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

Crux, a Catholic news site

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

More documents:

Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
August 14, 2002, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston

On August 14, 2002, Cardinal Bernard F. Law was deposed by Boston lawyer Roderick MacLeish Jr. in connection with civil lawsuits filed against Law by three alleged victims of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley. Questioning also took place on Aug. 13, Oct. 11, and Oct. 16, 2002. Two previous days of deposition were taken June 5 and June 7, 2002.




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

THE FOURTH DAY OF 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, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts 0, on Wednesday, August 14, 2002, commencing at 10:00 a.m.

K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-

APPEARANCES:

Greenberg Traurig
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, and David G. Thomas, Attorney, Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

The Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, and. Wilson D. Rogers, III Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for the Defendants

Todd & Weld
(by J. Owen Todd, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally

ALSO PRESENT:
George Libbares
Rodney Ford
Paula Ford
Father John Connolly
George Libbares
Shirley Fairclough
Anthony Driscoll
Thomas F. Maffei, PC
Wendy Champagne

WITNESS
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed

EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH

DIRECT EXAMINATION

(Law Exhibit No. 51, Copy of Helmick Deposition, marked for identification.)

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 0. Today is August 14, 2002, and the time is 10:01 a.m.

This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard F. Law in the following matters: Gregory Ford, et. al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action 02-, Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, Civil Action 02-, Anthony Driscoll, Plaintiff, Civil Action 02-1737, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior Court.

This case -- this deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The court reporter is Kathleen L. Good, with K. L. Good & Associates, of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts.

Counsel will now state their appearances and the deposition will begin.

MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for the Plaintiffs,

MR. THOMAS: David Thomas for the Plaintiffs,

MR. ROGERS, III: Wilson Rogers, III, on behalf of all Defendants.

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

MR. TODD: Owen Todd on behalf of Cardinal Law.

CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH, Cont.

Q: Good morning, your Eminence.

A: Good morning.

Q: Again, thank you for coming into our offices this morning. As I have in previous occasions, I want to give you the opportunity now, if you would like to take it, to modify, correct or supplement any portion of your testimony from the first three days of your deposition. Is there anything that you'd like to say?

A: I think there is one thing that I would like to say. Yesterday, you focused your remarks or your question to me earlier on about the -- I forget exactly your words -- but the primary focus being the protection of children. And I simply wanted to indicate that the reference to that in my statement has to do with the handling of sexual abuse cases; that in the handling of the sexual abuse cases, the primary focus is the protection of children.

And I simply mention that because, obviously, the mission of the Church is broader than the handling of sexual abuse cases. But the point that I was trying to make there, and in some preceding public statements in the last seven months, has been that the primary focus, the primary goal -- that the primary focus, I think, is the term that I usually use -- in the handling of sexual abuse cases is and must be the protection of children.

I explained that in a press conference by indicating that looking back into the earlier handling of these cases, it seemed to me, in retrospect, that there was too much of a tendency to focus on individual component elements of the handling of the case so that you'd be concerned in terms of assessment to be sure that -- of what kind, if any, assignment might be given for the protection of children. Then you'd be concerned about what kind of care needed to be given, follow-up care to the priest.

And what has become the focus of our handling of these cases now is that the primary focus has to be the protection of children, and if that is the case, then, obviously, the way in which one handles the priest is going to be guided by that principle. So we put in place a zero toleration policy for that reason; that no matter what might be indicated, it wouldn't be sufficient from the perspective of the protection of children to have this person in place.

I realize that that's going -- bringing us forward in time, but the statement that I made on that was in a certain context. I wanted to be sure that the record shows that that focus on the protection of children is primary is in relationship to the handling of sexual abuse cases.

Q: Cardinal, I just had a request if you could speak up a little bit.

A: Surely.

Q: I would appreciate it.

A: Thank you.

Q: Is there anything else you'd like to say to supplement?

A: I don't believe so.

Q: Cardinal Law, just so I'm clear on what you just said, even back in the 1984 to 1990 period where my clients allege that they were sexually molested by Paul Shanley, it was still the primary focus, in your mind, in the handling of sexual abuse cases, the protection of children; is that correct?

A: It was certainly a primary focus. But I think the difference between 1985 and 2002 is that in the handling of cases -- and this is looking back and trying to explain how it is that things were done -- in the handling of cases, I think there was a tendency to focus on a specific aspect at a specific time. So you would deal with -- the assessment would give you certain information with regard to what was or was not appropriate relative to the safety of children. You would deal with the treatment of the priest and the possibility which existed then of the priest being reassigned.

But if -- the switch came in saying that everything that is done has to be done in view of the safety of children, and when that's your focus, then the handling of the individual elements of that problem are going -- are going to be different.

I believe that if that's the focus, then it's essential to adopt a so-called zero toleration policy, which we came to do.

I didn't have that in '85. So the question, in looking back in '85 and saying, well, how is it that we didn't have a zero toleration policy in '85, I think, you know, one way of understanding that, for me, has been that the tendency to focus on the individual elements of the problem and not seeing them always together in terms of the safety of children. And that's why that is our policy now.

Q: For which I commend you, and I mean that sincerely, but I'd like to focus, if we could, and try to agree today, not on the current policy, but on the policy that was in effect prior to the current policy, and the policy, in particular, from 1984 to 1993. Can we agree upon that? I do understand your current policy. And I do understand the distinction. But my questions are going to be more centered today on the policy in effect between 1984 and 1993.

A: And the reason why I raised what I did is that I didn't want to inject into 1985, what I have said in 2002.

Q: I think that is --

A: That's my point.

Q: I think that's been made clear. You just said that your earlier policies envisioned the possibility of priests being reassigned. Do you remember what you said?

A: That's correct.

Q: And that was after there was assessment and credible allegations of sexual abuse; is that correct?

A: If the assessment would indicate that that was an appropriate course of action.

Q: Well, the assessments didn't indicate -- did they not, Cardinal Law -- we don't have any of the assessments -- but the assessments did not generally indicate this priest should be reassigned. That was a decision that was made by the Archdiocese; is that correct?

A: That would be correct.

Q: And that would be a decision made by you; is that correct?

A: That would be correct.

Q: We know that following two assessments, Father Geoghan was reassigned. We know that, right?

A: That's correct.

Q: That was one of the cases where there was reassignment after an evaluation?

A: That's correct.

Q: We covered Father Rosenkranz yesterday. Another priest that was reassigned after an evaluation; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And we've covered Father Graham, who, in 1988, was -- admitted to child molestation who was reassigned and eventually promoted by you; is that correct?

A: With, of course, as you know, the intervention of a review board mainly of lay people. You don't want to go forward, but, in fact, that occurred.

Q: The review board wasn't in place in 1988, Cardinal Law, was it?

A: No, no. But the review board reviewed his case --

Q: In 1995?

A: -- as all cases were reviewed, and indicated that there was absolutely no reason for him not to remain in place.

Q: Cardinal Law, you remember the first review board indicating that he should not have any parish ministry and then that changed eight months later? There was an initial review board, do you recall that, that recommended that he not be assigned to parish ministry, and then there was a change?

I think we covered that in the first day of your deposition.

A: And that was followed, was it not, the first --

Q: The first one? I don't know whether the first one was followed. And I don't think you knew that. But what we do know is that eight months later -- I'm happy to bring up the exhibits if you'd like to see them again -- there was a change and Father Graham was deemed to be -- was deemed to be appropriate for reassignment. That was eight months after the first review board hearing.

I can refer you to the exhibits if you'd like to see them again.

A: That would be fine. If the review --

Q: Let's take a look then at Exhibit No. 5 on Daniel Graham. I'm sorry.

A: Excuse me.

Q: Exhibit No. 5. I'm sorry. Let's start with Exhibit No. 3.

A: No. 3?

Q: Yes. This is Father Graham. Hold on just one moment, please. It appears that one of the -- the first assessment -- hold on a second, please. All right.

If you look at Exhibit No. 3, let me read you the first paragraph. "This case was originally before the board on June 5, 1995." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: "At that time, the recommendation was that the priest not be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors; that he engage in therapy as recommended; that another ministry be sought where this priest's talents may be used. In light of the ongoing review of the policy, it was decided not to act on the recommendation at this time." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: So the original recommendation was that he not be involved in parish ministry that would involve contact with minors. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And then we have the next exhibit, which is Exhibit No. -- let's go to Exhibit No. 5. And we have a statement on the first page: "The board recommends that the priest not be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors; that he engages in therapy as recommended; that another ministry be sought where the priest's talents may be used." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: That's Exhibit No. 5. And that's dated June 5, 1995. And then on February 7, 1996, you approve -- that's Exhibit 4 -- you approve the recommendation of the delegate, which was that this priest not be involved, Daniel Graham, be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And then there was a change, was there not? I don't know whether we have that as an exhibit. Let me just check and see. Okay. Then we have Exhibit No. 3, going back to Exhibit No. 3, which I believe to be the writing of, typewritten of Father Flatley, but I can't say that with certainty. But it says at the bottom: "The delegate's recommendation" -- this doesn't say the recommendation of the review board; this is the delegate's recommendation -- "That this be determined to be a case reported and handled appropriately before the present policy was in place and that" -- it's, again, hard for me to read -- "and, thus, one to which the policy does not apply. Father does not require further assessment and there should be no limits or restrictions on his ministry." Do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: We did not get a second review board recommendation that indicated that it was appropriate for Father Daniel Graham to go back into parish ministry with minors. We have a delegate's recommendation. You see that in Exhibit No. 3? And then we have a review board, a review board meeting some eight months prior to that in which it was recommended that he not be involved in parish ministry. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: I asked you at the deposition if you had any explanation for that change, and you indicated at that time that you did not have any such explanation. Do you have any explanation now?

A: No, I really don't. I would be very surprised if this report, this Case No. 62, did not go before the review board and that I did not receive, through the delegate, the opinion of the review board. But I don't see it here.

Q: What you do see is in terms of recommending that there be no restrictions placed on his ministry, you see the delegate -- which, at that time, would have been Father Flatley; is that correct?

A: I'm not sure of that, but I presume it is. You would know.

Q: Father Flatley is saying because this was before the present policy being implemented in 1993, it doesn't apply, and then he can go back to parish ministry. Do you see that in his conclusion --

A: I do.

Q: -- Cardinal Law?

MR. TODD: It says more than that.

Q: Now, Cardinal Law, so we know that in the case of Father Daniel Graham, that the allegations back in 1988 were admitted to and that he remained in active ministry, the policy was not in effect, and we know that he was maintained in an assignment.

I think we went through that in the first day of your deposition. And then subsequently he was promoted; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And then we have -- we did Father Geoghan; we did Father Rosenkranz. Father Tourigney is someone that you know as well; is that not the case?

A: I know the -- I know him as a priest of the diocese and I have dealt with his case and he is not in active ministry, as you know.

Q: Right. I know he's not in active ministry, but we're going to come to that case in a moment, but you're aware, are you not, that back in the 1980s, he admitted to engaging in sexual misconduct with a minor and was allowed to remain at Immaculate Conception Parish in Revere following a one-week assessment at Southdown. You do know that?

A: I don't have that record actively in my mind.

Q: We're going to be going over that at some point during your deposition, but I just want to go back to your comment you made that there was the possibility of priest reassignment before your current policy.

I would ask you again, Cardinal Law, if you can identify one priest -- and if you've had any time since yesterday to reflect -- one priest, just one, who had a credible allegation of abuse made against him, went for an assessment and was not returned to active ministry?

Have you had the opportunity to reflect on that since yesterday?

A: I think Father Mahan would be one, that when an allegation was made, the first allegation that I knew, he was removed, he was assessed and he did not return to active ministry.

Q: How about Father Lane?

A: I thought Father Tourigney was the same.

Q: No. We will get to Father Tourigney. And we had Father Birmingham yesterday, and we had three assessments -- I think we went over that yesterday -- with Father Birmingham, and we had three assessments, and after those three assessments -- and some were in the '60s, one was in 1985, there was another in 1987 -- you assigned him to St. Brigid's in Lexington; is that correct?

A: He was in St. Brigid's in Lexington as -- assigned there as a sick man, basically dying.

Q: Well, he was a sick man dying, but there were no -- I think we covered this -- there were no restrictions on --

MR. TODD: You keep on saying that. I'm going to object to you insert --

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Your objection --

MR. TODD: Don't do that. I'm going to object to questions in which you insert predicates. If you're going to insert the predicate, please point out where in the record that predicate appears.

MR. MacLEISH: The witness is free to correct me. I'm going to conduct the deposition the way I see fit. If you instruct him not to answer --

MR. TODD: You anything you like.

MR. MacLEISH: Then you instruct him not to answer. That's not appropriate.

MR. TODD: You do anything you like.

MR. MacLEISH: Fine.

MR. TODD: And I'll do what I like, which is to object to that question and to warn you that I will object to any question which you insert these predicates in some fashion of argument rather than asking questions.

MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted.

MR. TODD: Not only that, I'm sure you wanted the names of other priests who had not been reassigned.

Q: Cardinal Law, if I say anything that mischaracterizes your prior testimony, I want you to interrupt, and we will -- I assume you've reviewed your first two days of deposition because you signed the errata sheet; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: So you are familiar with the errata sheet and you're familiar with the deposition; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Forget what you testified about. Is it not a fact that in the case of Father Joseph Birmingham, after three assessments, you sent him back to St. Brigid's in Lexington, Massachusetts, with no restrictions placed on his ministry? Is that not a fact?

A: I don't -- first of all, I don't have the record before me so I can't answer specifically as to what kind of restriction was or was not placed on Father Birmingham.

My recollection is that Father Birmingham went there as a dying man, and there was, by that very fact, a severe restriction on him.

But I would need to check the files and see whether there was a restriction or not.

Q: Cardinal Law, when priests became terminally ill -- as unfortunately happens to all of us at some point -- isn't there a facility where the Archdiocese sends terminally ill priests? Not typically sent to family parishes in the Greater Boston area?

A: No. It differs. As a matter of fact, very often priests do die in a parish. And we also have a retirement home and we also use nursing homes. It depends on the individual case.

Q: Well, it was at least -- when you assigned Father Birmingham to St. Brigid's in Lexington, it was at least determined that he didn't need to be in a hospital or a nursing home. Is that a fair statement?

A: You know, Mr. MacLeish, I really would have to review that decision with those who were making it with me. I don't have a recall on everything, on exactly what the situation was when he went to that parish. And I can't answer that. I just don't have that.

Q: But we know that you made the assignment.

A: That's correct.

Q: Like you make all assignments?

A: That's correct.

Q: We know there were three evaluations. We know that?

A: I take that on your word.

Q: We went through the notes on your records.

A: Yes.

Q: So that was another case where there was a reassignment following assessment, correct?

A: Presumably, yes.

Q: And we don't have the records of all of the priests -- obviously, we're seeking that -- we don't have all of the records, but were there others, apart from the ones I've mentioned, in the period from 1984 to 1993 where priests were assigned to ministry, apart from those that I mentioned, after there were credible allegations of abuse and an assessment?

A: Is that a question?

Q: Yes, it is.

A: Oh, yes.

Q: Who were they, that you can recall?

A: Who were the priests who were --

Q: Other priests. We've mentioned Father Birmingham, we've mentioned Father Geoghan, we've mentioned Father Rosenkranz, we've mentioned Father Graham, and we've mentioned Father Tourigney. We have records on some of those priests.

A: And Father Mahan. Did you mention Father Mahan?

Q: I haven't gotten to Father Mahan.

A: Father Mahan would be one. Father Tourigney. Father Hanlon.

Q: Father Hanlon was --

A: Father Hanlon was not reassigned.

Q: He was indicted; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: He was sent to prison; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Well, hold on. Let him finish his answer, will you? You asked him for names of priests, and then every time he gives you a name, you interrupt him and make some speech.

MR. MacLEISH: I'm not making a speech.

MR. TODD: Yes, you are.

MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, you're entitled to, again, under the rules to object and to instruct the witness not to answer. I'm fully prepared to give you the opportunity to take your client out if there's any issue of privilege, but that is what you're allowed to do under the rules.

MR. TODD: Mr. --

MR. MacLEISH: Excuse me. May I finish, please, Mr. Todd?

MR. TODD: I couldn't believe you hadn't finished, but go ahead.

MR. MacLEISH: Well, that's what the rules --

MR. TODD: Now, I'm --

MR. MacLEISH: No, no. I'm sorry.

MR. TODD: As soon as you take a breath, I'll go ahead.

MR. MacLEISH: I'd like to be able to breathe.

MR. TODD: Go ahead. Finish up because --

MR. MacLEISH: That's what the rules say. On the break, we'll mark the rules as an exhibit so everyone will have a copy of it.

Above and beyond that, if I interrupt the Cardinal -- I think it was a pretty straightforward question. I asked him whether he went to prison and he said yes.

Q: Is there anything else you'd like to add to that, Cardinal?

MR. TODD: No, I'm going to add my comments in rejoin to your comments. I'm familiar with the rules and, apparently, more familiar with them than you are. I am required, if I make an instruction to form -- Mr. MacLeish, I want your attention.

MR. MacLEISH: You have it, Mr. Todd.

MR. TODD: We'll wait until you to find --

MR. MacLEISH: You have my attention. I'm not required --

MR. TODD: We'll wait until you find the time and courtesy to --

MR. MacLEISH: You have my full attention, Mr. Todd. Go ahead, please.

MR. TODD: No, I'll wait until you --

MR. MacLEISH: You have my full attention.

MR. TODD: No, I don't have your full attention.

MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, do you want to take a break or --

MR. TODD: No. I want your attention to make the --

MR. MacLEISH: Is that an order? I have your full attention, Mr. Todd, full attention.

MR. TODD: Now, then, my duty here in representing my client is when I make an objection as to form, to tell you what the objection is so you can correct it.

My objection to you was that you had interrupted the witness in the middle of the answer to comment on one of a series of names. And I'd ask you, out of courtesy, not to do that again.

MR. MacLEISH: Certainly, out of courtesy, I would, and I don't think I interrupted the witness.

Q: When I asked you, Cardinal Law --

MR. TODD: Now, have you finished your answers to the priests?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. MacLEISH: If I could take the deposition, that would be helpful.

Q: Is there anything that I interrupted you on with repect to Father Hanlon? He went to prison. I think that's pretty much of a yes or no answer, isn't it?

A: I think I was in the process of making an answer and then you interjected.

Q: I'm sorry. I apologize.

A: He was indicted, wasn't he, I think you said.

Q: Yes. He went to prison; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: You would visit him at prison; is that correct?

A: I have visited him at prison.

Q: Approximately every month?

A: No, no, no.

Q: Let's get back on your earlier statement that there was the possibility of priests that were being reassigned. That's what I'm interested in.

Those priests that were reassigned after assessments -- and we can cover, during your cross-examination, those priests who were removed from active ministry -- but right now I have, from the limited records that we have, we have -- I think we've acknowledged five priests: Father Geoghan on two occasions, after an evaluation; Father Rosenkranz; Father Graham; Father Birmingham; and Father Tourigney. Is that correct, so far?

A: I'm not -- I'm not sure that that's a taxative list. I'm not prepared to supply other names, and I'm not certain that I would list -- well, I think you have to look at each individual case in making a judgment about them.

But the record speaks for themselves and you have those records and you know that these men were reassigned and that was a possibility.

Q: It was really more than a possibility in the period from 1984 to 1993, was it not, Cardinal Law?

A: It was a possibility. Was everyone handled in a way that they were put back in? I would say no. I think -- and I mentioned Father Mahan is a case in point.

Q: He was removed immediately from active ministry?

A: To my recollection, he was removed from his assignment at the time that that allegation came and he was assessed.

Q: All right. And anybody else that you can think of who was removed from that --

A: I thought that --

Q: We can't run over each other on the questions. I apologize. But I have to finish the question. Anyone else that you can recall right now who was removed from active ministry in the period from 1984 to 1993, apart from Father Mahan?

A: I thought Father Tourigney was.

Q: We'll cover his case later on and I'll show you some documents. Okay.

