MR. MIELKE: We are on the record. Today is August 15th, 2002. It is approximately 10:08 a.m. We're here in the matter of Gregory Ford versus Bernard Cardinal Law, Paul Busa versus Bernard Cardinal Law, Anthony Driscoll versus Bernard Cardinal Law. We're here to take the videotape deposition of Bishop John McCormack in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, case Middlesex County MICV2002-822-F. The court reporter will now swear the witness.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Hasn't he already been sworn? This is a continuation, is it not?
MR. SHERMAN: Yes, that's fine.

MR. MIELKE: The parties will now identify themselves for the record.
MR. TUCKER: Brian Tucker, personal counsel for the Bishop.
THE WITNESS: Bishop John McCormack of the Diocese of Manchester.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Wilson D. Rogers, Junior representing all defendants in these actions.
MR. ROGERS, III: Wilson D. Rogers, III on behalf of all defendants. [7]
MR. COOK: Bradford Cook, Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green counsel for the Diocese of Manchester.
MS. QUINLAN: Diane Quinlan, of the Diocese of Manchester.
MS. PATEL: Mona Patel, Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei for Travelers.
MR. MURPHY: Francis Murphy, local counsel for the plaintiffs.
MS. PILLSBURY: Courtney Pillsbury, counsel for the plaintiffs.
MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman, counsel for the plaintiffs. All set?
MR. MIELKE: All set.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Could I just ask a question. We identified three cases. We have an understanding this runs to three others, am I right?
MR. ROGERS, III: All cases involving Father Shanley.
MR. SHERMAN: All cases involving Father Shanley, that's right. [8]

BISHOP JOHN B. McCORMACK having been previously sworn was deposed and testified as follows:

EXAMINATIONBY MR. SHERMAN:
Q. Good morning, Bishop.
A. Good morning.

Q. Thank you for coming here. My name is Robert Sherman. I represent the plaintiffs. I'll be asking you questions today, and before we get started I just want to make it clear that if at any time you want to take a break today -- we'll take regular breaks every hour, but if you need to take any break during the course of the hour, speak up and we'll be happy to accommodate you. I'll also be asking you questions. If you don't understand a question that I ask you, please feel free to ask me to rephrase it; I'll be happy to do it. If you don't ask me to rephrase it, I'll assume that you understand the question, is that fair?
A. Fair.

Q. Okay. Bishop, since your last [9] deposition, have you had a chance to reread and review the transcript of your testimony?
A. I did.

Q. Okay. I want to give you an opportunity before we get started with today's questioning to amend any of your answers or to add anything that you didn't have an opportunity to say before. Is there anything you would like to amend or add to your prior testimony?
A. I recall -- it's been a while since I read that testimony and I recall that there was one or two areas that I thought could use clarification, but I don't recall them right now.

Q. Do you recall the subject matter of those areas?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You don't recall even anything about those areas that would help us to be able to identify because I want to make sure you have a complete opportunity.
A. Right, and I wish I had thought about that, but, you know, I read it a long time ago, so.

Q. All right. Now, in addition to that, [10] have you had the opportunity to read the transcript of Cardinal Law's deposition which occurred onJune 5th and June 7th?
A. No.

Q. Have you talked to anybody, with the exception of your counsel, regarding the subject matter of Cardinal Law's deposition?
A. Have I talked to anybody? I think I've --

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Other than counsel.
THE WITNESS: Right.

Q. Other than counsel.
A. I might have commented, but I can't even recall what I commented --

Q. Okay. What I'm getting --
A. -- or someone might have commented to me, but there was no discussion.

Q. Right. And what I was getting at is about the substance of what the Cardinal had testified to.
A. No.

Q. If you could let me finish the question, that will make it a lot easier for the [11] stenographer, who won't yell at both of us as the course of this goes on. So you didn't speak with anyone, other than perhaps counsel, regarding the substance of the Cardinal's deposition on June 5th or June 7th?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Nor his continued deposition of this week?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Bishop, is it fair to state that at the time that you became Secretary of Ministerial Personnel the protection of children was the first priority of the Archdiocese of Boston, the first priority, is that a fair statement?
A. I would say that --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I would say that when I became Secretary of Ministerial Personnel that was not a subject matter that was talked about with me, but my assumption would be that that would always be a matter of concern within the church, whether it was in youth programs or schools or parishes or wherever, [12] but it was not a matter of discussion.

Q. Okay. And understanding that it wasn't a matter of discussion but was a matter of concern, in your mind do you see a distinction between calling something a matter of concern and calling something a first priority of an organization?
A. Because I can't say that it was -- it wasn't voiced as a first priority, but it would be assumed that that would always be a matter of concern within an organization that provided all kinds of services to families and children.

Q. Okay. Bishop, I'm going to show you a document which I will represent to you is the transcript of the deposition of Cardinal Law which took place this Tuesday, the 13th of this month, and I want to draw your attention to lines 12 on down. Could you take a minute and read that.
A. Okay.

MR. ROGERS, III: Well, is there a page reference from the deposition? I just see a number one at the beginning. It's obviously not page one.
MR. SHERMAN: That's what got printed out for us; I'm sure there is. I'll get it for you [13] later, but I'll represent to you that this was printed out by the stenographer and I'll get you the exact page reference. It was within the first hour, I can tell you that, also.
MR. ROGERS, III: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Can you tell me what Exhibit 42 was?
Q. I can tell you that 42 was a statement of Donna Morrissey, I don't know if we have that, and, again, I can -- it was a statement issued by Miss Morrissey.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Are we marking this an exhibit?
MR. SHERMAN: Yes, I was going to do it after.
Q. Okay. Do you see that?
A. Correct, but I still don't know what the --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Wait, wait, do you see it? That's the question.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you see it? And do you see -- and I can get you during the break, if you [14] need to, Exhibit 42, if that will help you answer that question. Is that --
A. I don't know what your question --

Q. Okay. My question is going to be do you see where the Cardinal sets forth the policy of the Archdiocese -- and I'm reading now from line 12 the first statement in the first paragraph in the first sentence states "the first priority of the Archdiocese is the protection of children? Do you see that?"
Answer by the Cardinal "I do."
"Has that always been the policy of the Archdiocese since you started as Archbishop in 1984?"
Answer "It certainly has been the desire and the intent of the Archdiocese, but as I think I have indicated on other occasions, the focus is a much clearer and developed focus in our present policy." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And would it be your understanding as well that since 1984 it has always been the desire and the intent of the Archdiocese that the protection of children be the first [15] priority?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I object to the form and I think it's -- first of all, I think it's an unfair question and it inaccurately represents the testimony during the course of the Cardinal's deposition because his testimony regarding this first priority was dealt with on both Tuesday and Wednesday of this week and it was put in context yesterday, and I think to pull out one snippet and one little blurb and say that was the policy, I think it's inappropriate and --

MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Rogers, I ask --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I'm making an objection.

