[This is a transcript of Day 1 of Bishop John B. McCormack's deposition. It is a reader's copy provided for educational purposes, with links to the exhibits. A list of the exhibits is provided at the beginning of the deposition text. Original page numbers appear at the top of the text to which they pertain and are set within square brackets, as are occasional comments like this one. For ease of use, the line numbers that may be consulted in the official transcript are not displayed here. Every effort has been made to create exhibit links that are correct and to assure the accuracy of the text. Please bring any errors to our attention.]

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT

DEPARTMENT of the TRIAL COURT

MICV2002-822-F (Lead Case)

* * * * * * * * * * * *

GREGORY FORD, et al

v.

BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a.k.a.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW

* * * * * * * * * * * *

PAUL W. BUSA

v.

BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a.k.a.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al

* * * * * * * * * * * *

ANTHONY DRISCOLL

v.

BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a.k.a.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al

* * * * * * * * * * * *

VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. MCCORMACK





VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. McCORMACK

Deposition taken at the law offices of
Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green,
1000 Elm Street, Manchester, New Hampshire,
on Monday, June 3, 2002, commencing at
10:07 a.m.



Videographer: Kevin C. Mielke, CCV
Court Reporter: Sandra Day, CSR, RPR
CSR No. 30 (RSA 331-B)




APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiffs:

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
One International Place
3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
By: Roderick MacLeish, Esq.
Robert A. Sherman, Esq.
Courtney Pillsbury, Esq.
Diane Nealon, Paralegal

-and-

NEWMAN & PONSETTO
One Story Terrace
Marblehead, MA 01945
By: Jeffrey A. Newman, Esq.

-and-

HALL, HESS, STEWART, MURPHY & BROWN, PA
80 Merrimack Street
Manchester, NH 03101
By: Peter E. Hutchins, Esq.

For the Defendants:
THE ROGERS LAW FIRM
One Union Street
Boston, MA 02108
By: Wilson D. Rogers, III, Esq.

For Bis. McCormack:
HANIFY & KING
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA

By: Timothy P. O'Neill, Esq.

-and-

RATH, YOUNG and PIGNATELLI, PA
20 Trafalgar Square
Nashua, NH 03063
By: Michael A. Pignatelli, Esq.

For the Diocese of Manchester:
SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03105
By: W. Michael Dunn, Esq.
Bradford E. Cook, Esq.

Also present: Rodney and Paula Ford
Andrew Magni
Patrick McGee


STIPULATIONS
It is agreed that the videotaped
testimony shall be taken in the first instance in
stenotype and when transcribed may be used for all
purposes for which depositions are competent under
Massachusetts practice.

Notice, filing, caption and all other
formalities are waived. All objections except as to
form are reserved and may be taken in court at time
of trial.

It is further agreed that if the
deposition is not signed within thirty (30) days
after submission to counsel, the signature of the
deponent is waived.


INDEX

WITNESS:
Bishop John B. McCormack

EXAMINATION:
By Mr. MacLeish - page 10
By Mr. Pignatelli - page 272
By Mr. MacLeish - page 272

EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:

[To view an exhibit, click the exhibit number in the following table (links to the exhibits are also provided in the text, where that exhibit is first discussed). To view the discussion of an exhibit, click the page number in the following table.]

[8] MR. MIELKE: We are on the record. Today's date is June 3rd 2002. The time is approximately 10:08 a.m. We're here at Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green in Manchester, New Hampshire. My name is Kevin Mielke. I'm with Avicore Reporting. The court reporter is Sandy Day, also with Avicore Reporting of Manchester, New Hampshire.
The case we're here on today isGregory Ford versus Bernard Cardinal Law; Paul Busa versus Bernard Cardinal Law; Anthony Driscoll versus Bernard Cardinal Law, case No. MICV2002-822-F in the Middlesex County Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We're here to take the deposition of the Bishop John McCormack. The parties will now introduce themselves for the record.
MR. MacLEISH: Good morning. My name is Eric MacLeish, Bishop, and everybody here, and I represent the plaintiffs in this case, and by stipulation with Mr. Rogers, we're also including Mr. Magni's case as well, is that correct, Mr. Rogers?
MR. ROGERS: Thank you, yes. [9]
MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman, also representing the plaintiffs in this matter.
MS. FORD: Dorothy Ford, victim's mother.
MR. FORD: Rodney Ford.
MS. NEALON: Diane Nealon, paralegal, Greenberg Traurig.
MR. HUTCHINS: Peter Hutchins, local counsel for the plaintiffs.
MR. MacLEISH: Andrew.
MR. MAGNI: Andrew Magni.
MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman for the plaintiffs.
MR. PIGNATELLI: Michael Pignatelli, personal counsel for Bishop McCormack.
MR. O'NEILL: Timothy O'Neill, personal counsel in Massachusetts for Bishop McCormack.
BISHOP McCORMACK: Bishop McCormack.
MR. ROGER: Wilson Rogers, III, on behalf of Bishop McCormack, Cardinal Law, Bishop Daly, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, Corporation Sole.
MR. DUNN: W. Michael Dunn representing [10] the Diocese of New Hampshire along with Bradford Cook who's with me.
MS. PILLSBURY: And Courtney Pillsbury also for the plaintiffs.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Good morning, Bishop. Let's first swear the witness in, if we could, please.
JOHN B. MCCORMACK having been duly sworn by the court reporter, was deposed and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

Q. Good morning, Bishop McCormack.
A. Good morning.

Q. And, again, thank you for coming in for your deposition today. As I think you know from prior encounters, my name is Eric MacLeish, and I'm the counsel for the plaintiffs in this action and we're here today for your deposition.
I just, by way of introduction, if at any time during the deposition you'd like to take a break, please indicate that to me and we'll accommodate you. We may break every hour, every hour [11]and 15 minutes, depending upon how our court reporter is doing and how everybody else is doing. So you just indicate that to me if you'd like to take a break.
If at any point in time you want to go over your testimony again and modify or change it in any way, you indicate that to me, also, and I'll be happy to give you that opportunity.
Just one word of caution, which is a very common situation: Witnesses sometimes have a tendency to answer the question before the court reporter's had the opportunity to record it, so if you could try to wait until the end of the question and provide your answer, that will be very helpful. Do you understand those instructions?
A. I do.

Q. Okay. Could you please state your name for the record.
MR. ROGERS: Mr. MacLeish, just for the record --
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- we will reserve all objections except as to form --[12]
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- and motions to strike --
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- until the time of trial.
MR. MacLEISH: Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Mr. McCormack, please state your name for the record.
A. John B. McCormack.

Q. And you are the Bishop of Manchester, is that correct?
A. Yes, I am, correct.

Q. And how long have you been the Bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire?
A. About three and a half years.

Q. Okay. And when were you ordained, Bishop?
A. 1995.

Q. And into what diocese were you incardinated?
A. At that time? [13]

Q. Yes, sir.
A. I was incardinated into the Archdiocese of Boston.

Q. Can you explain if -- this tape may be seen by a jury, possibly. Can you explain what incardination means.
A. Incardination means that I belong to the Diocese of Boston, and that my ministry and life is spent within the diocese of -- Archdiocese of Boston.

Q. Okay. And how long were you incardinated into the diocese -- Archdiocese of Boston?
A. About 38 years.

Q. Okay.
A. I was ordained in 1960.

Q. And where did you attend seminary?
A. St. John's Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts.

Q. Okay. And you came out of seminary in 1960, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And how -- what was the class of 1960? [14] How many seminarians, if you can recall, approximately, Bishop?
A. Probably about 76 seminarians, I think, or 74, one of those numbers.

Q. Okay. And did those seminarians include a priest by the name of Eugene O'Neil -- Eugene O'Sullivan? I'm sorry.
A. Yes.

Q. Did that class also include Bernard Lane?
A. Yes.

Q. Did that class also include Father Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Did it also include a Father Joseph Birmingham?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, as I have read your resume, when you first were ordinated, you were assigned to a parish, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And which parish was that?
A. St. James Parish in Salem, [15] Massachusetts.

Q. Okay. And starting in or about 1964, was Father Birmingham also assigned to that parish?
A. Around that time, '64, '65, yes.

Q. And you served with Father Birmingham from '64 up until approximately 1970, is that correct --
A. No.

Q. -- at St. James?
A. Until 1967.

Q. Until 1967?
A. I left there in the summer of 1967.

Q. Okay. And where did you go after you left St. James Parish?
A. I was assigned to study social work at Boston College School of Social Work, and I lived at Marion Court in Swampscott, Massachusetts.

Q. And you were a full-time student at Boston College in social work, is that correct?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you graduated from Boston College in 19 --
A. 1969. [16]

Q. I'm sorry. Again, it's very common. Try to let me finish the question, if you could, Bishop. I'd appreciate it.
You graduated in 1969 with a master's of social work, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And was there any particular concentration you had in your social work studies at Boston College?
A. Case work.

Q. And when you say "case work," can you explain for the court and the jury what that means.
A. Case work is working with individuals or groups around their psychological and social circumstances, so it's basically -- probably would be known as counseling around those circumstances.

Q. So that was your concentration in counseling, individuals with psychological problems and issues?
A. And social adjustment.

Q. And social adjustment.
A. Right.

Q. And did you -- in your course work at [17] Boston College, did any of the course work focus on sexual abuse of children?
A. I don't recall any special program that would -- that focused on that, no.

Q. Well, is it fair to state that, as you sit here today, you can recall learning at Boston College about some of the problems that were caused by sexual abuse to both, either adults or children?
A. No.