A: I understand that, but I'm just telling you, from my memory is that he was.

Q: Now, yesterday -- if you could turn to our new exhibit, Exhibit No. 51 -- I read you a portion of your personal secretary's deposition and --

A: Would you give me the page.

Q: Yes. I started on page 213, but I'm going to highlight a question and answer that he made on page 216.

A: You're going to start 213?

Q: Yes. I read it to you yesterday, Cardinal Law. You're welcome to review it if you'd like to take some time to do that, but my question is going to be focusing on -- this has to do with the Higgs letter, if you recall the testimony of William Helmick, your personal secretary. I'd like to focus on the question that appears -- and you're welcome to take your time in reading the context of the question and the preceding pages should you wish -- but I asked him on page 216, after a series of questions, line 3, "But, again, knowing what you know about Bishop McCormack, is it fair to state that you believe a note at one point existed?

ANSWER: Yes.

Q: Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: You recall -- if you want to take your time to look at it -- we were talking about the note that was referred to in the letter that Paul Shanley sent to, I'm sorry, that Bishop McCormack sent to Paul Shanley. You recall that letter?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any explanation as to why, that you would like to advance, as to why Father Helmick believed that there was an actual note and your recollection is that there was a stamp?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection. That's been asked and answered yesterday.

MR. MacLEISH: No, I didn't give him a chance to explain Father Helmick's testimony versus his own recollection. I want to give him that opportunity.

MR. ROGERS, III: Object to form.

A: I find it rather difficult to explain Father Helmick's testimony. He'd have to do his own explaining. I can hardly read his mind.

What I think I said yesterday to this point -- and I thought it was answering this question yesterday because we covered this yesterday -- as you will recall, my original response to your question on this issue, that is, the issue of the Higgs letter and Father McCormack's response and how do I explain the -- my original response to you was that I had not seen that letter; that that note, that stamp on it would indicate that this was to be handled by Father McCormack.

When I saw the letter that you put before me from Father McCormack referencing a note, it's at that point that I changed my testimony in that earlier deposition, on the basis of that letter.

But then on further reflection, I went back to my original testimony, because the manner in which I routinely handled this correspondence was to have it reviewed, to have it stamped, and that stamp would indicate that the person receiving it was to follow it up for me.

And my presumption is that Father Helmick, having placed before him the letter of Father McCormack and seeing a reference to "note," would have said, as I thought momentarily must have been the case, that there must have been a note.

But when I thought further on it, realizing how this correspondence routinely was handled, it seemed to me that my earlier recollection was the correct recollection, and it was a tempore non suspecto I responded as I had that put before me, that letter put before me. I didn't recall seeing it, I don't recall seeing it, and I, therefore, don't recall writing a note about it. But there is that stamp, and I think that that stamp generated the response of Father McCormack referencing a note, and I think that his reference is to that stamp.

Q: You think Father McCormack's reference is to that stamp?

A: I do.

Q: Okay. You -- really what I asked you was, Father Helmick, in page 216, states that his belief that it's fair to believe that he thought a note existed at one point in time, and I just want to give you the opportunity to reconcile your testimony, if you'd like, with Father Helmick's testimony on the existence of this note.

MR. TODD: Objection.

Q: Is there anything else you'd like to say?

MR. TODD: Have you just answered that question?

MR. MacLEISH: You have your cross examination.

MR. TODD: Excuse me. If you've answered that, just indicate that.

THE WITNESS: I believe I've answered that.

MR. TODD: Just indicate that.

A: Not only do I believe that I have answered that question, but I don't think -- if your implication is that there is a note there, I don't think that there's any evidence of that in the record other than that reference of Father McCormack. And from my perspective, and the handling of this kind of correspondence, I would say that that's not established.

Q: I'm merely reading to you what Father Helmick said. Is there anything further you'd like to say about Father Helmick's testimony about the existence of this note? Anything else you would like to say, Cardinal Law?

A: No.

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

A: I know of no note. I certainly didn't have -- I certainly have no recollection of writing a note and don't believe that such a note exists.

Q: Okay. Could you please turn to page 205 of Father Helmick's deposition, and if you want to, read to yourself from page 205, line 14, to page 208, line 24. Again, if you'd like to look at other pages, you're free to do that.

A: 205, line what?

Q: Line 14.

A: Thank you.

Q: This is of your personal secretary, Father Helmick. To 208, line 24. (Pause.)

A: How far do you wish me to read?

Q: 208, line 24, but you're free to go beyond that if you would like.

(Pause.)

MR. TODD: All set.

Q: Are you finished, Cardinal Law?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Now, the actual affixing of the stamp, would that be done by someone in Father Helmick's office?

A: It would be done by whoever was handling the opening of the mail that day. It could be Father Helmick; it could be someone assisting my administrative assistant, Mrs. Woodward.

Q: Now, do you see on page 206 and 207, there's reference to some of the letters that we have covered here in our deposition yesterday?

A: I see that, yes.

Q: Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: I referenced a time period on page 206, line 18, from 1977 through 1985. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And you agree with me the Higgs letter was sent in 1985 when you were Cardinal, is that correct, Archbishop?

A: Yes.

Q: And then you'll see on page 207, line 14, it states: "Would it have been important for Bishop Banks and Cardinal Law to understand that this was the type of information that had been presented to you on previous occasions?" Do you see what his answer is, Cardinal Law?

A: I do.

Q: And he says: "It would have been important, yes." Then I asked him: "But you can't remember whether you did it?" And his answer: "Well, the fact that we established a record, a folder on Father Shanley, Paul Shanley, at the Chancery Office would be a way of Bishop Banks, you know, finding out that this is not the first allegation of his speaking in this way.

Q: Speaking this way, meaning speaking about children having sex with grownups?

A: Yes.

Q: And children being the seducers?

A: Yes.

Q: So you were --

A: I'm saying now, by the way.

Q: You were expecting Bishop Banks to go, after he got this communication, to go look at the file?

A: As I sit here now, that's what I would have expected him to do. "You would have expected him to do that in 1985?

A: Yes.

Q: And you would have expected him to speak to Cardinal Law about this as well?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: So Father Helmick's sworn testimony is that he would have expected Bishop Banks, do you see, to look at the file and to speak with you?

A: I read that that's what Father Helmick thought, yes.

Q: And Father Helmick was your personal secretary?

A: He was my secretary, my personal secretary, yes.

Q: And you have stated that the files were not accessible, I'm sorry, the files were accessible but they were not looked at during this period of time. That's been your testimony today; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection, objection.

A: I have said that the files were not in an orderly fashion that readily assisted in an institutional memory in these kinds of cases.

Q: But you don't know, do you, Cardinal Law, that when the Higgs letter came in and was sent over to Bishop Banks or Father McCormack, you don't know what they actually did in terms of looking at the file of Paul Shanley that was at the Chancery, do you?

A: That's correct. I do not know how it is that Bishop Banks followed up on this matter. I do not know what steps he took. I had confidence in him in his responsibilities, and I did not second guess what people did.

Q: And he also states, your personal secretary, that he would have expected Bishop Banks to speak to Cardinal Law about this as well. Do you see that testimony?

A: I do.

Q: And would you have expected Bishop Banks to speak to you about what he found when he looked at the 1985 Higgs letter? Would you have expected him to speak with you about it?

A: I would have expected Father Banks to speak to me in whatever matters he thought were appropriate to bring to me.

Q: And that includes instances where there were allegations such as those made in the Higgs letter that were of a serious nature involving possible misconduct by a parish priest, correct?

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A: I would have expected Bishop Banks, Father Banks, to bring to me all pertinent material that I needed to have brought to me to make decisions that were mine to make.

Q: Okay. Now let's turn, if we could, to -- let's turn to page 112, line 9, Cardinal Law, of your personal secretary's deposition, former personal secretary. If you could just read to yourself, read the whole page, page 112, 113 and 114, please.

A: Excuse me. Lines again?

Q: I'm sorry. You can start page 112, line 1, if you care to, to 113, all the way over to 114, line 19.

A: All right. (Pause.)

Q: I'm happy to tell you what the exhibits are too.

MR. TODD: Do you have them?

MR. MacLEISH: I do. I can tell you what they are. Let me show you what Exhibit No. 6 -- which is referred to in Father -- let's start with 6. Is the -- actually, that has not been marked but I'm happy to show it to you. Exhibit 7 is the letter of 11/29/1977, which, in this case, is marked as the Sweeney letter. That's the Sweeney letter -- I believe that that's Exhibit No. 25. And then I'll get you the November 29, 1975, letter.

MR. TODD: I don't think --

MR. MacLEISH: I think you're right.

MR. TODD: I don't think Exhibit 7 is Exhibit 25.

MR. MacLEISH: No, I agree with you.

MR. TODD: It isn't that, Cardinal.

MR. MacLEISH: It's not. We're going to get that for you, Cardinal Law, but if you could read it in the interim. We'll get you the exhibit.

THE WITNESS: Read?

MR. MacLEISH: Read pages 112, 113 and 114.

THE WITNESS: Done that.

MR. TODD: I want you to see what it's in reference to.

MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely. Fair enough. Do you want to take a break for five -- take a five-minute break?

MR. TODD: Sure.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:46. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:56. We're on the record.

Q: Cardinal Law, if we could go back, there was a point I omitted on page 207 of Father Helmick's deposition.

A: 207?

Q: Yes. Just if I could read starting on line 14: "Would it have been important for Bishop Banks and Cardinal Law to understand that this was the type of information that had been presented to you on previous occasions?

A: It would have been important, yes.

Q: But you can't remember whether you did it?

A: Well, the fact that we established a record, a folder on Paul Shanley, Paul Shanley, at the Chancery Office, would be a way of Bishop Banks, you know, finding out that this is not the first allegation of his speaking in this way." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: So Father Helmick states the fact that there was a record, a folder on Paul Shanley in the Chancery Office. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And Father Helmick would be in a better position, at the secretary at the Chancery Office, to know whether there was a folder on Paul Shanley than you would be; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: Father Helmick was not a secretary at the Chancery. He was a secretary to the Cardinal.

Q: Secretary to the Cardinal?

A: So he would not have been necessarily aware of what files were present or not in the Chancery.

Q: Well, he states right here, as you see, "The fact we established a record, a folder on Father Shanley, at the Chancery Office." Is that correct? Do you see that?

A: I do see that.

Q: And you're not in a position to contradict Father Helmick's testimony there was a file of Paul Shanley --

A: That's correct.

Q: -- at the Chancery Office? Let me finish the question, please. You're not in a position to contradict Father Helmick's testimony that there was, as a fact, there was a record, a folder, on Father Paul Shanley in the Chancery Office?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q: Are you?

A: No, I'm not in a position to comment on what was or was not existent at that time.

Q: And Father Helmick, as you've testified, was certainly one of the people that was involved in transmitting these allegations of sexual misconduct or other inappropriate actions by priests over to Father McCormack, Bishop Banks or other people for action; is that correct?

A: He very well could have been the person, yes. Maybe not exclusively the person, but he would have been a person who would have handled correspondence.

Q: But your testimony is you never saw the record, the folder that is referred to by Father Helmick on page 207 of his deposition; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: You don't know whether -- you've never discussed that with Bishop Banks, the existence of that folder?

A: I have never discussed the existence of that folder with Bishop Banks.

Q: And you stated that the Cardinal was your personal secretary. Is it not a fact that he worked in the Chancery Office?

MR. TODD: I think you mean --

MR. MacLEISH: I apologize. I elevated him.

Q: Is it not a fact that Father Helmick worked in the Chancery Office between 1977 and 1985?

MR. ROGERS: Objection. In the Chancery Office?

MR. MacLEISH: Yes.

Q: Did he work in the Chancery Office?

A: You know, I can't answer where he worked prior to 1984.

Q: Right.

A: And in 1984, my office was not in the Chancery. It never was in the Chancery. And my understanding was that Cardinal Medeiros' principal office also was not in the Chancery. To what extent Father Helmick was or was not in the Chancery, I cannot say. But his principal responsibility, his responsibility as secretary to the Cardinal would have put him where the Cardinal was.

Q: Right.

A: My understanding is that the Cardinal's office was where my office was, which was not in the Chancery.

Q: I understand that. But he wasn't -- Father Helmick was not assigned exclusively to be physically present in your office at all times. There were times, is it not fair to state, when he would be at the Chancery?

A: His office -- his office was in 2101 Commonwealth, which is where my office is now, where Cardinal Medeiros' office is now, and my presumption would be that there would have been enough to keep him busy in his office and accompanying the Cardinal not to be present in the Chancery.

Q: There were -- my question was: There were times, certainly, when, as part of his official responsibilities, that Father Helmick would have been in locations other than adjacent to your office, including the Chancery. Is that not a fact, Cardinal Law?

A: You know, in terms of what Monsignor Helmick did with Cardinal Medeiros, you'd really have to check it out with him.

Q: Fair enough. Fair enough.

A: I can't discuss that because I wasn't there. In terms of his duties with me, I would say that they were not at all involved in the Chancery. They were involved -- everything he had to do was there at his desk, it was on my desk, it was accompanying me, it was serving as master of ceremonies when we went out for events. So that was his ambience.

Now, there's no iron wall between the Chancery and that residence, and that isn't to say that there weren't occasions when he would have been in the Chancery. But in the normal course of events, his responsibilities were not in the Chancery.

Q: My question was: Isn't it fair to say there were times when he was in the Chancery, even accompanying you in the Chancery?

A: Well, I must say that I don't go to the Chancery -- with great infrequency do I go to the Chancery. And when I do go, I'm not usually accompanied by my secretary.

Q: You would rely on Father Helmick to state where he physically was in terms of his location and whether he physically visited the Chancery office?

A: Absolutely.

Q: You would rely on his testimony; is that correct?

A: Certainly. I would have no reason to deny it, but I would have no knowledge of what he was doing, particularly in the days of Cardinal Medeiros.

Q: That's a fair objection. We'll rely -- it's fair to rely -- I withdraw the question. Now, the confidential files, Cardinal Law, that would contain -- I think we've established this -- this information about sexual misconduct by a priest, where were those files physically located in 1984 and 1985?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.

A: My presumption is that the confidential file would have been in the -- in the Chancery, with access to it by the moderator of the Curia or by the Chancellor.

Q: That would be Bishop Banks in 1984 was the moderator?

A: And earlier, it would have been Bishop Daily.

Q: Bishop Daily, that's correct. And you also had access, you had official access yourself if you had wanted to look at the confidential files?

A: Certainly, certainly.

Q: But I thought I understood you to state, and perhaps I'm wrong, that it was not routine in those days for -- certainly wasn't routine for you to access the confidential file in 1984 and 1985. That's a fair statement, is it not?

A: That's a fair statement.

Q: But you really don't know what Bishop Daily, Father Helmick, Father McCormack, Father Banks did by way of accessing the confidential files and the records of the Chancery when there would be a complaint of misconduct involving a priest? You really don't know what they did. Is that a fair statement?

MR. TODD: Objection to form.

A: It is a fair statement to say that I delegated certain responsibilities to persons and that I do not know, and would not know in this instance, what were the steps that they took. No. I trusted their judgment to handle the case adequately.

Q: And you trusted their judgment to come back to you if there was a serious allegation involving misconduct by a priest against a minor; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Can you think of anything that would be more serious in the 1984 time period to 1990 time period, that would be more serious in terms of your work than an allegation, a substantiated allegation that a priest had engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor?

A: A substantial allegation that a priest had --

Q: Yes.

A: -- abused a minor? No.

Q: You described -- and I understand there's many things that you do that relate to the mission of the Church apart from sexual abuse investigations, and that was certainly true in 1984 to 1990; is that not correct? There were many other things that you did?

A: Surely.

Q: But is there any one thing that you consider to be more important in 1984 to 1990 that would require your personal attention than a substantiated allegation that one of your priests had engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor?

A: That would certainly be that kind of a matter.

MR. MacLEISH: Do we have the exhibits for Father Helmick? Unless you feel otherwise, we won't mark this. Do you want this marked as an exhibit?

MR. TODD: No.

MR. MacLEISH: These are all -- 6 and 7 are the ones to look at.

THE WITNESS: 6 and 7?

MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Those are the ones that are referred to --

MR. TODD: I think there's was a reference to 8.

MR. MacLEISH: -- on page 112.

MR. TODD: There's a reference to 8.

MR. MacLEISH: And a reference to 8 as well.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. It's 6, 7 and 8 you want me to look at?

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. I'm focusing on page 112, and I want you to read page 112, starting at line 1, through page 114, line 9. And there's Exhibits, I believe, 6 and 7 that are referred to. I want to make sure that you've had the opportunity to look at those.

(Pause.)

THE WITNESS: 6 and 7.

MR. MacLEISH: Right. Two letters from a Joseph Eltges of Kenmore, New York.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q: Then if we could just go back to Father Helmick's testimony, he was presented with Exhibits 6 and 7, and I want to read to you a section of his deposition and ask you a question. It says -- this is on page 112, starting on line 12:

Q: You sent a memo, you've testified that you're familiar with a stamp that is affixed to letters that was used in 1977 where it states 'Not acknowledged at Cardinal's Residence.'

A: But from time to time, if a letter like this came in, which was really, you know, alleging that a priest was teaching something contrary to what the Church teaches, I'd send a memo with the correspondence so he'd have the whole file.

Q: Sent the memo to whom?

A: Bishop Daily.

Q: But it's also apparent His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, saw the letter first, at least, which was nonspecific, Exhibit No. 7; is that correct? "MR. O'CONNOR: Objection.

Q: Because you state that there was -- the Cardinal responded to that letter --

A: Yes. "-- on December 1st; is that correct?

A: That's correct." "So, again, there were certain circumstances -- I just want to make sure I understand what the practice was. When a complaint came in about a priest, was it always stamped 'Not acknowledged at the Cardinal's Residence'?

A: It was usually -- this shows it was usually stamped 'Not acknowledged at the Cardinal's Residence. "But there's no stamp on this.

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

Q: So the procedure is, you're testifying, that the stamp 'Not acknowledged at the Cardinal's Residence' was so it would be taken seriously by Bishop Daily, who would then, if he felt it was serious, would bring it to the attention of the Cardinal. Is that correct?

A: And prepare a response and get all the background.

Q: Get the facts?

A: Get the facts." Do you see that testimony?

A: I do.

Q: That relates, I think, specifically to a complaint that came in in 1977.

A: As I read these complaints, they are not allegations. Neither of these letters, as I read them, contains an allegation against Father Shanley committing an act of abuse of a child; but they, rather, reference a talk he gave in which he contradicted the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

Q: Right. That's correct. In the same way that the Higgs letter did not specifically accuse Father Shanley of molesting a child, but set forth an alleged statement by Father Shanley that you've, I think characterized -- I'm not going to recharacterize it here -- as also contrary to the Church's teaching.

A: That's correct.

Q: And if true, would have given you concern.

A: That's correct. I just wanted to be sure I understood where we were going on this correspondence.

Q: Right. You're absolutely correct. But you'll see that a process is described here, and the process, at least as it existed, apparently, in 1977, was that the whole file -- you see on line -- starting on line 16, and going on through line 20 --

A: Which page?

Q: -- page 112, he states: "I'd send a memo with the other correspondence so he'd have the whole file." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And that was over an allegation, again, that wasn't as serious as sexual molestation, but statements about homosexuality that were contrary to the Church's teaching; is that correct?

A: I presume -- it's what it says.

Q: And you have no reason to believe, since Bishop Daily and Father Helmick were also in place when you became Archbishop of Boston in March of 1984, you don't have any reason to believe that the practice changed between 1977 and 1984, do you, Cardinal Law?

A: As a matter of fact, the practice did change.

Q: Okay. Tell me how it changed.

A: It changed in the fact that I reorganized the way we functioned. Most everything went directly through -- as I reconstruct it, under Cardinal Medeiros, would have gone from his office to Father Daily's then and he would have handled everything for him.

Q: Right.

A: What I did shortly after I came is set up a committee that was headed by Father Banks. He was a pastor at the time.

Q: Right.