MR. SHERMAN: Well --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: No, I'm making an objection. If you want to --

MR. SHERMAN: No, you're making a speech. If you'd like to object -- are you objecting to form, or are you instructing him not to answer?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: All right. Now, anything else before I continue with my objection?
MR. SHERMAN: No. [16]

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Okay. Thank you.
And I think it's unfair to put this in front of Bishop McCormack as though this is the stated policy of the Archdiocese. If you want to ask the Bishop his understanding of the policy, fine, but to pull out one portion of two days of testimony where this issue was focused on on a repeated basis and indicate this was the testimony of the Cardinal, I think is unfair and I think it's an inappropriate use of the transcript now, and I object to the question in that form.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: And I would ask that you ask him his understanding, not ask him to comment upon the Cardinal's testimony unless you want to put the two days of transcript in front of him and ask him to read it.
MR. SHERMAN: Thank you. I understand your objection. Again, I would ask you to make your objection and not make speeches for the record, otherwise we're going to be a long time.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I ask you not to misrepresent the testimony of the Cardinal. [17]
MR. SHERMAN: I'm asking him a question.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Then ask a question, but don't ask him to comment on the Cardinal's testimony.
MR. SHERMAN: Let me withdraw that and then I'll ask it a different way.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: All right.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Do you see what the -- what is before you, what the Cardinal's testimony was in this paragraph?
A. Uh-huh, yes.

Q. Is that consistent with your understanding of the first priority of the Archdiocese since 1994 to present?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Is which? Which lines are you talking about?
MR. SHERMAN: Lines 12 through 24.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, 12's a question. You're asking him if your question is consistent with the --
MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Rogers, please. Let me go back and I'll do it again. [18]
MR. ROGERS, JR.: All right.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: You see what the Cardinal has testified to in response to the question that begins on line 12 and ends on line 24? Do you see that?
A. Yes.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well --
Q. Okay. The question begins on line 12 and testimony continues all the way through question and answer to line 24, correct?
A. Correct, right.

Q. And you see what the Cardinal has said?
A. Correct.

Q. Correct. And is it your understanding that the policy of the Archdiocese, as reflected in the Cardinal's testimony -- let me rephrase the question to make sure we've got it.
Is it your understanding that it has been the policy of the Archdiocese since 1985 to make the protection of children the first priority?
A. No, that's not my understanding.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Okay, good.
Q. Is it your -- [19]
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I'm sorry, look, Mr. Sherman, if you want to make these little side looks at me, fine, but I'd like the record to reflect it. I mean --

MR. SHERMAN: All right, good is not an appropriate comment.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: No, because I thought he was going to go on with his answer and I thought he'd answered the question; and if you want to make a motion to strike anything I say, you can do it in due course, but you're not going to sit here and give me a speech or a lecture, I'll tell you that right now.

MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Rogers, I'm not going to also have you -- if the Bishop wants to go on and answer the question, he's welcome to do so. I'm going to give him a full opportunity to do it.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Ask the questions. If you've got questions, ask them.

MR. SHERMAN: Yeah, but I'm not going to have you say all right, good, which is coaching the witness and telling him to stop the answer.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I did not coach the witness and I resent that inference. I didn't coach [20] him at all. I thought he was going to go on and say something more and he'd answered the question; it called for a yes or no. And if you want to ask him to explain his answer, I have no objection to that, but I certainly --

MR. SHERMAN: And I have no objection if the Bishop wants to go on.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I do because he's answered the question and I certainly intend to participate. So if you don't appreciate my participation, I'm sorry but here I am.

MR. SHERMAN: Well, okay, if this is the way it's going to go, we're going to terminate the deposition, we'll get an order and we'll see what happens at that point.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: If you want to terminate the deposition, feel free.

MR. SHERMAN: Well, we'll go on and we'll see how we do, but I think I'm entitled to ask him questions and I'm entitled to get his answers without comment from you; and if he wants to go on and finish an answer, I'm going to give him full opportunity. I am not going to cut him off, nor do I [21] expect anybody else is going to cut him off.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, if he has answered the question, I am going to indicate he's answered the question.

MR. SHERMAN: Then this is going to be a very short deposition.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Fine. I have a lot to do back in the office anyway.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, let me go back to this question. And is it fair to say that the desire and intent of the Archdiocese has always been to make the protection of children a first priority, is that your understanding of the policy as it existed in 1984?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I think that question -- I object, I think it's been asked and answered. But go ahead.
THE WITNESS: My sense is that it was -- it's the desire and the intent of the Archdiocese in all its programs to protect children, and that's my understanding of our effort at that time. [22]

Q. Okay. And how was that understanding and that effort communicated within the Archdiocese?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: When?
Q. As of 1994.
A. As of 1994?

Q. I'm sorry, I misspoke, as of 1984, sorry, when you first became Secretary of Ministerial Personnel.
A. How was it communicated in my office?

Q. How was it communicated, yes, in your office.
A. I would think that if anything arose that was disrespectful and harmful to children that we took action and that's how it was communicated and that's how the -- that's how our policy developed, when we began to realize that there was harm being made to children.

Q. And what was your understanding as of 1984 as to the Cardinal's desire and intent with respect to making children a first -- protection of children a first priority, did you --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection -- excuse me. [23]

Q. -- did you have an understanding back then?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form of the question. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall his making a statement that it was his desire and intent except when -- and I'd have to be aware of the incident when an occasion arose where it was observed that children were being harmed or there was disrespect for them, then -- it's so much a part of our understanding of who we are as people that he would have responded or he would have made known that we should do something.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Can I ask, are we marking this as exhibit? Have you passed on this?
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry, thank you, let's mark this as an exhibit, thank you.

(McCormack Exhibit 33 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, if you could also take a look on Exhibit 33 going onto the second page. The Cardinal's asked the question "Well let's just deal with intent then. Is it fair to say that it was the [24] intent of the Archdiocese of Boston, since you became Archbishop in 1984, that the first priority would be the protection of children? Was that your intent at all times, Cardinal Law?"
Answer "Surely, that was my intent." Do you see that?
A. Correct, I do.

Q. Okay. Now, starting in 1984, did the Cardinal directly communicate that intent with you as minister of -- Secretary of Ministerial Personnel for the Archdiocese?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I object, with you or to you? I'm not sure I understood -- the question was with did he communicate?

Q. Excuse me, did you understand the question, Bishop?
A. I think that I understand your question to be did the Cardinal communicate to me that it was his intention that children be protected and that this was his first priority.

Q. That was my question.
A. Correct.

Q. Thank you. I'm glad you understood [25] that.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, that was not the question, but I withdraw my objection if that's the question you're asking now.
THE WITNESS: I would not understand that to be his first priority because it would have to be an occasion when a child was being harmed that he would raise that as an issue to be addressed, but that it was his first priority, I cannot say that I understood that.

Q. Okay. And as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, you were a member of the Cardinal's cabinet, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And how many -- back in 1984 approximately how many other people were members of the cabinet, approximately?
A. Well, I really didn't join the cabinet until 1985, the beginning of 1985, so I just wanted for the record -- and secondly, my sense is that there were six members of the cabinet besides the Cardinal.

Q. And did that number hold true [26] throughout your tenure at the Archdiocese of Boston, if you know?
A. No, the numbers increased as the secretariats were divided in responsibility.