Q. You had no training whatsoever at Boston College on the subject of sexual abuse?
A. I don't recall any.

Q. Okay. All right. And -- but you did receive instruction on how to assist people with psychological problems, is that correct?
A. Correct, right.

Q. And did you then go on to actually do any counseling of individuals after you left Boston College?
A. When I left Boston College, I became the administrator full time of Catholic Charities in the North Shore of Boston, and the office was located first in Salem and then in Peabody. So my basic [18] duties were around administration. I would do some short-term counseling, but basically I would say it would be one or two individuals or a couple or a group.

Q. Okay. You in fact received a license as a social worker from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1981, is that correct.
Go ahead, Bishop. We're going to have a document that may help you with --
A. I received a license, but I'm not too sure what year it was, yes.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Well, let's just mark the document in front of you as Exhibit No. 1, if we could, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, showing you what's been marked as a -- as Exhibit Number 1, this is a document that was taken from the internet which I'm putting in front of you to help refresh your recollection. It says issue date for your license was 3-9-81 and the expiration date was 10-1-1988, and the license type was a licensed independent clinical social worker. [19] Does that help to refresh your recollection as to the dates that you were licensed --
A. Yes.

Q. -- in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A. It does, correct.

Q. Okay. And you'll notice that it says "Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker." What does that mean, Bishop?
A. That I was approved to give individual counseling or couple counseling or group counseling.

Q. Okay. And you'll notice that the actual license that you held was a licensed independent clinical social worker. That is different from other types of licenses that are given to social workers, is it not?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. In fact, to be a licensed independent social worker, you have to have a certain number of hours of clinical supervision and actual practice, is that not correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And do you know how many hours of [20] clinical supervision was required before you could obtain your license --
A. No.

Q. -- in 1981 as a licensed independent clinical social worker?
A. No.

Q. Was it 3,000 hours, do you know, Bishop?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. So at least by 1981 when -- go ahead.
A. My sense was that if you were approved by the American Academy of Social Workers and you had that endorsement, that was part of some kind of grandfathering into the -- independent licensing.

Q. Okay. But by 1981, you would agree with me that you had performed counseling for individuals with psychological troubles, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You had done counseling for couples, you stated?
A. Correct. [21]
Q. You had done counseling for individuals with other types of issues besides marital problems?
A. Yes.

Q. Did those include problems with substance abuse?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You never provided counseling to anyone with substance abuse --
A. Substance abuse --

Q. I'm sorry.
A. -- I don't recall.

Q. I'm sorry, you have to wait, otherwise we're going to be in difficulty here.
You don't recall? Did you provide any counseling whatsoever between the time that you got your MSW and the time that your license expired in 1988 to individuals who had difficulties because of sexual abuse?
A. I can't recall any.

Q. You can't recall any?
A. My sense is that I didn't.

Q. Okay. Approximately how many individuals -- and, again, I'm not asking for a [22] specific number; that would be unfair. Approximately how many individuals did you provide counseling services to between the time that you graduated from Boston College with a master's of social work and the time that your license expired in 1988?
A. It would be a guess. That is very difficult for me to make because, as I said, most of my work was in administration. My sense is that I would carry two or three individuals or couples or a group at any one time.

Q. Okay. And that's over the course of how many years, Bishop?
A. Again, that's difficult for me to estimate because the further I got into administration, the further -- the longer I was in administration, the less I would be into doing counseling.

Q. Would it be fair to state, Bishop --
A. Initially when I began I entered -- I was doing much more counseling initially, but then as I became a member of the community of social work, I was doing more work in the community as well as administration. [23]

Q. Okay. As a licensed social worker, were you a member of the National Association of Social Workers?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And were you familiar with the guidelines and the ethical guidelines for social workers when you were a member of the National Association of Social Workers?
A. Yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Q. All right. Now, I'm showing you a document which is the Code of Ethics as adopted by the National Association of Social Workers Delegate Assembly, effective July 1, 1980. Could you take a look at that, Bishop, and see if that's the type of document that you were familiar with, or it is the document that you were familiar with as a member of the National Association of Social Workers?
A. I'm not sure this is the document, but I do recall at one time receiving a document about what it meant to belong to the NASW. [24]

Q. Well, if you could -- and you adhered to those Code of Ethics, is that right, Bishop, of the NASW?
A. To my knowledge I did, yes.

Q. Well, you were also licensed. Were you not required by your license to adhere to the Code of Ethics for the National Association of Social Workers? Do you remember that at all?
A. I'm not -- I don't understand the question.

Q. Sure. Were you -- you were licensed social worker --
A. Right.

Q. -- from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A. Right.

Q. You actually held a license that was issued by a state agency?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. Do you remember whether, as a requirement of licensure, you were required to adhere to the Code of Ethics that is marked as Exhibit 2?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [25]
THE WITNESS: Do I remember? I don't remember.

Q. Okay. All right. If you could turn, Bishop, on the Code of Ethics to the sixth page, "The social worker's ethical responsibility to society." Do you see that on the sixth page?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it states, "Promoting the general welfare, the social worker should" --
MR. ROGERS: Let me interrupt you.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.

MR. ROGERS: He's on page 6 as numbered in the --
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
MR. ROGERS: You're talking on page 6 in the document?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Yes, yes.

Q. It's number six, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Roman numeral six.

Q. Roman numeral six.
A. Okay. Okay.

Q. Well, I'm not sure that you have -- there's actually a couple of Roman -- [26]
MR. ROGERS: It starts "Social workers ethical responsibility" --

Q. It's "The Social Worker's Ethical Responsibility to Society," and it states, "The social worker should promote the general welfare of society." Do you see that?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. Okay. And was that a -- a ethical guideline that you adhered to when you were a licensed social worker from 1981 to 1988?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If you could turn now to the second to last page of the exhibit, please, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: That is the second to last page.
THE WITNESS: I'm on the second to last page.

Q. Okay. All right. And it's marked at the bottom number 9. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you see in that number six, subparagraph six, "The social worker should advocate changes in policy and legislation to improve social [27] conditions and to promote social justice"? Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And is that an ethical guideline that you adhered to when you were a social worker between 1981 and 1988?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, were you generally familiar with the provisions of Chapter 119, Section 51A during the time that you were a licensed social worker with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A. I was familiar with Section 51A.

Q. Right. And 51 --
A. Familiar. I -- I knew about it, and I knew that -- I can't say that I was familiar, but I knew about it, right.

Q. Okay. You knew about it, but you weren't familiar with it?
A. I know -- I can't repeat it to you now, so I guess I'm saying how familiar I was.

Q. Were you aware that when there were situations that came before you as a social worker that involved a reasonable cause to believe that [28] children had been abused, there was a requirement that it be reported?
A. Correct, yes.

Q. Okay. And was that something that you adhered to as a licensed social worker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between 1981 and 1988?
A. I did that as long as I was acting as a social worker.

Q. Well, you were a licensed social worker from 1981 to 1988, is that correct?
A. Right, but I was transferred to a parish in 1980, and I'd been a pastor from -- and then in '85 I was transferred to work for Cardinal Law as a secretary for ministerial personnel so that I was no longer, you know, working as a social worker but as a priest in a parish and then as a priest in the Archdiocese -- the Archdiocesan administration.

Q. So just so I understand it, we've gone through that you were a licensed social worker with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from 1981 to 1988, correct?
A. According to this document, yes.

Q. And you -- you understood that social [29] workers had an obligation to report situations where they had reasonable cause to believe the sexual abuse of children had occurred, right?
A. Correct --

Q. Okay.
A. -- when I was acting as a social worker.

Q. When you -- so you -- you viewed that, just so I understand your testimony, when you were acting as a social worker, you had that obligation?
A. Correct.

Q. When you were acting as a priest and as the secretary for ministerial personnel, which we're going to get to in a minute, you believe you did not have that obligation?
A. Right.

Q. So when you were acting as a priest and as secretary for ministerial personnel, you did not believe that you were under any requirement to report to the Department of Social Services situations where there was reasonable cause to believe that a child had been abused or neglected, is that correct? [30]
A. When I was acting as a priest, correct. And so that during that period I was acting -- my primary responsibility and my total responsibility was to be a priest; I was no longer in the field of social work.

Q. Well, did you inform the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that you were no longer acting as a social worker -- the licensing bureau for social workers?
A. No, I didn't inform the -- I had no responsibility to.

Q. You had no responsibility to them?
A. That I was no longer acting as a social worker.

Q. All right. Well, you continued to be licensed until 1988, is that correct?
A. Correct, yes.

Q. You became the secretary for ministerial personnel in 1984, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And could you explain to the jury and the court what your duties were as secretary of ministerial personnel. [31]
A. As secretary for ministerial personnel, I had administrative oversight over those offices and departments within the Archdiocese that dealt with ministerial personnel. So it was around planning, budgeting, problem solving.

Q. Okay. When you say "problem solving," some of the problems that you were solving had to do with priests who were accused of abusing children, is that correct?
A. That was not part of the overall responsibility. That was something that became part of my responsibility having been in the office, but the problem solving would be with department heads around the administration of the office or institution.

Q. Bishop, is it not true that from the time you started in 1984 and 1985, you started to come across situations where there were allegations that priests had molested children --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Would you repeat that question.

Q. Sure, yeah. Is it not the case that [32] after you became secretary for ministerial affairs in 1984, that starting in 1985 you were confronted with situations where there were allegations that priests had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. I -- you used the word "confronted." Let me say this: That the allegations usually would be reported to the vicar for administration, and then he at times would ask me to intervene in a certain situation.