A: And it included the president of BC, Father Monin, someone from Harvard Business School, Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, who was head of the Sisters at St. Joseph's, several other folks, and I asked them to look at the way in which administration of the diocese might be enhanced. And they proposed to me, and I accepted, a cabinet system, which would have segregated out areas of responsibility so that the flow would not be the Cardinal's desk, the Archbishop's desk at that point, to one person, but it would be to a number of persons who would have specific responsibilities.

So, for example, if the matter had to do with education, it would go to the secretary of education. And that person would be responsible -- she was responsible for me for Catholic schools, for religious education, for public school students, my relationship with colleges, campus ministry and anything within that orbit would go to her and not acknowledged at the Cardinal's office. She would be asked then to look at that and then research it and respond or indicate a course of action that would be appropriate.

So there was a difference between the time of Cardinal Medeiros and my own time.

Q: The process was improved; is that correct? In your view?

A: I hoped that it was an improvement.

Q: And certainly, Cardinal Law, in cases involving statements by a priest that were contrary to the teachings of the Church, alleged statements or alleged allegations involving sexual misconduct, the process wasn't diluted when you put these reforms in --

A: No.

Q: -- it was strengthened; is that correct?

A: My hope was it was strengthened. My hope was that we would be responding -- my hope was that I would be able to respond in a more timely fashion because, frankly, I didn't see how I could, without something like this, effectively administer.

Q: So when Father Helmick, in 1977 says, as he does on page 114, involving this complaint about Father Shanley and his making statements on homosexuality contradicted by Church doctrine, he states that the process in 1977 was to prepare a response and get all the background and get the facts. There was never any direction by you when you made these reforms that in cases such as these, there should be any deviation from past practice about getting the facts and getting all the background, correct?

A: Well, I think it's obvious that in dealing with a matter of such weight, it's essential, or in dealing with any matter, it's essential to have the facts and to have all the information. And I would presume that people delegated to handle a matter would want to get the facts and get the information, yes.

Q: All right. So when the 1985 Higgs letter comes in, in light of Father Helmick's statements that we've just reviewed about the records, the file, the folder on Paul Shanley, wouldn't you have expected that part of the process would have been to go to the confidential file and look at the records to see whether there had been other instances similar in nature in the past? Wouldn't that have been your expectation in 1985, Cardinal Law?

A: My expectation would be that the matter would be looked at, looked into adequately and investigated.

You would need really to ask, I believe it's Father McCormack, how it is that he dealt with that matter and why he dealt with it the way he did.

I would ask you, however -- I don't think it's -- I don't think it necessarily follows that the Higgs letter coming in 1985, which is critical of what someone has said and written, I don't know that the handling of that necessarily means going to the file to see if there is something else like that.

I think that a letter of that kind can also reasonably be handled on its own merits. I mean, was this said? If this is said, this is contrary to Church teaching. What is meant here?

And I think that the issue would be to try to determine the -- whether or not there is substance to what is being alleged.

Q: And part of the way you could determine substance would be to see if anything like this had happened in the past, Cardinal Law, right?

A: Surely that would be part of it, yes.

Q: And so one would expect -- you've already testified that if Paul Shanley in fact said the things that Mrs. Higgs said he said, that he would have been removed from ministry?

A: Let's look at that.

Q: Sure. Exhibit 20.

A: Well, let's look at that letter again, if I may.

Q: Absolutely.

A: Exhibit 20.

Q: I think it's Exhibit 20. No. 19. 18. Exhibit 18.

A: 18.

Q: And let's, if we could, Cardinal, take your time to read it again, but the letter states -- as I think we've covered before -- "Father Shanley apparently is involved in street ministry" -- this is in the first paragraph. "He made some outlandish statements regarding the people involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not merely in orientation." Not merely in orientation. Then it goes on to state: "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. Children may later reget having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones." If Paul Shanley had in fact said that, that would have been -- you had promoted him in December of 1984 to pastor at St. Jean's. Would that not have caused some action on your part to remove him as pastor if he in fact said those words?

MR. TODD: Objection to form.

A: What you have here in the letter of 1985, or what I see here in this letter is an allegation against a priest in terms of what he is reported to have said.

Q: Exactly.

A: And some of the -- so I have here before me this letter.

Q: Right.

A: The obligation of the secretary would be to look into this. One of the obvious ways of looking into this is, first of all, speaking to the priest --

Q: Right.

A: -- letting him know, you know, here is -- here are charges against what you have said. Can you explain this? You know, did you say this? What did you -- what did you intend by this? And my presumption is that that would have been done.

Q: Would that have been adequate by itself if he denied making the statements?

A: Well, you know, there's reference here to a tape.

Q: Right.

A: So my presumption would be that if a tape was in existence, that tape would be listened to.

Q: A call would be made to Mrs. Higgs?

A: Well, there would be some effort made to get the tape. Whether it would be necessary to do it that way or to call the place, this church in Rochester, New York, where the talk was given, that might also be a possibility, or to the administrator of the parish.

It says he -- so the thing needs to be looked into and a determination made at the end of that as to whether or not her understanding of what he said was in fact what he said.

Q: But if he did say it --

A: Obviously.

Q: If he did say it, you would not want this man in a parish ministry in Newton, Massachusetts?

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A: I would not want this man teaching the faith, which a priest does every time he gets up and preaches, because I couldn't have confidence that what he was teaching was true to the Church's teaching.

Q: So you would have removed him if he said these things, if it was determined, from this family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?

A: I would say that if in fact he said this, meant this and didn't retract this -- give him the opportunity to retract, give him an opportunity to see the error of what he is saying here and the implication of what he's saying -- if the person refuses that, then, yes, he would not be able to have a position. It wouldn't be appropriate.

Q: Okay. And what would be the down side, Cardinal Law, given that people don't sometimes acknowledge things that they've said, what would be the down side as part of your policy and practice in 1985 to have someone check the confidential file to see if, as is the case here, there were other similar statements made? Is there any down side to looking at the file?

A: If I implied there was a down side, I misspoke.

Q: No.

A: I certainly would not think there would be a down side to that at all.

Q: Wouldn't it be just common sense, if there was a dispute between Mrs. Higgs and Paul Shanley, to take a look at the confidential file to see if anything like this had been said?

A: You know, I really -- we're engaging here in conjecture as to what happened. I think that the appropriate person to put these questions to would be the person who handled this letter.

Q: Cardinal Law, I understand that, and I will put the specific questions. I'm interested in the practice and procedure that was in place in 1984 when my clients were at St. Jean's.

Wouldn't it have been, even though there were no written -- I think we've established no written policies. If you have an allegation like this, wouldn't it have been consistent with your unwritten policy and just plain common sense to look at the files?

A: The policy in place was a policy of delegated authority.

Q: Right.

A: And confidence in the person who was delegated. I think that all pertinent information is helpful in making a judgment, and I think that things that would be in the file which would be pertinent would also be helpful in reaching a conclusion. I'm not certain that it would be necessary to go beyond the investigation of the letter itself if it reached a firm conclusion.

Q: But no down side to looking at the file?

A: To answer the question --

Q: No down side?

A: No.

Q: But even though there was a delegation to others, and I understand that, you still were the person ultimately responsible for the safety of the children in the 400 parishes and 200 schools that were under the Archdiocese of Boston in 1985?

A: A bishop has pastoral care for the whole diocese, that's correct.

Q: You're the one who was responsible ultimately?

A: That's correct.

Q: You knew in 1984 and 1985 that you had to have adequate policies and procedures in place to protect children, correct?

A: I knew that I had to act responsibly as Archbishop, and that's why I set up the cabinet system to help me do that in all areas.

Q: Including the protection of children?

A: Including the protection of children and all other areas.

Q: So part of this restructuring you would have put into place would have involved discussions about how to protect children, because you were aware, were you not, from your prior experience, that there could be instances where priests would molest children?

A: I focused responsibility for the handling of these cases specifically in the secretary of ministerial personnel in order to be able to deal with these cases in an adequate fashion, yes.

Q: But you're the one who approves the policies and the practices of that office with respect to sexual misconduct of priests. You're the one who approves, not the specific investigations, but the policies and practices, correct?

A: I am the person who assigned the secretary of ministerial personnel who had the responsibility of following up on these cases, yes.

Q: Were you the responsible person?

A: I'm the Archbishop of Boston, yes.

Q: Were you the responsible person in 1984 and 1985 for the safety of children served in Archdiocesan parishes and schools?

A: I've been responsible as the Archbishop since 1984 until this moment.

Q: Now, Cardinal Law, I'd like to go back to your testimony concerning your experience in Mississippi and your awareness of these issues before you arrived in Boston. You gave testimony in the first day of your deposition concerning Father George Broussard. Do you remember that?

A: I believe that I have submitted a statement concerning that, which would indicate that because of the sources of information, that I am not really at liberty to discuss that case.

Q: So you're now declining, on the basis of some privilege, to discuss anything about Father George Broussard; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: You will not answer any of my questions concerning your knowledge of Father George Broussard's molestation of children; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And that is on the basis of the fact that these discussions, some of these discussions may have taken place within the internal -- from the internal forum within the sacramental life of the Church?

A: That is correct.

Q: That doesn't mean the confession, does it?

A: It does.

Q: Okay. And you're not able to segregate out which discussions you had that came from confession and which discussions you had that came from other sources?

A: That's correct.

Q: But you did specifically remember in the first day of your deposition several discussions that you had about Father George Broussard. You, in fact, stated that you thought that you had learned about this from Father Broussard directly; is that correct?

A: I stand by my refusal to go into these matters any further because of the fact that I have reason to believe that my knowledge about this information comes in part from a privileged forum, confession, and I am simply not taking the risk of invading the sacrament of confession.

Q: Why did you not invoke that in the first day of your deposition, Cardinal Law, when you answered extensive questions about Father Broussard?

MR. TODD: Objection. Go ahead.

A: I'm really not going to go into that.

Q: Well, did you not realize that there was confession during the first day?

A: I'm not going to go into that.

Q: Well, I'm pressing the question. Did you ever take confession from Bishop Brunini?

A: That's not an appropriate question.

Q: Well, I'm focusing -- can you recall any discussions with Bishop Brunini about Father Broussard?

A: I am not going to get into that matter because of the fact that I cannot segregate out where it is that I obtained information, and I simply will not answer any questions about that case.

Q: Okay. We're going to respectfully -- and I do understand the sacrament of the confession, Cardinal Law, and I respect that and I would not ask you anything that was said during confession -- but I am going to press the answer to that question and we'll reserve on that and move on --

A: Fine.

Q: -- if that's acceptable to you. Now, Cardinal Law, you stated -- can we go back to your deposition, Day 1. If you could turn on Day 1, to page 92 of your deposition,

A: Page 92.

Q: Of the first day, line 1. I asked you at that time -- this is before the questions on Father Broussard. I think that I just finished some part of your -- if you look at page 91, I asked you whether you went to Harvard University. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Page 6 (sic). You graduated in 1953. And then we traced -- went to Vicksburg, Mississippi, and then you were assigned as editor of a newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And on page 92, line 1, I asked you: "Did you believe or know that the sexual molestation of minors when you were serving in Mississippi was a crime?" And you stated: "You know, I have to say that in my early priesthood, the sexual molestation of minors wasn't even on my radar screen. It wasn't the issue that it is today. Even the incidence of it was something in those days" -- I'm sorry -- "Even the incidence of it was not something in those days that I knew.

Q: I'm sorry." The question is -- "The question was in -- when you were serving in Mississippi, did you know that individuals who molested children, when they did that, committed crimes? "Well, I thought I'd answered that question. The specific response to that is I wasn't -- as I said, it wasn't on my radar screen. I wasn't dealing with the case of -- sexual molestation wasn't something that was before me. It wasn't before us. It wasn't part of my responsibility. It didn't come up." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, that was your testimony on page 92. And then there were various questions about Mr. Morrison and Father Broussard that appear on the following pages, such as page 96, 97 and going on to page 101. They're followed by questions about Father Broussard. Do you see that?

A: Yes. I think that maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought that your question here was the time you were in Mississippi.

Q: Right. That's what I said, in Mississippi.

A: Yeah. Rather the time you were in Vicksburg.

Q: Well, I said Mississippi.

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you see that? But Cardinal Law, there were -- I understand you won't answer any questions about Father Broussard -- but there was another situation in Mississippi, and I think that you were trying to remember that at the end of the first day, and came back on the second day, as I recall, and could not remember a specific name. Do you remember that?

A: Could you point that out?

Q: Let's move on. Do you know a May Balanchia? Did you know a May Balanchia?

A: The name doesn't ring a bell.

Q: She was someone that you might have met through the civil rights movement down in Mississippi.

A: I don't recall. I don't recall the name.

Q: Do you recall that when you were vicar general, there was a Bernard Haddigan who was accused of molesting a young boy?

A: I knew there was a Bernard Haddigan, but I did not -- I don't recall his being molest -- accused of being molested -- of having molested someone.

Q: How well did you know Father Haddigan?

A: Well, he was a priest of the diocese. He -- I think perhaps one year I may have been in the seminary with him at St. Joseph's Seminary in Louisiana. And I forget where he went to major seminary, but we weren't in the same major seminary. Mississippi is 46,000 square miles, so you didn't necessarily meet that frequently, but I knew him as a priest of the diocese.

Q: And am I correct in understanding that his time at the seminary overlapped with yours somewhat, although he was not in the same class?

A: One year.

Q: One year.

A: One year. The time would have overlapped, but we weren't in the same seminary.

Q: You were not in the same class?

A: No, no. We were not in the same seminary except for one year. We were in one location for one year at the same place.

Q: Was Father Broussard there during that year as well?

A: I would imagine he would have been, possibly as a member of the monastery.

Q: Was this in Ohio?

A: No. This was in Louisiana.

Q: And then all -- what parish was that? Sorry, what seminary?

A: St. Joseph's Seminary, St. Benedict, Louisiana.

Q: And then, Cardinal Law, the three of you at some point in the late '60s and early 1970s end up in Jackson, Mississippi, is that correct, the Diocese of Jackson?

A: Well, we were, each of us was ordained for the diocese, which was -- which covered the whole state, yes.

Q: Right. And you were vicar general at some point when Father Haddigan was a priest; is that correct?

A: I was vicar general from '71 to '73.

Q: And Father Haddigan was a priest at that time?

A: He was.

Q: Do you know a Mark Balanchia?

A: I do not.

Q: You have absolutely no recollection of being presented with allegations involving sexual molestation by Father Haddigan. Is that your testimony?

A: I'm aware of the allegation because it's been made recently.

Q: Right.

A: I'm aware of that. But I was not able to recollect either the person nor the occasion alleged in the complaint.

Q: Do you keep any sort of personal notes, diaries, about your experiences in Mississippi or the other assignments where you've been?

A: No, I don't.

Q: You don't have any personal notes of a biographical nature or which you give chronologies of particular events?

A: No, I don't. While I was in Mississippi as editor of the paper, I wrote a column every week but --

Q: Right.

A: But that's -- but I don't keep a diary.

Q: Since you've been here in Boston as Cardinal, has there been any effort to preserve your papers or keep them in a form for archival purposes or biographical purposes?

A: Of course, my letters and talks and things of that kind are filed and I presume go to the archives.

Q: Go to the archives. And these letters and talks, would they also include notes of yours from time to time?

A: I don't think so. Not notes.

Q: Do you take notes at cabinet meetings, Cardinal Law?

A: I have -- I follow the agendas that -- the reports that are sent out.

Q: Do you take notes sometimes?

A: I sometimes take notes, yeah.

Q: Do you use a computer at all?

A: No. I'm illiterate.

Q: Me too. But you do -- what happens to the notes after you make them, do you know?

A: Well, they're not kept, you know. I usually throw them away once I've dealt with them. They're to remind me to follow up on things, and when I followed up on them, I followed up on them.

Q: But your letters and talks are in some archival file; is that correct?

A: Well, yes, I presume they are.

Q: Do you know whether that file has been searched for any documents concerning Paul Shanley?

A: My talks?

Q: Well, your letters. I'm talking about your letters. Paul Shanley was a fairly well-known priest.

A: Well, I believe certainly we're under order to find all sorts of documentation, and I think that's part of it, that we're going through -- the chron file is being gone through in order to surface any letters having to do with any persons against whom credible allegations have been made.

Q: The archival file has more of your personal correspondence and talks in it; is that not correct?

A: Well, I wasn't really making -- you know, I don't know that I'd make a distinction between the personal and the non-personal. You know, it's --

Q: It's an archival file?

A: Yeah. You know, anything that -- letters that I have written, that I have received are kept on file for --

Q: But that's not, for example, filed in the personnel file of the individual priest; it's a separate archival type file that is maintained at your offices. Is that correct?

A: Well, there should, you know -- things that belong in a personnel file should be there.

Q: Right, right.

A: And hopefully are. And then there are other kinds of letters that would perhaps not fall within that category of business and be filed --

Q: Sure.

A: -- in some other category that would be among my letters. Now, how many of those there are, I don't know.

Q: Who maintains that file?

A: Well, in my house, it would be maintained by -- Mrs. Kay Woodward would be overall responsible for the office, the management of the office. And she would have someone responsible to her for the maintaining of the files.

And I suppose at a certain point, because we'd have to move out otherwise, because a lot of paper is generated, the files would be transferred to the archives, the materials that are appropriate.

But this would be absent the kind of pertinent personnel matters which should be filed in another way.

Q: So you're confident that there's nothing in these archival files that would in any way concern policies and practices -- strike that -- concern Paul Shanley. You're confident of that?

A: I'm not confident about anything with regard to files, but -- and it's for that reason that the chron file is being reviewed.

Q: I'm not --

A: It's a rather primitive file, but at least it's a file that keeps a record of everything that went out from that office with my signature

Q: Again, I'm not -- the chron file is different from this archival file, correct?

A: Yeah. Yes. It would be different.

Q: And it's in a -- I understand portions of it are probably stored off-site, but there is an archival file that your secretary maintains in your office.

A: There are correspondence files, yes.

Q: Correspondence files. Are they grouped by category, do you know?

A: No. I don't know the system of filing.

Q: Now, just to be clear, you have no memory of any allegations against Father Haddigan?

A: I do not.

Q: Do you know a John Coon?

A: You'd have to refresh my memory a little bit further.

Q: When you were in Missouri, did you know a young man by the name of John Coon who later became a seminarian at St. Patrick's in Louisiana?

MR. TODD: Do you have a spelling?

MR. MacLEISH: C-o-o-n.

A: He became a seminarian at St. Patrick's, Louisiana?

Q: Yes.

A: Yeah. The name is familiar, but there were a number of seminarians that we had over the course of those ten years, and I wouldn't be able to give you those names because they would come and go.

Q: Sure. But you don't have any specific recollection of John Coon?

A: I don't, I don't.

Q: Do you ever remember visiting him down when you were in Springfield, this would have been, visiting him at St. Patrick's?

A: Well, I don't even know of a seminary of St. Patrick's.

Q: Okay. Maybe St. Benedict's. Is that a seminary?

A: St. Joseph's Seminary in St. Benedict, Louisiana?

Q: St. Joseph's? Maybe. I was told it was St. Patrick's, but it could well be St. Joseph's.

A: I don't know of a St. Patrick's.

Q: Is St. Joseph's Seminary in St. Benedict, Louisiana?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you remember going down and counseling John Coon when he was a young seminarian having difficulties at a seminary in St. Benedict, Louisiana? Do you remember doing that?

A: I do not. Doesn't say that I didn't. I can't remember the gentleman. But I visited the seminary from time to time, and seminarians would ask to see me and I would see them.

Q: Cardinal Law, you gave testimony in the first day of your deposition concerning sexual molestation that you became aware of when you were in Springfield, Missouri. I think we covered it on the first day and we alluded to it briefly yesterday. Do you recall that?

A: Yes.

Q: And the only individual that you believe that you -- the only priest that you believe that you heard about who had credible allegations of sexual molestation against him was a Leonard Chamers; is that correct?

A: Leonard Chambers.