Q. Okay. And back in 1985 when you first joined the cabinet, how regularly did you have cabinet meetings?
A. Weekly.

Q. Okay. And, again, is that a process that continued on through your tenure at the Archdiocese, weekly cabinet meetings?
A. It was weakly cabinet meetings, but sometimes you wouldn't have them due to circumstances.

Q. Right. And on occasion -- again, commencing in 19 --
A. Excuse me, I have an idea that we might not have had them during the summertime, either.

Q. I understand that and that's fine. But during the weekly cabinet meetings that took place, again, with the exception of vacation times or other, you know, other times, did the issue of policy for the Archdiocese sometimes [27] arise at those meetings?
A. Sometimes we would be consulted about what we thought ought to be a policy, yes.

Q. Were there occasions when the Cardinal raised the issue with the cabinet with respect to policy for the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. I'm not clear the difference between the first question and this question.

Q. Okay?
A. Can you make that distinction?

Q. I think what I was trying to get at is sometimes you were consulted, and what I'm asking is -- and you were consulted by -- let me rephrase it. And you were consulted by the Cardinal with respect to issues of policy for the Archdiocese, correct?
A. Or it could be a cabinet secretary who raised the issue, about what did we think about this and -- as a policy or as a practice.

Q. Okay. And during the whole time that you served in the cabinet -- and that would have been from 1985 to 1994? [28]
A. Correct.

Q. -- did the Cardinal at any time enunciate to the cabinet a policy regarding the protection of children?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall his enunciating a policy regarding the protection of children.

Q. Do you --
A. Excuse me.

Q. I'm sorry. Do you recall the subject of protection of children coming up at all in those cabinet meetings, by the Cardinal -- raised by the Cardinal?
A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you this question, and help me out on some of the processes that existed within the Archdiocese: When you became Secretary of Ministerial Personnel in 1985, could you describe for me the process by which priests were assigned to parishes within the Archdiocese, how was that done? [29]
A. Okay. May I make a clarification?

Q. Sure.
A. That I was appointed, I think, Secretary of Ministerial Personnel in 1984 --

Q. Right.
A. -- and it was, I think, October, November, but I really didn't begin my work --

Q. Until February.
A. -- until February of '85.

Q. And I --
A. I just want that to be so you understand. And in answer to your question --

Q. And that's fine, and if at any point there's something that you do want to clarify, please let me know and I will give you an opportunity to do that.
A. Okay. Now, in response to your question, would you want to repeat it so I --

Q. Okay. In 1985 when you assumed your duties as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, what was the process of assigning priests to parishes within the RCAB?
A. Well, my understanding of this is that [30] there was an office for Clergy Personnel and this office was staffed by two priests and a secretary, and they would be responsible for overseeing the assignments of all priests in the Archdiocese to whatever position it was, and so basically they would confer with the Cardinal on a regular basis about assignments.
And there was a Priest Personnel Board made up of priests from various areas and ranges in the Archdiocese, in terms of age and experience, who also would meet weekly. And they generally would consider the recommendation of three names to the Cardinal about assigning a priest as pastor, or they would address the matter of a priest looking for a change of assignment and what would the recommendation be to the Cardinal about this change. But those recommendations -- no, excuse me, those efforts were not always consistent because the Cardinal could always act outside of that as well.

Q. Okay. And with respect to the Priest Personnel Board, did they only come into play when the issue was the elevation of a priest to pastor?
A. Or usually that was the common [32] discussion, but also they could be asked to make a recommendation about a priest who wants a change of assignment or a priest who's being asked to do something and what were our thoughts in terms of this to make a recommendation to the Cardinal. So it could be pastor, but it also could be other positions.

Q. Okay. Did the office of Clergy Personnel play a role in the issue of elevating a priest to pastor?
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure how that is different from the first -- from the last question.

Q. Let me back up, then. I'm understanding that there's really two different groups, there's the office of Clergy Personnel --
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. -- and there's also the Personnel Board?
A. Clergy Personnel Board.

Q. Right. And those are two separate --
A. Right.

Q. -- entities, is that correct? [32]
A. Well, no, they're separate, but they work together. In other words, the Clergy Personnel Board would be convened by the director of the Clergy Personnel office, and he would make his reports or his questions to that board. That board would discuss and they would respond to whatever agenda he brought up, and then he would take that agenda and that would be the way of communicating it to the Cardinal.

Q. Okay. And in the structure of the Archdiocese, the office of Clergy Personnel fell under what cabinet member?
A. My own.

Q. Okay. And did you, as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, have a role in making recommendations as well for the assignment of a priest or the assignment of a priest as pastor?
A. I did not have a recommendation outside of being a member of the Clergy Personnel Board.

Q. Okay. So how many members were there of the Clergy Personnel Board?
A. I'm guessing, but I would say between eight and ten. [33]

Q. Okay. And --
A. It could be 12.

Q. Okay. And where did the members come from, what types of positions?
A. They were distributed from -- they would come from within the Archdiocese. They would be priests who could be on parish assignment. They would be distributed usually by age and by region so there was representation from varied levels, varied areas.

Q. Okay. And so is it fair to say, as I understand you, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Cardinal did not have to ask the Clergy Personnel Board for a recommendation, am I correct about that?
A. Correct.

Q. But if he did, then the board would meet, all members would meet, the board would come up with a recommendation and communicate that to the Cardinal?
A. Correct.

Q. And that you didn't communicate a separate recommendation --
A. No. [34]

Q. If I could finish the question, please.
A. I'm sorry.

Q. That's all right. And that you didn't communicate a separate recommendation outside of your service within the Clergy Personnel Board?
A. No, unless the Cardinal or the Vicar for Administration came to me and asked me something about what did I think about someone.

Q. Okay. And did that practice that you just described change at all from when you first became Secretary of Ministerial Personnel within the Archdiocese to the time that you left the cabinet?
A. No, the Clergy Personnel Board met regularly and it considered the areas that we have talked about. Whether the Cardinal, you know, didn't always consult with them as much as he did in the beginning -- he might have made some appointments without consulting the Clergy Personnel Board.

Q. Okay. I understand that. I guess what I'm asking you is did there ever come a time where you, as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, were asked to make recommendations separate and apart from what you did as part of your service for the [35] personnel board?
A. I would make recommendations about the assignment of a priest to the Cardinal who had problems around vocation. I would deal with a priest who had difficulty in -- you know, should he continue in assignment or should he take a leave of absence? So there would be discussion about that, and then it could be about a priest who has some emotional problems, and then eventually it became about assignments about priests who had problems around sexual abuse. And at that time and on those occasions I would be asked do I have any recommendations about what kind of -- oftentimes what kind of an assignment as opposed to where he would be assigned, but it could have been both as well.

Q. Okay. And, again, so I understand your answer, Bishop, those were recommendations that you would make outside of what you were discussing as part of your duties within the Clergy Personnel Board?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And is it my understanding that those are -- those categories that you gave, problems [36] that priests have with respect to vocation, emotional problems and then eventually the issue of sexual abuse problems, were the kinds of things that ordinarily either the Vicar for Administration or the Cardinal would come to you separately for your input on?
A. In general, yes, I would be asked to handle this matter with the priest and to come up with a recommendation.

