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
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
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-

APPEARANCES:

Greenberg Traurig
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, and Courtney Pillsbury, Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts

- and -

Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney
(by James A. Murphy, Attorney)
88 Kearny Street
San Francisco, California 94108
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

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

Todd & Weld
(by Ian Crawford, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally

ALSO PRESENT:
Wayne Martin, Videographer
Rodney Ford
Father John Connolly
Thomas F. Maffei, PC
Mr. and Mrs. Doe
Diane Nealon
Mr. and Mrs. Doe-1.
John Doe

WITNESS
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed

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 earlier -- that Bishop Banks had before him responded to the Higgs letter and was aware of an 1988 allegation of misconduct involving Paul Shanley and a mentally-ill person at Maclean Hospital. Do you recall that testimony?

A: I have a recollection of the materials you put before me. I cannot speak to what it is that Bishop Banks himself knew or did not know.

Q: You already gave testimony. I don't want to repeat that. But it's Exhibit No. 63, right here, is the letter of Bishop Banks. Want to take a moment and look at that.

A: Yes. I recall this.

Q: And you don't have any testimony at the present time as to why Bishop Banks would not have mentioned the '85 allegation of Mrs. Higgs and the '88 allegation from the patient at Maclean Hospital?

A: I cannot, no. I can't speak for Bishop Banks on that.

Q: So before -- as Bishop Banks stated to the Diocese of San Bernadino with respect to Paul Shanley, "I can assure you that Father Shanley has no problem that would be of concern to your diocese," when you make an attestation such as that, the Archdiocese in 1990, is there any review of the confidential file?

A: You know, Mr. MacLeish, I really cannot respond here as to how it is that the Vicar for Administration handled the matter that is implicit in that letter.

I know that that letter reflects what my understanding was concerning Father Shanley at that point. And my presumption is that that was the understanding of Bishop Banks. But I can't go beyond that because I simply can't answer that.

MR. ROGERS: May I suggest we take a break?

MR. MacLEISH: Sure, sure. Absolutely.

MR. ROGERS: It's a little after twelve now.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 12:04. This is the end of Video Cassette No. 1. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

(Law Exhibit No. 71, Letter to McCormack from Shanley, marked for identification.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record. The time is 12:16 p.m. This is the beginning of Video Cassette No. 2, Volume 5, of the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law.

Q: Cardinal, I have in front of you Exhibit No. 71, which is a letter from Paul Shanley to John McCormack, Bishop McCormack has testified about. I'm going to address you to one section but you're free to read all of it.

(Pause.)

A: Fine.

Q: You've read Paul Shanley's letter of May 13, 19 --

A: I have, which I have never seen before.

Q: I understand. On the second page, if you could turn to that, Cardinal, it states as follows: "The Cardinal thought a warm, dry climate was the place for my allergies, but it turns out the desert has a dust problem, and the dust is my major allergy." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Did you have, in fact, have any recollection of telling Paul Shanley that?

A: I certainly have no recollection of suggesting where he go.

Q: Right.

A: But I do have a recollection of his indicating that he had allergies that were troubling him and that he was going to a warm, dry climate. And it seemed to me that that might help him in his allergies and I hoped it would.

Q: So would it be accurate to say you have some general recollection of discussing a warm, dry climate with Paul Shanley with respect to his allergies?

A: I have no question -- I have no reason to question what he is saying here.

Q: You'll see also on that same page, it states: "The media have found me and again pressure me for a story. I'm uncomfortable with not talking to them." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Then it also says, if you turn to the next page, it says: "The only stress I have" -- this is towards the middle -- "The only stress I have now, apart from what I've mentioned, is not knowing what will become of me. I would have to explain to any parishioners what has happened and that would precipitate the media whirlwind." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And then he says, in the second to last paragraph: "John, I know how busy you are and I don't expect you to resolve any of the problem I've mentioned, but neither do I want it said later, quote, why didn't he tell us?" Do you see that?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: You see the media is mentioned on two occasions by Paul Shanley?

A: Yes, and I'm very curious about why that is.

Q: Right. When you read this letter, do you read it as making any implied threats that there might be some media or publicity coverage if Mr. Shanley's demands were not met?

A: An implied threat --

Q: Yeah.

A: -- like to the diocese?

Q: To the diocese?

A: If you don't give us money, we're going to --

Q: Exactly.

A: No.

Q: Okay.

A: I don't.

Q: All right. Is Paul --

A: Excuse me.

Q: Go ahead. Sure.

A: But I didn't deal with -- first of all, I didn't receive this letter.

Q: Right.

A: And I didn't deal with this letter and I don't know what intervening conversation may have happened or what may have happened before then that might have precipitated it. So your reading of it might be correct, but I don't know that.

Q: Would you agree with me that it's a curious letter when a priest is mentioning going to the media about his, presumably about his assignment or -- go ahead.

A: It is a curious letter, yes.

Q: Cardinal, does Paul Shanley still enjoy the faculties of the Archdiocese as we sit here today?

A: No.

Q: Have those been removed from him?

A: Well, I would have to -- I would have to -- yes, yes, the faculties have been removed, yes, yes.

Q: In what way?

A: What do you mean "in what way"?

Q: When the faculties -- he received a communication, a letter that he's no longer in good standing, his faculties have been removed?

A: Well, he certainly has received a letter saying that there is no way in which he can function publicly as a priest, and that, in effect, removes your faculties.

Q: He's still a priest, though; is that correct?

A: He is still a priest because I have no way of removing somebody from being a priest, but I can limit the ability to exercise his -- the functions of a priest.

Q: Well, you can do an involuntarily laicization, I think it's called, to remove someone as a priest; is that correct?

A: There are a number of ways in which a priest may be laicized, yes.

Q: Including involuntarily?

A: And I would prefer not to speak to what it is that I have or may be doing in this instance.

Q: Fine. Fine. I have no problem with that.

A: But I can tell you that as far as functioning as a priest is concerned, he may not function as a priest, and that has been in place since, I think, 1993.

Q: But he still is a priest of the Archdiocese?

A: He's still a priest, that's correct. He was ordained -- by virtue of the fact that he was ordained a priest.

Q: John Geoghan was ordained as a priest, correct?

A: He is ordained a priest.

Q: Then he was laicized?

A: He is laicized.

Q: Paul Mahan was ordained as a priest?

A: Yes.

Q: Then he was laicized too?

A: He's laicized. Now you understand that a laicized priest is still a priest?

Q: Right.

A: But may not function as a priest.

Q: Paul Shanley is not a laicized priest as we sit here today?

A: As we sit here today, he is a priest who may not exercise publicly his ministry as a priest, may not present himself as a priest, but he has not been laicized.

Q: That was my question.

A: Yes.

Q: Father Paquin was ordained as a priest; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And he's been laicized; is that correct?

A: I cannot -- I'm not certain of that.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's go to next exhibit.

A: He is certainly unable to function as a priest.

Q: Sure.

(Law Exhibit No. 72, Memo, 12/11/90, marked for identification.)

Q: Would you take a look at this exhibit, please, Cardinal Law, which is 72.

A: 72?

Q: Yes, please. Including what I believe is a note in the top right-hand corner.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: You've read the document?

A: No, not yet. No. I read the note.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: Have you read that, Cardinal?

A: Yes.

Q: This is a memorandum from Bishop Hughes to Father McCarthy, December 11, 1990, concerning the extension of Paul Shanley's sick leave. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And you'll see that Bishop McCormack states a recommendation that Father Shanley be given an extension of his sick leave for one year and he lists various reasons. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And the reasons are "He still appears not to be well" -- and the Archdiocese has blanked out something. "He is angry at the administration of the Archdiocese. He is not ready to return to the Archdiocese. If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Then it also says, following that: "Secondly, I recommend that in January, February or March, I arrange with Paul to make a visit to him to see how he is doing. What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?" Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And then the upper right-hand corner, there's a note which I think is from Bishop Hughes; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: In which -- to Father McCormack, in which it states: "Jack: Cardinal supports your plan completely," underlined.

A: That's correct.

Q: "He signed letter to Paul" --

A: Shanley.

Q: -- "to Paul Shanley, good work." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Is it fair to state that Exhibit No. 72 is the type of document that you would have had occasion to learn about through communication with Bishop Hughes?

A: That's correct.

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form. You can answer.

Q: And so would it be fair to state that you knew the reasons in 1990 as to why Father McCormack was recommending an extension of Paul Shanley's sick leave?

A: As are stated forth here, yes.

Q: You would have understood those reasons?

A: Yes.

Q: Well, I would like to go to the fourth one. It says: "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Have you ever seen a statement like that, similar to that in any other communication from any of your bishops or individuals that you delegate authority to like that concerning a priest who is on sick leave?

A: As a matter of fact, I don't, and I've been a bishop since 1973.

Q: Right.

A: And I find that each personnel case is unique.

Q: Absolutely.

A: So I wouldn't want to overstate the meaning of this, but certainly Father Shanley was quite unique. And your question is, have I ever seen anything like this about anybody else?

Q: Any another priest on sick leave?

A: I don't know that I've ever seen a memo like this, A, B, C, D or with No. D the way it is, but have we had situations where one wondered exactly how a person would fit in? Yes.

I mean, in dealing with personnel and as many priests as we have, that sometimes occurs.

In this instance, as it's pointed out in B, there was a great deal of anger at the administration of the Archdiocese. There was a great deal of -- well, I'm not a psychiatrist but I would think the very issue that precipitated Father Shanley's retirement in itself was a manifestation of anger toward the Church, toward the teaching of the Church. And it's, you know -- if a priest is focusing that anger on the Archdiocese, then I presume the anger at the administration of the Archdiocese was the difficulty in getting all of the pieces in place with regard to his support and all of that, the letter you just showed me, that with that kind of anger, it's hard to know how is a person going to be able to function if he comes home. Maybe it would be better if he could function effectively somewhere else and wouldn't have to carry the onus of whatever the bad feeling was.

Q: All right. Well, this memo talks about sick leave; is that correct? Extending his sick leave?

A: That's correct.

Q: The Archdiocese runs facilities through Regina Cleri for priests who are ill; is that correct?

A: No. Regina Cleri really --

Q: Retirement. Sorry.

A: -- is not a place for illness; it's for retirement. And retirement is usually by age.

Q: Sure. But the Archdiocese in Massachusetts, as of 1990, ran and had relationships with facilities for priests who were ill; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: So physically, separating out what you said about his anger towards the administration of the Archdiocese, physically, there were places that he could have gone in 1990, is that correct, if he was sick?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form. You can answer.

A: I guess I'm not quite sure about the -- perhaps I'm not supposed to be sure about the intent of the question.

But in Father Shanley's case, as I recollect, his -- it was, you know, his desire to leave the Archdiocese, and he was free to ask to leave the Archdiocese. There would be nothing inhibiting him from requesting that.

Yes, it would be ordinarily the case that people would not want to leave the Archdiocese; that they would want to be here; that they would want to be close to friends, close to their doctors. And, so, yes.

Q: My question, I think, is really a more simple one. Were there places where people who were physically ill and were priests of the Archdiocese could be treated in Massachusetts in 1990?

A: Well, of course, there were.

Q: Okay.

A: At the same time, illness comes in a lot of different forms, you know. Sometimes you can have somebody who has hypertension and it's not a facility so much they need as simply getting away from the pressure of what they're doing. And so it would depend on the case.

But, yes, there obviously are many, many places here where we can and we do provide help.