Q. Right. And that was something that started almost immediately after you commenced your work at the chancery as secretary for ministerial personnel, is that correct?
A. I don't know that. I would need my -- my memory refreshed when it started.

Q. Correct. We'll be -- we'll be going through that --
A. Okay.

Q. -- later on, Bishop. But just so I understand it, you did become aware, after you became secretary for ministerial affairs, from time to time [33] that there were allegations of sexual abuse against minors by priests, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, secretary for ministerial personnel.

Q. Personnel, that's correct.
A. I became aware that adults were coming forward about allegations of sexual abuse in their past, when they were a minor.

Q. Did you also become aware, Bishop, of situations where children were reporting, either themselves or through their parents, that they were being sexually abused by priests?
A. Sometimes, yes, later on, but, again, I'm not sure when, but we can --

Q. Okay. Well, we'll be going through some of those --
A. Yeah.

Q. -- documents in a couple moments. But the question is, Bishop, is that when you were a licensed social worker between 1981 and 1988, did you at all times, when confronted with an allegation of abuse concerning a child, did you at all times report that or instruct someone to report that abuse to the [34] child protective agency here in Massachusetts, the Department of Social Services?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that I was not acting as a licensed social worker, that's first; I was acting as a delegate or as administrator for the Archdiocese in its administration, so that I wasn't acting as a social worker. They came to me as a representative of the church.
Secondly, it was always our -- it became our practice, as we became aware of this, to always inform the people who were making a complaint that they were free to report this to others besides ourselves.

Q. Bishop, my question, I think, is a little more simple than the answer. Did you always report, during the time that you were a licensed social worker, did you always report allegations of sexual abuse to the child protective agency here in Massachusetts, DSS, did you always do that, sir?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: When I knew there was an accusation of a priest having abused a minor or -- as [35] a -- as a priest, I did that once, I recall, when I knew that there was a report to us that had -- it had just occurred.
I think all the other times when reports came to me they came to me as a priest and administrator, even though I was -- I still carried the license of the Commonwealth, but they came to me not as a social worker but as a priest, and at that time we treated these matters confidentially.

Q. Okay. So you --
A. Because sometimes these people came to us oftentimes with, you know, confidentially. Excuse me.

Q. Sure. So, as I understand your testimony, you correct me if I'm wrong, Bishop, even though you were a licensed social worker during some portion of this time, you did not always report allegations of sexual abuse involving children to the Department of Social Services, is that correct, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. O'NEILL: The question assumes that he had an obligation, so I'm going to object to the [36] argumentative assumption in the question.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted, and your speaking objections are noted, Mr. O'Neill. You were spoken about this in court with Judge Brassard.
MR. O'NEILL: You don't lecture me as to what any judge said.
MR. MacLEISH: Now, you're --
MR. O'NEILL: The judge addressed his remarks to all counsel.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, you're again crossing the line. I'm just putting you on notice. During the break we can get Judge Brassard on the line. Your objection is noted.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: You can go ahead and answer, Bishop.
A. Okay. I would say that -- would you want to repeat the question, though, because you were saying --

Q. Certainly, certainly. As I understand it -- as I understand it -- take your time, okay. I want to make sure we get the truth.
As I understand your testimony, Bishop, [37] when you were a licensed social worker -- and we've already been through your knowledge of Chapter 51A, do you remember that?
A. Yes.

Q. -- There were times when you were a licensed social work in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and you encountered situations that if you were a social worker would require a report?
A. Correct.

Q. But did you not report it because you were acting as a priest in all situations --
A. Correct.

Q. -- is that correct, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now -- yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 3 was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: I would want to add to that a correction --
MR. MacLEISH: She -- you have to wait until -- she's marking an exhibit.

Q. Bishop, this is a --
A. Can I make a correction? [38]

Q. I'm sorry, I apologize. Go ahead.
A. Because I no longer was acting as a social worker --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- I think it needs to be clear that I was no longer employed or acting as a social worker.

Q. So even though you were licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and you came across an allegation that would require a report to the Department of Social Services, there was some situations where you didn't report it because you were acting as a priest and not a social worker and the matter was to be kept confidential, is that correct?
A. I would say that when people came to me as a priest that I was no longer acting as a social worker, and, therefore, I responded to them because they came to me as a priest, and I responded to them in that way.

Q. As a social worker, though, you have already testified that you knew about your obligations to report matters of sexual abuse to DSS regardless of whether or not the victim or the [39] victim's family wanted it reported, you knew about that between 1981 and 1988, is that correct?
A. I knew that for many years, yes.

Q. And you knew that that was the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is that correct?
A. Correct --

Q. Okay.
A. -- for social workers.

Q. For social workers. Which you were from 1981 to 1988?
A. I was no longer acting as social worker. I was not a social worker.

Q. You were licensed as a social worker.
A. I was licensed, but I wasn't acting. I was not employed.

Q. You didn't surrender your social work license until 1988, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I -- the social work license expired; I didn't surrender it.

Q. Okay. Now, you understood the reasons why allegations of child abuse had to be reported to the Department of Social Services when you were [40] acting as a social worker for Catholic Charities?
A. Right.

Q. And one of those reasons was -- was because the Department of Social Services needed to know so that action could be taken to protect children, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Is that correct, Bishop?
A. Correct, very much so.

Q. And even though one family might not want an allegation reported, the law of the state was that the allegation had to be reported so that other children could potentially be protected and the perpetrator removed, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And the Department of Social Services was that child protective agency charged with protecting children, is that correct?
A. Would you repeat that question.

Q. The Department of Social Services was the agency in Massachusetts --
A. Yes.

Q. -- charged with protecting children, is [41] that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. It continued to be that agency?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. Okay. Now, was there anything, Bishop, when -- that would have prevented you, when a family came to you when you were acting as a priest and informed you that a child had been molested, was there anything in your capacity as a priest that would have prevented you from reporting that to DSS?
A. As a priest the law did not require clergymen or psychologists, if I'm correct, to report anything that was spoken to them confidentially. And so that at this time when people came to me as a priest, I was not obligated to report this matter because it was given to me and people approached us in a confidential way.
And so I was acting in that light and, therefore, I did not see the responsibility -- as a matter of fact, some of my responsibility to treat this confidentially because this is how the church treated matters when people came to us, and yet people were, at the same time, informed that they [42] could, you know, report this themselves or to others, you know.

Q. Was that the policy, Bishop, that they were always told that they could report it to DSS? Was that what you always told them?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It became our practice.

Q. I'm asking you, sir.
A. Was it always? I don't know.

Q. You have to wait until I finish the question, respectfully.
Was it always your practice when you were acting as -- I believe you were acting as the delegate to the Cardinal for sexual misconduct at some period of time, is that correct?
A. In 1993, 1994.

Q. But you were dealing with allegations of abuse by priests against minors --
A. Earlier.

Q. -- before then?
A. Correct.

Q. That started after you became secretary -- [43]
A. Excuse me.

Q. That started after you became secretary for ministerial affairs in 1984, is that correct?
A. It started sometime; I don't know what year.

Q. So was it always your policy to report -- to advise individuals that came to see you as a priest that they could report the matter to the Department of Social Services?
A. It became our policy; I'm not too sure it was always the policy. It's only as we reflected on the issue and the implications of the issue.

Q. Was -- when you were acting as a priest and hearing these complaints about childhood sexual abuse, my question was not whether you were required to but whether there was anything that prevented you -- that would have prevented you in any way from reporting these matters to the Department of Social Services?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that because people came to me in confidence, usually, and because they came to me as a priest and because it was to -- [44] to be -- and because the law respected the confidentiality of people coming to a priest to talk about issues, that there was much in that that would discourage me from taking the steps myself, except when I thought that there was actual abuse occurring at the time.

Q. And in which case what was your practice at that time, Bishop?
A. At that time I recall, when I discovered one abuse had -- was taking place, that we reported it to the district attorney.

Q. And was that your practice consistently?
A. That was my practice when I -- that was the one time that I knew of abuse actually taking place at the time, suspected abuse.
MR. ROGERS: Could I just ask you not to speak to your associate while the Bishop is giving you an answer; it's distracting.

Q. I apologize, Bishop. I don't want to distract you. We're here to get the answer. I was just trying to get the next exhibit.
MR. ROGERS: But you could wait until [45] he finishes the answer before you --
MR. MacLEISH: I'll conduct myself appropriately, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. MacLeish.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Mark this, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 4 was marked for identification.)

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: All right. Bishop, do you know a priest by the name of Father Mahan?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And who is Father Mahan?
A. Father Paul Mahan was a pastor of a parish in Dorchester, St. Matthew's in Dorchester.

Q. And you have a document in front of you that -- let me give you an opportunity to take a look at it, first.
A. Okay.

Q. Now, by 1994 you had received reports of allegations of abuse by Father Paul Mahan, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. In fact, Father Paul Mahan was not in a [46] ministry by 1994, is that not true; he'd been removed?
A. I'm not sure. I would need -- I need some document --

Q. Okay. All right. But you're aware --
A. He was already removed. Okay. Go ahead with what you were saying.

Q. Well, as a matter of fact, he was, but if you don't have a recollection of that, that's fine, Bishop. But at some point you do recall Paul Mahan being removed from ministry --
A. Yes.