Q. Okay. Now, you said in your answer to not the last question but the one previous to that and eventually the issue of sexual abuse. What did you mean when you said eventually the issue of sexual abuse?
A. What did I -- excuse me?

Q. What did you mean in terms of when did that start --
A. You mean eventually?

Q. Yeah, when did that start happening?
A. When they began asking me. See, I think the Vicar for Administration oftentimes was handling the matters of sexual abuse, and then over a period of those -- between '85 and, let's say, '92 I [37] would become more and more involved, but he would handle some cases and I would handle others. And so my thinking is is that -- so that eventually wasn't -- I became more involved with the area of sexual abuse over a period of time.

Q. Okay. So that didn't start just when you became the delegate to the Cardinal for sexual abuse, that all -- that -- your being asked to make recommendations also occurred in your capacity as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel when the issue was sexual abuse involving a priest, correct?
A. When that was given to me, when this matter was given to me, as opposed to the Vicar for Administration handling it.

Q. Okay. And would you say that it increased to the point that routinely you were asked to make a separate recommendation when the issue was the sexual abuse of a priest that was being considered?
A. It was never routine until I became the delegate. It might have been -- and I can't think back -- it might have been more frequently than ever, let's say, the year previous or two years previous, [38] but I would say it wasn't routine, no.

Q. And, again, for the record, you became the delegate when?
A. I think it was the end of 1992 or the beginning of 1993, but I'm not sure. Unless you have a piece of paper, I don't --

Q. No, that's fine.
Now, you testified at your earlier deposition, Bishop -- and if you need to refresh your testimony, I can point you to the section -- regarding the existence of secret archives. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Correct.

Q. Do you remember that testimony?
A. I remember the testimony --

Q. In general.
A. Yeah, I remember the topic, yes.

Q. And I want to make sure I understand your testimony on that. Am I --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Is there a page you want to refer to here?
MR. SHERMAN: No.

Q. Is it my understanding -- do I [39] understand correctly that secret archives were different from confidential file, the confidential file, is that correct?
A. No, there was a confidential file which would probably -- my understanding it would fall underneath the general heading of secret archives, but there were more files that fell in the secret archives other than the confidential file.

Q. Okay. Can I ask you now to turn to page 179 in your deposition. I just want to, again, clarify this area. If you could take a minute and read pages 179 and 180 of your deposition.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: To himself?

Q. To yourself, please.
A. (Witness complies.) Okay.

Q. See that? Directing your attention specifically to your answer at the top of page 180 that begins on line three, you described the confidential file as a "four-drawer file where we had reports on priests who were serving in the Archdiocese," is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And is it your understanding [40] that that four-drawer file was kept in the safe that was the secret archive?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Then if you could help me out in terms of --
A. I think the four-drawer file initially was kept -- this is my memory -- in the office for the Vicar for Administration. And then when I needed to ask him for access to the file more often because of looking at complaints, that file was moved out to a closet between his office and my office.

Q. Okay. And that file, the confidential file, was kept under the control of the Vicar for Administration?
A. Yes.

Q. And you would have to go to him to get permission to access information that was kept in the confidential file?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And your understanding of the kinds of information that would be kept in the confidential file, as opposed to the other files maintained on priests, would be what? [41]
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Is there a time frame you're talking about here?

Q. Let's start in 1985 when you became -- first became secretary for ministerial personnel.
A. I would say that the confidential file, to my knowledge, would hold records of complaints made about priests that were handled by -- or dealt with by this Vicar General or the chancellor of the diocese, and that's my understanding. And so it wouldn't be all the complaints, some of the complaints could have gone to another office like the Priest Personnel office or to the Archbishop's office.

Q. Now, if a priest, for instance, was ill, for instance, had a medical problem and was put on medical leave, would that be the kind of information that would go into a confidential file based on your understanding, or would that go into, you know, one of the other files maintained on the priest?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: We're still talking 1985? [42]

MR. SHERMAN: 1985.
THE WITNESS: My understanding is that the most problems that dealt with physical illness would be on file either in the Clergy Fund office or the Priest Personnel office and that the ones that dealt with, let's say, one's emotional health, there was some emotional problems with the priest, that could have been in either those two offices, or it could have been kept in the confidential file.

Q. Okay. And did that change between -- did your understanding of what was kept in the confidential file, as it pertains to physical problems of the priest, did that change at all between 1985 and 1994?
A. Not in my understanding, no.

Q. Now, you mentioned -- and as I understand again, and correct me if I'm wrong -- there is a second file that you mentioned or a second place called the secret archive, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Physically, where is that or where was that?
A. Now, my understanding is -- [43]

Q. And, again, let me give you a date. Where was that as of 1985 when you first became of Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
A. My understanding is it was in the ground floor of the chancery office.

Q. Okay. And the Vicar for Administration, what floor was his office on in 1985?
A. The first floor.

Q. Okay. And, again, in 1994 when you left as a cabinet minister, was his office also on the first floor?
A. First floor.

Q. Okay. And when you left in 1994, was it also your understanding that the secret archive was still maintained on the ground floor of the chancery?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And under whose control was the secret archive?
A. I don't know. I would say, you know, the person who I would assume would be responsible would be the Cardinal or the Archbishop and the Vicar for Administration. [44]

Q. Okay. And did you have an understanding as to what kinds of information would be placed into the secret archive versus the confidential file?
A. No.

Q. Were there times that you asked to access information in the secret archive during --
A. No.

Q. If I could finish the question, please.
A. Oh.

Q. -- between 1984 and 1985? Mr. Rogers would remind me to put the time frame in any way.
A. No.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: This is a learning experience, Mr. Sherman.
MR. SHERMAN: For you, I hope, something about old dogs and new tricks.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: That was very good, very good, touche.

Q. So there was no time that you asked to access the secret archive between 1984 and 1995?
A. No.

Q. Was the existence of the secret archive [45] generally known to people that worked in the chancery in a supervisory capacity?
A. I don't know. I think that it was pointed out to me that those are the secret archives.
Now, how many other people besides myself knew that, I can't say. My assumption would be -- is that most people knew that that was the secret archive, but I can't say.

Q. Okay. Would it be your belief and understanding that somebody like Father Helmick, who was the Cardinal's personal secretary during this period of time, would know about the existence of something called the secret archive?
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
THE WITNESS: He was not his secretary all that time; he was the secretary just for two or three years. And did he know? I have no idea.

Q. Okay. Let me ask the question this way, then: Would the fact that it was generally known lead you to believe, in all likelihood, it would be something that a person in the position of the Cardinal's personal secretary would know about?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I object. I'm [46] not sure he said it was generally known; I thought he said he didn't know.

Q. Okay. Let me backtrack on that. Maybe I misunderstood you. Is it fair to say that the existence of the secret archive was generally known among supervisory personnel within the chancery?
A. Within the chancery?