Q: And you see here in the next paragraph, it says: "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?" Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Isn't it true that Father Shanley told you during his meetings with you in 1989 that he had the best parish in the Archdiocese? Did he not say that to you in 1989?

A: I can't recall his having said that, but a lot of priests feel that way about the parish where they are.

Q: In any event, you would agree with me that as of the date of December 1990, as of the date of this communication to Bishop Hughes from Father McCormack, the Archdiocese did not want Paul Shanley to return; is that correct?

A: No. I would not say that it was a question of the Archdiocese not wanting Father Shanley to return. I would say that given where Father Shanley was psychologically and emotionally with regard to the Archdiocese, it was Father McCormack's judgment, as he states it here, that it would be questionable as to what he would do if he were coming back, given his attitude of mind.

Q: Well, you don't personally know what his attitude was in December of 1990, do you, Cardinal Law, about the Archdiocese? You don't have any personal knowledge about that?

A: Well, no. I saw the letter -- I know that Father Shanley -- I know that there was -- there were problems, and I recall that in a general way. And his letter, which I had not seen previously, refreshes my mind on that, and this memo does as well, that he was someone who was prickly.

Q: Okay. You see then, Father McCormack stating, with respect to this prickly priest: "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?" Do you see the word "coaxed" there, Cardinal?

A: Yes.

Q: What is your understanding of that term?

A: My understanding there is the thought --

Q: No. The word "coaxed" that's used there. Go ahead.

A: Coaxed is coaxed. I mean, you look in the dictionary.

Q: Urging?

A: That's my understanding of coaxed.

Q: Okay.

A: And I would presume and would understand this now, and I presume that's how I understood it then, is that it's going to be better for him if he's doing something rather than doing nothing.

Q: All right. So it was acceptable for him to be performing priestly functions in California; is that correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question. You can answer.

MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.

A: Yes.

MR. MacLEISH: Now, let's go to the next exhibit, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 73, Letter to Shanley from Law, 12/11/90, marked for identification.)

Q: Have you had the opportunity to review Exhibit 73, Cardinal?

A: I've read it, yes.

Q: You state -- it's a letter to Father Paul Shanley from you; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Is that your signature on the letter?

A: That is my signature.

Q: And do you remember signing this letter?

A: I don't remember signing it, but I don't doubt that I signed it.

Q: We obtained it from your files. You state in the first paragraph to Father Shanley: "I learned from Father McCormack that you continue not to feel well and that you have also been experiencing a malaise." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: So at least in the first sentence, it would appear that there is -- he's not feeling well and that he has been experiencing what you refer to as a malaise. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Have you used the term "malaise" before to describe priests who have been involved in the sexual molestation of children, as suffering from a malaise?

A: You know, I have to say, Mr. MacLeish, that I really resent that question in this context, because what you're trying to establish, it seems to me, is a relationship between that word and a priest who has been abusive sexually of a child.

Q: Uh-huh.

A: And to imply that by code here I am acknowledging knowledge of the fact that Father Shanley abused children, I have told you under oath, that I did not know that he had abused children.

Q: Uh-huh.

A: I did not know it on December 11, 1990. And the word "malaise" is a word that can be used very appropriately in this kind of a letter.

Q: Uh-huh.

A: And it has no implication whatsoever as it appears here in terms of sexual abuse.

Q: Well, I'm sorry. I don't mean to have you resent my questions, Cardinal, but I do want you to answer them.

So my question again is whether or not you have used the term "malaise" to describe other priests who have had allegations made against them of sexual abuse. That's my question.

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form. You can answer if you can.

A: I have no idea whether I've used that term or not. I presume that if it was an appropriate term to use for the given individual, then I may have used it.

Q: Did you understand --

A: But I do not understand that term as in any way describing or suggesting sexual molestation of children.

Q: When you were writing about individuals who had sexually molested children, what types of words would you use to describe their condition, Cardinal, in 1990?

A: I don't know that -- I don't know.

Q: Well, you, in fact, never used, from the correspondence we've received so far, described individuals who had molested children as suffering from pedophilia or ephebophilia. Isn't it a fair statement that you would use words like "illness" and "sickness" and "malaise" in describing the conditions of those individuals?

A: I don't know that I used the term "malaise."

Q: You used the term "sick," though, didn't you?

A: I believe it is a pathology, yes. I believe it is a sickness. Don't you agree with that?

Q: Well, we could have a long discussion about that.

A: You don't think it is?

Q: We're really here to get your answers to the questions, and I'd be happy to discuss that with you at an appropriate time if your counsel allows me to. I would like to talk about that with you, as a matter of fact. But we're here really to get --

A: When we get through with the depositions.

Q: Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. What malaise did you think that Paul Shanley was suffering from in December of 1990?

A: You know, I really don't see this as introducing anything else but reinforcing not feeling well and to have been experiencing a malaise, a period of depression, concern.

Q: Okay. So now in December of 1990, would it be fair to state that you knew that there was some emotional component to Father Shanley's illness?

A: No. You know, I'm basing myself upon this memo.

Q: Right.

A: And I'm trying to reconstruct what may be behind that.

Q: Okay.

A: And I really can't go beyond what I've said.

Q: All right.

A: I've said here that, "You continue not to feel well," and malaise is a synonym for not feeling well. I could have said full stop. You continue not to feel well, period.

Q: But you put in "and" --

A: Or I could have said, or you're experiencing a malaise, which is not feeling well.

Q: But you said that "you have also been experiencing a malaise."

A: I understand what I said. I read it.

Q: You used the term, you thought you might have been referring to a depression?

A: It could be that,

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

(Law Exhibit No. 74, Letter to McCormack from Shanley, marked for identification.)

Q: Cardinal Law, I'm showing you Exhibit No. 74, which is a letter from Paul Shanley to John McCormack. You'll see it's stamped "Received at the Office of Ministerial Personnel." Do you see that?

A: Excuse me?

Q: Yes. You see there's a letter from Paul Shanley to John McCormack, Exhibit 74, which is stamped "Received at the Office of Ministerial Personnel"?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay?

A: Yes.

Q: And you'll see it states in the letter, in the first paragraph: "Dear John: Thank you for your kindness during your brief visit to the wild west. I wrestled with your proposal that we diminish the amount of unpredictability in my life by agreeing to have me remain several years out here, but as a part-time diocesan curate rather than an Archdiocese sick leave weekend supply priest. I told you that as it is, I do all the baptisms, youth retreats, penance services and many weekend masses at St. Ann's." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Did you ever receive a copy of this letter, Cardinal Law?

A: No, I don't recall seeing it.

Q: But you do see the reference to youth retreats in the letter, do you not?

A: I do.

Q: And it is sent to Father McCormack, is it not?

A: It is.

Q: Cardinal Law, do you know a doctor by the name of Edward Cassem? Ned Cassem?

A: I do.

Q: He's a psychiatrist, is that not the case, at Mass General Hospital?

A: He is.

Q: And he has been utilized by the Archdiocese, has he not, to evaluate priests who have been accused of sexual molestation? Is that not correct?

A: He has.

Q: In fact, it's fair to state that he has been used exclusively for that purpose; is that correct?

A: I'm not sure that that would be the case, but he certainly has been used for that, yes.

Q: Are you aware of any other purposes that Dr. Cassem, who is a psychiatrist, has been used, as you sit here today, apart from evaluating priests who have been accused of sexual misconduct?

A: Well, you know, just in my apperceptive mass, Dr. Cassem -- who also is a Jesuit priest --

Q: Right.

A: -- is someone to whom we have turned for to help, and it's very likely that somebody who had a problem not at all related to sexual abuse could have been referred to Dr. Ned Cassem. I think it would be wrong to infer that any priest who went to him or was referred to him was referred to him because of this problem.

Q: I'm not -- I'm not making that statement, Cardinal.

A: Fine.

Q: I'm simply asking you, you know that Dr. Cassem would get involved in evaluating priests who'd been accused of sexual misconduct?

A: Yes. I answered yes.

Q: I'm just asking of your own personal knowledge, or has anyone ever told you that Dr. Cassem was used for any other purposes apart from evaluating priests for sexual misconduct?

A: That's precisely what I thought I had just attempted to answer, and I think the answer to that is yes, there have been but --

Q: For what purposes?

A: Well, he's a psychiatrist. And if there are people with -- you know, there are other psychiatric problems, Mr. MacLeish.

Q: I'm well aware of that.

A: There can be interpersonal problems. Some people don't know how to get along with other people.

Q: I know about that too.

A: And sometimes I can be a real problem and you really need to get some help and guidance on that. So there can be a host of problems that someone might be referred to a psychiatrist for. So I'm simply saying that it would be wrong to infer, and I don't know that it's ad rem. It's certainly true that Dr. Cassem is someone to whom we turned in this area, yes.

Q: When you say "this area," what do you mean?

A: Sexual abuse of children. But we've also turned to him for other cases of psychological problems.

Q: Cardinal Law, I'm not trying to create inferences. I'm simply asking questions. So my question to you is: Can you, as you sit here today, identify any other time that Dr. Cassem has been utilized for evaluation in circumstances where the priest was not accused of sexual misconduct?

A: I want to say yes to that.

Q: Okay. What types of situations?

A: Well, again, you know, I can't be pressed out of -- without records available to me, but I can just tell you that Dr. Cassem has been utilized generally by us and not simply for this problem.

Q: Okay. Can you identify --

A: You can either accept that or not as you will. I cannot identify time --

Q: Okay.

A: -- date, case, name at this point, no. But I can tell you that my general understanding and impression of the way in which we have employed the services of Father Cassem is, Dr. Cassem, is that they are not limited to the issue of sexual abuse of children. Certainly inclusive of that, but not limited to that.

Q: All right. But you can't identify any of the other purposes apart from evaluation for individuals who have been accused of sexual abuse of children as you sit here today?

A: I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Q: If you could answer the question.

MR. CRAWFORD: I believe the Cardinal has already answered the question. You've asked it three different times.

A: You know what. I'd like to let the answer to that question stand as it is, and I would like to have a judge decide whether it's right or wrong.

Q: What I'm really asking you is that you agree with me that psychiatrists have certain specialties; is that correct?

A: I didn't know that was the question. That's a new question now.

Q: If you could answer it, respectfully. Psychiatrists have specialties?

A: Yes.

Q: You met, for example, Dr. Newberger in 1993, Drs. Newberger and Drs. Nadelson?

A: That's right. They were guests at my house for lunch.

Q: That's right. And they discussed with you their area of expertise, which had to do with trauma, sexual abuse of children; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: They were invited to your house; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And Dr. Carol Newberger is a psychologist; is that correct?

A: I don't recall that.

Q: But Dr. Nadelson and -- Drs. Nadelson are psychiatrists; is that correct?

A: I don't remember who was what, but they certainly came with that expertise. That's why they were invited.

Q: They were medical professionals that had a particular specialty in treating individuals who are victims of trauma; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: They had some suggestions for you about what the Archdiocese should do; is that correct?

A: They were invited to discuss the issue at my invitation, yes.

Q: They made recommendations; is that correct?

A: I don't recall specific recommendations. We had a general discussion.

Q: Dr. Eli Newberger offered to be of help to the Archdiocese in developing protocols for addressing situations where priests had molested children. Did he offer to do that generally?

A: You know, I really can't recall the conversation.

Q: Did you ever engage Drs. Newberger or Drs. Nadelson with respect to assisting you in developing any policies concerning sexual abuse of children?

A: I don't know whether they were asked to comment on our policies or not.

Q: So with respect to Dr. Cassem, you would agree with me that one of his specialties was evaluating individuals who had allegations against them of sexual misconduct. Would you agree with me about that?

