THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
August 13, 2002, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston
On August 13, 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. 14, Oct. 11, and Oct. 16, 2002. Two previous days of deposition were taken June 5 and June 7, 2002.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
GREGORY FORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Superior Court
vs. Civil Action
No. 02-0626
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a,
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,
Defendant.
---------------------------------
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 THIRD 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 M. Silva, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts 0, on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, commencing at 10:00 a.m.
K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-
APPEARANCES:
Greenberg Traurig (by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, Robert Sherman, Attorney, David G. Thomas, Attorney, Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney, Gary R. Greenberg, Attorney)
One International Place Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
The Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, Wilson Rogers, III, Attorney, Mark Rogers, Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for the Defendants
Todd & Weld
(by J. Owen Todd, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorney for Cardinal Law personally
ALSO PRESENT:
Rodney FordWITNESS
Paula Ford
Father John Connolly
George Libbares
Shirley Fairclough
Anthony Driscoll
Thomas F. Maffel, P.C.
BERNARD F. LAW
Resumed
EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH
DIRECT EXAMINATION
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Libbares. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts.
Today is August 13, 2002, and the time is 10:02 a.m. This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard F. Law in the matters of Gregory Ford, et al., plaintiffs versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, defendant, Civil Action 02-; and Paul W. Busa, plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., defendants, Civil Action 02-; and Anthony Driscoll, plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., defendants, Civil Action 02-1737. All cases in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County, Superior Court.
The court reporter is Kathleen M. Silva, with K.L. Good & Associates of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts, 9.
Counsel will now state their appearances and the court reporter will administer the oath.
MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr. for the plaintiffs.
MR. THOMAS: David Thomas, also for the plaintiffs.
MR. GREENBERG: Gary Greenberg, also for the plaintiffs.
MR. NEWMAN: Jeff Newman for the plaintiffs.
MR. MARK ROGERS: Mark Rogers on behalf of all defendants, including His Eminence, Bernard Cardinal Law.
MR. WILSON ROGERS, III: Wilson Rogers, III on behalf after all the defendants.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr. on behalf of all the defendants.
MR. TODD: Owen Todd here for Cardinal Law.
MR. MacLEISH: I don't see the need to readminister the oath, since this is a resumption of the deposition. Does anybody have a preference in that regard?
MR. ROGERS: No, no preference.
MR. MacLEISH: We don't need to re --
MR. TODD: No. I agree with that. Was not this deposition also to be taken in the Magni case?
MR. MacLEISH: That's correct. We've also agreed if we could not delete that name, as we had agreed to previously, from the transcript.
We've also agreed in another case as well -- in fact, I believe two other cases, one begins with R, one begins with W -- that there will be no need to redepose the Cardinal in those cases since his knowledge in these cases is identical to his knowledge in those cases. They all concern Father Shanley in Newton. Is that acceptable?
MR. ROGERS: Yes.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Yes.
*********
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW was previously sworn on oath by the reporter.
*********
EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH:
Q: Good morning, Your Eminence.
A: Good morning.
Q: Thank you for being with us here today. At the commencement of the first day of our deposition, I gave you a few instructions. I just want to go over those again. If at any time you want to take a break, please indicate to that me. We'll be happy to accommodate. If at any time you wish to go over any of your testimony, modify it, change it in any way, you indicate that to me, and I'll be sure to afford you that opportunity. Do you understand those instructions?
A: I do.
Q: Is there anything from the first two days of your deposition substantively that you would like the opportunity at this point to modify, change or correct?
A: I believe that I have submitted in written form a -- I've gone over the transcripts, and I have indicated those matters that I wanted to change and correct. I think perhaps only one was really substantive.
Q: Okay. That's fine. Now, Your Eminence, we have in front of you today the transcripts from day one and day two of your deposition, as well as an exhibit binder of the exhibits that were introduced during the first two days of your deposition. We're going to be referring to those. I would like it, if you could, in the exhibit binder to turn to Exhibit 12.
Just for the record, you understand there's no need to readminister the oath. You understand you're still under oath from the first day of your deposition?
A: Yes, I understand that.
Q: Your Eminence, this is the statement that we obtained from the Globe website on May 20. In your deposition you acknowledge that this was a copy of what had been on the RCAB website for some period of time. We attempted -- you asked me if I could get your own document. We've tried to find it. It's not on the website any longer. So we'll have to deal with this document. If you wish to substitute your own version of it, I'd be happy to do it, but it simply isn't on the website anymore. There are other statements, such as the April 12 statement, that are on the website, but this one does not appear.
I'd like to direct your attention to the third page of this document, if I could, please. Feel free, if you wish, to read the other two, if it would be helpful to you, but I'm focusing in on the second full paragraph on the third page of Exhibit 12. I'd like to read the paragraph and then ask you a question.
"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: And you remember the 1966 report was a report from a priest at the LaSalette Center about Father Shanley sexually molested a boy; do you recall that?
A: I do.
Q: Now, would it be a fair interpretation of your statement in this paragraph that if you had been aware of the 1966 report, if that had been made available to you, you would have undertaken some action such as having Father Shanley assessed or maybe removed from active ministry? Is that a fair interpretation of that statement?
A: Yes. It is a fair interpretation. What I was responding to was the time at which I became aware of an allegation against Father Shanley in terms of the abuse of a minor, and I acted on that.
Q: Right.
A: So obviously if I had had that kind of information earlier, I would have acted upon that.
Q: And I think in the first day --
A: And those working with me would have acted upon it, because, as you know, and as I think I've indicated, in these matters I was relying on those who assisted me in the first instance. It was a matter of delegation, but yes.
Q: It was a matter of delegation, but the unwritten policy that you described about protecting children that was in existence between 1984 and 1993, you were the person that was responsible for the implementation ultimately of that policy; is that correct?
A: To answer your question, yes, I would have -- this kind of a report would have been acted upon.
Q: Okay. Now, would it be fair to state that there was -- despite the fact that there was an unwritten policy between 1984 and 1993, there were certain protocols that were followed consistently between 1984 and 1993 when there was a complaint involving sexual molestation by priests? Would that be a fair statement?
A: It would be fair to say that my policy, and it was understood by those working with me, my presumption is that they would attest to this if asked -- I have not discussed it with them, obviously --
Q: Sure.
A: -- in this period of time. But it would have been my expectation that a problem such as this presenting itself would be looked into, would be examined, and if there was substance, it would be acted upon, and that acting upon would presume, as I've indicated earlier, that we're dealing with a pathological condition and, therefore, you would rely on people who would be competent to assist.
Q: I'm sorry. I didn't get the last part. Assessed?
A: You would rely on people who would be competent to assist in assessing and providing what help was needed.
Q: So the policy was if there was an allegation of sexual molestation, there would be some sort of medical counseling assessments that would be done, and there would be reliance upon the advice of professionals; is that correct?
A: The allegation would be assessed itself, and if it appeared that the allegation was a substantial, credible allegation, it would be acted upon.
Q: You're aware, are you not, that the nature of sexual assault is that there is not typically witnesses? It's usually an encounter between two people. In many instances they have very different versions of the same story. Would you agree with me about that, Cardinal Law?
A: I'm really not an expert on that, but my presumption is that most of these kinds of acts are acts where the people knowing it are the person who is the victim and the person who is the perpetrator, and that they're not done in the presence of other witnesses, if that's what you're asking.
Q: Right. There's what I'm asking. And you knew that in 1984. That was just common sense; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, this same policy concerning sexual molestation of minors, this unwritten policy that you had in effect between 1984 and 1993, did that also encompass any type of sexual assault, whether it was against an adult or a minor by a priest?
A: Yes. If there's a -- if there were a serious charge brought against a priest which was credible with regard to acting out against a minor or an assault against someone --
Q: Right.
A: -- it would have been acted upon, surely.
Q: And when you say a credible allegation, I think you've conceded in earlier testimony that there was no one within the Archdiocese in 1984 and 1993 who really had the qualifications to make credibility types of determinations. Is that correct?
MR. TODD: I'm going to object to form.
MR. ROGERS: I'm going to the form to form also.
MR. TODD: If you're including some past testimony, I wish you would direct the Cardinal to the testimony --
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.
MR. TODD: -- when you say he's conceding something --
MR. MacLEISH: Fine. That's fair enough.
MR. TODD: No, please. Let me finish.
MR. MacLEISH: Certainly, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: When you're paraphrasing some past testimony, if you'd kindly direct the Cardinal's attention to it, or leave it out of your question. That's my objection.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Your objection is noted.
Q: Cardinal Law, was there anybody in the Boston Archdiocese from 1984 to 1993 who was really in a position to assess the credibility of a sexual abuse victim, whether that person was a minor or an adult?
A: To assess the credibility of an allegation --
Q: Yes.
A: -- is what we're talking about?
Q: Yes.
A: I believe that yes, there were people who could assess the substance of the -- the credibility of the allegation. I think that there were people who could make informed judgments of that kind.
Q: Who were those people, Cardinal Law, between 1984 and 1993?
A: Well, you know, the persons who would be judging the credibility of an allegation would be those immediately dealing with these cases for me. So you would have -- at the beginning, it would have been the moderator of the Curia, who, as you know, has been a succession of people during that period starting with Bishop Robert Banks, Father Banks, and then later it would be a secretary for ministerial personnel and later a delegate. And the person who held both those positions was Father John McCormack, later Bishop John McCormack. And then he was succeeded in the office of delegate by a number of persons, and you have those names.
We're talking, I think, here about someone making an allegation, and to my knowledge, as I sit here, and I would stand corrected by the testimony of those who dealt with these cases directly, I don't believe that our experience was allegations that were deemed not to be credible. I think that when it -- when someone came forward generally, as I recall -- again, I would be corrected by the testimony of those who dealt directly with these cases, but my impression is that when someone came forward with this kind of a claim, that more often than not, it would be viewed as a credible allegation.
Q: In the 1984 to 1990 period, Cardinal Law, which is when my clients allege they were being sexually molested and raped by Father Shanley, can you recall any instances where a victim, either an adult or a minor, came forward with allegations concerning inappropriate sexual activity by a priest, and that allegation was deemed not to be credible?
A: I can't recall something like that, but, again, I would say that it would be -- if I wanted to pursue that, I would need to talk with those persons who were dealing with the cases in that time frame.
Q: All right. But your general impression is that the benefit of the doubt, if you will, was given to the person who was making the report, whether an adult or minor, about the sexual misconduct of a priest between the period of 1984 and 1990; is that a fair statement?
A: Certainly with regard to -- certainly that's true with regard to a minor, and I don't -- yes.
Q: Okay. Well, are you drawing a distinction now between minors and, let's say, a sexual assault on a woman?
A: You know, really, these cases have to do with minors, and that's where my mind has been.
Q: Sure.
A: I haven't been trying to look at other cases or trying to resurrect other cases.
Q: Well, if you want a moment to think about it, that's fine. But what I would ask you is, are you aware of any distinction of your policy and the -- I think as you put it -- your general acceptance of allegations? Was there any distinction between allegations when made, say, for example, by a minor, as opposed to a man or a woman? Are you aware of any, as you sit here right now?
A: No. I'm not aware of any reason why there would be a distinction.
Q: If you had a priest that was engaging in sexually improper behavior with a woman, a child or a man, that was something that you wanted to have dealt with between 1984 and 1990, is that a fair statement?
A: That's correct.
Q: And that's why you said in your statement of May 20th that you wished you'd known about the 1966 allegation; there would have been some action taken; correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Now, do you know an Anthony Rebeiro, Cardinal Law, Father Anthony Rebeiro?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is Anthony Rebeiro, Father Anthony Rebeiro?
A: Father Anthony Rebeiro is a priest who has recently been put on administrative leave from his position.
Q: Since we were last together there have been several priests, I believe, that have been placed on administrative leave from the Boston Archdiocese for allegations concerning sexual misconduct with minors; is that true?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay. And do you know that the total number now --
A: I want to underscore --
Q: Go ahead.
A: -- that these are credible allegations, but they remain at this point allegations, and they've been reported as such.
Q: How many priests in the Boston Archdiocese that are alive today right now have credible allegations of child abuse against them? Do you know that, Cardinal Law?
A: I couldn't give you that number from memory.
Q: Father Higgins testified, I believe, in May that there were 70 allegations against living priests, and 15 against priests who were deceased at that time. Does that sound in the general range?
A: I would rely on the number that he gave.
Q: Okay. And there have been some more since then; is that correct?
A: There have been more since then, yes.
Q: And we're going to have the opportunity to look at a few of those cases, but right now we're dealing with Father Anthony Robeiro.
MR. MacLEISH: Can we have the witness see the exhibit, please. Mark it, please. (Law Exhibit 42, August 10 statement of Donna Morrissey, marked for identification.)
Q: Cardinal Law, I have before you Exhibit No. 42 which is, again, obtained from your website, an August 10 statement of Donna Morrissey. She's the spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Have you seen Exhibit 42 before?
A: I have not.
Q: Would you take a moment and look at it for me, please.
A: (Witness reviewing document.) Yes.
Q: Now, Cardinal Law, first, the statement in the third paragraph and the first sentence, it States, "The first priority of the Archdiocese is the protection of children." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Has that always been the policy of the Archdiocese since you started as Archbishop in 1984?
A: It certainly has been the desire and the intent of the Archdiocese, but as I think I have indicated on other occasions, the focus is a much clearer and developed focus in our present policy.
Q: Well, let's just deal with intent then. Is it fair to state then that it was the intent of the Archdiocese of Boston, since you became Archbishop in 1984, that the first priority would be the protection of children? Was that your intent at all times, Cardinal Law?
A: Surely that was my intent.
Q: Now I'd like to go to the second paragraph, Cardinal Law, if I could just read it. "The allegation made against Father Rebeiro was recently reported for the first time to the Archdiocese of Boston regarding an incident that occurred nearly 30 years ago. Following the policy, it was determined that the allegation had enough substance to warrant further investigation by the Archdiocese of Boston and met the criteria to place Father Rebeiro on administrative leave. Pastoral and counseling support has been offered to both the person making the allegation and the accused priest." Is that correct?
A: That's what it says, yes.
Q: Would it be fair to state that prior to the time that Father Rebeiro was removed as chaplain of Quigley Memorial Hospital and the Soldiers' Home in Chelsea, Massachusetts, he had served as a priest in the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?
A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: Are you familiar with any of the parishes where he had served?
A: I am not. I could not give you that from memory.
Q: Do you generally know Father Rebeiro?
A: I know him. I've met him, but I -- yes, you know, he's a priest serving in the Archdiocese, but I don't have any firsthand personal knowledge of him.
Q: Do you know where he was before he was at the Quigley Memorial Hospital and Soldiers' Home?
A: I could not give you his curriculum vitae in terms of assignments. That could be made available to you, though.
Q: Do you know of any allegations that have been made about Father Rebeiro in the past concerning sexual misconduct of any kind?
A: I do not know whether there have been or not. I would follow -- first of all, I was away when this occurred.
Q: Sure.
A: And yet it was handled in a very appropriate way, as these allegations are.
Q: And -- go ahead.
A: And what it says is that this is the -- that this particular allegation was made for the first time here. Whether there was another allegation that had been investigated and dealt with, I do not -- I can't answer that as I sit here. I'd have to check the records.
Q: But the policy between 1984 and 1990 would have been that if there was a credible allegation --
A: It would have been dealt with.
Q: It would have been dealt with specifically with medical advice and an assessment that's deemed to be credible?
A: That's correct.
Q: Whether it was a child or whether it was an adult; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you've never had any involvement, as far as you know, personally with Father Rebeiro; is that your testimony?