Q. Yes.
A. I would think that people would be aware that there is this large walk-in safe, and so my assumption is -- is that in some time during their experience they would have learned that that was the secret archives.
Father Helmick's office was not in the chancery; he was a personal secretary toCardinal Medeiros and Cardinal Law. So I have really no idea whether he knew that the secret archives existed or where it was in the chancery, honestly, I don't.

Q. Did you actually see, during your tenure there, the secret archives?
A. I saw the door.
Q. Okay. Did you see the safe itself? [47]
A. No.

Q. Okay.
A. I have this idea that there was this safe that you'd walk into. Now, whether that was -- I really don't recall.

Q. Do you know how you learned of the existence of something called the secret archive?
A. I think in canon law we learned that there was some records that are kept in secret archives so that would have been in academic knowledge, and I can't point to anything else that would say that a -- you know, how I knew the existence of secret archives.

Q. Okay. But as opposed to understanding or learning of the theoretical existence of secret archives, you actually were aware, during your tenure there, that there was a spot --
A. Place.

Q. If I could finish, please.
A. That's right.

Q. -- there was a spot on the ground floor of the chancery that was designated the secret archives and that certain documents were kept in [48] those archives, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Yes, my sense is is that there were documents kept in the secret archives and they were there for a purpose, that they were to be kept secret.

Q. Okay. Now, in your capacity as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, you testified before you'd be called on occasionally to make recommendations, you know, to the Cardinal regarding an assignment of priests, for instance, when, as you've testified, eventually during your tenure the issue became, you know, sexual -- a matter of sexual abuse, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And in doing that you would have occasion to access or seek access from the Vicar of Administration to the confidential file, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Were you ever concerned during your tenure that there might be information kept in the secret archive that may be relevant to a [49] recommendation that you were being asked to make that you were not -- that you did not have access to and so therefore your recommendation was not complete?
A. The concern never surfaced because my understanding was that any complaints made about a priest were within the confidential file that they would -- about priests who are living in ministry. So my concern that there was information elsewhere never entered my mind.

Q. It never was your concern that there might be information about a priest that was contained in the secret archive?
A. No.

Q. I guess -- let me ask you this, Bishop: You didn't know what was in the secret archive, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. How is it that you would then come to the conclusion that, without knowing what's in it, that there might not be information that might be relevant to something that you were doing?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form. Go ahead. [50]
THE WITNESS: Because I was informed that any complaints that we needed to know about in terms of priests were kept in the confidential files.

Q. And who was --
A. So that if there was any information we needed to know about a priest, it was there. That would have been an informal information -- informed.

Q. Okay. And from whom did that understanding or that informal information come from?
A. I would say both probably the Vicar for Administration and probably the director of the office of Clergy Personnel, those are the two who I think were aware of those files.

Q. Okay. And in -- from 1985 to 1994, the Vicar for Administration first was Bishop Banks, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then in 1993, correct me if I'm wrong on that date, it became Bishop Hughes, is that right?
A. No, I think Bishop Hughes became in 1990 and he continued until 1993, and then Monsignor Murphy succeeded him -- [51]
Q. Okay.
A. -- in '93.

Q. Okay. And who was the director of the office of Clergy Personnel during that same time frame, in 1985 to 1993?
A. Father Thomas Oates was the director initially for two or three years, and then he was succeeded by Father James McCarthy.

Q. And do you know when that -- when Father James McCarthy became the director -- again, approximately?
A. I'm going to say approximately 19 -- sometime probably towards the end of 1987 or the middle of 1988.

Q. Okay. Now, with respect to the meetings of the Clergy Personnel Board, were there minutes kept of those meetings?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Was there a secretary to the board?
A. No. Father Oates or Father McCarthy would, you know, take whatever notes that they wanted to take from the discussion so that they could make a [52] report to the Archbishop.

Q. Okay. And do you know whether Father Oates or Father McCarthy were keeping those notes as their own personal notes as opposed to notes of the board?
A. No, I don't, honestly.

Q. Do you know where those notes would have been kept?
A. No.

Q. Okay. The recommendation of the Clergy Personnel Board, was that always in writing?
A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know how the recommendation got transmitted from the board to the Cardinal or the Vicar for Administration?
A. The director of the Clergy Personnel office would meet regularly with the Cardinal and the Vicar for Administration together to discuss the recommendations of the board, that's one way; I think it also could be in writing or by telephone as well.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part of it.
A. That's one way. It also could have [53] been at times in writing or by telephone, but I can't -- I think the regular way was for them to meet in person.

Q. You also stated, I believe -- and, again, correct me if I'm -- I didn't understand this correctly -- that complaints concerning sexual abuse would have been in the confidential file but also could have been kept in the Cardinal's office, is that -- did I understand that correctly?
A. No, I think I would say that's -- some complaints would have been handled directly by the Cardinal; whether it was sexual abuse, I'm not going to say that, just that sometimes the Cardinal would handle a matter of a complaint. I think the matter of sexual abuse he -- my general understanding was he gave those to the Vicar for Administration, and then once it was our policy, he gave them all directly to me, if they came to him.

Q. And was there a reason, based on your -- you know, as you understood it -- strike that. Let me rephrase it. Did you understand there to be a reason why the Cardinal would always give complaints of [54] sexual abuse to the Vicar of Administration to handle, as opposed to handling some of that himself like he did in other circumstances?
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form.
THE WITNESS: Is there a reason that he had for doing that, is what you're saying?

Q. Did you understand there to be a reason?
A. My understanding why he would hand it over to the Vicar for Administration and then eventually to me is that it needed to be followed through in a thorough way and he would ask us to do that.

Q. And does it follow, therefore, that the complaints that the Cardinal would handle directly himself would be complaints that didn't need a thorough follow-through?
A. No, it would need a thorough follow-through but probably not as encompassing or, you know, it could be some complaints might be that this could be resolved by talking to the priest [55] directly, others required talking to other people in addition, and so that's the -- that's what I mean by thorough, is that it needed more work or it involved more effort.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: May I suggest we take a break? It's --
MR. SHERMAN: That's fine, that's fine five minutes.
MR. MIELKE: We're going off the record. It is 11:03.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record. It is 11:17.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, let me ask you just one more final question on the secret archives, make sure I understand it. Do I understand your testimony to be that you had no idea whatsoever of what kind of material would be placed in the secret archives?
A. No, that would not be my understanding. I had an idea that there were materials that needed to be preserved and that they were kept in the archives and that they were referred to as the secret [56] archives, and -- some of them, my sense was, is that they were important documents or they were important materials, some of which my assumption is needed -- you know, were held to be secret.

Q. Okay. But other than knowing in general that they were important, you have no idea as to what subject matter --
A. I have --

Q. Let me finish, if I could.
-- you have no idea what subject matter or subject matters those documents would have pertained to, is that correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. I'm sorry, let me just clarify. Is it -- let me just ask the question again so it's clear for the record.
Am I correct that you have no idea what subject matter or matters those particular documents would have pertained to?
A. I have no -- yeah, I have no idea what those documents pertain to. I -- may I add, though, that --

Q. Sure, please. [57]
A. -- what we also knew to be considered part of the secret archives were the confidential files, and I had an idea what those documents pertained to and it was about priests.