Q. -- because of sexual abuse allegations --
A. Right.

Q. -- that he --
MR. ROGERS: Let him finish the question.

Q. -- had molested children, is that correct, Bishop, that he had molested children?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, in 1994 were you in attendance at [47] a meeting with Fathers Flatley, McCormack and Neil Hegarty in which there was a call that was discussed, "indicating that there is the possibility that some inappropriate behavior could have taken place during the summer when Father Mahan was on vacation with two adolescent boys fromDon Bosco High School." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you, having seen that document, recall that there was an issue in or about 1994 with Paul Mahan potentially molesting two children?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And these would have been incidents that would have been required to have been reported to the Department of Social Services if you were functioning as a social worker, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And they would have been required to have been reported so that the Department of Social Services could potentially take some action to stop Father Mahan from molesting others, is that correct?
A. Yes. [48]

Q. And you'll see down here in this document, which is Exhibit Number 4, you'll see down here there's a reference -- it states, "The possibility of a necessary filing with the DSS was discussed. All appropriate actions will be taken as the case goes forward." Do you see that, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Was this a document prepared by you, do you know?
A. No, it wasn't.

Q. It was prepared by somebody else?
A. Yes.

Q. But you can recall in 1994 in the case --
A. Excuse me.

Q. In 1994 you can recall in the case of Paul Mahan that there was a discussion at that point of going to the Department of Social Services, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And the reason for doing that would be that Paul Mahan might be molesting other children as well as these two boys from Don Bosco, is that [49] correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Would that be one of the reasons?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well, I think it was related to these two boys, what -- that he was doing it with these two boys.

Q. Right, we've already established one of the reasons.
A. Excuse me.

Q. Sure. One of the reasons one reports to the Department of Social Services is so they can take some action to prevent the perpetrator of the abuse from doing it again, is that correct?
A. Yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 5 was marked for identification.)

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, we've given you an Exhibit Number 5. Do you want to take a moment and look at that. It's a memorandum to the file from Sister Rita McCarthy. Do you know who Sister Rita McCarthy is?
A. Yes. [50]

Q. Who is she in 1997?
MR. ROGERS: Why don't you let him have a chance to read that.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, absolutely.
MR. ROGERS: Thanks.
THE WITNESS: I've read it, yes.

Q. Now, we have redacted the names of the individuals here, the victims, but I've given -- provided to your counsel documents. These documents were given to us last Friday that have the names of the victims, but we're not going to be using those at this deposition by agreement. Do you understand that?
A. Yes.

Q. But we do have the documents that are available, if you'd like to see them.
Now, you'll see this reference of -- from Sister Rita McCarthy, June 26, 1997, "Report to DSS regarding Father Mahan," is what it says. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And it states, "I called the Beverly Department of Social Services to report a case of [51] sexual abuse of a minor. I spoke with Betty Rodger regarding the abuse of Father Mahan of" blank. "It happened two years ago in the house at Marblehead." Blank "lives with his family" blank. "Ms. Rodger said that she would not investigate because I told her that Father is not functioning as a priest and will be living under supervision." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, going back to Exhibit Number 4, Bishop, isn't it the case that after receiving this report about Paul Mahan in 1994 involving two adolescent boys that Father Mahan was on vacation with that you did not take action to report that matter to the Department of Social Services, is that not the case?
A. I think that this was the report, and it said that Father Flatley and Neil Hegarty would follow up on it.

Q. My question is what you did, Bishop. Did you --
A. I -- I gave it to Father Flatley and to Father -- and to Neil Hegarty to investigate further and to follow up on it. [52]

Q. Well, let's just, so I understand it, you had received an initial call, as Exhibit 4 reflects, indicating that there was some inappropriate behavior taking place between Father Mahan and two adolescent boys. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And -- and that report was made to you personally, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And then your testimony is -- is that it was passed on to Father Flatley and Neil Hegarty, is that correct, to deal with?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you undertake any action yourself to make sure that this allegation of abuse was reported to the Department of Social Services?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: At the time I don't think I knew the two boys' names, and so we tried to find out. When I got the call, I don't think I -- I know -- I'm almost positive I didn't get the names of the two boys, so we had to follow up with Father Brennan to find out more details. And I think at the [53] time, as I recall it, Father Brennan wanted to speak with the parents before any move was made.
So there was a lot of unknowns and so that is why, my memory serves me, that both Father Flatley and Neil Hegarty did the further investigation because at that time I was planning on leaving the office.

Q. All right. My question is, Bishop, did you, when you got this report, and understanding that you don't need names when you call the Department of Social Services under 51A; you knew the name of the person who was alleged to have been molesting these two adolescent boys, did you do anything to make sure that the child protective agency of Massachusetts was informed, apart from telling Father Flatley to follow up?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Did you do anything?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that at the time when I received the call I did not accept it as a -- as a probability that something happened but that there was a possibility that something happened, [54] and there was a real distinction there in that Father Brennan was suspicious that something might have happened, but he wasn't sure.

Q. Bishop McCormack, there were allegations against Paul Mahan --
A. About a possible --

Q. Excuse me, excuse me.
A. Okay.

Q. There were allegations about Father Mahan molesting children well before --
A. Correct.

Q. -- 1994, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And now you receive a report that he's possibly involved with molesting two other kids from Don Bosco High School, and my question is very simple: Did you personally, as the delegate to the Cardinal for sexual misconduct, do anything to report these allegations to the Department of Social Services --
MR. O'NEILL: You're speaking in 1994?
MR. MacLEISH: Excuse me, may I finish my question, Mr. O'Neill? [55]

Q. In 1994 did you do anything, apart from speaking with Father Flatley and passing it on to him, as the delegate to the Archbishop, the Cardinal, for sexual misconduct, did you do anything to report it to the Department of Social Services?
A. I would say I did, not personally, but wanted them to follow through to find out whether something did happen and to speak with the parents.

Q. Well, did you do anything beyond that?
A. No.

Q. So you can't tell me at all, with any degree of certainty, that this matter involving Paul Mahan, who was known by you at that time to have other allegations against him, you can't tell me with certainty that this matter was reported to the Department of Social Services, can you, Bishop McCormack?
A. I can't tell you whether this was reported at the -- to the Department of Social Services initially at this time.

Q. In fact, it wasn't reported until 1997, was it?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [56]
THE WITNESS: I don't know that.

Q. Well, to go back to my previous question, Bishop McCormack, it's -- it's -- just so the jury and the court is clear --
A. Correct.

Q. -- it was not always the case that when you had an allegation involving children who were being allegedly molested by a priest, it was not always the policy to report it to the Department of Social Services, correct?
A. Our policy was to investigate a report; and when we investigated the report and it was established that it was a credible allegation, we then acted on it.

Q. I'm not asking you --
A. That was our policy.

Q. Bishop, with all due respect, I'm not asking about whether you acted on it. I'm being very specific now about the agency that is in charge in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of children. That agency is the Department of Social Services, we agree on that, is that correct? [57]
A. Correct.

Q. So my question, again, is not what you did within the Archdiocese, is whether you always reported allegations of sexual misconduct by priests involving minors -- who were then minors to the Department of Social Services? That's my question, Bishop.
A. Once we determined that it was a credible allegation, we would have, yes.

Q. Always?
A. That -- that would be our practice, yes.

Q. And so it was always reported to the Department of Social Services, is that what you're stating to me?
A. I would say that would be my effort and -- and my goal as a delegate. So that once we established that it was credible, we would have acted on it.

Q. Bishop, my question is whether you had a practice of always reporting it. I understand your answer, you had a goal of reporting it, but you can't state with certainty that it was always reported, can [58] you?
A. To my knowledge, yes, it was always reported while I was delegate.

Q. All right. So you just testified about Exhibit 4, the allegations of Paul Mahan. You testified you didn't -- you couldn't say for certain whether it was reported. That was your testimony several minutes ago.
A. Because -- because I left the office a couple months afterwards, but --

Q. But in every other -- go ahead.
A. But in this instance we were trying to determine how credible the allegation was before we acted on it.

Q. And so you think some investigation was done?
A. It says so.

Q. Okay. And you -- you know that chapter -- Section 51A it doesn't state that you do an investigation; it says, "When you have reasonable cause to believe."
A. Correct, but 51A is not applicable to priests or to other people who receive [59] reports confidentially.

Q. All right. So there was no mandate that you were under to report allegations of sexual abuse to the Department of Social Services, but sometimes it was done, you believe, is that your testimony?
MR. PIGNATELLI: I'm going to object. It's argumentative and it's been asked many times and he's answered it.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay.

Q. Go ahead, you can answer the question. You can answer the question.
A. Would you want to repeat it.

Q. Sure. Just to be -- so I'm clear, as I understand it, you -- you believe, although there was no mandate, that there were certain circumstances under which abuse by a priest against a minor was reported to the child protective agency in Massachusetts, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Once the Archdiocese had determined that the allegations were credible, is that correct?
A. Yes. [60]

Q. And that was consistently your practice from 1984 up through the time that you left in 1994, is that correct?
A. No, I will not say that because in 1984 I was not the delegate. We began receiving complaints in the '80s. I would handle some and other priests would handle some, and then it became a practice once our policy developed and once we became aware of the numbers or the extent that this was occurring, we had to develop a policy on how to deal with this. And so then once the policy was established -- and there was months leading up to it or years leading up to it -- it became our practice.

Q. So early on, as I understand it, then, it was not your practice to report to the Department of Social Services but later on it was, is that your testimony?
A. No, that's not what I said.