A: Well, involvement --
Q: Involvement in any personnel matter, sexual misconduct matter.
A: Not to my recollect --
MR. TODD: Which is it? Personnel matter or sexual misconduct?
MR. MacLEISH: That's a good point. Let's be specific.
Q: Any instance of sexual misconduct regarding Father Rebeiro, whether it involves a woman, a child or a man. Is that your testimony?
A: I do not recall that. I do not recall that, but as I have indicated, I have not checked his file, and I can only be guided by the fact that this particular allegation came forward for the first time and has been dealt with in the manner indicated by this statement.
Q: Exhibit 42 is a press release put out to the press; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: There's a point made in this press release by the Archdiocese that there's an incident that occurred nearly 30 years ago that's the subject of the allegation. Do you see that?
A: That's correct.
Q: And it says that the allegation was recently reported for the first time to the Archdiocese of Boston regarding an incident that occurred nearly 30 years ago. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Does that suggest to you in any way that this is the first time that Father Rebeiro has in any way been involved with allegations of sexual misconduct?
A: That is not what is said here.
Q: Okay.
A: What is said here is that this particular allegation is reported for the first time in this time frame relating to an act alleged to have occurred 30 years before. I can't read more than that into this.
Q: Have you seen Father Rebeiro appearing on television and giving interviews to the news media since this was --
A: I have not.
Q: You would acknowledge, would you not, that prior to the time that Exhibit 42 was put out, there would have been a review of Father Rebeiro's file; is that correct?
A: My presumption is that there would have been, yes.
Q: Including the confidential file?
A: My presumption is that his file would have been reviewed, yes.
Q: Okay.
MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark that as Exhibit No. 43.
(Law Exhibit No. 43, letter, Nash to Law, 3/25/84, marked for identification.)
Q: Why don't you take a moment and look at Exhibit No. 43, Cardinal Law.
A: (Witness reviewing document.)
Q: Have you had the opportunity to read Exhibit No. 43, Cardinal Law?
A: I have.
Q: This is a letter from a gentleman by the name of Mr. Nash, Gregory Nash, to you shortly after you were installed as Archbishop. The letter is dated March 25, 1984. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And the letter reports two actions of Father Rebeiro. In the first allegation Father Rebeiro is alleged to have had Mr. Nash's wife in the rectory office. He blocked, according to Mr. Nash, the only exit door, exposed himself and masturbated in front of her. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that a serious allegation?
A: Terribly serious allegation.
Q: One that would have been implemented in accordance with the policy that is described in -- that you described earlier today? It would have been investigated and looked at; is that correct?
A: It certainly would have been my intent that that be done, yes.
Q: Can you think of any reason why, in light of this allegation as you sit here today, that would not have been done?
A: No, I cannot. First of all, the act itself, as you know, is alleged to have occurred in a time frame before I arrived. The letter is written March 25.
Q: That's correct.
A: And --
Q: The letter is addressed to you.
A: The letter was addressed to me. I do not recall ever having seen this letter prior to this moment.
Q: Okay.
A: But the -- and that's not unlikely, because it's addressed to the Chancery, which is a different building than my office, the day after I was installed. However, the content of this is a terribly serious charge that would have to be looked at very, very carefully.
Q: Right. In the same way that the 1966 charge against Father Paul Shanley is a terribly serious charge that you said you would have acted upon if you had been made aware of it, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: In this letter, the first allegation, just so we're clear, is of this priest, Father Rebeiro, who was suspended last weekend by the Archdiocese, Father Rebeiro masturbating in front of a woman and exposing himself, and then another instance where Mr. Nash's -- one of his parents had died, and Father Rebeiro comes over to the house, and Mr. Nash reports that he was pawing at his wife while in the family home while Mr. Nash was away. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And again, you were Archbishop on the date that this letter was sent, is that not correct?
A: I was. I think two days I was Archbishop.
Q: You'd been Archbishop for two days. So you never recall seeing this letter, but if you had seen this letter, you would have taken some immediate action to have the matter investigated; is that correct?
A: I would have had those assisting me look into this, yes, and follow up on this letter.
Q: Okay. And do you see also the allegations here on the second page where Mr. Nash reports, "We also learned that week from our priest friend that Father Rebeiro had a history. He had been dismissed from Wellesley College as chaplain for sexual misconduct. He had been transferred from St. Linus Parish in Natick after incidents involving sex and character assassination. Given the level of response we were given at the parish level, we were advised to go to the regional bishop." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: There's a report that Mr. Nash was -- and his wife were not treated well by Bishop Daniel Hart. Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: On pages 2 to 3. So this would all be something that you would want to look at if you had received this letter; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Because St. Linus Parish I believe is in Natick; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And that's a family parish similar to St. Jean's Parish in Newton, where Paul Shanley served?
A: As are all our parishes, yes.
Q: They're all family parishes?
A: Yes.
Q: So this would have been the type of letter that, if you would have received it, would have attracted your attention, and consistent with what you have said about what you would have done if you had received the 1966 letter, would have resulted in some sort of immediate investigation and inquiry concerning Father Rebeiro; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
MR. MacLEISH: Mark this, please.
(Law Exhibit No. 44, letter, Law to Nash, 3/25/84, marked for identification.)
Q: Have you read Exhibit No. 44, Cardinal Law?
A: I have.
Q: This is your letter to Mr. Nash, correct?
A: It is a letter that apparently has my signature attached to it, and it's addressed to Mr. Nash.
Q: And it acknowledges his letter of March 25, 1984. Do you see that?
A: It does.
Q: And your letter is dated April 3, 1984; is that correct?
A: It is.
Q: So it's fair to state that this would have been -- Mr. Nash's letter would have been received within several days after March 25, and then you responded in a timely fashion on April 3, 1984; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you stated, did you not, "As you must know, my knowledge of the case is not complete. After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered such." Did you use those words?
A: Well, this is a letter that I have signed.
Q: Did you use -- go ahead.
A: I would -- my presumption is this letter was prepared for my signature, and I would need to -- in order to pursue what is meant here, I would need to deal -- speak with those who were -- who would have handled this matter and brought it before me. I can't tell you what -- I have no -- as I sit here, I don't know what that would mean.
Q: Cardinal Law, we know now that Father Rebeiro has been suspended from his job because of allegations of sexual misconduct occurring 30 years ago --
A: Yes.
Q: -- correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: We put in front of you Exhibit 43, a letter from Mr. Nash to you, that in detail set out allegations that you, yourself, acknowledged were serious allegations --
A: That's correct.
Q: -- of gross misconduct by Father Rebeiro; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And he wrote this letter to you and he gave you details about other parishes where Father Rebeiro had served, with other allegations of sexual misconduct, and you wrote back to Mr. Nash, and you said to him, "After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered such." Is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So there was no investigation of these serious allegations. There was simply a letter from you indicating that this was a matter that was personal to Father Rebeiro, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Object.
MR. TODD: Objection. Go ahead.
A: My response in seeing Mr. Nash's letter, which remains my response, is that I have no recollection of seeing that letter. My presumption is that this matter was handled for me by someone assisting me, and that this letter was prepared for my signature.
Q: Cardinal Law, do you read your letters before you sign them as a general practice? Did you in 1984?
A: You know, did I on April the 3rd, 1984, three days into the job, read every letter that was put before me? Probably not. Is it my -- is it my custom now to read every letter carefully? It depends. Some are matters of routine, and I would not. But I cannot recall this letter. I cannot recall Mr. Nash's letter, and so it's really not possible for me to go into that matter further. I think you need to ask those who were handling this case for me. In this instance, I would imagine it would have been Bishop Daily.
Q: Well, we don't -- should Bishop Daily have brought Mr. Nash's letter to your attention prior -- we're conjecturing here, because we really don't know who sent out your letter --
A: We are conjecturing.
Q: We don't know -- we really don't know whether you saw Mr. Nash's letter, and we really don't know whether you read the letter of April 3, 1984 before you put your signature on it, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So if, in fact, as you conjecture it was Bishop Daily that got this complaint about a priest exposing himself, masturbating in front of a woman and then taking advantage of her when her husband is dealing with one of his parents' funeral arrangements, if, in fact, Bishop Daily had received a letter such as that and drafted a response such as Exhibit 44, would he have been acting in accordance with the policy that you describe in Exhibit No. 12 and what you would have done had you been aware of the Shanley allegations?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A: What would have to be done, Mr. MacLeish, is to ask Bishop Daily what, in fact, he did, and I'm not going to conjecture at this point what he did or didn't do. I can simply answer that I do not recall seeing this letter, I do not recall seeing this letter, that I consider these to be very serious allegations, and that I would have wanted them investigated, and acted upon if they -- if that was warranted. What happened, I cannot conjecture. I cannot conjecture at this point. I would need to -- one would need to talk to Bishop Daily about that.
Q: Well, we don't know whether we'd need to talk to Bishop Daily because we don't even know if it was Bishop Daily that drafted this letter of April 3, 1984, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: All we know is that it's your signature on the letter.
A: That's correct.
Q: That there were no time constraints imposed by Mr. Nash to correspond -- for you to get an answer back to him. He didn't say, "I wish to hear from you by April 3, 1984." He didn't say that in his letter, did he, Cardinal Law?
A: No.
Q: So this was not a routine matter where there would be a routine letter prepared for you and a routine signature, correct?
A: I'm not sure I'm able to answer your question. No, it's not a routine matter.
Q: Well, you said that when they're routine matters that --
A: This was not a routine matter.
Q: So my question is if, in fact, Bishop Daily had received Exhibit 43, Mr. Nash's letter, and prepared a response such as is set forth in Exhibit No. 44, stating that the matter is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered such, he would not have been acting consistent with the unwritten policy as you understood it; is that correct?
A: I would need to discuss the matter with Bishop Daily, or whoever prepared that letter for me, to understand what is underlying that statement. It is a puzzling statement to me, but I don't know what investigation took place. I don't know what information was present.
Q: Cardinal Law, it says also in Exhibit 44, second paragraph, second sentence, "After some consultation." Does that not suggest, Cardinal Law, that that was consultation involving you? It says, "After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro." Does that not suggest that you had some consultations and discussions with others yourself concerning Mr. Nash's letter to you about this priest masturbating and exposing himself in front of a woman?
A: Certainly it implies that there was consultation.
Q: Okay.
A: And it's my letter, but obviously -- it's consultation about a fact that it occurred in an earlier time frame, and that consultation could be a matter of someone presenting a summary of the situation. I don't recall this. So, you know, I can sit here and conjecture, but it becomes foolish. I simply do not recall this letter, and I can't respond to what underlies this letter.
Q: It doesn't imply consultation, Cardinal Law, just to clarify. It states consultation.
A: Not only -- that's correct.
Q: It states consultation.
A: It states consultation.
Q: So you can't really say, Cardinal Law, if you in 1984 had received a report about Paul Shanley molesting children in the 1960s, you can't say what would have occurred at all, whether Paul Shanley would have been sent for an assessment, can you?
MR. TODD: Object to the form.
A: I can tell you what I would assume and would want to have done.
Q: But you can't say it would have happened, can you, Cardinal Law?
A: Would you -- I'm not sure -- I really am not sure I understand what it is you're asking me.
Q: Fair enough.
A: Would you frame that question again.
Q: Let's go back to Exhibit No. 12, Cardinal Law.
A: 12. All right. Is that...
Q: That's your statement.
A: Oh, my statement.
Q: Third page. You said, "I wish I had known in 1984, and I wish I had been aware of the 1966 report." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: You testified earlier that if you had been aware of the 1966 report about Paul Shanley, you would have undertaken a series of actions including assessments and possibly even removal from active ministry; correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: But now I put in front of you Father Rebeiro's case and the complaint made by Mr. Nash in 1984, the same year in which you state you wish you had known about the 1966 allegation of Paul Shanley, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And we know that Father Rebeiro continued in ministry from 1984 up until the time he was removed just this past weekend, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So you really can't say for a certainty, Cardinal Law, that if you had been made aware in 1984 of the 1966 allegation of Paul Shanley, you would have done anything to remove Paul Shanley from St. Jean's Parish, can you? You cannot state that for a certainty?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TODD: Go ahead.
A: May I see the 1966 letter?
Q: Certainly. It's in the exhibit binder, I believe. Mr. Thomas is going to get it. It also concerned masturbation. Exhibit 23, Cardinal Law.
A: I just wanted to refresh my memory --
Q: Certainly.
A: -- that this letter refers to the sexual abuse of a child.
Q: That's correct.
A: Of a minor.
Q: Right.
A: And I would repeat that had this letter come to my attention in 1984 or -- I would confidently trust those working with me in handling such cases in 1984, that this would have been looked into and dealt with in an appropriate way. And I would -- and I would repeat what is basically contained in that letter, which I think is Exhibit 12, that you called my attention to earlier.
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
A: That what I said there is what I still believe to be the case, and I wish that I had had that information at that time. What we're dealing with here is, while -- is a different kind of an act, but -- and a terribly unacceptable kind of behavior on the part of a priest. Again, what I have here is a letter that I don't remember seeing before, and I don't know what kind of investigation and what kind of judgment underlies the letter which bears my signature of April 3, and would need to deal with the people -- would need to pursue that with the people who handled it.
Q: Cardinal Law, again, it well could have been the case that you were actually consulted on this case, as your letter suggests -- states specifically? We've already been over that. It well could have been the case that you were actually consulted about Mr. Nash's allegations, correct?
A: Excuse me, what are you --
Q: It well could have been the case that you were actually consulted about Mr. Nash's allegations that Father Rebeiro had masturbated in front of his wife?
A: Well, I wouldn't be consulted on that, you know.
Q: I'm sorry.
A: Others would, you know. I wouldn't be consulted with, because I wouldn't have any knowledge of this thing. The consultation would have to be with others who were knowledgeable and had somehow dealt with this case, and I would presume that that was done. I have no idea of what that consultation means. I have no recollection of either letter, and so I can't speak to what it is that the letter is referring to.
Q: Just to be clear, it says, a letter from you, "After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro and must be considered as such."
A: That's right. Yes.
Q: Correct? So you don't know -- your letter states that there was consultation with you, does it not?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
Q: You make a finding. "I find." Do you see that in Exhibit 44?
A: Yes, it implies that -- it states that there was consultation, that this was looked into, and that it was determined that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rebeiro. But as I indicated to you, I don't recall this letter, and I have -- I cannot tell you what it is that that references.
Q: And you cannot tell us that if in March or April of 1984 the matter of Paul Shanley's prior complaint against him in 1966, that if that had come to your attention, that it would have been pursued? You cannot state that for a certainty, Cardinal Law?
MR. TODD: Now, this question has been asked and answered.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted. It has not been answered.
MR. TODD: Please don't do that, Mr. MacLeish. There are other people in the room with responsibilities other than yourself.
Now, that question has been asked and answered at least five times. We have a lot of ground to cover, and you're just dragging this thing out with your argumentative questions, and I'm going to instruct him not to answer that again. Next question.
MR. MacLEISH: Your instruction is noted. You're not a judge anymore, Mr. Todd, so you can't --
MR. TODD: Well, you've never been a judge, obviously.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, I'm early in my career. With all due respect -- we will move on to the next question -- the witness has not answered the question -- let me finish, Mr. Todd, please -- has not answered the question. I'm going to press the question. He has responded -- he has given an answer, but not an answer that is responsive to the question.
MR. TODD: No, not -- the record --
MR. MacLEISH: We will move on, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Good. Good.
MR. MacLEISH: With all rights reserved.
MR. TODD: Good.