Q. Okay. But the confidential files were kept in a different location than the secret archives, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So when you say you considered the confidential files to be part of the secretarchives --
A. Secret archives.

Q. -- why would you consider them to be part of them if in fact they were kept in a different place?
A. Because they would be used -- they would be referred to by the Vicar for Administration and the Cardinal on a regular basis when they -- you know, as opposed to -- that's my -- I would say that they would be more active in referring to those files than they would to other files.

Q. So do I understand what you're saying is that the Vicar for Administration and the Cardinal [58] referred to the confidential files as well as being part of the secret archives?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure -- can you restate that?

Q. Yeah, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. Are you saying --
A. They would --

Q. Go ahead.
A. They would see --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, wait for a question. You say you don't understand, so wait for a question.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I'll wait for a question.

Q. I thought I understood you to say that you understood the confidential files to be part of the secret archives because the Vicar for Administration and the Cardinal would reference the confidential files to -- in that way. Do I understand that correctly?
A. That would be my understanding, yes.

Q. Okay. And the Cardinal and the Vicar [59] for Administration would refer to the confidential files as being part of the secret archive?
A. No, but my understanding was they were part of the secret archives. I can't say that they used that term.

Q. All right. But let me ask it one more or less way. In what way were they part of the secret archives?
A. In that the access to them was limited to the Cardinal and to the Vicar for Administration and no one else had access to them.

Q. Okay. But if you made a request for access to the confidential files, you were granted that file, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Was there ever a time when you were denied a request to see information that was kept in the confidential file during your tenure --
A. No.

Q. -- during your tenure as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Was it your understanding that [60] if you had ever asked to see material in the secret file that you had access to that material?
A. It wouldn't be as global if I felt an interest; it would be that I was interested in a specific priest file --

Q. Okay.
A. -- and I would have access to that file.

Q. And in order for you, when you were interested in a specific priest file, to have access to that file, you had to rely on somebody else to provide you whatever information there was on that priest, is that correct?
A. Sometimes I would be given the key and sometimes I would be given the file.

Q. Okay. And when you --
A. This changed when I became delegate.

Q. Okay. I was actually going to get to the time frames. So that's -- so let's go back to the time period before you were delegate. If you asked to see the file on a particular person, you went to the Vicar for Administration, is that correct? [61]
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. And sometimes he would give you the key to the confidential file, is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And sometimes he would just give you the file?
A. Yes, or his secretary.

Q. Right, or his representative, that's fine.
How did you have confidence that you were getting all the material that was in existence on that particular priest?
A. Because --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I object to the form of the question.
THE WITNESS: How did I have confidence?
Q. Uh-huh.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: You're inferring all the material on a priest would be in that file. I don't think that's the testimony. I object to that.

Q. Then let me back up. I'll rephrase it in this case. [62] When you asked to see the file on a priest, were you referring only to the confidential file?
A. Yes, and I was referring to were there any complaints made about this priest in the past and what were they.

Q. Okay. Any other information about that priest that was kept in places other than the confidential file, is it fair to say you had direct access to, you didn't have to go to anyone else to get?
A. No, I'd have to go to the director of the office and ask him for a person's file because I didn't have direct access to it.

Q. Okay. So when you said director of the office, you're talking about director of the office of Clergy Personnel?
A. Clergy Personnel, right.

Q. And even though the director of the office of Clergy Personnel fell under your -- did you call it secretariat?
A. Correct.

Q. Even though the office of Clergy [63] Personnel fell under your secretariat, you still had to go through the director to get access to the files; you couldn't just access those files yourself?
A. Correct, No.

Q. So for to you make a recommendation with respect to a particular priest, is it fair to say that you had to rely on others to give you the information that you needed to make that recommendation when you sought files on a priest?
A. Yes, yes.

Q. Okay. Other than the office for Clergy Personnel, were there any other offices that held files on priests that you would seek access from -- and, I'm sorry, and other than the confidential file?
A. I would not seek access except to the confidential file. I would ask a director of an office, like the director of the Clergy Fund office, if I had a question about a priest in a medical record, I'd ask the Clergy Personnel office about the assignments of a priest, and they would give me the information that I requested.

Q. So --
A. In general, those would be the two [64] offices that I would refer to.

Q. Okay. So the Clergy Fund office, the office of Clergy Personnel and the confidential file would be the three places that you would go to to access information?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And did the Clergy Fund office only keep records of payments that were being made regarding medical services and the like for priests, or were there actual medical records that were kept in that office as well?
A. I don't know whether they kept medical records; I have an idea they just kept records of payments.

Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that the Clergy Fund office was more of an administrative office --
A. Yes.

Q. -- facilitating payments with respect to charges incurred by priests?
A. Yes.

Q. And would it be your understanding that if there were medical records those would normally be [65] kept in the Clergy Personnel -- I'm sorry, in the office of Clergy Personnel files, correct?
A. No, I really -- you know, I'm not too sure how many medical records were kept by the Archdiocese on a priest.

Q. Okay. But if there were medical records, you would expect to find them in the Clergy Personnel files?
A. No, I think if there were medical records, I would -- kept by the diocese, most likely they would be kept by the Clergy Fund person -- Clergy Fund --

Q. Clergy Fund.
A. -- office.

Q. And, again, just so I can clarify one other point on this, when there were complaints of sexual abuse, were there any time to your knowledge that those complaints would be kept in a file other than the confidential file?
A. During what years?

Q. Let's say the years during which you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel.
A. You know, I can't speak completely [66] about that because I don't know how all the complaints came in about sexual misconduct by clergy personnel until I became involved in them. My general understanding would be that they came to the Vicar for Administration and that he would be handling them, and so -- that would be my understanding.

Q. And when the complaint would come into the Vicar for Administration, I think -- and, again, correct me if I'm wrong, if I misunderstood your testimony before -- did I understand you to say that the Vicar for Administration may keep those complaints if he were handling them himself?
A. Yes, he would keep those records himself and file them in the confidential file.

Q. Okay. But eventually -- I guess what I'm getting at is was it your understanding that the Vicar for Administration did not have anything other than records which he eventually had filed in the confidential file concerning complaints for sexual misconduct regarding priests?
A. I can't speak; I don't know.

Q. Okay. When you would request a file, [67] would you also request -- would you also ask the Vicar for Administration whether he had any other records other than what was in the confidential file?
A. If he spoke to me about an individual priest and the complaints, I would ask, you know "Well, can I see your records" or "Do you have any notes or anything like that?"

Q. Okay. And were there times that the Vicar for Administration would provide you with notes that were not notes that were kept in the confidential file -- and this is, again, before you became the delegate?
A. If they were notes -- I can't think of a specific incident, but I know that I would have asked him "Do you have some notes" and it might have been that he saw the priest that day or the day before or something like that so he might have had some notes. I think other than that it would have been kept in the confidential file.

