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

More documents:

Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
January 22, 2003, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston

On January 22, 2003, Cardinal Bernard F. Law was deposed by lawyers for alleged victims of clergy abuse in connection with civil lawsuits filed against the Archdiocese of Boston for its handling of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley. A second day of testimony in this deposition took place on February 3.

First day of deposition (1/22/2003) | Second day of deposition (2/3/2003)

                                                    
                COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
    SUFFOLK, ss             SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
                            CA 02-04628-T1
                            (Consolidated with CA 02-1296)
                            (Originally entered in
                             Middlesex County as
                             No. 02-0822)
    
    PAUL W. BUSA,
         Plaintiff,
    vs.
    BERNARD CARDINAL 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 L. Good, (CSR
        #112593), 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, January 22,
        2003, commencing at 10:08 a.m.
                  K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
                      P. O. BOX 6094
                BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS  02209
                    TEL. (781) 598-6405
                    FAX  (781) 598-0815

                                                                     
    APPEARANCES:
         Greenberg Traurig
         (by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, and
         Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney)
         One International Place
         Boston, Massachusetts  02110
         Attorneys for the Plaintiff
    
         The Rogers Law Firm, PC
         (by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney)
         One Union Street
         Boston, Massachusetts  02108
         Attorneys for Defendants
  
        Todd & Weld
        (by Ian Crawford, Attorney)
        28 State Street
        Boston, Massachusetts  02108
        Attorneys for Cardinal Law Personally
  
   ALSO PRESENT:  George Libbares, Videographer
                  Rodney Ford
                  Wendy Champagne
                  Father John Connolly
                  Thomas F. Maffei, Attorney
                  Mr. and Mrs. Doe (p.m.)
                                                        


THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Libbares. 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 January 22, 2003, and the time is 10:08 a.m. This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law in the matter of Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, et. al., Defendants, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior Court, Civil Action 02-04628-T1, consolidated with Civil Action 02-1296, originally entered in Middlesex County as Civil Action 02-0822.

This deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The court reporter is Kathleen Good, with K. L. Good and Associates Court Reporting of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts 02209.

Counsel will now state their appearances and the court reporter will administer the oath.

MR. MacLEISH:: Counsel for the Plaintiff, Paul Busa, Roderick MacLeish, Jr.

Good morning, Cardinal.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

MR. CRAWFORD: Ian Crawford on behalf of Cardinal Law.

MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., on behalf of the Defendants.

CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the Plaintiff, having been duly sworn, on oath deposes and says as follows:

MR. MacLEISH: We're agreed that all objections except as to form and motions to strike are reserved until the time of trial.

Cardinal can have 30 days after he receives the deposition to review it, produce an errata sheet. And I think those are the stipulations in the other cases that we've had.

MR. CRAWFORD: That's correct.

MR. MacLEISH:: And also, we are --

THE WITNESS: Could I ask a question?

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. Sure.

THE WITNESS: Do I understand that also to mean that until I reviewed it, there would be no comment about what goes on here?

MR. MacLEISH:: Certainly I will not make any comment about what goes on here. I have not done that.

THE WITNESS: Good. Thank you.

MR. MacLEISH:: There are ethical rules concerning that and that is something I think --

THE WITNESS: I just wanted to be sure.

MR. MacLEISH:: Certainly.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. MacLEISH:: I'm not going to comment about your deposition. There have been press conferences that your attorneys have been at after the depositions. If -- I don't know what their plan is. We're here today to take your deposition, Cardinal.

THE WITNESS: Fine. Thank you.

MR. MacLEISH:: Not in any way to make your life difficult.

Also, as I discussed with your son, certain portions -- the we're going to be proceeding today, Will, is by priests, and Mr. Newman will be doing some of the questioning on some of the priests. They will not be duplicative, but that's the way we proceeded in other cases and we will be doing it. I'll probably stop questioning the Cardinal sometime this afternoon and Mr. Newman will deal with other priests. Okay?

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH:

Q. All right. Cardinal, again, thank you for coming and taking time out of your schedule to be here.

Could you please tell me, first, where you reside at the present time.

A. Well, I, at the present time, can be contacted through the Archbishop of Boston's Office, presently the Office of the Apostolic Administrator, Bishop Lennon.

I have not settled yet and I am presently on retreat.

Q. Where are you on retreat?

A. I would prefer to maintain that privately. I'm at -- in a monastery.

Q. Sure. Can I -- there are several cases that are coming up for trial. Maybe we can deal with it this way because I want to respect your privacy.

MR. MacLEISH:: Do we have an agreement here that if the matter proceeds to trial in this case that the Cardinal will be produced as a witness and then I can just move on to the other issues? Otherwise I really have to know where he is so that we can take whatever steps are necessary to subpoena him.

MR. ROGERS: It is the intention of the Cardinal to participate in the defense of these cases, including testimony at trial if necessary.

MR. MacLEISH:: Well, intention, Will, is different from actually being there.

MR. CRAWFORD: Let me also say, Eric, that if in fact you feel the need to subpoena him, we will corporate with you in that process and make his address available to you for purposes of appearance at a trial.

I'm just concerned about his privacy and the fact that this record obviously is made public.

MR. MacLEISH:: Sure.

MR. CRAWFORD: I certainly would agree to disclose to you his whereabouts in enough time prior to trial if a subpoena process becomes necessary.

MR. MacLEISH:: Well, okay, that's fine, but if he's abroad, then there's a whole different process through the Hague Convention that has to be followed, as you know, that you know that takes sometimes months.

MR. CRAWFORD: I can certainly give you assurances he is not abroad at the present time and nor -- I think I can represent this -- nor is there any intention of his being abroad in the next few months. That's not where his current retreat is.

THE WITNESS: That's correct. Just as I am here today --

MR. MacLEISH:: Sure.

THE WITNESS: -- and as I am scheduled to be here in early February and will be here.

MR. MacLEISH:: Right.

THE WITNESS: Anything that is necessary for me to do in the pursuit of my responsibilities in regard to cases of this type, I will do.

MR. MacLEISH:: I think you've also stated when you left as Archbishop, Cardinal, that you would be available for participation in the ongoing civil litigation process.

Did you make such a statement?

THE WITNESS: That's correct. As I am today.

MR. MacLEISH:: As you are today. That's very true. I just want to make sure then that we're clear that there is no commitment at the present time. There is an intention, if we proceed, if we do not resolve these matters, there's an intention for the Cardinal to be present, but not a commitment, not an unqualified commitment?

MR. CRAWFORD: I think that's a correct statement, and that we will work with you with respect to his whereabouts if your need for a commitment or a location in order to subpoena him -- we will make that available to you.

MR. MacLEISH:: And if -- can we also have an agreement that we will be notified if the Cardinal, prior to the time that the Cardinal goes abroad, so -- if he intends to reside abroad -- so that we will have sufficient time to get a subpoena out to him to secure his presence at trial?

MR. CRAWFORD: So long as it's not -- based on what you've just said, yes, we will give you that commitment as well.

MR. MacLEISH:: Okay. Then I don't --

MR. CRAWFORD: If he's intending to go abroad for anything more than a brief sojourn or brief trip, we will, if he is not going to voluntarily come back for trial, we will let you know where he is.

MR. MacLEISH:: In enough time that I can secure a subpoena?

MR. CRAWFORD: Correct.

MR. MacLEISH:: With that stipulation, then I have no need to inquire as to --

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. MacLEISH:: -- your present whereabouts, Cardinal, and I wish you nothing but the best in what you're doing.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Q. Cardinal Law, you may recall that in another case, the Ford case, we covered a number of different priests that, in the time period between 1984 and 1989, priests that had been brought to your attention and who had allegations of sexual abuse against them, priests like Father O'Sullivan, for example, that we covered in your last deposition.

Do you recall your testimony on that?

A. I recall that we had testimony on that, yes.

Q. I think that we covered a total of six priests who -- that you were personally involved in where there were allegations of sexual misconduct and received assignments.

Do you recall your testimony in that regard?

MR. CRAWFORD: I object to the form.

You may answer.

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead.

A. I can't -- I couldn't give you the six names right now if you were to ask me.

Q. Right, okay.

A. But I'm sure that if the record shows that, that's what we did.

Q. Well, Father O'Sullivan was someone who received an assignment after he pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a child.

Do you recall that?

A. I recall that we discussed his case, yes.

Q. Father O'Sullivan actually gave testimony several days ago.

Do you recall actually having a meeting with Father O'Sullivan at your residence after charges had been brought against him by the District Attorney's Office in Middlesex County?

A. When would that have been?

Q. 1984.

A. I don't have specific recollection of a date and of a meeting, but I do have a general recollection of having met with him.

Q. Do you recall in any way the substance of what you discussed with Father O'Sullivan at that meeting?

A. I don't have a recall of the meeting, but I would presume that the issue of his -- of the allegation -- of his situation would have been discussed. I would presume.

MR. CRAWFORD: Let me, before the next question --

MR. MacLEISH:: Sure.

MR. CRAWFORD: It is not useful for Mr. MacLeish for you to presume --

THE WITNESS: Presume.

MR. CRAWFORD: -- answers. So you really should answer what you know.

A. What I should say is I don't have a specific recollection of a conversation in 1984.

MR. MacLEISH:: Well, I object, Ian, to what you just said to the Cardinal because it's clearly, in our view, something that is prohibited by the rules.

So I would ask, Cardinal, if you don't have a specific recollection but you have a general recollection, I may ask you what your best recollection is, and you're free to qualify it in any way that you want.

Q. But you, as I understand your testimony, you don't have a specific recollection. You have some recollection of having a meeting with Father O'Sullivan?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And at that meeting, Cardinal, was the issue of Father O'Sullivan's continued presence in the Archdiocese, as a priest of the Archdiocese discussed in any way, from what you can recall?

A. I cannot -- I have no -- I really have no specific recollection of that conversation so I would find it difficult to sit here and try to reconstruct something, given the state of my memory.

I could be helped in that, perhaps, but I can't be more specific.

Q. Sure. Let me see if I can do that.

You do remember that Father O'Sullivan received an assignment to the Diocese of Metuchen that you approved personally; is that correct?

A. I am aware of that from having had things put before me earlier --

Q. Right.

A. -- in depositions.

Q. Now, is it not the case that Father O'Sullivan was placed outside of the Archdiocese because his continued presence within the Archdiocese had the potential to cause scandal? Is that not the case, Cardinal Law?

A. You know, I would have to -- I would have to review the case. I would need to talk to people. Certainly, scandal would be an issue here, yes.

Q. When you say "scandal," we're talking about scandal to the Church; is that correct?

A. The issue of assignment in these cases, as I think we've gone over before, was an issue of assigning someone when there was reason to suspect that they would not be a threat to others by that assignment, by the nature of the assignment.

Obviously, if someone is going to start out fresh, it would be advantageous for that to be in a new place. But -- and so, you know, scandal is involved in the fact that if a person is known for having acted in a certain way, that knowledge could be detrimental to being effective in performing duties.

Q. Right. Well, so Father O'Sullivan was considered by you fit to serve in a parish in New Jersey, but was not fit to serve in a parish of the Archdiocese of Boston; is that not correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You can answer.

A. I don't believe that's what I said. If that's what I implied, it's not what I meant to imply.

Q. Okay.

A. An assignment of a priest, of any priest, and an assignment of a priest against whom credible allegations have been made, was predicated upon some kind of indication from someone in whom authority could be reasonably invested, that this person would not be a threat. Now that would -- to others; that whatever it was that he had done had been dealt with in such a way that he did not constitute now a threat to others.

It wouldn't -- that wouldn't be geographically limited, that he wouldn't be a threat to others here, but he might be a threat to others there. But that determination would be for other reasons. Not because he would be a threat in A and not be a threat in B. Presumably, if he's not a threat, he's not a threat in A, he's not a threat in B.

As I've said before, and I know that it's tiresome to hear me repeat it --

Q. Right.

A. -- but I think it's important to repeat, that I wish to God that I had been able to operate with the benefit of hindsight, which we cannot operate with the benefit of, and that the policy that I introduced in January of 2001, when I was Archbishop of Boston, were the policy in '84, '85, '75, years before I got here, and in the '60s before, in some instances, I was even ordained. I was ordained in '61 as a priest. That's not the case. And in that policy, having acted out in this way would render one incapable of an assignment anywhere. But at that point --

Q. I understand.

A. -- that was not the case.

But to answer your question specifically, I do not recollect that any assignment was made geographically with the understanding that in point A, this person would represent a threat, but in point B would not represent a threat.

Q. All right. So in the case of Father O'Sullivan, we're not talking about credible allegations; we're talking about a man who has a criminal conviction on his record for unlawful sexual intercourse with a child. You recall that, Cardinal? You recall there was a plea of guilty to a felony in this case involving unlawful sexual intercourse with a child?

A. Yes. I think we went over all of this --

Q. We did.

A. -- before in an earlier deposition.

Q. We did indeed, but we now have had the benefit of Father O'Sullivan's direct testimony last week.

Now, the question that I have before you is whether or not you ever discussed with any of your subordinates that because of scandal, Father O'Sullivan, when he was returned to ministry following his evaluation, that he could not serve within the Archdiocese of Boston, but had to go to another state?

Did you ever recall discussing that with any of your subordinates or with Father O'Sullivan?

A. I cannot recall that. I have a vague recollection that Father O'Sullivan had family in New Jersey. I have a vague recollection of that. And that may be incorrect. And that --

Q. That appeared, actually, in one of your notations. I think we went over that in the previous deposition, that he had family.

A. All right.

Q. Father O'Sullivan testified here in this room last week that the reference -- he has no family in New Jersey, and that the family -- the only family that he has is up here in Massachusetts.

So that's new information that I can represent to you. Mr. Rogers' office was there. There was no family that he had in New Jersey.

A. Well, as I said, I was indicating to you a ecollection, which obviously is wrong.

Q. So my question is: Why did Father O'Sullivan get an assignment in New Jersey from you after his plea to unlawful sexual intercourse, in New Jersey, as opposed to an assignment within the Archdiocese?

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

MR. CRAWFORD: Note mine also.

You may answer.

A. Yes. First of all, as I've said, I don't have a clear recollection of this, of what occurred in 1984. But I can attempt to -- I don't know whether it's recollecting or reasonably surmise and I know that I shouldn't be doing that.

Q. No. That's fine for you to do that.

A. I don't know what else I can do at this point other than simply not answer, and I would rather reasonably surmise, if I might.

Q. That's fine.

A. But as I've indicated, the appointment of someone -- the -- first of all, I cannot assign someone to another diocese.

Q. Right.

A. But the permission for someone to work in another diocese would be predicated upon the fact that that person is capable of doing something in another diocese, and, presumably, objectively, would be capable of doing it here as well, but there may be extenuating circumstances which would indicate that it would not be in the best interests of the Church, of the individual, a mixture of both, for that to take place here. And for that reason, permission would be given for that person to serve somewhere else.

And I presume that that was the case here; that if there was -- if there had been a court case, a pleading, as you have indicated, but if at the same time there were an indication that this person could still function in a way as a priest, it would be logically and reasonably better for that to happen somewhere else than here.

Q. Was that because of the potential for scandal to the Church?

A. That would --

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.

A. That would certainly be a part of it. A scandal to the Church. It would be a burden to the individual. His own effectiveness, psychologically, emotionally would be affected by the history of what had occurred.

If he were able to start fresh somewhere else, he could do so more completely, more energetically. It's at the heart -- at the heart of our faith is a belief in the power of the resurrection of new life, of starting again. And this could -- this would be operative in terms of the individual as well.

Q. And you don't recall, Cardinal, do you, any restrictions that you placed on Father O'Sullivan when he went down to Metuchen, an assignment that you had to approve, as I understand it?

A. I really do not have specific recollection about the arrangements, the limitations, if there were any.

Q. I'm talking about restrictions on his access to children.

A. I do not have a recollection of what was involved in that.

Q. So it's fair to state that as you sit here today, that it was considered by you to be appropriate for Father O'Sullivan to minister to the children served by the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, but not appropriate for him to minister to the children of the Archdiocese of Boston?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

A. Mr. MacLeish, if you have gotten that answer from what I have just said, then either I am not expressing myself very well or you're not listening very well, because that certainly is not what I said.

Q. You used the word "appropriate."

A. I said that if -- I said that there could be -- that to infer that it -- a person could function in A but not in B geographically would be incorrect. That's not what I'm saying. But there could be extenuating circumstances which would indicate that it would be more appropriate to go here than to stay here. And that's what I said. I'm not saying more than that and I'm certainly not indicating that he could not have functioned as a priest here. I'm saying that it would not -- that it was, under the circumstances, it would have been a better thing.

Q. And the circumstances in the O'Sullivan case were the criminal plea to a felony and the publicity that followed that conviction; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you knew that if Father O'Sullivan were to remain in the Archdiocese of Boston and, for example, go back to Arlington, that he was at St. Mary's at Arlington and also at Arlington Catholic High School, that that had the potential to create a scandal. You knew that; is that correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer.

A. Obviously, I knew that.

Q. And you knew that if Father O'Sullivan remained and went, after his conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child, served in any parish in the Archdiocese of Boston, that that had the potential to create scandal. Is that a fair statement?

A. I don't think that's a fair statement. I would not have known that.

Q. All right.

A. You know. But I --

Q. Go ahead.

A. I think what is a fair statement is the statement that I have made, Mr. MacLeish, and I would like to have my statement stand on its own basis and not be embellished.

Q. Can you think of any reason then, given that we now know, contrary to what you believed, surmised -- and it was nothing more than that at your last deposition -- about Father O'Sullivan having family in New Jersey, can you give me any reason why Father O'Sullivan did not receive an assignment within the Archdiocese of Boston following his evaluation, apart from the need to prevent scandal?

A. I believe that the issue of family in New Jersey, which you have established and I accept that, did not exist; that it wasn't because of family in New Jersey that he was going to go there rather than to stay in Massachusetts. I think the question was would he stay in the Archdiocese or not in the Archdiocese. And then the question is where would he go.