A: No. I cannot pass on his credentials. I can tell you that he was acting chief of psychiatry at Mass General Hospital --

Q: Right.

A: -- professor at Harvard Medical School and someone whom we utilized in assisting us in assessing this problem.

Q: Right. But you don't know whether he had a particular specialty in that particular area. Is that your testimony?

A: I cannot speak to his specific --

Q: Okay.

A: -- specialty.

Q: All right. Fair enough. Let's go to the next exhibit then. I would like you to keep Exhibit 73 in front of you, Cardinal, if you could, please.

A: All right.

(Law Exhibit No. 75, Letter to Shanley from McCormack, 5/10/91, marked for identification.)

A: Do you want me to read 74 before 75?

Q: No, I think you read 74.

A: No, I really didn't.

Q: All right. Well, take your time and read 74.

A: Oh, yeah. I guess I did, didn't I.

Q: Read 75.

A: I didn't read all of 74 though. I just read the beginning of it.

Q: Read the whole document.

(Pause.)

A: Okay.

Q: Do you recall in or about May of 1991 --

A: Excuse me.

Q: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A: You know, if -- no. Never mind. Go ahead. No. Let me go back to this.

Q: Go back to what?

A: You know, you asked me about the malaise, all right.

Q: Sure.

A: You can see the malaise and the consternation with regard to this oath. Do you understand the issue here that is a problem to him? At this point, he was retired as a -- he resigned as pastor. All right? And if he were to assume the role of pastor again, he would need to take the oath. And it was that that was the problem to him.

Q: Not the sick leave? Not the illnesses?

A: Well, the sick leave is a part. He had -- this is the -- you know, I'm saying, "continue not to feel well and that you have also been experiencing a malaise." It could be in reference to this problem with regard to the oath. "I cannot be a pastor says Rome." Rome is not saying that he cannot be a pastor, Paul Shanley, but the point is to be a pastor, you have to take the oath. And he finds that an abomination.

Q: And you'll see also that he is performing priestly duties out at St. Ann's in San Bernadino, including leading youth retreats or being involved in youth retreats?

A: That's correct.

Q: So he was able to be functioning in a priestly capacity out in California; is that correct?

A: And the only thing inhibiting him from being a pastor was his unwillingness, in this Archdiocese, was his, at that point, was his unwillingness to take the oath.

Q: Okay. You'll see also in Exhibit 74, you'll see Paul Shanley states to Father McCormack: "I have wrestled with your proposal that we diminish the amount of unpredictability in my life by agreeing to have me remain several years out here," and then he goes on. So you would agree with me there was a proposal made by Bishop McCormack that Paul Shanley remain in California, as is reflected in Exhibit No. 72, where it states a proposal that Father McCormack go out to California and then posits "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?"

A: Yes.

Q: You would agree with me that was followed up on?

A: Yes. Because, as Shanley says, he is an Archdiocesan sick leave weekend supply priest.

Q: Right.

A: What Father McCormack is suggesting is that it would be better for him to have something in a more settled way. It would be difficult for him to come back. He doesn't want to be -- he won't be a pastor and that was the way to do it.

Q: But he could be a priest. He was performing priestly functions in California.

A: That's right. He could be a priest.

Q: Certainly there's people like him -- excuse me. Not everybody that works in a parish is a pastor within the Archdiocese of Boston, correct? They're curates, administrators?

A: That's correct.

Q: So all the things that he's talking about that he's doing out in California, such as baptisms, youth retreats, penance services and weekend masses, are things that could have been done by Paul Shanley in Massachusetts in 1991; is that correct, Cardinal Law?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question. You can answer.

A: It's correct, but, again, on the memo which is Document 72, if you look at B again --

Q: Right. Yeah.

A: -- he is angry at the administration of the Archdiocese.

Q: Right.

A: It's rather difficult, really, if somebody is full of anger and resentment and all of that, to function effectively. And if, in fact, in another environment he is able to function without that anger interfering, it's going to be better for him and for the Church.

Q: Turning to Exhibit 75, Cardinal Law, you'll see -- by the way, you'll also note in Exhibit 74, just in the second to last paragraph: "The internist and the psychologist concede my unpredictably precarious health is a function of my unpredictable ecclesiastical future." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: You then discussed Paul Shanley's letter with Bishop McCormack as is reflected in Exhibit 75; is that correct?

A: Let me read 75.

Q: Sure.

(Pause.)

A: Yes, I've seen 75.

Q: Would it be fair to state you discussed Paul Shanley's letter with Bishop McCormack or then Father McCormack in or about May of 1991?

A: Well, I think what Father McCormack says to Shanley is: "After receiving your letter, I discussed your situation with the Cardinal."

Q: Right.

A: So whether or not the letter was something that I saw, I'm not certain. But the situation, I think that would reflect what happened.

Q: All right. Okay. You'll see in the third paragraph, well, actually in the second paragraph, it is stated, attributing to you: "He suggested that I check with the clergy fund bylaws about your being assigned to permanent disability." Do you see that?

A: Yes. Now, yes, I have no doubt that I did that, but I probably would not have initiated the suggestion, because if you were to press me with the details about what happens in those various categories in terms of remuneration, I wouldn't be able to give it to you now. I rely on others for that. But I'm sure that I said: Well, what do you think we might do? And the thought was: Well, why don't we think about this as a possibility.

Q: All right. Well, would you -- do you know, Cardinal, whether Bishop McCormack informed you that Paul Shanley was involved in youth retreats in 1991 out in California?

A: I do not know that. Again, I want to keep repeating that from the knowledge that I had, even if I had been informed of that, that would not have been a red flag for me because I was not aware of his having been responsible for the sexual abuse of minors.

Q: Well, I don't want to belabor the point, but we've been over the Higgs letter before and the changes in your admissions. Paul Shanley was someone who was known to you in 1991; is that correct? You knew who he was. You'd had meetings with him.

A: I knew who he was, yes.

Q: You'd had a complaint about him. You had bishops that you were relying upon to investigate any claims that came in against him. You're aware of all that.

MR. ROGERS: I object.

MR. CRAWFORD: Is that a question?

MR. MacLEISH: Let me withdraw it. I'm going to withdraw the question. Bad question. Let my try again.

MR. ROGERS: It's also time for lunch.

MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. Let's break for lunch.

THE WITNESS: I'd rather finish.

MR. MacLEISH: I'm perfectly willing to keep going.

MR. CRAWFORD: We're off the record.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: It's 12:58 and we're off the record.

(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record. The time is two o'clock.

Q: Cardinal Law, you recall our discussion this morning when we covered the letter from the individual from the Department of Social Services that had reported sexual misuse of him by diocesan priests. You recall that communication; is that correct?

A: I do.

Q: And that was a communication that was sent to you in 1986 and was responded to by Father Helmick. Do you recall your testimony on that subject?

A: I believe I do, yes.

Q: And you asked, fairly, during that time period, with respect to -- I asked you what action you were referring to you would have taken in Exhibit No. 12, which is your statement in May of 2002, with respect to Father Shanley, and you asked me for records. And so now we're going to go through some of those records of what was taking place between 1984 and 1989 for other priests at the time that Mr. Gregory Ford, Mr. Doe, Mr. Doe-1, Mr. Busa, Mr. Driscoll were being sexually abused. So that's the period that we're going to be covering, 1984 to 1989.

MR. MacLEISH: First exhibit, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 76, Letter to Law, 12/12/87, marked for identification.)

Q: Cardinal, if you could take a look at Exhibit 76. This is a letter that was sent to you on December 12, 1987, concerning Father Rosenkranz that we obtained from your files.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: Have you had the opportunity to read Exhibit No. 76?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: So we have Exhibit 76, which is a letter from an individual reporting sexual misconduct by Father Rosenkranz, who was then a sitting priest of the Archdiocese; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: This victim reports that Father Rosenkranz on one occasion, for example, he kissed -- he was kissed by Father Rosenkranz; Father Rosenkranz laid on top of him and kissed him; Father Rosenkranz, quote, had me expose myself and discuss sex with him; and on at least one occasion while on an overnight trip, tried to coerce me into sleeping in his bed in a hotel where we stayed in Conway, New Hampshire. Is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And this allegation was received at the Archdiocese. The date of the letter is December 12, 1987. Do you see that at the top?

A: I see the date, yes.

Q: And it was addressed to you. Do you see that?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Do you have any recollection of receiving this letter?

A: I do not have a recollection of receiving the letter.

Q: Do you have any recollection of being involved in this allegation against Father Rosenkranz?

A: I know that there were allegations against Father Rosenkranz. I know that he is not actively involved as a priest, but I can't put a time on that.

Q: Right. Well, you know that there were allegations that were made in 1987, do you not, involving Father Rosenkranz; that there was a decision to keep Father Rosenkranz in active ministry; and that you allowed him to stay in active ministry and then there were other complaints made against him later on and then he was removed. Is that correct?

A: Yes. What I said, Mr. MacLeish, is that I was aware of the fact that there were allegations made against him. I was aware of the fact that he is not now in active ministry because of allegations and -- but I cannot give a time sequence.

Q: Well, what we're focusing on, Cardinal, respectfully, is the time between 1984 and 1989, which is the time when the individuals, one of whom is in the room today, alleged they were molested. If we could focus on that time period. You had asked me earlier to provide you with records of what was happening during that time and that's really what I'm trying to do now. So we have a record in 1987 of a complaint being made against Father Rosenkranz; is that correct?

A: Focusing on that time, if I may, for just a minute, given the allegations which I now know of with regard to Father Shanley and the abuse that has been suffered at his hands, I can only say about that time that it is with profound regret and with deep pain, and deep sorrow that I know of that.

Q: I understand that. This came up earlier, as you say, when we talked about your statement of May when you said you wish you had known about the 1966 allegation.

A: Yes.

Q: And you refer in that paragraph that I showed you, Exhibit 12, which you have in front of you, that you would have taken action. Now what we're doing is going through those situations where there was information presented to the Archdiocese and perhaps even to you about other priests who had engaged in these acts. That's what we're focusing on right now.

A: That's correct.

Q: We're not focusing on Father Shanley.

MR. CRAWFORD: These are not questions. He's making statements to which I object. Ask your questions.

MR. MacLEISH: The Cardinal talked about Father Shanley. We're not focusing on Father Shanley now. We're talking about Father Rosenkranz.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. But I thought you did reference me to the presence of people who had suffered because of Father Shanley present in the room.

MR. MacLEISH: Yes.

THE WITNESS: And I thought it was appropriate --

MR. MacLEISH: Fine.

THE WITNESS: -- in some way to acknowledge that.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. That's fine. I understand.

MR. ROGERS: I'd also note for the record that the Exhibit 76 we just went through is already Exhibit 45.

MR. MacLEISH: Right. I know that now.

MR. ROGERS: Are we going to go through and --

MR. MacLEISH: No. New exhibit.

(Law Exhibit No. 77, Memo to Law from McCormack, marked for identification.)

Q: Would you take a look at Exhibit 77 for me, Cardinal Law.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: You've had the opportunity to review Exhibit 77?

A: I have.

Q: Exhibit 77 is a memorandum to you, Cardinal Law, from Father McCormack regarding George Rosenkranz that is in reference to the allegations made in Exhibit 76. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And you'll see Father McCormack reporting to you personally in this memorandum about the allegations and also about his conversation with Father Rosenkranz. Do you see that? Second paragraph and third paragraph, first page.

A: On page 1?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes.