Q. All right. Let's be clear about it. You arrive in 1984, as you've testified previously, as the secretary for ministerial personnel, is that correct?
A. Yes. In November I was assigned, and I [61] took over full time in January or February '85.

Q. And almost immediately --
A. Okay. Sure.

Q. -- and almost immediately one of the cases you're dealing with is Father Eugene O'Sullivan, is that correct? Do you remember Father O'Sullivan?
A. Yes. I think that Bishop Banks was dealing with that first and then I assisted him.

Q. Well, did you take -- were you in -- you assisted him in Father Eugene O'Sullivan?
A. Right, but that was after the -- but that was after the court case.

Q. Right. This was a priest who was convicted of rape, is that correct, raping a child?
A. I'm not sure what the conviction was, but I know he was convicted of molesting a minor.

Q. Okay. And then he went down to the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, is that correct?
A. That's where -- I think that's where he had been serving.

Q. Okay. After he was convicted of raping a child here in Massachusetts? [62]
A. That could be right.

Q. And --
A. See, I'm not familiar with what led up to his conviction.

Q. We're going -- we're going to go into Father O'Sullivan. But just so I'm clear, Bishop, at the beginning when you started your work at the chancery, it was not always the case that allegations of sexual abuse were reported to either DSS or law enforcement, is that correct?
A. Oh, I would not say that.

Q. I'm sorry, you disagree? It was always the case then?
A. It was not always the case. I don't know, I wasn't handling them all, and there was no conscious practice, I think, at that time.

Q. Let's just talk about the ones that you were handling --
A. The matters would be handled basically confidentially, I would say --

Q. Without --
A. -- until -- excuse me.

Q. The matters would be handled [63] confidentially, meaning they were not reported, and you were going to say until when?
A. Until we knew that there was a current minor who was being sexually abused by a priest, we felt then that we should report it, and we did.

Q. And you always did, is that your testimony?
A. When I knew that a minor was currently being molested by a priest.

Q. You always did?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Every time, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, yes.

Q. All right. Now, Bishop, was there any written policy that existed within the Archdiocese of Boston that required that when there were allegations, reasonable cause to believe that a minor had been sexually abused, that it would be reported to DSS? Were there any written policies before 1993?
A. No.

Q. Okay. The Archdiocese of Boston, at the time that you arrived at the chancery in 1984, had approximately how many parishes, Bishop? [64]
A. 400.

Q. 400. Did most of those parishes have programs for young people, CCD classes?
A. Yes.

Q. Did all of them have programs for young people?
A. I would -- I don't know, but I would suspect so, yes.

Q. Approximately 400 parishes?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. And the Archdiocese also operates summer camps?
A. No.

Q. Archdiocese operate schools?
A. Yes.

Q. Were there situations that you were aware of where Archdioceses and priests would take children on trips, overnight trips?
A. Yes.

Q. You, in fact, did that yourself, ski trips, is that correct, when you were at St. James Parish?
A. Yes. [65]

Q. You went and took young people on ski trips with Father Joseph Birmingham, is that correct?
A. I don't recall going with him.

Q. Okay. But you were aware generally when you arrived in 1984 as a licensed social worker, you were aware that the Archdiocese had many programs serving children, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you were also aware in 1984, from your training and background and work, you were also aware that -- of the dangers posed in any situation where an entity such as the Archdiocese was serving -- that's a bad question. Let me try that question again, Bishop.
You were aware, were you not, in 1984 that child molesters could be attracted to any program, school or other situation where they would have access to children; you were aware of that, were you not?
A. I don't think I ever gave it a thought.

Q. You never gave it a thought. Okay. So the Archdiocese was serving -- what would you say the [66] average size of a CCD class was back in 1984? Could vary?
A. It varied.

Q. But the Archdiocese, you would agree with me, in 1984, was serving thousands of children through CCD classes in schools?
A. Correct.

Q. More than 10,000, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. More than 20,000, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you were -- you came in as --
A. Excuse me.

Q. More water?
A. That would be nice.

MR. MacLEISH: Could we have some more water, please.
MR. O'NEILL: Are you taking a break every hour or so or...

MR. MacLEISH: Whenever the Bishop is ready.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay. [67]

MR. MacLEISH: Whenever -- you indicate to me --
THE WITNESS: You want to finish --

MR. MacLEISH: -- when you want to -- what?
THE WITNESS: Want to finish the CCD questions?
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, let's finish this line of questioning, that's fine.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: You were aware when you came into the chancery of secretary of ministerial personnel in 1984 that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston was serving tens of thousands of children in various programs, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You knew -- you knew about child molestation -- you knew something about child molestation, is that correct?
A. I don't think so. It was not something that was uppermost in my mind.

Q. I'm not asking -- I'm not asking whether it was uppermost in your mind. You knew that there was a problem in society -- [68]
A. No --

Q. -- of people molesting children?
A. -- I didn't.

Q. You didn't know anything about that?
A. I knew that -- not that there was a problem in society. By then I'm sure I knew that, you know, that it occurred on occasion but not that there was a problem in society.

Q. Okay. Did you know about the case of the priest in Louisiana, Gilbert Gauthe, I think his name was, you knew about that, is that correct?
A. I heard about it, yes.

Q. And that took place in 1984, is that correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, you would have been aware in 19 -- you would have been aware when you heard about Gilbert Gauthe, who allegedly molested -- actually he was convicted of molesting a number of children in Lafayette, Louisiana. That was a subject of discussion, was it not?
A. Yes, it made the press. I remember that. [69]

Q. Okay. You also know about a Father Thomas Doyle, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You never heard of Father Thomas Doyle?
A. (No response.)

Q. No?
A. Can you give me some more information?

Q. He prepared something that's commonly -- now become known as the manual, that described the problem of sexual abuse within the church in 1985. It was sent to every diocese in the United States. Are you familiar with that manual?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I'm not familiar with the manual, but I do recognize the name now.

Q. Okay. Did -- do you know that in 1985 --
A. Was it a manual or was it a study he did?

Q. It was called the manual, but it was, in fact, a study of the problem of child sexual abuse within the Catholic church. [70]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Were you generally familiar with this document, that it existed?
A. No.

Q. And in your -- by 1985, then, do I understand your testimony to be that even though you had been working or -- as graduated from Boston College Social Work some 17 -- 16 years earlier, you didn't really have an understanding of the problems of child molestation in society, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You started to have an understanding, though, when you started your work of the problem of childhood molestation within the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And in the course of all of your therapy that you did -- counseling that you did as a licensed independent social worker, you never came across the issue of social -- of sexual abuse, as you can best remember?
A. No.

Q. Would you like to take a break now, [71] Bishop?
A. Yes.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record. It is 11:07.
(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record. It is 11:27.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, could you take a look at Exhibit Number 3 that we put in front of you but never asked you about, which is the Board of Registration Social Worker's Licensing Requirements. This is the current one, Bishop. We're getting the one that was in existence back when you were licensed, but I'm putting this in front of you, and I'd ask you, if you could, read the first paragraph -- you can read the whole document if you'd like, but particularly I'm going to be asking you about subparagraph four.
A. I've read it.

Q. Okay. Was it not, in fact, a requirement of your licensure, when you were a licensed social worker, that you were required to report allegations of child abuse if the licensee had [72] reasonable grounds to suspect that a child had been abused or neglected?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Do you recall anything like that?
A. I don't.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, after you got out of social work school, was there a period of time in which you were a licensed social worker as opposed to a licensed independent social worker?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. You were required --
A. I --

Q. Go ahead.
A. I think -- I'm not sure when the licensed social worker act came into play because I left school in '69 and belonged to the National Association of Social Workers, and then it was after that, a period of time that in -- that they introduced licensed social work into Massachusetts; I'm not sure when.

Q. Okay. But you were required, were you not, to take continuing education courses in social work, were you not? [73]
A. Yes.

Q. So your study of social work and counseling didn't end at Boston College; you had to take courses in order to maintain your licensing status as a social worker, is that not correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And how often did those courses take place?
A. They would usually occur at conferences, or we would accumulate them through the consultations we would have with psychiatrists.

Q. Okay. And is it your testimony that you were not generally aware, as a social worker, of the problems posed by child abuse in 1984 when you arrived at the chancery, is that your testimony?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. He's testified he arrived in '85.
MR. MacLEISH: No, he arrived in '84; he was appointed in '85.

Q. You arrived in '84 and appointed in '85?
A. Appointed in November of '84 and I arrived in '85, February or March. [74]
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Fine. I'm sorry, I stand corrected.
MR. ROGERS: Thanks.
THE WITNESS: Would you want to repeat that question?

Q. Yes. I'm trying to focus in on your understanding as both a person who's --
A. You --

Q. Let me finish the question. -- as both a person who is the secretary for ministerial personnel --
A. Right.

Q. -- which is a cabinet level position within the Archdiocese --
A. Correct.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You direct -- directly reported to Cardinal Law, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Who did you report to?
A. To the vicar of administration.

Q. All right. And what you understood [75] about, both as the secretary for ministerial personnel and as a licensed social worker, what you understood about childhood sexual abuse 1985 up through 1994, that's what we're focusing on.
A. Correct.

Q. So you've testified that you heard something about the case in Louisiana, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it also the case that some part of your education and training as a social worker from 1969 up until 1985, when you were contending -- attending conferences and education courses, that you at least had some understanding of the societal problem of childhood sexual abuse, is that not --
A. No.