And my -- and I was trying to reconstruct why New Jersey was the place. And beyond that, I really can't say why it was New Jersey. But the issue of whether or not he would have been able to function effectively in this parish, that parish or the other parish in the Archdiocese of Boston, I can't say.

In general, I would say that it would have been difficult for him to function within the Archdiocese of Boston given publicity, but I can't be certain of that. But I think both for his sake and for the potential of scandal, it would have been better for him, if it were safe for him to serve as a priest anywhere, to serve elsewhere.

But the question is not resolved as to whether this person is safe to serve as a priest here but not safe to serve as a priest there. If he's safe to serve as a priest, that's in and of itself, and then the question is, all right, now where is going to be the best place.

Q. My question was, Cardinal, can you think of any reason apart from the need to avoid scandal, given your belief that it was now safe to assign Father O'Sullivan, why he was not assigned to a parish of the Archdiocese of Boston? That was my question.

A. And let's presume for the sake of discussion that scandal would not be an issue. Let's presume that.

Q. No. Let's answer the question, please, if you could.

A. Well, I'm trying to answer the question.

MR. ROGERS: Let's him answer the question the way he wants to answer.

MR. MacLEISH:: He's rephrasing the question. Go ahead.

A. No, no, I'm not rephrasing it. I'm saying in my answer, if you would, for a moment, let's presume that scandal is not an issue. Then the question is: Are there other issues that might indicate that a person should serve somewhere else than here? And I'm saying, yes, there are issues in terms of the person's own psychological, emotional and spiritual good.

Q. But there was a scandal issue with Father O'Sullivan, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

Q. When we talk to the scandal, we're talking about not just scandal to Father O'Sullivan, but scandal to the Church; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So scandal played a role with respect to Father O'Sullivan in terms of where he was assigned after he was evaluated?

A. Could I, could I -- I just want to be certain that I understand what you mean by scandal. Could you define what you mean?

Q. Yeah. I will. Let me get you a document, Cardinal.

MR. MacLEISH:: Could I get that document, Jeff, the one on Father Burns. Let's mark this as an exhibit.

Q. While we're getting that document, Cardinal, you yourself have used the word scandal in relationship to priests who have been accused of sexual misconduct, have you not?

A. You know, since I am here in deposition, I'm very nervous about responding because I never know what is underlying what you're saying here. But I may have used the word scandal, yes. But I can't -- if you were going to then ask me when did you do that, I couldn't tell you.

Q. I'm just asking whether you ever used it and I understand that memories are fallible. I'm just asking you, I'm not trying to trick you, Cardinal.

MR. MacLEISH:: Why don't we mark that as No. 2, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 2, Memo,

marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Do you want me to look at this?

MR. MacLEISH:: No. This is No. 1. We're going out of order here

Q. Cardinal, you remember a priest by the name of Robert Burns?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you recall about Father Robert Burns, Cardinal?

A. May I read this, please?

Q. Absolutely.

(Pause.)

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see the word "scandal" in there, Cardinal?

A. I have not seen it. Is it there?

Q. No. At the end, Cardinal. It's not you specifically.

Do you recognize Exhibit No. 2, first of all?

A. No.

Q. Okay. It says, at the top, "Memorandum regarding Robert Burns, prepared at the Archdiocese of Boston, submitted to the Holy See by Bernard Cardinal Law, May 1999."

A. I see that.

Q. Okay. Do you recall that Father Burns -- learning at some point that Father Burns came to the Archdiocese of Boston through something called the lend-lease program?

A. I was not aware of that.

Q. Have you ever heard the term "lend-lease program," Cardinal?

A. Well, I've heard the term "lend lease."

Q. Right. Involving priests?

A. But I have never heard the term "lend lease" in this context and I wouldn't understand it in this context. Lend lease, for me, is if a diocese -- for example, here in the Archdiocese of Boston, there was a time when we had more -- not in my time, but in the time of Cardinal O'Connell -- where there were more seminarians for Boston than we had a need for priests and, therefore, there was an opportunity for priests, for seminarians to volunteer to go into parts of the country where there were not many priests.

That was lend lease.

MR. MacLEISH:: Okay. Let's mark the next packet of documents, please.

A. As I understand it, at least. It would have no meaning here.

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

(Law Exhibit No. 3, Letter, 6/24/86, marked for identification.)

MR. CRAWFORD: Do you want him to see this one?

MR. MacLEISH:: Yes. We'll deal with the last page first.

Q. You'll see the last page of Exhibit No. 3 is a letter that you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Sodano at the Vatican, concerning Father Burns.

Do you see that, the very last -- you're welcome to look through the whole document.

A. Let me see here, if I may.

Q. Certainly.

(Pause.)

A. Yes.

Q. Now that you've had the opportunity to read Exhibit No. 3, I would like to ask you some questions about the last page, which is your letter to Cardinal Sodano.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. And do you recognize that as your letter to Cardinal Sodano regarding Father Burns?

A. I don't recollect the letter previously but I would certainly recollect this as my signature, and it would be appropriate for me to have sent this letter to give my vote with regard to this petition. And I don't question at all that this is my letter.

Q. All right. And you use the word -- you state in the last page of Exhibit 3:

"The immoral and illegal activities of Father Burns during his stay in the Archdiocese of Boston are the cause, potential and actual, of grave scandal."

A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that, Cardinal?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Let's go back to the O'Sullivan case, and now that we've determined that you actually used the word scandal, why don't you give us your definition of scandal as you used it on the last page of Exhibit 3.

A. What is meant here on the last page of Exhibit 3 is that the immoral and illegal activities of Father Burns when he was in the Archdiocese of Boston, are the cause both of actual scandal -- in other words, that his acts caused people to view him and the Church in whose name he served in a negative light. And that would be actual scandal.

And then potential scandal would be that his continued presence and ability to serve as a priest would pose that threat.

Q. Then you'll also see in the third to last paragraph, you state:

"I believe that this action" -- which, in the case of Father Burns was the dispensation from clerical duties, it states -- "I believe that this action would benefit the Church without causing undue harm to the priest."

Do you see that?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. So clearly, in the case of Father Burns, you were concerned about the potential of Father Burns' continued status as a priest as potentially causing further scandal to the Church. Is that correct?

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

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form also.

You may answer.

Q. Do you understand the question?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Sure. Let me try to rephrase it. It was badly put.

In the case of Father Burns, one of the reasons why you joined with the Bishop of Youngstown, Ohio, in seeking to have Father Burns removed from the --

A. Laicized.

Q. Laicized. Let's put it laicized.

-- was because you believed that the action of laicization had the potential to benefit the Church; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you'll see in Exhibit No. 2, you see all of the allegations against Father Burns --

A. Yes.

Q. -- involving sexual molestation. You see all of the amounts of money paid by the Archdiocese of Boston to settle cases involving Father Burns.

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. So you must have some recollection given the magnitude of what this man did, about Father Burns. You must have some recollection, Cardinal, about him; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You in fact met with Father Burns; is that not correct?

A. I believe that I -- the only -- the only recollection that I have of meeting with him was seeing him when I went to, I think it was St. Mary's in Charlestown for the first time.

Q. Okay. But at some point, you learned that there were credible allegations of abuse against Father Burns; is that correct?

A. Well, obviously, because of the letter. You know, I can't tell you at what point, but, yes, at some point, I learned that there were credible allegations against Father Burns.

Q. And by 1999, you learned that after he had been released from the Archdiocese of Boston, he had gone to New Hampshire and committed yet another act of sexual molestation and had become incarcerated.

Do you see that in Exhibit No. 2, Cardinal?

A. That's correct.

Q. When Father Burns left the Archdiocese of Boston, what actions did you personally take to ensure that the parishes where he had served were notified that Father Burns had credible allegations of sexual molestation against him?

A. As I think I've indicated to you before, matters with regard to the handling of these cases were delegated and I did not personally deal with the details of what was done.

Q. Did you create any policy between the time that Father Burns left his ministry in 1991, and 1999 when the sixth complaint came to the attention of you and the Archdiocese of Boston? Did you put into effect any policy whereby former parishioners at the two parishes where Father Burns served were notified of the fact that this man had now six credible allegations of child molestation against him?

Did you put any policy like that into effect, Cardinal?

A. I think it should be a matter of record. If it is not, the written policy handling these cases is the policy of 19 -- I think 1983.

Q. 1993?

A. I mean 1993. Yes. I wasn't here in '83, thank God. 1993. And so the policy is stated there.

Q. Well -- and there is no policy about --

A. And I think --

Q. -- going back, correct, Cardinal?

A. That's right. I do not --

MR. CRAWFORD: Let him finish his answer, please, before you jump in with another question.

A. The policy --

MR. CRAWFORD: Would you complete your answer, please.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

A. The policy of the Archdiocese of Boston was put in written form in 1993. I even think at that time, I may be wrong, but I think that you had something positive to say about that policy when it was put in place, didn't you?

Q. You know, the thing about the deposition is that I get to ask the questions and you have to give the answers. I'm happy to talk about that with you privately.

A. I think you did.

Q. Well --

A. But at any rate, it was 1993 when we put the policy in place. And at that time, the policy did not deal with going to parishes where people had served previously.

Q. Was that because of the need to prevent scandal to the Church, Cardinal Law?

A. The effort in putting that policy in place, Mr. MacLeish, was to handle these cases in the most effective way we knew how at that time.

When that policy was written, it was generally praised as being forward looking. As we look at it now, it had deficiencies. And as you know, I corrected some of those deficiencies in January 1, 2000. January 1, 2001. But -- and as you know also, at the present time and while I was still Archbishop of Boston, we were attempting now to reach out in an effective way to parishes.

But at that time, we didn't do that.

Q. Cardinal, this man had six allegations of child molestation against him, according to the memorandum that you sent to the Holy See. You see that in Exhibit 2?

A. Yes.

Q. He had a criminal conviction he was serving in New Hampshire; is that correct?

A. In 1999 after he had left this archdiocese, yes.

Q. What precautions did you personally put in place, including notification to the Department of Social Services or law enforcement, about the threat posed by Father Burns to children? Because you'll see after, as you correctly noted, he left the Archdiocese, he went up to New Hampshire and was convicted of sexually abusing a minor and incarcerated.

So my question is: While he was still a priest, what did you personally do, either by way of policy or communication to law enforcement or DSS, to ensure that Father Burns, when he left the Archdiocese, would not commit abuse again? Did you do anything?

A. Mr. MacLeish, the policy is the written policy of 1993. What I did with regard to Father Burns is what I was able to do and that was to be sure that he did not serve in this Archdiocese. I did not have the responsibility, the authority over Father Burns beyond saying that he could not serve in this Archdiocese because I was not his bishop.

Q. He went up to New Hampshire, correct?

A. I did not know where he went, but I knew that he went to New Hampshire when I heard about the fact that he had run afoul and had acted out and had been in prison.

Q. And the question is: You knew before he went to --

A. He was a priest of Youngstown, Ohio; not a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston.

Q. Right. Yet he served in the Archdiocese for ten years?

A. While he was here.

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. And did he come to the Archdiocese of Boston, from what you're able to gather, because there was some shortage of priests within the Archdiocese or did he come and serve as a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston because Youngstown did not want to have him there, given the acts of child molestation he committed there?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

Q. That's very bad question. Let me break it down.

From what you have been able to gather and what you submitted to the Holy See, was there any shortage of priests that caused Father Burns to come and serve in Boston?

A. This is a very tragic case, Mr. MacLeish. And among the many, many cases that I've had anything to do with, to my mind, this is one of the most frustrating.

Clearly, he did not come here in lend lease. The decision for him to come here was made by my predecessor, the allowance for him to come, an arrangement made between my predecessor and Bishop Malone. However, it happened. The full record of Father Burns was obscured and he should never have received -- he should never have received an appointment.

Q. I'm sorry. Finish your answer.

A. He should never have received an appointment.

Q. You say "the full record of Father Burns was obscured."

What do you mean by that, Cardinal?

A. Well, given the record -- I think you read it here.

Q. Right.

A. Well, "Through a misjudgment of the severity of his past behavior and the likelihood of its reoccurrence, Father Burns received the full faculties of the Archdiocese."

That should not have happened.

Q. I'm asking you about obscurity now. Read the previous sentence, Cardinal.

"On October 27, 1982" -- "The October 27, 1982, report from the House of Affirmation to Reverend Gilbert Finn, Director of the Office of Clergy Personnel, copy attached, clearly stated that Father Burns ought not to receive an assignment that placed him in a position to minister to minors."

A. That's what I mean by obscured. It seems to me -- and I don't -- you know, I can't say this with any kind of certainty, but it would seem to me that that record was somehow obscured; that it was either lost sight of, it wasn't where it should have been, but if there were such -- and I have no reason to doubt because the copy is there -- if there were such a record, that on the basis of that record, he should never have received an assignment. He should never have received an assignment.

Now, I can't imagine that it would have been recommended to me that he be given an assignment in the face of that kind of a record unless there were an intervening kind of judgment that it would be appropriate, and I don't know of any, and there was none listed here in this memorandum.

Q. Well, we know from your own writings, Cardinal Law, that the recommendation of the House of Affirmation clearly stated that Father Burns ought not to receive an assignment that placed him in a position with minors.

You see that in your memorandum to the Holy See; is that correct?

A. Yes. This is a memorandum stating that in October 27, 1982 -- which is two years before I came here as Archbishop.

Q. I understand that, yes.

A. -- that there is this report from the House of Affirmation. And what I'm saying to you, Mr. MacLeish, as I sit here now with these documents in front of me, with my own memory of this very tragic, sad case, that this priest should never have received an assignment on the basis of that and that -- and I can't imagine that an assignment would have been made with active knowledge of that before someone.

Q. Could you please turn to Burns 274 in Exhibit No. 3. This is the affidavit of the Bishop of Youngstown.

A. Yes.

Q. You know the bishop, Bishop Malone; is that correct?

A. Yes. He's deceased now.

Q. Right.

A. But I did know him, yes.

Q. Why don't you take a moment and look at that affidavit.

A. Surely.

Q. I'm going to be asking you about No. -- well, ask you about No. Paragraph 10, if you could focus on that, Paragraph 11.

MR. ROGERS: It's now 11. Would this be an appropriate time for a break or do you want to --

MR. MacLEISH:: Sure. Could we stick to five minutes?

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 11 a.m. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:10 a.m. We're on the record.

Q. Have you had the opportunity to look at Bishop Malone's affidavit, Cardinal?

A. I did, yes.

Q. You'll see there are allegations of child abuse when Father Burns was serving in the Diocese of Youngstown.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. He then was sent to -- you'll see in Paragraph 5, he went -- in -- sorry, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9, Paragraph 7, he went to the House of Affirmation here in Massachusetts; is that correct?

A. I see that, yes.

Q. You'll see in Paragraph 10, it says:

"Prior to Father Burn's discharge from the House of Affirmation, I had determined that he would not be reassigned within the diocese of Youngstown."

Do you see that?

A. I saw that.

Q. "Father Burns decided to remain in the Boston area and he approached the most Reverend Alfred C. Hughes, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Boston, and Gilbert S. Finn, Director of Personnel of the Archdiocese of Boston, about his desire for a part-time assignment within the Archdiocese while he pursued post-graduate studies at Boston University."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. Then it states in Paragraph 11:

"I had various discussions by telephone with Bishop Hughes and Father Finn regarding Father Burns in which I clearly identified the problems which led to Father Burns' treatment at St. Luke Institute and House of Affirmation. Bishop Hughes and Father Finn both assured me that they were fully aware of Father Burns' history; that he had been and was receiving treatment; and that any assignment he would be given would be subject to the recommendation of his counselors and would not allow him to be in a position where he would have contact with young boys."

Do you see that?

A. I do that.

Q. And those are the words of --

A. Of Bishop Malone.

Q. -- Bishop Malone.

A. Recording his conversations with Bishop Hughes and Father Finn.

Q. You'll see in Paragraph 14, he also states:

"At all times in my discussions with Bishop Hughes and Father Finn, I was open and frank about Father Burns' problems and I never made any attempt to withhold any information that was within my knowledge."

Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you knew Bishop Malone to be an honest and credible person; is that correct?

A. Certainly.

Q. So in the case of Father Burns, when you referred earlier there was some obscurity, you've now had the benefit of reading the sworn statement of Bishop Malone.

Does that in any way modify or change your earlier answers about what was obscure to the Archdiocese of Boston about Father Burns?

A. May I, rather than saying yes, no, may I be a little bit more --

Q. You can answer the question as you want to.

A. Yes, I want to answer the question.

This document before me is 1999, this sworn affidavit of Bishop Malone. At this point, he is not in this Archdiocese, as you understand. So it's after the fact --

Q. Right.

A. -- in a sense. Where my indication of obscurity may be better understood is in Paragraph 10 --

Q. Yes.

A. -- where Bishop Malone says that Father Burns approached Bishop Hughes and Father Finn. And I presume that this is in 1982. When I came into this Archdiocese, it was '84. And --

Q. Right.

A. -- and Father Finn was not in the personnel office.

Q. He had been assigned as a pastor, I believe?

A. Yes. He was a pastor. I think at that point he was pastor of Gate of Heaven in South Boston. I did not make that assignment. That was made when I came here. That's where he was. I subsequently assigned him to St. Elizabeth of Hungary in Milton, where he is very effectively the pastor now.

So he was not in the Office of Personnel at that point. Bishop Hughes was -- and I presume in '82 also was -- the rector of the seminary, would not ordinarily have been a person who would be handling personnel at that point.

How it happened that Father Burns spoke to Bishop Hughes, I don't know. But Bishop Hughes would not have been in a line to follow-up on personnel assignments. When I came into the diocese, it would have been Bishop Daily who would have had that role with the people who were in the personnel office at the time, would have been Father Oates and Father Jim McCarthy, I believe, both of them in that personnel office.

Bishop Hughes would not have been in that loop. And Bishop -- and Father Finn was not in the office.