Q: Father Rosenkranz indicated he was upset by the charges and feared he would be publicly exposed or have to undergo a civil or criminal trial, and then it says: "In 1981 he was arrested for alleged sexual act in the men's room of a department store. This case was dismissed by the Peabody police due to insufficient evidence." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you know why that case was dismissed, Cardinal?

A: Other than insufficient evidence, as it states here, I don't.

Q: Did you know there was another man that was involved in that sexual act who was convicted?

A: I did not know that.

Q: Did Father McCormack ever tell you that?

A: I can't say that he did or didn't. I don't recollect that.

Q: Then in the next paragraph, Cardinal, it states, again, referring to Bishop McCormack's conversation with Father Rosenkranz: "In our conversation, he said other people have accused him of being sexually interested in them. A woman in Canton whose husband accused him of being responsible for his wife's pregnancy and another woman who chased him around a dining room stripping herself of clothing." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And that was reported to you by Bishop McCormack in this memorandum; is that correct?

A: It is contained in the memorandum, yes.

Q: Is that unusual type of information to be receiving about a priest?

A: It certainly is.

Q: It is it disturbing to you --

A: Absolutely.

Q: -- that Father Rosenkranz was discussing this with Bishop McCormack, these types of allegations? Was that of concern to you in 1987 when you read this?

A: Obviously the whole thing is of concern.

Q: And then he goes on in his memorandum on page 2 to report his meeting with the victim and his lawyer friend. Do you see that on page 2?

A: I do.

Q: And you'll see in the bottom paragraph, it states as follows: "Blank feels that a trusting" -- that's the victim -- "feels that a trusting and important relationship was misused by Father Rosenkranz's sexual desires. He said he began to deal with the trauma caused by this only recently. He is in counseling. He wants to make sure Father Rosenkranz is in no position to do this again. He would like to make sure that efforts are made by the Church to surface other victims of Father Rosenkranz's alleged abuse and let them know that they can be helped." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you recall earlier testimony in your deposition about your reasons for keeping matters concerning allegations of sexual abuse confidential --

A: Yes.

Q: -- that you were concerned that victims would not come forward if the Archdiocese went back? And Sister Mulkerrin, we saw her exhibits, her memorandum, she argued if you went back to the parishes and informed people of abuse, that there would be disincentive for -- sorry. Let me withdraw that whole question. You recall your testimony on why it was that you did not go back to the parishes?

A: Yes.

Q: You recall that?

A: It's not a question -- as I recall the question, Mr. MacLeish, it wasn't a matter of explaining why we didn't go back to the parishes. The question was why we did not have mandated reporting in '93. And the reason for that was that -- the fear that by putting that mandated reporting in on our part, we might inhibit victims from coming forward who would not have wanted to get into that forum.

And as I indicated, I believe at the time, and as I still believe, there was some substance to that reason, but I think that the benefit which would have accrued had we had mandated reporting would have been greater than the benefit -- than the risk of missing some people.

I don't think, though, that that question was put to me in relationship to going back to the churches.

Q: Well, you might recall an exhibit I put in front of you -- we can get it -- from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, urging at one point, with respect to a particular priest, to put notices in parish bulletins that there had been an allegation of abuse against a priest who had formerly served there. Do you remember that exhibit?

A: I really don't. Had a lot of things put before me.

Q: We'll try to locate that. At least with respect to Father Rosenkranz, you see the victim here is urging that the Archdiocese go back and make his allegations known so that other people can be helped. Do you see that?

A: I do. And I also see Father McCormack's response to him which reflected what the policy of the diocese was at that point, that his name, the diocese would not publicize his name.

Q: Right. They would not publish Father Rosenkranz's name?

A: Right.

Q: There's nothing in here, though, about the reasons for the policy, though, is there, Cardinal Law?

A: No, no.

Q: It just says Bishop McCormack states: "I said the diocese would not publicize Father Rosenkranz's name in order to surface the victims as they requested."

A: Yes.

Q: Now, you'll then see that there is further communication to you about Father Rosenkranz and potentially him going to the Institute for Living. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Third page.

(Law Exhibit No. 79, Letter to Rosenkranz from Banks, 5/6/88, marked for identification.)

Q: Have you had the opportunity to look at Exhibit 78?

A: I have.

Q: This is a letter to Father Rosenkranz from Bishop Banks, dated May 6, 1988, in which it is stated: "I'm writing in regard to the allegation made against you this past winter. After a thorough investigation of the charge, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason to pursue the matter any further. The person making the charge was unable to provide any corroborating evidence and your denial was supported by the favorable results of your evaluation." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Was there some sort of a requirement during the 1984 to '89 period that victims be required to or asked to provide corroborating evidence of sexual assaults?

A: You know, again, I cannot answer what the -- how it is that the office -- Father McCormack carried out his investigative procedure. Obviously, if you -- if you have one person making a charge, someone else denying it, and if you go to a place like the Institute of Living, which has some credibility as an institution, and you receive word, you receive a substantiation of the credibility of the person, the priest, you deal with that as best you can. It's not easy. Investigations are not easy. I think we probably do -- I hope we do a much better job today but --

Q: Cardinal Law, the Institute for Living on no occasion gave a finding or recommendation as to the credibility of particular priests that were sent there for evaluation, did they? They didn't do that? They made an assessment of the alleged perpetrator's psychological condition and whether he was a threat to children?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form of the question. You can answer.

A: I'm reading here in No. 78 --

Q: Right.

A: -- from Bishop Banks --

Q: Right.

A: -- that "the person making the charges was unable to provide any corroborating evidence and your denial was supported by the favorable results of your evaluation." Perhaps I'm reading too much into that.

Q: Right.

A: But what I'm saying is that where you have two people who are giving conflicting evidence about what took place, then the results of an evaluation of this kind would carry some weight in making a determination.

Q: To your knowledge, did the Institute for Living ever recommend that a priest be removed from active ministry in the period from 1984 to 1989?

A: I can't answer that one way or the other. I'd have to go back and look to see, first of all, how many priests we had that went there during that time and see what those recommendations were. If they were for that, it would have happened.

Q: But is it your belief that the Institute for Living at some point made credibility determinations concerning Father Rosenkranz? Is that your belief?

A: I really have -- the only belief I have about that is based upon this document which you've just put before me, No. 78, and I would have no reason to deny or to disbelieve what is said here, that "your denial was supported by the favorable results of your evaluation."

Q: It does not say -- I don't mean to belabor this, Cardinal, but it doesn't say in this letter from Bishop Banks that the Institute made a credibility determination. It just says that the evaluation of Father Rosenkranz was favorable. You don't really know what was said in the evaluation, do you?

A: No.

Q: Okay.

A: I didn't claim I did know.

Q: In any event, whatever was said about it being favorable turned out not, unfortunately, to be correct because there were further allegations about Father Rosenkranz?

A: That's correct.

Q: And eventually, Father Rosenkranz was removed from ministry; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question. You can answer.

Q: That's because other people came forward apart from this one victim who sets forth his story in Exhibit No. 76 in the letter that was sent to you, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you made the determination to send Father Rosenkranz back into ministry; is that not correct?

A: In '88, yes.

Q: Okay. And then the other allegations surfaced, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Now, so when you state in Exhibit No. 12 that if you had known of the 1966 allegation, action would have been taken, you're not suggesting that you would have removed Paul Shanley from St. Jean's, are you?

A: Mr. MacLeish, what I am suggesting by that "action would have been taken" is that the matter would have been examined; that there would have been appropriate action taken as a result of that examination.

If the allegation was a credible allegation, and if there were treatment for the priest, then a determination would have been made what was or was not appropriate at that point.

When I say that -- it's the second -- where is that?

Well, it doesn't say -- I can't think of -- I can't find that reference to the wording that you're using. But -- oh, here it is. Yes.

Q: Yes. "Action."

A: I would -- "most closely with me can attest that such a report would have been acted upon."

Q: Then the last sentence too.

A: The last sentence: "It is only possible to act based on what is known." Acted upon in terms of that earlier time frame would have been acted upon in the light of the policy at that time.

I think, again, if I may reference this Document 77, at the top of the page, he, the alleged victim, asked what does the diocese do with priests in this matter?

And I think this is an important document because it does state what it was that was the policy understood by the person responsible to carrying it out in 1987. This is your document 77, page 3.

Q: Right.

A: He asked: "What does the diocese do with priests in this matter? I related the procedure we follow when such a complaint is made is to see the person, then see the priest. Once the determination is made that intervention is required, I told him how the priest's activity is restricted and how he's assisted along with any victims whom we learn have been affected by him."

That was in general our policy. And as you know from this case, Father Geoghan's case and other cases, we did put people back in ministry in those days. But it wasn't -- it wasn't putting people back in ministry with the thought that, well, we're just going to move this person from A to B or this person is a risk but we're going to take the chance by putting him in a different environment. It was under -- it was because we felt that we had reason to believe that this person, having had this brought to their attention, having gone through some treatment, was not a risk.

As I said before, and I think in my first deposition before you -- and I'm happy to repeat it every time -- I wish to God that that had not been our policy then. I wish to God that at that point, we had had the policy that we now have in place; that where there has been acting out in terms of sexual abuse of a minor, the person may not serve in any position no matter what.

Q: I understand --

A: That was not our policy then.

Q: I understand that. And we're really focusing, Cardinal, if we could direct you back to the '84, '89 time period. I understand what your policy is now.

But at least in 1984, you have a matter involving Father Rosenkranz that is brought to your attention that contains some very explicit and detailed allegations; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: These are charges brought against a man who reports to Bishop McCormack that women are making allegations about him chasing him around a dining room table while the woman is stripping herself of clothing and another allegation made by Father Rosenkranz that there's a woman in Canton whose husband accused him of being responsible for his wife's pregnancy.

We also see from Bishop McCormack's report that Father Rosenkranz was arrested in 1981, although the charge was dismissed, for an alleged sexual act in the men's room of a department store. So that information was before you, Cardinal Law; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you had -- did you ask to interview the victim, by the way? Did you ask to do that?

A: I did not do that. That was the responsibility of Father McCormack.

Q: And then you made the decision to reinstate Father McCormack to ministry, finding --

A: Father Rosenkranz.

Q: Sorry. -- Father Rosenkranz -- I apologize -- to ministry, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And one of the reasons that you made that determination was because the person making the charge was unable to provide any corroborating evidence. Do you see that in Bishop Banks' letter?

A: First of all, Bishop Banks is writing this letter as Vicar General in his own -- in his own name. You see that?

Q: Yes. With your approval?

A: Well, no, not necessarily with my approval. Certainly my implicit approval, but I wouldn't assume that I saw this letter. My presumption is that I knew of the substance of this letter, but, as a Vicar for Administration, as a Vicar General, it would have been appropriate for him to write this letter.

Q: When he says the person making the charge was unable to provide any corroborating evidence, in the case of sexual assaults, Cardinal, you would agree with me that there generally is not a third-party witness to such assaults, correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form of the question. You can answer if you can.

Q: Do you understand the question?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you agree with me?

A: Well, you know, I agree with the narrowness of your question, but I think that corroborating evidence can be other kind of evidence besides that, in terms of time, in terms of place, and I don't -- I don't think that you -- but you would need to ask Bishop Banks that.

I'm sure that Bishop Banks wasn't expecting that the kind of evidence that needs to be given is the kind of evidence that is evidentiary evidence to the act itself.

But if you have two people giving conflicting account as to what occurred, then it does seem to me that you've got to look at some kind of evidence to resolve this.

Q: But in this particular case, there was a detailed charge and there was a vehement denial and the decision was made to put him back into ministry, correct?