Q. Had no understanding of it?
A. No, I knew that there was abuse of children in the home, but oftentimes it was emotional or physical. To my knowledge, I don't recall ever having any -- I don't recall any kind of report or discussion about sexual abuse.

Q. Okay. Now, you remember the case [76] involving Gilbert Gauthe?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, that was not abuse in the home; that was abuse by a priest?
A. Correct.

Q. And that spurred examination of this problem within the Catholic church, did it not, the case of Gilbert Gauthe?
A. I don't know, but -- can you be specific --

Q. Sure.
A. -- by what you mean by spurred examination within the Catholic church?

Q. Let's mark -- we're going to mark an exhibit for you.
A. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 6 was marked for identification.)

Q. This is a document entitled "The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting The Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner." Do you see that, Bishop?
A. Yes. [77]

Q. Then the next page it states "This confidential document had its remote beginnings in January of 1985 as a result of the consequences of the unfortunate incidents in Louisiana. The three major parts of the final draft were prepared in May of 1985 and this draft was compiled on June 8-9, 1985 by Mr. Ray Mouton, J.D. and Reverend Thomas Doyle, O.P. J.C.D." Have you heard of this document which is commonly referred to as The Manual?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was it not the case that after the problem of sexual abuse in Louisiana surfaced in the early 1980s, that there was more attention paid to the problems of sexual molestation within the Roman Catholic church?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Well, do you know whether this document, this -- again, entitled The Manual, as it's called colloquially, or the handbook, whether that document was sent to the Archdiocese of Boston in December of 1985 by St. Luke's Hospital in Suitland, Maryland?
A. I don't know. [78]

Q. Have you ever seen this document before today?
A. No, I haven't.

Q. Okay. Do you know -- have you heard of whether anybody else, such as Cardinal Law, ever saw this document or read it?
A. No, I haven't.

Q. Okay. Now, would it be fair to state that even though you were not familiar generally with where sexual abuse was taking place in 1985, except as you previously testified, that you were aware of the devastating effects of childhood sexual abuse; you were aware of that, is that correct?
A. In the Gauthe cases --

Q. No, just in general. As a social worker, were you aware that when a child is raped by an individual there can be psychological problems associated with that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Were you aware of that in 1985?
A. I don't think so because --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- because we never dealt -- I don't [79] recall ever reflecting or discussing or talking about child sexual abuse.

Q. As -- just apart from being a social worker, just as a human being, weren't you aware in 1985 that when a child is raped or sexually molested that that is something that is likely to cause harm?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Were you aware in 1985 that some of the harm associated with that could be feelings of guilt, were you aware of that?
A. No.

Q. Were you aware at any time afterwards that children sometimes feel guilt and blame themselves when they're sexually molested, were you aware of that at any time after 1985?
A. Yes.

Q. When did you start to become aware of that?
A. Pretty late on; I'd say in the '90 -- in the '90s or even now even more so.

Q. But in the '90s -- when in the '90s?
A. I'd say as I began to deal with the cases of sexual abuse and -- I'm going to say [80] probably around '92, '93, '94.

Q. You first started to understand that people were -- could feel guilty?
A. The feelings of guilt, right.

Q. And, of course, you began to understand substance abuse, that people who are sexually abused sometimes engage in substance abuse and self-destructive behavior, did you have an understanding of that, Bishop?
A. I knew that -- I'm not going to say it was substance abuse, but I knew that people, as we moved into it who were sexually abused, also had other, you know, emotional issues.

Q. But not substance abuse?
A. I'm -- I'm not going to say not; I'm just saying that I don't -- I don't think of it in terms of substance abuse; I think of it just being a lot people have a lot of emotional problems after being sexually molested.

Q. And were you aware that people have a lot of emotional problems, as you describe it, after they were sexually molested? Were you aware of that in 1985 on some level, Bishop? Just common sense, [81] isn't it?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I thought about it until I began to deal with it. You know, I'm sure that I heard about the Gauthe case and I've heard about other cases, but that I reflected on it about the -- about what impact that had on the individuals, I didn't know about that until I began to deal with it.

Q. When a child is raped, you didn't believe in 1985 that there could be serious psychological consequences from that?
A. Oh, I could believe, but you're saying did I -- did I appreciate it, I think is the word you used.

Q. Yes, did you appreciate it?
A. Now I do; at that time I didn't reflect on it that much. I just -- I was aware of the damage that was being -- that these children were being impacted. I knew that there were people who, in their later age, as I began to work with it, you know, would repress that memory and only later would it come forward in their life. [82]

Q. And you knew that some of these people -- I mean later on in the '90s you knew that some of these people would engage, as a result of the sexual abuse, in self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse, is that correct, Bishop?
A. I'm going to say that I knew that they had emotional problems and I knew that some of them would tend to be suicidal, I had heard that.

Q. Okay.
A. But I don't know about substance abuse, to be quite honest. You heard about drugs --

Q. I'm talking about drugs and alcohol, Bishop --
A. -- alcohol.

Q. You interpret that --
A. I --

Q. Let me finish the question. Did you at any point become aware that individuals who had been molested when they were children, raped, have a higher tendency to engage in taking drugs and becoming alcoholics, prior to today have any awareness of that?
A. No, I didn't know that, [83] that they have a higher tendency. I just know that they have emotional problems and that some of them would eventually become alcoholics or have problems with alcohol.

Q. And drugs?
A. And drugs.

Q. And you also mentioned suicidal behavior as well.
A. Yes.

Q. You, you began to get an understanding that people, when they're sexually molested by anyone, that they can become suicidal and kill themselves, is that correct?
A. Yes, I've learned that about some of them, yes.

Q. And when did you -- did you know that in the 19 -- the early 1990s?
A. I can't put a date on that, I really can't.

Q. Well, did you know about it --
A. I -- you must remember that in the Archdiocese Sister Catherine Mulkerrin and Sister Rita McCarthy dealt most of the time with the [84] victims, and so I think they would be much more aware and have a deeper appreciation of the impact on the victims of sexual abuse than I would directly have. I would hear it from them about the impact on some of these people.

Q. Okay. And Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, was she a licensed social worker?
A. No.

Q. Sister Rita McCarthy, was she a licensed social worker?
A. I don't know.

Q. And these were two women who were reporting to you, when you became the delegate to the Cardinal, on priest sexual misconduct, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you're stating here today that it was only after Sister Rita and Sister Catherine started speaking to you that you became aware of some of the damages that could occur when a child is sexually molested by a priest?
A. I would say that I became much more fully aware, not only -- not only then, but I became [85] more fully aware because that's when the numbers of allegations and reports had increased numerically, and so we were asking them to deal with the victims so the victims could tell their story. And I know that by the victims telling their stories to them, that I had a better appreciation. So as time went on, I learned more.

Q. Okay. But in 1985 when you started at the chancery, Bishop, is it not the case that you were aware, for example, of the Fells Acre case? Did you ever hear about the Fells Acre case?
A. Yes, right.

Q. And the Fells Acre case involved molestation at a day care center, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then you were also aware, were you not, at other times of the McMartin preschool case, another day care case, do you remember that one in California?
A. No.

Q. But you were aware of Fells Acre?
A. Yes.

Q. And that received a lot of attention [86] here in Massachusetts?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. Were you aware, also, during the 1980s of the case involving Buckingham, Brown & Nichols and Ted Washburn, the teacher who was molesting children at Buckingham, Brown & Nichols, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you become aware during the 1980s that the headmaster of Buckingham, Brown & Nichols was prosecuted for not reporting child abuse? Did you ever become aware of that? Peter Gunness was his name.
A. I don't recall that, no.

Q. So would it be fair to state that with your knowledge of Gilbert Gauthier[sic] and what he was doing in Louisiana and your knowledge of Fells Acre and McMartin -- I'm sorry -- Fells Acre and the Buckingham, Brown & Nichols case, that you did have some understanding during the 1980s that sexual abuse could occur in places where children tended to be served --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct? [87]
A. Yes.

Q. And that would include schools --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct, which the Archdiocese ran?
A. Yes.

Q. That would include CCD classes --
A. Yes.

Q. -- where children were being served, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. That would include situations where priests were taking children on overnight trips, for example, abuse could occur then, you understood that during the 1980s, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I never thought a priest, you know, taking kids out as abusing children. I knew that there was the Gauthier[sic] case in Louisiana, but the idea that this was something that was extensive in the church, no, I did not know that.

Q. I'm not asking whether it was extensive, but you knew -- what I'm trying to find -- to establish is that you knew that the opportunity [88] existed in many ways in the Archdiocese of Boston in the schools, in the CCD classes, in almost any situation where a priest could have interaction with a child alone, you knew that there was a potential problem for sexual abuse of those children, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I knew that there was a potential problem for sexual abuse? I don't think I would put it that way. I think that what I would say is that sexual abuse can occur anyplace and anywhere, and did I think that sexual abuse might occur there? It never entered my mind that much that sexual abuse could occur there; not that it couldn't, but that did it or was I concerned about it?

Q. Bishop, when you arrived in 1985 at the chancery, Father Eugene O'Sullivan had been convicted of raping --
A. That's right.

Q. -- young children in the Archdiocese of Boston, do you recall that?
A. Correct.

Q. Do you recall the name -- [89]
A. Well, no, put it this way: I don't recall what the accusation was. I do recall him being tried and convicted --

Q. Well, he pled guilty.
A. But --

Q. He pled guilty.
A. He pled guilty.

Q. He pled guilty to rape, Bishop, okay. So -- and that occurred before you arrived at the chancery, and you knew --
A. Yes.