Q: Chambers. I apologize. You don't recall being involved in any other situations in Springfield, Missouri, regarding allegations of sexual molestation by clergy?

A: I don't immediately recall someone that I was involved in. Perhaps you could help me.

Q: Yes. Do you remember a priest who died, and you, while you were bishop, went to do some weekend parish work? Do you recall doing that at all when you were bishop in Springfield?

A: That I went to --

Q: You actually worked at the parish after this priest passed on.

A: Well, you know, there were several priests who died while I was there.

Q: Right, right. But this was a situation where you -- do you remember going and actually performing mass at this parish for a number of weeks after this priest died, when you were bishop?

A: A number of weeks? I can't recall going to a single parish for a number of weeks. But it certainly would have been normal in a diocese like that, which is a missionary diocese, to go and help out if somebody had died.

Q: Sure. Do you remember a young man coming up to you and telling you that he had been molested by three priests in Springfield who were assigned to the Springfield diocese and you undertaking an investigation of that?

A: I do not.

Q: Three priests?

A: I do not remember that.

Q: And you remember nothing more about any other priest in Springfield, in the Springfield diocese, that you had to deal with in the area of sexual molestation?

A: Of children?

Q: Of children. Apart from Father Chambers.

A: I do not at this moment remember any other.

Q: What about sexual assaults involving adults by priests, similar to what we dealt with yesterday with Father Rebeiro.

MR. ROGERS: What about? Is that a question?

MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry. It was a bad question. Let me put it in a better way.

Q: Do you ever remember when you were in the Springfield diocese, apart from the Leonard Chambers situation, being confronted with allegations that a priest had engaged in the sexual assault of an adult? A woman?

A: A charge that a priest had --

Q: Raped a woman.

A: Raped a woman? You know, I don't recall that, but I would ask if we could take a little bit of a break.

Q: Certainly. Absolutely. Be happy to.

A: It might be a good time anyway.

Q: Sure. Absolutely.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 11:48. This is the end of Cassette 1 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:01. This is Cassette 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're back on the record.

Q: (by Mr. MacLeish) Cardinal?

A: If I might just give a little more specific information about the filing system that the chron file --

Q: Uh-huh.

A: The chron file is, as I indicated, a copy of everything that is generated by my office with my signature. And that's kept in the house for five years and then it goes to the archives.

Also, incoming mail, letters that I receive and that go out are kept for five years in the house and then they also go to the archives.

And then also in the archives are statements, speeches, columns and things of that kind.

Q: Okay. And do you know whether there's been an effort to retrieve information, documents that might be responsive to the document request in this case from the archives?

A: My understanding is that there is. If I -- if I may ask Father Connolly for confirmation of that? He's here at the --

Q: You may.

THE WITNESS: John?

A: Yes.

Q: Where are the archives? Is it a service or some physical space at the Chancery?

A: The archives office is in Craig Library. I believe that there is also archival space in the Chancery.

Q: Has Father Connolly been involved, to your knowledge, in efforts to retrieve these documents?

A: Father Connolly has not been involved personally, but he has been involved in terms of asking that it be done.

Q: Okay. Now, Cardinal Law, we were talking about Springfield, Missouri.

A: Yes.

Q: And I asked you whether you were aware of any instances of sexual assault, rape against women that you came across when you were bishop of Springfield.

A: Yes. And I have no recollection of such an instance, a rape and assault.

Q: When you were in Mississippi, did you ever report a priest or direct others to report a priest to the police for committing criminal activity?

A: I don't recall having done that.

Q: Did you ever report or ask anyone else to report a priest to law enforcement when you were bishop of Springfield, Missouri?

A: No, I don't recall that.

Q: Did you ever, when you became Cardinal of Boston, request any person to, or do it yourself, to report any priest to law enforcement?

A: That would include the District Attorney?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes.

Q: When was the first time that you did that?

A: I believe it was after putting in place in January of 2002 the policy of reporting cases of sexual abuse to proper public authorities.

Q: So in all the cases between, it's fair to state, between 1984 and 2002, there was not one instance where you directed anyone under your supervision to report a priest to law enforcement for allegations concerning rape or sexual misconduct. Is that a fair statement?

A: I believe that is.

Q: Okay. Now, have priests been reported in Boston to the police for any other reason apart from sexual misconduct or rape?

MR. ROGERS: By?

Q: By you? Have you ever directed -- stealing, for example?

A: No. I've had no reason to suspect theft --

Q: Okay.

A: -- on the part of any priest.

Q: Have any priests at your direction been involuntarily separated or laicized from the Church, apart from Father Geoghan, since you've been Cardinal of Boston?

A: Father Mahan.

Q: Father Mahan. Okay. Anybody else?

A: No.

Q: I'm not just referring to laicization; I'm talking about involuntary resignation. Have you ever urged any priest for any reason, not just sexual misconduct, to separate themselves from the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: Well, there have been a number who have been separated from active ministry. Whether, you know, whether you put on that the term "involuntary" or "voluntary," I don't know.

Q: Talking about the priesthood.

A: Well, that's what I'm talking about. Someone who would be deprived, for example, of functioning publicly as a priest, is effectively being derived of the priesthood, not laicized, but is derived of that, and there are a number of priests who would be in that category.

Q: Is it all for sexual misconduct?

A: I believe that all the cases would be for sexual misconduct.

Q: So we had Father Higgins in May testify of approximately 85 priests, 15 of which were dead. We've had four or five other allegations since then. So would it be fair to state that of the approximately 90 priests against whom there have been allegations, credible allegations of sexual misconduct, not one was reported by the Archdiocese of Boston to law enforcement until 2002? Is that a fair statement?

A: I think that's a fair statement.

Q: Now, Cardinal Law, are you familiar with what a mortal sin is?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you just describe briefly -- I don't want don't want to get too far into any controversial canonical issues -- but what is a mortal sin in layman's terms?

A: It's a strange kind of a question for me to have posed in a deposition in a civil suit.

Q: Sure.

A: And I would really wonder whether the law goes into the matter of mortal sin and venial sin. However, I'll be happy to try to --

MR. ROGERS: We would note a First Amendment objection. This does get specific questions into the teachings of the Church.

MR. MacLEISH: Let me try to phrase it in a way that is a leading question.

Q: Is a mortal sin one that is incapable of absolution?

A: No.

Q: It is capable of absolution?

A: Yes.

Q: And are there any sins that are incapable of absolution?

A: Well, there's -- scripture speaks of the unpardonable sin, and the unpardonable sin is the sin of thinking that there is the inability of receiving absolution. Absolution from sin necessitates certain things. First of all, it's the acknowledgement of the sin; it's sorrow for the sin; and it's a determination, insofar as is humanly possible and with the help of God's grace, to avoid that sin in the future. So it isn't -- confession is not a revolving door.

Q: Right. A venial sin is less severe than a mortal sin or an unpardonable sin; is that correct?

A: That's right.

Q: Now --

A: Unpardonable sin and mortal sin are not synonyms.

Q: I understand that. Is raping a child an unpardonable sin if you are a priest?

A: Well -- MR. ROGERS: Objection. First Amendment.

Q: Are you talking here -- you know, there are certain penalties, canonical penalties, and then sin is a whole other category, you know. Sin is handled in the internal forum; canonical penalties are handled in the external forum.

Before God, is it possible for someone to receive absolution for such a sin? Yes. But that doesn't mean that the person is free then because there has been sacramental absolution, to function.

Q: Is raping a child in any specific category of sin?

A: That's a mortal sin.

Q: That's a mortal sin. It's not an unpardonable sin?

A: No. As I said, the unpardonable sin is a very specific term in scripture that has a very specific reference. Jesus came to save us from sin.

Q: Right.

A: He died on the cross so -- and took upon himself the burden of our sin. As Paul says, he became sin for us. So that all of us, whatever our sin, if we are sorry for that sin, if we confess that sin, and if we seek to amend our life, are able to receive his pardon. And that's the meaning of his death on the cross.

Q: Are you familiar with a recent editorial, I think this last week's editorial in the Pilot?

A: I have not read that editorial.

Q: You're familiar with the substance of that editorial?

A: Really not familiar with the substance of it. I've heard that it caused a little bit of a reaction, but I have not seen the editorial.

(Law Exhibit No. 52, Copy of Pilot Article, marked for identification.)

MR. MacLEISH: I have the original too. (Pause.)

Q: Have you had a chance to read Exhibit 52, Cardinal Law?

A: This is it? 52?

Q: Yes.

A: Uh-huh.

Q: You're the publisher of the Pilot; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Are the views expressed in Exhibit 52 consistent with your views about Governor Keating?

A: First of all, I didn't -- I'm not aware of what Governor Keating said, and I'm hardly going to comment upon a quote that is taken out of context. But certainly, it would be inappropriate for any Catholic to urge Catholics not to go to mass.

Q: Or to boycott going to mass in their particular diocese if they were upset with their bishops?

A: Yes.

Q: Would that be a mortal sin?

MR. TODD: Objection. I'm going to instruct you not to answer that question.

Q: Cardinal Law, we had some testimony about Thomas Doyle in the first day of your deposition. Do you recall that?

A: I don't, but if you'd refresh my memory.

Q: Okay. Let's just start with Thomas Doyle. You first met Thomas Doyle in Washington, D. C.; is that correct?

A: Oh, yes, Father Doyle. Yes.

Q: Father Doyle?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: And he was working at the Vatican Embassy at that time and you were the bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, Missouri?

A: Well, technically, it wasn't the Embassy at that time; it was the delegation. But, yes, he worked there as the Pope's representative.

Q: The Vatican Nuncio? Is that was it was called?

A: It wasn't then the Nuncio. He was the delegate, the apostolic delegate.

Q: And that was Archbishop Laghi -- have I pronounced that correctly -- who was the Vatican Nuncio at the time or the delegate at the time?

A: No. When I was first bishop, it would not have been Archbishop Laghi.

Q: Who would it have been?

A: He was a Belgian.

Q: That's all right. We don't need his name, Cardinal Law. At some point, you had occasion to meet Archbishop Laghi; is that correct?

A: Yes. I did know Archbishop Laghi, now Cardinal Laghi.

Q: You had occasion to meet Father Doyle who was working under Archbishop Laghi in Washington at some point in the mid 1980s; is that correct?

A: Yes, that's correct.

Q: And I asked you in the first day of your deposition about the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe from Lafayette, Louisiana, and you said you hadn't heard of that, had no recollection of that case.

A: That's correct.

Q: That's still your testimony; is that correct?

A: I do not -- I'm aware of the fact that there were a number of cases in Lafayette, Louisiana, which had a great deal of notoriety, but I don't recall any specific case.

Q: So you were aware before you came to Boston that there were a great number of cases in Lafayette, Louisiana, concerning sexual abuse of minors by clergy that had a great deal of notoriety; is that correct?

A: Well, you asked me about this Lafayette case within the last month. And I can't tell you when precisely I was aware of the Lafayette cases, but they -- but I am aware of the fact that there were many cases in Lafayette, Louisiana. I can't tell you when that was or whether it was at the time in '84. I can't pinpoint the time.

Q: Did you attend the Bishops' Conferences regularly in the mid 1980s?

A: I attended most of the November meetings, which would be our plenary meetings. There were -- there have been occasions when there was a conflict with a meeting, a congregation meeting in Rome, when I would not have been present, but for the most part, I would be present at those meetings.

Q: Do you remember whether or not you attended the meeting in November of 1984 where the priest abuse cases in Lafayette, Louisiana, was discussed as the agenda item?

A: I would presume that I was there in November of '84, but I'd have to check the minutes to see. I mean, I presume I was.

Q: Have you kept --

A: I was in -- at some point in there -- no, I think in '84, I would have been there, yes.

Q: And this would have been when you were at Springfield, November '84, before you came to Boston?

A: Would it have been?

Q: Yes.

A: Or would it have been -- I came in March of '84.

Q: I'm sorry.

A: So I would have been in Boston.

Q: Right. You would have been in Boston. Do you remember at your first meeting, annual meeting, November meeting of the Bishops' Conference, that one of the official agenda items was the topic of sexual abuse among clergy?

A: I really don't remember that.

Q: Okay. Do you remember talking to Father Doyle about sexual abuse by clergy and the situation in Louisiana in 1984 and 1985?

MR. TODD: Speaking to him at that time --

MR. MacLEISH: Yes.

MR. TODD: -- or the abuse at that time?

MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Speaking to him about the Lafayette, Louisiana, cases and the topic of sexual abuse in 1984 and 1985.

A: Yes. I do not recall speaking to Father Doyle about the Lafayette cases in any specific way.

Q: Do you recall speaking with Father Doyle about the topic of sexual abuse by clergy in 1984 and 1985, Cardinal Law -- well, say -- yes, in 1984 and 1985?

A: I don't have my recollection of interaction with Father Doyle in time segments, so that I can't -- I would be hard pressed to say it was in this time frame or it was in that time frame. Nor do I have any specific recollection of conversations with Father Doyle. I know of his interest in this matter and it seems to me that I had some discussion with him, but this may be faulty memory, with regard to treatment centers and the need for having a better sense of quality of these.

Q: All right. Cardinal Law, I'm going to show you Exhibit No. 53.

MR. MacLEISH: If we can have that marked, please.

THE WITNESS: Is this it?

MR. MacLEISH: No, it's not. It's a document we're going to get for you.

THE WITNESS: Are we done with this?

MR. MacLEISH: I think we are, yes.

(Law Exhibit No. 53, Statement of Father Doyle, marked for identification.)

Q: Cardinal, this is Exhibit 53, which is a statement we obtained from Father Doyle. You want to take a moment and read it. We're going to be going through it paragraph by paragraph, but I invite you to read the entire document if you'd like.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: Have you completed reading No. Exhibit 53, Cardinal Law?

A: I have.

Q: Let's start with Paragraph 2 of Mr. Doyle's statement, if we could, here.

MR. TODD: Mr. Doyle or Father Doyle?

MR. MacLEISH: Father Doyle. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Todd.

Q: You'll see the Paragraph 2, he reports in this statement that the sex abuse issue hit the public in November 1994 with the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe from Lafayette, Louisiana.

Are you aware that Father Gauthe, after his arraignment, was actually in Massachusetts? Did you know that?

A: I did not know that.

Q: And he reports that, in the last sentence of Paragraph 2: "I recall discussing the case and my serious misgivings about the matter with Cardinal Law in early 1984 and in early 1985. By then, he was Archbishop of Boston." Do you recall any such conversations?

A: I do not recall these conversations. Which isn't to say they didn't take place. I simply don't recall them.

Q: When you were appointed Archbishop of Boston, was it Archbishop Laghi that made the call to you?

A: It was.

Q: Were you in New Hampshire at the time?

A: No.

Q: Do you remember where you were?

A: I was in -- I was on retreat in Louisiana.

Q: Then you'll see in Paragraph 3: "The idea of the 'manual' came up in discussions between Ray Mouton, Mike Peterson and Father Doyle in January of 1985." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you know who Ray Mouton is?

A: I believe he's a lawyer.

Q: Did you ever attend any conferences where he spoke about the problem of sexual abuse in the clergy and what to do about it?

A: Well, I think this says later, does it not, that he -- does it say that he spoke or somebody spoke? No, it doesn't say. I don't recall that, but that doesn't say that I haven't heard him.

Q: Well, do you recall the testimony on your first day of your deposition on page 141 and 142 -- I'm sorry. Start with 141, line 7. I asked you: "You don't have any recollection, though, either way, of receiving what is referred to as the manual -- when I say 'the manual,' I'm referring to The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy, Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Way, final draft compiled on June 8, June 9, by Ray Mouton, JD, and Reverend Thomas Doyle, OP, JCD." And then your answer was: "I do not have a recollection of having studied it. I cannot, sitting here, tell you I have a recollection of having received it. The date, again -- would you give me the date? "Sure. It was prepared June 8, 9 of 1985, and according to some of the evidence that will be presented in this case, sent to the Archdiocese . . . by the St. Luke's Institute in December of 1985." Your answer was: Yeah. I don't recall having read it. I would -- had I either -- had I received such a document, it would have either gone by my indication -- by my direct indication or by those who were giving me -- helping me handle the mail, it would have gone either to the secretary of ministerial personnel, who would have been Father John McCormack, or it would have gone to the moderator of the Curia. Is that your testimony on the first day of the deposition, Cardinal Law?

A: It was.

Q: And isn't it true that now having reviewed Father Doyle's statement, that you recall that in fact Father Doyle began asking you for advice and guidance about the idea of the manual?

A: I really don't recall that. As I've indicated to you, I have read his testimony. I don't dispute his testimony. But I simply don't recall -- those facts as he sets them forth are not facts that are in my recall.

Q: Okay. So if Father Doyle were to testify consistent with Exhibit 53, you would not be in a position to contradict any of those statements?

A: No, I would have no reason to contradict him. I simply can't recall what -- the interactions that he alleges.

Q: Okay. Well, let me just see if I can attempt to refresh your recollection in any way, Cardinal. Paragraph 5: "My discussions with Cardinal Law concerning the sex abuse case took place in 1985 and 1986. It was in March or April of 1985 that I spoke with Cardinal Law about the best way to get our planned document with its two-part action plan into the Bishops' Conference. Cardinal Law advised that the best approach would be to submit the plan to the Committee on Research and Pastoral Practices which he chaired. In April 1985 I wrote a memo to Archbishop Laghi describing my conversation with then Archbishop Law, a true and accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit A." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Have you read Exhibit A?

A: I have not read Exhibit A.

Q: Why don't you take a moment, since it refers it a conversation with you in 1985 about the pedophile problem, just take a moment and look at that and see if that helps to refresh your recollection.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: Now, having read Exhibit A, which is Father Doyle's communication to Archbishop Laghi in April of 1985, he states, in the first paragraph: "I spoke with Archbishop Law and Bishop Quinn yesterday and today about progress in the pedophile problem." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: It says, in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Law conferred with Quinn about the need for a policy for the country." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And does that bring back any recollection of your conversations with Father Doyle about the so-called pedophile problem in the priesthood in 1985?

A: It does not bring back any specific recollections. I have to say that -- if I may refer to Paragraph 5, No. 5, of the first document --

Q: Sure.

A: -- that you referred me to.

Q: Right. These are Father Doyle's statements?

A: Father Doyle's statement. It would be not an uncommon thing for someone to come with a point, with an idea, and say: How can this best be brought before the Conference of Bishops? And it's certainly true that the best way to get something before the conference would be to go through a committee of the conference.

So I can readily see that this sort of thing would have happened and our committee would have been the committee to do that at that time, because there was no specific committee to handle this, as, indeed, there is now, a specific committee.

As I think I indicated to you earlier, I did recall discussions in a vague sort of way with Father Doyle concerning the institutes or the, yeah, the institutions which were used for treatment and for assessment.

And the presence of Father Peterson's name here in this line-up, who, if not the founder, was one of the directors of St. Luke's, which is one of those institutions, would lend credence to that.

Now, it may very well be that what I am recalling in terms of a discussion about the need to have an assessment and helpful information to bishops with regard to the treatment facilities, may have been a more broad question, either in Father Doyle's mind or in my mind too at that time.

But what I take from it, in my memory, is a focus on an interest in getting a better sense of what of these many places that are available, which of them are truly sound. How do we get an assessment of the assessment facilities.

Q: Assessment of priests who are committing molestation against children; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: So --

A: And how do -- how can we do a better service to ourselves in knowing what institutions are the better ones that can give us really an accurate kind of a reading and assessment.

Q: So it's fair to state that by 1985, you were generally aware that there were priests who were sexually abusing children that were in need of treatment at residential facilities; is that correct?

A: That's correct, yes.

Q: And that's separate and apart from Father Broussard, Leonard Chambers. This is now something you're aware of on a general basis occurring throughout the country in 1985, correct?

A: Well, I was aware of what was happening, yes.

Q: Okay. And is it not the case, as Father Doyle reports in Exhibit A, that you conferred with Bishop Quinn about the need for a policy for the country?

A: I don't recall that.

Q: Do you know Bishop Quinn?

A: I presume he is talking about the former Archbishop of San Francisco, who was president of our conference at some point, and perhaps he was president of the conference at that point.