Q. Okay. You mentioned earlier that -- you know, how the files -- or that this process was different when you became the delegate.
A. Yes. [68]

Q. Okay. How so?
A. In that I then had access to the confidential file.

Q. And when you became the delegate, you did not have to go through the Vicar for Administration to get the confidential file?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Do you remember, Bishop, attending a luncheon meeting in 1993 in which several psychologists, like Carolyn Newberger, a pediatrician, Eli Newberger and two other psychiatrists attended, Ted and Carol Nadelson, addressed you, Monsignor -- I think it's Monsignor Murphy, William F. Murphy would be Monsignor Murphy?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- you, Monsignor Murphy and the Cardinal on the issue or the problem of priests abusing children?
A. I don't remember a luncheon meeting; I do remember the first couple -- can you mention their name again.

Q. Sure. Carolyn Newberger, Eli Newberger and Ted and Carol Nadelson. [69]
A. I remember one time, either from both of them or maybe one of them, getting a letter saying that they, you know, were -- that they had information or they had expertise in this area and that they would be willing to assist us in the Archdiocese.

Q. And do you recall who sent you that letter; in other words, was it Carolyn Newberger or Eli Newberger?
A. I don't recall, but my sense is someone wrote me a letter and it could have been them or it could have been someone recommending them.

Q. Okay. And do you recall at any point whether it was a luncheon meeting --
A. I don't recall.

Q. -- or otherwise?
Do you recall at any point in time attending a meeting in which those four individuals, the Newbergers and the Nadelsons, addressed the issue of clergy sexual -- I'm sorry, clergy sexual abuse of minors?
A. No, I don't recall the meeting.

Q. Okay. And if I told you that meeting [70] took place in May of 1993, does that in any way refresh your meeting, and it was a meeting in which the Cardinal was there?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Refresh your meeting? You mean refresh your memory.

Q. I'm sorry, refresh your memory regarding the meeting.
A. No.

Q. Okay. Would it refresh your memory with respect to the meeting if I were to tell you that Carolyn Newberger stated at the meeting that the way the Archdiocese were handling sexual abuse cases was wrong and was putting children in danger, does that refresh your memory regarding the meeting?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form.

Q. Does it refresh your meeting -- sorry, refresh your memory with respect to the meeting that the discussion by the psychiatrists and -- by the Nadelsons and the Newbergers also addressed the topic of the importance of reporting instances of childhood sexual abuse to the authorities and that the Archdiocese failure to do so was problematic? [71]
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't remember this.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection of the meeting if I were to tell you that it was discussed at the meeting that no matter what was thought about priests who were accused of sexual abuse being cured or putting these problems behind them, there was a strong likelihood in this area of repeat behavior?
A. No, I don't remember this.

Q. Do you remember a discussion at that meeting or -- let me rephrase it.
Does it refresh your recollection of the meeting if I were to tell you there was a discussion at the meeting about an Arizona boy who had been abused at a very young age and was adopted by a family and was doing well until a priest molested the child again and another priest had walked in while the abuse was occurring but walked out without intervening? Do you remember that?
A. No. [72]
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to form.

Q. Does that help you -- does that help you with -- does that refresh your memory of the meeting?
A. No, it doesn't.

Q. Okay. Does it refresh your memory of the meeting that the Cardinal stated at the meeting that canon law had to be considered before the Archdiocese could take particular actions with respect to the issue of addressing sexual abuse by priests?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form of the question.
THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Does it refresh your recollection of the meeting that the Newbergers and the Nadelsons offered to help the Archdiocese in shaping a new approach to aggressively routing out the sexual abuse of priests -- by priests?
A. No, I don't recall this meeting.

Q. Okay. Bishop, you were asked questions at the earlier deposition regarding Father Shanley, you remember that being a topic -- [73]
A. Yes.

Q. -- of your last deposition?
Again, let me finish --
A. I'm sorry.

Q. -- to make it easier for the stenographer. I'll repeat it.
You remember the subject of Paul Shanley being a topic at your last deposition, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, at some point there was discussion, was there not, that you participated in regarding Paul Shanley leaving St. Jean's in Newton, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What was the reason that Paul Shanley left St. Jean's in Newton?
A. My recollection is that he left for health reasons.

Q. Okay. And do you remember what kind of health reasons?
A. At the time he left, I did not know what the health reasons were, right -- [74]

Q. Okay.
A. -- that was something resolved between him and the Cardinal.

Q. Okay. Now, did his leaving St. Jean's have anything to do with sexual abuse issues, to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge, no.

Q. Okay. Did his leaving have anything to do with psychological issues, to your knowledge?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Is there a distinction between sick leave and medical leave?
A. No, to my knowledge, they would be used either way.

Q. Okay. So -- and so I understand, both in 1989 and up until the time that you left the Archdiocese of Boston, the terms were synonymous in your --
A. That would be my --

Q. Let me finish, I'm sorry. I led you astray because I stopped there.
In 1989 to 19 -- until the time you left the Archdiocese of Boston, the terms would be [75] synonymous to your understanding, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You testified before that, you know, you understood at the time that the reason that Paul Shanley left was due to health reasons. Is your understanding of why he left different today?
A. No.

Q. Okay. It remains your understanding to this day that the reason he left was health reasons?
A. My understanding was that he was -- that he left there and was given a -- I think a medical leave by the Cardinal. So my understanding was he left for health reasons.
My memory at the time was he was having a difficult time, also, with the church's new request that when a pastor took office he had to take a new oath, and he had a hard time accepting that, but to my knowledge it didn't affect him so that wasn't the reason why he left.

Q. Okay. You brought up the issue of the oath. Let's go to that for a couple of minutes. You stated that around that time the church had a new requirement regarding a pastor taking an oath, is [76] that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And what was that requirement?
A. The requirement was that when a pastor or when a priest took an office in the church there was an oath that he would, you know, teach what the church teaches, and it was -- but that's amplified, and he had a hard time with the way that it was expressed.

Q. Okay. And that was not just a requirement of the Archdiocese of Boston --
A. No.

Q. If I could finish, please. I know this is a very normal thing to do, but we'll -- it will go easier for the stenographer.
A. I understand, I understand.

Q. I know that -- strike that.
This was not just a requirement of the Archdiocese of Boston; this was a requirement of the Catholic church in general, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it applied to priests anywhere in the country, is that correct? [77]
A. Yes.

Q. And did it only apply to priests when they were appointed to the position -- or a pastor or reappointed to the position of pastor?
A. Yes.

Q. If a priest were taking a position within the church that was not the position of pastor, would that priest also be required to take the oath at the time?
A. It could be, depending on the position.

Q. Okay. What were some of the other positions that would be required to take an oath?
A. Anything that was an official office within the church, like becoming a bishop, being appointed a chancellor, being appointed a judicial vicar.

Q. How about at the parish level?
A. Could you excuse me?

Q. Sure.
A. How about at the parish level?

Q. At the parish level, what kind of offices would be required to take --
A. To my knowledge, none at the parish [78] level.

Q. Other than --
A. The pastor.

Q. -- as a pastor, okay.
And is it your understanding that this became a problem for Paul Shanley because he was up for reappointment at pastor at St. Jean's?
A. My understanding was that he was not up for reappointment.