Q: Cardinal Law, this was not -- this case involving Father Rebeiro was not the only instance when there were allegations of sexual misconduct made against a priest and there was no assessment, evaluation or follow-up that was done, was it, during the period from 1984 to 1990?
MR. TODD: Objection to the form. Much too broad.
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
Q: Do you understand the question?
A: Are you asking -- would you repeat the question.
Q: Yeah. Let's -- the case involving Father Rebeiro, and your letter to Mr. Nash that stated that this matter was personal to Father Rebeiro, that was not the only instance where there had been a credible allegation of sexual molestation by a priest and the matter was not pursued during the period from 1984 to 1990; is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TODD: Objection to form. Do you have some other incident you want him to direct his attention to? That question is much too broad.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted.
MR. TODD: You don't do the noting. The record does the noting. And I will kindly ask you once more do not interrupt me while I'm making an objection for the record.
MR. MacLEISH: I didn't, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: You did. More than that, while I've got the record, I would appreciate it if you lowered your tone of voice in addressing the witness.
MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry.
MR. TODD: And move back. You're pointing your finger right in his face.
MR. MacLEISH: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. TODD: You're hollering.
MR. MacLEISH: I'm really not.
MR. TODD: I'll strike hollering --
MR. MacLEISH: I'm really not, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: -- but you're speaking too loudly. You are speaking too loudly.
MR. MacLEISH: I apologize --
MR. TODD: And in an argumentative tone.
Q: Cardinal Law, I don't mean to be --
MR. MacLEISH: Certainly it's cross-examination. I'm going to continue to cross-examine the witness.
Q: But I'm not attempting to point my finger at you. If I did, I apologize. I will ask you, Cardinal Law, were there any other instances where you can recall, between 1984 and 1990, which is the time period that we're focusing on in the Ford, Busa and Driscoll cases, that you can recall, where there was an allegation of sexual misconduct, and the matter was not dealt with in accordance with the policy that you described earlier in the day?
MR. TODD: Same objection as to the last two times you asked it.
MR. ROGERS: I'll also object.
Q: Go ahead.
A: The way in which these matters were handled was through delegation. My expectation was and is that allegations would be looked at, would be examined, and that credible allegations would be acted upon, and that would include getting some kind of a medical assessment, if it seemed that there was substance to the allegation.
Now, were there cases that came that were not looked at? I rely on those working with me, and if I had in my head a case that hadn't been adequately looked at, I would ask that it be looked at. As you know, and I realize it's -- well, it's not totally out of the time frame, but one of the things that we did after we committed our policy -- developed it and committed it to writing in 1993, sometime after that, I asked that all previous cases be reviewed in the light of that policy, and if it was felt that they were not adequately dealt with in accord with that policy, that those cases be opened again.
Do I know of -- as I sit here, do I know of cases that were not dealt with adequately? No, I don't. And if there are any, I would hope that they would now be dealt with adequately.
Q: Exhibit No. 43, Cardinal Law, the letter from Mr. Nash makes reference to allegations of sexual misconduct at St. Linus in Natick; is that correct?
A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: In fact, the allegation that you have right now that has come before the Archdiocese concerns sexual misconduct alleged to have been undertaken by Father Rebeiro at St. Linus in Natick.
A: I do not know that, because I was away when that allegation came in, and I'm not aware of that.
Q: Does it cause you any concern, as you sit here today, that in 1984, shortly after you were installed as Archbishop, there was a report given to the Archdiocese about Father Rebeiro, and that he was not removed from active ministry in the priesthood until this weekend; does that cause you any concern as you sit here today?
A: Certainly I am concerned, as I see this letter, yes.
Q: Okay. On the face of it, it would appear that not enough was done to investigate the allegations of Mr. Nash, would you agree with me?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I don't know what was done, Mr. MacLeish. I'd really have to open that up and discuss it with people who were involved in it. I have no way of -- I'm not going to make a judgment about that, but it's certainly something that needs to be looked into.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay.
Q: Now, Cardinal Law, if we could turn away from Father Rebeiro, I'd like to ask you some questions about a Father George Rosenkranz. Do you know Father Rosenkranz?
A: I know there is a priest of the diocese by this name, yes.
Q: And he is one of those priests who has been placed on administrative leave or removed from priestly duties because of credible allegations of sexual misconduct with minors; is that correct?
A: Yes. Can you reference something?
Q: Sure. I certainly can. I'm just wondering if you perhaps were aware of him without looking at anything. But let me give you a letter.
(Law Exhibit 45, Letter, 2/12/87, marked for identification.)
MR. ROGERS: Mr. MacLeish, we'd like to take a five-minute break every hour, but whenever it an appropriate time.
MR. MacLEISH: This is a good time.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:00 a.m. We're off the record. (Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:13. We're on the record.
Q: Cardinal Law, have you had the opportunity to review Exhibit No. 45?
A: Yes.
Q: This was a letter that was sent to you on December 12, 1987; is that correct?
A: That's correct. That's the date it bears.
Q: Do you remember receiving this letter, which set forth allegations of sexual misconduct involving a minor by one Peter Pollard involving Father George Rosenkranz. Do you remember receiving that communication?
A: I do not recall receiving this communication.
Q: Well, during this period of time, as you've stated, your intention was to have as your first priority the protection of children; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So wouldn't it seem likely, in view of that being your first priority in the 1984 to 1990 time period, that any allegation about a priest being involved in sexual misconduct with minors would have been something that would have come to your attention?
A: Not necessarily. It would have been -- it would have come to the attention of those responsible for following up on this type of matter, and that would have been, as I've indicated, at an earlier time frame, the moderator of the Curia, at a later time frame, the secretary for ministerial personnel, and yet at a later time frame the person holding the responsibility of delegate. A number of things come to your attention every single day, and if they're going to be handled well and expeditiously, delegation is a good way for that to happen.
Q: Sure. But the protection of children, you've stated, was your first priority?
A: In the hand --
Q: May I finish the question, please, Cardinal Law. You've testified that the protection of children was your first priority. Understanding that you have many other responsibilities in the '84 to 1990 time period, wouldn't a letter making allegations of sexual misconduct involving a child for a priest who is currently in service, wouldn't that be the type of matter that would go to the top of the list that would come before you, Cardinal Law?
A: I believe I answered your question earlier, Mr. MacLeish, by indicating that in order to handle these cases effectively, expeditiously and well, I had persons delegated to deal with these cases. And so this matter would go to the person who was responsible for following up to be sure that it was handled in an appropriate way.
Q: Cardinal Law, there's been testimony by Bishop McCormack that after he received this letter, he did not have Father Rosenkranz evaluated. He stated as much in his deposition, and we can mark a copy of the transcript if you'd like to see it during the break, but that he did not have Father Rosenkranz assessed, and that Father Rosenkranz was removed from active ministry following another allegation in 1990.
A: I know that he is removed from active ministry. I wasn't sure of the date of that removal.
Q: Well --
A: Nor --
MR. TODD: Wait for a question. Wait for a question.
Q: Go ahead. My question is, is that since the protection of children is the number one priority and since your policy is, as you've described it earlier, is to generally accept the credibility of the person making the report, did Bishop McCormack act in accordance with the policy by not sending Father Rosenkranz in for an assessment?
MR. TODD: Object to the form.
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form also.
A: Certainly it would have been my understanding of -- and it would have been my intent that someone against whom a credible allegation had been made would indeed be assessed.
Q: Okay. And as you sit here today, can you think of any reason why Mr. Pollard's allegations were not deemed to be credible, that you know of, that anybody might have told you?
A: No, I cannot.
Q: So accepting my representations as true -- and, again, we do have the deposition transcript of Bishop McCormack, and we do know that Father Rosenkranz was not removed, nor was he assessed. Can you now state that if the 1966 allegations involving Paul Shanley had been brought to your attention, that in light of what happened in the Pollard/Rosenkranz case and the earlier exhibit involving Father Rebeiro and his allegation -- the allegations made by Mr. Nash, can you state with certainty, Cardinal Law, that if you would have received the 1966 allegation in 1984, that you would have acted upon it?
MR. TODD: Object to the form.
A: That I would have acted upon it --
Q: Yes.
A: -- yes. And I would presume that those who were delegated to act in my name would have acted upon it. That would be my presumption, and that is my presumption, and if you -- if your recital of what occurred in the instance of Father Rosenkranz is as it is, and I have no reason to doubt what you're reporting, then I would hope that this is an aberration rather than a rule.
MR. MacLEISH: Let's --
A: Again, I wouldn't know what extenuating circumstances may underlie that decision of not having him assessed. I would also say, Mr. MacLeish, that while I have acknowledged and do acknowledge that the action of Father Rebeiro, the allegations against him, both the earlier and the current, are of totally unacceptable behavior, I find the evil of sexual abuse of a minor really qualitatively quite different and much more intense than that. Both are wrong.
Q: Than what? I'm sorry.
A: But in the one case you're talking about a minor. In the other case you're talking about an adult. I think that the abuse done to a minor is particularly heinous, and you seem to move from one to the other as though they're sort of the same thing. I would think that the action against the minor is particularly heinous.
Q: Well, Cardinal Law, Mr. Nash reports to you in Exhibit No. 43 that one of the allegations involving Father Rebeiro involved blocking the only exit door --
A: I --
Q: Excuse me. If I could, please. -- exposing himself and masturbating in front of her. You state there's a qualitative difference between that allegation and the allegation of Mr. Pollard involving a sexual assault when he was a minor? Is that your testimony?
A: What I'm saying is that sexual abuse of a minor has an added quality of heinousness about it, and that's why our focus is so clearly on the protection of children. That is not to say that other acts of aggressive sexual behavior toward adults are not also deplorable and are not also to be dealt with. They are. The only point I'm making is that you seem to move from the one to the other as though they're sort of the same thing. I would think that the evil of child abuse is a far, far worse evil that has to be dealt with.
Q: Than sexual assault on women?
A: That both -- no, no, that's not what I'm saying, Mr. MacLeish.
MR. TODD: Okay.
MR. MacLEISH: No, no.
A: That's not what I'm saying.
Q: I'm confused by what you are saying, Cardinal Law.
A: Well --
Q: Are you stating there is no qualitative difference, because I think that was the word you used, between the allegations of sexual assault, masturbation by Father Rebeiro, and the allegations that are set forth in Mr. Pollard's letter which involve sexual assault on a minor?
MR. TODD: I'm going to object. He's answered that question twice. He has made the distinction, and if you can't understand it, you'll have to read the record. I'm instructing him not to answer it again.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, I would refer you to the Reporter's Notes on depositions in terms of what you can instruct and not instruct. I know you don't want to have the witness answer this question, but he did bring it up, and I'm confused by his answer, and I'm allowed to ex --
MR. TODD: Well --
MR. MacLEISH: Could I finish, please, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Certainly you can.
MR. MacLEISH: Thank you. May I finish?
MR. TODD: Certainly you can.
MR. MacLEISH: I would urge you during the break to again consult the Reporter's Notes, because the fact that the witness provides a response to the question doesn't mean he's answered it. We don't have a judge here, which is why the rules provide that you are not only to -- you are only to instruct the witness to not answer when there is an issue of privilege, and the Reporter's Notes, which I'll make available to you during the break, are quite clear on that.
MR. TODD: I will respond. I don't have to go to the Reporter's Notes, because the rule itself includes harassing repetitive questions as being one basis on which you can refuse to answer, which is exactly the basis on which I rely.
We have a lot of ground to cover here. You've already consumed many days. You have made notice of other days, and I want to get on with it. I'm instructing him not to answer that question a third or fourth time.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Well, everybody's rights are reserved on that, as you know, Mr. Todd. We will seek an order to compel the return of the Cardinal to answer it.
MR. TODD: Fine.
MR. MacLEISH: Can I finish, please, Mr. Todd. Can I finish? We will seek an order to have the Cardinal return and answer that question.
MR. TODD: I'm going to seek an order to terminate these depositions if you don't move into something more relevant and ask questions one time rather than four times.
MR. MacLEISH: Are you finished?
Q: Okay. Now, Cardinal Law, let's mark Bishop McCormack's deposition on what happened in the -- if we could, please, on what happened in the Pollard allegation. I can read you a section of it.
(Law Exhibit No. 46, excerpt of Bishop McCormack's Deposition, marked for identification.)
A: This is the Pollard allegation? This is Pollard here?
Q: Yes.
A: Because the name is crossed out.
Q: Yes. It is the Pollard allegation, and he's comfortable with his name being used.
Again, this is an allegation, as you'll see, on the first page, Cardinal Law, where it's stated by Mr. Pollard that under the guise of teaching him about sexuality, Father Rosenkranz kissed him, had him lie on top of him and he kissed him. He had him expose himself and discuss sex with him. Do you see that? That's the allegation against Father Rosenkranz.
A: Yes.
Q: Now, we have in front of you Exhibit No. 46, which is Bishop McCormack's deposition. I'd like to read you a section and then ask you a question about it, if I could. I'm referring, starting on page 268, line 13. You can follow along with me if you'd like. Do you have it there, Cardinal Law?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: "After you spoke with Father Rosenkranz and he admitted to some horsing around, did you have another meeting with Mr. Pollard?
A: : Yes.
Q: And you told Mr. Pollard that you were not going to remove Mr. Rosenkranz from active ministry; is that correct?
A: Yes. And Father Rosenkranz remained in active ministry for several more years; is that correct?
A: I'm not clear for how long, but I knew that we didn't take him out at that time, correct.
Q:And then you became aware later on of other allegations of sexual abuse against Father Rosenkranz --
A: Yes.
Q:-- is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q:Did you make a mistake in not removing Father Rosenkranz in 1987 when his sexual molestation of Mr. Pollard was reported to you, did you make a mistake?
A: What I want to say is that I don't recall these allegations --
Q:This was the letter --
A: -- but I could be -- my memory probably isn't working well and -- but I do remember Pollard coming to me, and I do remember him being angry because I had come to the -- you know, I couldn't -- I didn't know who was saying -- who was telling the truth and I was very logical about the whole thing. And so that he says that, 'I wonder whether you believed me,' and I feel very badly now that I didn't believe him more, but I was taking one person's word against another and it was very difficult. And so having gone through the assessment and then the assessment not showing up anything that was deviant, I then had to decide, you know, which was the -- how do you handle Father Rosenkranz and how do you handle Mr. Pollard? So I told him that. As I look back at that, I regret that terribly.
Q:Well, you see actually the attachment is the actual letter -- a copy of the letter that he sent to Cardinal Law in which he reports this is not horsing around. I think I read you the paragraph earlier.
A: Right.
Q:And if you take a look at the next page -- and, again, you're welcome to read this; we're going to be getting together again, but it says, 'but be on notice,' at the bottom of the second page, last full paragraph, 'If you take no significant action to find appropriate and effective treatment for him and to locate his other victims, I will make every effort to make this information public, even at my own expense.' Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q:And so you know, also, do you not, Father McCormack, that after you decided to keep Father Rosenkranz in active ministry in the '90s, there surfaced more allegations against Father Rosenkranz, at which point he was removed; is that correct?
A: At some time after this he was removed. I notice that the Department of Social Services and the Essex DA was also notified by Mr. Pollard.
Q:Right. Not by you, but by the --
A: No, by Mr. Pollard. We would encourage them to do that.
Q:I'm not asking about DSS; I'm asking about what you did, and what you did after Mr. Pollard came and complained to you after writing to Cardinal Law you decided that Mr. Rosenkranz should go into active ministry and then there were further complaints later on about Father Rosenkranz and he was removed?
A: That's right. "And you said you feel terribly about that right now, is that correct?