So what the knowledge of Father McCarthy and Father Oates was --

Q. And Bishop Daily.

A. -- at that point, I do not know.

What the active knowledge of Bishop Daily was at that point, I do not know.

Q. No.

A. Nor can I speak -- it says here that Bishop Hughes and Father Finn assured me that, in 11, that they were -- and this is '99 and he's thinking back to '82 -- that they were fully aware of Father Burns' history; that he had been and was receiving treatment; and that any assignment he would be given would be subject to the recommendation of his counselors and would not allow him to be in a position where he would have contact with young boys.

I have no idea what the records show with regard to any of that either. But all I can say as I sit here is to say that certainly, given an indication that he should not be assigned, then to have been assigned, was a mistake. And it had to be a mistake based on the fact that information that should have been before one and should have been operative in a decision wasn't.

Q. Well, Cardinal, why don't we just look again at Exhibit 2 and let me read you the last paragraph and see if you want to modify the answer you just gave.

"During his eight-year presence within the Archdiocese of Boston, Reverend Robert Burns is alleged to have sexually molested six young men. This propensity was known to officials within the Archdiocese of Boston but overlooked in favor of Father Burns' solemn assurance of his ability to control his impulses."

Do you see that?

A. I see that.

Q. So you wrote that Father Burns, that his propensity to become sexually involved with young men was known to officials within the Archdiocese of Boston. That's what you said to the Holy See, correct?

A. Well --

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

You may answer.

A. I did not prepare this memorandum; I submitted this memorandum.

Q. Did you read it?

A. I can't say whether I read it or not.

Q. A memorandum to the Holy See submitted by you as an attachment, I believe, of your letter of April 29, 1999, wouldn't it have been your practice to read communications that were as serious as these, Cardinal Law?

A. I would have asked that a memorandum be prepared from the record and I would have trusted the persons responsible for making the memorandum. I cannot state, as I sit here under oath, that I read that memorandum at the time. I would have asked that it be prepared. I would have been -- had confidence that it would have been accurate, but I cannot attest to the fact under oath that I read it.

Q. Nor can you attest to the fact under oath that there was some obscurity about Father Burns' past record? Nor can you testify with certainty about that, can you, Cardinal?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

You may answer.

A. I can repeat again, that I find it very difficult to see how someone would have been appointed, assigned, recommended for assignment, as a recommendation would come from the Personnel Office, with a firm indication from an institution like the St. Luke's Institute or the House of Affirmation, that this person might not function effectively where they are going to be ministering to boys.

Q. Yet it's the same St. Luke's Institute that reached precisely that same conclusion about Father John Geoghan that you subsequently assigned to ministry, correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer.

Q. Do you remember the recommendation that we covered in your last deposition of St. Luke's concerning Father Geoghan, Cardinal Law?

A. I'd want to look at the --

Q. Okay.

A. I know that there were several institutes involved there.

Q. Right. The first one was St. Luke's and he was initially sent to St. Luke's and then he went to the Institute for Living.

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And the recommendation of St. Luke's was that he not be returned to parish ministry.

Do you have a recollection of that, Cardinal Law?

A. I would want to look at the document.

Q. All right. Okay. Let's move on, Cardinal Law.

All I'm pointing out to you is that in the last paragraph, you state that the propensity of Father Burns -- this is on Exhibit No. 2 -- you state the propensity was known to officials within the Archdiocese of Boston.

Do you see that?

A. You're -- this is document 2.

Q. Right.

A. You're referring again to the memorandum --

Q. Yes.

A. -- which I indicated I may not have seen, I cannot attest under oath that I have seen, that accompanied my letter, yes.

Q. Fine. But the point is you really don't know -- and I could show you a whole group of documents about Bishop Daily and his knowledge of this, about Father Oates, about Father McCarthy. I really don't want to spend the time doing that because it's not germane.

The point is that you really don't know who in the Archdiocese knew about the recommendations of the House of Affirmation and St. Luke's concerning Father Burns, do you?

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

Q. Because you weren't here.

A. First of all, I was not here.

Secondly, I have not discussed this with anyone else.

Q. So you don't know?

A. Thirdly, you have put before me the affidavit of Bishop Malone and I don't know what is reasonable to assume from that or not. He states that he discussed this with two individuals. I have not discussed it with either of those individuals, so that beyond this document, I have no basis upon which to stand.

Q. Okay. That's fine.

Let's turn to Burns 57, if we could, please, in Exhibit No. 3. Take a moment and read that.

A. Exhibit 3?

Q. Yes, Exhibit 3.

A. 57.

Q. You recognize your letter of April 16, 1991, to Father Burns?

A. I do not recall writing the letter, but I recognize this as a letter bearing my signature and I have no reason to dispute the fact that it is my letter.

Q. You were aware of the time that you wrote this letter that there was a credible allegation that Father Burns had anally raped an 8-year-old boy?

A. I cannot tell you what specific knowledge I had at that time, but I think that the substance of the letter is very clear. The letter is to end this person's assignment.

Q. Right. And you knew that there was an allegation, a credible allegation of sexual molestation at that time, did you not?

A. Well, I presume that I had reason to end the assignment.

Q. You'll see in Exhibit No. 2, you'll see:

"3/91. First complaint received against Father Burns of sexual molestation of a boy within the Archdiocese of Boston. In response, the assignment to St. Mary's Parish in Charlestown is ended immediately."

Do you see that?

A. Yeah. I see that. I see the record.

What I also would need to say, Mr. MacLeish, is that I was not aware of the specifics of these acts of molestation. I was aware that there was -- and so when I qualified my response --

Q. Sure.

A. -- it was to the specificity of the act that you were giving. But in a general way, I was aware of the fact that there had been credible allegations.

Q. Why did you not consider it important, Cardinal, for you to know the specifics of the acts involved?

A. Again, as I have tried to explain, it isn't a question that I didn't think it was important for me to know that, but I had -- I had delegated the handling of these cases to others, and what I needed to know, I needed to know.

The fact that there was an allegation, the fact that there was an act of sexual abuse in and of itself was enough. I didn't need to know the details of that to know that something needed to be done.

Q. Right. And in this letter to Father Burns, that is on Exhibit No. 3, Bates Stamp 57, you state to Father Burns:

"Life is never just one moment or one event and it would have been unrealistic to have too narrow a focus."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you mean by that, Cardinal Law?

A. Well, I appreciate your asking this question because a bishop is a pastor, and a bishop is a pastor to everyone within his Archdiocese.

In this instance, what I am attempting to do for this individual, as I would attempt to do for any individual, is to indicate that however reprehensible your conduct may have been in this instance, in this instance or that instance, you need also to understand that this bad act of stealing, or this murder, doesn't necessarily -- doesn't define your life; that your life -- that it doesn't say that, therefore, everything you have ever done is bad. And that it's important to know that, even as you deal with what is bad, even as you deal with what is reprehensible, what is immoral, what is a sin from our perspective, as you deal with that, you also have to recognize that there have been other things that you have done as well. You have comforted the dying, you have counseled people in an encouraging way so that you have -- you can't see your life simply from the focus of the terrible things you have done. You have to see that. You have to acknowledge that, and, obviously, in this instance, you have to bear the consequences of that.

But life is more than just our bad acts.

Q. And it was important for you that Father Burns know that; is that correct?

A. I think it's important, yes. I think it's important for anyone you're dealing with to know that.

Q. And that's why you wrote that to Father Burns, because you wanted him to know that he couldn't just define his life by this one act of sexual molestation?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Father, I mean, Cardinal, would it have made any difference if you had known that the specific allegation involving Father Burns at the time was that he anally raped an 8-year-old boy?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

Q. Would that have made any difference in what you would have said to Father Burns?

A. Would it have made any difference in my saying --

Q. Life is --

A. -- that his life shouldn't be viewed simply in terms of this terrible act of rape, but that there were other acts in his life and there were good acts in his life, and as he tries to put his life together now, he needs to remember that. Because if people don't do that, Mr. MacLeish, they can be driven to nothing but suicide.

Q. I understand.

A. And one doesn't want to encourage that.

Q. Cardinal, was it important -- so it's important for you to provide some sort of comfort to Father Burns, then?

A. Not comfort, but perspective as the person moves on with his life. I think that's what a pastor should try to do. I think that's what a bishop should try to do, particularly with a priest in a situation like this.

Q. What did you try to do to the family of the young boy who had come forward, what did you do, if anything, you personally, specifically, to help that family? Can you recall anything, Cardinal, anything at all?

A. I did not deal with that family. And I see that one of the ways in which what is in place in the Archdiocese now -- and I'm grateful to God that I was a part of that -- was to have a method of reaching out to families and to victims, which is much more effective and significant.

Q. Let's talk about the time period in question, Cardinal.

A. I can't do --

Q. You didn't do anything?

A. I can't go back, Mr. MacLeish, and redo things and you know that I didn't do anything.

Q. I have to ask you the questions, Cardinal.

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Did you do anything for that family of the young boy, you personally --

A. I did not personally, but, personally, the way in which families are dealt with is through parishes. That's why we constitute parishes. We have two and a half million people in the Archdiocese. It is the bishop who is the pastor of the priests in a very special way. They don't belong to parishes to be ministered to. It is the bishop that bears that responsibility. Yes.

Q. I'm just really asking about what was going through your mind at the time. You dealt personally with this man that had been accused, as you understood it, at the time, of some sexual molestation of a boy. You dealt with him personally. My question is just a simple one.

Did it ever cross your mind to deal personally or instruct someone to deal personally with the family of and the victim in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that ever cross your mind?

A. Oh, absolutely.

Q. Did you do anything?

A. My presumption was -- again, as I indicated, I had people who were delegated by me in these areas, and my presumption always is that in a pastoral situation, it is the pastor and the pastoral staff that deals with the families that are aggrieved.

Q. I'm talking about you personally, Cardinal. I understand --

A. That is the way -- I attempted --

MR. CRAWFORD: Please. You've answered and --

A. I've attempted to answer the question.

MR. CRAWFORD: I believe you have answered the question.

Q. So you don't recall doing anything personally with this family; is that correct?

MR. ROGERS: It's been asked three times.

MR. MacLEISH:: It hasn't been answered, though.

MR. ROGERS: He has answered.

MR. CRAWFORD: It has been answered.

MR. MacLEISH:: He has to answer the question.

MR. ROGERS: He has answered it.

MR. MacLEISH:: He's answered but not responded to the question. The question was very simple.

Q. Did you, Cardinal --

A. Do you understand what a bishop is, Mr. MacLeish>?

Q. Yes. I --

A. A bishop -- a bishop is a pastor of a diocese and --

Q. Yeah. Cardinal --

A. Let me explain to you.

MR. MacLEISH:: He's not answering --

MR. ROGERS: Let him answer the question.

MR. MacLEISH:: I did not ask a question. There's no question --

MR. ROGERS: We reserved motions to strike until the time of trial.

MR. MacLEISH:: This does not allow him -- let's get Judge Sweeney on the line. This does not allow him to come forward and start lecturing me. Okay?

MR. ROGERS: Look, look --

MR. CRAWFORD: Let's get her on the line because he's already answered this question --

MR. ROGERS: Three times.

MR. CRAWFORD: -- specifically in one of his earlier answers. You continue to ask the same question.

THE WITNESS: Would you ask the question again.

Q. Yes. Did you, Cardinal Law -- if you could answer it yes or no -- do anything personally to contact the family of the young boy that had been sexually molested by Father Burns?

MR. ROGERS: I object to the question. It's been asked and answered.

A. The way in which I interacted with families of abused persons was through the pastors, through the parishes. I did not personally involve myself at that level.

Q. Okay. Cardinal, were you concerned that, in 1991, that Father Burns might molest another child as he had done in Youngstown, Ohio, and at least as of 1991, to your knowledge, with one individual in the Archdiocese? Were you concerned it might happen again?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer if you can.

A. I cannot tell you what my knowledge was in '91, what the potential was in '91. I really cannot do that. I don't know that.

Q. Okay. Does it concern you as you sit here today, going through the chronology of what happened to Father Burns, that after he left the Archdiocese of Boston, that he was in New Hampshire and was convicted and incarcerated for molesting another boy? Does that concern you at all, Cardinal?

A. What do you mean by does that concern me?

Q. I think --

A. I am concerned if any child anywhere is molested by anybody. I think it's a terrible crime and I think it's immoral.

In this instance, he was not able to function in this Archdiocese because of concern.

Q. Right. But there was nothing to prevent you or your subordinates, nothing to prevent you from contacting the Department of Social Services or the police about what had occurred when Father Burns was in Boston, correct?

A. What year are you talking about?

Q. 1991. There was nothing that would have prevented you, apart from what your policies were, there was nothing that would have prevented you or your subordinates, given the history of this man in Youngstown, Ohio, his history in Boston, from picking up the phone and calling the child protection agency in Massachusetts, the Department of Social Services. Nothing that would have prevented that from happening?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

Q. You were free to do that, correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Which question do you want him to answer? There was a whole series.

MR. MacLEISH:: Let's break it down. Let's break it down.

Q. We know that in 1991 you were aware that there was an allegation of sexual molestation involving Father Burns; is that correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, there was nothing at that time that would have prevented you or your subordinates from contacting the state child protective agency, the Department of Social Services, correct?

A. I don't think that there was anything that would have prevented that from occurring.

Q. But it didn't happen, did it?

A. It did not happen.

Q. Right. Do you know whether --

A. As you very well know -- and by the way, I would like to correct something that I misstated twice earlier.

Q. Sure.

A. I indicated that in January of 2001, it should have been January 2002 --

Q. Right.

A. -- I had put in place a new policy. And as you know, part of that policy is the reporting to public officials when such an allegation occurs. And as I have said previously and will say again, I wish to God that that had been the case much earlier, but it wasn't.

Q. I'm not going to be asking you any questions --

A. So it was not the case.

Q. Cardinal, I'm not going to be asking you any questions at all today concerning the policy that you instituted in January of 2000, not going to ask you any questions about that, though.

Was the pastor of the parish of the victim of Father Burns told by you or by one of your subordinates, to your knowledge, about the abuse and told to go out and comfort the family?

A. He was not told by me.

Q. Now, was he told, to your knowledge, by any of the subordinates?

A. I do not know that.

Q. Now, you go on in this letter, Cardinal Law, of April 16, 1991, you go on to state:

"It would have been better were things to have ended differently, but such was not the case."

Do you see that?

A. That's correct.

Q. "Nevertheless, I still feel that it is important to express my gratitude to you for the care you have given to the people of the Archdiocese of Boston while you were pursuing your graduate degree at Boston University."

Do you see that?

A. That's correct.

Q. What understanding did you have of the care that had been given by Father Burns to the people of the Archdiocese? Did you have any specific understanding?

A. Would you -- would you mind if I entered into the record the next, the last sentence of that paragraph?

Q. Let's just take it one at a time. I'm going to read that sentence too.

A. I think that sentence is very important --

Q. We're going to get to that.

A. -- even to answering the question that you put before me.

Q. If you would be comfortable doing it, that's fine.

A. Fine.

Q. Let me read it. I will read it, Cardinal.

A. Thank you.

Q. "I am certain during this time you have been a generous instrument of the Lord's love in the lives of most people you served."

A. And the operative word there is "most," "of most people you served."

And again, it's an effort to put in context the fact that his reprehensible acts, his immoral acts, his acts for which he is not able to have a position of ministerial service in this Archdiocese would nonetheless have to be seen in the light of the fact that there were other things that he did for which I could thank him.

Q. What did you know specifically about those other things, Cardinal, or was that just a presumption?

A. It's a presumption.

Q. You didn't have any personal knowledge?

A. It's --

Q. Excuse me. You did not have any personal knowledge of anything that Father Burns did that constituted care to the people of the Boston Archdiocese? You didn't have specific knowledge of that?

A. It's a presumption. I would --

Q. Right.

A. I would have little specific knowledge of what any priest does.

Q. Well, you did have some specific knowledge of what this priest did do.

A. And it was because of that that I took the action that I did.

Q. Right. Now, Cardinal Law, you have previously stated that you know a nun whose name is Sister Catherine Mulkerrin; is that correct?

A. I do know her, yes.

Q. Are you aware that she has testified, given testimony in this case?

A. I'm not aware of that. At least I don't recall that. If I have seen it before, I've forgotten it.

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

(Law Exhibit No. 4, Excerpt of

Mulkerrin Deposition, marked for

identification.)

A. Do you want me to look at this?

Q. I'm going to read you a section and ask you a question about it.

A. All right.

Q. Let me start on page 26.

A. 26. All right.

Q. This is Exhibit No. 4, second page.

And I'm going to read you a section and then ask you an answer -- ask you a question. This is starting on line 7 of Exhibit 26.

"QUESTION: You were dealing with approximately 40 priests?

"MR. ROGERS: Again, talking '92 to '94?

"MR. MacLEISH:: You got it, '92 to '94.

"ANSWER: I know that at some point I reached over a hundred names, both with active priests and deceased priests.

"QUESTION: That was just between 1992 and 1994?

"ANSWER: Yes, it was.

"And that was after the Porter case; is that correct?

"Yes, it was.

"QUESTION: Did people indicate to you, some of them, that they were coming forward as a result of the Porter case?

"ANSWER: I have no exact memory of anyone using Porter's name --

"QUESTION. Right.

"ANSWER: -- but I think the climate was opened by that for people to come forth.

"QUESTION: So you had allegations, so we're clear, against more than 100 living and deceased Roman Catholic priests; is that correct?

"ANSWER: Yes, I did.

"QUESTION: And did this surprise you?

"ANSWER: Yes, it did.

"Yes. Did it sadden you?

"ANSWER: I'm still sad about it.

"QUESTION: We all are. Approximately how many of these priests were still alive? Approximately of those more than a hundred that you dealt with in 1992 to 1994?

"ANSWER: I hesitate to say a number. I'm not really sure.

"QUESTION: But the fair majority, the majority of them were still alive; is that correct?

"ANSWER: I think it would certainly be 60 to 75 percent.

"QUESTION: That were still alive?