Q: But if Thomas -- Father Thomas Doyle were to testify that you told him in the presence of Bishop Quinn that there was a need for a national policy on sexual abuse of clergy by minors (sic) in 1985, you would not be in a position to contradict Father Doyle; is that correct?

A: No, I wouldn't be in a position to question him. As I say, I'm not denying what is said here; I'm just telling you that it isn't in my memory.

Q: I accept that. I'm just trying to do what I can to help refresh your memory, if that's possible, Cardinal. Cardinal Law, could you just describe your relationship with Father Doyle, what you thought of him as a priest.

A: He's a Dominican.

Q: Right.

A: He's a canonist. He's bright. He's articulate. He was, obviously, very, very committed and very involved in this issue.

Q: And you actually invited him up to Boston at one point, did you not, to -- you wanted him to be on the board or employed by some institute that you were forming; is that correct?

A: Well, again, here, I don't recall having done that, but I would not deny that I did it.

Q: All right. Okay. Looking at Paragraph 6, Father Doyle reports that: "Cardinal Law suggested that his committee could then set up an ad hoc committee of four bishops who would in turn name a panel of experts who would provide up-to-date research on all aspects of the issue (legal, canon law, pastoral, medical, psychiatric, sociological and) so that the bishops would be fully aware of all aspects of the sexual abuse question as they proceeded to make decisions. I repeatedly stressed three basic ideas to Cardinal Law and anyone else who would listen: One, this problem was going to explode and be out of control unless something decisive was done; two, the most important point was the welfare of the victims and their families. . . this demanded individual compassion and care; three, the bishops had to have detailed and accurate information on the medical dimensions of the problem so as to make informed decisions concerning the future of the priests." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you recall such discussions with Father Thomas Doyle? Does that help to refresh your recollection?

A: Well, it really doesn't, but that third point certainly is to -- dovetails with my recollection.

Q: Okay. So, again, you would not be in a position to contradict Father Doyle if he were to testify consistent with Paragraph 6 of Exhibit 53?

A: No, I would not.

Q: Do you remember that, going down to Paragraph 11, that in June of 1985, there was a meeting of the National, then called the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Collegeville, Minnesota? Do you remember that meeting?

A: I think I do. We had several meetings at Collegeville, and I think I was there at that one.

Q: Do you remember a full day being devoted in 1985 to the topic of sexual abuse by clergy?

A: I don't have a clear recollection of that meeting.

Q: Okay. Do you remember --

A: I think I do have a recollection -- I think I have a recollection of Bishop Kenneth Angell speaking, but I couldn't tell you what he said.

Q: Is that on the topic of sexual abuse by clergy?

A: I think I have a recollection of his being on a panel.

Q: Okay. And then it states that right after the meeting, you'll see Father Doyle sent a memo to Archbishop Laghi about the manual and some other concerns, and you'll see that's reflected in Exhibit B. Did you get the opportunity to read that, Cardinal Law?

A: No, I didn't.

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

(Pause.)

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Have you had a chance to read that?

A: I do. This is the first I've ever seen that document.

Q: I understand. It was not sent to you, I understand that. But does that in any way -- did you have any discussions with Archbishop Laghi about the need for a national policy on sexual abuse?

A: I don't recall having such a discussion with him.

Q: Any discussions with Archbishop Laghi about the need to address the problem of sexual abuse in the clergy?

A: I don't recall such a discussion with Archbishop Laghi.

Q: You'll see in Exhibit B, at the bottom, there's handwriting from Archbishop Laghi where he states: "I hope Cardinal Law will be willing and able to support the strategy proposed in this paper. I shall exchange views with him on the subject." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you recognize that as Archbishop Laghi's signature?

A: Yeah. I think I do, yes.

Q: And do you know whether you exchanged views with Archbishop Laghi concerning the strategy of dealing with sexual abuse in the clergy?

A: Have no recollection of such an exchange.

Q: Paragraph 12, Cardinal Law, Father Doyle reports discussing the sexual abuse matter with you another time in the summer of 1985. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you remember being in the District of Columbia for a meeting and having dinner with Father Doyle and another bishop in the Adams-Morgan area of the District of Columbia?

A: I do not have that recollection, but that in no way imputes what is said here. I simply don't recall that.

Q: And you'll see Paragraph 15 -- do you see that? Want to take a moment to look at that?

A: Yes, I read that.

Q: In that paragraph, Father Doyle recalls asking you for help in this area -- this is with respect to the manual on sexual abuse -- "since I knew that he had some wealthy benefactors who I believed would have been sympathetic to our endeavors. Cardinal Law responded with a check to cover the final costs of the manual. These included reproduction and a typist. I believe the amount was about $1,000 and that Cardinal Law obtained these funds from a benefactor. This was the only time we had received any funding in any amount." Do you recall that occurring?

A: I don't.

Q: But you don't --

A: But I'm happy that I did it.

Q: Well, the issue of a policy at the NCCB was not adopted in 1985 and was not, in fact, adopted until the Dallas meeting in this year; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Yet, as I understand, it's yet to be approved by the Vatican; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: But you knew in 1985 when my clients are at St. Jean's Parish that there was a general national problem within the clergy concerning sexual abuse of minors. Is that not the case?

A: Yes. I read the newspapers. I think everyone knew that at that time.

Q: Looking at Father Doyle's statement, does it just bring back in some general fashion that you were aware that separate and apart from your experiences in Mississippi with Father Broussard, separate and apart from your experiences in Springfield, Missouri, with Leonard Chambers, that the problem of sexual abuse by clergy was one that was national in scope? This is in 1985.

A: Yes, I was aware that this was a major problem --

Q: Okay. And --

A: -- without geographic boundaries, yes.

Q: And you were also aware that you had tens of thousands of children that were served by the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Yet you had no written policy on how to address the issue of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston until 1993; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: Well, I'm not certain that what's at issue here is a written policy in dioceses, but that's correct, we did not have a written policy in '85. We didn't have a written policy, as a matter of fact, until '93.

Q: '93?

A: Yes.

Q: So given that you understood that this was a national problem and a problem that you'd had personal experience with in Mississippi and Springfield, why was there no written policy in place in Boston until 1993, Cardinal Law?

MR. TODD: Objection to the form.

A: Given that I knew that this was a problem, Mr. MacLeish, what I did is I had someone specifically delegated to handle such cases for me. I made an effort -- and I think that that's why in my apperceptive mass I keep coming back to this -- as a bishop, it would have been a critical problem, and that was the issue of where can one turn to for assistance and help in both assessment and in treatment and to see this clearly as a pathology and to deal with it as a pathology. So it isn't as though absent a written policy there was nothing being done in a responsible way to try to deal with such cases. There was an effort to deal responsibly with such cases.

Q: An adequate effort?

A: Well, I think for the time and for the knowledge, we did the best we could do. In retrospect, as I have said, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I wish to God that what I have in place now had been in place in 1984, both with regard to a written policy and also with regard to the specific elements of that policy which were changed in January of 2002.

Q: Give than you were aware that the problem of sexual molestation by clergy was a national problem, as you said, without geographic boundaries, how could you have assumed when you arrived in Boston that the priests who were there were properly in place and had been properly appointed by your predecessors?

A: Well, because I -- my presumption would be that my awareness was not an awareness that wouldn't have been shared by my predecessor. I would have had no reason to suspect that my predecessor would not be equally concerned as was I.

Q: And you didn't want to create a scandal when you arrived in Boston in 1985 concerning clergy molestation; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: I don't understand the question.

Q: Cardinal Law, when you did your cabinet reorganization and the new policies that you put into place and practices in 1984 and 1985, am I correct in understanding that out of that work came a variety of written policies and procedures? Am I correct in understanding that?

A: I don't know where you would have gotten that information. I don't think I spoke to you about written policies or proceedings coming out of that.

Q: No, you didn't.

A: I don't know. I presume that there would have been some written policies in terms of flow of information, of delegation, of the need to go through a cabinet secretary. So procedural matters would have needed to have been committed to writing, yes. But the individual offices, there are about 86 or 87 distinct offices or agencies that are in one way or the other directly accountable to the Archbishop, and so it was a question of grouping those under these cabinet secretaries. Each discrete office would still function as it was doing. But there would have been some correlation at the level of the cabinet.

Q: My question is: Were there written policies and procedures that you were aware of in 1985 on any subject within the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: Yes. There would have been written policies and procedures before and after in a variety of issues. Curriculum, for example.

Q: Liturgy?

A: Liturgy, yes.

Q: But not sexual molestation of minors by priests until 1993, correct?

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A: The policy for the handling of sexual abuse cases went into -- in a written form, was '93, that's correct.

Q: But there were many other policies and procedures in other areas in effect from 1985 to 1993, correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. TODD: Argumentative.

A: Yes.

MR. MacLEISH: It's a good time for us to break unless you would like to take up the next six minutes with questions.

MR. TODD: Whatever you'd like.

MR. MacLEISH: We're going to another subject area. Do you want to keep going?

MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. MacLEISH: You want to break?

MR. TODD: Let's break.

MR. MacLEISH: Fine. Okay.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:49. We're off the record.

(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:59. We're on the record.

Q: All right, Cardinal Law, good afternoon. If we could go back to your statement in May of this year, which is Exhibit 12. Now, again, this was the Web site version.

MR. MacLEISH: I would appreciate if we could get a copy, Will, of the actual version from the RCAB because I believe there's a word that is missing in this one.

Q: But if you take a look at the second page, the last sentence on the second page, it says: "Despite the quantity of documents released and statements on the part of some indicating they believe otherwise, before" -- then there's a word missing -- "I assure you that my first knowledge of an allegation of sexual abuse against this priest was in 1993." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: There is a word missing. I think the word is "God"; is that not correct?

A: I think it may be, yeah.

Q: That's what I remember it as being when I saw it on your Web site, but I wanted to make sure that I was correct that you stated in this release that before God, you are assuring the public that your first knowledge of an allegation of abuse against this priest was in 1993. Is that a fair statement?

A: That's correct.

Q: And then if you go -- if you go further on, in the first -- second full paragraph, it states -- it describes the allegations that have been made by a woman that you now know to be known as Jacqueline Gauvreau; is that correct?

A: I know that from press reports.

Q: From press reports. You didn't know her at the time.

A: Yes.

Q: And you state in this: "There is no record of that" -- do you see that in the second full paragraph?

A: I do.

Q: "There is no record of that having happened and, furthermore, I had no suspicion about Father Shanley concerning this in the ensuing years. The 1993 allegation was my first knowledge." Do you see that, Cardinal Law?

A: That's correct.

Q: So you categorically deny that Jacqueline Gauvreau spoke to you about Paul Shanley at any time during the 1980s. You categorically deny that; is that correct?

A: I have stated categorically that I have absolutely no memory of such a conversation. That is what I stated.

Q: Well, you stated in Exhibit 12: "Before God, I assure you that my first knowledge of an allegation of sexual abuse against this priest was in 1993."

A: That's correct.

Q: So you're categorically denying before God the allegations of Ms. Gauvreau that she spoke to you on two occasions?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A: What I am saying is what I am saying, Mr. MacLeish, that I have absolutely no memory of such a conversation.

Q: I don't mean to belabor this because I think the words speak for themselves, but you give assurances in Exhibit 12, you state: "Before God, I assure you that my" -- "assure you" -- "that my first knowledge of an allegation of sexual abuse against this priest was in 1993." Those were your words in your statement and those are your words today; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Okay.

A: Then I go on to deal with the reported conversation, and I say, in relation -- in reference to that, that I have absolutely no memory of such a conversation.

Q: And you make an unequivocal statement "the 1993 allegation was my first knowledge." Do you see that?

A: That's correct.

Q: So if you had been informed by Ms. Gauvreau earlier about allegations of sexual molestation against Paul Shanley, you would not have stated "the 1993 allegation was my first knowledge"?

A: If I had had a memory of that allegation having been made by her or by anyone else, then I would not have made that previous statement. That's correct.

Q: Okay. Nor would you have made the statement "Before God, I assure you that my first knowledge of a allegation of sexual abuse against this priest was in 1993," if Ms. Gauvreau had spoken to you during the 1980s?

A: That's exactly what I just attempted to say, yes.

Q: Could you please turn to your admissions, Cardinal Law, which is Exhibit No. 11.

A: Exhibit No. 11?

Q: Yes. If you could turn to Admission No. 24.

A: Is this like "Request"? Is it saying "Request"?

Q: Yes. It's "Responses of the Defendant Bernard Cardinal Law to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions." This is Exhibit No. 11. And you read these before you signed them. If you'd take a look at the last page, Cardinal Law, of Exhibit No. 11, your admissions, these were signed by you under the pains and penalties of perjury on May 31, 2002. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: That's your signature, is that correct, on the last page of Exhibit No. 11?

A: That's correct.

Q: So you reviewed these admissions before you swore to their accuracy under the pains and penalties of perjury; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: All right. If you take a look, Cardinal Law, at Request Number -- it's on, I believe, page 6. Let's look at Request No. 24, page 6.

A: Yes.

Q: Request No. 24: "Cardinal Law refused to accept phone calls from Jack Gauvreau." I think the original admission was Jackie Gauvreau. You denied that; is that correct?

A: It's correct that I denied that. I just wanted to see what the, if I may, see what the preceding line of questioning with regard to this is.

Q: You're welcome to look at the document. (Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: When it says "Jack," I'm positive our admission said Jackie Gauvreau. You knew who that was, Jackie Gauvreau, the woman who was making the allegation, correct?

A: The last name would be the name that I would have taken, yes.

Q: Could you speak up a little bit?

A: Yes. I would have understood it in those terms.

Q: And you deny -- the word "deny" appears after, in response to the request for admission that you refused to accept phone calls from Jackie Gauvreau; correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And then Request No. 25: "Cardinal Law instructed others within the RCAB to avoid taking phone calls from Jack Gauvreau." Again, that's a reference to Ms. Gauvreau. You denied that as well; is that correct?

A: I did. I had no recollection of that series of events.

Q: You denied it?

A: That's correct.

Q: The word "deny" appears; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Then Request No. 26: "Cardinal Law instructed others within the RCAB to ensure that Jack Gauvreau's phone calls would not reach him." The word "deny" appears there. Do you see that?

A: I do.

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

(Law Exhibit No. 54, Document, 12/20/82, marked for identification.)

Q: This is, again, a document retrieved that was produced in the first set of Shanley documents. If you want to take a moment and look at that document.

(Pause.)

A: This document I have here is dated December 20, 1982.

Q: That's correct.

A: Is that the right document?

Q: See the reference FJR. Are those the initials of Frederick Ryan?

A: They could very well be, yes.

Q: "Spoke to TVD." Is that the initials of Bishop Daily, now Bishop Daily?

A: Those are the initials for Bishop Daily.

Q: It says: At staff on 12/20, quote, let her stay hanging on the phone. Then there's four periods. Close quote. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Had you seen that document before you executed your request for admissions, Cardinal Law?

A: First of all, I had not seen this document until now. I have no recollection of ever having seen this document before. And it's a document dated December 20, 1982, which would be two years before I arrived here.

Q: Right.

A: And as far as I can see, it doesn't have reference to -- unless I misread the document --

Q: Sure.

A: -- it doesn't have reference to the person that you asked me about.

Q: Right. You'll see the first part of it is a Paul -- says Paul Shandley -- his name is misspelled -- concerns about woman calling him up for 12 years, harassing. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: It's reported her name is Sheila Burke; is that correct?

A: That's what I read here.

Q: Okay. This is a report that was received from Paul Shanley; is that correct?

A: I would not have any way of knowing that.

Q: But you denied, in Exhibit No. 24, refusing to accept telephone calls from Jackie Gauvreau, correct?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Now, please turn over to the previous page. I'm sorry. Let's go to page 3. Sorry. Let's go to page 4. Page 4. All right. Now, you see that you denied -- use the word "deny," about refusing to accept telephone calls from Jacqueline Gauvreau. In Request No. 16, let me read what it says and you can read the response. "Cardinal Law spoke to Jackie Gauvreau regarding Father Shanley." What was your response?

A: "The Defendant has no recollection of any such discussion and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny such allegation."

Q: Now, notice the difference in your response between the Admission No. 24 where you use the word "deny," when you were asked to admit that you refused to accept telephone calls, and then admission -- your response to Admission No. 16 where you state you had no recollection of any such discussion and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny said allegation. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Request No. 17, Cardinal Law, let me read the request and you can read the response. "Jackie Gauvreau informed Cardinal Law that Father Shanley had molested a child while Father Shanley was serving as a priest at St. Jean's." What was your response to that, Cardinal Law?

A: As it is stated here: "The Defendant has no recollection of any such discussion and, therefore, denies that he was informed of such allegation."

Q: Okay. And then Request No. 18: "Jackie Gauvreau met with Cardinal Law after a televised mass in or about 1987 regarding allegations of sexual abuse against Father Shanley." What was your response to that request for admission?

A: "The Defendant has no recollection of any such meeting and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny said allegation."

Q: You'll see that there are different responses to these particular requests for admissions that you give concerning alleged communications with Jackie Gauvreau; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: You deny not taking her calls, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: On Request No. 17, you deny that you were informed of an allegation by Ms. Gauvreau that Father Shanley had molested a child while Father Shanley was serving as a priest at St. Jean's, correct? You deny that one?

A: Excuse me. Which one is that?

Q: No. 17 you deny; is that correct?

A: Well, my response there is that the Defendant has no recollection of any such discussion, therefore, denies that he was informed, yes, of such allegation.

Q: You deny --

A: Based on the fact that I have no recollection of it.

Q: Request No. 18: "Jackie Gauvreau met with Cardinal Law after a televised mass in or about 1987 regarding allegations of sexual abuse against Father Shanley." You had a different answer. The answer there was: "The Defendant has no recollection of any such meeting and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny said allegation." Correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: That's a different response from the response that you gave the telephone call allegation, request for admission, and Admission No. 17, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: So if Ms. Gauvreau were to testify that she did remember discussing with you at a televised mass allegations of sexual abuse against Father Shanley, you would not be in a position to contradict her, correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: My presumption is that she has said that.

Q: Right.

A: And what I have tried to say, in light of that, is that I have no memory, no recollection of that. And, therefore, can neither admit nor deny that allegation.

Q: You're not denying it as you did with the telephone call?

A: That's correct.

Q: You can't either admit or deny it. So my question is: If Ms. Gauvreau were to testify that she spoke with you after this televised mass about allegations of sexual abuse against Father Shanley, your response would be that you could neither admit or deny that such a meeting took place. Those were your words in the admission, correct?

A: That's correct.

MR. TODD: Now, what's the question? The words in the admission or -- there are two questions in there. I object to form.

Q: Okay. If Ms. Gauvreau were to testify that after this televised mass she discussed with you allegations of sexual abuse by Father Paul Shanley, you would not be in a position to contradict her?

MR. TODD: Objection.

Q: Correct, Cardinal Law?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to form.

A: I would be not in a position to either affirm what she is saying or deny what she is saying because I have no memory of the event.

Q: All right. Now, but if she were to testify that she had tried to call you and you wouldn't take her calls, you would, as you did in Request No. 24, deny such an allegation?

MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.

A: I do deny that because refusing to accept the phone calls, it's -- that would not be in my ordinary modus operandi to say I refused to take calls from someone. First of all, calls usually are taken by someone else, and the substance of that phone conversation would be related to me. And my general practice is not not to have phone calls accepted. That just wouldn't be something that would ordinarily be done. Perhaps hearing this line of questioning, I would be more precise if I had said that I have no recollection of doing that, but the reason I said no, I denied it, is that the doing of that under any circumstances is not something that would be my ordinary way of handling matters.

Q: I understand that. You denied that.

A: I denied it.

Q: But with respect to the allegation you met after a televised mass to discuss allegations of sexual abuse involving Father Paul Shanley, you can neither admit nor deny that you had that conversation with Jacqueline Gauvreau?

MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.

A: I can say, as I said, that I have no memory of that and, therefore, and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny.