A: Yes, correct." Do you see that, Cardinal Law?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: When Bishop McCormack was undertaking the action which he's testified to with respect to Father Rosenkranz, was he acting in accordance with the unwritten policy that was in effect between 1984 and 1990?
A: My presumption is he was attempting to implement the policy. The implication on page 270 is that there was the assessment, and this assessment did not show anything that was deviant. My presumption is that Father McCormack at that time was attempting to implement that policy, yes.
Q: Between 1984, Cardinal Law, and 1990, can you think of any priest that went for an assessment that was not returned to active ministry following the assessment?
A: It would be necessary for me, Mr. MacLeish, to check the records on that as to how many allegations were made, how each of them -- and I don't have that in my mind at this moment.
Q: I asked you that question -- I'll get the reference for you during the break -- at I think the first day of your deposition, and you indicated you wanted the opportunity to look back at the records. Have you done that, Cardinal Law?
A: I will ask that I be helped in doing that.
Q: You have not done it as of today, though; is that correct?
A: Well, you know, Mr. MacLeish we've been asked to provide a lot of records to you and a lot of other people, and I have a limited number of folks who are working on this, and we're trying to get things done in as orderly as fashion as we can, and the more things we're asked to bring forward like this, the more impeded we are in moving forward in implementing a very effective policy, but we're doing the best we can, and we will get that information to you.
Q: As you sit here today, though, without the benefit of that information, can you identify in your own mind any one priest in that period of time when my clients allege they were being sexually assaulted by Father Shanley, any one case where a priest was assessed and was not returned to active ministry?
MR. TODD: Now, did you answer that question as best you could the first time it was asked?
THE WITNESS: I have answered that question --
MR. MacLEISH: It's a yes or no.
THE WITNESS: -- as best I can, and the answer is not different.
A: I would have to check the records, Mr. MacLeish, in order to give you an answer to that question.
Q: We've already been through Father Geoghan, Cardinal Law. And in Father Geoghan's case he was assessed twice and returned to active ministry on two occasions. Do you recall that testimony?
A: On the basis of assessment, yes.
Q: So we know that he was returned. Okay. We know about Father Birmingham, that Father Birmingham was also assessed and was returned to a parish, St. Brigid's in Lexington, is that not correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: We know that Father Rosenkranz was assessed, and he was returned to active ministry, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: This is all in that 1984 to 1990 time period.
So my question is, can you think of one priest, understanding I don't have all the records. I only have the records for twelve priests. Any priest during the '84 to '90 time period, that you can recall, sitting here today, without the benefit of documents, and I want you to have that opportunity as I gave you the first opportunity, can you just identify one that was assessed and not returned to active ministry?
MR. TODD: Cardinal, did you answer that question?
A: Thank you for rephrasing the question to me. I did understand the question the first time. I answered it the first time. I answer you again. I cannot give you a response to that question without checking the records, and I think it would be irresponsible for me to do it. I think that my memory of this is irrelevant. I think what is relevant are the facts, and I would want to check those out, and I would ask you to allow me to do that.
Q: I did give you that opportunity at the first deposition. So would it be fair to state that as you sit here today, you can't identify any individual priest that was sent in for an assessment and not returned to active ministry? You can't identify any as you sit here today?
MR. TODD: Have you answered that question as best you can?
THE WITNESS: I have answered the question.
MR. TODD: I instruct you not to answer.
MR. MacLEISH: With all due respect to Mr. Todd and Mr. Rogers, it's a very simple question. It's either he remembers or he doesn't remember. Not that he wants to go and check the records. I want to give him that opportunity. But I'd like his response now whether he can identify anyone in that time period that went for these assessments and was not returned to active ministry. It's a fair question.
MR. TODD: It's already been answered.
MR. MacLEISH: It has not been answered. It's been answered by "I want to check the records." I'm asking the witness right now, and the witness has put out a statement dated May 20, May 20 of this year, saying if he'd known about the 1966 allegation involving Paul Shanley, he would have taken some actions. He's testified to that today. It's a fair question as to whether or not anything would have happened if he'd been made aware in 1984 about Paul Shanley. So, you know, it's non-responsive, his answer, and if you're going to instruct him not to answer, that's also improper. And we'll just have to save it for a later date.
Q: Are you going to follow your counsel's instructions, is that correct, Cardinal Law?
A: I've attempted to answer your question, Mr. MacLeish, as best I can. I think it's irresponsible for me to try to guess about something that's factual, and I would like an opportunity to check the record on that, and I apologize that I haven't done it -- I don't have that before me at this moment, but I will have it before me.
Q: Okay. If you think of anybody that you can recall in that same time period between 1984 and 1990 that you can remember that went in for an assessment after an allegation of sexual molestation and was removed from active ministry, please interrupt me, and I'll give you the opportunity to give me that name.
All right. Father Birmingham, Cardinal Law.
MR. TODD: Will, is this the Shanley case we're in for?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is.
MR. ROGERS: It is.
MR. TODD: It is?
MR. MacLEISH: It is the Shanley case. It is, in fact, the Shanley case.
MR. TODD: Thank you. I wonder when we're going to get to it.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, if you could just sort of stop tapping your pencil, I'd appreciate it. This is the Shanley case. All of this is relevant to the Shanley case.
(Law Exhibit No. 47, Father Birmingham documents, marked for identification.)
Q: Showing you Exhibit No. 47, Cardinal Law, and again what we're looking at is the statement that you issued on the Shanley case about what you would have done had you been aware. You recall that statement, correct? We've already been through that, Exhibit No. 12.
A: Yes.
Q: So what we're looking at is what happened in other cases where you were aware. Now we're talking about Father Joseph Birmingham. Do you know who he is?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: We have some documents that we've put together on Father Birmingham, and I'd like it if you could turn first to page JB .
A: The first of these is dated '64, right?
Q: That's right. They're allegations going back to 1964 on Father Birmingham.
We're talking about, now, your tenure and your statement of what you would have done with Paul Shanley, and we're looking at what you did in other cases.
MR. TODD: I object to that kind of preamble and statements of counsel.
Q: You'll see the -- these were produced from your files. If you want to take a moment and look at JB , Cardinal Law. The actual handwritten portion of it precedes it. These were transcribed and provided to us by your office. It's the preceding page --
A: I'm sorry.
Q: -- that are the actual notes. These are the transcription of the notes that, again, were produced as your part of the production. It's the preceding pages that are actually the notes of Reverend Mulcahy.
A: All right. Now what am I to look at?
Q: I think the easiest thing to look at is the transcription of the notes, which is JB . Okay.
A: (Witness reviewing document.) Yes, I've read that.
Q: You'll see that there's allegations in this case, and, again, you're welcome to check the handwritten notes of Bishop Mulcahy and the notes of Bishop Banks which appear on the preceding page. That's JB 009, if you want to just take a look at the handwriting, Cardinal Law. I think you probably recognize the handwriting on the bottom as being Bishop Banks' handwriting; is that correct?
A: Yes, it looks like his.
Q: Do you recognize Bishop Mulcahy's -- Reverend Mulcahy's handwriting?
A: I would not recognize his handwriting, but I have no reason to doubt it.
Q: You'll see according to the records you've produced to us that there were two allegations by this young man of Father Birmingham in 1987 of him being touched in his private areas. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And then you see Bishop Bank's note saying he spoke to Father Birmingham. He admitted there had been some difficulty. He agreed it would be helpful to resign from the parish and to seek assessment and therapy. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: It was subsequent to that, was it not, Cardinal Law, subsequent to February of 1987 that you assigned Father Joseph Birmingham, when he returned from the assessment, you assigned him to a parish in Lexington, Massachusetts called St. Brigid's; is that correct?
A: I would need to check the records, but I know that he was there when he died, yes.
Q: Right. You remember he was at another parish, St. Ann's in Gloucester, before that?
A: That's right.
Q: And you'll see that in the next page -- this is JB -- this is a letter sent to you on April 4, 1987. This would have been during the time period when my clients allege that they were being sexually assaulted by Father Shanley. And if you want to take a moment and read that letter that was sent to you by a member of St. Ann's Parish in Gloucester, Massachusetts.
A: (Witness reviewing document.) Yes.
Q: So this is a parishioner of St. Ann's who is writing to you in 1987 wanting to know whether it is the same Father Birmingham who was at his parish that was removed from St. James Parish in the 1960s to early '70s. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: You know, do you not, that Bishop McCormack also served at St. James Parish in Salem in the 1960s, 1970s?
A: I wouldn't know where he was at that time.
Q: And it's being reported to you in this letter of April 4, 1987, it says that the man said that Father Birmingham had to be removed because he had molested boys in the parish. As a matter of fact, the man's brother was one of the boys who were molested. Do you see that?
A: I see that, yes.
Q: This man is also concern about Father Birmingham's sermons on AIDS, do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And he's concerned about his son, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: It says right there he's concerned about a priest possibly molesting my son. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Last paragraph.
A: Well, he's not making a charge that he's been molested, but he's concerned that he would be in danger.
Q: Father Birmingham, as he reports, has been removed from St. Ann for reasons of health. This is approximately two months after the notes of Bishop Banks where Father Birmingham was confronted with the allegations that are contained on JB . It's about two months. This man writes in his concerned that his son may have been molested by Father Birmingham. Is that a fair characterization?
A: I don't see here -- perhaps I'm missing it.
Q: Yes.
A: Where he is saying -- excuse me. I am concerned about the AIDS sermon and about a priest possibly molesting my son. But I think the context there is not that he thinks that the son was molested.
Q: Right.
A: But he thinks if this is the man, he would be a risk for that.
Q: He wants to know whether it's the same man who was at St. James Parish in 1960 and 1970?
A: That's right.
Q: In the '60s and '70s. Cardinal Law, could you turn to JB .
Q: Do you recognize those as the notes of Sister Catherine Mulkerrin?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Well, these are notes, again, that were obtained from your files. They're dated October 14, 1992. They were produced in the Father Birmingham file. You'll see at the top it reports, Incidents, two boys, '63, '64. Then "admitted Dr. Quinn." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Then it says "Moved to Salem, 11/64." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And does that suggest to you that, in fact, at one point Father Birmingham did serve in Salem at St. James Parish?
A: It does.
Q: You actually know that for a fact, that he served in that parish?
A: I don't know that as a fact, but I would -- I'd have no reason to doubt what's set forth here.
Q: So we have this parishioner at St. Ann's asking you for information about whether it is the same person who was at St. James in the 1960s, 1970s and accused of sexual abuse. You would regard that as a very important communication; is that correct?
A: You mean the inquiry, the letter?
Q: Inquiry --
A: Sure, it's an important letter.
Q: A man concerned about his son possibly having contact with Joseph Birmingham. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you turn to JB , please. And you'll see in this letter -- this is from Bishop McCormack -- it states -- this is a response, I can represent to you, to the man who wrote you the letter about his son possibly having some contact with Father Birmingham, the April 4, 1987 letter. Bishop McCormack writes back and states, "His Eminence, Cardinal Law, received your letter and asked me to look into the matter for him." Do you recall that occurring?
A: No. As a matter of fact, I doubt that it occurred. If you look at the letter -- I think we've gone over this before, but to follow the process, if you look at JB , you'll note there are two stamps on there. The first on the right says "not acknowledged at residence," and the second would have "received, office of ministerial personnel," which means that the letter was opened. It was referred to the place that would follow it up.
And that would be a -- my asking him to look into the matter is the fact that this letter not acknowledged in my residence is sent to him, and there's an implicit request that he handle this for me, and that's the way that is done. So it is not a question of my having called him up on the phone or my having sent a note and said, "I want you to do this." This is -- this was the way in which -- and still is the way in which matters are handled: That if a letter is not acknowledged at my residence, it's sent to the appropriate office for follow-up.
Q: Cardinal Law, if, in fact, the protection of children was the first priority of the Archdiocese of Boston from 1984 to 1990, why would it be the case that any letter setting forth serious allegations of sexual misconduct by a priest would have a stamp on it saying "not acknowledged at the residence," what would the purpose of such a policy be?
A: To be sure that the letter was handled in an appropriate way, it would be followed up on by the person responsible for following up, and it happens that the person responsible for handling those kinds of cases was the secretary for ministerial personnel. If one -- if you don't think that was a right way to do it, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think that it's a rather good way to handle the volume of business that comes across my desk.
Q: I'm not talking about the volume of business. I'm talking about what is the number one priority of the Archdiocese, the protection of children. Did you ever have discussions between 1984 and 1990 with anybody, Bishop McCormack or any of your delegates or the moderator of the Curia, about these types of allegations that were being made against your priests?
A: Certainly.
Q: Okay. So when you say that you didn't have any knowledge of this letter about Father Birmingham, you really just don't know whether you had any knowledge, because certainly you did discuss these priests from time to time with those that you delegated this responsibility to; is that correct?
A: What is the question to which I am responding now?
Q: The question is -- the question is first that we don't know for a certainty, do we, Cardinal Law, that the letter that was sent to you by this concerned father about his son possibly having some involvement with Father Birmingham, we really don't know whether that was a letter that you might have personally read? We have Bishop McCormack's statements saying he received your letter and -- "His Eminence, Cardinal Law, received your letter and asked me to look into the matter for him." I mean, that's a pretty factual statement, is it not?
A: That's correct. And the way in which that asking him to look into the matter is in terms of these stamps.
Q: Well, if you're the person who's received this letter, this father who's received Bishop McCormack's letter of April 14, 1987, wouldn't the only interpretation be that you had actually spoken with Bishop McCormack about the matter and you had asked Bishop McCormack to look into it. Isn't that just what it says?
A: I cannot tell you what somebody else would have thought or not thought. I can tell you what was done, as best as I can reconstruct and recollect, Mr. MacLeish. In dealing with the facts of the matter, the facts of the matter are that this letter was sent to Father McCormack with the implicit request that he respond in my name. That's what "not acknowledged at residence" means.
Q: Is that an attempt, Cardinal Law, "the not acknowledged at residence" stamp, was that an attempt to distance yourself from these allegations of sexual abuse --
A: Quite the con --
Q: Excuse me. If I could finish the question. -- that were coming in, Cardinal Law, to the archdiocese during the '84 to '90 time period?
MR. TODD: Object to the form of the question and its insulting tone.
MR. MacLEISH: Well --
A: Quite the contrary, Mr. MacLeish. That was not an attempt to distance myself. It was an attempt to be sure that things were handled in an orderly, systematic, timely fashion.
Q: Okay.
A: And I relied on people on my staff to help me with that. There were people who helped me in a wide range of questions that came across my desk.
Q: Of course.
A: Educational matters, personnel matters, financial matters, but this particular kind of a concern was handled by, at that time, the secretary for ministerial personnel, who at that time happened to be Father McCormack, and I don't see that it was anything other than a desire to be sure that these and all matters were handled well.
Q: But when an allegation of sexual abuse came in, Cardinal Law, do you ever remember like putting together a memorandum or having your staff putting together a cover memo saying, "Father McCormack, please look into this," instead of having a stamp saying "not acknowledged at residence." Wouldn't that just be a way to handle it? Was that ever done?
A: Mr. MacLeish, if you want to tell us how more effectively we might run the office, we'd be very happy to get that, but right now I think the issue is what was done, and I've told you what was done, and I've told you why it was done, and I find it a rather effective way to handle requests, correspondence, business matters. I know for a fact that if I attempted personally to handle all of the things that come across my desk, they wouldn't get handled, and they wouldn't get handled well.
Q: Cardinal Law, we're talking about what is the first priority for the Archdiocese of Boston at the time, the protection of children. Do you ever recall having discussions during the '84 to 1990 time period about any particular priest being involved in sexual molestation of children --
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
Q: -- that you recall?
A: I think -- I attempted to answer that before --
Q: Okay.