"ANSWER: That were still alive.

"QUESTION: Do you remember undertaking any type of calculation, Sister, for these priests to determine in the aggregate how many different parishes of the Archdiocese they had served in?

"ANSWER: No, I did not.

"QUESTION: But you knew that many of these priests had had multiple assignments throughout the Archdiocese; is that correct?

"ANSWER: I would know what assignments they had from the index card.

"QUESTION: But you knew generally with respect to these priests that there were typically more than one assignment for each priest that you were dealing with between 1992 and 1994, priests who were accused of sexual misconduct?

"Yes." It would even -- It would be even consistent -- "It would be even consistent with the assignment processes."

Cardinal Law, were you aware through Sister Catherine Mulkerrin or your Delegate, Bishop John McCormack, that there were allegations of sexual misconduct against more than 100 priests of the Archdiocese by 1994?

A. I'm not sure. I don't know.

Q. Well, as you sit here, and as I read to you Sister Catherine's deposition, does it come as any sort of surprise to you that there were allegations of sexual misconduct involving more than a hundred priests by the time Sister Catherine left her job in 1994?

A. Yeah. What's difficult for me to respond to, Mr. MacLeish, is to put in a time frame --

Q. Right.

A. -- when I became conscious of the numbers. And I think you can appreciate the fact that over the past 12 months I've dealt before you and before other attorneys, I've looked at -- had documents put before me. We've tried to deal with the new cases that are coming forward and I just can't say what it was that I knew in terms of numbers at that time.

Q. All right. Let's turn to page 96 of Sister Catherine's deposition, please.

A. 90 -- excuse me?

MR. CRAWFORD: 96.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I see. The little pages.

A. Yes.

Q. I would like to just read you another section starting on page 96 of Exhibit 4. This is line 16.

"QUESTION: And so my question is who, apart from you and Bishop McCormack, were aware that there were more than" -- more than -- "by the time you left in August of 1994, there were allegations against more than 100 priests of the Archdiocese of Boston?

"ANSWER: Besides the review board anonymously?

"QUESTION: The review board would just deal with case by case. Was the review board ever told the number of a hundred, more than a hundred?

"ANSWER: I don't know.

"Okay.

"ANSWER: I'm sure whoever the Moderator of the Curia while I was there, okay, that would be -- his name is gone from me.

"QUESTION: I know. Me too. Who took Bishop Banks's place?

"ANSWER: Bishop Hughes.

"QUESTION: Bishop Hughes, right? Bishop Murphy?

"Came in -- I think overlapped two months.

"QUESTION: You assume that the Moderator of the Curia would have known?

"ANSWER: I assume the Cardinal knew because the men would have to be withdrawn."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Cardinal Law, did you ever -- when Sister Catherine resigned her position in August of 1994, do you recall having a meeting with her?

A. I don't recall that. I don't -- I could have very well but I don't recall that.

Q. Do you recall the reason why Sister Catherine left her position working for Bishop McCormack in the Office of Delegate?

A. I do not.

Q. Do you ever remember discussing that with her on any occasion?

A. I can't recall. You know, I had a very good relationship with Sister Catherine. She was doing superb work and I was very grateful for that work. I didn't want to see her go. But I really don't know. I can't recall that.

Q. Okay.

A. Maybe if you had something to refresh my memory, it might come back, but I don't recall.

Q. We can bring in other parts of her deposition, Cardinal, for you to look at. But here we have Sister Catherine talking about -- was working for Bishop McCormack and reporting the numbers to Bishop McCormack.

Would it be fair to state that during the 1994 time period, Bishop McCormack was reporting to you as your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct?

A. Yes, he was reporting to me. Sister Catherine was working with him. Sister Catherine's work, as I understand and recollect, Sister Catherine's work with him would have been in dealing with persons who had been abused or who were bringing allegations.

Q. And then there were hundreds of them, according to Sister Catherine, of people who came forward in that two-year time period?

A. That's what --

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question.

You may answer.

Q. It's not before you, Cardinal. We're talking about the number of priests here. You understand that? The number of priests. This is the number of priests that there were allegations against.

A. That's what I understood in the reading of the deposition.

Q. And we can refer you to other portions of her deposition where she talks about the numbers of victims which were in the hundreds.

So my question to you is: Did you ever learn from Bishop McCormack in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, up until the time Bishop McCormack left, that there was more than a hundred priests who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them?

A. I don't have a recollection of being informed of that.

Q. How many priests, active priests were there in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1994, approximately?

A. 1994?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I can't be certain, but let's say perhaps 860.

Q. Would that include the retired priests?

A. No, no. That wouldn't include -- that's active, not retired.

Q. So if someone had come to you and told you --

A. Roughly, you might say, a thousand.

Q. Okay. Including the senior priests?

A. Retired, yeah.

Q. If someone had come to you, Cardinal Law, and told you there are allegations against 100 priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, is it fair to state that that's the type of information that would have attracted your attention?

A. It would have been a shock.

Q. So your best recollection --

A. And it is a shock.

Q. As you read it right now?

A. It's a shock now. Certainly it's been a shock these last months.

Q. But back in 1994 -- okay, let's go back to that time period -- it would have been a shock to you then; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. But you have no recollection of Bishop McCormack ever telling you about the magnitude of this problem, that there were more than a hundred priests that had allegations against them. Is that fair to state?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

You may answer.

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Now, was it Bishop McCormack's job to keep you updated about the number of allegations and the general -- withdraw the question.

Was it Bishop McCormack's job as your Delegate to keep you updated about the scope of this problem?

A. It was Bishop McCormack's responsibility with regard to this problem to deal with cases that came before us in as effective and appropriate way as possible. That was his responsibility. I don't think that it was ever said to him that I want a periodic report on numbers.

Q. But you met with him weekly, Cardinal. Your appointment calendar, you met with him weekly. Sometimes not every week, but you had regular scheduled meetings with Father McCormack; is that correct?

A. I had regular meetings and I think you have access to my calendar.

Q. Right.

A. So you would have an indication better than I as to how often I met with him. I think it was in '93 or after that, that the responsibility of Delegate was isolated as a specific responsibility.

Up until that time, the role that Father McCormack, and later he was Bishop McCormack, had was Secretary for --

Q. Ministerial?

A. -- Ministerial Personnel.

Q. Right.

A. And that responsibility was broader than simply this issue.

Q. But it included, it included --

A. It included this issue.

Q. Excuse me. Let me finish the question.

It included the job of dealing with priests who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them?

A. It included that but it was not exclusively that.

Q. I understand.

A. So that it would be incorrect to infer that every time that I met with him, we met concerning the issue of sexual misconduct.

Q. We're going -- let's go back to page 96 of this deposition, Cardinal Law.

A. All right.

Q. And you'll see again, lines 16 through 24, you'll see Sister Catherine acknowledging that Bishop McCormack was aware of the magnitude, in terms of the number of priests, that had allegations of sexual misconduct against them.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So my question is: Wasn't it part -- by 1994, Cardinal Law, Bishop McCormack was your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct; is that correct?

A. By '94, yes.

Q. And you had regular meetings with Bishop McCormack in his capacity as Delegate for -- your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct in 1994; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And so wouldn't it have been the normal part of your protocol with Bishop McCormack for him to give you reports about what was occurring with respect to clergy sexual abuse?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

You can answer if you can.

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead.

A. You know, first of all, there wasn't a written protocol as to what he should deal with me on, on these matters. The written protocol was the policy which he was to implement. And his report to me would be on those matters that I needed to -- that my action was necessary, that I needed to act, to seek advice. But there wasn't

A. protocol that indicated that a report needed to be made.

Q. You'd just have meetings with him? These were informal meetings then, is that fair to state, your meetings in 1994, 1995, with Bishop McCormack, your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer if you can.

A. If you recall, we were in the process of implementing a new policy. There could be any number of issues that would arise that he would bring before me, but I, you know, I can sit here for a month of Sundays and I'm not going to be able to say to you that it was part of his responsibility to give me a card indicating how many cases there were because that wasn't there.

Q. I'm not suggesting that at all, Cardinal.

A. And I cannot recall the substance of those meetings.

Q. I understand you can't recall the substance of those meetings. But what I'm asking you is, when you saw -- when you read Sister Catherine Mulkerrin's deposition, I think you indicated that it was a shock for you to see the number of priests involved.

A. I said that I was shocked when I came, became aware of those numbers over the past twelve months, when I have seen the number of new cases that have emerged over the past six months. Certainly that's a shock.

If I'm shocked in 2003 and 2002, I would have been shocked in 1994.

Q. All right. But isn't it fair to state that if Bishop McCormack had in fact told you that there were more than 100 priests by August of 1994 that had allegations of sexual misconduct against them, that that is something that would stand out in your memory?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

You can answer if you can.

Q. We're talking about more than 10 percent, potentially 10 percent of actual priests of the Archdiocese of Boston.

MR. ROGERS: Is that a question?

MR. CRAWFORD: Is that a question?

MR. MacLEISH:: I'm trying to --

MR. ROGERS: What's the question?

MR. MacLEISH:: I withdraw that.

Q. Cardinal, if you had known -- is it fair to state that using your best recollection, that if someone had come in 1994 and told you that there were more than, there were allegations against more than 100 priests of the Boston Archdiocese, that that is the type of information, of sexual misconduct, that that's the type of information that would have stood out in your mind?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

You may answer.

MR. ROGERS: I object to the form to the extent you indicate he was not using his best recollection in every question. I believe he has been. So I think --

MR. MacLEISH:: I believe that to be true too.

MR. ROGERS: All right.

A. Mr. MacLeish, my response to sexual misconduct against minors on the part of clergy is not predicated upon numbers. There's not a threshold where you have to have a response, and a hundred calls for a response, 99 doesn't, one doesn't at all. I think one is one too many.

And our effort to deal with this issue as responsibly as we could is present in the '93 policy, imperfect though it be. And it was an effort to implement that policy as effectively as we could as we received cases of misconduct. That was a responsibility of the Delegate.

Q. When did you -- Cardinal, could you answer my question, please?

My question was: Is it fair to state that if someone had come to you in 1994 and told you there were a hundred priests that were involved in alleged sexual misconduct, that that is the type of information that you would now remember having received in '94? Do you understand my question?

A. I was --

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question.

You may answer.

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.

A. I cannot tell you how many priests I knew in '94 were involved. I can't tell you that. But I can tell you that I was very concerned by the fact that there were any involved, and we were attempting to deal with that issue as effectively as we could.

Q. And you were also, in 1993 and 1994, making statements about the coverage in the news media concerning the Father Porter case, denouncing it as besmirching the good names of many priests; is that correct?

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

A. Did I ever say anything like that? Yes.

Q. But you never described in any of those

statements that you made the scope of and magnitude of the problem that existed within the Boston Archdiocese.

Is that a fair statement?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You can answer.

A. Well, as I've indicated to you, I'm not certain what knowledge I had of that scope at the time that that statement was made.

Q. But we see Sister Catherine stating in August of 1994, it's more than a hundred priests.

A. Yes, we do.

Q. And we also know that you would have to know something about the magnitude of this problem because you would have to remove the priest when there were credible allegations; is that correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.

MR. ROGERS: Objection to form.

Q. That would have to be a decision made by you?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to form of the question.

A. That's correct. A priest that would be removed would need to be removed by me, that's correct.

Q. So with respect to the priests --

MR. ROGERS: It's twelve o'clock. May I suggest a five-minute --

MR. MacLEISH:: One more question.

MR. ROGERS: Sorry?

MR. MacLEISH:: One more question.

Q. So with respect to the priests that by August of 1994 that were alive, some of this number includes priests that were deceased, with respect to the number that were alive, you would have had to have known about all of those priests because you had to approve their removal. Is that correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

MR. ROGERS: Object to the form.

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.

A. Yeah. All I can say is that if a priest was removed, I would have known that --

Q. Fine.

A. -- yes.

Any priest that was removed from '84 on, I would be aware of that.

Q. Including the priests removed in '92 to '94, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. MacLEISH:: Okay. Let's take a five-minute break here.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12 p.m. This is --

MR. ROGERS: When do we -- we break for lunch at one?

MR. MacLEISH:: Yes.

MR. ROGERS: Good.

MR. MacLEISH:: We're happy to break early. Any time you'd like to.

MR. ROGERS: No, no.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of Cassette 1.

(Recess.)

(Law Exhibit No. 5, Letter to Sexton,

5/19/66, marked for identification.)

MR. MacLEISH:: You wanted to say something?

THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish, I just wanted to, for the record, point out, Father McCormack, Bishop McCormack, but at that time, I think Father McCormack, was serving as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, and in that role, also had the role that ultimately became the role of the Delegate. At a certain point, those two positions were separated out --

MR. MacLEISH:: Right.

THE WITNESS: -- and someone new was brought in, and I don't recollect the date when that occurred. But I just -- it was in this period sometime after the '93 policy and I'm not sure exactly when that was.

Q. Well, it was several years before Bishop McCormack -- he had that position for several years before he left for New Hampshire, is that correct, as Delegate? The Delegate position?

A. Well, secretary, no. Before he left for New Hampshire --

Q. Yeah.

A. -- he was the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel.

Q. Okay.

A. And I think someone else had the position of Secretary.

Q. Of Delegate. Brian Flatley, Father Flatley?

A. I believe that's the case.

Q. In any event, is it your best recollection that by 1994, Bishop McCormack had some responsibility with respect to clergy who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them?

A. I don't dispute that, but I would want to check the record to see at what point did we make a division in that responsibility.

Q. Fine.

A. And the only reason that I do that is that his name occurring in the calendar would not have the burden, if you will, of these cases if in fact it were after the time when someone else had that specific responsibility.

Q. You saw Sister Catherine's testimony about who she reported to --

A. I did.

Q. -- and who was aware of this number?

A. I did.

Q. It was Bishop McCormack, right?

A. So I would presume at that point that it was he.

Q. Okay. Let's move on to the next exhibit, please.

A. I think somewhere else here too -- well, fine.

Q. We're moving on now, Cardinal, to the next exhibit, which is Exhibit No. 5. These are certain records that were produced by the Archdiocese concerning a priest named James D. Foley.

Do you remember Father James D. Foley?

A. Jim Foley? Let me just see.

Q. Let me direct you to some --

A. We have a number of Foleys. I just want to be sure.

Q. Yes.

A. -- which Foley we're talking about.

Q. This was the man who had two children in '65.

A. I know that name.

Q. Yes. Look at page 28 of Exhibit No. 5, please, Cardinal Law.

A. 28? You don't want me to look at the beginning?

Q. You can look at whatever you want to look at. Many of these records don't concern you.

A. That's what --

Q. But you're welcome to look at whatever you'd like to look at.

A. No. 28, fine.

Q. You'll see a reference -- maybe look at 21,

A. 21?

Q. Yes. You'll see a reference to -- this is T. J. Daily, not to be consumed with -- not to be confused with Bishop Daily. You'll see a note in this record that sort of summarizes who James Foley was as of 1993.

"This man ordained in 1960 requested a transfer out of Needham for personal reasons. Following that, he was in East Boston. He had to be hospitalized. He was on lend lease" -- do you see that, Cardinal Law?

"He was on lend lease to Calgary, Alberta, for two years. He had to leave there because he was involved with a young woman. He disappeared with her a while. A scandal was created."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. "He returned to Boston in 1968. Later he became pastor of St. Peter's in Dorchester and in '87, he went to Sudbury."

Do you see that?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you have sort of a general recollection that every six years there was a review of someone's pastorship in the -- in the '80s and '90s? Is that a fair statement?

A. Well, in -- what evolved as a policy in my tenure -- and that's the only thing that I can speak to --

Q. Yeah.

A. -- is that as the end of a term as pastor came up --

Q. Yeah.

A. -- the pastor was invited to indicate whether or not he would want to renew for another term.

And then the -- there was a review in terms of the regional bishop, the chancellor, yes.

Q. Yes. Ultimately, you -- were you involved in that process of renewals?

A. I was involved in the renewals, yes.

Q. Looking just at what we have at page 21 of Exhibit 5, you'll see --

A. 21?

Q. Yes. The one we just went over. You'll see that T. J. Daily -- that would be Father Daily who was working in 1993, where, Cardinal Law? At the Chancery?

A. Father Daily was assisting the Moderator of the Curia.

Q. Right. And that would have been Bishop Hughes at that time; is that correct?

A. I'm sorry.

Q. That's okay.

A. In '93, I'm not sure.

Q. Bishop Banks had left?

A. It was Bishop Hughes or it was Bishop Murphy, I don't know.

Q. One of the two. You'll see, he uses the word "lend lease to Calgary, Alberta."

Had you ever seen that term before?

A. First of all, I have not --

Q. Right.

A. -- to my recollection, I have not seen this memo before.

Q. I know.

A. And I would not -- that would not be a term with which I am familiar in this context.

Q. Okay. All right.

Going to page 28, you want to take a moment and first tell me whether you recognize the handwriting on that document, No. 28.

A. I think this may be Father McCormack or Bishop McCormack's handwriting.

Q. I agree.

A. I'm not sure.

Q. I think that's who it is. I think that's made clear by subsequent documents. But you'll see your initials are at the top and it's actually in your calendar, which I can get for you if you need, but there was a meeting with Father Foley that you had on December 23, 1993, or at least it's listed in your calendar, in your appointment calendar, and it's referenced in this memorandum.

Do you generally have a recollection of meeting at some point with Father James D. Foley?

A. I do.

Q. And do you remember learning from Father Foley that he had been involved with a woman from Needham for some period of time and asserted that he had had two children with this woman?

Does that sound familiar to you, Cardinal?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember that Bishop McCormack was at this first meeting that you had with Father Foley?

A. I am not sure of that.

Q. Okay. Well, you'll see here notes of a meeting, and why don't you take a moment -- I think the handwriting is fairly legible if you want to take a moment and familiarize yourself with pages 28 and 29.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember becoming generally familiar in 1993 that Father Foley had had a relationship with a woman who ultimately had a lobotomy and that he claimed to have had two children with this woman?