Q. -- about the O'Sullivan case --
A. Right.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And so you knew that there was the potential for a priest, both because of your knowledge of what had happened in Louisiana --
A. Correct.

Q. -- and the O'Sullivan case, for priests to sexually molest children, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And as part of your administrative [90] responsibilities as the secretary for ministerial personnel, it would have been part of your responsibility administratively to put in systems to insure that that didn't happen, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Well, whose responsibility would it have been?
A. It would have been the priest who was -- would be responsible for the continuing formation of priests.

Q. Who -- well, which individual was that in 1985?
A. I'm not sure. I would -- but at that time we did not -- I would say the conversation about this being something that needs to be addressed among the ministers of the church was not something that was thought of.

Q. You had -- you had Eugene O'Sullivan pled guilty to raping a child, okay, you had Gilbert Gauthier[sic], you knew what was happening in the Fells Acre case --
A. Correct.

Q. -- when you came in. My question is -- [91] you're the secretary for ministerial personnel -- wouldn't it have been your duties, as part of being secretary, to come up with a policy that would prevent the molestation of children by priests or employees of the Archdiocese?
A. In 1985 that would not have been my responsibility.

Q. Whose responsibility would it have been?
A. May I answer the question?

Q. Sure.
A. I think that in 1985, as those incidents became evident, the Fells Acre or Gilbert Gauthier[sic] Or Eugene O'Sullivan, that those were seen as exceptions and that it wasn't seen as something that was extensive. So that it only became part of a conversation later on as we began to realize that this was a much more serious problem than initially it appeared, and I think that that occurred around 1992 with the James Porter case.

Q. That was the case that I handled, is that correct?
A. I don't know. [92]

Q. Well, didn't you -- do you recall meeting with me about that case?
A. (No response.)

Q. No?
A. No, I don't.

Q. All right. Well, we'll get it -- get into that a little bit later. But is it fair to state, then, that prior to the James Porter case, Bishop McCormack, there was no policy in place within the Archdiocese of Boston that was designed to prevent children from being abused in Archdioceses CCD programs and school problems, is that correct?
A. I can't speak for that because -- because those responsibilities would be with the religious education department and the school department, and they might have had policies and practices.

Q. Well, were you aware of any such policy, written policy, to prevent --
A. No.

Q. -- childhood sexual abuse, is that correct? You're not aware of any written policy before '93, are you? [93]
A. I would not say so. I was not aware because it wasn't my responsibility to be aware in regard to CCD or schools; those responsibilities belonged to the superintendent of schools and the director of religious education, and they might have had policies.

Q. You just don't -- you can't identify any as you sit here today before 1993, can you?
A. Excuse me?

Q. You cannot identify any as you sit here today that were in place before 1993?
A. I, as the secretary of ministerial personnel, was not aware of any policy, but there could have been one.

Q. Okay. I'm just asking what you're aware of, Bishop, okay
A. Okay.

Q. Now -- not whether there could have been one, but you weren't aware of any, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You were aware of one that was put in place in 1993, is that correct?
A. Correct. [94]

Q. And were you involved in the formulation of that policy in 1993?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. But you were not involved in the formulation of any policy prior to the Porter case, is that not correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you ever suggest to Cardinal Law at any point before 1993 that "We need to have a policy to prevent children from being sexually abused"?
A. I did.

Q. And -- and when did you suggest that prior to 1993?
A. I don't know, but it came to our -- I thought that we had a policy that was unwritten and -- because we had a practice that had developed over those years and it became clear that not only, you know, should we have a practice, but that it should be a written policy. And so through a -- through a conversation among some of us, and I'm not sure who they were, we decided to have a written policy.

Q. Okay. And prior to the time that there [95] was discussion about the written policy, did you ever recommend to Cardinal Law "We need to have a written policy"?
A. Prior to the time that we developed it?

Q. Yes.
A. No.

Q. Okay. So -- and in fact you were the person who put the policy together, is that not correct?
A. With the help of others.

Q. But you were the person in charge of the policy, is that not correct, you were the person in charge of putting it together?
A. No.

Q. You were the delegate --
A. I was -- no, I was made delegate as a result of the policy. I was the person who convened a group, but the group then developed that policy, took a rough draft that I had put together, and then they were the ones who -- a group of people developed that policy.

Q. So even though the Archdiocese of Boston is serving tens of thousands of children and [96] even though you were aware of the potential for priests to engage in sexual misconduct, there was no written policy until 1993, correct, Bishop?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection, argumentative.
You can answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I think that, you know, the statement is that there could have been a policy regarding the protection of children in both the religious education and the school departments, but I would not be aware of that because my responsibility was in the area of ministerial personnel, and so the ministerial personnel did not include those two departments that dealt directly with children. So they could have had policies, and I'm --

Q. Let me --
A. -- I'm just saying that so that -- so that when you make the statement that there was no policy, I think the possibility was that there were policies.

Q. You don't know either way, Bishop, do you?
A. It wasn't my responsibility to know. [97]

Q. So you don't know either way, do you?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Great. So let's go back to the question. The question is you're the person who's in charge of ministerial personnel, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Ministerial personnel means priests?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you were the one who eventually worked on the policy in 1993?
A. Correct.

Q. There was no policy before then that you were aware of, written policy that you were aware of?
A. For priests.

Q. Okay. And -- well, this was also -- this policy developed in 1993 was designed to prevent children from being sexually abused, was that not the case?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You weren't aware of any policy before 1993 that was designed to prevent children, a written policy -- you were not aware of, before 1993, [98] of any written policy that was designed to protect children from being sexually abused, correct?
A. By priests?

Q. By priests.
A. Correct.

Q. Even though you knew about the O'Sullivan case, you knew about the Gauthe case and you knew about the Fells Acre case, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you knew that the Archdiocese of Boston was serving tens of thousands of children in various programs, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now --
A. May I add --

Q. Certainly.
A. -- something? That -- but there was a practice that had developed over those years as we began handling cases of sexual misconduct by priests in the Archdiocese.

Q. We're going to get into that.
MR. O'NEILL: Have you finished your answer?
[99] THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Go ahead. I mean it's not really a question that I have before you, but I'm happy to give you the opportunity if you'd like to say something. Go ahead.
A. Well, the implication was -- when you say there was no policy, there was an unwritten, so to speak, policy. There was a practice that had developed over the years --

Q. Okay. We're going to get into that practice.
A. -- in regard to priests.

Q. We're going to get into that, Bishop, okay, and I'll give you ample opportunity to explain the policy.
Now, with respect to -- you've issued a statement, Bishop, that I'd like to look at right now that concerns, at least in part, Paul Shanley. You're familiar with that statement --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that was issued on May 2nd, 2002?
A. Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark that as an [100] exhibit.

(McCormack Exhibit 7 was marked for identification.)

Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit Number 7 and ask if that's a true and accurate copy of the statement that you made on May 2nd, 2002?
A. Do I have time to read it?

Q. Certainly.
A. Okay.

Q. It was retrieved by your website -- from your website, if that's of any help to you. Bishop, you can read the whole thing. I'm going to be focusing on the first three pages --
A. Okay. Let me --

Q. -- but feel free to read whatever you want.
A. When I finish page three, I'll let you know.

Q. Actually, to the top paragraph on page four.
A. Okay. Okay.

Q. All right. Now, Bishop, you issued this statement on May 2nd, 2002, Exhibit Number 7, is [101] that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And on the first page of the statement, you stated that you knew who the victims are. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you state to the victims and your family "I am deeply sorry that you have been harmed by those you trusted. I beg your forgiveness." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So -- and you admit that you made mistakes, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That harmed people, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this was when you were serving in the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you acknowledge the mistakes that you made, is that correct?
A. Yes. [102]

Q. All right. And you go on to state in the last paragraph, that last sentence on the last paragraph, last two sentences, "Our church is an institution inspired by God but run by people, and people make mistakes." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Does that include you, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. "But people can also learn from their mistakes and repair the institution they have harmed." You made that statement, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, then you go on to recount some of the issues that arose during your service of the Archdiocese of Boston on page two, do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you state that that service has been the subject of many questions. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right. And you state, about two-thirds of the way down, starting with the paragraph "It was late" -- "It was in late 1984 that [103] Cardinal Law appointed me secretary for ministerial personnel. In that position I had responsibility for planning, budgeting and administrative problem solving for departments within the Archdiocese." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Well, your positions were not purely administrative. You did deal with priests and you did deal with victims, and you did, for some period of time, be the delegate to the Archbishop for sexual abuse matters, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. "My role as cabinet secretary was to provide administrative support." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. "While in this position I did not assign or reassign priests." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Who did the assignment and reassignment of priests?
A. Cardinal Law.

Q. Those decisions were always made by Cardinal Law from your experience? [104]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. But you did make recommendations concerning the assignment or --
A. The assignment, yes.

Q. I have to finish the question. You did make recommendations to Cardinal Law concerning the assignment or reassignment of priests, is that correct?
A. Some priests.

Q. Well, that's correct. In fact, you state on the next page that you did on some cases make recommendations.
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right. But it was Cardinal Law, from your experience, who always made the final decision on where to assign a priest --
A. Yes.

Q. -- or reassign a priest, is that correct?
A. That's my understanding, yes.

Q. Okay. And there were sometimes recommendations from a personnel board, is that correct, for Cardinal Law? [105]
A. Yes.