A: The decision was, first of all, to send him to the Institute of the Living, which, from our perspective, is a rather significant thing to do. And it would have been quite another matter if you would have had someone coming forward with this allegation, someone denying the allegation, and then a decision being made on that basis alone that, well, there's -- they're conflicting so we'll just go ahead and put him back in. That was not done.

(Law Exhibit No. 79, Handwritten Letter to Law, marked for identification.)

MR. CRAWFORD: Do you want to take a break?

THE WITNESS: No, not yet.

MR. CRAWFORD: He's read it.

MR. MacLEISH: You're ready? I'm sorry.

MR. CRAWFORD: That's why I was asking you, Mr. MacLeish, if you wanted to take a break.

MR. MacLEISH: No, no. Sometimes I have -- I'm sorry. The witness is finished.

Q: You have Exhibit 78. Do you see that, Cardinal Law?

A: I do.

Q: This is a letter, again, sent to you during the same time period that we're talking about, 1984 to 1989, from the mother of an alleged victim of Father O'Sullivan. Do you see that?

A: I do.

MR. CRAWFORD: Eric, it's 79.

MR. ROGERS: 79.

MR. MacLEISH: 79. Sorry.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me? Oh, yeah.

Q: Do you see that, Cardinal?

A: I do, I do.

Q: You'll see that this woman reports that Father O'Sullivan's actions toward her son were insurmountable. Do you see it on the first page?

A: Yes.

Q: You see on Exhibit 15, originally -- if you want to take a look at that and just refresh your recollection. These were your notes on July 16, 1993, just prior to an article in the Boston Globe concerning Father Eugene O'Sullivan. Do you see that? The article in the Globe is Exhibit No. 16 if you want to see that.

A: Where should I look?

Q: Let's start with Exhibit No. 16. Okay? Just the Globe article.

A: 16. All right.

Q: Which is, you'll see that's dated July 17, 1993.

A: Yes.

Q: And you'll see that there's an entry in the fifth paragraph of the article: "O'Sullivan pleaded guilty in 1984 to a charge of having unlawful sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with a boy younger than 16 in Arlington, Massachusetts. The offenses allegedly began when the boy was 13 and continued for two years." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Exhibit 15 are your notes, and I think there are some notations from Bishop Hughes on the day prior to the publication of the Globe article, July 16, 1993. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: In fact, this is -- it starts off: "Al: Some thoughts on the O'Sullivan case." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And it states in a third of the way down in numbered paragraph 1 -- again, I apologize for the copy. This was the best copy that we could get from your files. "In 1985" -- Do you see where it says --

A: It's the only copy, so --.

Q: Well, we're going to try to get a better copy. "1. In 1985, Father O'Sullivan came to respond" -- I believe that is -- "came to me to respond to allegations and to acknowledge substance of" -- I believe that's a "them" after, although I'm not sure.

A: May I say a word about this document here?

Q: Yeah. If you could just respond to my question first. I just want to make sure I got the reading right. Then I'm going to give you that opportunity.

A: All right.

Q: Father O'Sullivan -- you note Father O'Sullivan came to you in 1985 where he acknowledged the substance of the allegations of sexual molestation against him. Is that a fair statement?

A: Well, you know, I don't recall the details of the meeting, but this is my memo, and this is a memo that there refers to that taking place, so I presume in '85 that did in fact happen, yes.

Q: And then in No. 2, you state: "This is my first knowledge of this" -- I can't read -- maybe you can help me with your writing here -- "of this. No." -- "of this. No previous reports have been received." Do you see that? Did I read that correctly?

A: I see that.

Q: Then you see Bishop Hughes' handwriting on the left saying: "Certain? There were previous reports." Do you see that?

A: Yes. And that's what I would like to have reference to. This was my effort to think through this issue and to give this memorandum to Bishop Hughes and to get his reaction to that, and, frankly, to check my memory to ascertain whether I was right or wrong. And that's -- that indicates the -- that indicates the reason why the notations are there and that really is the intent of this kind of a -- when I say "some thoughts," that's what it is. It's some thoughts. I'm trying to think through the thing. I'm trying to see how we can respond. I'm trying to recall what the facts of the case are.

Q: Sure. But in any event, we agree that there was an admission in this case -- again, we're talking about the time period that Father Shanley was in Newton allegedly molesting my clients.

This is yet another -- well, this is an example of an allegation of sexual molestation that was admitted to by Father O'Sullivan; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And was Father O'Sullivan removed from active ministry?

A: He was removed from active ministry.

Q: Well, he was ultimately removed from active ministry, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Wasn't removed in 1985, though, was he?

A: He have not removed in 1985.

Q: He was sent down to the Diocesan of Matuchen, New Jersey; is that correct?

A: He served in the Diocese of Matuchen.

Q: Where he worked with children?

A: And where he worked evidently well.

Q: Well, whether he worked well or not, he worked with children after pleading guilty, as the Globe reports, to some act of sexual intercourse with a minor?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you made the decision after that to send him down or to allow him to go down to the Diocese of Matuchen, New Jersey, to work with children?

A: We did, and I believe we did -- I stand to be corrected on this -- with the knowledge of -- I think he had a probation officer, did he not? I believe he did.

Q: I could respond to that if you want me to and I will if you want me to.

A: No.

Q: I don't think you want to hear the answer.

MR. CRAWFORD: Why don't you ask questions.

MR. MacLEISH: Well, I did. He asked me a question. I'm happy to respond if you --

A: The answer is yes.

Q: The answer is yes?

A: Yes.

Q: So, again, if you had -- here is a case of a plea of guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor and this man was not removed from active ministry, correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you made that decision, Cardinal Law, correct?

A: I did.

Q: Let's take a look at -- by the way, did you -- do you ever remember receiving Exhibit 79 and meeting with the mother of this woman?

A: I do not remember that.

Q: Do you remember receiving -- again, I'm going to ask you these questions, having seen now a number of letters that have been directed to your attention, again, during the time period '84 to '88, do you ever remember receiving any letter concerning sexual molestation by a priest from a parent or a victim during that period?

A: I would have to have you show me the letter and ask me.

Q: But as of right now, you don't remember the letter that was sent, that we went over earlier from the Department of Social Services? You don't remember receiving that, right?

A: I do not.

Q: You don't remember receiving the Higgs letter involving Paul Shanley?

A: That's correct.

Q: You don't remember receiving the letter that was sent to you by the man, Exhibit 76, complaining about Father Rosenkranz, right?

A: That's correct. I remember dealing with the cases.

Q: I'm just talking about receiving the letters. You don't remember receiving Exhibit 79, which is a letter sent to you about Father Eugene O'Sullivan? You don't remember receiving that?

A: That's correct.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's go to another letter.

(Law Exhibit No. 80, Letter to Graham, marked for identification.)

Q: Okay. We see in Exhibit 80, which is a document that we've received, I believe, since the last day of your deposition, we see a complaint about Father Graham in which the person indicates that: "Twenty years ago you sexually assaulted me over a course of a couple of years on numerous occasions. As you are fully aware, this abuse took place when I was under the age of 18 and attending high school." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And do you see that he reports in the second paragraph that he was sexually assaulted in Father Graham's car, his parents' home, your vacation home in Hull, our Lady of Lords Rectory in Stoughton, Massachusetts, St. Patrick's Rectory in Stoneham and others? Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you see the date up at the top, May 1988?

A: I see the date May '88, yes.

Q: We'll have some other documents that will show that this is all in 1988, which, again, is during that same time period, 1984 to 1989, when Paul Shanley was at St. Jean's.

And you'll see in the third to last paragraph, fourth to last paragraph, it reports, the writer states: "I have recently learned that you continue to befriend young boys, taking them away on overnights and no doubt abusing them as well, getting upset when they grow older and terminate their relationship with you." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Then it states: "I can only imagine how many victims you have" over -- "have had over the years. I cannot allow this to continue on while I keep quiet." Okay? Then it says: "I can, however, give you the opportunity to make things right. I request that you do the following: Inform your pastor of what has been taking place, remove yourself from all child-related activities." Do you see that? There's a number of other requests.

A: I do.

Q: Turn over to the second page, you'll see that you're cc'd on this letter, Cardinal. It says: "Cc Cardinal Bernard Law, Archdiocese of Boston." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Do you remember receiving a copy of this letter?

A: I don't remember seeing a copy of this letter.

Q: Well, this makes very serious and specific charges against Father Graham; is that correct?

A: It does.

Q: You would agree that an individual who would engage in the sexual assault of a minor, even in 1988, should not be involved with any type of parish ministry? Is that your view in 1988, Cardinal Law?

A: My view is that in 1988, my view would have been that charges like this being lodged against a priest for activity having occurred 20 years before would need to be reviewed and looked at by extensive evaluation and treatment of the priest themselves, and then I'd need to receive some sort of an indication as to what would be appropriate for that priest. That would have been the case in '88.

Q: So just so I'm clear, in 1988, even if it could have been firmly established that a priest had engaged in sexual assaults over the course of a couple of years on a young man, that priest would not automatically be disqualified from being allowed to engage in parish ministry. Is that your testimony?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question. You can answer.

A: My testimony, Mr. MacLeish, relates to the policy of this Archdiocese as it has evolved.

Q: I'm talking about 1984 to 1989, Cardinal.

A: I understand that. As you know, in that period of time, it would be possible for a priest who had engaged in this kind of activity, theoretically possible for that kind of a priest to be reassigned if there were indication from treatment and -- that this would be safe. That is not our policy now, as you know. You don't like me to keep reminding you of that, but I have to tell you that our policy did evolve.

Q: I don't mind you stating that, Cardinal, but we're here to talk about the people in this room right now, what happened --

A: I understand that.

Q: -- in 1984 to 1989. So if we could try to stay focused on that, that would be helpful.

A: And I have attempted earlier, and I do it again, to say that I wish to God that our policy had been different then, but I cannot say what it wasn't when you're asking me what it was.

Q: Just so we're clear, that this man is reporting sexual assaults over a period of years in a number of different locations, correct?

A: Against one individual, that's correct.

Q: Against Father Daniel Graham. You're copied on the letter. Okay?

A: Yes.

Q: You have no recollection --

A: Allegations are being made that this individual sending the letter was abused by Father Graham over a period of time, 20 years previously. That's correct.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark the exhibit. (Law Exhibit No. 81, Memo, 5/9/88, marked for identification.)

A: Yes.

Q: This is Exhibit No. 81, which is a memorandum of Bishop Banks, dated May 9, '88; is that correct?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: And on Exhibit 80, if you could just look back at that, Cardinal Law,

A: 80?

Q: Yeah. See up in the upper right-hand corner the date is May '88, handwritten. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Does that look like Bishop Banks' handwriting?

MR. CRAWFORD: Don't speculate if you don't know.

MR. MacLEISH: I'm just asking him.

A: I have to say that on that specimen, I can't say.

Q: Okay. Fine. In any event, Bishop Banks investigates the allegations that are made in Exhibit No. 80, and it's stated in Exhibit No. 81, in this memorandum, it states: "I met with Father Graham and he confessed that as a seminarian and a young priest, he had been involved with a young man and that this involvement involved sexual activity." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: So this took place when Father Graham was both a seminarian and a young priest. Do you see that?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question. You can answer.

Q: That's what this document reports, Father Graham's admission?

A: The document says that he confessed as a seminarian and a young priest, yes.

Q: That would have involved presumably more than a year; is that correct?

A: That's -- well, perhaps. The whole period would have perhaps -- would imply more than a year, yes.