A. I'm not aware of the -- I don't recollect anything about a lobotomy, but I do recollect hearing -- having -- being told about the paternity and this relationship.

Q. And you were outraged by it; is that correct?

A. Terribly outraged.

Q. In fact, your initial reaction was this man should be sent to a monastery for the rest of his life to do penance?

A. That's correct.

Q. Father Foley told you something about the death of this woman, did he not?

A. He told me something about the death of this woman.

Q. He told you in 1993 that the woman, who was married, was overdosed while he was present; that she started to faint, he clothed, put his clothes on, left, came back, called 911, she died, a sister knows.

Did he tell you that?

A. I have a recollection of basically that information, yes.

Q. And this was certainly shocking information to you?

A. Absolutely. And I might say nothing like that have -- had I ever heard or imagined before or since.

Q. Right. And when Father Foley told you the sequence of events, did that raise any concern on your part that he might have done something or that he could have done something to help save this woman's life?

You'll see the notes of Bishop McCormack and what -- that are quite specific. "Overdosed while he was present, started to faint, he clothed," meaning putting -- I assume -- "he clothed, left, came back, called 911, she died, a sister knows."

The second page of the note, it says, under No. 1:

"Criminal activity, question mark. Overdosed, later called."

You see that?

A. Yes.

Q. That's Bishop McCormack's handwriting as well; is that correct?

A. Yes, yes, yes.

Q. And so my question is: Do you remember the sequence of events as they were described to you by Father Foley that he -- after she overdosed and fainted, he left the scene and came back and then he called 911 and the woman died?

A. I really do not remember the sequence of events. I just -- I remember the bare facts and I was shocked.

Q. You remember that he not only claimed to have had children with this woman, but was present when she overdosed and ultimately died.

Would that be a fair statement?

A. Yes.

Q. And you felt that there were three things that needed to be addressed. And the first issue was the scandal issue?

A. I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure that these three points are my points or whether these are -- or whether these are Father McCormack's points.

You know, I don't know how this memo relates to my meeting with Father Foley.

Q. Okay.

A. You know.

Q. Well, let's go to page -- turn back, if you would, please, Cardinal, to page 25. These are notes of Bishop McCormack. You'll see this is a month later, 1/23/94.

A. Yes.

Q. It states:

"Reviewed three points of BCL: Scandal, spirituality, emotional and psychological health."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Looking at these notes of Cardinal Law, sorry, of Bishop McCormack, does that help to refresh your recollection that you made three points at the meeting you had with Father Foley?

A. Yes.

Q. So the first one was the scandal issue?

A. Yeah. I have to say that I don't recall the details of the meeting but I would follow this as an accurate reflection of that.

Q. You felt that if this information about Father Foley were to become public, that it could create a scandal?

A. Well, I felt that the scandal in this case was so pervasive, I mean, the possibility was so pervasive, the harm that would be done to children --

Q. Right.

A. -- to a husband --

Q. Right.

A. -- to a family.

Q. Right.

A. You know, and the question, you know, how, after the fact, years after the fact, how do you deal with that in a way that's going to be just and equitable to all those folk. This is -- I mean the note here is -- his meeting is the 23rd --

Q. Of January.

A. -- of January.

Q. '94.

A. When was my meeting?

Q. Your meeting was December of '93, December 23, '93.

A. Okay. December 23.

Q. A month earlier.

A. This -- and my reflection is just in the moment of hearing about it. I mean, these are the issues that we're going to have to look at here.

Q. Right. And you see also the question mark of Bishop McCormack, criminal activity, whether there could have been some criminal activity, overdosed, and then says later called, and that's underlined twice.

A. Right.

Q. Then you see:

"Should he be assigned as a pastor? Justice issue toward children, lack of integrity, scandal."

A. Justice issue towards the children.

Q. Right.

A. It's the children of his -- his own children.

Q. Biological.

A. The justice issue.

Q. Right.

A. What are his responsibilities for those children?

Q. Right.

A. As I recall -- and I am not sure, but I believe that, at least I believe I was told at that point, because that would have been my concern, that these were grown at that point.

Q. Right. And so -- but there was also an issue of criminal activity about whether this man had left the scene where a woman was dying?

A. That's right.

Q. Whether he did enough. Do you see that?

A. That's right.

Q. And, in fact, if you take a look at -- well, it says -- let me just withdraw that question.

So with respect to the issue of criminal activity, whether this man, Father Foley, had engaged in some criminal activity, is it fair to state that as of December 23, 1993, that was a question in your mind as to whether or not this man had engaged in a crime?

A. It certainly was something that -- yes. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a policeman.

Q. I understand.

A. But it was a question in my mind and it was a question that I would presume would be looked at.

Q. Do you know whether it was looked at?

A. I do not know that.

Q. Do you know whether any information was shared -- I understand this was 20 years later. The woman died in 1973.

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you know whether there was any follow-up that was done to determine whether Father Foley should be reported to the Needham police department or the appropriate law enforcement?

A. I do not know that. I would -- here I would have relied on the Delegate. And as I think is reflected here, the very fact that he came to me and I referred the matter to Father McCormack so that it could be followed up on.

Q. But you don't recall you doing anything to follow-up on this story that you heard about Father --

A. My follow --

Q. Excuse me.

-- about Father Foley potentially being involved in criminal activity?

MR. CRAWFORD: Other than delegating?

Q. Apart from delegating?

A. Apart --

Q. Your personal -- what you personally did to satisfy yourself that this man should not be reported to the police or appropriate law enforcement?

A. I raised the issue with the person who was delegated for following through on this.

Q. Was this perhaps the most serious matter involving a priest of the Archdiocese that you recall dealing with, Cardinal, in your tenure here in Boston?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

You may answer.

A. How do you -- you know, how do you -- how do you --

Q. I withdraw it.

A. How do you judge these things?

Q. Right.

A. This is absolutely unique. There's no parallel to this --

Q. It's very serious?

A. -- of anything I have ever handled. In terms of harm inflicted, in a sense -- I don't know how you -- it's vain to try -- I mean, it's foolish to try to weigh what is worse.

Q. I understand.

A. I mean, it's a terrible thing to take an innocent child --

Q. You're right.

A. -- and to abuse that innocent child. It's a terrible thing for two adults to engage in behavior that is immoral and inappropriate and has terrible consequences, as this does.

Q. And you'll see actually in Bishop, in other parts of the record that you'll see on page 25, Bishop McCormack's notes, you'll see halfway down, in Needham, you'll see -- this is the reference to the woman from Needham. It says:

Two children born, one purposefully." Second -- "The second was not planned. Sister of woman knows of his ties to children." So think that she -- "So think she knew he was involved. Woman seduced him. She had a lobotomy. He has never seen children since time of her death. Sister threatened him that if he bothered the family, she would reopen the case about the cause of her death and who called 911."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Bishop McCormack ever tell you that the Needham police were not clear who had called 911 on the day this woman died?

A. I don't recall hearing that information.

Q. Okay. Is that the type of information that you believe should have been brought to your attention, that the Needham police might not have known it was Father Foley who had called 911?

A. You know, I really delegate with confidence here and I can't read back into what I should have thought or would have thought.

Q. But there's a question here, Cardinal Law, again, when you read the notes of Bishop McCormack, as to whether there was some issue about whether Father Foley had moral or legal responsibility for the death of a female parishioner that he was sexually involved with. Is that correct?

A. Well, what I'm reading here, Mr. MacLeish, as I understand it, is a note that Father McCormack has written concerning what Father Foley himself records --

Q. Right.

A. -- about a conversation he had had 20 years

before with the sister of the mother of his children.

Q. That's correct.

A. And that's what I see here.

Q. And you would agree with me, would you not, Cardinal Law, that Bishop McCormack's notes raise questions as to whether or not the actual cause of this woman's death was thoroughly investigated and raised questions about who in fact called the police, 911, and raised questions about whether the Needham police even knew that it was Father Foley who had made that call. Is that correct?

A. I think those kinds of questions would need to be put to Father McCormack who heard what Father Foley had to say on this issue. I did not hear that so I can't comment on that.

Q. You didn't get that information relayed back to you?

A. I do not recall that information being relayed to me.

Q. All right. So we at least know that there is -- that you were concerned about scandal when you met with Father Foley; is that correct?

A. Yes, obviously.

Q. And that's scandal to the Church?

A. Oh, scandal all the way. The scandal of young -- of children not knowing -- of thinking their father is one person and possibly their father is somebody else.

Q. Right.

A. And I can't say that with absolute certainty, but my presumption, just basing on what I've heard.

Q. Well, that would perhaps be devastating information to those children?

A. Absolutely. And that's scandal.

Q. Well, okay. Well -- but also if this information came out, apart from scandal to the children --

A. It would be scandal obviously to the Church.

Q. To the Church?

A. Here you had a priest who was, to all intents and purposes, a very effective pastor, and I think people in his parishes would attest to that fact.

Q. That's correct.

A. Who had even been a vicar. And to have that kind of information come out against such a person is a scandal.

Q. And this was -- do you remember doing anything, Cardinal Law, to find out about the personal circumstances of the children of Father Foley to see whether he had any moral or legal responsibility, even though they were now adults, to those children? Did you do anything yourself?

A. First of all, as I've indicated in other cases, Mr. MacLeish, in these issues, I functioned through those delegated to follow through. That's why they were there, to do that. If you look at the calendar, you'll see that there are an awful lot of things that come across the desk on any one day.

However important one issue is -- and certainly this is a case all in its own category -- it's precisely because of the importance of that, that it's important that someone is going to be responsible to follow through on that and it's not going to be put aside for something else that immediately is very pressing. So I handled this in a delegated way.

My own immediate response to this was my fear was allayed by the fact that -- with the knowledge that these were adults. And had they not been adults, it would have been an entirely different kind of a situation in terms of the demands of justice upon the father.

It doesn't mitigate in any sense the enormity of this act. But it certainly does say that in that particular moment in which I first found out about this, which is some 20 years later, that the fact that they were adults made it different in terms of what my response would be vis-a-vis the justice demands for those children than the fact that they were -- than if they had been minors.

Q. I understand that, Cardinal. My question -- my question is: Did you do anything -- let me just -- before that.

Under the policy of delegation, wouldn't that policy of delegation also encompass follow-up with you on matters that were as serious as this one? In other words, Bishop McCormack would gather the basic facts and then come back to you. Or was the policy of delegation simply mean that it doesn't come back to you; that it's handled independently by Bishop McCormack?

A. It means that he follows up and he comes to me where he deems it appropriate and I respect that judgment as it goes forward.

Q. Do you recall him coming back to you on the Foley matter?

A. I'm sure that he came back to me on the Foley matter, but I cannot tell you when, where. Maybe if you have a memo to show me.

Q. I don't, I don't.

A. But I certainly had to make a decision as to where he went, and that would have -- that would have come back to me.

Q. Right. He went to Southdown. All right.

Let's turn, if we could, to Foley page 69.

A. 69?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. This is a memo from Father McCormack to Dr. Cassem. You might recall that we had some extensive questioning earlier about Father Cassem and his involvement with the Paul Shanley case.

Do you recall that testimony?

A. Yeah. I don't immediately but I'm sure that --

Q. You know who Father Cassem is?

A. I do, I do. Yes, indeed.

Q. Jesuit priest who was at some period of time chief of psychiatry at Mass General Hospital?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct?

He was also brought in on the Michael Foster case, was he not?

A. You know, I can't -- I believe so.

Q. Okay. That's fine. Well, you'll see here -- this is from Bishop McCormack -- you'll see the second paragraph:

"Cardinal Law thinks that this man should not be in pastoral ministry due to potential scandal."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that a correct statement as of July 15, 1994? Is that an accurate reflection of what your position was vis-a-vis Father Foley?

A. I felt this, and the next sentence is that his remark is that this man should spend his life in a monastery doing penance.

Q. Right. We're going t get to that.

A. I just felt that the enormity of this act was such, and the ram -- the very strange ramifications of it were such that it just was inappropriate for him. That was my initial feeling.

Q. You see the word "scandal" mentioned there, Cardinal?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you believe that he should not be in pastoral ministry due to potential scandal, as Bishop McCormack writes to Father Cassem, Dr. Cassem, on July 15, 1994?

A. Well, you know, that -- I cannot recollect what my state of mind was and the specification of my judgment in '94 on this case. Certainly scandal was among the things that I was concerned with. And as I indicated to you, it's because of the nature of the act.

Q. Right. You were referring to -- as of July 1994, the reference is that the man should not be in pastoral ministry due to potential scandal.

Is it fair to state that you were concerned in 1994, July of 1994, not about scandal with respect to the children, but scandal with respect to potential publicity in the event that the information on Father Foley came out?

A. I think it would be both.

Q. Okay.

A. I think it would be both because I -- I was very concerned with the impact on the family. I was very concerned with the impact on the children.

Q. Well, did you get some expert consultation to see whether or not, that you can recall -- did you or, to your knowledge, Bishop McCormack, get any type of expert consultation from psychologists or people who were experts in the field as to what should be done with respect to the children that Father Foley claimed that he was the biological father of?

A. Well, first of all, I did not.

Q. Yeah.

A. But I don't think that that would prove anything because I did not -- I wouldn't have been the one to have done that.

Q. Why not? Given the enormity of this matter?

A. Because I had someone delegated to do that. That was their responsibility. The fact of the matter is the case was referred, as you see, to Dr. Cassem, and, as you indicated, he's someone of some reputation.

Q. There's nothing in here about the children.

A. No. But there would be nothing hidden from him, to him about the case. He would have been aware about the full dimensions of the case.

Q. All right. You didn't know, and to your knowledge, Bishop McCormack didn't know anything about the financial or emotional condition of these children that Father Foley claimed that he was the biological father of. Fair statement?

A. I can't answer that. You'd have to ask Father McCormack about that.

Q. You don't have any knowledge --

A. No.

Q. You don't have any --

A. But --

Q. Let me finish the question.

You don't have any recollection, as you sit here today of ever receiving some report about the emotional or financial circumstances of the children that Father Foley claimed he sired, correct?

A. That's correct. The children were not, as my understanding was, the children were not aware of the paternity of Father Foley.

Q. Right.

A. Inquiry into that about them or any inquiry to them would have destroyed what I presume -- would have presumed to have been their understanding and their relationship with their natural father -- with their adopted -- with their presumed father.

Q. So you made the decision, I take it -- did you make a decision, Cardinal Law, that the matter should not be pursued further with respect to the children because it might harm them to find out who their biological father was? Was that a decision that you consciously made?

A. I don't know that it was a decision consciously made. I think it was -- I think it naturally followed with the information that was available.

Q. Well, but you knew nothing -- you knew nothing, Cardinal Law, about whether or not these children, even though they were adults, might need some type of assistance, did you? You knew nothing about that?

A. I knew, Mr. MacLeish, in December of '93, that

A. priest of this Archdiocese, 20 years before, had been involved with a woman who died under tragic circumstances, and that he presumably was the father of two of her children, now grown. That's what I knew.

Q. But you didn't know anything about the circumstances?

A. I didn't know anything about the family. I didn't know anything about the children. I didn't know their name. I don't know their name.

Q. And you also knew, Cardinal Law, in 1993, that this man who claimed to be the biological father of these two children may have been in some way, either morally or legally, responsible for her death; that that was a possibility. Correct?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.

A. The indication that -- the information that I had would not have led me to believe that he was responsible for her death, no.

Q. Well, when someone is present and there's an overdose, and presumably -- someone is present and they take an overdose of drugs, as was reported to you by Father Foley, and they leave the scene, can you envision, Cardinal Law, that there might be some moral responsibility for not securing assistance for that person?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

So the information that you had as is set forth in Bishop McCormack's notes on the 23rd, was that -- and you see the words "criminal activity" there? We've already been through this -- was that Father Foley might well have left the scene of a woman that he was sexually involved with, that he sired two children with, as opposed to getting her assistance when she overdosed. You knew that in 1993; is that correct?

A. I knew the facts of the case as Father Foley explained them to me, yes.

Q. So everything that I said, you knew, Cardinal?

A. I can't -- you know, I'm not certain here about the exact details about what happened, when, when he discovered when she took the overdose and all of that. But that he was involved at the time with her and that she died under very strange circumstances, that I recall, yes.

Q. Very strange circumstances. And we've been through the note that is on page 28, I'm sorry 29, the question that Bishop McCormack raises of criminal activity. He left the scene. He underlines that.

Do you want to just take another look at that?

A. I see that, yes.

Q. So was it also your belief that there may have been actual criminal activity in terms of Father Foley not getting assistance for this woman? Was it at least an open question in your mind as of December 1993?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

You can answer if you can.

A. It's hard -- I believe, as I recollect, as best I can, that Father Foley's own recital of these tragic events were convincing about his lack of responsibility. But how -- what the perception of this would be was something else again.

Q. You see page -- go back to page 29, please, Cardinal Law.

The second page of Bishop McCormack's notes, at the top, it says:

"Criminal activity, overdosed, later called" -- double underlined.

Do you see that?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And does that not refresh your recollection that as of December of 1993, when you heard these horrendous, this horrendous story -- I mean, it was horrendous, I take it. You felt that way?

A. Absolutely.

Q. That there was an open issue in your mind as to whether by -- after she overdosed and then he later called, that he might have engaged in some form of criminal activity?

A. Well, the question --

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

You may answer.

A. The question was, I suppose, in my own mind, was there criminal activity? Was there -- and the response here is that she -- that the death was due to overdose. She overdosed. And later called.

I don't know what the two lines under "later called" mean, whether that means that do we question that or is that -- you know, when he found out, when he recognized what was happening, he overdosed. And I can't get more specific into -- more specifically into it because I'm going to be reading into the record as I have it before me.

Q. I'm just trying to refresh your recollection because this was obviously something, as you've stated, that stood out in your career here in Boston.