Q. But it would be Cardinal Law that would make the final decision, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And would -- was it the practice at the time that the personnel board made recommendations on assignments of priests there would be a review of a priest's file?
A. I missed that part -- last part.

Q. Was there a practice that before a priest was assigned that the personnel board or someone else would make a review of the priest's file?
A. His personnel file, yes.

Q. Okay. Would his personnel file include the confidential file?
A. No.

Q. We're going to get to the confidential file in a moment.
Now, you go on to state that in the late '80s -- you say "In the late '80s and early '90s, reports involving sexual misconduct by priests became more frequent." Is that correct? [106]
A. Yes.

Q. Started in the late '80s, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. There's still no policy that you know about similar to the '93 policy in the late '80s, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that a practice was developing that would be reflected in the '93 policy.

Q. There's no written policy in the '80s is that correct?
A. No written policy, correct.

Q. Then began my work in the area of sexual abuse by priests, do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. You were involved with sexual abuse or allegations of sexual abuse against priests right when you started your work as secretary for ministerial personnel --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- in 1985?[107]
A. No.

Q. Okay. All right. We'll get to that.
A. Okay.

Q. "In 1992 I took responsibility for the management of all sexual misconduct complaints and helped to develop and then implement our first written policy." Do you see that?
A. Correct.

Q. And that was the policy that developed in 1993, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that policy came about because of the Porter case, as you testified earlier?
A. And the Cardinal's desire that we have a written policy.

Q. Well, I think you -- the Porter case was one that received a large amount --
A. A lot of attention.

Q. -- of attention, is that correct?
A. Correct, yes.

Q. And that's what drove the Archdiocese to come up with a written policy, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [108]
MR. O'NEILL: I believe that's not the answer as much as you might like to take credit for that.

MR. MacLEISH: Well, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, you're not testifying here.
MR. O'NEILL: Well, neither are you, and we're not going to have your question reflect some credit that you're assuming for yourself.

MR. MacLEISH: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill.
MR. O'NEILL: I realize you like to release videotapes and everything, but let's get the record straight.

MR. MacLEISH: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, you are making improper objections, but we'll take it up with Judge Brassard at the break.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish --

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Sure. Would you like to answer the question.
MR. ROGERS: Wait for a question.
THE WITNESS: He asked me the question. [109]
Q. I asked you the question, that's right.
A. And I would say that it was more than just the Porter case because I think at that time, also, there was some general guidelines developed by at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops --

Q. Right.
A. -- and they also urged diocese to develop policies.

Q. That's correct, but that was in 1992.
A. '92, okay.

Q. That was after the Porter case had started --
A. Okay.

Q. -- Bishop, okay, and there were five principles to those guidelines, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: Do we have them, Courtney?

Q. I'm glad you brought that up, Bishop.

(McCormack Exhibit 8 was marked for identification.)

Q. Is this the policy, Bishop, that you were just referring to, Exhibit Number 8 -- [110]
A. Yes.

Q. -- that was developed in 1992 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Porter case started in May of 1992, is that correct, Bishop?
A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know, okay. And let me read you the -- and ask you questions about this. The first one is "Respond promptly to all allegations of abuse where there is reasonable belief that abuse has occurred." Is that a policy that was adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. We're looking now at Exhibit 8 at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Recommendations for an Abuse Policy, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So number one was adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston, "Respond promptly to all allegations of abuse when there's reasonable" --
A. Correct.

Q. -- "belief that abuse has occurred." [111] Two, "If such an allegation is supported by sufficient evidence, relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties and refer him for appropriate medical evaluation and intervention." Do you see that, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Number three, "Comply with the obligations of civil law as regards reporting of the incident and cooperating with the investigation," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Was that a policy that was adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So is it your testimony that after 1992 there was some sort of mandatory reporting to the Department of Social Services that was put in place?
MR. ROGERS: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, sorry.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.

Q. In 1992 -- you said number three was adopted, "Comply with the" -- [112]
A. Correct.

Q. -- "obligations of civil law." And, as I think you testified earlier, there were no obligations of civil law for priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And in fact you're aware, are you not, that the Archdiocese of Boston opposed efforts to include priests as mandated reporters, are you not aware of that --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- legislative initiatives?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of that at this time, no.

Q. Now, I'm talking about not at this time. During the 1990s were you not aware of efforts by the Archdiocese of Boston to oppose legislation that would have included priests as mandated reporters?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I was aware, no. [113]

Q. Did you hear about it?
A. No.

Q. Okay. All right. Was it supported?
A. Pardon?

Q. Were you aware --
A. I wasn't aware.

Q. You weren't aware of any efforts to change the law to make priests mandated reporters during the 1990s?
A. No.

Q. I see. Okay. Number four, "Reach out to the victims and their families and communicate sincere commitment to their spiritual and emotional well-being." Was that a policy adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Number five, "Within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the community." Was that adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. I would say yes and no, yes in that you would, respecting the privacy of the individuals, you [114] would limit the number of people who would know about this. And so, for example, if it was a priest being taken out of ministry, you would usually inform the pastoral staff, but it was not as extensive as the wider community.

Q. And when a priest was taken out, even though -- so let me just be clear: Number five, "Within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the community," that was something that was adopted in terms of communicating to pastoral staff but not communicating to the church where the alleged --
A. The wider community.

Q. Let me finish the question.
A. I didn't know you were not finished.

Q. -- not communicating to the parishioners of the church where the alleged molester had been, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now, while Ms. Pillsbury is looking for these documents, isn't it true that Sister Catherine Mulkerrin was urging you personally [115] to adopt number five and to let parishioners know that when a priest had been accused of molestation that there should be something published in either the bulletin or disseminated to the parishioners of that church, she was urging you to do that, is that correct?
A. Sister Catherine encouraged it and sometimes victims encouraged it and we even discussed it, you know, as to the advisability of doing it, yes, that's correct.

Q. But you decided not to do it?
A. Correct.

Q. So when you had -- let's take Father Paul Shanley, for example. You were aware by 1993 that Paul Shanley, who was your classmate at St. John's, had been accused of sexual abuse, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You were aware that he was in a parish in San Bernardino, California, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You removed him from that -- you took action to remove him from that parish, is that [116] correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You also knew that Paul Shanley had been serving in a parish in Newton, Massachusetts for approximately 10 years, you knew that, did you not?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You knew that that parish included children, did you not?
A. Yes.

Q. You knew that Paul Shanley had no restrictions on his access to children while he was at that parish, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You knew by 1993 that there were allegations about Paul Shanley going back to the 1960s, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You knew that there were allegations going back years against Paul Shanley of child molestation?
A. No.

Q. You didn't know that?
A. The first knowledge was in 1993 -- [117] Q. Right.
A. -- but -- and didn't know that there were previous allegation.

Q. No, I understand that. You knew in 1993 that there were allegations of molestation by Paul Shanley?
A. Right.

Q. But by now, as you've testified earlier, your whole understanding of childhood sexual abuse is much greater than it was in 1985 --
A. Correct.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. You knew that people tended to blame themselves, feel guilty, you knew that in 1993, is that correct?
A. I'm not going to say yes or no. I think that I became aware of it; when I became aware of it, I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Well, Sister Mulkerrin was -- let's mark these two documents.

(McCormack Exhibits 9 and 10 were marked for identification.) [118]

Q. Let me give you Exhibit Number 9 and Exhibit Number 10, Bishop McCormack, and you're free to read, of course, the whole document. On Exhibit Number 9 I'm going to be focusing on the last paragraph, which you're free to read your own -- the entire document. This is the -- Number 9, I believe, is about Father Matt, Number 10 is Father Hanlon.

(McCormack Exhibit 11 was marked for identification.)

MR. ROGERS: A couple of the redactions here are not complete of the victims' names, and I just suggest on the original exhibits --
MR. MacLEISH: They will be done, yeah, I see what you're talking about. There's one right here.
MR. ROGERS: There's a couple I see.
MR. MacLEISH: There's a couple right here where we didn't completely redact it. We're going through it again. You know, we're not going to file it today.
MR. ROGERS: No, I understand you're not going to file it today.
MR. O'NEILL: You can't file it today. [119]
MR. MacLEISH: No, we can file this, we can file the documents that we got, we can file them today if we wanted to.

MR. ROGERS: All right. Well, we'll talk about that after the deposition, but for the purposes of the redactions --
MS. PILLSBURY: I'll make sure.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah, that's all, for the purpose of the redactions.
MR. MacLEISH: Nothing is going to be filed in court until they're fully redacted with victims' names, and you have access to the originals in the files that I gave you.
MR. ROGERS: Just your exhibit, that's all.
MR. MacLEISH: All right. I understand. You're right, nothing's going to be filed -- the filing of the exhibits, absolutely not, I'm talking about the filing of the documents. We'll talk about this during the break, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: Right.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop McCormack, this is a memo to you from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin [120] dated May 18th, 1984 pertaining to allegations of Father Matt, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Father Matt was someone against whom there were multiple allegations of childhood sexual abuse, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: At this time --

Q. Yes.
A. -- in May?

Q. Yes.
A. I can't tell when the time, but I do know that eventually there was several other boys in the parish where he was that we have reports about.

Q. There were reports from different parishes about Father Matt molesting boys, is that correct, not just one parish?
A. My recollection is -- I'm not familiar with all these materials. I would have to know the context --

Q. Okay.
A. -- but having said that, what I'm saying is that I do remember us learning -- my [121] learning that there were -- that he was engaged with a lot of boys at one parish.

Q. All right. Now, if you look at