Q: All right. Fine.

(Law Exhibit No. 55, Copy of Film Clips, marked for identification.)

(Law Exhibit No. 56, Copy of Photograph, marked for identification.)

Q: Cardinal Law, did you from time to time in the 1980s undertake televised masses?

A: During the 1980s, yes, there were times when I had televised mass.

Q: Typically that was done at Channel 7; is that correct?

A: Channel 7 is the usual place for Sunday mass, yes.

Q: Now I'm showing you in Exhibit 55, a film clip, that there will be testimony that we obtained from Channel 7, where you'll see in the first frame, you see a picture of a woman. Do you see that?

A: I do.

MR. MacLEISH: I say the "first frame," if we could just write 1, Mr. Todd, over the top of that, if we could, please.

Q: Do you understand which one that is?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you recognize that woman?

A: I do not.

Q: And then you'll see a second frame, which we could mark No. 2, there's a picture of her, and then I believe that's a portion of your face; is that correct?

A: I believe it is.

Q: You do not believe it is?

A: I believe it is, yes.

Q: Okay. And then you'll see a third -- No. 3 is you and the person we saw in Clip No. 2 and Clip No. 1; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And Clip No. 4 is you; is that correct?

A: That's correct. And a part of two other folk.

Q: Right. You'll see that the woman that is in Clip No. 1 is within a very short distance to you on this video clip; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Would you ever speak with individuals who were part of the choir who sang at these televised masses in the 1980s? Did you ever speak with them afterwards?

A: Afterwards, it used to be the custom that there would be coffee and doughnuts, and after I took off my vestments, if there were the opportunity for me to stop, I would stop and chat generally with folk and then be on my way.

Q: And I can represent to you that this Picture No. 1 is a picture of Ms. Gauvreau in or about 1987. Looking at that picture, does that in any way help you to remember whether you've ever met Ms. Jacqueline Gauvreau?

A: It really doesn't.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Next exhibit please. Do you need a copy?

Q: Showing you Exhibit No. 56, Cardinal Law. This is from a photograph taken by a parishioner. You'll see that's you in what appears to be a televised mass again?

A: It looks like it could very well be the chapel, right.

Q: And again, do you see the woman who is, looking at the picture, two persons to your right?

A: Yes, I do. I believe it's the same person that was in the other picture.

Q: Same person. I can represent to you that -- I'm sorry. It's to your left, but on the picture, it's to the right. Do you understand that?

A: Yes.

Q: And that is the same person that appears on Exhibit 55; is that correct?

A: It appears to be.

Q: Does that help to refresh your memory, Cardinal Law, as to whether or not you ever met Jacqueline Gauvreau?

A: No, it doesn't. Obviously, if she was there in that group and I stopped and had coffee afterwards, it's very likely that I did meet her, but I don't recall her. The only person in this picture that I can recognize by name would be Ms. D'Agostino --

Q: Yes.

A: -- and Father McFarland.

Q: Right. Where is -- Ms. D'Agostino is someone that you know, Cardinal Law; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And Ms. D'Agostino was also a -- I believe she was at Our Lady's Parish in the mid 1980s; is that correct?

A: Yes. She's a very accomplished organist.

Q: Right. And you've had the opportunity to speak with her from time to time?

A: I have.

Q: You found her to be a credible person?

A: I certainly do.

Q: Now, I'm sorry, Ms. Ford reminds me that this picture that is Exhibit 56 came from choir archives. Now --

A: Well, but it does appear to be -- Father McFarland being in the picture would make me think that it is at the Channel 7.

Q: Yes, yes. That's the recollection of the parishioners.

MR. MacLEISH: Could I have -- let's mark this No. 57.

(Law Exhibit No. 57, Affidavit of Jackie Gauvreau, marked for identification.)

Q: Cardinal Law, this is an affidavit of Jackie Gauvreau, and you'll see -- take your time to read the entire affidavit if you'd like to. (Pause.)

Q: All right. Cardinal Law, have you had the opportunity to review Ms. Gauvreau's affidavit?

A: I have.

Q: You'll see in Paragraph 5, she states as follows: "In or about" -- she crosses out '84 to '85 and puts in '86 to '87 -- "I confronted Cardinal Law about the allegation against Father Shanley. On the day I confronted him I had sung in a choir in a televised mass he conducted. After the mass, I told him in a face-to-face conversation that Father Shanley had molested a child while he was a priest at St. Jean's. In response, Cardinal Law told me he would look into the matter. Father Shanley, however, remained a priest at St. Jean's and I do not know of any actions taken against him as a result of his alleged sexual abuse." Do you see that?

A: I do see that, yes.

Q: And you can neither admit nor deny that that conversation took place; is that correct?

A: I can say that I have absolutely no recollection of that conversation having taken place, so, therefore, I can neither admit nor deny it.

Q: Then Paragraph 6: "Sometime soon after I initially spoke with Cardinal Law about Shanley, I had a second opportunity to speak to him about the matter. While Cardinal Law was present at Our Lady Help of Christian Church in Newton, Massachusetts, I asked him what he intended to do about Father Shanley. In response, Cardinal Law told me to contact the bishop, stating 'that is why I have my bishops.'" Do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: We've spoken about your delegation of certain matters involving sexual misconduct to your subordinates; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And what Ms. Gauvreau reports in the following paragraph is that: "Following Cardinal Law's direction, I visited then-Bishop Mulcahy in Lynn, Massachusetts, who listened to my complaints about Father Shanley's sexual molestation of a child. I do not know what action, if any, Bishop Mulcahy took to investigate the allegation other than to ask Father Shanley to apologize to me." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Bishop Mulcahy, he was in Lynn, Massachusetts, at the time, I believe, that he passed.

A: He was. He was a regional bishop, which would at that time have incorporated Newton.

Q: And it would have incorporated St. Jean's Parish?

A: It would have.

Q: So if in fact there was a bishop to speak to about Father Shanley, Bishop Mulcahy would be one bishop that one would consider as a likely candidate to speak to; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: St. Jean's is in, I think it's the Lynn vicarate; is that correct?

A: The region, yes.

Q: So, Cardinal Law, if in fact someone had approached you about Father Shanley, and given your policy of delegation, is it possible that you would have referred them to the parochial vicar to present their complaint? Is that a possibility?

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. TODD: Objection.

Q: Do you understand the question?

A: I understand the question, but I don't think it's the question you want to put to me, because a parochial vicar would be the assistant to a pastor in a parish.

Q: That's right.

A: I think you meant to say the regional bishop.

Q: The regional bishop. Bishop Mulcahy.

MR. ROGERS: Note my objection to the question as revised.

Q: Go ahead. Do you understand the question?

A: I think I understand the question. Would it have been logical for me to have referred someone to a regional bishop?

Q: Right.

A: If the matter that was being brought to me was a matter of the sexual abuse of a child, if there was a charge, a specific charge being brought of that kind, I'm not certain that I would have referenced the regional bishop. If, on the other hand, if there were a complaint brought to me about a priest which was perhaps not a specific kind of a complaint, but a complaint about a priest, then it would be natural for me to refer someone to the regional bishop.

Q: All right. Well, Cardinal Law, we saw Bishop Mulcahy's name, I believe, yesterday with respect to the allegations against Joseph Birmingham. Do you remember that --

A: I do.

Q: -- exhibit yesterday?

A: I do, I do.

Q: So we know that Bishop Mulcahy was involved. And then there was a review of that, I think, by either Bishop Hughes or Bishop Banks. You recall the handwriting down at the bottom?

A: Yes.

Q: The initial report was taken by Bishop Mulcahy and then it was reviewed by Father Banks. This is, I, think JB, which we have as an exhibit. Would you like to take a look at it?

A: Surely.

Q: JB. Let me find it for you. It's Exhibit No. 47. You'll see there, Cardinal Law, you'll see in 1987, same time that Ms. Gauvreau alleges she spoke to you, that in the Birmingham case, there was a report of, initial report of abuse involving Father Birmingham in, I believe, February of 1987. It was taken by Bishop Mulcahy. Do you see that?

A: Excuse me. How did you preface that? That somebody said --

Q: In 1987 -- this is JB -- Exhibit No. 47 -- page JB. This is the typewritten notes of Bishop Banks at the bottom and Bishop Mulcahy at the top concerning a complaint of sexual abuse involving Father Joseph Birmingham. Do you see that?

A: Yes, yes, yes.

Q: That's dated when, Cardinal Law?

A: That's dated February 12, 1987, and it begins, so and so, blanked out, and his mother came to my office at 3 p.m. on Thursday, February 12, '87, and told me the following story.

Q: Right.

A: Which would -- I don't know, but it would seem to me that -- is that -- did they come directly to him or were they sent -- were they referred to him?

Q: We don't know.

A: Fine. I didn't think so.

Q: We don't know. We don't know whether -- it could have been you that could have sent them to see Bishop Mulcahy. There's nothing in the record.

MR. TODD: Object to that remark.

Q: Okay. Be that as it may, regardless of how they got there, in 1987, the same year that Jackie Gauvreau contends she was referred by you to Bishop Mulcahy, Bishop Mulcahy was taking a report in another case involving sexual abuse and Father Joseph Birmingham. I think we went over that yesterday; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: Yes. My understanding from what you have placed before me in this document, JB, is that we have a memo written by Bishop Mulcahy to Bishop Banks --

Q: Right.

A: -- because Bishop Banks would be the one to handle this.

Q: Right.

A: And information came to Bishop Mulcahy which he understood should be somehow handled by Bishop Banks. So that it isn't as though Bishop Mulcahy was the one responsible for handling this kind of a case. He had this information and he referred it to the appropriate person.

Q: Well, we don't know how Bishop Mulcahy got the case from the face of the document, do we? We just know he met with the victim of sexual abuse. That's what it says.

A: Unless you take it at face value when he says that this person and his mother came to my office at 3 p.m. That's what we know.

Q: We just don't know how they got there, do we, Cardinal Law? Either way, we just don't know whether they did it on their own or whether they were referred to Bishop Mulcahy by someone. We just don't know, do we?

MR. TODD: Object to the form.

A: No. There are a lot of things we don't know, but the evidence that we have here would, I think, reasonably indicate that these people came to him with a complaint and then he reported it to Bishop Banks. How they came to him, I don't know whether they went to a pastor and the pastor said you should go see the bishop or what.

Q: Well, there wasn't any written policy by 1987 of who you go see if you have a complaint about a priest abusing, sexually abusing young people, was there? There wasn't a written policy in 1987 who you would go see?

A: No. There was no written policy saying to whom you should go.

Q: Bishop Mulcahy took the story about Father Birmingham. He did not simply refer the matter on to Bishop Banks or Father McCormack; he took the story down and then forwarded it to Bishop Banks. Is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Okay. And in fact, if you'll look at Ms. Gauvreau's affidavit again, Cardinal Law, the affidavit -- do you have that in front of you?

A: Yes.

Q: You'll see that Ms. Gauvreau alleges in Paragraph 6, not that she was directed to see anyone in particular, but that you told her to contact a bishop, stating "that is why I have my bishops." Is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Is that the type of remark that you made to other individuals when you were approached with particular requests -- separate and apart from sexual abuse, would you, in 1987, direct them from time to time to see your bishops and that is why I have my bishops?

A: Separate and apart from sexual abuse, it would not be infrequent that I would refer persons who spoke to me, and even more frequently, who would write to me, to the regional bishop, yes.

Q: Would you use words like, as Ms. Gauvreau, these words appear in quotes, that is why I have my bishops, close quotes? Are those words you were using in 1987?

A: I think that those -- whether I said those words, I cannot attest. But that sentiment would not be a sentiment that I would not -- that would have been my sentiment, to explain that one of the functions of a regional bishop is to assist me in handling cases of complaints.

Q: I'm -- respectfully, what I'm trying to get at is the specific words which Ms. Gauvreau has in quotes, "that is why I have my bishops." Was that the type of word that you might use in 1987 when someone was coming to you with a request, a problem? Were those the types of words that you might use?

A: Well, as I read those words here, they're a bit of a put off, and, certainly, that is not the way in which I would normally approach someone. But the idea of suggesting that a regional bishop is the appropriate person to follow up on your concern, that certainly would have been part of my style. (Law Exhibit No. 58, E-mail, 6/5/02, marked for identification.)

Q: Would you take a moment and read 58. (Pause.)

Q: Okay. In Exhibit 58, this individual reports that she was a choir member from Our Lady's Parish, and she states that she had a moral responsibility to relate her recollection of an event involving Cardinal Law and Jackie Gauvreau in the late 1980s. I would like to read this to you and see if it helps to refresh your recollection. She states in the second paragraph: "After Cardinal Law celebrated a mass at which our choir had sung, Jackie Gauvreau told me she was going to tell the Cardinal again (she said she had already told him once after a televised mass at Channel 7) that Reverend Paul Shanley from St. Jean's was a child molester. Though I remember telling her, quote, Jackie, you can't do that now, close quote, she marched out of the choir loft and down the stairs to see the Cardinal. A few moments later she returned to the choir loft and boisterously announced, 'I did it.' I remember thinking I couldn't believe she was so bold. I don't recall her telling me about any response from him and I never actually saw her speak to the Cardinal since I remained in the choir loft." Do you see that, Cardinal Law?

A: I do.

Q: Did you ever celebrate mass at Our Lady's Parish of Christian Help in Newton in the late 1980s?

A: I probably did. I celebrated mass in a lot of places. I'm sure I did. But I wouldn't have any -- other than the first mass I celebrated in -- very early after I got here, I wouldn't have a recollection of a specific occasion of being in the church, but I'm sure that I was.

Q: Our Lady Parish of Christian Help in Newton --

A: Help of Christian.

Q: I'm sorry. Let me refer to it simply -- as Our Lady's Parish in Newton is a large parish; is that correct?

A: It is.

Q: It's sometimes referred to, I think, as the cathedral of the western suburbs or something like that?

A: Perhaps people in the parish refer to it that way.

Q: Well, would you have records indicating at which parish you celebrated mass in the 1980s? Would there be records of that, Cardinal Law?

A: I suppose that my calendar would indicate that.

Q: Where is your calendar? Who maintains your historical calendar?

A: Mrs. Kay Woodward.

Q: Kay Woodward. Would she keep records going back to the 1980s?

A: I don't know that.

Q: All right. If you look -- looking at Exhibit 55 and materials we put in front of you, the pictures, are you still comfortable with your admission in Exhibit No. -- sorry -- in Exhibit No. 11, Admission No. 17?

MR. TODD: It's a response.

MR. MacLEISH: Response. That's right. Right.

Q: Your response to request for admission. Do you want to take a look at that. It's Exhibit No. 11. It's page 4 --

THE WITNESS: Do you want to help me with that.

MR. TODD: It's in the book.

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. It's the book one.

THE WITNESS: Which number did you say?

MR. MacLEISH: No. 18. Let's try No. 18.

MR. ROGERS: What was the question?

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. The question was:

Q: After seeing the exhibits I've just shown you, Exhibits 54 through 58, are you still comfortable with your Admission Request No. 18?

MR. TODD: It's response.

MR. MacLEISH: Sorry.

Q: Your response to Request No. 18, and the request was: "Jackie Gauvreau met with Cardinal Law after a televised mass in or about 1987 regarding allegations of sexual abuse against Father Shanley." Your response was: "The Defendant has no recollection of any such meeting and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny such allegation." Are you still comfortable with that admission?

A: Yes, I am.

Q: All right. Now, take a look at Request No. 21, also on the page 5. The request was: "Jackie" -- it says Jack, but I believe the word we used was Jackie -- "Gauvreau met with Cardinal Law after mass at Our Lady Help of Christian's Church in Newton, Massachusetts, regarding Father Shanley after her first conversation described in Request No. 18." What was your response, Cardinal Law?

A: "The Defendant has no recollection of any such meeting and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny such allegation."

Q: So if Ms. Gauvreau testifies consistent with her affidavit, you will not be able to testify that the meeting did not take place, the meeting at Our Lady that she reports in Request No. 22? It's the subject of Request No. 22.

A: Yes. I would hope that I would be able to say what I said here in response, that I have no recollection of any such meeting and, therefore, can neither admit nor deny, yes.

Q: All right. Now --

MR. TODD: Can you tell us who Courtney Pillsbury is?

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, well, she's a lawyer in our office.

MR. TODD: In this office?

MR. MacLEISH: Yes.

(Law Exhibit No. 59, Document, Bates No. RCAB 0, marked for identification.)

Q: Before we get to the next exhibit, I think, which is 59, wouldn't you agree with me, Cardinal Law, that you really can't assure before God that you did not hear of an allegation of sexual abuse involving Paul Shanley before 1993, you cannot assure before God that you didn't hear that?

MR. ROGERS: Objection --

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: -- to form.

A: Based on the memory that I have, yes. And I don't know how else you can make such an assurance. Now --

MR. TODD: That's --

MR. MacLEISH: Now, Mr. Todd, I think he had not completed his answer. Go ahead. Complete your answer, Cardinal Law.

MR. TODD: I think he's responsive.

MR. MacLEISH: Well, I would just ask that, respectfully, that we not speak with counsel during the questions. If you want to take a break, then --

THE WITNESS: I don't believe I have initiated any conversation.

MR. TODD: No, I don't think we have had a conversation.

MR. MacLEISH: You did speak, Mr. Todd. The record will show that you've had conversations with the Cardinal where there's been a question pending.

MR. TODD: Where in the record? Would you show me on the record where it will show that?

MR. MacLEISH: The videotape will be very evident that you have spoken with the Cardinal, whispered in his ear.

MR. TODD: I don't think so, Mr. MacLeish. We can carry on this nonsensical conversation as much as you like because it appears you're running out of questions, you're getting so redundant.

MR. MacLEISH: No, no, that's not true. The video will show, Mr. Todd --

MR. TODD: Well, if you have something to do, why don't you do it. Why don't you ask a question. That's what we're here to do.

MR. MacLEISH: I'm just asking you not speak with the witness when there is a question pending, as you just did.

MR. TODD: And I'm asking you not to make those insulting, inaccurate, offensive remarks. Now we've each addressed a request to one another.

MR. MacLEISH: Fine. So you won't talk to the Cardinal?

MR. TODD: Now, if you have a question, ask it.

MR. MacLEISH: You will not talk to the Cardinal?

MR. TODD: Do you have a question to ask or shall we leave?

MR. MacLEISH: Many more questions.

MR. TODD: Well, then ask one. Just ask one.

MR. MacLEISH: You can leave if you want to. Do you want to take a break? Do you want to take a break? We've been at it for an hour.

MR. TODD: No, no.

MR. MacLEISH: Keep going? Let's skip the break. That's fine with me. Okay.

MR. TODD: No, we're not going to skip the break.

MR. ROGERS: No, we're not skipping the break.

MR. TODD: We're going for an hour --

MR. MacLEISH: Well, let's take the break now, then.

MR. TODD: -- and then we'll take a break.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's take a break.

MR. TODD: Would you like a break, Mr. MacLeish?

MR. MacLEISH: If the witness does. We're going into a different area. No. Whatever the witness's pleasure.

THE WITNESS: I'm fine going on until we've done it for an hour and then break.

MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. We'll do that, Cardinal. All right.

MR. TODD: May I have a copy of this?

MR. MacLEISH: Certainly.

MR. TODD: Thank you.

Q: Take a look at, if you would --

MR. ROGERS: Can I get a copy?

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. Sure.

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

MR. MacLEISH: Yes, I would like you to, please.

(Pause.)

Q: Now, you've testified previously, Cardinal Law, that for the most part, the allegations of sexual misconduct by priests were pretty much taken by the Archdiocese as credible; is that correct?

A: I think I have said that it's been our experience that we do not have a disordinate number of false claims. There are some out there. Some have been prosecuted.

Q: Yes. That's true.

A: But that my reading of the record is not that there are a number of false claims. That could change, but that's been our experience.

Q: You made reference to prosecution. No prosecutions involving clients at this office?

A: I don't know of what office. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know what office, so I couldn't answer that.