A: -- and my answer was yes.
Q: What do you recall?
A: I recall conversations concerning Father Geoghan.
Q: Right.
A: And I recall -- and I'm sure there were others as well.
Q: Any that you can recall?
A: I cannot recall specific conversations, no.
Q: It wouldn't be fair to ask you about a specific conversation. Can you remember any other priests, apart from Father Geoghan, that were discussed during the '84 to '90 time period?
A: I can't come up with names right now. I'm sorry.
Q: And you have a cabinet; is that correct, Cardinal Law?
A: I do.
Q: And you have cabinet meetings regularly?
A: I do.
Q: Is that correct?
A: I do.
Q: Was Bishop McCormack, then Father McCormack, part of the cabinet?
A: He was.
Q: Was there any regular agenda to look at complaints about priests and personnel matters including sexual misconduct --
A: That would not --
Q: -- during the period 1984 to 1990?
A: That would not be a matter for the cabinet.
Q: Well, can you explain to me what types of matters were -- I'm not interested in ecclesiastical matters, but what types of matters that were more important than the protection of children that would have been the subject of those cabinet meetings between 1984 and 1990?
MR. TODD: Object to the form.
A: Are you interested in how the cabinet meeting is run, whether the business that comes across it -- the specifics of these cases, Mr. MacLeish, were not the matter of these cabinet meetings. This was a specific responsibility of ministerial personnel. There was a way in which these things were handled. There was a certain confidentiality involved. The secretary for ministerial personnel had other responsibilities besides this.
And the way in which a cabinet meeting is held is that each cabinet secretary submits a summary of what has been done in that office since the last meeting, and it's a very terse, one sentence, perhaps even phrase, summarizing the work that was done. The purpose of those cabinet meetings is to allow the various offices to work more effectively together so that we don't have overlap, and the report of the previous week's work is shared with everybody else around the table, and we go around the table, and each cabinet secretary can raise up two or three principal items, and then there's an interaction. I may bring some things to the cabinet.
At the time when we did our written review, or written policy in '93 on sexual abuse of minors, that policy was a matter of discussion and input from all the cabinet members, as it was, indeed, from others as well, including the presbyterial council. But as a routine matter, an individual case of this kind would not become a matter of discussion for that whole body.
Q: So if there was some decision about a particular priest involving a serious allegation of sexual misconduct, let's say in 1985, that's not the type of matter that would --
A: That would not --
Q: Excuse me. -- that would not be the type of matter that would come back to you, is that your testimony?
A: Excuse me. I didn't -- I thought we were talking about the cabinet. So I...
Q: Well, we are.
A: Would you repeat that again.
Q: Sure. Absolutely. What I'm trying to reconcile is the important business of the cabinet with the first priority of the Archdiocese of Boston at the time, the protection of children. What I would like to know, Cardinal Law, is if there was a serious allegation of sexual misconduct involving a priest, let's just say in 1985, would that be the type of matter that would always come back to you for some sort of decision?
A: Yes, if there was going to be -- yes.
Q: So the letter that we see with Father Birmingham, the allegations against Father Birmingham, was that the type of matter that came directly to your attention?
A: This letter from Salem?
Q: Not -- let's go back to the first one, the notes of Father Mulcahy about the allegations involving Father Birmingham and this young man that is set forth in JB , or we can take the allegation of Mr. Pollard. That was a serious allegation, was it not, Mr. Pollard's allegation? Do you remember that?
A: They're all very serious, yes.
Q: And I think that you testified that you didn't believe that that allegation was ever presented to you, Mr. Pollard's allegation?
A: That's correct.
Q: And the allegation that was submitted by -- is it Bishop Mulcahy or is it --
A: Bishop Mulcahy.
Q: -- that was submitted by Bishop Mulcahy and the decision of Mr. Banks to send Father Birmingham out for an assessment, was that the type of matter that came back to you for review in the '84 to '90 time period?
A: Father Banks at that time had the responsibility for pursuing that case. I would have confidence in the way in which he was handling that. I had great confidence and have great confidence in Father Banks, as I did in Father McCormack. And I felt that their handling of these cases would be appropriate and -- appropriate.
Q: So there was an allegation, serious allegation, which they all are, of sexual misconduct. It's not necessarily the case, say, in 1985, that it would come to you for further review, correct?
A: Well, if it came to me -- if the allegation came to me, then I would refer that allegation to Father Banks or Father McCormack to handle, to deal with, to follow up on.
Q: But my question is, it doesn't come back to you, though, is that your testimony? When they make their decision on what to do with a priest, it's not something you review? Is that your testimony?
A: Well, I would say that the policy on that would have evolved. Certainly if a person is going to be removed, if a person is going to be -- if it's a question of an assignment, that would come to me as we moved into this in a more systematic way. And by the way, thank God we weren't getting these cases every day. It wasn't as though we were just getting a deluge of these cases.
But the handling of these cases was by delegation, and I would be involved where that was necessary.
Q: Could you just describe for me where -- that would be where a priest was reassigned or removed from active ministry, you would be involved in that decision; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: But if a complaint came in, such as Mr. Pollard's complaint, making a serious allegation that led to an assessment but no removal from active ministry, that would not necessarily be something that you would be involved in, correct?
A: It's conceivable that it would be handled at the level of the secretary of ministerial personnel. It's also possible that he would have discussed it with me. I just can't -- I can't say that it would be always one way or always another. I mean, we interacted a great deal, but I would have confidence in the way this case would be handled by them.
Q: Okay. So the point is, in the Pollard situation, you can't state really one way or another whether you were involved in that allegation; you just can't remember, fair statement?
A: Well, I think my sense is that I would not have been.
Q: Okay. Fine. The complaint that's set forth in the Mulcahy allegation about Father Birmingham, he gets then apparently sent out for an assessment by order of Bishop Banks, a serious allegation but not necessarily one you're involved in; is that correct?
A: But I would be very surprised if I was not aware of his being sent for an assessment. I would be very surprised at that.
Q: But you might not be consulted on what the follow-up would be?
A: Well, it would be consistent with whatever the assessment indicated.
Q: The 1987 letter, April 4, 1987 letter about the young man up at St. Ann's to which Father McCormack responded on your behalf, you've testified you don't believe you saw that letter?
A: That's correct.
Q: Cardinal Law, could you -- you have a copy of your deposition transcript in front of you.
A: Is this it?
Q: Yes.
A: Is that 46?
Q: No, no, I'm sorry. Your deposition transcript, day 1. If you'd turn to page 209, please. I just want to make sure -- I didn't look at the errata sheet. I'm just going to read the question. If you could read the answer. Starting on line 12 of 209. You're welcome to take a look at the prior paragraph, if you'd like, to put it in some context. If you want to take a moment and do that, you can --
A: Excuse me.
Q: I'm going to read -- I just want to make sure we got your testimony down correctly the first day but if you want, I'm going to read you a question. You can read the answer, but if you'd like to look at the question in some context, I'm going to give you that opportunity right now.
MR. TODD: Where does the question start?
MR. MacLEISH: It starts at line 12.
A: (Witness reviewing document.)
Q: Okay. Cardinal Law, I asked you the question, reading from line 12 -- this is on the second day of your deposition, page 209, line 12: "And it would come back to you for you to make some decision, if, for example, it involved a serious accusation against a priest? Would that be something in 1985 that would come back to you for further action?" What was your answer at that point?
A: My answer was, "If there were a serious accusation against a priest that was a credible allegation, yes, that would come back to me."
Q: Now --
A: May I also say something.
Q: I don't really have any other question, but if you -- you're going to be cross-examined.
MR. TODD: Did you want to add something, Cardinal?
MR. MacLEISH: There's no pending question. I just asked him to read it.
Q: Is that an accurate trans -- Go ahead, Cardinal. If there's something else you'd like to say, then go ahead. Absolutely.
A: What I would like to say, Mr. MacLeish, is that that answer was to a question in a flow of questions. Again, it was relating to what our policy was in place in 1984 moving forward. I presume now you're putting the date to 1990 or to 1993. And it was an evolving policy. I stated in my previous answer on page 209, starting with line 1, that letters would go to the person -- in this case secretary of ministerial personnel -- they would review it. They would reflect upon it. They would in some instances be able to act upon it immediately in their own name. In some instances my involvement would need to be present, and it would come back to me in an appropriate form. In some instances my involvement would need to be present. And in those instances -- so it's in that flow of question and answer that I responded here on -- to your question, which is on line 12.
Q: All right. Now, Cardinal Law, you agree that the Higgs letter that we went over at the last deposition, we're going to return to it in a moment, contains a serious allegation about Father Paul Shanley; is that correct?
A: Yes. Yes. Where is that letter?
MR. ROGERS: I wonder, Mr. MacLeish, should we take a five-minute break?
MR. MacLEISH: Fine. Absolutely. When would you like to break for lunch?
MR. TODD: 1:00.
MR. MacLEISH: Do you want to do it now or do you want to do it later?
MR. ROGERS: Let's do it at 1:00.
MR. MacLEISH: 1:00, fine.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:09. This is the end of cassette 1 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:20. This is cassette 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're on the record.
Q: Cardinal Law, I understand the process of delegation that you've described a number of times here today, and I don't think we need to go over that again, but is it not the case that after the delegation took place to either Father McCormack, Bishop Banks, the moderator of the Curia or some other responsible person, that in 1985, if there was a serious allegation against a priest and a credible allegation, that it would come back to you to make some decision? Is that not the case?
A: That was your question in that earlier deposition, and I responded if there were a serious accusation against a priest that was a credible allegation, yes, that would come back to me. But I attempted to put that answer in the context of the preceding question that you asked me, which is on page 208 of the deposition, which would imply, I think, that there may be some instances where the delegated authority would be sufficient to go ahead and act, absent coming back to me. So in a sense, that is qualifying what is present there.
Q: The question that we just read from on page 209 about it coming back to you for a decision if it was serious and credible -- those actually were your words, the credible part -- that was a question that was asked after the question that started on page 208. You answered that after the question on page 208 of your deposition, correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: And you said in response to that question -- one of the things you said, you said, "In some instances my involvement would need to be present, and it would come back to me in an appropriate form." Do you see that?
A: That is correct.
Q: And the allegations made involving Father Rosenkranz were serious allegations. Is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And the allegations set forth by Wilma Higgs in her letter, which is Exhibit No. 18, were serious allegations, correct?
A: Well, I believe I answered previously that -- of not recalling having seen this letter.
Q: Not my question.
My question is: After you read it, you would agree with me that it contained -- it was addressed to you, and it contained serious allegations about Father Paul Shanley. I think you've already acknowledged that, correct?
A: These -- again, what is contained in this letter of Wilma Higgs -- what I find confusing at this point is that we are talking in one instance very specifically of acts of sexual abuse against a minor, and then we suddenly get into something else that is broader than that. In this instance, in this instance, this letter of Mrs. Higgs is not a letter alleging the sexual abuse of minors, as I read it. It is alleging the fact that Father Shanley was speaking about things that were totally inappropriate, incorrect, not reflective of church doctrine. It isn't the same thing, though, as being accused of having molested children.
Q: Cardinal Law, on page 208, my question was as follows: "Was there" -- and this is starting on line 17 -- "Was there, because of the nature of the letter. Was there any unwritten policy at the Archdiocese of Boston when you arrived that matters that related to accusations against priests, including accusations of a sexual nature, were not to be acknowledged as being received at your residence even if they were sent to you directly?"
Your answer was: "No. The policy didn't specify the area, but it was general and if the matter was such that I needed someone else to help with that matter, it was their responsibility primarily to deal with it. The letter would go to them. They would review it. They would reflect upon it. They would in some instances be able to act on it immediately in their own name. In some instances my involvement would need to be present, and it would come back to me in an appropriate form."
The next question was, "And it would come back to you for you to make some decision, if, for example, it involved a serious accusation against a priest? Would that be something in 1985 that would come back to you for further action?"
Your answer, Cardinal Law, "If there was a serious accusation against a priest that was a credible allegation, yes, that would come back to me."
Did you not acknowledge in the first day of your deposition that the Higgs letter set forth a serious accusation against Paul Shanley?
A: I may have. I'd have to look at the deposition.
Q: All right. Cardinal Law, do you remember when Father Birmingham died and there was a funeral that you attended?
A: I am aware of the fact that I attended his funeral.
Q: And do you remember meeting a man at his funeral who reported to you that Father Birmingham -- and this would have been, again, during our relevant time period, 1984 to 1990 -- do you remember a man speaking to you about allegations of sexual misconduct involving Father Birmingham?
A: I have, in the past seven months, heard reports of someone claiming to have met with me, also having referenced something about the sacrament of confession. I have to say that that kind of a reference makes me very loath to enter into any kind of a discussion of what might have taken place for fear that perhaps there was an issue of confession present. And I think you can appreciate --
Q: Sure.
A: -- my hesitancy on that point.
Q: Fine. Well, let's look at the next exhibit if we could, please.
(Law Exhibit No. 48, Blanchette statement, marked for identification.)
A: As you know, the seal of confession binds the confessor.
Q: I understand it can't be waived like the attorney/client privilege.
A: But it doesn't bind the penitent. In other words, it would never be appropriate to say to somebody that because of confession, you can't speak about this. A person can speak about whatever they want to, but the confessor cannot speak about it. And that's the seal.
Q: All right. Okay. Did you conduct a confession in the reception or the basement of St. Brigid's Church in Lexington following Father Birmingham's funeral with any person?
A: I don't know that.
Q: Is that the usual place you would conduct a confession at a reception?
A: You know, the point is a person can go to confession anywhere, if they wish to go to confession. Ordinarily the confession would be in a confessional.
Q: Right.
A: But there can be extraordinary situations where people feel a need for the sacrament and they may ask a priest to receive the sacrament, and ordinarily you would respond with that.
Q: Was there a reception at St. Brigid's Church in Lexington following Father Birmingham's funeral?
A: I don't remember -- there probably was. It would be natural that there would have been.
Q: Why, given the fact that you had a notation from Bishop Banks in February of 1987 that Father Birmingham admitted, as we saw on page JB , that there had been some, quote-unquote, difficulty, why would you have assigned Father Birmingham to St. Brigid's Parish in Lexington, Cardinal Law?
A: It would --
Q: It's JB -- the typewritten one is number 10, Cardinal. It's a little easier to read.
A: Thanks.
Q: Why did you assign him, after this allegation -- we've been through the other handwritten notes about the allegations in Salem. Why in 1987, if your first priority was with children, would you have sent him to St. Brigid's in Lexington?
A: I would need to look at the records and see what the assessment said, to see what the moderator -- to see what the secretary for ministerial personnel, or at that point, my delegate would have recommended in terms of this assignment. Certainly it wouldn't have been done without some sound reason and basis for that as an appropriate assignment. It would not have -- and I can't answer that right now, without checking the records.
Q: Well, here you have a priest that apparently, according to the notes of Bishop Banks, admitted that there had been some difficulties in this area. Why would you ever send someone who had admitted engaging in sexual abuse back to a family parish in Lexington, Massachusetts?
A: Well, assignments of this kind, first of all, as you know, are not made now.
Q: No. I'm talking about '87.
A: I understand that. In '93, moving forward, such assignments were made only after the recommendation of the review board and only after assessments. Before '93, an assignment of this kind would be made with a recommendation of the delegate, or before the appointment of the delegate, the secretary for ministerial personnel, with some kind of an intervention indicating that this would be appropriate and not a risk. I would have to check the record with regard to Father Birmingham to see what was -- what had taken place, and I don't know that from -- as I sit here.