A. Yes.

Q. And just going back to the previous page, 28, what is reported on these notes is that he was in a relationship with a married woman, overdosed while he was present, started to faint, he clothed, left, came back. See that, Cardinal Law? Called 911. She died. A sister knows.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you see the reference on the second page to criminal activity, question mark, overdosed, later called.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And certainly in 1993, you were familiar with the fact that if people overdose with drugs, that sometimes if they get prompt medical assistance, their lives can be saved; is that correct?

A. I think that --

Q. Could you just answer that question? I mean --

A. Excuse me?

Q. You were generally aware in 1993 that if --

MR. ROGERS: I think he's entitled to finish his answer.

MR. MacLEISH:: Fine. All right. Fine.

MR. ROGERS: If you want to move to strike, fine, do it.

Q. My question, Cardinal, was what -- go ahead. Answer the question. I'll withdraw the question and ask it again.

A. I was just going to say --

Q. Sure. Go ahead.

A. -- under here, where it says criminal activity, question mark, that's a question, you know. Is there criminal activity --

Q. Exactly.

A. -- involved?

Q. Exactly.

A. And I think that what -- you know, and I think that overdosed would mean -- would refer to the fact that the cause of death was overdose, that she had overdosed, and that, furthermore, that he called 911, later called 911. I think that that's what that means.

Q. He didn't call immediately?

A. I don't know that and I don't recall that. I don't recall that aspect nor do I recall -- nor do I recall when he was conscious of the fact that she had overdosed. I don't think that he -- I don't recall that he was conscious that she was overdosing.

Q. All right.

A. I think that he became aware of the fact that she had overdosed. So that's my recollection.

Q. Is it fair to state then, Cardinal Law, that as of December of 1993, there was some question in your mind as to whether or not this man had engaged in criminal activity with respect to the death of this woman that he sired two children with?

A. First of all, what we're dealing with is Father McCormack's memo --

Q. Right. On a meeting --

A. I don't know what relationship those three points have to what --

Q. Okay.

A. -- I have said.

But the question of criminal activity would be a very natural question for anyone to have, given the bizarre circumstances that we're talking about.

Q. Okay. Fine.

A. But the fact that he called 911 and the fact that there had been an overdose would indicate that the criminal activity is not murder.

Q. Okay. All right. Cardinal, in any event, you wanted this man, as is reported to Dr. Cassem, to go to a monastery and do penance and not be in pastoral ministry; is that correct?

A. That was my initial reaction, that's correct.

Q. And yet, Cardinal Law, as you will see on pages 126 and 148 and 149, you made the decision that this man, Father James Foley, could be returned to ministry; is that correct?

A. I would have assigned him -- 126, you say?

Q. Yes. If you just take a look at -- take a look -- take a look at No. 92. No. 92, we saw in July that Bishop McCormack reports that you wanted to have Father Foley do penance in the monastery and not be involved in pastoral ministry. Remember that? That's page 69.

A. Yes.

Q. On 92, page 92, it states:

"I met with Reverend Foley on December 5, '94. I talked with Cardinal Law in the morning to make sure that he was not requiring Father Foley to live in a monastery."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. It's a memo to the file from Father Flatley.

You'll then see, over on 126, some decision that we don't know about because it's stated that it was decided that verbal communication was sufficient in this case and no written follow-up would be necessary.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Then we see on 148 a recommendation of Father Foley:

"The board recommends that the priest be returned to ministry, not as a pastor; that his pastor be aware of his history and agree to bring any concerns regarding the priest's behavior to the priest's attention; and if this fails to satisfy, notify the Delegate; that he continue in spiritual direction, be assigned a monitor and continue in therapy; that he not enter any situation with women where there is the potential to be compromised. This recommendation should be reviewed in one year."

Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. That's 1995. And you'll see the following page, you agreed to accept the recommendation of the Delegate and the review board; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You are aware that Father Foley was assigned ultimately as an associate pastor at St. Joseph's Parish in Salem, Massachusetts; is that correct?

A. I believe -- I know he was there, yeah.

Q. He was there as associate pastor?

A. Yeah.

Q. So this man that you felt had stood out in your mind, had fathered, by his own admission, several children, and was present at the death of the woman that bore those children, was sufficient to be returned, ultimately, to pastoral ministry.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Is that correct?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.

A. As you know, in 1993, we established a policy which established a review board. That review board reviewed the recommendation of the Delegate, and that review board included psychiatrists, parent of a victim, a former judge. And that review board made the recommendation to me, as you have shown it to me in 148, that he be returned to ministry, not as a pastor, and that was in fact what happened. He was not a pastor. He is not a pastor now. He was an associate pastor.

Q. He's been removed as associate pastor?

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, did you undertake any action to inform the parishioners at St. Joseph's Parish about the background of Father Foley?

A. No.

Q. Cardinal --

A. Nor was that a recommendation of the board.

Q. Right.

A. And given the unique nature of this case, I think one could really question whether that would be a wise thing.

Q. Because of the potential for scandal?

A. Because of the potential harm to family.

Q. Well, the family -- I'm not talking about identifying the family. I'm just talking about informing the parishioners of St. Joseph's that this man had been previously involved with married women and that he had sired -- claims to have sired --

A. Yes.

Q. -- other children.

A. No.

Q. You wouldn't have had to identify who it was, Cardinal Law.

A. This was not --

Q. Communicated.

A. -- done. No.

Q. All right. Now, the review board minutes that you have in front of you, earlier review board minutes show who was in attendance at these review board meetings. Later review board minutes from 1995 on don't show who was in attendance.

Can you confidently state, Cardinal, that at the review board for Father Foley -- and I believe there was only one psychiatrist involved, it was Dr. Gutheil who was the only psychiatrist on the review.

Do you remember anybody else on the review board?

A. Did I say more --

Q. You said in the plural.

A. No. I stand corrected.

Q. My information is that Father -- is that Dr. Gutheil left the review board and was not replaced.

A. I'm not conscious of that.

Q. Well, the point is that we don't even know from the documents that we have, and you didn't know from the document that was forwarded to you, whether there was a mental health clinician present at the review board meeting that recommended that Father Foley, under circumstances where there were restrictions, be permitted to work in a parish. You don't know who was present?

A. I did not get a record of the attendance at these meetings in any case, that's correct.

Q. So you can't say psychiatrists and a mother of a victim or a judge even knew about the Father Foley case because you don't know who was present at that review board meeting, correct?

A. I cannot tell you who was present at each member -- at each meeting of the review board.

Q. Right. So when you earlier suggested that a judge -- the review board was comprised of a judge, a psychiatrist, mother of a victim, you can't say whether any of those individuals even knew about this case, can you?

A. I cannot speak with absolute assurance about the attendance of every member of the review board at any specific meeting. But I can say that the intent in formulating that review board was to ensure that competencies that should be represented were, and it is my understanding that attendance at those meetings was a very good attendance.

Now, beyond that, I am not able to answer. But I have to say that I resent the tone of your question because it implies something that is certainly clearly not the intent of the establishment of that board and the functioning of that board.

Q. Cardinal, wasn't it simply common sense and judgment that this man who had done these horrendous things never again be put in the position where, through his auspices as a priest of the Archdiocese, could do it again? Isn't it just common sense?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to form.

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

You can answer.

A. I think it was common sense to handle this case in the manner in which it was handled.

Q. To have Father Foley go back to St. Joseph's and ultimately end up as associate pastor. That was common sense?

A. I think the method that was used to arrive at that decision at that time was appropriate.

Q. Can you explain to me now --

MR. ROGERS: It's now one o'clock.

MR. MacLEISH:: One more question.

MR. ROGERS: Well --

MR. MacLEISH:: Well, I'd just like to follow up and then we'll move on.

Q. Can you explain to me why after 1994, there is nothing in the review board minutes that states who was present at review board meetings? Can you explain that for me?

A. No, I cannot explain that to you.

MR. MacLEISH:: All right. We'll break for lunch.

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

(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

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

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEWMAN

Q. Good afternoon, Cardinal Law.

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Newman.

Q. Cardinal Law, I am Jeff Newman, and I'll be asking you some questions this afternoon about a variety of documents.

Before I get to that, I just want to ask you a series of questions unrelated to any documents we have.

Cardinal Law, during the period of time that you were Archbishop, is it correct to say that if there was a settlement of a claim of credible allegations of sexual abuse by a priest, that part of your job was to approve such a settlement?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You can answer it.

A. Well, the -- as you know, we had insurance coverage and so we -- I relied on judgment of counsel with regard to the issue of settlements. And I really would not have had a basis upon which to make a judgment of that kind.

And immediately, as I think you know, I was assisted either by Vicar General, Moderator of the Curia, or by Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, or later specifically by a Delegate who had handled these cases. But I relied on that kind of advice, particularly when it came to amounts. I didn't feel that I had the background or the knowledge to make judgments of that kind.

Q. Is it correct to say that you were at least aware of a settlement and what the amount would be before it went through?

A. I would be aware of that, yes --

Q. Okay.

A. -- on a routine basis, I believe.

Q. Now, in addition --

A. I stand corrected for that if the record shows otherwise, but that would have been my -- that's my thought, that I would have known that, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, many of these settlements that occurred in the late 1980s and 1990s were confidential in nature; that is, they were not disclosed and there was an agreement between the Archdiocese and the alleged victim that there would be no disclosure.

Is that accurate?

A. I believe that's accurate.

Q. And were you aware that that was the general procedure and practice, to maintain the confidentiality of these settlements during the time that you were Archbishop?

A. I think I was generally aware of that.

Q. Okay. Was that a practice that you were involved in establishing or was that something that simply existed before you came?

A. I do not --

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.

You may answer.

A. I do not believe that that is a practice that I established. I think that that was the normal practice, as I understand it, for these kinds of cases. And given the times, the presumption would have been, and my presumption would have been, that confidentiality was something that would be desired by all parties.

Q. Was it ever -- did you ever consider the possibility that confidentiality would in fact be a negative; that is to say, would keep the issue quiet and, therefore, maybe these things should be disclosed?

A. I consider that to be the situation now. And while I was still Archbishop, we refrained from the holding of confidentiality. With the great value of hindsight, I wish that we had seen it that way earlier along, but didn't.

Q. Why is that, sir, if you know?

A. Well, I think, as I have indicated earlier in response to your question, that it was the way in which these kinds of settlements generally were structured, and not only these kinds of settlements, and the general understanding that confidentiality would be something desired by not simply the defendants, but also by those bringing claims.

Q. Was that something you assumed or something that you were told?

MR. CRAWFORD: Let me just caution the Cardinal, to the extent that your answer would call for communication you may have had with counsel, that communication would be considered privileged. And I would ask you to extract that information that you may have learned from counsel in answering your question.

I won't object to the question.

MR. NEWMAN: Yes. And as we go, in order to save the speaking objections, we don't want you to talk about what you said between you and your counsel.

Q. So that having been said, what is your thinking as to --

A. Yeah. I'm not certain what I can separate out now in terms of going back in time. But the general understanding of this kind of legal action that I had, and I presume would have been common in the time frame that we're speaking of, would have been that those involved in these kinds of cases, those bringing the case as well as those who were defendants, but I'm speaking specifically of those bringing the cases, would have -- would prefer confidentiality rather than not. That was an assumption. I think it would have been a common assumption.

It was not an assumption that was tested by me through counsel or direction to counsel, case by case. But it would have been an assumption that would have been borne out by some contact that I had had with some victims.

Q. Okay.

A. But as I say, it's an assumption, right or wrong, it's an assumption of what others might have wanted.

I see it now not to be in the best interests of adequately dealing with the crime and the sin of sexual abuse.

Q. Now, you mentioned that there was insurance coverage for the settlements and that's something you were aware of at that time when the settlements were made; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were any of the settlements paid from monies that were the Archdiocese monies instead of insurance monies?

A. I cannot -- I'm not able to give you a specific answer to that in terms of case by case, but I am aware that -- I am aware of the fact that insurance coverage was not for all time frames. And there may have been settlements where monies were utilized which didn't derive directly and immediately from insurance carried for this specific purpose, but from other sources that would have been appropriately used for this.

Q. Monies from the central fund or some account of the Archdiocese?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer.

Q. If you know.

A. Yeah. I think I'd want to -- I'd want to be able to check on the specifics of the source.

Q. Okay. Are you aware of any circumstance in which the Boston Archdiocese ever borrowed monies in order to pay settlements?

A. I am not.

Q. Is it accurate to say that during the time you were Archbishop, you were generally aware of the finances of the Boston Archdiocese; that is, not penny for penny, but you knew generally --

A. Yes, I think so. I think one could say that.

Q. And did you know where the accounts were maintained during the time you were Archbishop?

A. What banks?

Q. What banks, yeah.

A. In a general way.

Q. Okay. Were they all banks within the state of Massachusetts, if you know?

A. I believe so. The banks that I knew of were within the state of Massachusetts.

Q. Now --

A. Here, again, on financial matters, as you probably are aware, the Chancellor's responsibilities extend to the day-to-day handling of the financial matters, and then beyond that, as I know you're aware, I have

A. Finance Council. I don't. Whoever is Archbishop has a Finance Council, assisting him in these matters.

Q. Now, it's accurate to say that it was not the practice to -- for you or anyone within the Archdiocese to report incidents of allegations against the priest to the police during the time that you were here as Archbishop; is that correct?

A. Well, it's correct up to a point, and that point is January of 2002.

Q. Right, right. And before that time, there was no practice or procedure in place for you to report instances in which you became aware of allegations of child abuse by a diocesan priest -- diocesan priest?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you --

A. Although there are instances -- there is an instance of a case where there was such a report.

Q. Which priest was that? If you recall?

A. Father Paul Sughrue, I think --

Q. Paul Sughrue, right.

A. -- who made the report.

Q. Did you ever -- during the time that you were Archbishop, you became aware of allegations against a number of priests, including Father Shanley, Father Paquin, O'Sullivan and Burns.

Did you ever consider the possibility of your reporting it or instructing someone under you to report it to the police in order to protect children from child molestation of these individuals?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer it.

A. Obviously, Mr. Newman, at the time that we were developing our policy in 1993, this was a question that was faced and logically would have been faced.

As I recollect the discussion on this point at that time, the consensus that emerged was that we would possibly inhibit people from coming forward to us as Church, as Church representatives, if our policy would be to immediately report this to public authority.

That was based not simply as a theoretical assumption, but it was based on experience with persons who would come forward with great fear and trepidation lest what they said became public.

And so what in effect then became our policy was that while we did not do that, we would indicate to those coming forward their right and ability to do that and to facilitate that, to encourage that, but not to assume that responsibility ourselves.

I believe in retrospect that that motivation, that underlying reason, is defensible, is logical. And I wouldn't at all be surprised that in some instances -- and maybe many instances -- we had people who did come forward with that kind of assurance who perhaps would not have come forward otherwise.

But in retrospect, as I say, I think it's -- it was a flawed policy and I changed that policy on my own authority in January of 2002. And this was before the date where we were mandated reporters. But we became mandated reporters by virtue of Archdiocesan policy and law.

Q. So it's correct to say then that in your opinion, at least based on your experience as Archbishop, it would have been a better policy to report these things to the police as they came forward?

A. That's correct. And I have said that previously and said that previously in this room.

Q. I ask that question because I just want to clarify for the record whether you feel that at the time some of these things came forward and they were not reported, you feel that you, as Archbishop, made a mistake in not reporting it, or whether or not you're looking in hindsight based on what you now know, and if you had this knowledge back then, then it would have been a better policy?

MR. CRAWFORD: Let me object to the form of the question.

You can answer it if you can.

A. The discussion that we're having, Mr. Newman -- and I appreciate the way we're having it -- is -- speaks, from my perspective, to the value of hindsight.

You know, to say that I was mistaken, it's

A. very hard thing to say I was mistaken or you were mistaken ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, without taking into account what did you know, what did you understand, what were you intending.

And as I tried to explain, the policy under which we were operating in '93, forward, and before that, when we didn't report, was predicated on an understanding that I think is defensible.

But I think now, in -- with the value of hindsight, does not lead to the best judgment. I think that the best judgment is the policy currently in place; that these things should be reported.

Q. But I have to apologize because I'm just not clear in my own mind as to what your response is. Let me rephrase.

Do you think it is defensible that once you became aware that Father Geoghan had admitted sexually molesting children, that you shifted him in terms of where he was in the parish? Do you think that was defensible, looking at the period of time that you did that?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form the question, but you can answer.

A. I think that that's a different question, at least I hear it differently than the question I was attempting to answer before.

Again, as I have said specifically with regard to Father Geoghan, I wish that I had had in place in '84, forward, the policy that I put in place January of 2002, which is that any priest against whom a credible allegation, meaning an allegation that is proven, a credible allegation of sexual abuse of a minor, that any person guilty of that could not have any position in the diocese.

I think that's the appropriate policy. I wish that had been the policy earlier. It was not.

I was operating, to the best of my knowledge at that time, as to what would be in good and appropriate and I wish to God it had been otherwise now.

Q. All right. I'll just ask a couple more questions on this and then move on to some documents.

Based on what you knew at the time and the knowledge base of pedophilia, are you saying that the policy at the time, based on that knowledge, was essentially a reasonable one, based on what you had in terms of your understanding of the problem, sexual abuse problem?

MR. CRAWFORD: Again, object to the form.

You may answer.

MR. ROGERS: I object to the form.

A. I think relying on the advice of those who had a competence that I and my immediate colleagues would not have, relying on this kind of advice after psychological evaluation and treatment was an appropriate way -- basis of action, of decision.

Q. Then isn't it fair to say that if it was an appropriate way at the time to deal with these things, then you really made no mistake? Based on that information at that time, it wasn't a mistake; it was an appropriate decision to make, according to your version of events?

MR. CRAWFORD: Again, object to the form.

You can answer.

A. Well, it's -- you know, as I indicated earlier, I think it's hard to go back in time and to say this was a mistake, that was a mistake. What I have said and what I can say again is that in retrospect, I think that our policy of '93 was flawed. I think the way we handled the cases prior to that was flawed. And I think the basic flaw is the assumption that there could be situations in which someone could safely be put into a priestly assignment. And I think that that was wrong. I think that was a mistake to think that.

