a statement that was contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. Clearly it would be contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I think the issue here is whether or not he said that.

Q. We're going to get to that. That's not before you right now. My question is, is this the type of statement that if, in fact, he did say it, would have been something that would have caused you concern?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Would it have been the type of statement that would have caused you concern as to whether Father Paul Shanley could remain in a parish in Newton, Massachusetts, with unsupervised access to children?

A. Absolutely.

Q. So you would have expected those acting under your authority, namely, Bishop McCormack, then Father McCormack, to investigate this allegation; is that correct?

A. To adequately investigate this letter, yes.

Q. And that could include, for example, asking Mrs. Higgs for the tape?

A. It could.

Q. You agree with me that this is a serious allegation being made by Mrs. Higgs? Would you agree with that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would agree with me that she is speaking not just about Paul Shanley being involved in a homosexual lifestyle -- in fact, she states "not merely in orientation."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. She's talking about Paul Shanley stating about who's at fault when adults have sex with children. That's a fair reading of her letter, correct?

A. I think with regard -- what she's saying here is he made some outlandish statement regarding people involved in homosexual lifestyle, not merely in orientation. So she is saying that she's criticizing him because of his -- of that.

Q. "Here are some of the statements; some are on tape."

MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry. Mr. Todd, if we could just have -- I see you're showing, for the record, the witness something that you've written down. Could we try to avoid that?

MR. TODD: Certainly.

MR. MacLEISH: If we could just have the Cardinal's testimony.

MR. TODD: I don't think we've had anything but the Cardinal's testimony.

MR. MacLEISH: I note you're writing something down and showing the Cardinal something.

MR. TODD: You noted that.

MR. MacLEISH: I did see the fact that you wrote something done. If we could have the Cardinal's testimony.

MR. TODD: I've been noting things you wrote down and made no comment on it.

MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Todd.

MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. MacLeish.

Q. Cardinal Law, do you know what happened after this letter was given to Father McCormack?

A. I do not know -- I do not know what steps Father McCormack took in resolving this matter.

Q. Okay.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's get the next exhibit.

(Law Exhibit No. 19, Letter, 5/15/85, marked for identification.)

Q. I'm showing you now Exhibit 19, Cardinal, and it states:

"Dear Ms. Higgs: Archbishop Law received a letter April 29, 1985. He is sorry to hear you were disturbed about the talk given by Father Paul Shanley last November regarding homosexuals and asked that I respond on his behalf."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And that references a discussion that Father McCormack had with you about Mrs. Higgs' letter of April 29, 1995?

MR. ROGERS: I object. Is that a question?

MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted.

Go ahead.

MR. ROGERS: Is that a question, I said?

MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Your objection is noted.

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

A. The question is, does this refer to a discussion I had with Father McCormack?

Q. Let me go over it again, Cardinal, so we can be clear.

A. Go ahead.

Q. This is a letter produced from your files sent to Mrs. Higgs by Father McCormack in which it is stated Archbishop Law received your letter of April 29, 1985. This was written May 15, 1985.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. So you would agree with me that Father McCormack, at least in May of 1985, was stating that you had received that letter of Mrs. Higgs of April 29, 1985. Is that correct?

A. That's what the letter says in that sentence.

Q. And then in the next sentence it states:

"He" -- meaning you -- "is sorry to hear" that -- "hear you were disturbed about the talk given by Father Paul Shanley last November regarding homosexuals and asked that I respond on his behalf."

Do you see that sentence?

A. I do.

Q. Would you agree with me that a fair reading of that sentence is that you and Father McCormack had some discussion about the letter that was sent by Mrs. Higgs?

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

MR. MacLEISH: Objection is noted.

A. I would agree that that is a possible reading of the meaning here, but another meaning is that Father McCormack is acting in my name, and -- the letter went to him, and in the ordinary course of handling the letter, he would have responded in this way.

Q. Well, you don't know either way; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. What we do know is that Father McCormack in this letter wrote to Mrs. Higgs and expressed your sentiments --

A. Which he would have --

Q. Excuse me. Let me just finish.

-- expressed your sentiments about the letter that had been received from Mrs. Higgs, correct?

A. Father McCormack adequately reflected here what he knew my sentiments would be in this kind of a situation, yes.

Q. Well, he didn't say that he knew what your sentiments would be; he stated he is sorry to hear you were disturbed about the talk.

A. I understand what the letter says.

Q. That would have to involve some communication between you necessarily and Father McCormack on the subject of Mrs. Higgs' letter; is that correct?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. But possibly?

A. Possibly.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's have the next exhibit, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 20, Letter, 6/4/85, marked for identification.)

Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 20, Cardinal Law. It's a letter from Father McCormack to Paul Shanley, dated June 4, 1985, and in this letter it is stated:

"Dear Paul: Recently I received a note from the Cardinal about a letter he had received from Ms. Wilma Higgs of Rochester, New York."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. So at this time, back some 17 years ago, almost to the date 17 years ago --

A. Yes.

Q. -- Father McCormack is reporting that he had received some note from you about a letter you had received from Wilma Higgs; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you would agree that Father McCormack's memories of 17 years ago are a good deal more fresh than yours, mine or Father McCormack's are today?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And you see in this letter a reference to a note from you.

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you know where that note is?

A. I do not know.

Q. Would it be a fair reading of this letter that there was at times, at one point in time, a note that you had sent to Father McCormack about the Higgs letter?

A. That's conceivable. You know, it's conceivable. If -- and seeing this letter, if I may reconstruct what I think may have happened, I would have seen the letter, perhaps written a memo saying, "Please follow up on this. Please look into this," and it could have gone that way.

Q. Okay. And so is that the way you think it's more probable than not that it went, having seen this letter to Father Shanley, that there was some writings or note?

A. Having seen this letter?

Q. Yes.

A. I would presume that that's the way it went. Without having seen this letter, it would have been an equally valid presumption that it would have gone without my having seen the original letter.

Q. But now that we have this Exhibit No. 20 in front of us, this letter suggests that, in fact, you did read the letter of April 29, 1985, from Mrs. Higgs and wrote something, perhaps just on the letter, to Father McCormack, which prompted him to bring this to the attention of Father Shanley. Is that a fair statement?

A. Probably not on the letter, because I think it would be shown on the copy. So it probably was a separate note, but I would presume that that's a reasonable assumption.

Q. And so now that you have that, can we agree that it's more probable than not that you did, in fact, read the Higgs letter?

A. Yes.

Q. Cardinal Law, could you go back to Exhibit No. 11, please, which is the admissions.

When did you first see that letter that I just showed you from Father McCormack to Paul Shanley?

A. This letter?

Q. Yes.

A. Just now.

Q. Just now. I'm going to read Request No. 1, and I'd like you to read Response No. 1, and then I'm going to ask you a question about it.

Request No. 1:

"Cardinal Law read the letter addressed to him from Wilma H. Higgs, Mrs. Higgs, dated April 29, 1985 ("Higgs letter"). A true and accurate copy of the Higgs letter is attached 15:58:45 hereto as Exhibit 'A.'"

Could you please read the response.

A. "The defendant does not believe he read the Higgs letter in '85. The defendant admits that he has since read this correspondence."

Q. With respect to the first sentence, would you now like the opportunity to amend the first sentence?

A. I would.

Q. How would you like to amend it?

A. That the defendant believes that he did read the Higgs letter in 1985.

Q. Now, Cardinal Law, since you've agreed that this was an allegation of a serious nature, what follow-up do you know was provided to you, if any, by Father McCormack to investigate this allegation that Paul Shanley was making remarks about children having sex with adults, and when it occurs, it's the fault of the child?

A. Mr. MacLeish, specifically to answer your question, I have no knowledge of the specifics of what was done at this point, but I would say that in general, bishops, at least this bishop, get many, many letters from people about things that priests have said, and very often, very often these are things that have been misunderstood. And the presumption in getting such a letter without a previous record, which I did not have, the presumption that this person would have accurately heard and accurately reported what was said can't be immediately made.

And so what I would expect would happen, when something like this occurs, is that the person who is alleged to have said this would be confronted with this and said: How do you explain this? How can you -- how do you account for this? What did you say? What were you saying? How is it that this person could have heard this?

And my presumption is that that's the way in which this would have been dealt with. I don't know -- I guess that she did not send the tape and only sent the letter.

Q. Do you know whether she was ever requested to send the tape?

A. I don't know that.

Q. So, Cardinal Law, in the time that you served as Archbishop of Boston from 1985 up until the present, have you ever received a letter -- understanding you've received letters complaining about priests -- ever received a piece of correspondence stating that a priest was expressing deviant views about sexual relationships between men, or, rather, adults and children, apart from this communication?

A. Not that I know of, no.

MR. MacLEISH: We have 4:00, and I think that's what we agreed. I'm happy to keep going, but I think that was the agreement.

MR. ROGERS: No, no. Fine. And we will resume at 9:00 on Friday. Okay.

MR. MacLEISH: I'm going to ask --

MR. ROGERS: And I will try to have some dates to suggest to you tomorrow.

MR. MacLEISH: Again, I want to consult with my colleagues before we agree that -- because I had understood from your son, Will, that we were going to be able to go again in the afternoon.

MR. ROGERS: That's what we thought.

MR. MacLEISH: And I think I want -- let's not discuss it here. I just can't say I agree to it.

MR. ROGERS: I understand, but I will talk to you tomorrow.

MR. MacLEISH: If you can talk to me tomorrow about dates, then I think it makes things a lot easier.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:01. We are concluded and off the record.

(Whereupon, the deposition suspended at 4:01 p.m.)



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