Q: And it also states that: "A short time after his ordination, Father Graham realized that the activity was incompatible with his priesthood and cut off the relationship. He also took other steps to address the problem, such as entering into better friendships with priests." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: It goes on to state, in the -- you'll see in, I think it's the fifth paragraph: "After meeting with Father Graham, I said he should do something about the young man. Father Graham reports that he tried to meet the young man but the young man refused. Father then asked Father Paul Shanley" -- I think that's Shanley. There's no Father Shaley?

A: Not that I know of.

Q: -- "Father Paul Shanley to meet with the young man and to explain that Father Graham was in good condition now. The concern of the young man was not for himself but for other young people whom Father Graham might be abusing." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: What role did Father Shanley have in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1988 with respect to providing assistance to priests who were accused of sexual misconduct, if you know?

A: He had no position. I think, however, the very fact that Bishop Banks would have asked him to do this would point to the lack of suspicion on the part of either Bishop Banks or myself with regard to Father Shanley.

Q: Well, I don't want to go over the records that we've had before, but you know that later in 1988 there was a report from a patient at the Maclean Hospital that Father Shanley had engaged in inappropriate behavior with him and that was investigated by Bishop Banks. Do you recall that, Cardinal Law?

A: What year was that?

Q: 1988.

A: Yeah.

Q: And we also know that Bishop Banks responded to Mrs. Higgs in 1985; is that correct?

A: I can't recall the date when that letter was responded to, but if you say that, that's when it was, yeah.

Q: Well, we can go over your prior testimony, but in your prior testimony -- Well, I'm going to let your prior testimony on Bishop Banks speak for itself.

A: Surely.

Q: In any event, Bishop Banks somehow -- well, it doesn't say that Bishop Banks asked Paul Shanley to be involved, does it? It says: "Father then asked Father Paul Shanley to meet with the young man."

A: Okay. Yeah.

Q: Doesn't say anything about Bishop Banks?

A: That's right, that's right, that's right, that's right.

Q: Then it says, in the second to the last paragraph: "I also asked Father Graham to meet with Father O'Hanley and I have received from Father O'Hanley" --

A: Excuse me. That's Dr. O'Hanley.

MR. ROGERS: Dr. O'Hanley.

MR. MacLEISH: Dr. O'Hanley, right.

Q: "And I've received from Dr. O'Hanley a report which allows us to continue to assign Father Graham to priestly ministry." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: You were the person who ultimately made the decision that this man, who had admitted in engaging in sexual activity with a minor, could be returned -- remain in active ministry; is that correct?

A: I did, dependent upon those who were charged with investigating, and in this case would have been Bishop Banks.

Q: And he was returned to active ministry, is that correct, in Quincy?

A: That's correct.

Q: And his parishioners were not informed, Cardinal, about the fact that he had admitted engaging in sexual activity with a minor 20 years earlier; is that correct?

A: That's correct, that's correct.

Q: And, in fact, then more people came forward, including this year, against Father Graham and made new allegations; is that correct?

A: Father Graham was removed this year --

Q: Right.

A: -- from active ministry. I'm not -- as I'm sitting here now, I don't know whether that was a matter of new allegations or whether that was going back and looking at everybody who -- against whom allegations had been made, which had been substantial, as this was, who were allowed to go back into ministry. But then we made the determination that they could not remain in ministry and they were removed. So I'm not sure whether in this case it's a matter of the old allegation alone or the old plus new.

Q: Do you know of any steps that were taken in the case of Father O'Sullivan that you directed so that the parishioners in New Jersey, in Matuchen, New Jersey, where Father O'Sullivan was sent after pleading guilty to unnatural sexual intercourse, that they would be informed that the person who was now working in their parish had been convicted of a sex crime? Did you do anything like that or direct anyone to do anything like that?

A: No.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Do you want to take a break?

MR. ROGERS: Please.

MR. MacLEISH: Sure.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 2:58. This is the end of Video Cassette No. 2. We're off the record.

(Recess.)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record. The time is 3:09. This is the beginning of Video Cassette No. 3 in the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law.

Q: Okay. Cardinal Law, if you could refer to Exhibit No. 81, please.

A: In the book?

Q: No, no.. 81, which is before you, the last one we looked at.

This makes reference to Father Graham meeting with Dr. O'Hanley. I think we've covered that before.

Did you make any inquiry whether Dr. O'Hanley had any expertise in the area of treatment of individuals who were accused of sexual molestation?

A: No. Mr. MacLeish, I relied on my colleagues who were directly involved in carrying out investigations to refer to both institutes or -- for in-patient treatment or to individuals for out-patient treatment.

Q: This was a man who had admitted engaging in the behavior -- we've been through other situations such as Father Rosenkranz, Father Geoghan, who were sent to the Institute for Living.

Was there any protocol in existence in the period from '84 to '89 on when someone would be sent to a specialized facility like the Institute for Living or simply be sent to a local doctor?

MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question. You may answer.

A: The closest you're going to come to, I think, to an expression of what the policy was at that time and the operating principles of the policy at that time, are in your Document No. 77. And it's that third page, that first paragraph, where Father McCormack is responding --

Q: Right.

A: -- to the alleged victim of Father Rosenkranz. There were no specific protocols that I am aware of that would have made the distinction when you -- that would have established the criteria for electing in-patient treatment rather than out-patient treatment. I would say that, I would say that --

Q: Excuse me. Go ahead.

A: May I finish?

Q: Yes. Absolutely.

A: As time went on, I think that we came to realize, those working with me came to realize that in-patient was not only desirable but was really needed; that the -- that you couldn't deal with this in, effectively, in other ways.

Q: Well, all I'm asking -- let me just try to clarify one thing. When people were sent to the Institute for Living, they were not sent for treatment; they were sent for assessment. Is that not the case, Cardinal Law?

A: It could be either.

Q: Okay.

A: You could have a situation -- certainly, the first thing that came would be an evaluation, but you might have an evaluation which would indicate a necessity for in-patient treatment, and that was possible at Institute of Living, and I believe that we did have people who were in-patient.

Southdown in Canada would be the place where I would imagine -- I would imagine Southdown and St. Luke's at the end were the places that we would have utilized most frequently but -- and even those places, someone may go for evaluation for a shorter period of time and then find -- we would find that treatment would have been needed. And this would be cases even of people who were removed from active ministry but who would need the treatment anyway to move on with some greater awareness in their life.

Q: All right. So in the case of Father Graham, I would like to focus on specifically, you certainly wanted competent professionals, even back in 1988, to examine individuals who had credible allegations or even admitted allegations of child molestations against them; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Did you do anything, Cardinal Law, in any way, to verify the credentials of Dr. O'Hanley with respect to his analysis of Father Graham?

A: I did not do that personally, no.

Q: And the memorandum, No. 81, states: "I also asked Father Graham to meet with Father" -- "with Dr. O'Hanley." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: It doesn't indicate how many times he met with Dr. O'Hanley?

A: It does not.

Q: It doesn't indicate that there's any ongoing treatment with Dr. O'Hanley; is that correct?

A: It doesn't indicate that that was indicated by Dr. O'Hanley or that it had occurred, that's correct.

Q: It doesn't indicate whether Father Graham might have had a long-standing relationship with Dr. O'Hanley because he was a general practitioner, for example, as was the case with John Geoghan and Dr. Brennan?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. Answer if you can.

MR. MacLEISH: I withdraw the question.

Q: You don't know whether Dr. O'Hanley could have been a personal acquaintance of Father Graham's or his long-standing general practitioner, do you?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer.

MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.

A: No, I do not. I would presume from the sentence, "I also asked Father Graham to meet with Dr. O'Hanley," that since Dr. O'Hanley was involved, I think, in some other cases as well, that the choice of Dr. O'Hanley would have been the choice of Bishop Banks. But I can't prove that. That's an inference from what I'm reading here.

Q: Okay. Is Father Graham still a priest in good standing with the Archdiocese of Boston?

A: Father Graham is off of active ministry, has been removed from active ministry.

Q: Is he receiving any financial benefits from the Archdiocese?

A: I cannot answer that. I would presume he may be but --

Q: Okay. What about Father Shanley. Is he receiving any forms of financial assistance from the Archdiocese?

A: I'm not aware of -- I can't answer that question. I don't know.

Q: Okay. All right.

(Law Exhibit No. 82, Handwritten Document, marked for identification.)

(Law Exhibit No. 83, Memo, 5/18/94, marked for identification.)

Q: Okay. You've looked at Exhibit 82, Cardinal Law. These, again, are documents that we've obtained from your files. These were documents obtained, Exhibit 82, in the case of Father John Hanlon. Do you recall John Hanlon was convicted --

A: Yes. He's in prison.

Q: He's in prison. And you've gone down to visit him in prison on a number of occasions?

A: I have.

Q: These are notes of Sister Catherine Mulkerrin. Do you see the initials CEM?

A: I do.

Q: It says: "CEM. Some suggestions shared for reaching out -- bulletin -- orally through other families." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: Could you please look at Exhibit 83. You can feel free to read the whole thing I'm going to be asking you specifically about the last paragraph in Exhibit 83.

A: Okay.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: You'll see the last paragraph on Exhibit 83, it says -- this is, by the way, a memorandum from Sister Catherine to Father McCormack in 1994, May 18, 1994, regarding allegations against Father Richard Matte. You know Father Matte; is that correct?

A: I do.

Q: And --

A: He is no longer in active ministry.

Q: Right. He's still receiving financial assistance from the Archdiocese, though?

A: He may be. I don't know that.

Q: Well, there are a number of allegations against Father Matte; is that correct?

A: There are.

Q: Yes. And the last paragraph, Cardinal: "CEM. This may be, 'by the books,' but it feels like a second victimization. The burden is put on a minor all over again and now on his family. 'Broken record,' by CEM: It has come to our attention that a priest stationed here between 19 blank and 19 blank may have molested children. Please contact, period, period, period (parish bulletin)." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: What do you interpret CEM as stating in that paragraph? That's Sister Catherine?

A: Well, I presume it refers to what's above in May 13 where it says: "The DSS, DA need permission from the family to come out. However, blank wants no part of reporting or of counseling." And the victimization, the second victimization would be, the consequence of that taking place, would -- is inhibiting the person from getting the help that is needed and it's a second victimization.

Q: Right. But Sister Catherine is also talking about what she spoke about in Exhibit No. 82, some suggestions shared for reaching out, bulletin, orally through other families. Do you see that?

A: It may be in reference to that.

Q: She states the last part: "Broken record by CEM. It has come to our attention that a priest stationed here between 19 blank and 19 blank" --

A: Yes, yes.

Q: -- "may have molested children."

A: Yes.

Q: "Please contact (parish bulletin)." She's advocating in this, is she not, Cardinal Law, for outreach that would not in any way expose the identity of the victim to the parishes where people like Father Matte worked? That's what she was advocating, wasn't it?

A: Yes. That's correct.

Q: Did she ever advocate that to you?

A: She didn't advocate that to me directly, but, as you know, it is now part of our policy to do that.

Q: I'm talking -- we're talking now about 1994 --

A: I'm well aware of --

Q: -- it was not your policy then?

A: I'm well aware of that, yes.

Q: Has anyone gone back to the former parishioners of St. Jean's, as of right now, Cardinal Law, to let them know that there are credible allegations of sexual molestation against Father Shanley? Has anyone done that?

A: First of all, St. Jean's as a parish doesn't exist anymore.

Q: I know. But the parish records exist.

A: The parish records exist, yes, but the parish doesn't exist.