But I think to think it in 1984 or '73 or '60 would yield one kind of a judgment; to think that in 2002 or 2003 would yield an entirely different kind of a judgment. And putting the judgment of 19 -- 2002 back into 1984, '85, '86, '87, '93, what do you call that, you know.

Q. What do you call it?

A. I call it with the value of hindsight, it was a mistake.

Q. But only with the value of hindsight?

A. That's right, with the value of hindsight.

Q. All right. I would like to change topics, if I may.

I represent a number of victims of a young man named Christopher Reardon, who was a youth worker at St. Agnes Parish in Middleton, and he has admitted his guilt to molesting 29 young boys.

You're aware of who he is; is that correct?

A. I am. I'm aware of the case.

Q. I just want to -- I'm sorry.

Cardinal Law, can you recall when you first heard there was an allegation that -- approximately when you first heard there was an allegation that Christopher Reardon may have molested any children up in Middleton? I don't mean by date.

Let me rephrase it.

Do you remember whether you first heard after he was arrested or before?

A. You know, I don't know whether it was after or before.

Q. Okay.

A. I really don't.

Q. Do you remember who it was who may have informed you of the allegations or the --

A. I don't know who it was who told me.

Q. Now, there have been many questions asked of you in the past regarding whether or not you notified anyone in the parish of a priest who had had credible allegations after those allegations came forward.

Can you recall if there were any instances in your memory when in fact notification was made to a parish of a priest when allegations came forward?

A. We're talking prior 2002, January?

Q. Yes, yes.

A. No, no place comes to mind.

Q. All right. Is it correct to say that there was no negative policy against doing that; that is to say, no policy which prohibited that? It's just it wasn't the practice to do it. Is that accurate?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You can answer.

Q. If you can recall?

A. Yes. I'm trying to -- you know, I'm trying to reconstruct, Mr. Newman, in my own mind, and I can't do it.

What would have -- you know when Sister Catherine and Sister Rita were assisting the Delegate, whether there were situations where in the removal of someone, we went to the parish, and it seems to me we did, but I can't give you chapter and verse. I'd have to --

Q. Okay.

A. I'd have to have others help me refresh my memory on that.

Q. All right. We did find one in a document and I'll just show it to you and your counsel. It's only for the purpose of a couple of questions.

MR. NEWMAN: And we'll mark this as the next exhibit.

(Law Exhibit No. 6, Fax Cover Page to

Law from Flatley, 5/7/96,

marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal Law --

MR. CRAWFORD: That's the official one.

Q. -- have you had an opportunity to glance at what's been marked as the next exhibit?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. This is three pages dated March 7, 1996, and on page Burns 2144, dated March 8, it says:

"Suggestion for pulpit/bulletin announcement."

And it relates to the fact that Father Burns pled guilty in New Hampshire to a charge of sexual assault of children.

Do you have a memory of speaking to someone about putting up a notice or talking to the parish individuals, the members of the parish, about what had happened with regard to Father Burns?

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

Q. Okay. Do you know, does this help you remember whether or not there was any policy against putting up a notice or announcing to the parish any allegations of a priest regarding sexual abuse during the time you were an Archbishop in Boston?

A. You know, the handling of this evolved and we learned as we went along, as we are still learning, the things that need to be done that can be helpful in a variety of ways.

We had, for example, a series of masses in parishes for healing, at which we would have people present with the hopes that those who would have known of instances would come forward and give that information. We didn't have those in the first decade of my presence here.

Q. Right.

A. But then we did have them because it seemed to be a good thing to do. So it wasn't that there was a rule that said that you can't do this, but I think that at a certain point, it seemed right that this be done, until now, it's normal that it be done.

Q. Again, is it accurate to say that the reason it wasn't done before was because of your belief that announcing it to the members of the parish might restrict individuals from coming forward due to embarrassment or potential disclosure of private --

A. No, no, no, no. If I -- that had to do with the issue of confidentiality of the settlements, that concern. No, that would not have been -- we wanted people to come forward.

Q. Right.

A. We wanted to be able to deal with the problem.

Q. Why is it then, if you -- if there is a reason -- why when these individuals came forward and alleged that priests were molesting them, that the parish members weren't notified by notice or by other communication earlier than they were?

A. We didn't know enough to do it earlier.

Q. Okay.

Cardinal Law, just to go back a minute on the issue I asked earlier relative to settlements, was it your practice to ever view or review a settlement document before a settlement was paid by the Boston Archdiocese in which allegations of sexual abuse were made against one of its priests?

A. No.

Q. To look at the settlement documents?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Okay.

Cardinal Law, did you resign as Archbishop because of the mistakes you made over the years relative to allegations of sexual abuse of the priests in the Boston Archdiocese?

MR. CRAWFORD: I'm going to object to the question, Jeff.

Does this have any relevance to this case?

MR. NEWMAN: Admissions of liability, depending on what his response is.

MR. CRAWFORD: This is such a stretch.

MR. ROGERS: I think we -- I would like to have a little conversation about this.

MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah. Can we go off the record? Let's talk about this.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:33. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:36 p.m. We're on the record.

(Question read.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Hold on, hold on.

MR. CRAWFORD: We can redo it if you need to.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yes. The time is 2:37. We're off the record.

(Pause.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:37 p.m. We're on the record.

(Question read.)

MR. CRAWFORD: Let me just state I'm going to let him answer that question, but to the extent that the question -- this question or any others implicate internal discussions and workings of the Church, and the processes within the Church relating to his position, I will object and actually instruct him not to answer those questions.

But he can answer the current question.

A. You understand, Mr. Newman, I know, that an Archbishop isn't free to, on his own, to decide that he's going to lay down his responsibility; that that's something that can only be done with the concurrence of the Holy Father, the Pope. And I wouldn't want to get into that discussion but I can tell you what motivated me in requesting permission to resign. And it was the conviction that I had come to over the months that my ability to provide pastoral leadership was severely impeded by a lack of confidence on the part of a number of people. And given the course that these cases have taken over the months, I frankly did not see how I would reach a point in any near term when that confidence would be restored. And I felt that for the good of the Church, my resignation would be an appropriate step.

Q. Okay. Just to follow-up on that for a moment.

Is it accurate for me to state that it was not a primary or secondary reason for your departure that you had made any mistakes in the past, but more what you said, that there was a lack of confidence?

A. I felt, Mr. Newman, that I had acknowledged publicly the fact that our policies, my policies and my decisions, that I regretted those. I asked -- I apologized for those and I also begged forgiveness for those.

But it was clear to me and it became increasingly more clear to me that the impact of those, of that history and the way in which that history was being relived through litigation and through other processes made it increasingly more difficult for me to function as a pastoral leader. And I had hoped that given the passion that I brought to this because of my experience, that I would be able to continue to help in the correction of past mistakes.

I'm very pleased with things that were put in place and I had looked forward to building on those decisions to ensure a much safer future.

But it became clear to me that I was not the one to do that. And so it's for that reason that I submitted my resignation, and I'm most grateful that it was accepted. I think it was the right thing for me to do and I'm delighted that that resignation was accepted.

Q. Now I would like to ask you about Reverend George Berthold for a few minutes.

Do you know Reverend Berthold?

A. I do.

Q. And during the time that you were Archbishop, were you actually friends with him for a period of time?

A. Well, I would hope that I would have been friends with all the priests, you know. I wouldn't say I was a friend of his in a particular way, but I knew him. I --.

Q. At sometime in the mid '90s, do you recall it being brought to your attention that there had been one or two instances or occurrences at the seminary between Reverend Berthold and two seminarians in which it was alleged that he had touched them inappropriately?

A. I recall something in that area, yes.

Q. Do you remember who it was that told you that, if you --

A. I don't recall who it was. It might have been the rector. It might have been the -- I don't recall. Might have been the Delegate.

Q. Do you remember what the process was that was engaged to review the allegations of wrongdoing against Father Berthold?

A. I do not remember those.

Q. Do you remember speaking with him directly about the information that had been brought to you?

A. I can't recall that.

MR. NEWMAN: No. 7?

THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.

MR. NEWMAN: And this one will be next.

THE WITNESS: Do I look at this?

MR. NEWMAN: Yes. Be 117 and No. 115 are the next two exhibits.

(Law Exhibit No. 7, Memorandum, 11/21/96, marked for identification.)

(Law Exhibit No. 8, Confidential Memorandum, 11/26/96, marked for identification.)

MR. MacLEISH:: Can we agree to redact this exhibit?

MR. ROGERS: Yes

Q. Now, Cardinal Law, just, if you would, just take a moment and look at what's been marked as the next two exhibits, Bates stamp Berthold 115 and Berthold 117.

A. 115 and 117?

Q. Right.

A. Thank you.

(Pause.)

Q. Have you had a moment to review these?

A. I have.

Q. In essence, these two documents relate to an occurrence in November of 1996. The document Bates stamped Berthold 2115 is a memo from Sister Rita McCarthy to William Murphy describing allegations by a young man, who I won't name, but who was a seminarian, in which he alleges -- and I'm reading from Paragraph 3:

"He told of the two instances when Father Berthold acted inappropriately. One time he came to blank's room, told him to lie down on the bed and proceeded to touch him all over, even in his private parts."

Did I read that correctly, sir?

A. Yes. I'm just concerned with the TV that these names could be picked up.

MR. NEWMAN: Okay.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I can't see it.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. Then the second is a memorandum to you, Reverend Murphy and Reverend Meceli, which is essentially an interview between Reverend Murphy and Reverend Berthold regarding the incident which I referenced in the memo of November 21.

Does that appear correct, Cardinal Law?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, in this, Father Berthold denies sexually molesting this young man and says:

"That's absolutely false." Last line on 117.

And he says, on page 118, he says there was nothing sexual or romantic about the encounter as far as he was concerned.

Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Cardinal Law, my question is this: As of 1996, in the Boston Archdiocese of which you were the Archbishop, was there a practice or procedure to investigate the allegations of molestation by the Delegates, by the Delegates of the Boston Archdiocese?

A. Well, the policy of the diocese in '96 was the policy of '93, and that was the policy that the Delegate was to implement.

Q. Okay. Did you know Reverend Berthold well enough before 1996 to consider him an intellectually honest person, as best you can?

A. I would have had no reason to deny that he was an intellectually honest person. I would have assumed that.

Q. He was a Catholic scholar at the time and a professor; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had had occasion before 1996 to meet him and speak with him; is that accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. To your knowledge, regarding Father Berthold, was it ever the case that he was asked at any point at '96 and after these allegations described here as to whether or not he had ever sexually molested a child before this time?

A. I don't know what went on in the counseling sessions and with -- and I'm not privy to what Father Murphy would have inquired of him.

Q. Okay. Based on what you see and have read here, it's accurate to say that Father Murphy did not ask Reverend Berthold if he had sexually molested a child before 1996?

A. Yeah.

Q. Or anyone?

A. I don't see that question recorded here on this November 26 memorandum and I don't know what happened after November 26.

Q. All right. Do you have a memory that you ultimately made a recommendation for him to find placement in North Carolina sometime after, in Charlotte, North Carolina, if you know, sir?

A. I don't know that I made the recommendation that he go there but I would have -- he would have needed my permission to go there.

Q. Okay.

MR. NEWMAN: Let's mark this. 194 is next.

(Law Exhibit No. 9, Letter, 6/22/97, marked for identification.)

Q. This is a letter that's dated June 22, 1997, to Reverend William Curlin.

Do you recall signing this letter, Cardinal Law?

A. I don't recall signing it, but I don't deny that this is my letter.

Q. This says that "Reverend Berthold is a priest in good standing of the Archdiocese of Boston and is being considered for a position at the Abby College in Belmont. He is well-qualified for the position and has moral integrity and pastoral skills."

Is that an accurate reading of --

A. That's what is stated here.

Q. Did you, if you recall, read the letter before you signed it?

A. I think I would have read it.

Q. And this was signed after you had been made aware of the allegations against Reverend Berthold in 1996; is that correct?

A. I think it's interesting -- I think it's important to put in the record the second paragraph of that letter.

Q. Certainly. I'll read it.

"I understand you have been in conversation with your secretary, Father Anthony Marcaccio, regarding information given to him by Father William Murphy, my Delegate. I trust the information provided sufficiently describes Father Berthold's situation, allowing you to make a decision as to whether to grant him the faculties of the Diocese of Charlotte."

Did I read that correctly?

A. That's correct.

Q. Let me go back, if I may, to my question. Your letter here, which included the statement that he is well-qualified for the position and has the moral integrity and pastoral skills needed to serve the undergraduate population, was made after you were aware of the allegations of Reverend Berthold in 1996; is that accurate?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, if you recall, after you made this recommendation and he was accepted, another complaint came forward against Reverend Berthold; is that correct?

A. Excuse me? Would you repeat that again.

Q. Sure.

A. The time sequence.

Q. After 1997 --

A. After this letter?

Q. After this letter. He was accepted. And then another complaint comes forward to the Archdiocese about an allegation of sexual abuse, and that complaint was about a year later in November of 1998.

My question is: Do you have a memory --

A. I don't, but I would maybe have it jogged if you put something in front of me.

MR. NEWMAN: Okay. Berthold 2-256.

THE WITNESS: Do you have this?

(Law Exhibit No. 10, Document, marked for identification.)

MR. NEWMAN: I just need one back.

MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah. Let me give you one back. I can give you the official one.

Q. Have you had an opportunity to read that?

A. Yes. Is there more to this or does it end right there?

Q. This is all we got. There may well be another --

A. Okay.

Q. There appears as though there was another page, but the next page in our -- in what was given us is not a continuation of this.

But what this is, is an allegation regarding a young man that comes forward in November 3 of 1998, which I won't use his name, but said that he had been molested when he was about 11 back in Woburn and it involved him lying on Father Berthold's bed, taking off his pants on the priest's instruction and having his genitals fondled.

Did I read that correctly?

A. You did.

Q. You would agree with me, Cardinal Law, that that is a very serious allegation?

A. Certainly.

Q. And that Reverend Berthold had had two prior allegations by two young seminarians; is that accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. And that he was on the so-called lend-lease program to the Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, according to this document?

A. According to this document, yes.

Q. Is that accurate or truthful, to your knowledge?

A. He was in -- yeah. I would not use the term "lend lease," but that's the term that's used here, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, there had been two prior allegations against him and a recommendation by you upon conference with those around you to send him to North Carolina.

A. To allow him to function in North Carolina. I think it's also important to note, which we didn't note with that earlier, the involvement of Southdown in December of 1996.

Q. Okay. You relied on the therapist to give you advice that he was okay to go back into some type of ministry and be around people and felt, based on that recommendation, that it was safe?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that accurate?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Now, but at no time -- is it correct to say that at no time before 1998, did you or anyone under your control ask him whether or not he'd ever been involved sexually with any young children before you wrote the letter to North Carolina?

A. I did not ask him that. I cannot say whether the Delegate did or did not.

MR. ROGERS: Jeff, it's three.

MR. NEWMAN: Can I just finish the last question and then we'll --

MR. ROGERS: Okay.

Q. Would you agree with me that information that was contained in this document, that is, the November 3, 1998, memorandum from Reverend Murphy to the file of Reverend Berthold, would have been important information for Reverend Curlin of Charlotte, North Carolina, the Bishop of Charlotte, North Carolina, to know before he made his decision whether to bring Father Berthold into North Carolina?

A. Yes. But I'm presuming that Father Murphy did not know this.

Q. That's right. I'm just asking whether or not it would have been important --

A. Yeah, yeah.

Q. -- in his decision-making had he known it?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form. I'm not sure how this witness could possibly know that.

But he can answer if he can.

Q. As a matter of common sense, if you know?

A. Obviously, this kind of information, this allegation would have been important for everybody to know.

MR. NEWMAN: All right. Take a break.

MR. ROGERS: Good.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:01 p.m. This is the end of Cassette 2 in today's deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:14 p.m. This is Cassette 3 in today's deposition of Cardinal Law. We're back on the record.

Q. Cardinal Law, just to ask you a few more questions about Reverend Berthold.

Before going to North Carolina, he also did some studies and work in the Ukraine.

Do you have a memory of that?

A. I don't have an active memory of that, no.

MR. NEWMAN: Okay. We might as well mark this next. It's Berthold 2-158.

(Law Exhibit No. 11, Letter, 2/10/97, marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had an opportunity to read this letter dated February 10, 1997?

A. I have.

Q. This is a letter from you to Reverend Berthold, who was at the time in Lvivska, I believe, Ukraine. Is that accurate?

A. That's as I read it, in Lviv, I guess.

Q. Lviv.

It says that the Archdiocese of Boston has been in communication with the Diocese of Lviv in the Ukraine and that the college there, I guess, the Akademia --

A. Akademia.

Q. -- indicated you are welcome to be assigned there and I am writing you now to indicate that upon recommendation of Reverend Murphy, he's ending -- you're ending his medical leave and granting him permission to serve on a lend-lease basis to this particular diocese.

Is that accurate?

A. That's correct.

Q. And again, this is about a year after the allegations, the allegation was made by the seminarian that Father Berthold had molested him, touched his genitals and so forth. Is that accurate?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question.

You can answer.

A. I think it was after that allegation, yes.

Q. If you remember, Cardinal Law, did you communicate directly with the Archbishop or any other individuals in the Ukraine to indicate to them that there had been an issue or an allegation or actually two allegations against Father Berthold before making -- before allowing him to go there?

A. Here again, I believe that -- no, I was not.

Q. I'm sorry? You were not?

A. I was not in communication with them on that, with regard to that situation, that case.

Q. Okay. All right. So just to make sure the record is clear, you have no recollection of warning them that there had been allegations against Reverend Berthold before recommending him to this particular post. Am I accurate?

A. I have no -- I have no sense of that, no.

Q. Okay.

MR. NEWMAN: The next one will be Berthold 160, dated -- it's a letter to the Most Reverend Jaworski, dated February 10, 1997.

(Law Exhibit No. 12, Letter to Jaworski, 2/10/97, marked for identification.)

MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you.

A. The -- excuse me. Go ahead with the question.

Q. Have had an opportunity to read the letter?

A. Yes, I have read the letter.

Q. Do you recall that you stated that in accordance or pursuant to the conversation between Reverend Jaworski and Reverend Murphy, you have granted written permission to Reverend Berthold to serve in the Diocese of the Ukraine on a lend-lease basis? Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right.

A. I was hesitant earlier when you asked the question about what I had informed the bishop, if I had personally informed the bishop of any of the background, because my presumption was that Bishop Murphy may have had contact with the bishop because he knew some -- he knew -- he had some contacts with bishops in the Ukraine.

And so I don't know what may be implied here about the -- or what the conversation was that he had had with Bishop Murphy.

Q. Do you -- I'm sorry.

A. I also would note the obvious point here that he evidently was already in the Ukraine. And by the time I wrote to him, which was in February, my letter to Father Berthold was in February, he's already in the Ukraine at that time.

Q. Right.

A. And so what is obvious -- so the assignment then is retroactive from January 10, which is evidently when he started there. But it's limited to May 31. So it's a --

Q. January 10, 1997, to --

A. '97. To May 31, '97.

Q. Right.

A. So it's a five-month --

Q. Again, though, it still post dates the 1996 allegations against Father Berthold, correct?

A. And post dates the Southdown.

Q. Correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And do you have any information one way or the other as to whether or not the people in the Ukraine were made aware of the allegations against Father Berthold before he went to the Ukraine?

A. I do not and I would need to -- I would need to refresh my memory by talking to people -- perhaps you have -- as to what was the ultimate disposition of that allegation with the seminarian who was not a minor, of -- you know, what was the disposition of that in terms of Southdown. And I don't know that.

Q. Okay. But you are aware it's more than one individual from -- there are two individuals from the seminary and one individual who came forward who we've already --

A. Well, I wasn't quite sure of that, whether it was one seminarian alleging two incidents or two seminarians. I know that the memorandum states two seminarians, but the back-up information would sort of indicate one.

Then the allegation that you showed me, which goes back, which certainly predates '84, at Woburn, the allegation of presumably the adult recalling something that had happened when he was a minor, that is a minor, and I don't know what the year of that allegation is.

Q. All right. Cardinal Law, as of the years approximately 1996 and 1997, were you aware from your readings or discussions with others around you that individuals who are pedophiles or pederasts involved with children, recidivate; that is, they tend to do it more than once?

A. It's probably inappropriate for me to ask you this, but is this in relationship to the Berthold case?

Q. It is.

A. Because, first of all, we're dealing in the case of the seminarian, with someone who was not a minor.

Q. Right. That's correct.

A. And in the second case, we're dealing with an allegation -- and I don't know what the disposition of that allegation was in terms of investigation. So I don't -- so if I can prescind from the Berthold case so that what I say is not going to be then read into the Berthold case, I was, in '96, '97, aware of the fact and was becoming increasingly more aware of the fact that cases like this of a pedophile tended toward recidivism.

Q. And just so we don't narrow it to pedophiles as defined by prepubescent teens, that's accurate to say about ephebophiles, that is, for young teens and not necessarily prepubescent. Is that your understanding as well?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer.

A. I'm really -- you know, I'm really not an expert at that. And I don't want to get into that. I would rely on others.

Q. Sorry.

Let me ask it a more basic way and better English.

A. My view at this point is, and it's reflected in the policy change that I made in 2002, is that one cannot take the risk because of the possibility of recidivism --

Q. Okay. Do you recall --

A. -- in all these cases of abuse.

Q. All right.

Do you recall -- and this is a hard question -- but do you recall generally when you became aware that individuals who have these urges with teens or young children tend to repeat their actions; that is, don't just do it once?

A. No, no, I really can't.

Q. Okay. Is this something which came to you in terms of information more, if you know, in, like, 2001 or 2002, or were you aware of it in --

A. Well, the explosion -- you have to understand that the number of cases that you and others are dealing with is a number that was unimaginable by me, and I would presume even perhaps unimaginable by lawyers on both sides of the issue at an earlier time.

I have, you know, I have received an education over the past twelve months which has really been an eye opener in terms of what is possible. And the number of cases that we have had, not necessarily new priests, but the cases of recidivism of cases that we have had are absolutely mind-boggling to me.

Q. Cardinal Law, let me ask you about that, if I may. I don't want to belabor the issue, but it is an important one.

I'm particularly knowledgeable about Father Paquin. I represent many of his victims. And I am intimately knowledgeable with the records relating to the Paquin case, which are enormous.

From 1991 forward, there were no less than 50 separate individuals named in those documents, and in many of those cases, there were communications between Father McCormack and yourself about those individuals.

Is it correct to say that at least with Father Paquin, you were aware that he was a recidivist and repeated his actions over and over again based on those people that came forward from '91 forward?

A. Well, obviously if the record shows that I was aware of -- and I was aware of others who were guilty of more than one act. But the number of cases is something that came to my consciousness more recently than earlier.

Q. Okay.

Cardinal Law --

MR. NEWMAN: Here. You can go ahead and give him that. I want to mark this one the next exhibit.

(Law Exhibit No. 13, Letter, 2/22/94, marked for identification.)

Q. Take a moment and read it, if you would.

Cardinal Law, this relates to a couple of questions I asked you relative to some of the settlements that occurred over the years.

A. Yes.

Q. It's a letter dated February 22, 1994, from you to the Most Reverend James Malone, Bishop of Youngstown, relating to Reverend Robert Burns.

Now, this letter says that, in the second paragraph:

"As we try to structure a settlement which will resolve these cases, it was hoped that Youngstown would be able to contribute what we understand to be the deductible in each case. Since there are two claimants involved, it is hoped Youngstown would be able to contribute $100,000. As you may know, the initial demand in the two cases was $1.6 million. We have been able to get initial input by way of a contribution from two insurance carriers for the Archdiocese of Boston. It is clear, however, that the Archdiocese of Boston is going to have to contribute up to $1 million in an effort to put together a package which might induce the plaintiffs to settle this matter out of court."

First, do you have a memory of this letter generally?

A. I have a general memory of writing to Bishop Malone, and I would also say out of my memory that this would be the one case in which I was involved in a direct way like this.

Q. Okay. Do you know if relative to the Archdiocese's own money, this was the largest pay-out of funds from the Archdiocese as opposed to insurance funds that you're aware of it?

A. First of all, I don't know what ultimately was the resolution here and --

Q. Okay.

A. And I don't know what the total amount was. And so I really don't know that, the answer to that question.

Q. Okay. So it's accurate to say you have no memory one way or the other where the money came from relative to money within the Archdiocese?

A. I --

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question.

You can answer.

A. I have a general understanding that any money that went toward claims like this would not have come out of funds, for example, development fund, and funds of that kind, but would have been out of funds that would have been appropriately used in this way.

Q. Okay. Do you know --

A. Excess funds.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Excess funds --

Q. Excess funds?

A. -- that we would have had.

Q. Nonrestricted excess funds?

A. Nonrestricted excess funds.

Q. Cardinal Law, I want to ask you some general questions about communications between the Boston Archdiocese and the Vatican.

Since the time that you've been Archbishop in Boston in 1984, did you ever receive any instructions from the Vatican or anyone at the Vatican as to how to deal with sexual abuse claims in Massachusetts?

A. No.

You're referring, I presume, to settlement, to financial settlement?

Q. Yes. Financial settlement. Let me qualify the question somewhat.

Did you ever receive communications as to the Vatican's wishes, not just necessarily settlement or nonsettlement, but how it was that the Vatican wanted the Boston Archdiocese to deal with the crisis of sexual abuse of children by its priests.

A. No.

Q. The communications between the Boston Archdiocese and the Vatican in terms of laicization of priests, is that done in some special manner?

A. Laicization -- first of all, I'm not a canonist.

Q. Okay.

A. So I speak, in a sense, as a layman here. But laicization can follow -- does in fact follow several courses. There is a normal process of laicization where a priest initiates a request to be laicized.

Q. I don't mean to stop you, but I didn't want to necessarily know what the process was. I just wanted to know, if I could, if there was a process.

A. Well, there is a process --

Q. Okay.

A. -- and it has -- and there's several variants in the process.

Q. All right, all right.

MR. CRAWFORD: Jeff, if you're done, I don't need to state an objection. We're just skirting, I think, close to the edge of what I would consider to be internal Church communications, which we may have an issue with, but you haven't crossed that line yet so I haven't objected yet.

MR. NEWMAN: All right. Just to make sure that we state it on the record, it is not something that I'm intrigued with necessarily, but it's my belief -- and it was argued by us based on case law in Massachusetts -- that we are not restricted from asking about these processes if they related to Cardinal Law's decision-making relative to whether or not a priest was removed from duty.

MR. CRAWFORD: Nor have I instructed him not to answer those questions.

MR. NEWMAN: Okay. All right.

Q. Cardinal Law, were you empowered during the time you were Archbishop to laicize a priest that you felt was inappropriate to be able to minister to individuals in the Boston Archdiocese?

A. I'm not empowered -- when I was the Archbishop of Boston, I was not personally empowered. There is a process through which laicization can come, and laicization comes by means of a rescript from the Holy See. And that's the method used.

Q. Okay. Could you recommend it as part of your duties as Archbishop?

A. Could I request the laicization of someone?

Q. Yes.

A. It's -- yes, I could. It's rather extraordinary, but I could.

Q. Just changing gears here in terms of subject.

Do you remember Reverend Bernard -- sorry -- Reverend Robert Meffan?

A. Excuse me?

Q. Do you remember Reverend Robert Meffan, M-e-f-f-a-n?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, he was a priest in the Boston Archdiocese during the time you were Archbishop; is that correct?

A. He was.

Q. And do you recall at some point in the early '90s that complaints came forward that he had been sexually molesting some young girls who were in the process of becoming nuns or they were going to become nuns?

A. I don't have active recall of that allegation, but I'd be happy to look at the document.

MR. NEWMAN: We'll start with Meffan 2-193.

(Law Exhibit No. 13, Confidential Report, 2/3/93, marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Pause.)

A. Yes.

Q. You've had an opportunity to review the document --

A. I have.

Q. -- dated February, 3, '93?

Does that refresh your memory at all as to --

A. It does not. I don't recall this.

Q. Do you remember this individual at all, Robert Meffan?

A. I have a vague recollection of him. I don't have a recollection of this allegation. And, you know -- I don't know. I mean, I just, based on what you're showing me here -- one of the difficulties is you see there at the February 17, last notation here:

"She appreciated concern that she was heard. CEM readily accepted above, assured confidentiality. I would not press this person."

I mean, the difficulty of coming to follow-up on this, I don't know.

Q. Right. But she was -- firstly, if, as a matter of practice and procedure at the time in 1993, if an allegation that a priest in the Boston Archdiocese had been sexually molesting more than one young girl, the fact that one of them wanted their confidentiality maintained would not prohibit an investigation of these allegations; is that accurate?

A. Yes. But if I -- I'm just reading this now for the first time. As I read this, what you have, is it not, a -- it's not a firsthand recital, but it's a report of something that has been conveyed, and that's the difficulty that -- how do you deal with this if you're not able to deal directly with the people allegedly abused?

I may have misread this.

MR. NEWMAN: Let's go to 211.

(Law Exhibit No. 15, Confidential Report, 2/19/93, marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal Law, before you finish it, if I could, with your permission and your counsel's permission, to save time, I'd like just to read parts of this with you, and you have a right to read it all in advance if you want, but I only have a couple of questions about it.

A. Can I just buzz through it quickly and --

Q. Yeah, sure.

A. -- then if you would do that.

Q. No problem.

(Pause.)

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Cardinal Law, ultimately, I'll just tell you that all these incidents were the subject of review board and they recommended that he be allowed to live at home with his cousin in a structured program.

Do you have a memory one way or the other on that issue?

A. I have a vague recollection of his not functioning as a priest, but I --

Q. Okay. Now, this next document that we've gone through, I just want to read it. It says -- this is a memorandum from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin to Reverend John McCormack regarding an interview with Ms. Blank -- we won't mention her name -- regarding Robert Meffan, Reverend Robert Meffan, dated February 9, 1993.

"Blank, a former Sister of St. Joseph, kept an appointment with CEM" -- Catherine Mulkerrin -- "in order to describe her relationship with Father Meffan when she was a parishioner and student at Sacred Heart, Weymouth, and Father Meffan was stationed there. In her sophomore year, when she was 15, 16 years old, blank joined CYO and other clubs at Sacred Heart because she wanted the girls there as friends. As she recalls now, of the five or six in special relationship with Father Meffan, there was something wrong at home. In her own case, both parents were alcoholic. Father Meffan's message was based on the bride and bridegroom scripture image which he claims was, quote, not metaphorical, but meant to be literal, and for some special reason he had the vision (about that) ahead of others. Blank said that, quote, he made me feel special, smart. He spoke of a special relationship (of her and others) with Christ, the soul of Christ. He did not go as far as intercourse because that was the after-life. She said that this touching (while she was on his lap) was encouragement, also to masturbate mentally, and if, quote, one managed to have contractions, quote, he could get real off. This went on for three years of high school and her postulancy. He did anything short of intercourse."

Now, I can read the rest if you wish, but my questions are this.

Firstly, until today, did you have a memory of the details of what allegations were being made against Father Meffan?

A. I never had those details before me before and they're disgusting. I thank God that we had the office set up and that Sister Catherine was there and that this was able to be dealt with. And as sad as it is, there is that good part of it, that there was a mechanism, there was a person that could be called and it was effective and it did work.

Q. Well, the problem with that is that the -- a number of the other young women were never contacted at all and that they came forward only later, several years later and filed actions against the RCAB.

But my question to you is more specifically --

MR. CRAWFORD: Is that a question?

MR. NEWMAN: Yeah.

Q. Do you have a memory --

MR. CRAWFORD: That others did?

Q. -- that others came forward later?

A. No.

Q. Is it accurate to say, based on what you know, that no communications were attempted to be made with the other individuals described by this young woman who were molested by him?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Okay. Now, is this the type of information that would have been brought to your attention by Father McCormack, based on the protocols that existed in 1993?

A. The details --

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer.

A. The details of the abuse, no. The fact that there were allegations, the fact that they were being dealt with, that the priest was appropriately being dealt with, this would have been brought to my attention.

Q. Now, this occurrence happened after the 1993 protocol was engaged; is that accurate?

A. Well, this is February of '93, so I would imagine so, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, if you are aware, Cardinal Law, do you know when Father Meffan was confronted with these allegations, did he deny them?

A. I don't know that.

MR. NEWMAN: Okay. 2-19.

(Law Exhibit 16, Document, 3/25/93, marked for identification.)

Q. Cardinal Law, do you see in Paragraphs 8 and 14 of those two documents, that essentially Father Meffan denies any of the allegations made against him?

A. I read that, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, at the time in 1993, after this protocol was set up, if a priest were to deny an allegation, aside from sending the priest for an assessment, was anything put in place in order to investigate whether or not the priest's denial or the victim's part of the statement was true?

A. The process called for a hearing, a listening, an assessment of the allegation. If you have a person -- there was no written protocol with what you do if on the one hand you have the -- an allegation being alleged and on the other hand the allegation being denied. What do you do with that impasse? We did, and as you can see here, this memorandum indicates that an assessment would be necessary. And the presumption was that the assessment would be able to validate the allegation and would be able to override the denial, if that was appropriate. And we relied on the assessment to help in that.

Q. And that assessment means a psychologist or psychiatrist speaking to the individual priest; is that --

A. Well, here again, like so many other things in this, it evolved. There were initially out-patient assessments, but as time went on, we saw the need for in-patient assessments and those would be over a significant period of time. And they may -- they might yield even a longer period of treatment and that's -- we relied on that in dealing -- we took seriously the allegation and relied on that to assist us in handling the case appropriately.

We didn't simply say that there's a draw here. You have an allegation, you have a denial, so you do nothing. We didn't do that. We did something.

Q. Here's what appears to be missing and the basis of my question. We now, as a part of our protocol, not only send people who allege these types of wrongdoings to the criminal authorities, we send them to the church delegates for investigation. And they have now seemingly engaged in a process of investigation, and the term, as you know it, in criminal --

A. That's correct.

Q. But that apparently wasn't always the case.

A. That's correct. And I'm happy to say that while I was still Archbishop, that was put in place.

Q. I guess my question is back in '93 and before then, when you look at the model of review of credibility in the term, on the criminal process, what they do is they send people out who are trained to talk with people and get statements --

A. That's correct. -- to see if they corroborate or negate.

A. That's correct.

Q. And that didn't seem to be part of the process either in '93, before or after, until more recently.

My question is: Why didn't it engage sooner?

MR. CRAWFORD: Let me just object to the form of the question.

You may answer it.

A. We thought we were doing the thing the right way by setting up an office, by enlarging that office. We went, as you know, from a person who had other responsibilities who would handle this kind of a case, to separating out that person who was the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel from the Delegate to handle these special cases, then to putting someone in that office to assist in investigation, which was done in an interview basis, and then to add a second person to that office for that purpose, and then finally to develop the mechanism that we now have where you would engage in a more aggressive kind of an investigation rather than a more benign counselor/counselee kind of discussion.

Why didn't we see the need for doing that five years ago or ten years ago? I can't answer that. We were moving -- we were moving in a direction. I wish we had moved more quickly.

Q. Is it correct to say that in part -- let me rephrase it.

Do you believe that one of the reasons more strident investigations were not engaged when priest denied these allegations was because there was a concern for protecting the Church from scandal?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.

You may answer.

A. No. I think in handling these cases, we wanted to get at the truth.

Q. Okay.

MR. CRAWFORD: Are we at four o'clock? Are you at a place to break?

MR. NEWMAN: Yes.

MR. CRAWFORD: We'll conclude for today. Last day is February 3.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:57. This is the end of today's deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.


First day of deposition (1/22/2003) | Second day of deposition (2/3/2003)


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