Q: Cardinal Law, we already established, I think, in the first days of your deposition that no assessment ever came back to you saying there was a hundred percent guarantee that it wouldn't occur again. You acknowledged that I believe at the first day of your deposition.
MR. TODD: Object to the form.
Q: Go ahead. You can answer the question.
MR. ROGERS: What's the question?
A: Well, I've answered the question.
Q: The question is, Cardinal Law, isn't it the fact that you never received an assessment where there was a one hundred percent guarantee that the act of sexual molestation wouldn't occur again?
A: That's correct. The institutions didn't give a hundred percent guarantee, but you would -- the delegate would go for an exit interview, would discuss with the institution, would understand more clearly what the assessment was, and it was on that basis that action was taken, and there were situations where there was very clear and positive assurance given. Did it say we give you a one hundred percent guarantee that this will never be done again? No. That was not done. And I'm sure part of the reason why it wasn't done is that these institutions and these individuals were thinking about the possibility of future liability. But it's precisely because of that risk factor that we have put into now a policy that under no circumstances may somebody be reassigned.
Q: I know about the policy.
A: But at that time it was, and it was with the sense, with the judgment that there was -- that this could be done safely.
Q: Well, Cardinal Law, I'm just trying to reconcile the first priority of the Archdiocese being to protect children with an admitted child molester such as Father Birmingham being sent by you back to St. Brigid's.
A: I understand what you're doing.
Q: Could you provide me, not now what your policy is, because I know it wouldn't happen now, but back in 1987, why would you ever want to put someone who had admitted molesting children back into a parish without restrictions shortly after he made the admission?
MR. TODD: Object to the form of the question.
Q: Go ahead. Isn't it common sense?
A: To answer your earlier question, and this is a follow-up to that question, I would need to check the files to see what intervened between his one assignment and the other assignment to indicate to you what was the basis upon which that assignment was made. With the value of hindsight, Mr. MacLeish, but not simply a theoretical hindsight, but a practical hindsight that has already been put into effect with our policy, I would not assign such a person again to another parish or to anything else.
Q: Well, if you take a look at page JB , Cardinal Law, you'll see that there were three assessments, according to these notes produced from your files, three assessments of Father Birmingham, allegations not just in the 1980s, but allegations going back to 1963 and 1964 that were admitted. Surely if your first priority was the protection of children, you would not, consistent with that policy, have sent this man back without restriction into a family parish in Lexington, Massachusetts. It's , Cardinal.
A: I saw it.
MR. TODD: There's apparently no question. That was a speech by Mr. MacLeish.
MR. MacLEISH: That was a question.
MR. TODD: No, there was no question.
Q: Did you understand the question?
A: Not really. I did understand the speech.
Q: I'm not trying to make speeches.
MR. TODD: Well, you're succeeding in doing so.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, I'm going to have to get you a copy of the Reporter's Notes during the break.
Q: Cardinal Law -- MR TODD: You don't need to get me copies of the Reporter's Notes.
MR. MacLEISH: I will, though. I'm going to have them marked as an exhibit too.
MR. TODD: You read the rule.
MR. MacLEISH: I will.
MR. TODD: I don't have to have the Reporter's Notes.
Q: Cardinal Law, the question is simple. I'm trying to reconcile, respectfully, your statement of the first concern being children. Your statement that if you had had the Shanley allegations, you would have done something that would have prevented Mr. Ford, Mr. Driscoll and others from being hurt. That's what I'm trying to ask you questions about.
I would respectfully ask you, if your first priority was children, as you've expressed that it was, and if you would have taken some action if you'd known about the '66 report, why is it that in 1987 there was a report about Joseph Birmingham molesting children, and despite the fact, as is reflected in your own documents on , despite the fact that there were three different assessments, why would you have sent that man back into a family parish in Lexington, Massachusetts? That's the question.
MR. TODD: I object.
A: I attempted to answer that before, and I will attempt to answer that again. I would have to go back. I would have to discuss with the person who was assisting me in this matter and determine why it was that it was felt at that point it was safe to put him in that assignment. And I can't do more than that right now.
Q: Okay. Going back to the exhibit that we had involving Mr. Blanchette. I think that it's been misplaced.
MR. MacLEISH: What number is that, David? 48.
Q: Do you have Exhibit 48?
A: Here. It's right here.
Q: Mr. Blanchette reports in this written statement -- you recall we had a statement from one of the Morrisons earlier. That was over Father Broussard, Cardinal Law. Do you remember we had a statement?
A: I have sent something in on the record on that that I would ask you to reference.
Q: Certainly. Mr. Blanchette states that he met with you after the funeral at a reception in the basement of St. Brigid's Church in Lexington. Do you have any recollection of a man coming up to you and saying my name is Father Blanchette, and stating that he knew Father Birmingham in Sudbury, his first parish? Do you remember that?
MR. ROGERS: You said and he came up and said his name was Father Blanchette?
MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry. Tom Blanchette. I apologize. I meant Tom Blanchette.
A: Yeah. I have a vague recollection of something like this occurring, but I have to tell you that what concerns me is this reference in the last -- in the penultimate sentence to the confessional.
Q: I'm not talking about that part of it.
A: All right. All right.
Q: I'm not talking about that part of it.
A: All right. But you understand that that would put this whole conversation from my perspective, possibly, in that kind of a context, and that's why I'm nervous about getting into this, but go ahead.
Q: All right. Well, it wouldn't be a proper use of the confessional, as I understand it, Cardinal Law, for you to state -- to bind someone under the seal of the confessional from never talking about the abuse?
A: Absolutely no.
Q: That would not be a proper use of the confessional?
A: That -- as attempted to state earlier, the seal of the confession binds the confessor, not the penitent.
Q: So understanding that, did you state to Mr. Blanchette that you bound him under the power --
A: I cannot imagine ever stating --
Q: Let me finish the question, please.
MR. TODD: No, no, let him finish.
Q: Mr. Blanchette reports that you said to him, I bind you by the power of the confessional not to speak to anyone else about this. We don't want to destroy the reputation of this good man's ministry?
A: I cannot imagine ever saying to anyone, "I bind you by the power of the confessional."
Q: Do you remember someone speaking to you at the reception or at the funeral alleging that he and others had been molested by Father Birmingham?
A: I recollect someone speaking to me. I don't recollect the conversation, but on that general topic. That I do recollect, and I also recollect a very positive reaction to this person.
Q: By this man?
A: Yes. Well --
Q: How was it positive?
A: Well, again, you know, if you had asked me prior to my seeing this or having heard about this to reconstruct what had gone on, I wouldn't have been able to have done that, but seeing this, what impressed me was the fact that there could be some way of dealing with this with Father Birmingham, and I thought that that was a positive thing.
Q: It was reported to you by this man -- you recall him reporting to you that there were multiple other victims?
A: I don't recall that. I don't recall that.
Q: You recall him stating -- well, just tell us what you recall, Cardinal.
A: I recall --
MR. ROGERS: Can I -- just a second. I have concerns here, because the Cardinal has raised the issue about the confessional, and I just wonder if we might have a brief conversation --
MR. MacLEISH: Sure. Absolutely.
MR. ROGERS: -- because it is a privilege.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:41. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
(Question read by Court Reporter.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:46. We're on the record.
A: If I might --
Q: Sure.
A: -- say. You asked me earlier about what I recalled about this, and obviously I've heard some press reports on this conversation, and then I've seen this now. But I would say that had you asked me prior to that what I recalled about this, I would have recalled meeting someone after the funeral who had been a victim and having a discussion.
What concerns me is the reference to confessional. Even though what is said would not be something that I would say or that I would -- could do. I mean, a confessor can never bind someone by the power of the confession not to say something. But the confessor is bound, and I guess I'm nervous, and was when I heard it referenced in the press earlier, by this reference to confession, and I, absent Mr. Blanchette telling me that there was no confession here, I would be loath to get into more detail unless I had that assurance from him. I don't recall.
Q: Well, you don't dispute --
A: I don't recall a confession, but I guess that I'm perhaps being scrupulous. But hearing that reference to confession, I want to be certain that that didn't take place.
Q: Well, I'm only asking for your recollection, and your recollection is that there was no confession that was made.
A: Well, I recollect meeting with someone and having a discussion. Beyond that, until I can be assured by the individual that there was no confession, I wouldn't want to get any further into my recollections about that.
Q: He didn't -- a confession would have to be something that he would ask for; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: If I can get you a statement over the break saying that Mr. Blanchette did not ask for any confession --
A: That there was no confession.
Q: That this was something that he says --
A: That there was no sacramental confession.
Q: He says that --
A: Then I would feel free to respond.
Q: Sure.
A: But I would just be -- not that there's that much I have to say, but I just don't want to get into that without that kind of assurance.
Q: I understand. I can get you over the break a statement from Mr. Blanchette saying that he did not ask for confession, that this was something that --
A: That he did not receive the sacrament of confession. Good. Fine.
Q: Well, in order to have confession, as I understand it, Cardinal Law, you have to ask for it.
A: To receive the sacrament.
Q: To receive the sacrament?
A: That's right.
Q: So I can get you something saying that he did not ask to receive the sacrament.
A: Fine. That's fine.
Q: Because if it was initiated by you --
A: Oh, it couldn't be.
Q: -- then it wouldn't be confession, and it wouldn't be protected.
A: No, no, no. It wouldn't be.
Q: So we can do that.
A: That's all I want to be assured of.
Q: Fair enough. We'll come back to that.
A: Thank you.
Q: Just before we take our lunch break, if we could just go to JB from the Birmingham materials, please, Cardinal Law. Now, in this letter that was the response to the letter that was sent to you by this young man concerned about his son and Father Birmingham, the possibility of abuse, and asking him whether it was the same man that was at St. Ann's that was at St. James Parish in the '60s and '70s, Bishop McCormack responded as follows. I want to ask you about what he said.
"I contacted Father Birmingham and asked him specifically about the matter you expressed in your letter. He assured me there is absolutely no factual basis to your concern regarding your son and him. From my knowledge of Father Birmingham and my relationship with him, I feel he would tell me the truth and I believe he is speaking the truth in this matter.
"From my perspective, therefore, I see no need of your raising this question with your son. But if you feel drawn to do so, for whatever reason, I suggest that you contact Mrs. Mary Byrne at North Shore Catholic Charities in Peabody. She is the Director of Professional Services and is experienced in these matters." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Do you understand the import of this gentleman's letter that is on JB 11 and JB 12 as asking whether it was the same man that was at St. James Parish? He wants to know. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Isn't he entitled to a response?
MR. TODD: Object to the form.
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form.
Q: Under your policies that existed at the time?
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.
A: Well, he did receive a response. And I believe that he did not receive a response to that inquiry, but I -- but just reading the two letters, my presumption is that Father McCormack felt that the heart of this father's concern was the possibility that his own son might have been a victim of sexual abuse, and that's what he picked up on.
Q: Well, the father -- without belaboring this, the father wanted to know if it was the same man. Is this the type of letter, JB , that was sent out consistent with the unwritten policies that you had at the time?
A: Excuse me?
Q: If you look at the letter that Father McCormack sent to this man wanting to know if the same Father Birmingham at St. Ann's was the man who was alleged to have engaged in abuse of minors at St. James Parish during the '60s and '70s, you see Bishop McCormack's response to that, do you not? It's right here on JB 013.
A: I see Bishop McCormack did not respond to where this priest had been stationed earlier, but I think any reasonable person would read in that first sentence of the second paragraph the implication that it is the same person.
Q: Okay. That's your understanding of that?
A: That's my understanding of that, and he goes on to deal with what is at the heart of a father's concern about his son. Whether --
Q: You don't have any evidence that Bishop McCormack spoke with this man about what was the heart of his issue about his son. All we know is he wanted to know if it was the same man. That was the specific request.
A: The only evidence I have about this is the letter you put before me.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Why don't we take our lunch break right now. I have 1:00. We'll see you back here at 2:00 and hopefully we'll have something from Mr. Blanchette.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:53. We're off the record.
(Luncheon recess.)
(Law Exhibit No. 49, Blanchette statement, marked for identification.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:02. We're on the record.
Q: Okay. Good afternoon, Cardinal Law. You'll see in front of you Exhibit number 49, which I think is the statement that you requested from Mr. Blanchette.
A: Yes.
Q: Does that satisfactorily relieve you of any concerns about the sacrament of the confessional?
A: Yes, it does.
MR. TODD: Let me ask you, Mr. MacLeish, for the record, you represent that this is the signature of Thomas Blanchette?
MR. MacLEISH: I do.
Q: You'll see in Exhibit No. 48, Mr. Blanchette's statement --
MR. TODD: 49?
Q: I'm sorry. 48. You'll see Mr. Blanchette's statement that under the seal of the confessional he was asked in essence by you not to ever say anything about Father Joseph Birmingham. Do you see that statement in the last paragraph?
A: That he said I -- yes. I see what he says here, that "I bind you by the power of the confession not to speak to anyone else about this." I see that.
Q: You categorically deny that you would ever make any such statement?
A: I cannot imagine making such a statement, because it simply would not -- I mean, the power of the confession isn't at issue here. That -- the seal of confession would bind the confessor. It would not bind the penitent.
Q: Can you ever -- go ahead.
A: Excuse me. Go ahead.
Q: Can you envision yourself ever telling someone in Mr. Blanchette's situation not to tell anybody else about abuse by a priest?
A: I find it very difficult to imagine myself saying to someone that you cannot talk about the abuse that you have experienced.
Q: And you've never said anything like that to any victim of sexual abuse?
A: Telling a victim that he should not say anything about this to anyone?
Q: Yes.
A: I cannot recall having said that. Certainly my understanding of this phenomenon, which is much greater now than it has earlier been, would point to the fact that it's very important, actually, for this to be talked about rather that not talked about.
Q: I'm talking about the period from 1984 to 1990, was that your view at that time, Cardinal Law?
A: Well, it's certainly my view now. At what point I came to understand it as clearly as I understand it now, it would be -- I can't pinpoint. But this was -- this would not have been my way of dealing with this kind of an issue.
Q: But one of your other concerns, as Archbishop of Boston, is to prevent the church from engaging in -- strike that. Is to prevent scandal within the church? Would you agree with me that that's one of your goals as Archbishop?
A: Well, if you could explain what you mean by that.
Q: That's okay. We covered it during your first day. Let's move on. One more question about Father Birmingham. Is it customary for you to officiate at the funeral services of priests in the Archdiocese of Boston when they pass on?
A: It is customary for me to do that.
Q: Could you please look at Exhibit No. 12 again, which is your May statement. Could you refer to the -- again, to the third page. I'd like to read from the second paragraph from the bottom to you and ask you a serious of questions.
You state in this statement, "Mistakes have also been made when facts which should have been before me were not. I often have made decisions based on the best information available to me at the time only to find that new details later become available, which some may argue I should have had previously. Obviously I wish I had been aware of all pertinent facts before making any past decisions." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Now, in the first day of the deposition we covered your decision to elevate Paul Shanley to pastor on December 11, 1984. That's reflected in Exhibit No. 39. If you could turn to that, please.
A: Yes.
Q: And you'll see the opening sentence says, "Upon the recommendation of the personnel board of the Archdiocese, I am ending your appointment as administrator at St. John the Evangelist in Newton. I am appointing you pastor at St. John the Evangelist in Newton for a period of six years effective January 1, 1985." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: So you did receive some recommendation of the personnel board of the Archdiocese concerning Paul Shanley; is that correct?
A: That seems to be implied here, yes.
Q: We have not received any such document, Cardinal Law, and I would again ask your attorneys, as well as you, if you would be of assistance to us in helping to locate that document, because we do not have it. Could we agree that that is something that will be looked at between now and the time that your deposition concludes to see if it exists?