But it is our policy to reach out to parishes where allegations have come to light and we are doing that. We have a number of allegations that have been made with regard to priests in the past. As you know, most of the allegations which have come forward since 1993 are not allegations of activity that are contemporary, but it's activity that has occurred years before, with the exception of allegations against two priests. And we are attempting to respond to those.

Since January, we've had such a plethora of names being brought forward that we have a lot of catch-up to do.

Q: You'll see back in 1994, Sister Catherine was advocating for doing then what you are attempting to be doing now. Do you see what?

A: I do.

Q: The last paragraph?

A: I do.

Q: Can you -- did you appreciate in 1994, Cardinal Law, when there were allegations about priests of the Archdiocese coming forward, as we've seen in the exhibits today, that it might be helpful to mitigate some of the damage if there could be some outreach to the parishes where people like Father Matte, Father O'Sullivan, Father Rosenkranz, Father Graham served?

A: Yes. And there has been outreach to the parish where Father Graham has served. There is -- as I stand to be corrected -- but I believe there was outreach also to the parish where Father Matte served.

Q: I'm talking about 1994.

A: And we're attempting to do that. I'm talking about now.

Q: My question was in 1994, did it occur to you that it might be useful for people who had been victimized at these parishes but didn't know there were allegations against the same person who had molested them, for a parish bulletin notation like Sister Catherine was arguing, something like that take place?

A: What occurred --

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer.

A: What occurred --

Q: Do you understand the question?

A: I understand the question. What occurred to me in 1994, I can't respond to. What I can respond to is what our policy was then and what it is now.

Q: All right. Could we please go, if you look at your exhibit binder, Cardinal Law, to Exhibit 47, please. It's a group of documents. If you'll see that there is a notation in that group of documents up at the top right-hand corner -- it's in the bottom corner as well -- but if you could turn to JB No. 11. All these documents concern Father Joseph Birmingham.

A: Yes. I have it.

Q: You have it? This document is stamped "Not acknowledged at Residence." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: I think that this is the first one that we've had today of the letters that have been sent to you involving Father Rosenkranz, Father Graham, the complaint from the person working at DSS, this is the first one, I believe, that has that particular stamp on it, if I'm not mistaken. Do you see that?

MR. CRAWFORD: Let me object to the form of the question.

A: Excuse me?

MR. CRAWFORD: Are you asking him if he sees this?

Q: That's okay. You see the stamp, right?

A: I do see the stamp, yes.

Q: We've been through a number of documents, such as Exhibit No. 80 concerning Father Graham, that did not have the stamp on it; Exhibit No. 79, which did not have the not acknowledged stamp on it; the exhibit that we spoke about previously from DSS which did not have the not acknowledged stamp on it.

A: I don't see that DSS thing, but that's all right.

Q: I think we went over it.

A: It's a matter of record. If it has it, it has it. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Q: Well, in any event, Cardinal Law, do you remember receiving this letter concerning Father Joseph Birmingham?

A: Let me finish reading it.

(Pause.)

A: I do not remember receiving this letter.

Q: All right.

A: And, again, the stamps would indicate that the way in which this was handled, "Not acknowledged at Residence," sent to the Office of Ministerial Personnel, with the implicit understanding that they would respond.

Q: So when that stamp doesn't appear, it's -- it could have been the case that you saw the letter directly?

A: Not necessarily but could have been. If the stamp is there, that's a likely indication that I did not see the letter.

Q: Well, again, Cardinal Law, this is yet another letter in the 1984 to 1989 time period -- I think it's the fifth letter that we've covered so far: We've covered the DSS letter, we've covered the Rosenkranz letter, we've covered the letter concerning Father Graham and now we have the letter concerning Father Birmingham. And did I mention Rosenkranz? So four --

A: You did mention Rosenkranz. He might have been in there. Was he the DSS?

Q: No, no. The DSS doesn't -- mentions diocesan --

A: That's right. It doesn't mention --

Q: Doesn't mention anybody. Anyway, we've had, at this point, at least, four or five of these letters that have been sent to you, none of which you remember receiving.

A: '84 to '89.

Q: '84 to '89 time period.

A: A letter a year.

Q: Well --

A: About. Average. Right?

Q: Cardinal, we've only gotten the records of 15 priests and we're not quite through, so we have some more records we're going to show you today.

A: Fine.

Q: But I would ask you, in light of your testimony this morning that the issue of childhood sexual abuse by clergy was not something that you considered to be pervasive in the time period from '84 to '89, there certainly were complaints that were made; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: There were certainly priests who -- one priest who had admitted engaging in it.

A: That's correct.

Q: Actually, two priests because Father O'Sullivan pled guilty, correct?

A: Correct.

Q: So now we have a letter concerning Father Birmingham. And isn't it the case -- and I don't want to go over this again -- but you assigned Father Birmingham to St. Brigid's in Lexington after there had been allegations that he had been involved in sexual misconduct with minors at St. Ann's in Gloucester; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And you, in fact, made Father Birmingham or assigned Father Birmingham the pastorship of St. Ann's in Gloucester; is that correct?

A: I believe I -- I believe I did, depending on what year that --

Q: That was 1985.

A: -- that he was made -- yes, I would have then. I would have been here --

Q: And you now know --

A: -- a year.

Q: I'm sorry.

A: Yes.

Q: You now know -- and it's actually in Exhibit 47 -- that dating back to the -- to 1964, there were allegations of sexual misconduct against Father Birmingham?

A: I see that in terms of this document, yes.

Q: And then you'll turn to the next page and you'll see more allegations in 1970 against Father Birmingham. Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: So when someone came forward with respect to Father Birmingham, he was not removed from ministry; he was transferred over from St. Ann's as pastor to St. Brigid's in Lexington. True?

A: You read even what this letter says in the second paragraph --

Q: Right.

A: -- "Resigned for reasons of health." I don't recall the year that Father Birmingham died but I do recall --

Q: '89.

A: I do recall that he had cancer.

Q: Right.

A: And I do recall that he was in residence at St. Brigid's, died at St. Brigid's.

Q: Right.

A: And as I recall, but the record should show that -- and I haven't checked those records -- is I recall he had a very restricted assignment at St. Brigid's in view of his health. He was, in effect, dying.

Q: Well, he died in 1989, Cardinal Law.

A: That's correct.

Q: He was transferred in 1987. So my question to you is: After the allegations surfaced at St. Ann's, you transferred him to St. Brigid's in Lexington, and you did not place any restrictions on him in terms of his access to minors while he was at St. Brigid's, correct?

A: I'm not sure that's true. I'd want to check that out. I would want to check that out.

Q: Could you? Okay. All right. That's fine. If you have any documents that show that --

A: I would want to check that out. Yes, I'd want to check that out and I'd want to check that out in terms of a discussion that I recently had with a victim of Father Birmingham.

Q: In any event, Father Birmingham was at a parish after the allegations --

A: He was. He was.

Q: -- were made involving his misconduct at St. Ann's?

A: He was.

Q: And what was the purpose in transferring him to a parish as opposed to some sort of facility such as Our Lady's in Milton or another facility where he could have a close eye kept on him?

A: Yeah. My sense is that, that his health situation was precarious and the idea was to put him in a place where there would be -- there could be limitation upon him but he would be with someone who knew him and --.

Q: Someone who knew him?

A: Yes. A priest.

Q: Okay. All right. Let's now refer to the case of Father John Geoghan, if we could, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 84, Handwritten Document, 9/6/84, marked for identification.)

(Pause.)

(Law Exhibit No. 85, Letter, 9/18/84, marked for identification.)

Q: You've read Exhibit No. 84?

A: I have.

Q: This is a letter that you've seen before; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: It's a letter sent to you on September 6, 1984, by a Margaret Gallant concerning Father John Geoghan; is that correct?

A: It is.

Q: And she reports in the letter that she has three nephews and four grandnephews who have had dealings with Father Geoghan.

A: Yes.

Q: "I'm quite certain of these facts" and she reports to you in this letter that Father Geoghan lately has been seen in the company of many boys. Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you meet with Mrs. Gallant back in 1984?

A: I don't know. I don't know whether I did or not.

Q: Did you receive a copy of this letter, remember seeing this letter back in 1984?

A: You know, I've seen this letter. I don't know whether I've seen this letter in that earlier time frame or not. I would imagine, given what is written on the side, that I would have, if this letter was addressed to me, which I presume it was.

Q: I'm sorry. There was some notation --

A: Well, it says on my copy "Personal letter of conscious." It says "Letter of conscious."

Q: "Personal letter of conscious"? Okay.

A: Yes. And if that had been on the envelope, then I would have seen that.

Q: Okay. Cardinal Law, did you keep an appointments book when you were back in the period from '84 to '89, appointments calendar?

A: I don't think I did. I kept my own appointment book before I got here, and when I got here, my appointments were kept by my administrative assistant.

Q: Is that Mrs. Woodward?

A: Mrs. Woodward, yes.

Q: Does she have an appointment book for you right now?

A: Not a book.

Q: How would you describe it?

A: Now we do it on computer. I forget how it was kept in '84. I get a calendar. I get a -- every day I get a folder, and the folder has an hour-by-hour breakdown on the front and that's -- those are my appointments.

Q: And that was your practice in '84 up until '89, to get pieces of paper, documents that indicated what your calendar would be?

A: That's right. Every day I would get a printout. Well, I get a printout now and I've had a printout for a long time. I, frankly, don't remember -- this was months after I got here as Archbishop. I can't remember exactly what the system was at that point, but it evolved at some point to a computerized recordkeeping.

Q: Do you know whether your old appointment materials have been kept at the Archdiocese?

A: I would not know. They certainly wouldn't have to be kept, but whether they have been kept, I don't know.

Q: So if, for example, you had met with Paul Shanley in 1985, there might have been a written record kept of that in your appointment documents?

MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form. You can answer.

A: Yes. If I -- I mean, is it possible that I met with people that somehow, you know, walked in and got me in a free moment? That's conceivable. But for the most part, if I met with somebody, it would have been a scheduled meeting.

Q: Well, do you know whether there's been any search of your records to determine whether there are documents concerning Paul Shanley that are responsive to our records request in this case and two court orders?

A: I am certain that all of the requests that have come from you and others for records are attempted to being responded to as expeditiously as possible, and I'm sure you can appreciate how much time all of that takes.

Q: Well. I'm focusing specifically on the appointment records. Do you know whether there's been any search of your old appointment records to see if there are any meetings that you either had with Father Paul Shanley or which were about Father Paul Shanley?

A: No, no, I do not know the answer to that question because I am not directly involved in that request. I -- requests I know have come from a number of sources, including yourself, but not exclusively from you, for a variety of documents. And those requests are attempted to be met as efficiently and quickly as possible. So to answer your specific question, I don't know that. I'd have to direct that to others.

Q: When you had meetings in your office, would Mrs. Woodward ever be invited in to take notes?

A: No.

Q: Was there any tape recorder, tape recording ever made of any of your meetings with --

A: Not that I know of.

Q: Let me finish the question. -- with the consent of the other party?

A: No.

Q: What about your cabinet meetings. Would anyone take, like Mrs. Woodward or any other person, take notes of your cabinet meetings?

A: No.

Q: No one? There was no note keeper?

A: No. We had -- no. The cabinet has a -- the extent that minutes would be taken, they would be taken by the Moderator of the Curia, but the minutes were -- are really a record of documents that are circulated at the beginning of the meeting.

Q: Okay. Do you know whether there's been any search of those records to see whether there were minutes that reflected discussions about Paul Shanley?

