|
|
|
|
           |
       | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law October 11, 2002, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston On October 11, 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. 13-14 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 FIFTH 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 Friday,
October 11, 2002, commencing at 10:04 a.m.
K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES APPEARANCES: Greenberg TraurigALSO PRESENT: Wayne Martin, Videographer
WITNESS EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH DIRECT EXAMINATION THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is Wayne Martin. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts . Today is October 11, 2002, and the time is 10:04 a.m. This is the continued deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law, Volume 5, in a case being heard in Suffolk Superior Court, Gregory Ford, et. al., Plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, Civil Action No. 02- and related actions. The deposition is being taken at One International Place in Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is Kathleen Good of K. L. Good & Associates. Counsel will state their appearances and the examination will continue.
MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for the plaintiffs. MS. PILLSBURY: Courtney Pillsbury, for the plaintiffs. MR. MURPHY: James Murphy on behalf the plaintiffs. MRS. DOE: Mrs. Doe, parent. MR. DOE: Mr. Doe, parent. MS. NEALON: Diane Nealon for the plaintiffs. MR. MAFFEI: Present, Thomas Maffei, MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., for His Eminence Cardinal Law. MR. CRAWFORD: And Ian Crawford, for His Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law. CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH, cont.
Q: Good morning. Again, thank you for -- A: Good morning, Mr. MacLeish. Q: -- coming in to do your deposition today. I think this is now the fifth time we've been together. First, let me just afford you the opportunity, if you would like it, to modify, correct any part of your previous deposition that you would like to modify or correct. Is there anything you would like to correct, modify, change in any way, Cardinal Law? A: I'm not conscious of anything other than, you know, I did review some of the records and I have perhaps made some corrections. I can't recall the details of those, but I have nothing in my mind right now that I need to refer to. Q: Do you recall that when we were last together, we talked about your experience in Cape-Girardeau, Missouri, when you were bishop of the Springfield diocese? A: I recall your raising that issue, yes. Q: And do you recall me asking you whether when you were bishop of Springfield, Missouri, whether you were ever confronted with any allegation of sexual misconduct by a priest? A: Yes. Q: And you testified, did you not -- and we have the transcript right here -- that you could recall only one instance involving a Leonard Chambers? A: That's correct. Q: Did you know -- was there a parish under the Springfield diocese in Branson, Missouri, known as the Parish of Our Lady of the Lake? A: There was, and still is, I think. Q: And did you know Father Paul McHugh? A: I knew Father Paul McHugh. Q: He's deceased at this point; is that right? A: He's deceased. Q: Did you know a Father Hugh Beehan? A: That name does not -- that doesn't ring a bell with me. Q: Okay. Let me just give you the spelling on that, B-e-e-h-a-n, in case I mispronounced it. A: No, I don't recall the name. Q: Okay. Did you have occasion, Cardinal Law, to assist at mass in that parish at some point prior to the time that you left the Diocese of Springfield, Missouri, when Father McHugh was ill? A: Did I have occasion to celebrate mass in that parish? Q: Yes. A: Yes, I did. I was there ten years so there were times when I was in that parish. Q: Do you recall specifically that there came a time when Father McHugh became ill and was no longer able to celebrate mass? A: No, I don't recall that. I recall that he died, but I don't recall that there was an inability to celebrate mass Q: Did he die when you were Bishop of Springfield? A: He did. Q: Was there a period of time when there was a need for extra assistance at that parish because of the unfortunate death of Father McHugh? A: I'm sure there would have been, but I don't recall the details of that. Q: Did you ever fill in or assist in that parish with the celebration of mass or any other duties because of the death of Father McHugh? A: I may have. I have no recollection of that. I was -- you know, the diocese was a different kind of a diocese than Boston. Q: Right. A: There were -- so that it could very well have been that I went down on a weekend to fill in if there was a -- if I was free. But I don't recall that detail. Q: Do you recall in 1982 meeting with a twelve-year old young man who was interested in the priesthood and this young man informing you that he had been molested by Father McHugh? A: I certainly do not recall that. Q: Do you recall telling this, any young man, when you were in the Diocese of Springfield, Missouri -- withdraw the question. Do you recall, Cardinal Law, telling a young man who was making allegations against Father McHugh that he had to keep quiet about the abuse if he wanted to go on to seminary, or words to that effect? MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form. You may answer. THE WITNESS: Excuse me? MR. CRAWFORD: You may answer. A: First of all, I don't recall such an allegation. Q: Right. A: And No. 1. Q: Right. A: No. 2, I have certainly never told anyone under any circumstances that if you make such an accusation, you would not be accepted for the seminary. Q: Okay. So if this young man were to so testify, then, even though you don't have a recollection, in your view, based upon your practices at the time, you have to state that such an allegation would be untrue? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. MR. MacLEISH: That's bad question. Let me put it to you this way. Q: If a young man were to so testify that he had been told by you to keep quiet about allegations of abuse involving Father McHugh, that would be incorrect testimony in your view; is that correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. You may answer. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. A: Mr. MacLeish, in terms of the hypothetical that you put to me -- Q: Right. A: -- I have -- do I have to answer hypotheticals? The fact of the matter is that I do not recall at all having occurred the instance that you have put before me. No. 1. No. 2, I do not recall ever having said to anyone that if you persist in making such an accusation, that will preclude you from being considered as an acceptable candidate for the seminary. Q: And you don't also remember ever telling anyone to keep quiet about allegations of sexual misconduct that they might make against a priest; is that correct? A: That's another question, isn't it? That's a much broader question. Q: Right. A: In the context in which you set forth the question, I do not recall that. I do not recall in the wider context either. Q: Okay. So just so I'm clear, it's never, as you can best recall, been your practice to tell anyone, from the time that you first were ordained up until the present time, to keep quiet about allegations of sexual misconduct involving a priest. Is that your testimony? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. You can answer if you can. A: I'm not sure that I can respond to that, Mr. MacLeish. I can't recall from 1961 until now every conversation that I have had, and it would -- is that my policy or has it been my custom or has it been my approach to suggest that the best way to handle this issue is to keep it quiet? The answer is no. Q: Okay. Let's just -- the question did span a broad period of time. So let's look at Boston since you arrived as Archbishop here in Boston. Since that time, Cardinal Law, can you ever recall stating to anyone who was making an allegation of sexual misconduct against a priest that that person should be quiet, not report the allegation, words to that effect? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer. A: No. Q: You cannot recall? A: No. Q: Okay. Now, when you came to Boston in 1984, you were aware, were you not, of a social service agency called the Department of Social Services? You became aware of that agency? A: Well, I became aware of it. I probably wasn't aware when I came, but I became aware of it, yes. Q: You became generally aware there was a child protective agency in Massachusetts; is that correct? A: I would have become aware of it indirectly through Catholic Charities, which is our social service arm and which would interact and interface with social services. Q: Would it be fair to state that by 1986, you were aware that there was such a child protective agency in Massachusetts called the Department of Social Services? A: I can't answer when that was that I became specifically aware of that, but I am aware of it. I was aware of the facts in a general way that this state, like most states, would have an appropriate agency to handle these matters. Q: When you say "these matters," you're referring -- A: With regard to child welfare. Q: Let me finish the question. When you say "these matters," you're referring to matters involving the welfare of children; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And that includes the abuse and neglect of children; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you may have not have known the precise name then by 1986 of the child protective agency, but you were generally aware that there was such an agency here in Massachusetts; is that correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You may answer. A: I was generally aware that there would have been a state agency charged with the social welfare of children, yes. Q: Is it true that one of the reasons why it was not, as you put it, your custom or policy to tell people to keep quiet about allegations of sexual abuse was because you wanted these matters to be taken seriously by public authorities when people reported them? Is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Objection. A: Yes. I would not want to give the impression, in response to your question, Mr. MacLeish, that I had direct and frequent contact with persons making such allegations to begin with. Q: Right. A: Would you repeat that question again. Q: Yes. Certainly. One of the reasons why you would not want individuals who might have credible allegations of sexual misconduct by a priest to keep quiet was because it could be important for those allegations to be reported to public authorities such as the child welfare agency in Massachusetts. Would you agree with me about that? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You may answer. A: I don't know to what extent that issue was present in my mind, but certainly the -- as handling of these cases evolved, and certainly at the point in '93, when we -- and before that as we prepared the written policy -- the indication to those who were bringing forward allegations, the suggestion that they should consider reporting this was because of the fact that, that this was an appropriate agency and it was appropriate for that information to come forward, yes. Q: All right. If someone from the Massachusetts Department of Social Services had personally contacted you in 1986 to inform you that there were allegations against diocesan priests, is that a matter in 1986 that you would have taken seriously? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer it. A: If that was a matter that was -- that actually was before me and that I saw, I would have certainly taken it seriously and I would have referred it to the person who would have assisted me in these matters. Q: And we've been over your statement in May where you express that you wish you had known about the allegation involving Father Paul Shanley, Cardinal. That's Exhibit No. 12. Do you want to take a look at that? A: Exhibit No. 12? Q: Right. A: They go backwards. Okay. Q: Yeah. I want to direct you specifically -- we've been over this exhibit before -- to the third page, and you'll see the second full paragraph on that page. Take your time if you want to read it. I don't mean to cut you short there. A: If I may. The third page? Q: Yes. A: Any particular part? Q: Yeah. I'm going to read the second full paragraph, Cardinal. "In addition, it has been reported that someone alleges I was informed after mass in 1984 that Father Shanley had molested a child. I have absolutely no memory of such a conversation, and those who have worked most closely with me can attest that such a report would have been acted upon. 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. I wish I had known in 1984 and I wish I had been aware of the 1966 report. It is only possible to act based on what is known, however." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Those were your words in May -- A: They were. Q: -- of this year; is that correct, Cardinal Law? A: That's correct. Q: You'll notice in this statement that was issued by you, you'll notice that in the second sentence, it states that a "report would have been acted upon." Do you see those words in the second sentence? A: I do. Q: And the last sentence, it says: "It's only possible to act based on what is known, however." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: All right. So that implies, does it not, that if you had been aware of the 1966 report involving Father Paul Shanley, that there would have been some sort of action taken by you in the Archdiocese; is that correct? A: What I was attempting to say here was, first of all, that I had no memory -- Q: Right. A: -- of that allegation having come to me. And then secondly, what I was setting forth here is that those who worked with me in that could attest to the fact that had such a report come, that that information would have been acted upon, and that there was no record of that having been acted upon. Q: Right. I'm focusing on the word "action." What type of action did you have in your mind when you wrote that statement? A: Well, the kind of action that, in fact, is very much in place now, and the kind of action that we had in place since '93, and the kind action that, you know, was present even before then. And that was the action of investigating the allegation, looking at the facts, trying to ascertain the substantiality of the allegation, and then taking appropriate action in response to that information. Q: You know, if we take a look at that sentence in the last part, Cardinal Law, of Exhibit No. 12, it states: "I wish I had known in 1984 and I wish I had been aware of the 1966 report. It is only possible to act based on what is known, however." Would you agree with me that there were different protocols for dealing with allegations of childhood sexual abuse before 1993 and after 1993? A: Before? Q: 1993 and after 1993. A: Different, but, again, the '93 policy, the written policy, wasn't created in a vacuum. There were elements of it that certainly were new, and one of them was the review board. But the idea of trying to ascertain the facts, the idea of trying to deal in a responsible way with the evidence, the result of that investigation, that -- what we did in '93 built upon our experience in this. But certainly, in '93, we did, I think, develop our policy in a significant way. Q: But there was no, as I think we've covered before, Cardinal Law, no written policy concerning the protection of children from sexual abuse prior to 1993; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And I think we've also established that the protection of children from sexual abuse in Archdiocesan-sponsored programs was one of your top priorities; is that correct? A: Certainly. The history, I think, of this Archdiocese from the time -- from my time and before my time has been one of providing services for children and being concerned for children, and, obviously, like any other agency, there would be a desire and a priority in trying to protect children. Q: Right. And a particular -- A: However, the consciousness of this particular issue is a consciousness that I think is much more acute today than it was in earlier time. And the knowledge about this issue is -- certainly my knowledge is much more acute today than it was before. Q: When you say consciousness about this issue, you're referring to consciousness about sexual abuse; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you're talking about your own consciousness, consciousness within the Church; is that correct? A: Yes. MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer. A: But I would -- yes, but I would -- Q: You're not an expert in what was the consciousness in other areas of society in 1984? A: I'm not an expert about many things, perhaps no things. But my sense is that, that there is a general keener awareness today across society. Now certainly -- is it even? I mean, did every segment of society come to a deeper consciousness at the same time? No. I'm sure that there are segments of society which were ahead of the curve. Q: When you refer to a deeper consciousness, Cardinal Law, you would agree with me that when you came in as Archbishop of Boston in 1984, you knew that the sexual abuse of children was something that was wrong. You had dealt with it in Missouri and you had dealt with it in Mississippi. Is that correct? A: Yes. Q: You knew that sexual abuse of children could be particularly traumatizing if it was inflicted by someone in a position of trust. You knew that in 1984; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: You knew that there could be psychological damage to children if they were sexually abused by a priest; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And protecting children from sexual abuse by clergy was, therefore, a top priority for you in 1984 when you came in as Archbishop of Boston? A: Yes. But, you know, Mr. MacLeish, I would not be accurate if I were to leave the impression that this was seen as a pervasive, major problem, because, as a matter of fact, I did not see it as that. I was not -- I did not view it as -- in the dimensions that I now view it. Q: When you say it's not a "pervasive, major problem," you would certainly agree with me that it would be a pervasive, major problem for the family of a child that was -- A: I did -- Q: Let me finish the question, please. -- a pervasive, major problem for the family of a child that was sexually abused by a priest? A: The reason why I inappropriately interrupted you is because the way you restated what I said was inaccurate. Q: Okay. A: What I said is that I did not see it -- I did not say it was not a problem. I said I did not see it as a major problem in the dimensions in which I now see it. And what I mean by that is that the number of cases that have come forward recently for an earlier time frame make me understand something about that earlier time frame that I did not understand in 1984 when I came here. Q: Let's just focus on what your knowledge was in 1984. And I understand that your knowledge of the pervasiveness of the problem has increased. You knew that if a child was sexually molested by a priest in 1984, it had the potential to be a major problem -- A: Yes. Q: -- for the family and child; is that correct? A: Certainly. Q: And it was something back in 1984 that you would take action on, as is set forth in Exhibit No. 12, if such an allegation came to your attention; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you were the final person to make decisions about the reassignment of priests; is that correct? A: I was. Q: And when there was an allegation of sexual misconduct involving a priest that was deemed credible, you would receive reports from your staff; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: That would include Bishop McCormack; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And when you state that you did not believe it was a major, pervasive problem, you're referring to within the Archdiocese of Boston, I take it; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: But you would agree with me that from 1984 to 1989 -- let's go back, yes -- 1984, when you arrived, up to 1989, which was the period of time up to the allegation involving Mr. Ford's son being molested and Mr. and Mrs. Doe's son being molested at St. Jean's Parish in Newton, you would, during that period of time, have occasion to be informed of priests against whom there were credible allegations of sexual misconduct; is that correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. You can answer if you can. Q: Do you understand the question? A: I do understand the question, Mr. MacLeish. Absent written records about that time, I would say that in all likelihood, yes, the answer would be yes. Q: So your consciousness with respect to particular cases involving particular priests was a high one, is that correct, from 1984 to 1989? A: It would have been high with regard to specific cases, yes. Q: But there was, as I think you've expressed earlier, this other obligation that you also had which was to protect the Church from scandal, correct? A: I'm not so sure that the issue of scandal would be the operative concern here. I think that a case -- one has to try to put one's self in the time and see what is the protection of the plaintiff, how did the allegation come forward. Scandal, protecting the Church from scandal is certainly a motive, but in this kind of a situation, would certainly not be, to my mind, a dominant motive, and I would hope was not a dominant motive. Q: You had a general obligation as Archbishop of Boston to protect the Church from scandal, did you not? A: I had a general -- I have a general obligation as the Archbishop of Boston to do the best I can do in handling -- in providing pastoral leadership and in dealing with some very difficult situations and to deal with them in an equitable and in an effective way. Q: But my question is more specific. My question is, is it not -- has it not been since 1984, one of your missions to protect the Church from scandal? A: Frankly, Mr. MacLeish, that is not how I have viewed my mission. My mission is to try to see that the Church does the right thing in the right way. Q: All right. Go ahead. A: And that's the best protection against scandal. Q: So when you said that you did not see childhood sexual abuse by clergy as a pervasive, major problem, you were referring to the '84 to '89 time period, Cardinal Law? A: You introduced the question originally to me as to the time when I arrived here in '84. Q: Right. A: And coming into this Archdiocese in 1984, I had no sense whatsoever that this was a major, pervasive problem in this Archdiocese. Q: Even though you yourself had dealt with it in Mississippi -- A: I had dealt with the problem, yes. But -- Q: Let me finish the question. MR. ROGERS: He was finishing the answer. I think he's entitled to finish the answer. MR. MacLEISH: He interrupted me, but that's okay. Finish the answer. THE WITNESS: You go ahead and ask the question. Q: Even though you had dealt with it in two situations in Mississippi, I think we established, and also at least one occasion in Missouri, you didn't view it, when you came to Boston, as a pervasive, major scandal? A: Mr. MacLeish, it was not a pervasive problem in Mississippi. It was not -- what is the word -- excuse me. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by the term "pervasive." Would you describe that -- define that term for me. Q: Let's focus -- I will. Let's focus on the '84 to '89 time period, Cardinal Law. You have some recollection of meeting with Father Doyle and, in 1984 and before, and speaking about the potential problem of childhood sexual abuse by clergy. You have some recollection of that; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: You arrive in Boston and you've dealt with, I think we have three situations in your prior career in Mississippi and in Springfield, Missouri, involving the sexual abuse of children by clergy, correct? A: That's correct. Q: Between 1984 and 1989, if we could look at that time period, which is the operative time period in the Ford case, did you generally become aware that there were situations within the Archdiocese of Boston where there were credible allegations of childhood sexual misconduct by clergy? A: Yes. Absent the records for those years, but relying in a general way on memory, I would say that I did become aware in those years of some allegations being made against some priests, yes. Q: We're going to go over some of the records of that time period later. But you don't, as you sit here today, this morning, believe that in the '84 to '89 time period, the problem was a pervasive one within the Archdiocese? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. MR. ROGERS: I object also to the form. A: Again, Mr. MacLeish, what do you mean by "pervasive"? Q: Well, you brought it up. Actually, Cardinal, you used that word initially yourself, so why don't you give us a definition you're comfortable with so that we'll be clear on the record. Does that sound fair? A: Fine. A pervasive problem would be a problem that is manifesting itself in a dimension which is -- which becomes characteristic of the, in this case, of the population you're talking about, which would be the clergy. And certainly, I did not see this as a pervasive problem. Q: Between 1984 and 1989? A: That's correct. Q: Did you at some point see it as a pervasive problem? A: I don't see it as a pervasive problem in terms of the overall number of clergy and the percentage of those against whom allegations have been made, but I see it as a problem of profound concern, and the number of cases is of profound concern to me. Q: But it's not a pervasive problem even now? A: It's not a pervasive problem in the sense that it -- that it affects most of the clergy, of course not. Q: You used the term "percentage," Cardinal, in your prior answer in terms of the number of clergy involved. Do you recall that testimony? It's not a pervasive problem in terms of the percentage of individuals involved. Do you remember saying that? A: Mr. MacLeish, this is a terrible problem, you know, and if there is one case of clergy abuse, that's a very serious matter. Q: Right. My question was you used the word "percentage" a minute ago and I just want to get an understanding of, that you were referring to the percentage of clergy involved in the Archdiocese of Boston. Do you remember that statement that you made? A: Yes, yes, I -- Q: What, Cardinal Law, is your understanding of the percentage of clergy against whom there are now credible allegations of sexual misconduct within the Archdiocese of Boston? A: I can't give you that precise number. Q: Could you give me a general number? A: I would rather not because I don't want to be pressed on a number when I say that I cannot give you the number and then try to guess at the number. I would prefer to get that number and give it to you. MR. CRAWFORD: Let me direct you should not guess at an answer. MR. MacLEISH: That's inappropriate coaching, Ian. We've talked about that before. MR. CRAWFORD: It's not coaching. MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. Q: Cardinal Law, you are generally aware, are you not, that the number of allegations against priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, both living and deceased, from 1960 is now approaching 100 priests? Are you aware of that? A: I am not aware of all of the cases that have come forward recently, and I can't, with any assurance, speak to the number, but it's a large number. Q: And as you said earlier, any time that there's a credible allegation, it's a major problem for you -- A: Absolutely. Q: -- and it always has been a major problem for you; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: It's information that you've wanted to know about so that you could take action; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And what you said in your May statement was that if you'd known something about Father Paul Shanley, either directly through contact with a parishioner, for example, or through records, you would have taken action. MR. ROGERS: I object to the form. I don't think that's what the May statement says. MR. MacLEISH: Let the Cardinal describe it. A: I believe what I said here was the 1993 allegation was my first knowledge. Q: Right. A: Which I think is important to say. I wish I had known in 1984, which was my statement on this occasion, and is my statement now, and I wish I had been aware of the 1966 report. That was my statement then -- Q: Right. A: -- it's my statement now. Yes. Q: What I'm trying to get at, Cardinal Law, is that doesn't this statement imply that if you had been aware of the prior allegations, or if someone had come up and told you that there was an allegation against Father Paul Shanley, you would have taken action? A: Yes. Q: Okay. But you didn't know until 1993? A: That's what I'm saying. Q: That's what you're saying. Now, you, I think we've established earlier, had a personal secretary when you started at the Archdiocese of Boston whose name is Father William Helmick; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And he had been with you -- he'd been with Cardinal Medeiros before he became your personal secretary; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: I think we've been through in both the Shanley case and a number of other cases to date in your deposition that sometimes when there were complaints specifically about priests that came in to your office, they would be stamped "Not acknowledged at the Residence," and that the purpose of the stamp was then so it could be followed up by your Vicar for Administration; is that correct? A: That's correct. I think what I had said earlier -- and I hope it's what I've said earlier because it's the fact -- is that the way in which correspondence is handled in my office, is to usually refer letters to those whose responsibility it will be to follow-up on this, which means to look into this, to assess it and to recommend or prepare or to take appropriate action. And that stamp is a way in which that has tended to be done. Q: Okay. So if there was not a stamp on the particular communication, then it would suggest that the matter was not referred out to one of your subordinates; is that correct? A: Not necessarily, but it could -- it would be an indication that possibly that was the case. Q: There was correspondence, Cardinal, that you did review in the '84 to '89 time period concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by priests; is that not correct? A: I am not able to focus on specific allegations, but it could have been. I can't -- if you were to ask me to give names right now, I couldn't. MR. MacLEISH: We'll mark an exhibit here. (Law Exhibit No. 65, Letter, 7/10/86, marked for identification.)