MR. MacLEISH: That's a little distracting, Mr. Todd, the twisting of the pen. If I could just ask you to stop doing that, I would appreciate it.

Q: Cardinal Law, have you seen this document, Exhibit 59, before today?

A: You know, I'm not sure whether I've seen it or not. I think I may have seen it in preparation for this, but I'm not certain of that.

Q: Okay. Did you know that Father Shanley was at one point working at Maclean Hospital?

A: I did not know that.

Q: Okay. And you'll see in the first paragraph -- this appears to be a memorandum from Bishop Banks; is that correct?

A: It does, yes.

Q: And a person came to see him on March 14, 1988. We took out the name at the request of the Court.

A: Yes.

Q: He reports that: "After a good conversation in which he trusted Father S., made a passing reference to sado-masochism. Immediately, Father Shanley began to zero in on the subject, describing very graphically and in much detail a particular incident. T. thought he was trying to get him to accept the idea. T. thought he was coming on to him. Tremendous sexual energy in the room. Then S. went on to something else. At that point, T. clammed up and just wanted S. to get out of the room. It had a terrible effect on him. "Before S. left, he told another story about confidentiality, with obvious intent of encouraging T. to say nothing about the incident. "He also mentioned" -- blacked out, that was your redaction. "He also mentioned it to the nurse on the floor. Also mentioned it to floor coordinator. He was going to write the hospital. Finally, he told Father Chris Keenan, who referred him to J. McCormack, who referred him to me. "Under questioning by me, T. said he was not taking drugs, was not delusional." And then blank, and then there was some information that was omitted by the Archdiocese. "I told T. that I would speak to S. but that if S. denied it, there really was not much that could be done since there was no possibility of proof to support the allegation. I did say that he should feel free to report the situation to the Maclean Hospital if he did not feel that we'd handled the matter adequately." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: So this is a patient, a mentally-ill individual, at Maclean Hospital, that alleges he had a conversation, which he told others about, with Paul Shanley, in which Paul Shanley began to zero in on the subject of sado-masochism, describing very graphically and in much detail a particular incident to the point where the patient thought that he was trying to get him to accept the idea, and that Father Shanley was coming on to him. Do you see that?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A: I read that, yes.

Q: Okay. Now, was it the policy in the Archdiocese of Boston with respect to situations such as these in 1987, 1988, that if there was an allegation of improper behavior of this nature -- which you would agree with me, the allegations are serious here? Would you agree with me, Cardinal Law?

A: I would.

Q: This man is a patient in a mental hospital, and Father Shanley, if this is true, has done something that's quite improper --

MR. TODD: Objection.

Q: -- is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Something that would have been concern to you with your knowledge that Father Shanley was pastor at St. Jean's; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And Bishop Banks, in his own words, reports that if Shanley denied it, there's not much that could be done. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And was that consistent with the policy and practices of -- the unwritten policies and practices of the Archdiocese of Boston with respect to claims of this nature?

A: The policy of the Archdiocese at this time was that a claim would be investigated and acted upon appropriately.

Bishop Banks had before him a claim of a conversation by one party to that conversation, a denial of that conversation by another party to that conversation. And that's what he was dealing with.

Q: Well, you'll see in the paragraph involving his first conversation with the patient known as T., that he told him, even before he interviewed Father Shanley, that if, you see that, if Shanley denied it, there really was not much that could be done since there was no possibility of proof to support the allegation. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Now, wouldn't one of the things that could have been done would be to send Father Shanley in at that point for some sort of an assessment to see if there was some deviant beliefs or some exploitive behavior that was going on with individuals at Maclean Hospital who were mentally ill? Wasn't an assessment a possibility, Cardinal Law, at that point?

A: An assessment was the possibility, of course. I was not party to that conversation. Bishop Banks is a very perceptive and a very careful person. He would not view matters like this lightly. And I would feel confident that he could give a rationale for his behavior here, which would carry weight. But I was not a party to this conversation and I'm not going to read into what it is that inspired Bishop Banks to decide in this way. If you ask me theoretically would it be possible to seek an assessment, yes, it would be.

Q: Over a matter such as this, an allegation such as this?

A: Certainly, if you felt that there was substance to the allegation, yes.

Q: Well, you'll see -- again, I don't mean to belabor this -- but even before he's gotten Father Shanley's version of the events, he tells T. if Shanley denies it, there's nothing that can be done. There were assessments going on at this time, were there not, Cardinal Law?

A: Yes, there were assessments going on.

Q: Then we have March 18, 1988, and Bishop Banks: "I spoke to Father Shanley. He became irate at first" -- "irate at first" -- "questioning why the matter should be brought up at all." Do you consider that to be an appropriate response to an allegation of misconduct, for someone to be become irate, questioning why the matter should be brought up at all?

A: I really can't read into what happened on that occasion and read the motives. I see the words here. "He became irate." I suppose that if I were -- if I were being accused of something that I had not done, I might be a little bit irate.

Q: Would you question why the matter was being brought up at all?

A: I suppose not. Thank God I've never been in this situation.

Q: Well, I know. But, I mean, isn't there an obligation to bring these matters up when they arise? Isn't there an obligation to?

A: Of course, there is.

Q: So Father Shanley is questioning why the matter should be brought up at all. Wasn't one of the other possibilities here, under your unwritten policies in 1988, was, as Father Helmick described it, to get the facts, to go back into the records? Wasn't that another possibility in 1988?

A: Excuse me?

Q: Wasn't another way of dealing with this dispute as to what occurred that is reflected in Exhibit 59 over Father Shanley's allegedly improper behavior with a mentally-ill individual at Maclean, was to get the facts by looking at the file? Wasn't that another possibility?

A: Yes.

Q: And was there any down side to looking at the file to see if there were complaints of a similar nature in 1988, that you were aware of, Cardinal Law?

A: No, I would see no down side to that whatsoever.

Q: In fact, would you agree that it might be, when you have two disputed versions of the same event, a prudent course of action in order to determine whether there was substance to the allegations?

A: I think that would be reasonable.

MR. MacLEISH: We're at 3:02. We've had our hour. Would you like to take a break?

THE WITNESS: Fine. Yes.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:56. This is the end of Cassette 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

(Law Exhibit No. 60, Memorandum, 5/24/85, marked for identification.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:06. This is Cassette 3 in today's volume of Cardinal Law. We're on the record.

Q: Cardinal Law, before we get to the next exhibit, do you see any tension between your statement to the public on May 20 that you assured them before God you knew of no allegation about Paul Shanley before 1993 and the fact that you cannot either admit nor deny Ms. Gauvreau's assertion that she spoke with you about Paul Shanley and child molestation in the 1980s?

MR. ROGERS: Objection. Form.

Q: Do you see any tension in that, Cardinal Law?

A: Well, obviously you see a tension.

Q: Yes, I do.

A: And I can understand how a tension might be perceived. But from my perspective, if, as I state in that statement further along, that I have no recollection, no memory of such a conversation, and then can neither admit nor deny, it's on the basis of my memory that I can speak to this general issue. Now, should I have introduced that qualifier up above and said that, however, with respect to this alleged conversation, I have absolutely no memory of that, and, therefore, I can neither deny nor admit it, that's conceivable. But to my mind, it's reasonable when you say, before God, I can say that I did not know of something like that, before God I can say that. If I had known it, if I had a memory of being told that, if upon investigation that allegation was proven to be credible and valid, that would be one thing. But I have no memory of that.

Q: So you see no tension?

A: I see -- I was aware of the facts as I have stated them in those responses when I made that statement, and I did not see that there was a tension then and I think that that's a reasonable statement.

Q: Okay. The next exhibit that you have in front of you, Cardinal Law, is Exhibit No. 60. We just got through, before our break, with Bishop Banks and the complaint about the patient at Maclean Hospital, and Bishop Banks stating there was not much he could can do because Paul Shanley denied it. We went through that before the break.

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: That would have been a later date than this, as I recall. Is that correct? Was that '87?

Q: That was March 19, 1988, if you have the exhibit right in front of you.

A: Yes, fine. Thank you. Now we go back in time.

Q: Yes. Now we go back to the Higgs letter, 1985, and this is a memo to Father Banks, now Bishop Banks, from Father McCormack, Subject, Father Shanley, dated May 24, 1985. "Attached to this memo is a letter from Mrs. Wilma Higgs and my response to her. As of yet, I have not contacted Father Shanley and wonder whether it should be me or his local vicar." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Who would his local vicar be?

A: I don't know who the vicar would have been at that point.

Q: But the local vicar would have been in Lynn; is that correct?

A: No. The local vicar would have been in the Newton area.

Q: In the Newton area. Then it goes on: "If it is to be me, I would like to discuss with you the areas and approach for discussion with him." This is a memorandum to Bishop Banks from Father McCormack, attaching the letter from Wilma Higgs. We know what that letter is.

A: Yes. And his response.

Q: And you see Bishop Banks' handwriting down below?

A: I do.

Q: And it says, does it not: "I'd just send Paul the letter with name and address removed and ask for his comments."

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. Now, Bishop Banks' instruction to Bishop McCormack on how to handle the Higgs complaint, was that consistent with the unwritten policy, as you understood it, concerning investigation into these matters in 1985?

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: The policy in 1984, forward, was a policy of delegation. It wasn't a policy of spelling out how these matters were to be handled in their detail. I had confidence in Bishop Banks' judgment. I had confidence, and have, in Father McCormack's, Bishop McCormack's judgment. As I recall the Wilma Higgs letter, it is an allegation about things said in a talk. Is that correct?

Q: It is. And the tape. Remember the tape, Cardinal Law?

A: There's reference to the tape.

Q: The tape.

A: I don't know that -- does it say the tape was sent? I'm not sure of that. It says the tape --

Q: No. Let's go to the letter. Exhibit --

A: Give me a number on that.

Q: Yeah. It's Exhibit 18.

A: 18. Okay.

Q: The part --

A: It seems to me that -- excuse me.

Q: The part we've been focusing on is the paragraph that starts: "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. Children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones." And she makes reference in the first paragraph in this letter to you that some of the statements are on tape. Do you see that?

A: That's correct. She says some are on tape and here are some of the statements.

Q: Right.

A: And it's a list of allegations as to what it is that Father Shanley allegedly said in this talk at Corpus Christi Church in Rochester. Now, in response to this kind of a complaint, I don't think at all it's unreasonable to begin by asking the person being accused to respond to this. Is this what you said? Is this what you meant? Is there anything here that you would want to say?

Q: What Bishop Banks says in response to Father McCormack, he says: "I'd just send Paul the letter with name and address removed and ask his comments." There's no indication that there was any action contemplated by Father McCormack's superior, Father Banks, beyond just asking for Paul's comments and giving him a copy of the letter. There's nothing referenced in Exhibit No. 60 to suggest that there was a need to go beyond that; is that correct?

A: There is nothing there that suggests that. On the other hand, I would not say that there's anything there that omits that possibility. I think what would -- a great deal would ride on what the response was to that letter.

Q: And, again, as we've been through, there's no reason why there couldn't have been a search of the files done, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And so now we have Exhibit No. 18, Cardinal Law, in which Paul Shanley -- and I don't want to go over what you said about these comments in the first day of your deposition because that's not part of your errata sheet, and I think that we've been over that before, about the nature of these deviant comments, alleged deviant comments -- but if you take a look at No. 59 and put that together with No. 18, you see that Bishop Banks is involved in both of these situations.

A: 59?

Q: 59 is right here. This is the mental patient reporting his discussion with Paul Shanley, going into, graphically into subjects about sado-masochism and a particular incident and trying to come on to him. We just went through that before the break. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: So we have Bishop Banks is involved in both the 1985 Higgs memorandum -- he gets a copy of the Higgs letter as is set forth in Exhibit No. 60. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And he meets personally, less than three years later, with a man who is making allegations about other inappropriate behavior by Paul Shanley. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: When you put the two of these together, Cardinal Law, does it not suggest that in 1988, after Bishop Banks had before him the second, what we know to be the second complaint about Paul Shanley engaging in allegedly improper behavior, that at that point, your protocol would have been to undertake a further review, file review or an assessment of Paul Shanley?

A: Yes. One could reasonably infer that, yes.

Q: Why was it not done?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: I cannot answer that.

Q: Looking at just these two documents, given the involvement of Bishop Banks in both of them, do you believe that it would have been within your policy and practice to require that when the 1988 allegation comes about, there has to be something more than just Paul Shanley denying that the incident occurred? Do you understand my question?

A: I do understand your question.

Q: That at this point, Bishop Banks has the Higgs letter -- we know -- we know that from Exhibit 60 -- and he has also the personal complaint from the patient at Maclean Hospital. Is it enough at that point for the priest to deny it and the issue goes away?

A: You know, I would have to say that you'd have to look at this, these two charges. In both of these cases, it's a matter of someone being accused of saying something. In the first case, it's -- in the second case, rather, the first that you put before me today, it's a matter of alleging that a person thought that he was, as he puts it, that he was coming on to him. Tremendous sexual energy in the room. But in both of these cases, as terrible as the allegations are and as disturbing as the thoughts put into Father Shanley are, in both of these cases, what you have is someone claiming what it is that somebody else said. You don't have in these cases, in either the Higgs letter or this previous memo, an allegation of overt sexual abuse. Now, having said that, was there enough here, even with two denials on the part of the person being accused of what he had said, was there enough here to warrant investigating this further, including assessment? I would say, looking at this, yes, there would be.

Q: How about file review?

A: Well, certainly. That would be included. But I would even take it beyond file review. I would say that assessment would be -- some kind of an assessment would probably be called for. But, again, for that to occur, you have to have some, you know, something that is substantial to call for the -- to have a person go to an assessment, particularly if he is unwilling to. And if what you have boils down to I said, you said, then it may be difficult.

Q: Cardinal Law, one of the reasons you'd want an assessment is because you've got reports from two different people about improper behavior that don't, on the face of it, have any connection with each other: A mental patient at Maclean Hospital and a woman from Rochester, New York. Doesn't that really dictate that in spite of a denial, that the matter has to be taken a step further?

A: I'm not arguing the fact that -- I'm not arguing the idea that an assessment would have been appropriate. All I'm saying is that based on allegations of this kind, if a person was hesitant about going to the assessment, hanging it on letters is not the easiest thing in the world.

Q: What about talking to Mrs. Higgs and seeing if you could get a copy of the tape? No down side to that, Cardinal Law, correct?

A: That's correct. And I'm not sure that that wasn't done. I don't know that.

Q: Should have been done?

A: I don't know that.

Q: Should have been done; is that correct?

A: I think it would have been a more appropriate way to investigate it, if it were not done, yes.

Q: Okay. Now, certainly, putting aside the issue of an assessment -- and I understand the priest has to agree to the assessment -- and Father Shanley did ultimately agree to an assessment; is that correct?

A: He did.

Q: And apart from the assessment, there are ways to determine what really happened if the priest refuses the assessment, such as looking at the files -- which we've already seen what would have been found if one looked at the files. You're familiar with the documents that I'm talking about?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: Going back to 1977 and reporting all kinds of expressions --

A: Even '66, I think.

Q: Well, '66, allegations of abuse. '77, statements about incest and bestiality. If one had done that at that time, then, clearly, clearly, you would have taken some action with respect to Paul Shanley, correct?

A: I think action would have been taken, yes.

Q: And you would agree with me that by 1988, Bishop Banks had before him knowledge that, under your policies, practices, plain common sense, would have required that something more be done than what Bishop Banks did, which was simply to meet with Paul Shanley, get his denial and then call back Mr. T. -- as he's referred to -- to say there was really nothing he could do.

MR. TODD: Objection.

Q: Something more should have happened?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A: I cannot really say what it is that Bishop Banks had before him.

Q: Well, we know that he had Exhibit No. 59.

A: We know he had 59. We know he had 60.

Q: And 60 enclosed the Higgs letter?

A: Yes.

Q: Two different reports?

A: We know that.

Q: Deviant thoughts or, in the case of the mental patient, deviant behavior, correct?

A: Alleged, yes.

Q: Alleged. Two different reporters; don't know each other. And Bishop Banks says, despite the fact that Father Shanley had denied the allegation -- well, in light of the fact that Father Shanley had denied the allegation, quote, there was really nothing I could do. There were things that could have been done in 1988, correct, Cardinal Law?

A: He could have been -- we could have asked for an assessment, yes.

Q: Could have looked at the file, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Could have spoken to people within the Archdiocese that might have an institutional memory of Paul Shanley?

A: I really cannot answer what was done by Bishop Banks.

Q: Well, we know that Paul Shanley remained at St. Jean's until your conversations -- which we're going to get to them in moment -- until 1989. We know he remained at St. Jean's, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: We do know that. We know nothing was done to remove him or to have him assessed after this second complaint in 1988, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: Okay. And what I'm really trying to key in on here is where Bishop Banks says there was "really nothing I could do," in light of his review of the Higgs letter, there were things, factually, that could have been done and should have been done at that point in time. Is that not correct, Cardinal Law?

A: I understand why you could say that. I think that when Bishop -- you know, I'm not going to read the motive of Bishop Banks in saying what he has said. I think that you will have him under deposition and he can answer for himself.

Q: He reports to you, Cardinal Law. You're the one who sets the policy. I'm asking under your policies, on the face of it, when you have these two different reports of inappropriate behavior, reports, I think that you said, if the Higgs allegations were true by themselves, would warrant his removal from St. Jean's. You have two different reports -- well, we can go back over your first deposition, but I think that you said, as I recall in the first day of your deposition, that if the Higgs letter was accurate about what Paul Shanley was stating, he could not have remained in the parish of St. Jean's.

A: That's correct.

Q: I think you said that. The question is: Under the policies and practices that you were responsible in establishing for the children of the Archdiocese, when Bishop Banks states in March of 1988, in the face of this second report, that there was "really nothing I could do," was he acting, in your view, based upon these two documents, in accordance with the policies and practices that you had established for the protection of children?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: I believe that this response is a response to this specific allegation. And I think that that is the reference here, when he says that there, that he has denied this allegation, and in regard to this allegation, there was really nothing I could do. And I think that's what the Bishop meant and I think that that's understandable with regard to that specific allegation when you have two people conflicting -- in conflict as to their reporting of what occurred.

Q: But we also have Paul Shanley with unrestricted access, as the pastor of St. Jean's in 1988, with small children in the parish. We have that in 1988, right?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: And did that, in the face of the 1985 and the 1988 allegation that Bishop Banks was aware of, according to these documents, warrant that further investigation be undertaken pursuant to your policies?

A: Again, I think that what Bishop Banks is referring to here is this particular letter that has come to him to be handled, and he is saying that there is nothing that he could do in the face of mutually conflicting evidence -- memory concerning this event.

Q: I understand the conflicts about this particular event. What I'm referring to now is the fact that you have a pastor at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts. Bishop Banks, the man that you've entrusted to handle these complaints, and you have a man, Father Shanley, in charge of this parish, and reports made directly to Bishop Banks within the space of three years from different reporters alleging that Father Shanley said things which suggested the type of improper conduct that would cause him to be removed from the parish.

So my question is not from the standpoint of Mr. T.'s complaint; my question is really from the standpoint of the parishioners and the children at St. Jean's.

Should Bishop Banks, pursuant to your policies and practices, not just on the basis of the one complaint of Mr. T., but with knowledge of the Higgs letter, should another step have been taken, Cardinal Law?

A: It would have been much better had another step been taken, yes.

Q: That really wasn't my question. My question was: Under your policies, should another step such as file review have been undertaken?

A: Well, I think I've tried to point out earlier that the policy was a policy of delegation. All right?

Q: Sure.

A: And as I also indicated, I didn't spell out what it was that should be undertaken in the pursuit of that delegated authority. I trusted those who had the delegated authority to handle that matter in as appropriate way as possible.

Now, if you ask me to second guess what was done here and say at this point, looking at all of this, what is my judgment, at this point, looking at this -- as I'm sure Bishop Banks' judgment would be looking at this -- is that, yes, this should have been pursued further; that we should have looked beyond the conversation here between --

Q: You say the "conversation here," you mean the conversation between --

A: The conversation between this unnamed person and Father Shanley at Maclean Hospital, the alleged conversation.