A: First of all, there would not have been discussions about Paul Shanley or about any personnel matter at a cabinet meeting. That simply would not be the substance of those meetings.

Secondly, we would not keep those recorded cabinet meeting records because the nature of those meetings is to expedite communication between the various offices to be sure that we're not duplicating things of that kind. It's not the time to get -- to deal with specific issues such as personnel matters.

Q: What about agendas, Cardinal Law. Do you use agendas for meetings?

A: Which meetings?

Q: Meetings in your offices. Let's start with meetings in your office. Are there sometimes agendas that you have, written agendas?

A: It depends on what you're talking about. If I have a meeting with my Moderator of the Curia, for example, and I meet with him several times a week, I have developed the policy over time -- and I can't tell you when that began -- to ask him to come with a written agenda. I get a copy. He gets a copy. And if I have other things to add to it, I add to it. And then we're sure that we cover the matter that we need to cover in the course of the time allotted.

The same with the Personnel Office. I would ask the Personnel Office, with whom I meet regularly now -- that's a matter of making appointments to vacant parishes and things of that kind -- I would -- the personnel director brings the agenda. I do not keep those agendas. I give them back at the end.

Q: To whom?

A: To the personnel director. We go through the matter that he has at hand. I doubt very seriously that those are kept.

Q: Well, do you know whether they are or not?

A: No, I don't know. But there would be -- there would have been no reason for them to be kept because the substance under discussion would have been in file in other ways. This would be a matter of dealing with the issue at hand.

Q: Personnel -- I'm sorry.

A: On other matters, for example, if Father McCormack were to come in to see me about a case of Father X, that would be the subject so we wouldn't need an agenda. The meeting would have been to talk about that.

Q: Would you take notes of any of these meetings, Cardinal Law?

A: I might scribble a few notes as people are talking so that I would be able to respond to the issues or be -- remind myself of questions that I wanted to ask.

Q: Where would the notes go after you made them?

A: Ordinarily in to the waste paper basket.

Q: Always?

A: I would say yes.

Q: Always in the waste basket. Let's go back to this letter from Mrs. Gallant and let's mark this as an exhibit. Sorry. We already have it as an exhibit.

MR. CRAWFORD: I haven't shown it to him yet.

MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. It's Exhibit 85.

Q: You've seen Exhibit 85, Cardinal Law?

A: I have.

Q: Is this a true and accurate copy of the letter that you sent to Father Geoghan in which you ended Father Geoghan's assignment as associate pastor at St. Brendan's Parish in Dorchester and placed him in the category of in-between assignments?

A: Yes. I would presume it is.

MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark 86 and 87, please.

(Law Exhibit No. 86, Letter, 10/31/84, marked for identification.)

(Law Exhibit No. 87, Letter, 12/7/84, marked for identification.)

A: I may be -- I may be wrong, but it seems to me that I've seen all of these and we've gone over this material before; is that correct?

Q: No.

A: All right.

Q: Maybe in another deposition but not in one with me.

A: All right. Oh, yeah. That's probably true.

Q: Right. For that I apologize.

A: That's all right.

Q: We try to consolidate this stuff. Exhibit 86, Cardinal Law, is a letter sent to Father Geoghan a month and two weeks after your letter putting Father Geoghan on in-between assignment status. It's a letter appointing him parochial vicar at St. Julia's Parish in Weston. Do you see that? No. 86?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: On September 18, '84, he was in-between assignments, and then in 1986, he was appointed by you as parochial vicar at St. Julia's; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: And Mrs. Gallant had written to you, just so we have the dates correctly, in September 6, 1984, about her concerns regarding Father Geoghan.

A: That's correct.

Q: Correct? Now, if you would, Cardinal Law -- have you had the opportunity to read Exhibit No. 87, letter to you from Bishop D'Arcy?

A: No, I haven't.

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

A: I've seen it before but I haven't, at another deposition, but I haven't seen it for a while.

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

A: I remember the substance of it.

(Pause.)

A: Yes.

Q: You've seen Exhibit 87 before, and at the time that you received this letter, Bishop D'Arcy was the auxiliary bishop for the region that was covered -- that covered St. Julia's Parish in Weston, Massachusetts; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: I think you testified earlier that you would rely upon the opinions from time to time of your auxiliary bishops that were from the particular regions; is that correct?

A: That's correct.

Q: Here is Bishop D'Arcy writing to you about John Geoghan, and he states, in the second paragraph of Exhibit 87: "Father Geoghan has a history of homosexual involvement with young boys. I understand his recent abrupt departure from St. Brendan's, Dorchester, may be related to this problem." Do you see that?

A: Yes.

Q: Then he reports that: "For a variety of reasons, St. Julia's has been a divided and troubled parish." And on the second page, he reports, after some redactions by the Archdiocese on the document, he states: "I'm afraid that this assignment has complicated a difficult situation. If something happens, the parishioners, already angry and divided, will be convinced that the Archdiocese has no concern for their welfare and simply sends them priests with problems." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And then you'll see in the concluding second to last paragraph, it states: "While no parish can handle these shocking situations that we have witnessed recently, this parish is most vulnerable. I wonder if Father Geoghan should not be reduced to just weekend work while receiving some kind of therapy." Do you see that?

A: I do.

Q: And you did not accept the recommendation of Bishop D'Arcy, correct?

A: I did not accept the recommendation of Bishop D'Arcy because in the intervening time, Bishop Daily, who was the Vicar and Chancellor, yes, Vicar and Chancellor, I believe, before Bishop Banks came in -- Father Banks came in as Vicar General -- investigated this question of the allegation of Mrs. Gallant from St. Brendan's and it was his recommendation that it was appropriate to, and safe to appoint Father Geoghan to St. Julia's.

Again, I have stated earlier, and I have to keep stating again, I wish to God that the policy had been then that once there has been this kind of a proven allegation, that the man cannot serve anywhere, but that was not the case.

And it's important really to state for the record -- because the record can be very cold and bald and not reflect the reality of the time -- there was a desire, there was a desire, there was an intent to be sure before someone were put into an assignment after this kind of an allegation, that this could be done with some sort of assurance that it was a safe and wise course of action.

I know now that that kind of assurance simply cannot be given. But that was not the case then. And as you can see from Bishop D'Arcy's own letter, the possibility of moving Father Geoghan at that point, he also perceived to be a problem because he says part of the difficulty was that the pastor, who was a wonderful priest but an older person, an older style, could be viewed as being overbearing.

On the other hand, if Father Geoghan is now removed, parishioners will quickly claim that once again Monsignor Rossiter cannot live with other priests.

And while it may be very difficult for people now to understand and believe, when finally and definitively Father Geoghan was removed from that parish, there was a great deal of criticism directed against me for the fact that I removed him.

Q: People didn't know, Cardinal Law, about Father Geoghan's extensive involvement that you knew about --

A: I understand.

Q: -- of his molestation with young children. Those people who were protesting about Father Geoghan didn't know what you knew, correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form. You can answer.

A: Yes, I presume that's correct, yes.

Q: So the question is, Cardinal, these were decisions -- you talk about a policy, but these were decisions that were made in individual cases that were made by you when there were allegations of sexual misconduct, what to do with a priest in the '84 to 83 time period. You made the decision?

A: In the '84 to '89 time frame, Mr. MacLeish, and in the '94 -- the '89 to '93 time frame, and the '93 to the 2002 time frame, it was possible that a priest who had been guilty of an act of sexual abuse of a minor could be placed back on an assignment. And from '93 forward, as you know, that was done only after the recommendation and concurrence as well of a review board.

So the answer to your question, for the time frame '84 to '89, as well as '89 to '93, as well as '93 to 2002 -- and I'll have to give that answer to every document you wish to put before me within that time frame -- is that, yes, it was possible, given the policy of the Archdiocese at that time, that someone who had been guilty of an act of sexual abuse of a minor could be put back in to active ministry.

Q: Cardinal, it was more than possible because in each and every situation that we've discussed today, the person was put back into active ministry. Everyone that we've discussed today was put back into active ministry. Father Rosenkranz, Father Graham, Father Geoghan, Father O'Sullivan. They were all put back into active ministry, correct?

MR. CRAWFORD: That's not a question; that's a statement.

MR. ROGERS: It's a statement.

MR. MacLEISH: No.

MR. CRAWFORD: Is it a question?

MR. MacLEISH: It's a question. Correct? Correct?

Q: You said it was a possibility. It was more than a possibility. It happened in every single situation that we've talked about so far this afternoon --

A: I guess I wasn't clear.

MR. ROGERS: Wait a minute. That wasn't a question.

Q: -- correct?

MR. MacLEISH: No.

MR. CRAWFORD: Until you said correct, it wasn't a question.

MR. MacLEISH: Because you objected.

MR. ROGERS: No, I didn't.

MR. MacLEISH: Let me try again.

Q: It's not only possible, in every situation that we've discussed this afternoon, with Father Rosenkranz, Father Graham, Father Geoghan, Father O'Sullivan, all of those situations, after there was an allegation of abuse, the priest was put back in to ministry. It's not just a possibility.

MR. ROGERS: Well, that's a statement. That was not a question.

Q: I'm trying to make sure that we get your testimony -- we get the facts accurately, Cardinal Law.

MR. ROGERS: Then why don't you ask a question.

MR. MacLEISH: I've asked a question. You keep interrupting, Counsel.

Q: You said it was possible for the priest to go back in. In the '84 to '89 time period, we've covered a number of situations where the priest did go back.

Can you identify any time in the '84 to '89 time period where there was an admitted, alleged, even a situation where there was an indictment or a conviction over issues relating to child molestation and the priest did not return to ministry?

MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question, but you can answer the question.

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

A: Mr. MacLeish, I was attempting to address what the policy of the Archdiocese was at that time. I was not attempting to imply that the people that you had mentioned earlier were not reassigned. Of course they were reassigned. I didn't deny that. I didn't question that. I was simply trying to put in context, given the tenor of your questioning, that, yes, the policy of this Archdiocese for the period '84 to '89, as '89 to '93, as '93 to 2002, was that a priest who was guilty of sexual molestation of a child could, under circumstances, be put back in to active ministry.

Now, that policy has changed and you know that's changed and you've applauded it and I appreciate that.

I wish that the policy had been different earlier. But I can't make it different by sitting here and wishing it were so. It wasn't.

Q: I'm trying to just understand what it was, Cardinal.

MR. ROGERS: It's now after four o'clock.

Q: It was not just possible. In the '84 to '89 time period, it always happened. The priests were always put back into active ministry after there was an allegation of abuse, correct?

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

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

A: You may be right. There are priests who were not put back, but I'm not certain exactly whether any of them -- I'm not certain whether any of them would fall within the time frame that you're suggesting.

Q: You understand the people in this room are all in that time period, '84 to '89?

A: I understand that and -- yes, I understand that.

Q: Thank you.

A: And I regret as deeply as I possibly can what they have suffered and what they're suffering now. And I can only imagine that having to sit here now makes their suffering even more keen and brings to greater vividness the terrible suffering that they have undergone. And I hope and I pray that somehow this process, painful as it is for them, might somehow help bring some measure of closure and some measure of peace. I hope and pray that's so.

MR. MacLEISH: Thank you, Cardinal. I'll see you on Wednesday.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:01. This is the end of the Videotape No. 3. We're off the record.

(Whereupon, the deposition suspended at 4:01 at 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 11th day of October, 2002, the person hereinbefore named, who was by me 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 16th day of October, 2002.

___________________________ Notary Public

My Commission Expires: April 17, 2003



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