MR. CRAWFORD: Do you want him to look at this? MR. MacLEISH: Yes. If you could just look at that. (Pause.) (Law Exhibit No. 66, Letter, 8/19/86, marked for identification.) (Law Exhibit No. 67, Letter, 8/25/86, marked for identification.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 10:42. We'll stop the video to go off the record. (Pause.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record at 10:44. Q: Cardinal Law, have you had the opportunity to review Exhibits 65, 66 and 67? A: I have. MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Rogers, we have, for the record, redacted copies that omit the name of this victim, but we're happy to provide you with unredacted copies during the break. Q: Cardinal Law, you'll see on July 10, 1986, an individual who works for the Department of Social Services wrote you a letter; is that correct? A: I see this letter here now, yes. Q: And you'll see it has official letterhead at the top saying the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Human Services, Department of Social Services." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: This is a letter from a government -- employee of a government agency; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And you'll see also that the letter starts by referencing the TV series called, quote, 1986, where the topic of sexual abuse of minor children by parish priests came up. Do you see that in the first paragraph? A: I see that. Q: It states in the first paragraph as follows: "The special on sexual abuse of minor children by Catholic priests talked about how the Catholic Church did not acknowledge the problem, enforce sanctions on priests who were involved in such cases and simply transferred the priest to another unsuspecting parish." Do you see that? A: I see that. Q: And by 1986, you had made the decision, had you not, to send Father John Geoghan to St. Julia's Parish in Weston, Massachusetts? Is that correct? A: He was transferred at that time, I think, yes. Q: And he was transferred without informing the parishioners that there had been allegations of sexual misconduct against him; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And Father Eugene O'Sullivan, who had pled guilty to rape, had been assigned to the Diocese of Matuchen by the time this letter from the Department of Social Services was received in 1986; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of that question. I don't believe there's any testimony about assignment. A: I did not assign him to Matuchen. Q: He was permitted -- I think we've been over this on the second day of your deposition -- he was permitted to go to the Diocese of Matuchen where he would serve as a priest after he had pled guilty to rape. Didn't we go over that in the second day of your deposition? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. I don't believe he pled guilty to rape either. I think it's mischaracterization of testimony. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. A: I believe that the way you are describing this case is not the way in which this case was perceived by me or the way this case was handled. Q: I'm not asking about perceptions. Let me see if we can just agree on the following: By the time this letter, Exhibit 65, from the Department of Social Services that refers to a television program where priests accused of sexual misconduct were transferred to another unsuspecting parish, as of the date of this letter, Father Eugene O'Sullivan, you would agree with me, had pled guilty to some crime involving sexual misconduct with children. Would you agree with me about that? MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question. You can answer. A: Mr. MacLeish, I would have to look at the record there. I don't keep that in mind. Q: Well, at some point, you're aware that Father Eugene O'Sullivan pled guilty to some crime involving the sexual misconduct of children. That did happen? A: I would want to review the record and see what he did and did not do. Q: We've already had some of your testimony, but we'll be happy to go back over that. But you do agree with me that John Geoghan had been assigned by you to St. Julia's without the parish, the parishioners, rather, being informed that there were allegations of child molestation against him? A: I would agree that Father Geoghan was assigned, with my understanding at the time based upon medical advice that this was a safe and appropriate assignment. Q: Well, Cardinal, we went through that, I think, before, is that you were the one to make the final decisions. The medical doctors didn't recommend reassignment; they simply prepared a report for the Archdiocese. Is that not the case? A: That's correct, Mr. MacLeish, but I would not want the record to imply that there was a willful assignment of someone who was perceived to be a danger to children. It was quite the opposite. Q: That was your perception, that he was not a danger to children, correct? A: Well, that's correct. Q: And it turns out that that was not a correct perception, is that not true, Cardinal Law? A: That's true. Have you ever made a mistake, Mr. MacLeish? Q: He went on to molest children at St. Julia's where you had assigned him; is that not true? A: That's correct. Q: And then he was sent to the Institute for Living, is that correct, in 1989? A: That's correct. Q: And he was then reassigned by you back to St. Julia's where he molested other children; is that not true? A: I am not certain about the time frames of the abuse, but I can certainly say that any assignment that he had after the Institute of Living was made because of that assessment of the Institute of Living. Q: We're going to go over that in a moment, Cardinal Law. But can you point to an assessment of John Geoghan or any other priest where the assessment itself recommends that a priest who has been accused of child molestation should be assigned to active ministry again? A: As you yourself have said just a moment ago, the medical personnel don't make that kind of a recommendation, no. Q: You're the one that makes the final decision; is that correct? A: In -- yes. Q: So here we have a letter in 1986, this would have been following the first assignment of Father Geoghan then to St. Julia's, where you have a letter which expresses concern about the transfer of priests to unsuspecting parishes after there's been an allegation of abuse; is that correct? See that in the first paragraph? A: Well, this is a letter which speaks about a television show that makes that allegation, that's correct. Q: Right. A: I must say that this is a letter that I do not recall ever having seen. Q: I understand. But you understand, Cardinal Law, that this is a letter from a government agency. You see that, correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. A: I see on the letterhead. Q: Is this not the type of letter that would have been brought to your attention by Father Helmick when it was received at the Archdiocese? MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form. You may answer. A: I can't answer that question. Q: Then you'll see -- go ahead. A: I can't answer that question because I don't know the response of Father Helmick. Q: We're going to get to that in a minute. A: All right. Q: In the second paragraph, Cardinal Law, the letter states: "As a former victim of sexual misuse by a number of diocesan priests, I have witnessed firsthand the pain and anguish that such an incident can occur." Do you see that? A: I do that. Q: Is it not, you would agree with me, a fair reading of this letter, this man is reporting himself that he has been victimized by diocesan priests? A: It certainly appears to be the case. Q: And it's plural; it's not just one? A: Yes. Q: It's plural? A: Yes. Q: And then in the concluding paragraph, it states: "If you are interested in hearing more about the circumstances of my past experiences as a victim and its continuing emotional effects, perhaps we can schedule a meeting." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: So would it have been your practice in 1986, if there were someone, particularly someone from a child protection agency, reporting to you that he had been abused by diocesan priests, would it have not been consistent with your unwritten policy to schedule a meeting? A: It would certainly have been my own policy and my hope and my desire that anyone coming forward in this way would have been met with, and the circumstances being alleged would have been pursued, not only for the sake of the victim, but also for the sake of determining if there were people out there who were putting children at risk. Q: Okay. That was your policy in 1986; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: You'll notice on this letter, unlike some of the other letters that we've been through, Cardinal Law, such as the Higgs letter -- you remember that letter? A: Yes. Q: This one is not stamped "Not acknowledged at Residence." A: That's correct. Q: Now, you'll see Exhibit No. 66, which is Father Helmick's response? A: That's correct. MR. MacLEISH: Again, we can provide you, Mr. Rogers, with the original letter of Father Helmick that has the name of the person. This is actually someone that we represent and we're happy to also make him available for a deposition. Q: The response that is sent to this individual is: "His Eminence Cardinal Law has asked me to respond to your letter of July 10." You see that? A: I do. Q: And you agree with me that this letter of July 10 sets forth some very serious matters that you would want to know about, correct? A: That's correct. Q: And it says: "Whatever might have been the truth of the TV show which you saw, you may be sure that any incident of sexual abuse of a child by anyone is viewed most seriously by the Church. Here in the Archdiocese of Boston, if there were to be an incident of such abuse by a priest, you can be sure that the matter would be taken most seriously with deep concern for the victim, the people and the priest. Thank you for expressing your concern to His Eminence. With best wishes, I am sincerely in Christ, William Helmick." See that? A: I do. Q: So the first paragraph of the letter states that you had asked Father Helmick to respond to Exhibit 65, this letter of July 10, 1986, correct? A: That's what it says, Mr. MacLeish, and I'd like to comment on that. Q: We're going to allow you to comment on it, Cardinal, but before we get there, do you know that Father Helmick was deposed in this very room two days ago? Are you aware of that generally? A: No, I'm not. Q: I can represent to you that he testified that in light of that first sentence in his letter, he would have discussed Exhibit No. 65 with you. Would you agree with me that in fact you did discuss this letter of July 10, 1986, from the Department of Social Services, with Father Helmick before he sent his response to the Department of Social Services? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. MR. CRAWFORD: Note mine also. MR. MacLEISH: You can answer. A: I really cannot agree to that. You know, I cannot agree to that. I would understand that certainly the substance of the letter, the importance of the letter would indicate that it would have been discussed with me. On the other hand, I do not recall seeing this letter, and the phrase, "His Eminence Cardinal Law has asked me to respond to your letter of July 10" actually can cover -- can be an implicit -- a reference to an implicit understanding that there are matters which the secretary is able to respond to for me implicitly without my having necessarily seen it. Q: You agree with me that the literal text of the sentence, excuse me, the literal text, "His Eminence Cardinal Law has asked me to respond to your letter of July 10," suggests there was a conversation with you about this letter? The literal text? MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. A: The literal text does suggest that. The style for the handling of correspondence would allow a secretary to understand implicitly that I want this responded to by them because that's part of their job. Q: Given -- go ahead. A: I must say that the second paragraph is an adequate response, an accurate reflection of the attitude of the Archdiocese. What obviously is missing is picking up on the possibility of -- on meeting with this person to determine what that person's experience had been and how that might impact in terms of personnel in the Archdiocese. Q: Cardinal Law, you have a state official charged with protecting children writing to you and telling you that he has been the victim of sexual misuse by a number of diocesan priests. He then, in the concluding paragraph, asks that if you're interested in hearing more about this, we can schedule a meeting. That's the sum and substance of what's set forth in Exhibit 65, correct? MR. ROGERS: I object to this. MR. CRAWFORD: Is that a question? MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question as well. A: That's the sum and substance -- MR. CRAWFORD: Wait. One at a time. MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. There's no indication here that this is an individual who is a state official charged with protection of children. I think it's an argumentative question and inappropriate. MR. CRAWFORD: If you can answer -- Q: Cardinal Law, can you answer the question? He's willing to talk to you about his experience as a victim of sexual abuse. Do you see that in the letter? Is that what it says? A: Yes. In the letter that I do not recall ever having seen before. Q: Right. I understand that you don't recall ever having seen it before, but I'm asking you is in this case, this gentleman, who is writing on letterhead from the Department of Social Services, reports that he's been the victim of sexual misuse by a number of diocesan priests and is willing to meet with you. Is that not correct? A: That's what the letter says. MR. ROGERS: It's now eleven o'clock, Mr. MacLeish. MR. MacLEISH: Can I just finish this? We started late. Just a few more questions and then we'll break. Q: So the response to this individual by Father Helmick did not follow-up on his offer to meet, to discuss his experiences, correct? A: That's correct. Q: And was that consistent -- the omission of that follow-up concerning the meeting, was that consistent with your unwritten policy that was in effect in 1986 concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by priests? A: Let me say, Mr. MacLeish, even though this person uses, you know, rather -- not very forceful about the idea of a meeting, "If you are interested in hearing more about the circumstances of my past experience as a victim and its continuing emotional effects, perhaps we can schedule a meeting," I would certainly have wanted such a meeting to take place. Q: But Father Helmick's letter doesn't reflect that, does it? A: Father Helmick's letter does not reflect that. Q: You would want to know about any diocesan priests that were abusing children? A: I would have wanted to have known, yes. Q: If there had been such a meeting, would you be surprised to learn that this gentleman would have reported to you allegations concerning Father Paul Shanley, Father Gale and Father Graham? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. MR. ROGERS: Objection to form of the question. A: I would have no way of knowing who the people are because the letter doesn't mention anyone, so I would have had absolutely no way of guessing who those might be or even whether they were in this Archdiocese. But certainly, I would have wanted that meeting to have taken place. Q: So there was a violation of the policy, correct -- MR. CRAWFORD: Objection. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. Q: -- by Father Helmick? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. He should have scheduled a meeting. Isn't it just common sense? MR. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question again. MR. MacLEISH: Why don't we take a break and he can think about that during the break. MR. ROGERS: That's not the purpose of the break, Mr. MacLeish. MR. CRAWFORD: If you want to ask a question when we come back, he'll give an answer. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 11:01. We'll stop the video to go off the record. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record. The time now is 11:15 a.m. Q: Cardinal Law, when Father Helmick was here, he testified that he was not authorized to write a letter on your behalf unless he had spoken to you about it, specific letter. Was that in fact the policy as you remember it in July, I'm sorry, August of 1986, when this Exhibit 66 was sent out? MR. ROGERS: Object to the form. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can answer. MR. CRAWFORD: Note my objection also. A: My understanding would have been that secretaries, both now and then, would have been empowered to respond to correspondence in my name -- Q: Okay. A: -- where that was appropriate. Q: He also testified that he was not authorized by you to say he had spoken to you about a matter when in fact he had not. Was that your understanding of the policy that was in effect in 1986? A: You know, I don't really recall discussions about policy. I think that, as I have stated already, my understanding and my expectation would have been that as a personal secretary, handling correspondence for me, knowing my mind in a general way and very often specific ways, in order to handle the volume of correspondence that a person holding Father -- Monsignor Helmick's position would indeed be able to say, as he does here, "His Eminence Cardinal Law has asked me to respond to your letter of July 10." There was an implicit request, as far as my understanding is concerned, and that's why I've indicated that in regard to this letter. I cannot respond or comment on what Monsignor Helmick said in deposition. Q: Okay. So you have Exhibit 65, this complaint that you just testified about sets forth serious allegations that comes in, an offer to meet, diocesan priests involved in, as he described it, sexual misuse. You would agree with me that Father Helmick's response to that does not reflect any invitation to set up a meeting. You would agree with me about that, Cardinal Law? A: I would not want to agree -- you didn't imply this, but I want to make it clear that the letter itself does not say that these are priests of the Archdiocese of Boston. It doesn't make the charge any less egregious, but I just, as a matter of record, it does not say that. Q: Doesn't use the word -- go ahead. A: And to infer that, I think, there would be no reason to infer that from this letter. Q: How would you know either way, Cardinal Law, whether it was referring to priests of the Archdiocese of Boston or priests of other dioceses? Wouldn't you want to know whether it was a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You may answer. A: You asked two questions there. First is: How would you know? And that's exactly the point I'm making, that you wouldn't know. And the second question is: Wouldn't you want to know? Of course I would want to know. But the letter itself does not imply or does not suggest that these are priests of the Archdiocese of Boston. Q: It says either way. I mean, you don't know either way, Cardinal Law? A: But one would want to follow-up with the person, which I think is to the point. Q: Are you testifying that Exhibit 65, this letter from an individual working at the Department of Social Services, are you testifying that you can read the second paragraph as meaning that it does not include -- that this man was not a victim of sexual misuse by Archdiocesan priests? Is that what your testimony is? Or is it your testimony that you can't tell either way? A: If you got that out of what I just said, then either I don't know how to speak English or you're not hearing me. Q: Probably I'm not hearing you correctly. A: Absolutely not. What I am saying is that -- well, let me read what the person says. Q: Right. A: And my presumption is that the person is working for the agency -- Q: Sure. A: -- that is carried on the letterhead, but I have no knowledge of that. "As a former victim of sexual misuse by" -- and it's "misuse" here. Q: Right. I used those words earlier. A: --"sexual misuse by a number of" -- "by a number of diocesan priests." All I'm saying is -- Q: Why don't you read the full sentence. A: "I have witnessed firsthand the pain and anguish that such an incident can occur." All I'm saying is that that letter in and of itself does not say that these are diocesan priests in the Archdiocese of Boston. It doesn't say that they're in Manchester, New Hampshire. They could be anywhere. So my only point is that this letter, of itself, does not suggest that these priests are of the Archdiocese of Boston. However, as I said, Mr. MacLeish, it doesn't change the egregious nature of the act nor does it -- nor does it argue for not meeting with this person. All I'm saying is that the letter of itself does not make a charge against priests of this Archdiocese. Q: You don't know from reading the letter, Cardinal, whether it's the Archdiocese or some other diocese, do you? A: The letter does not make a charge against priests of this Archdiocese. That's all I'm saying, Mr. MacLeish. Q: How do you know that, Cardinal Law? How do you know that? How do you know that, respectfully? It says: "As a former victim of sexual misuse by a number of diocesan priests, I have witnessed firsthand the pain and anguish that such an incident can occur." Letter is addressed to you. How can you exclude that this man was victimized by priests of the Archdiocese as opposed to some other diocese? A: I'm not excluding anything, Mr. MacLeish. MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form of the question. A: I'm not excluding anything. I'm just trying to be specific about what this letter contains. Q: Cardinal Law, let me show you the original unredacted letter, if I could, please. I'm not going to mark it as an exhibit because it contains a victim's name. You'll see up in the upper left-hand corner, you see a telephone number, handwritten telephone number. See that? A: I do. MR. ROGERS: Upper left-hand corner? MR. MacLEISH: Upper right-hand corner. THE WITNESS: Upper right-hand corner. You're correct. I'm looking at it backwards. A: Yes. Q: There's a telephone number there, right, handwritten? A: I see a letter there. Q: May I have the document back, please. Someone at the Archdiocese could have simply picked up the phone and spoken to this man; is that correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. A: Yes. Q: In fact, speaking to him about this would have been consistent with your unwritten policies on following up and investigating allegations of sexual misconduct. A: I believe that's what I've indicated earlier, yes. Q: But it wasn't done in this case, was it, Cardinal Law? A: Apparently not. Q: And do you have any explanation for why it wasn't done? A: No. Q: Did Father Helmick follow the correct procedure when he did not offer to meet with this individual or speak to him on the telephone? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You may answer. A: Here again, it's difficult for me to try to reconstruct what Father Helmick did about a letter that I have no recollection seeing before this morning. Q: This came from your files, Cardinal Law. A: I understand that. But I have no recollection of having seen that. There are many things that can come from the files that you have in your possession that I will not have seen. Q: Well, all I'm asking you is -- we've acknowledged that there are serious allegations in Exhibit 65 involving diocesan priests. We've acknowledged that your policy was to follow-up, investigate and act, as you set forth in Exhibit 12, which you would have done if you'd learned about the '66 allegation of Paul Shanley. What I'm asking you here is whether Exhibit 65 is a letter that required some type of action? A: I thought I answered that in the affirmative earlier. Q: Right. Do you have any evidence yourself as you sit here today, whether this particular allegation against diocesan priests was followed up on or investigated in any way? A: Mr. MacLeish, the only evidence I have about this is what you've set before me now. I have no recollection of this, so, obviously, I have no recollection of what action was taken on this or might have been taken on this, other than what is contained in this letter. Q: Assuming there was no contact in 1986 with this victim who reports these allegations to you, would you agree with me that the failure to do any follow-up would be inconsistent with your unwritten policy on protecting children and sexual misconduct that was in effect prior to 1993? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form of the question. MR. ROGERS: Objection. A: Again, I find myself in a strange position because I don't like to nitpick. Q: Right. A: That's not the way I like to approach life. Q: Sure. I would agree. A: But the fact of the matter is that the policy -- my policy is to investigate cases that are brought to me over which I have responsibility, which would be the priests of this Archdiocese. If there are cases brought against someone else, I would refer that to the person responsible to deal with that. If these cases were in fact, as you have indicated -- Q: Represented, yes. A: -- and represented, if these cases, if these instances were in fact allegations against priests of this Archdiocese, then that should have been followed up with, and that would have been a violation of what my understanding was of the policies and procedures for handling such cases. Q: As you sit here today -- A: Now, excuse me. Q: Go ahead, Cardinal. A: If I may finish. Q: Continue. Absolutely. A: What was in the mind of Father Helmick in seeing this letter and in understanding what was or was not alleged, I don't know. You know, I can't answer that. But I have no recollection of seeing this letter or entering into a discussion. And I would find it very strange if I were not to have asked either Father Banks or Father McCormack to pursue this with a discussion. Q: Okay. Cardinal Law, any downside, as you sit here today, that was in effect in 1986 that would have prevented Father Helmick, you or anybody else that received this complaint, this letter, Exhibit 65, from just picking up the phone and talking to the person who had written the letter and had put down his telephone number in the upper right-hand corner of the document? Any downside to that in 1986? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. CRAWFORD: You may answer. A: Any downside? The question implies that this -- the possibility of calling this person up and entering into contact had to be weighed, and then if it were viewed to be the right thing to do, then we'd go ahead and contact the person. I think what I've tried to say is not only do I think that there was no downside to it, but I think that there was simply an appropriate and reasonable response to be in contact with this person and to see what are -- what is the substance of what this person is saying in that final paragraph. Q: Cardinal Law, in 1986, you did review certain correspondence that was sent to you by individuals, third parties from the outside; is that correct? A: I did. Q: And did you have any understanding with your personal secretary as to what types of communications you should see and not see? A: Is the implication of the question, was there an effort to shield me from certain kinds of correspondence? Q: There's no implication whatsoever, Cardinal Law. Absolutely not. I'm asking you whether or not -- what the protocol was for you seeing certain communications and not seeing other communications. I'm not suggesting in any way that there was an effort to insulate you from letters concerning sexual abuse. I'm asking what the protocol was. A: The protocol -- you could test this with my secretaries to date and see if it isn't still in place. Q: We did with Father Helmick two days ago. A: But the protocol is a protocol of trust in the judgment of those assisting me with correspondence to be sure that matters are handled expeditiously, are handled by the appropriate persons. And that sometimes may be that a secretary can respond personally. Doesn't happen too often. It more often would be that a letter would be sent to a cabinet secretary or later the delegate for the handling of this kind of case, if that had been in place at the time. Then there are some letters which come to me directly. Q: Important letters? A: Well, I would say that they're all important. But there are different ways of handling them. If someone is responsible, for example, to handle educational matters for me, it's going to be much more helpful for me to have that letter sent to the Secretary for Education. That person is going to be more directly knowledgeable, au courant, on that subject, and -- Q: Sorry? A: -- is going to be able then to draft -- Q: Au courant? A: Yes. Q: I'm sorry. I understand. Going back to -- A: So you know, it might be good if one person could stay on top of everything that comes across my desk, but I'm not the person able to do that. That's why I think we said in one of the first depositions, the very organization of the Archdiocese was an effort to ensure that I'd be able to handle things expeditiously and that they not get caught on my desk. Q: But -- go ahead. A: As each day, I have a -- there's -- I have two folders for the mail that I get every day. And then there's one is red and one is blue. The red folder is correspondence that is viewed to be something that I probably am going to want to respond to. The blue is informational or maybe something, someone acknowledging something I sent. Likely something that doesn't call for a response. If I receive personal and confidential letters, they're in that file to me. I open those letters. But that mail, before it comes to that point, has been gone through, and that mail that is not marked personal and confidential is opened, it's looked at, and if it's matter that pertains to education, if it's matter that pertains to social services, if it's matter that pertains to some financial question, it's sent to the appropriate person to look at. If those persons have the ability to respond -- Q: Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm listening. A: Is it all right? Q: Yes. A: If those people have the ability to respond and it's appropriate, then they do. Otherwise, a draft of a letter would be sent for me for my signature. Q: Okay. Cardinal Law, you testified about the red folder as containing some things that you would probably want to respond to. Do you recall that testimony? A: Yes. Q: And that was the system of red folder, blue folder was the system in effect in 1986; is that correct? A: I don't know when that system went into effect, but I think it's probably -- some variant of that was in place where I would -- because, obviously, I would need to receive each day the mail that I needed to be attentive to. Q: Right. A: And it was put -- at some point it was segregated into things that probably don't need a response but you want to look at and then those things that do need a response. Q: Right. So just so I understand, we're focusing on 1986. Was every piece of mail that was sent to you contained either in the blue folder or the red folder? A: No, no. I hope I didn't imply that because that's not what I meant to. Q: No, you didn't. I wanted to clarify. And you receive a great volume of mail; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And you did in 1986 receive a great volume of mail, correct? A: Right. Q: It's impossible for you to respond to every piece of mail that you get; is that correct? A: (Witness nods head.) Q: Would have been impossible in 1986 to respond to every piece of correspondence that you received; is that correct? A: I'm hopeful that every piece of correspondence is responded to, but I've indicated the manner in which it is responded to. I have people working with me in whom I have confidence, and they assist me in specific areas and they help me with the correspondence related to that area. Q: So who made the decision in 1986 as to what gets into the red folder? Who would that person be? A: The persons usually handling the mail and, again, I think I've indicated this before, would be the priest secretary -- I say "usually," because sometimes they're not available to do that and the mail can't wait three days or four days -- and my administrative assistant. Q: They make the decisions; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And they have an understanding as to what goes into the red folder, what you have to see personally; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And certainly, you would put in that red folder, communications from the Holy See, for example, would go into the red folder or be brought to your attention some other way; is that correct? A: It could be. It may be something quite routine -- Q: Sure. A: -- and need not go into the red folder. Q: Certainly, as you've testified earlier, it was not routine to receive complaints about Archdiocesan priests from 1984 to 1989; correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you would agree with me that from 1984 to 1989, there was no greater priority than ensuring children were protected in Archdiocesan programs? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. Q: Correct? A: Certainly with regard to the handling of sexual abuse cases, the priority is the protection of children. There are other priorities in the mission of the Church. Q: Well, I'm talking about -- and we've been over this a number of times -- whether the sexual abuse of children, its prevention, was a top priority for you in the period from 1984 to 1989? A: In the handling of such cases, absolutely. But it's not the only priority. And for me to say that would -- because it wasn't the dominant problem facing us. Q: So you would agree with me that a letter such as Exhibit 65 was not a routine type of letter that was received by you at your residence; is that correct? A: Absolutely. Q: And would your secretaries and Father Helmick have some general understanding of the pieces of correspondence that you would want to see and need to know about? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer. A: Would you repeat that question again. Q: Sure. What I'm trying to do, Cardinal Law, is to get an understanding of what actually, what types of correspondence came to your attention as opposed to those that did not come personally to your attention. Do you understand what I'm asking? A: Yes. Q: Okay. A: This letter -- Q: Exhibit 65? A: Exhibit 65, in my understanding, could have very appropriately been sent either to -- in '86, I think Father McCormack would have been there as Secretary for Personnel, not yet named Delegate. I don't think we segregated out that role yet. But he functioned in that way. So that this letter could very appropriately and perhaps more appropriately have been sent to Father McCormack. Q: Well, there's no indication from the files that we've received that it was sent to Father McCormack or that Father McCormack followed up on this. The only thing we have from your files is the response from Father Helmick. So my question is, to you, Cardinal, can you state with absolute certainty that you did not see Exhibit 65? Can you state that with absolute certainty? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer. A: I have stated, when you put this letter before me, that I have no recollection of having seen this letter before and I state that again. Q: I'm asking you also, in responding to that, to look at Exhibit 66 and accept my representation that Father Helmick testified in this room two days ago that he would have spoken to you about this letter because he was not authorized to state that he had spoken to you or met with you about a particular piece of correspondence unless he actually had done that. In light of all that, Cardinal Law, can you state unequivocally that you did not see Exhibit 65? MR. CRAWFORD: I believe he already stated. Asked and answered. MR. ROGERS: Asked and answered. Objection. MR. MacLEISH: Let the record -- A: I have answered the question that you put before me with regard to Exhibit 65 as best I can. Q: Okay. No recollection? A: I have no recollection. Q: But if Father Helmick has a recollection of meeting with you about that letter, you would not be in a position to contradict him; is that correct? MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. A: Monsignor Helmick, as I trust everyone that is deposed before you, is going to speak the truth as they know it, as they recall it. And he certainly is an honorable person. All I can tell you is that I have no recollection of having ever seen this letter before. Q: Do you have a recollection, Cardinal Law -- go ahead. A: Nor do I have a recollection of, a fortiori, nor do I have a recollection of having discussed the letter with Monsignor Helmick. Q: Do you have a recollection -- we've been through a number of letters already involving Father Shanley and we're going to go through with some other priests. Do you have a recollection between 1984 and 1989 of ever reading a letter making an allegation that a priest had sexually molested a child? This is in the '84 to '89 time period. A: It's difficult for me to answer the question other than to say that I, as you have put the question to me, I cannot say to you, oh, yes, I got a letter on such and such a priest at such and such a time. I don't know that. If you put the letter before me, perhaps that will awaken my memory and I can respond yes or no. Q: We'll go through those correspondence. Exhibit No. 67 is a follow-up of Father Helmick's letter of August 19 in which it is addressed to you, Cardinal Law, and it says: "I have received the letter which you asked Reverend William Helmick, your secretary, to write me in response to my letter of July 10." And it says: "I must state my deep concern regarding this response. In Father Helmick's letter, he wrote 'If there were to be an incident of such abuse by a priest, you can be sure that the matter would be taken most seriously with deep concern for the victim, the people and the priest.' A very appropriate and responsible response on the surface." Do you see that, Cardinal Law? A: Yes, I do. Q: Then goes on to state: "Unfortunately, this response negates the fact that I am aware of such incidents of abuse, not only from this documentary, but my own personal experience as a victim. As I reread this statement, I can't help but wonder on what basis he is questioning the existence of my own experience as a victim (as stated in my letter of July 10). By not believing an honest and revealing statement by a victim, you are altering your own perception of reality. In doing so, it becomes much easier to believe you are responding appropriately. I implore you to step forward into a perception of reality and come to understand and believe that such incidents do occur. By adopting this frame of reference, you can honestly answer whether or not you are answering appropriately. Sincerely." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Do you ever remember receiving that letter, Cardinal Law? A: I do not. Q: Do you know whether there was any response to that letter? A: I do not. I do not know. Q: But it is your testimony that Exhibit 65 would have been the type of communication that would have been followed up on and sent down, at that time, to Father McCormack or Bishop Banks; is that correct? A: It would be the type of a letter that should have been handled in that way, I think, yes. Q: Earlier, Cardinal Law, at your earlier deposition, I believe the -- A: May I? Q: Sure. Absolutely. A: May I just -- this is not to the point really but -- no. I'll let it go. Q: I've asked you on two previous occasions, Cardinal Law, in your deposition, whether you can think of any priest against whom there was allegations of child molestation between 1984 and 1989, in that period of time, who was not returned to ministry, and you indicated that you wanted more time to look at the records. I would ask that same question again, whether you can identify any priest between '84 and '89 against whom there was credible allegations of child molestation who was not ultimately returned to ministry? A: And I have to -- let me get back to you after lunch. Q: Fine. All right. We're now going to turn, Cardinal Law, to some of the matters concerning Paul Shanley and we're going to start with a letter from Bishop Banks, dated December 20, 1989. (Law Exhibit No. 68, Letter from Banks, 12/20/89, marked for identification.) THE WITNESS: Is this for me? MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Q: Have you read the letter, Cardinal Law? A: I have. Q: Have you seen this letter before today? A: I don't recall seeing this letter. Q: Now, you do recall, though, that you met with Paul Shanley on more than one occasion prior to the time that he submitted his resignation. I think we covered that in your last day. Do you recall that? A: We covered it at some point, yes, the issue of the oath. Q: Right. And this was an oath that Paul Shanley was not required to take. I think we established that. A: Well, that's correct. Q: And we've also established -- and we'll go through that correspondence if necessary -- that Paul Shanley was placed on sick leave in January of 1990 after he left St. Jean's. Do you recall that? A: 1990, that's correct. Q: And other priests such as John Geoghan, who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them, were also placed on sick leave; is that not true? A: Well, you know, Mr. MacLeish, if what you're trying to suggest -- God bless you -- if you're trying to suggest that every priest who is put on sick leave is a priest who is guilty -- Q: Oh, no, I'm certainly not. A: Well, so I'm happy to hear that because it seemed to me that that was implicit in the way you framed that question. Q: No, no. A: Would you state the question again. Q: I would just like you to answer the question. There were situations where priests such as John Geoghan, who had allegations of sexual misconduct, were placed on what was referred to, under Archdiocesan personnel policies, as sick leave; is that not correct? A: That's correct. Q: Thank you. You'll see in Exhibit No. 68, you'll see this letter to Paul Shanley from Bishop Banks, and it states, in the second paragraph -- first, it acknowledges receipt of the Cardinal's letter accepting your resignation as pastor of St. John's. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: Then it says: "I am also grateful for you seeing Father John Connolly about the issue." Do you see what? A: That's correct. Q: Do you know what is meant by "the issue"? A: I do not. Q: Father John Connolly, who would that be? A: I don't know which John Connolly that would be. Q: Then it goes on in the third paragraph, it says: "It is my hope that the time away will help you resolve your difficulties with the situation." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: And do you have any idea what Bishop Banks might mean about "the situation"? A: The only thing that I can imagine are the two motives for agreeing to his accepting his resignation. The underlying cause, as I pointed out to you, was the fact that he had difficulty with the new oath that pastors had to make. He felt in conscious he couldn't make it. And as I tried to explain to him, the oath in its older form really was not substantially different than the new one, and he had taken that so I didn't see why he had a problem. But at any rate. Secondly, he had health problems, health problems, physical health problems, not psychological, not emotional that I knew of at that point. But he had physical problems and that was what he wanted to deal with, to attend to. Q: So you're testifying now that there were no emotional problems that were the reason for his leave as you perceived it at the time? A: That's correct. As I perceived it at the time, they were organic, physical problems, not psychological problems. Q: Cardinal Law, when you have written about other priests who've had allegations of sexual abuse, have you not used the term "malaise," for example, in describing the problem of priests accused of sexual abuse? Have you used those words before, "malaise"? A: I don't -- I don't deny having used the term, but I don't recall the term. Q: We'll go over some of those letters later on. MR. MacLEISH: Next exhibit please. (Law Exhibit No. 69, Letter, 12/22/89, marked for identification.) Q: Want to take a moment and look at that letter. (Pause.) Q: Have you had the opportunity to read that letter? A: I have. Q: In the letter, Cardinal, you said: "I write" -- in the second paragraph -- "I write now because I find your help is needed again in working out these details." Do you see that? A: I do. Q: What details were you referring to? A: My presumption is, from the notes that are at the bottom, which are not my notes, but someone else's notes -- Q: Bishop McCormack's? A: Yeah, I would think that's Bishop McCormack. Father McCormack at that point. I would presume that they had to do with the details of his remuneration during that period of time, what his -- and it may be that he was claiming certain needs that might have been excessive and he needed his help in talking through those to come to an equitable determination. But that's -- I'm guessing. But I believe that that's what that would be referring to. Q: Okay. You'll note in the first paragraph, it says: "When I wrote you earlier this month, I indicated that I felt additional time was needed to work out the details you mentioned in your letter regarding the period when you will be away from an assignment." Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: As of December 22, 1989, Paul Shanley would have been in what I think is referred to as the unassigned category of priests; is that correct? A: I can't say which assignment he was in. If you've gotten that from -- in deposition from people who were handling those matters and that's what they said, that's what it would be. Q: There is a category within the Archdiocesan personnel policies called the unassigned category for priests; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: That's different from being on sick leave; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: So when you wrote to Paul Shanley on December 22, 1989, you said, "regarding the period when you will be away from an assignment." Do you see that? A: That's correct. So that very likely refers to that category into which he's going, and the details that need to be worked out would be how we would respond in helping meet your needs. Q: There's no mention in your letter of Paul Shanley being on sick leave, in your letter of December 22, 1989? A: Well, this wouldn't be a letter -- no, there's no mention of being on sick leave or being unassigned either, but the implication would be unassigned. Q: And other priests, Cardinal Law, who have been in the unassigned category have been priests who have been accused of sexual misconduct; is that correct? Such as John Geoghan? Ronald Paquin? MR. CRAWFORD: I object to the form. You may answer if you can. MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. A: Here, again, the form "unassigned" is not -- these designations don't adhere to a specific case such as sexual abuse. Q: I understand that. There was no category for priests, specific category for priests who had allegations against them of sexual misconduct. There was no category of assignment? A: That's correct. Q: They were either -- go ahead. A: That's correct. Had there been such a category, with the knowledge that I had in 1989, Father Shanley would not have fit into that category. Q: I'm simply asking you whether there were other priests such as John Geoghan and Ronald Paquin and Father Rosenkranz who were in -- who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them and for periods of time were in the category known as unassigned? A: Mr. MacLeish, I'd have to -- I'd have to check the records on each one of those and determine what the category was. Q: Do you have any reason as to why Father Shanley was in what you described as probably an unassigned category in December of 1989, and then by January of 1990, was on sick leave? A: No, I don't know that. That's a rather routine matter that is determined by the case and my Personnel Office assists in putting those -- getting the priests in the appropriate category. Q: Was it not the usual practice of the Archdiocese to have priests who were on sick leave to have some sort of a medical evaluation done, medical report before they were put in that category? A: Yes. Q: Are you aware of any medical evaluation that was done in the case of Father Paul Shanley? A: I am not aware one way or the other. Q: So you would agree with me that if there were testimony from your Personnel Office that there was no medical evaluation of Paul Shanley before he was placed on sick leave, that would be a departure from the policy as you understood it; is that correct? MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. MR. CRAWFORD: Note mine also. A: I would, you know, I would follow the -- the Personnel Office would handle things of that kind so they would be the ones who could answer that question. Q: My question is really your understanding. You understand that it was the normal practice of the Archdiocese that before someone went on sick leave, that they would have some sort of a medical evaluation to substantiate their illness? A: That's the normal case. Certainly I was talking to a priest yesterday about his need to go on retirement for purposes of health and he is sending me -- but it doesn't always happen, but I did -- but he is -- he's having his physician send a recommendation to that effect. MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Next exhibit, please. (Law Exhibit No. 70, Certification of Paul Shanley, marked for identification.) Q: Cardinal Law, this Exhibit 70 is a certification which states: "This is to certify that Reverend Paul R. Shanley, ordained on February 2, 1960, is a priest in good standing and enjoys the faculties of the Archdiocese of Boston," dated January 18, 1990. Do you see that? A: I do. Q: And it's signed by -- I can't read it. It looks like Richard J. Lennon. Would that be correct? A: Richard, I think it's G. Q: G. Lennon. Assistant for canonical affairs? A: Yes. Q: Have you seen certifications such as this on other occasions before today involving different priests? A: I know that such certifications are given when a priest from the diocese, who is in good standing, goes to another diocese. It's customary to give such an attestation. Q: Is there a process that's followed before this attestation takes place? A: What do you mean? Q: This is a representation, in effect, for a priest that's going to another diocese that the priest is in good standing and enjoys the faculties of the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: So my question is, is before that -- let me withdraw that question. This is the type of document that is sent so that another diocese will know that they are getting a priest who's in good standing; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And this is the type of document that another diocese would rely upon; is that correct? A: Yes. As I myself rely on it from priests coming from elsewhere here. Q: And you expect that -- and you expected back in 1990, that if there was a problem with a particular priest, such as the priest being involved in misconduct with minors, that that would have been something that would be brought to your attention before you accepted in a priest from another diocese, correct? A: That's correct. Q: One of the ways that you could find out about whether a priest had been involved in sexual misconduct was to review the files of the Archdiocese; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: We've gone through the confidential files that would contain that type of information; is that correct? A: What is your point here? Q: The question, Cardinal Law -- I think we went over this earlier in your deposition -- that the confidential files that are maintained by the Archdiocese, that only a few individuals such as yourself have access to, would contain matters relating to scandal including sexual misconduct; is that not correct? A: That's correct. Q: And you had access to those files; is that correct? A: That's correct. Q: And others within the Archdiocese had access to those files? A: That's correct. Q: So one of ways that you could have determined whether there had been allegations of misconduct involving a priest would be to look at the confidential files; is that correct? Talking about in general, not in relation to this. A: That's correct. Q: Okay. And so was it part of your policies and procedures that before this attestation that another diocese would rely upon, was it part of your policies and procedures that there would be a review and check of the confidential file? A: If a priest was in an assignment, as Father Shanley was in an assignment as pastor, was not removed and was not resigning in response to a request on my part because of an allegation of sexual abuse or any other kind of misconduct, but was asking that I accept his resignation as pastor and he be given time away for health reasons, if that is done, then that priest is in fact in good standing. He is a priest who has an assignment in the diocese. He enjoys the faculties of the diocese. And such an attestation says just that. Q: So the answer is no to my question? A: The answer is that this document states what was in fact the understanding about Father Paul Shanley on January 18, 1990; that he is a priest in good standing and enjoys the faculties of the Archdiocese of Boston. Q: So is the answer to my question no? A: The answer to the question is that that's what this document states. Q: My question was whether or not as part of the policy and procedures of the Archdiocese, when a priest is being sent to another diocese and this attestation is going to be something that is going to be relied upon, was there any protocol in effect in 1990 whereby there would be a review of the file that would contain information about the priest's misconduct? That's my question. A: What I don't think you understand, Mr. MacLeish, is that if a priest has a position in the diocese, the priest is in good standing. Q: I understand that. I understand all of that, Cardinal Law. I'm asking you just a very simple question, whether there was a protocol when an attestation that would be relied upon by another diocese was given, that there would be a review of the confidential file? That's all I'm asking. A: I'm not aware of such a protocol. Q: Thank you. Would you agree with me that before this attestation could be sent, that Bishop Banks, at the time in 1990, would have known about such an attestation? A: Excuse me? Q: Would Bishop Banks, who was, in January of 1990 -- A: Moderator of the Curia. Q: That's right. Moderator of the Curia. And also Vicar for Administration. A: Yes. Q: Your No. 2 guy. A: Right. Q: The No. 2 man in the Archdiocese. Will he know about these types of attestations? Would it go through his office, is my question? MR. CRAWFORD: Could you hold on for a second. MR. MacLEISH: Sure. I'm going way too fast. MR. CRAWFORD: No. She lost her earpiece and was not typing. Why don't you restate it. Q: I'm asking you whether, with these attestations, did they come under the purview of Bishop Banks' office as Vicar for Administration? A: Well, you know, you'd have to ask him, but it would certainly have been appropriate for Father Lennon to have issued such an attestation because -- Q: Go ahead. I'm listening to you. A: -- because he would have been Assistant for Canonical Affairs and that's where this comes in. Q: All right. A: He was a very trusted colleague. Q: You will see up in the left-hand corner, Vicar for Administration. Do you see that? A: Yes. Q: You're also aware that, in fact -- I think we went over this before -- Bishop Banks sent out a letter to the San Bernadino diocese indicating that there were no problems with Paul Shanley. A: That's correct. Q: And you're also aware -- A: I'm aware of it because you showed it to me. Q: I showed it to you. A: Yes. Q: You're also aware -- and I think we covered this ear |