MR. TODD: Hold on. That request is properly addressed to counsel.
MR. MacLEISH: All right. Fine.
MR. TODD: And we'll deal with it.
Q: You have seen such recommendations in the past, and they are in writing, though; is that correct?
A: What happens on appointment -- the ordinary appointment of a pastor can be handled in one of -- well, the appointment of a pastor can be handled in one of several ways.
Q: Right.
A: If a parish becomes open, ordinarily what I receive from the personnel board is a ternate, three names. I may choose one of them.
Q: Right.
A: I may choose none of them. I may ask them to send me another list. I may appoint a pastor directly without benefit of the personnel board.
I read here "Upon the recommendation of the personnel board of the Archdiocese," so that I can only presume that this went through the personnel board. At the same time, this kind of an appointment, since he was named administrator, I believe, although I stand to be corrected on that, by the administrator of the diocese --
Q: By Bishop Daily.
A: -- who could not have appointed him pastor. It would have been somewhat of a routine thing if he were -- if that were the case, but --
Q: But let me ask you another question, Cardinal Law.
If there was a recommendation of the personnel board for the appointment of Paul Shanley as pastor, would it have been in writing?
A: Well, it wouldn't -- I suppose there would be a written record somewhere, but it wouldn't have come to me as a report -- it would have come to me through then Father Tom Oates, who was the personnel director. He would have come to me on a regular -- we would meet at least weekly, sometimes twice a week, and he would review with me the matters that had transpired before the personnel board. And this would be the way in which I would hear of that. At what point I did this, I don't know, but -- it might have been from the beginning, but for some time the personnel director would submit to me an agenda for the meeting, the business that he needed to take up. And this would have -- and following that system, what I would have would be a sheet of paper, appointment of pastors, and it would have St. John the Evangelist Newton, and then he would tell me what it was that the personnel board was recommending for that particular place.
Q: Is the personnel board any type of a separate entity from the Archdiocese, or is it a division of the Archdiocese?
A: The personnel board is made up of a group of priests that are chosen for the specific purpose of assisting me in the assignment of priests.
Q: So they are --
A: So it's part of the Archdiocese.
Q: Part of the Archdiocese. So the records of the personnel board, as I understand it, are maintained separately from the personnel records of individual priests of the Archdiocese; is that correct?
A: You know, I don't know how the personnel board's records are kept. They would be kept by the priest personnel director.
Q: Okay. And who was that in December of 1984?
A: I believe at that time it was Father Oates.
Q: Where is Father Oates now?
A: Father Oates is in -- on service with the St. James Society, and I believe he's still in Bolivia.
Q: Now, Cardinal Law, did the personnel board of the Archdiocese of Boston in 1984 have full access to the records of all priests that came before them for recommendations for promotions?
A: When you say "full"...
Q: Full access.
A: I don't know that.
Q: Did you ever institute at any time, either in 1984 or thereafter, any policy that provided the personnel board with full access to all records of individual priests?
A: Confidential records?
Q: Including confidential -- what's in the so-called confidential file.
A: No, I did not.
Q: And you haven't done that today?
A: That's correct, I have not.
Q: And we agreed, I think earlier in your testimony, that the confidential records would contain matters relating to sexual misconduct; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Why would you deny the personnel board access to matters relating to sexual misconduct of a priest if they were called upon to make recommendations as to whether someone was fit to be pastor?
A: Well, as you know, our policy at this time is that no one who is -- who has acted out in this way may have any assignment to begin with. So they're not going to be in the pool, and all of those priests that we know of up to the moment have been put either on administrative leave or in other ways are not available for assignment.
So it isn't the kind of information at the moment that's going to be -- that's going to be pertinent. At the earlier date, before that policy was in effect, this is a matter which would have been handled in an appropriate way, and to the best of my knowledge, the people who were available for assignment could be safely assigned in terms of misconduct in their past.
Q: What about Paul Shanley? Paul Shanley had allegations in 1966. Then we went through those letters. I think you might remember the complaints of Mrs. Sweeney, the complaints of Attorney McGeady, the references in Gayweek Magazine to Paul Shanley's views, the complaint of Father Weston, and complaint of Mr. Moynihan. Those were all in the files that were produced for us by the Archdiocese in the first and second sets of production here. Were those files technically available to the personnel board in 1984, Cardinal Law?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A: They were not available to me in 1984, and they were not available to the personnel board.
Q: Why were they not available to you, Cardinal Law?
A: Again, I believe I answered in an earlier deposition, but I'm happy to go over this material again and again too, if you'd like.
It isn't customary, and it wasn't my custom, perhaps in retrospect it was wrong, but my presumption, when I came here in 1984, was that persons who were in place were appropriately in place.
Q: Right. I understand that.
A: And I did not go back and review the records from the time that Cardinal Medeiros arrived here, nor did I go back and review the records from Cardinal Cushing's time.
Q: I don't want to repeat --
A: And as I've also indicated in previous testimony, I feel that the manner of recordkeeping was, in this area, not what it should have been, and we have attempted to address that and are addressing it now. One of the reasons why it's come to light is because we have been asked to produce everything, and we have found this and many other things. But, as a matter of fact, in 1984 I did not come here and look the back files up of priests as I assigned them. My presumption was that a priest was appropriately in assignment.
Q: Cardinal Law, I remember your testimony. I'm drawing a distinction between what was your custom at the time and what files were available to you. You would agree with me that the confidential files of Paul Shanley were available to you in the sense that you had access to them. Would you agree with me about that?
A: Obviously if these files had been produced in these past months, then they were there somewhere in some form.
Q: In 1984?
A: Yes.
Q: And my question is, given the fact that the personnel board was called upon to put individuals -- make recommendations to put individuals in positions of authority, and given the fact that the confidential files would include information about priests which could include sexual misconduct, was there any particular reason as to why the personnel board was not given access to those files?
A: It was not the business of the personnel board to review the files of a priest. The function of the personnel board is to make a recommendation at this moment about assigning this priest, who is here now, to there. It is not a matter -- it's not their competence. It's not their responsibility to look into this kind of a matter. This is a very serious matter.
It's a matter that I'm handling in quite a different way than it was handled in 1984. But even today it would not be the personnel board that would be dealing with that kind of an issue. That kind of an issue would be dealt with at another point, and a person who should not be assigned to a parish should not be assigned to any parish and should, therefore, not be available to the personnel board as a matter of consideration. It wouldn't be the personnel board that would say, "Well, wait a second. Here's somebody who is acting out and has abused children, so we better not put him there. We better put" -- no, that's not their responsibility. That name shouldn't even be there for their consideration.
Q: You certainly would agree with me that you would not want to have as pastors individuals that had in their files the type of information which we went over that was in Paul Shanley's files in the first two days of your deposition. We can agree about that, can we not?
A: Well, yes. Certainly I can agree, and agree wholeheartedly and agree more than in words, but agree in action that I have taken, that anyone who is responsible for the sexual abuse of a child may not receive any assignment in this Archdiocese.
Q: I'm talking about back in 1984 --
A: I understand that.
Q: If we can try to look at what was going on back in 1984 when Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Ford, Mr. Busa and others were at St. Jean's Parish. In 1984 when someone was being promoted to a position, as Paul Shanley was being promoted, would you not want to know whether there was any material, confidential or otherwise, that related to the qualifications of that individual to be a pastor?
MR. TODD: Object to the form.
A: I believe I've answered this question, but I'll try once again. It may not be the answer you want. So you can try once again. But the answer that I give you is the truth before God as I sit here in front of you, and is simply this: That in 1984 I did not have the information before me that would have led me to suspect that Father Shanley was responsible for the sexual abuse of a child. Had I had that information, I would not have appointed him. I did not have that information.
And it was not my policy in 1984 to review past files of priests before assigning them. My presumption was -- my presumption was that a person in a position of pastoral responsibility was appropriately there.
Q: All right. Leonard Chambers, was he a priest when you left Springfield, Missouri?
A: Yes, he was, I believe.
Q: And did you pass on to your successor, when you left Springfield, that Leonard Chambers had admitted to molesting a child?
A: The record of handling his case was there in the files of the diocese of Springfield, Cape Girardeau, I'm sure.
Q: In the confidential files?
A: Well, it would have been there.
Q: But my question is, did you specifically tell your successor in the Springfield diocese, "There is a person here, Leonard Chambers, who has admitted to sexually molesting children"? Did you specifically say that to your successor or ask anyone to inform him?
A: I did not specifically say anything to my successor, who came in some months after I left. However, there is a continuity there in staff that worked with me, assisted me, and knew that case as well and perhaps even better than I knew it.
Q: In the same way that Bishop Daily knew about these prior allegations involving Paul Shanley, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So when you left -- you assumed when you left Springfield that your former staff would pass on to the new bishop any information they might need to know about --
A: That was pertinent.
Q: Excuse me. -- that was pertinent relating to sexual conduct relating to Leonard Chambers, correct?
A: Any information that was -- any information, yes. Not only on this issue, but on any issue.
Q: In the same way that Bishop Daily should have passed on to you any pertinent information about Paul Shanley before he was promoted to pastor?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: Again, this gets back to the question of how that earlier letter was handled, and I can't answer that. One would have to ask someone else about that.
Q: Well, it's not just one letter. We're going to just -- it's not just one letter. There's a serious of communications involving Bishop Daily, and we can go over them. But right now what I'd like --
A: That's fine for you to put those before me, but I hope you understand that it's very difficult for me to respond to material that was -- that occurred before I came here.
Q: Yet in Exhibit 12, you state, as we just read, Cardinal Law, you state right here on page 3, you state, "Mistakes have also been made" -- and this is conjunction with the Shanley case.
A: Yes.
Q: -- "mistakes have also been made when facts which should have been before me were not." Which facts are you referring to in the Shanley files?
A: What I was referring to was the matter of files. I wasn't focusing on individuals. I was saying that the way in which this material was filed, was kept, was passed on, was inadequate, and the material that obviously should have been before me, not only that, but even material that should have been acted upon in a different way, was not, and I wished that that had happened.
Q: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put that down hard. But wouldn't that surely, in order to have all the pertinent facts as you set forth in Exhibit 12 before you, surely would that not have encompassed the string that we went through -- and I can refer you to the exhibits -- that we went through in the first two days of our deposition -- the string of allegations of Paul Shanley's abuse, about adults having sex with children. Wasn't that some of the material that you wish you had in front of you in 1984?
A: All of that material, yes, yes.
Q: And can you think of -- do you know, of your own personal knowledge -- understanding you haven't discussed it with Bishop Daily -- why Bishop Daily didn't provide you with an opportunity, a heads up, some sort of warning about these materials so you could make your own independent judgment about the suitability of Paul Shanley to serve as pastor?
A: It's difficult for me to judge what another person has done or why they have done it. I don't know how that material was handled. I don't know what response was given to that -- to the various letters. I do know the response that was given -- I think there was a letter that came later that Father McCormack responded to.
Q: That's the Higgs letter.
A: That's right.
Q: We're going to go to that.
But my question is -- I'm not asking you to sit in judgment of Bishop Daily.
Let's be specific if we could, Cardinal. Let's turn to Exhibit No. 25, and we did cover this previously. I'm not going to spend too much time with it, but I think that you're familiar with Exhibit No. 25, which is a letter from Jeanne Sweeney that in turn encloses Exhibit No. 26, which is the exhibit -- which is a report from Rochester about what Paul Shanley stated concerning sexual acts, that no sexual act can cause psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality, and that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer. Do you see that Exhibit 26, those two paragraphs?
A: This 1977 letter?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Do you see that?
And then you also see the response to Mrs. Sweeney, who had sent in the letter, from Bishop Daily that's Exhibit No. 27. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And is Exhibit No. 26, this report from Mrs. Stevens and the report from Mrs. Sweeney, is this the type of material that you wished you had in front of you in 1984, Cardinal Law?
A: Well, you know, certainly all of this is of a piece, but what I have in front of me in these two letters is the report of what a priest said.
Q: That's right. That's the first report.
A: And that's what someone says he said.
Q: Right.
A: Now, I have to tell you that my experience has been that very often what people think someone said and what they said may be two quite different things. And I think that in receiving those kinds of reports, father so-and-so said such-and-such in his sermon, that one has to look into it carefully to be certain that what was said was said, that there wasn't a misunderstanding of what was said.
Having said that, certainly the content of what is being reported is very disturbing in and of itself. If you couple that with earlier reports of acts, then obviously it's quite -- it's confirmatory of what is being raised as a concern and a possibility here.
Q: And you just gave the analogy of a sermon. Different people may hear something different from a different sermon, but when you have more than one person -- say people who don't even know each other -- giving the same report of what was said, then does it not add a measure of credibility to those reports?
A: Certainly the compounding of evidence would do that.
Q: Right. And then you have Exhibit No. 28, which is the McGeady letter, which we've already been through, which attaches the men and boys article where Paul Shanley is reported as again stating his views about relationships between adults and children of a sexual nature. You remember that, do you not, Cardinal Law?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Where Paul Shanley purportedly again is reported to have said in a magazine, sent by an entirely different person, this attorney, Mr. McGeady, Paul Shanley is reported to tell a story about what happened when a man accused of sexual molestation was arrested. I think we went through the first paragraph that's marked -- it's on the page you're looking at right now.
A: Yes.
Q: And that has a certain commonality with the report that was given by Mrs. Stevens, does it not --
A: Mm-hmm.
Q: -- two years earlier? And then you see --
Q: I'm sorry. You have to say yes. You said mm-hmm.
A: Yes. Yes.
Q: And then you see Exhibit 29, you'll see that Bishop Daily was also involved in that communication. Do you see that, Exhibit 29?
A: Yes.
Q: And Father Helmick, who was your personal secretary, was also involved in that communication. He was your personal secretary in 1984; is that correct?
A: In 1984, yes, Father Helmick was.
Q: He stayed as your personal secretary until 1987; is that correct?
A: I'm not sure of the date, but I would stand by what you're saying.
Q: And Father Helmick, would he have also been familiar with your process and procedure whereby you would write notes to various other priests? Would he be familiar with the circumstances under which you would do that?
A: Excuse me, notes to other priests?
Q: Yeah, personal notes to other priests in the Archdiocese. Would he be familiar with that process? Under what circumstances you might be inclined to write a note?
We'll come back to it later, Cardinal Law. I don't want to -- okay?
You'll see as Exhibit 30 Father Helmick's letter to Mr. McGeady. Do you see that?
A: Is that dated April 6, 1979?
Q: Yes. That's correct.
A: Yes.
Q: So we have Father Helmick and Bishop Daily involved in the second communication about Paul Shanley expressing his view on man-boy love; correct?
A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: And then we have in Exhibit No. 33, we have --
A: These are not different from what we've already entered into the evidence before; is that correct?
Q: Yes. Exactly. That's right.
A: I just wanted to be sure I wasn't seeing different things.
Q: No. These are the same ones. We see Pastor Weston?
A: This is pretty much the same material we've already passed over in an earlier depositions.
Q: Oh, yes. Different questions, but similar material, very similar material.
A: It's the same material.
Q: Very similar allegations against Paul Shanley.
A: Yes.
Q: You see Pastor Weston, as we covered in Exhibit 33. Then Exhibit 34, a third involvement of Bishop Daily acknowledging Pastor Weston's letter, and assuring him a Paul Shanley did not represent Cardinal Medeiros at the NAMBLA conference. And then a letter back, which is Exhibit 35, to Bishop Daily from Pastor Weston. You see that one, where Pastor Weston states, was Father Shanley at the NAMBLA conference. So we have Bishop Daily, and these are, again, from your files, Cardinal Law. These are another communication involving Bishop Daily, and then another one which is Exhibit --
A: Excuse me. I would say they are from the Archdiocese's files.