Q: He should have -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. He should have looked further in light of the fact that the very same person, Father Banks, had received the Higgs letter in 1985 from Bishop McCormack, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And if you had been in Bishop Banks' shoes and received these two pieces of correspondence, you would have, if you had been in Bishop Banks' shoes, would have taken some further action in light of the fact that Paul Shanley was pastor of a parish in Newton, Massachusetts; is that correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

A: First of all, it's very difficult to put oneself in somebody else's shoes, and I don't try to do that, and I'm not going to do that now. But I'm going to say that at this point, looking at these two letters, and knowing everything that I know -- because I can't remove from my mind what I found out since -- yes, I would have wanted that, I would have wanted to examine this more fully.

Q: When do you believe the file should have been looked at if you were in the position of Bishop Banks? When would that have occurred? In 1985 or 1988 or on both occasions?

A: Well, I believe, and I would hope, that it's going -- would be the case going forward, although I would also hope that we would have all cases handled so that nobody is in place that we know of.

But my presumption is that the file should be looked at whenever the allegation is received to see if there's anything in the file that would in any way have a bearing on judging the substance of an allegation.

Q: And that should have happened in 1985, Cardinal Law, should it not have?

A: It should have.

Q: Should have happened in 1988, correct?

A: It should happen always.

Q: Now, Cardinal Law --

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

(Law Exhibit No. 61, Letter, 12/7/89, marked for identification.)

Q: This is Exhibit No. 61, Cardinal Law. Before I get to Exhibit No. 61, you would agree with me, would you not, that if the files had been checked in 1985, and assuming the truth of the allegations of the three, actually four cases, pardon me, five cases that we have that are from St. Jean's, four of which have resulted in criminal complaints for rape and indecent assault and battery, that if the files had been checked in 1985, then some of that alleged abuse, if true, would not have occurred?

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. MacLEISH: Objection noted.

MR. TODD: Thank you.

A: I have no way of knowing what might have happened if something else had happened, but I can say this; that if those allegations had been known, he would have been out of there before 1989.

Q: And you've seen the criminal indictments in this case, have you not?

A: I have not seen the criminal indictments.

Q: Do you understand that there are indictments of rape involving --

A: I do.

Q: -- involving four individuals and Paul Shanley growing out of St. Jean's Parish?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: You understand that Paul Shanley wasn't removed until December of 1990; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: I'm sorry. Not December -- December of 1989.

A: '89, yes.

Q: Exhibit 61 is your letter to Father Shanley in which you state: "I wish to acknowledge your letter dated November 21, 1989, in which you indicated that you feel that it is best for your health that you resign as pastor of St. John's the Evangelist Parish of Newton."

MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark that letter as well so we'll have the full context of your letter, Cardinal.

(Law Exhibit No. 62, Letter, 11/21/89, marked for identification.)

(Pause.)

Q: Now, you'll see as Exhibit No., I think it's 62, Paul Shanley's letter, it says -- it's a letter to you, Cardinal Law. Do you recognize that letter?

A: I remember the substance of it, yes.

Q: You asked for Paul Shanley's resignation; is that not correct?

A: I'm not sure that I asked for his resignation. I, as I think I pointed out in deposition -- and you'll stop me if this is too repetitive -- but an oath, a new oath came out, an oath of fidelity to the teaching of the Church. It's a new formulation. And pastors, when they take over as pastors for the first, and bishops, before they're ordained, bishops take this oath. And Father Shanley had difficulty with the oath.

Now, he was already a pastor, he had already taken his oath, and there was nothing, to my mind, and there still is nothing in that oath which is substantially different now than it was before. But, yet, in Father Shanley's mind, he felt that he could not, in conscious and integrity to himself, in any way imply that he was in agreement with that new oath.

And I met with him several times over this issue because my concern was that if he couldn't take the new oath, then what about the oath he did take? Because that was binding and important in terms of his teaching.

But in the end, he had two reasons that pressed his need to back away from the parish. One was his difficulty with the oath. The other was some health problems.

And so since he was in -- he couldn't reconcile himself to the new oath and he did have the health problems, then I suggested that maybe the best thing for him to do was just deal with those health problems.

Q: Out in California?

A: Well, I didn't say out in California. I think that was -- I was dealing with him in relieving him of responsibility as pastor. It was his desire and hope to go to California.

Q: Father Paul Shanley did not --

A: Because of climate and otherwise.

Q: Father Paul Shanley did not wish to step down as pastor at St. Jean's; is that correct, Cardinal Law?

A: No, that's -- that would not be my recollection.

Q: Your recollection was that he wanted to because he couldn't do the new oath; is that correct?

A: My recollection was that, as I put it, that -- first of all, he came to me; I didn't call him in.

Q: Yes.

A: He came to me with the problem with regard to the oath. And I met with him, as he himself says, three times -- I wouldn't have remembered that, but he says that in the letter -- in an effort to go over that matter.

He also had health concerns. So he had two reasons why he was thinking of a leave of absence and leaving the area.

And then I suggested to him that the -- if that was his mind and we couldn't resolve it, that what he needed to do was submit a letter of resignation, because by canon law, you're a pastor for your full term. If he wanted out, then the way to do that was for him to submit a letter of resignation. And it's in that context that I requested the letter. It wasn't that he didn't want to leave and I said, submit a letter of resignation. It's that he wanted to leave and I said, well, if you want to leave, then the way you do that is you write me a letter of resignation as pastor.

Q: All right. Cardinal Law, the oath, was it also referred to as the mandatum? This new oath?

A: No. It's not -- I don't think it's the mandatum.

Q: Oath of fidelity?

A: Oath of fidelity.

Q: And there was no requirement that existing pastors take a new oath --

A: No, absolutely not.

Q: I have to finish the question before you can answer.

A: I'm sorry.

Q: There was no requirement in 1989 that Paul Shanley would have to take any new oath, was there?

A: No, there was not.

Q: This was only an oath that new pastors would have to take; is that correct?

A: That's correct. I think I said that.

Q: Right. Okay.

A: And I said that to Father Shanley. That was the point I was trying to make to him.

Q: It says in Father Shanley's letter in Exhibit No. 63, it says: "Thank you for your third patient, kindly attempt to reconcile my conscious with the new oath." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Now, your letter to Father Shanley, which is Exhibit 61, says nothing about the oath.

A: That's correct.

Q: What it says is: "I wish to acknowledge your letter dated November 21, 1989, in which you indicated that you feel that it is best for your health that you resign as pastor of St. John's the Evangelist Parish in Newton."

A: May I refer you again to Exhibit 62, the second sentence. You quoted the first sentence.

Q: Yes.

A: The second sentence says, from Father Shanley: "I agree with you that I have to stop wrestling with it and now devote full time to recovering my health."

Q: Okay.

A: "My health." "Therefore, I ask you to please accept this letter as my letter of resignation." So the reason that he asks is the reason of health.

Q: All right. What were his health problems, as you understood them in 1989, Cardinal Law?

A: I could not -- I can't recollect what they were.

Q: But before putting someone on medical or sick leave or whichever one Paul Shanley got, there would have to be some evaluation of the health problem; is that correct?

A: I would have had it within my judgment to grant this, and it seemed reasonable. He discussed this with me. But I cannot tell you now what those problems were.

Q: And the -- you felt that, or he felt that going to another location such as California might improve his health?

A: He did. And if I might add --

Q: Go ahead.

A: -- as well, there would have been no reason to accept his resignation because of the oath.

Q: I understand that. But so it had something to do with his health, but you can't recall exactly what it was; is that correct?

A: I cannot, but there should be some way of getting that kind of information.

Q: All right. Now Cardinal Law, are you aware that by 1991, that there were psychological evaluations being done about Paul Shanley both in California and by Dr. Cassem here in Massachusetts? When I say "evaluations," I don't mean that Dr. Cassem did an evaluation. He reviewed a letter from a psychologist of Paul Shanley's in California and wrote a letter to Bishop McCormack. Have you seen that?

A: I don't have that. I don't have the recall on how that was followed up on, no.

Q: You are aware, are you not, that when Paul Shanley went out to California, that Bishop Banks sent a letter to the very Reverend Philip Behan of the Diocese of San Bernadino, stating: "His Eminence, Cardinal Law, will appreciate whatever assistance can be given to Father Shanley. If you have any questions about this matter, I will be happy to answer them. I can assure you that Father Shanley has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese. He is resigned from his parish on his own, and we shall place him in parish ministry when he returns."

MR. MacLEISH: Let's get that document for the Cardinal, please, David.

Q: You're familiar with that language, though, while Mr. Thomas -- you've seen that document before?

A: I think I may have, but I'd like to see it again.

Q: Certainly. So is it accurate to state that while Paul Shanley was resigning for reasons of health, as Bishop Banks told the Diocese of San Bernadino, there was a one-year -- I'm sorry, there was an envisioning that Father Shanley would return back to Boston and the diocese?

A: What the letter, what my letter --

MR. TODD: Do you want this marked?

MR. MacLEISH: Yes. I do want it marked.

MR. TODD: Hold on.

(Law Exhibit No. 63, Letter, 1/16/90, marked for identification.)

A: Would you repeat that question.

Q: Certainly. Do you have Bishop Banks' letter?

A: I do.

Q: Again, Bishop Banks had knowledge of the 1985 Higgs letter, the 1988 allegation involving the patient at Maclean Hospital, and, yet, he states -- he assures the Diocese of San Bernadino that -- he assures them -- let me just borrow that copy. Can I borrow it, Cardinal Law? He assures them, does he not, that "I can assure you that Father Shanley has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese." Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: And in light of what had happened in 1985 and 1988, do you think that that was a complete and accurate statement by Bishop Banks to the Diocese of San Bernadino?

A: I'm sure that Bishop Banks felt that both the Higgs letter and the subsequent letter of '87 had been --

Q: '88?

A: '88. -- had been dealt with appropriately and did not rise to the level of a problem. I've also indicated that I think with the value of hindsight that it would have been a very good thing to have gone back and checked. But on the basis of those two letters themselves and how they were handled, they would not indicate that a problem existed.

You asked about Father Shanley's returning to the diocese. In '89 when I accepted his resignation as a pastor, I accepted his resignation as a pastor as a priest whom I thought was in good standing. And a priest in good standing not only may, with permission of the appropriate bishop, assist in, as a priest, in another diocese, but is welcome to come back to the diocese that is his diocese in order to assume a responsibility.

Q: Cardinal Law, you just testified that you didn't see any problem with the assurances that were given by Bishop Banks to the San Bernadino diocese, but we've already been through the Higgs letter and the Exhibit No. 59, in which you indicated, I thought I heard you say several minutes ago, that there should have been some further investigation into this.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. TODD: Objection to the question.

A: I think I said with hindsight and knowing everything that I have before me now, yes. But I can also see how it is that Bishop Banks would have written this letter on the basis of those two bits of information without the benefit of having looked at the previous file. I think that would be an accurate statement.

Q: So you feel that Bishop Banks somehow resolved satisfactorily that the allegations made in the Higgs letter and the allegations made by Mr. T. were not sufficiently serious or were not true as to cause any notification being given to the San Bernadino Diocese. Is that your testimony?

MR. TODD: Objection.

A: I think what I'm saying -- I know what I'm saying. I don't know how you're hearing it. What I'm saying is that in '85, the Higgs letter arrives. The Higgs letter makes claims about things that Father Shanley allegedly said in a talk at Christ the King Parish in Rochester, New York. That is investigated in terms of discussing it with Father Shanley.

Q: That's it.

A: I'm not sure that that's it. As far as I know, that's it. Again, one would have to ask the people immediately involved in handling it. The second letter comes in '88. It's not a letter; it's an interview. And again, it's an allegation as to what occurred, what was said, implications read into, I presume, body language or the level of the voice or whatever.

Q: Statements about sado-masochism.

A: And the topic was allegedly sado-masochism. The topic there, as indeed the many topics in the Higgs letter, are topics which raise very serious questions.

But in both instances, what you have are allegations of one person against what another person has said.

Q: We're not -- I don't want to go over what you testified to previously. You're not going back on anything that you testified about previously, Cardinal Law, on the import of these two letters; is that correct?

MR. ROGERS: Objection to form.

Q: I really did not intend the question to go back and look at the significance, because I think we spent a fair amount of time doing that.

A: I think we've spent a fair amount of time, too, Mr. MacLeish, but you referenced those two letters in the question you put to me, and I feel that I've got to go back to them again --

Q: Sure.

A: -- because if I don't, you leave an implication in my answer that I do not want to leave.

Q: But you don't know what Bishop Banks did either way after he got the second report from a different reporter in 1988 about allegedly improper behavior by Paul Shanley? You just don't know what he did?

A: That's correct.

MR. MacLEISH: Can we mark those next exhibits as a joint exhibit, please.

MR. TODD: As one?

MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, they're attachments to the letter. Then we'll finish up.

(Law Exhibit No. 64, Group of Documents, marked for identification.)

Q: This is Exhibit No. 64. If you would take a moment to read this memo to Bishop Hughes from Father McCormack and the attachments. And then after we're done with this document, then we'll stop for the day. (Pause.)

A: I've read the first one.

Q: Well, just on the first -- I'm really going to be concentrating on that, although you're free to read the other attachments if you'd like to, Cardinal.

A: Should I read those now?

Q: Yes, you can. I'll be concentrating on the cover memo.

(Pause.)

Q: All right. By 1991, Father McCormack is of the belief, as he expresses it in this memo to Bishop Hughes, December 9, 1991, that Paul Shanley is a sick person. Do you see that?

A: I see that.

Q: That could mean either physically sick or it could mean mentally --

A: That's correct.

Q: -- emotionally sick?

MR. TODD: Or both?

MR. MacLEISH: Or both, exactly.

Q: "I really question the advisability of asking Father Shanley to return to Boston for a psychiatric consultation with the view that he would be able to return to active ministry." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: So at least by December of 1991, your delegate for sexual abuse is questioning whether Paul Shanley should be returned to Boston for a psychiatric evaluation. Do you see that?

A: Yes. But I should -- I should say that it is not in his capacity as delegate for sexual abuse that he is handling this case, but as secretary for ministerial personnel, which is quite distinct.

Q: You don't really know that, do you, that he's handling this as secretary of ministerial personnel as opposed to --

A: My presumption is that, because there would be no reason for him to be handling it otherwise.

Q: We have to be careful. We're asking on what you know, Cardinal Law, as opposed to what Father McCormack knows. We know that there is a psychiatric issue involving Paul Shanley by 1991, and that Bishop McCormack, Father McCormack, considers him to be a sick person. That's what we know from this memorandum, correct?

A: The memorandum that he's a sick person is in reference to the letter from the general -- this Dr. Shaner out there in California stating that the patient has a history of chronic gastroenteritis and hiatal hernia which is manifested by epigastric pain, distention and cramps. He has an anxiety neurosis. He has severe, chronic allergic rhinitis and sinusitis, that it's been resistant, episodes of asthma. I believe that when there's reference to being sick, that that's, yes, that that's what it refers to.

Q: Bishop McCormack would be in a better position than you to describe what he meant by that, correct, than you would be?

A: That's correct, yes.

Q: Did you know in 1991, by 1991, that there was discussion of a psychiatric evaluation for Paul Shanley, Cardinal Law? Did you know that in 1991?

A: I can't recall whether I was aware of the fact that there was consideration of returning him for a psychiatric consultation with the view that he would be able to return to active ministry, because part of the problem here was, as I read what's here -- and you're right, it would be Bishop McCormack that I'd need to ask about this, which I'm not going to do because I presume you're going to do.

Q: Yes, I am.

A: But my presumption is that this psychiatric consultation is in terms of, is there a reason here why he can't work, not a reason related to the problem of sexual abuse.

Q: In fact, there's discussion of putting him on disability, is there not?

A: That's correct. Because of his physical problems.

Q: And then Bishop McCormack states, quote, in the second, third to last paragraph, he's stating he's not sure whether it should be full or partial disability. He states: "If we make it permanent, we have no contact with him or, at best, minimal contact. We would have no idea what he is doing."

A: That's correct.

Q: Have you ever seen language like that about any priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Law --

A: I don't know.

Q: -- expressing the view we would have no idea what he was doing?

A: I've certainly seen the idea expressed in a variety of ways that if a person is on partial disability, the idea of maintaining some kind of contact is a healthy thing. We should have a contact. We don't -- there's -- you know, you can lose sight of priests for a variety of reasons.

One of the things that I've done is appoint -- I have two priests working with senior priests for the simple reason that it isn't healthy for the priest if we lose contact with them.

And I'm sure that it's in those terms that Father McCormack then is thinking that with regard to Father Shanley, partial disability would maintain a contact with the diocese. Full disability, he'd be fully retired, he'd be on his own. There would be a loss of contact, which wouldn't be healthy. The man was barely, what, 65 at this point.

Q: You don't know whether Father McCormack was advocating that it would be advantageous that you not know what Paul Shanley was doing in this communication of 1991 to Bishop Hughes? You can't say on the basis of this letter that he was advocating it would be a bad idea to put him on permanent disability? All that we know is that he's saying if he's put on permanent disability, we would have no idea what he is doing. And my question to you is, was, I think, simple. Have you ever seen language like that in any priest's file?

A: I think it's very important not to take a sentence out of context. I think you would agree with me.

Q: Absolutely.

A: And what you read in the preceding sentence is if we make it permanent, we have no contact with him, or, at best, minimal contact.

What may be difficult to understand is that there is a pastoral relationship of a bishop with a priest. And what I think is being said here is that by giving him partial disability, this relatively young man, who is living out in California, not living within the Archdiocese, we will still have reason for contact that would be advantageous.

Q: You know that there are allegations of sexual abuse involving one individual out in California by Paul Shanley at San Bernadino. You know that?

A: I have heard that, yes.

Q: And you've apologized personally, have you not, to the Bishop of San Bernadino? You've apologized?

A: I certainly have.

Q: And you have really no idea if by 1991 there was some knowledge within the Archdiocese of Boston that Paul Shanley was involved, while he had been at Boston, in sexual misconduct with minors that was now known to the Archdiocese, do you?

A: As I -- Excuse me. Are you finished?

Q: Yes, I have finished.

A: As I have stated previously, my knowledge of sexual misconduct on the part of Father Paul Shanley dates to 1993. And to my knowledge -- 1993; isn't that correct?

Q: Yes. That's what you said.

A: Yeah. I thought I was hearing demurring from what I was saying. And to my knowledge, no one else in the Archdiocese had such knowledge previous to 1993.

Q: And that assumes that Ms. Gauvreau is mistaken in her affidavit, correct?

MR. TODD: Objection.

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q: That last statement?

A: What I have said about that affidavit is that the substance of that affidavit is that I have no memory of the two conversations alleged.

Q: And can neither admit nor deny that they took place?

A: That's correct.

MR. MacLEISH: Cardinal Law, you've been very good with us with your time this afternoon. We are going to, as I understand it, reconvene at some point after Labor Day. There will be a time negotiated by counsel, and I hope you have some well-deserved time off.

THE WITNESS: Thanks very much. Thank you.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:01. This is the end of Cassette 3 of 3 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.

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

Excerpt from Rule 30(e):

Submission to Witness; Changes; Signing. When the testimony is fully transcribed, the deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him, unless such examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties. Any changes in form or entered upon the deposition by the officer with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them.

* * * * * * * * * * *

I, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, have examined the above transcript of my testimony and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this _____ day of __________________, 2002.

_________________________________

Sworn and subscribed to before me this ____ day of ________________________, 2002.

_________________________________ Notary Public

My Commission Expires: _____________________

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF ESSEX

I, Kathleen L. Good, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that there came before me on the 14th day of August, 2002, the person hereinbefore named, who was duly sworn to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of his knowledge touching and concerning the matters in controversy in this cause; that he was thereupon examined upon his oath, and his examination reduced to typewriting under my direction; and that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am neither attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; and further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in the action. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 19th day of August, 2002.

___________________________ Notary Public

My Commission Expires: April 17, 2003



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