Q: That's correct.
A: They're not from my files, because all of these predate my coming here.
Q: Do you maintain separate files, Cardinal Law, separate from the Archdiocesean files?
A: No.
Q: Do you have a personal archival file?
A: No.
Q: Do you have a chron file?
A: I have a chron file, but it's not a personal chron file. It's the regular chron file.
Q: Has anyone searched that chron file for documents concerning Paul Shanley that you know of?
A: I think we've searched the chron files, if I'm not mistaken, for any pertinent material relative to these cases.
Q: All right. Fine. Let's go back to Exhibit 37. We have Bishop Daily's name circled at the top of that document, which is another report about a conference involving Paul Shanley. We covered that in the first day of our deposition. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you see a response in 1983 from Bishop Daily that's Exhibit 38. So we have Bishop Daily involved in -- do you see that, Cardinal Law?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Exhibit 38, a response to Mr. Moynihan. So we have Bishop Daily involved in four separate situations from different reporters about, as you described it, similar types of allegations. Wouldn't that be the type of information that you were referring to in your statement of May 20, that you wished you'd had this type of material before you?
A: Not only that, but other material that we haven't gone through.
Q: Like what?
A: Well, you know, these are, for the most part, these are allegations about what he has said, but there were earlier allegations, it seems to me, that go back to an earlier date which allege, for example, the 1966 letter.
Q: Right. But you agree --
A: Which I would think would be even more important.
Q: Well, but you agreed, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if Paul Shanley had said the things that he has been attributed to have said from four different individuals reporting at four different times, that that by itself would have made him ineligible to be in active ministry as the pastor at St. Jean's in Newton, is that not correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So when you say in your statement that there was a lack of institutional history about Paul Shanley, is it not the case that on the records that we have before us, there appears to be a decided institutional history with Bishop Daily about Paul Shanley?
A: Yes. I think the phrase I use, or at least the phrase I intended to use, was an institutional memory.
Q: Right. I'm sorry. That's correct.
A: And that was faulty, but the data is there, yes.
Q: But these four separate communications involving Bishop Daily and Paul Shanley's view on man-boy love, doesn't that suggest to you that Bishop Daily had an institutional memory about Paul Shanley?
A: It's difficult for me to sit in judgment on what someone else is thinking or not thinking, has or does not have. I can see these letters before me, and I can respond to that.
Q: All right. Well, you do state -- you do say in your statement that you've got to do better --
A: Is this Exhibit 12 again?
Q: Yes, Exhibit 12. -- that you've got to do better in the area of having an institutional memory. Let me just get that for you, Cardinal Law.
Perhaps it's not in this statement. But do you have a recollection of making a remark that the church, the Archdiocese of Boston had to do a better job in the area of institutional memory concerning some of these -- oh, I'm sorry. I have it right here. It's your April 12 statement, Exhibit 13, Cardinal Law. It's the second paragraph. You state, "The case of Paul Shanley is particularly troubling for us. For me personally it has brought home with painful clarity how inadequate our recordkeeping has been. A continual institutional memory concerning allegations in cases of abuse of children was lacking." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: When that statement was written -- first of all, did you write it, Cardinal Law?
A: I did.
Q: Did you check with Bishop Daily to see what his institutional memory was about Paul Shanley?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Have you ever checked with Bishop Daily to see what his institutional memory of Paul Shanley was?
A: I have not.
Q: Have you ever asked William Helmick, who I think now is a pastor in the Archdiocese, what his institutional memory concerning Paul Shanley was?
A: Mr. MacLeish, perhaps I wasn't very clear in what I was expressing here, because from your line of questioning it would make it obvious to me that what I intend to say by this sentence is not understood by you.
When I say a continual institutional memory concerning allegations in cases of abuse was lacking, I meant that right there before me now and before those charged with assisting me in this, we did not have the systems in place that assured that those documents that should be there are there readily accessible, and as the next sentence says, "Trying to learn from the handling of this and other cases," including, I might say, the very painful kinds of things that we're reviewing here; painful for all of us. Painful for victims --
Q: For the victims.
A: Particularly painful for the victims who are sitting here and going over this again. Trying to learn from the handling of this and other cases. I am committed to insure that our records are kept in a way that those who deal with clergy personnel in the future will have the benefit of full, accurate and easily accessible institutional memory. That's my intent. That's what we're trying to do. I have to also say that the people who are charged with assisting me in this at the moment are doing all they can do simply to keep up with the myriad of requests that come to us for documentation. And so that work I fear is not yet what it should be and won't until that blessed time when we're able to get beyond this process, when we're able, please God, to settle all outstanding cases in an equitable and just way, and then people can focus on the future.
Q: Are you saying that the prosecution of these cases, Cardinal Law, and the decision of Mr. Driscoll and the Ford family to exercise rights which they have that belong to them under the civil laws of this country is somehow impeding with helping --
A: No.
MR. TODD: Don't, don't.
A: Absolutely I am not saying that, and you know I'm not saying that.
MR. TODD: Objection.
A: You're putting words into my mouth.
Q: I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood.
A: Yes. Well, you did.
MR. TODD: Intentionally, I suggest.
MR. MacLEISH: No, I didn't -- I think the words --
MR TODD: It was an offensive question, Mr. MacLeish, and you know it.
Q: I'm just going to move forward, Cardinal Law. I certainly didn't mean to offend you. Maybe I've used the wrong words then when I talked about institutional memory, but you would agree with me that institutional memory can be oral as well as written; is that correct?
A: If you're talking about what I said here --
Q: Well, my question --
A: -- in this document you have put before me, institutional memory means what I meant. If you're asking me a general question now about what institutional memory can mean, obviously it can mean oral or it can mean written. But what I was talking about here was very specifically the written record.
Q: Let's put this aside. You have not spoken -- I just want to be clear. You have not spoken to either William Helmick or Bishop Daily before or after you wrote your statement of April of this year about what their memories were of Paul Shanley, correct?
A: That's correct. I have not.
Q: Okay. All right. What about Bishop Banks; did you ever speak with Bishop Banks about what his memory of Paul Shanley was?
A: I have not. You're talking about in recent months?
Q: Right. Exactly.
A: Yes, but not -- Fine. No, no, I have not.
Q: Did you ever speak with Bishop McCormack about whether he had any memory of Paul Shanley being involved in allegations of abuse or making statements about man-boy love?
A: I don't recall having had any -- I assiduously avoided talking about these cases to anybody who might be involved, because I didn't think it was appropriate.
Q: Now, Cardinal Law, if we could go back to your statement on Paul Shanley, Exhibit No. 12. You state in that exhibit, you state --
(Attorney/witness conference.)
Q: Do you want to take a break?
A: No.
Q: If we take a look at Exhibit No. 12 --
A: Excuse me. On that last question you asked me about when I talked to people, would you specify that again, the time frame?
Q: Well, at any time since -- let's break it down -- since April of this year, have you spoken with either Father McCormack, now Bishop McCormack, William Helmick, now Pastor Helmick, Bishop Daily or Bishop Banks about what institutional memory they had concerning Paul Shanley?
A: No, I have not.
Q: Now, you have also stated in your May 20 -- "Obviously I wish I had been aware of all the pertinent facts," Exhibit 12. You've also made statements concerning press reports that an individual approached you and spoke to you about Paul Shanley molesting a child. Do you remember writing that in Exhibit 12?
A: I do. I don't see it here in the exhibit, but I recall that.
Q: Okay. It's on the third page.
A: Yes, I see it.
Q: It states, "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." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Who would that have been that you're referring to specifically, those who work most closely with you can attest that such a report would have been acted upon?
A: Well, my secretary.
Q: William Helmick?
A: That's correct.
Q: And my --
A: Because usually -- again, the pattern -- '84 we're talking about shortly after I got here.
Q: Sure.
A: And at some point it became my habit always to have, and Father John Connolly, who is here with me as my secretary now, can attest to this, to have a secretary nearby. So that when anyone approached me in a situation after a ceremony and said something to me that needed to be followed up upon, I would refer them to the secretary. So the secretary could make a note of it, because it's difficult to do that if you're meeting a lot of folk, because my fear was that if it were left to me, it could be very easy that something that I should follow up on, I would forget in the press of meeting a great number of folk.
This kind of a matter, I think those who work with me would attest, would be the kind of matter that would be of great concern to me and that I would want to have followed up upon. The other person, when he became moderator of the Curia, who could attest to something like this, would be Bishop -- Father Banks. He would --
Q: So just so I understand it, William Helmick would have been one of those who could give general attestation concerning your policies when something like an allegation of sexual misconduct was brought to your attention; is that correct?
A: He could attest to -- he could attest to the fact that I would want a secretary nearby so that I could refer to him someone coming to me with a matter that needed to be followed up upon.
Q: And you would have -- go ahead.
A: Whether it's this or anything else.
Q: And you would have confidence that Mr. Helmick -- Father Helmick, rather, would be able to give accurate information concerning what your practices and policies were at the time; is that correct?
A: I would think so, yes.
Q: All right. Now, if you could turn, Cardinal Law, to the so-called Higgs letter, which is Exhibit No. 18. We don't need to read that all over again, but this is the letter that initially when you did your admissions -- do you recall your admissions that you signed under the pains and penalties of perjury that's number 11, Exhibit No. 11, do you remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: Initially -- and that was filed right before your deposition -- you stated in response to number 1 under the pains and penalties of perjury, "The defendant does not believe he read the Higgs letter in 1985."
A: That's correct.
Q: "The defendant admits he has since read this correspondence."
A: Excuse me, which one are you looking at?
Q: Exhibit 11, number 1.
A: Yes. Thank you.
Q: And you recall at the end of the day of our first day, when I showed you some letters, you actually changed that admission to state that you believed that you had seen the Higgs letter. Do you recall that?
A: I do recall that.
Q: And then you recall that you came back on June 7, and you changed your answer again back to the original answer.
A: I do recall that.
Q: Is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So are you comfortable with your original answer right now?
A: I am.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. I'd like to have marked certain portions of the deposition of Father Helmick, who you've just given some testimony about.
(Law Exhibit No. 50, excerpts of Helmick deposition, marked for identification.)
Q: Showing you Exhibit 50, Cardinal Law, this is from the deposition of William Helmick that I took. I'd like to read you a section of it and then ask you a question about it. All right. I'm going to start by reading from page 209, line 12, and I'm going to read it and then ask you a question.
A: 209?
Q: Yes. This is my question to Father Helmick: "Now, do you think that in addition to alerting Bishop Banks that now this is the third allegation about man-boy love remarks, that someone should have alerted the parishioners and St. Jean's in Newton about these three communications?
MR. O'CONNOR: Objection to the form.
A: I think right now, I certainly do, yes.
Q:Sitting there back in 1985, you've got three -- you've got a report that the priest is in Newton, Massachusetts, at a parish; you've got three allegations over eight years that he's made some highly unusual immoral statements, as I think" -- we're missing a page here -- "as I think you've described them, on man-boy love.
A: Correct.
Q: Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Then I'd like to, if I could, Cardinal Law, but you're welcome to use all of this -- go over to page 213. Okay? And I put in front of Father Helmick the response that was given by Father McCormack to Mrs. Higgs, which is Exhibit 20. You may want to turn to that to put this in context.
A: Yes.
Q: That's the letter in which Bishop McCormack wrote to Paul Shanley --
A: Is that number 19?
Q: Yeah. Number 19 and number 20. Both from Bishop McCormack. One to Wilma Higgs. The other to Paul Shanley. Do you see those two?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. It says, starting on page 213, line 16: "From what you know about John McCormack's character, he's not going to make a misstatement about what Cardinal Law knew, would he?
MR. O'CONNOR: That wasn't my objection. My objection was the document you presented said that. It's not his document and that's mischaracterizing his testimony.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q:Would you answer the question, please. Jack McCormack, Bishop McCormack is an honest person in your estimation; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q:He is not, in your view, going to tell Mrs. Higgs that there's been a conversation about her letter -- which we all have agreed is very serious -- with Cardinal Law unless it's true; correct?
MR. O'CONNOR: Objection.
A: Correct.
Q:And yet at the same time, having read the letter, you understand -- I think you testified to this -- that Mrs. Higgs' concern was not just confined to what Paul Shanley is alleged to have said about homosexuals; correct?
A: Correct. "It also references concern about what he was saying about children having sex with adults. She was concerned about that as well.
A: Yes.
Q:And then it also says in this letter, May of 15 of 1985: "'I have been in contact with Father Shanley and will be speaking with him about this matter soon.' " Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q:Let's look at Exhibit 31, please. This is a letter from Reverend McCormack to Paul Shanley and it references, it states: "'Recently I received a note from the Cardinal about a letter he had received from Miss Wilma Higgs of Rochester, New York.' " Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q:Now, you were, again, as of this date, still the Cardinal's personal secretary. I think we've established that; correct?
A: Yes.
Q:We have not been provided with a copy of this note. Do you know if in 1985 Cardinal Law was writing a note to John McCormack" -- I'm sorry -- "Do you know if in 1985 Cardinal Law was writing a note to John McCormack, there would be some location where that note, a copy of that note would have been kept? Would that have been kept, a copy of that note been kept in the files at the Cardinal's residence?
A: I don't know.
Q:You haven't seen that note?
A: No, I have not.
Q:But, again, knowing what you know about Bishop McCormack, is it fair to state that you believe a note at one point existed?
A: Yes." So you see Father Helmick's testimony that there was a note that would have existed at some point in time, at least in his view. Do you see that, Cardinal Law?
A: I do.
Q: Isn't it true that you just don't know whether you ever wrote a note one way or the other? Isn't that true?
A: I would respond, as I have responded, that the stamp on this letter, which is Exhibit 18, would indicate to me that I did not see this letter, that it was sent to Father McCormack, that Father McCormack knew by the legend "not acknowledged at residence," that he was to follow up on that, and it was precisely when you showed me Exhibit 19, as you showed it to Father Helmick, that I changed my original testimony, but only after reflecting on it further did I decide no, I was right in my first response.
And what I believe Father McCormack is doing here is a certain literary license that is taking "not acknowledged at residence," coming from my office as reason enough to reference that I had sent him a note. That is in effect a note. That does in effect say you were to handle this for me. So I do not see that this -- that these notes, 19 and 20, point to the existence of a note from me. I think the note is right there on 18, which says "not acknowledged at residence."
Q: You're saying that the stamped stamp "not acknowledged at residence" constitutes a note from you as Father McCormack would have understood it?
A: That's correct.
Q: A stamp is a note? Doesn't a note suggest something personal in writing?
A: I am saying that that stamped message would connote to Father McCormack that it is my desire that he follow through on that.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. I just have a note that Judge Sweeney is available for us to talk.
MR. ROGERS: Okay.
MR. MacLEISH: So if you want to --
MR. ROGERS: Shall we take a recess?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Just one very quick question.
Q: On Exhibit No. 18, the handwriting in the top right-hand corner.
A: Exhibit 18?
Q: Yeah. "Father McCormack," it's cut off. Whose handwriting is that?
A: I don't know. That's not mine.
MR. MacLEISH: Let's take a break.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:57. We're off the record.
(Whereupon, the deposition was suspended at 2:57 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 statemnet 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 Mullen Silva, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that there came before me on the 13th day of August, 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 notorial seal this 17th day of August, 2002.
--------------------------------
Kathleen Mullen Silva, Notary Public
My commission expires:
May 2, 2008
For complete coverage of the priest abuse scandal, go to http://www.boston.com/globe/abuse