Q. Okay. In other words -- oh, I see. This was -- okay. Let me go back. This was required of all priests who were in the position of pastor as well to take that, not just simply being appointed or reappointed pastor?
A. No, it was only for those who were being appointed or reappointed.

Q. Okay. And what was the position of Paul Shanley at the time where he was being asked to take the oath?
A. To my knowledge, he wasn't being asked -- this is my understanding --

Q. Okay.
A. -- he just had a problem with it and [79] was voicing his concerns about it.

Q. Okay. So it was your understanding that as of the time that Paul Shanley left St. Jean's that nobody was requiring him to take this oath, but he was objecting to the fact that the requirement of an oath was being imposed by the Catholic church even though it didn't apply to him?
A. That's my understanding.

Q. Okay. We're going to go through a long series of documents regarding Paul Shanley. Let me start --
MR. SHERMAN: Could we have this marked, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 34 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, if could you take a minute and read that to yourself.
A. (Witness complies.) I read it.
Q. Okay. And is this a letter that you remember seeing in your capacity as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel at the time that it was written?
A. No. [80]

Q. Do you recall ever seeing this letter before today or before preparing for your deposition?
A. No, I did not see this.

Q. When a priest goes on medical leave, was there a policy in place back in 1989 as to what the stipend for the priest would be on a monthly basis and what the amount would be for room and board and other associated living expenses?
A. When, in 19 --

Q. In 1989, end of 1989 going into 1990.
A. Yes, there was a practice. I can't say it was a policy, but there was a practice, yes.

Q. And was that practice a set amount --
A. Yes.

Q. -- for -- I'm sorry, a set amount for all priests no matter where they -- you know, where they were located?
A. No, some priests could be on sick leave and be in a nursing home and their monthly stipend would be different from a priest who was living on his own or living in a rectory. I think there were varied stipends depending on where you were living.

Q. Okay. And when we talk about the [81] stipend, that's just the monthly payment separate and apart from room and board or a car allowance --
A. Yes.

Q. -- or health insurance, is that correct?
A. I think the health insurance would have been continued; it would be room and board, though.

Q. Okay. And when a priest went on sick leave at this time, how did it come about to be determined where the priest went?
A. It would be something that was agreed to by the Cardinal or the Archbishop or theperson who was working with the priest around his going on sick leave. So it could have been likeFather McCarthy, the Vicar for Administration, or in some instances myself, but in those points they would always be recommendations that finally the Cardinal would have to approve.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Mark that. Let's go off for a second.

(McCormack Exhibit 35 was marked for identification.)

MR. MIELKE: Going off the record. [82] It's 11:49.

(Off the record.)

MR. MIELKE: We're going back on the record. It is 11:52.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, if you can take a minute and read that letter as well to yourself.
A. (Witness complies.) Okay.

Q. Bishop, do you recognize that letter?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Is that a letter that you have seen before today?
A. I don't think so, no.

Q. And is it fair to state that that was not a letter that you participated in the drafting of at the time?
A. It is fair to say that, yes.
Q. Okay. And do I also understand that you did not have any conversations with the Cardinal regarding Paul Shanley at around the time -- I'm sorry, let me strike that and ask that again.
Is it fair to say that you had no discussions with the Cardinal regarding [83] Paul Shanley's sick leave prior to this letter being sent?
A. I don't recall having any conversation with the Cardinal about this matter.

Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that the practice of the Cardinal, as of December 7th, 1989, was that correspondence such as this would be drafted for him, as opposed to his drafting the correspondence directly? Did he have a practice in that regard that you were aware of?
A. I'm not aware; it could be both.

Q. Okay. Okay. Let me direct your attention to the top of the second page. It states "This letter provides me with an opportunity to thank you in my name and in the name of the people of the Archdiocese for the close to thirty years you have been in service of God and His people. That is an impressive record and all of us in the Archdiocese are grateful to you for your priestly care." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. As of that time, did you share the Cardinal's sentiment regarding the service of [84] Paul Shanley?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form of the question.
THE WITNESS: It's difficult to go back to 1989 to understand how I saw his service. So I would say that in general I thought that Paul Shanley gave good service in the Archdiocese, that's how I would phrase it.
Q. Okay. At the time that Paul Shanley left St. Jean's in 1989, did you have concerns regarding Paul Shanley with respect to the issue of sexual misconduct or inappropriate views regarding sex?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form. I think the evidence shows he left in 1990.
Q. I'm sorry, 1990.
A. Would you -- I forget the first part of your question.
Q. Sure.
A. Did I have a concern?

Q. Yeah, when Paul Shanley left in 1990 and also as part of the discussions leading up to his leaving in 1989, did you have a concern regarding [85] Paul Shanley when it came to deviant views of sexuality or the issue of sex abuse by Paul Shanley?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form.
Go ahead.
MR. ROGERS, III: Object.
THE WITNESS: In regards to deviant views, I would say that I knew that Paul Shanley was trying to promote a more sympathetic understanding of people who were homosexual. I did not consider his views, though, to be deviant, except that we should be more receptive to people who were homosexual and more helpful and pastoral toward them. I don't think that I knew at the time that Paul would promote homosexual activity as being acceptable; as a matter of fact, he had told me that, you know, he didn't.
In terms of sexual abuse, I never suspected anything about his being involved in sexual abuse.

Q. Now, do you remember testifying at your earlier deposition regarding the Wilma Higgs' letter --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct? [86] You never viewed that letter, from the time you received it until the time that Paul Shanley left, as indicating that Paul Shanley had deviant views regarding sexuality?
A. I think it was on the occasion of that letter that prompted me -- also because I knew of his interest in helping people who were homosexual and his work with youth that he was trying to promote a pastoral care for these people, the drug users and people who were sexually active on the streets. So I never considered, though, that he would promote deviant views of sexuality.

Q. Okay. Now, the letter that we talked about -- and I'm not going to go back and replow all that ground -- however, was not directed to homosexual activity, as you recall it, correct?
A. Yes, it was addressed to homosexual activity, much of it was -- I think -- I'm going to say nine-tenths of the letter was about homosexual statements he had made attributed to him.

Q. If I could finish the question, then it may be easier.
A. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were [87] finished.

Q. Was not directed to homosexual activity exclusively, was what I was about to get to, Bishop, sorry; it also pertained to what I think we all agreed upon at the time was deviant views regarding sex between men and boys, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And is that -- is it fair to say that that portion of the letter was not something that you carried with you from the time that you read the letter forward?
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form. You mean physically or --

Q. Carried it in your mind.
A. No, because I think at the time he satisfied my understanding of what he meant.

Q. Okay.
A. And that it was about -- that he was working with boys who were prostituting themselves on the streets and that he was concerned about them and that they were soliciting sexual favors from men. And so, as I recall, that was his explanation so I -- [88] that's how I understood it. So I didn't see it as being his endorsing a deviant, you know, view.

Q. Okay. If I could ask you to go back to the Higgs' letter just for a second, which is --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: So we are going to plow -- replow some of that ground?

MR. SHERMAN: We're going to replow some.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I question whether this would be a good time -- it's 12:00 now -- for a five minute break or do you want to --

MR. SHERMAN: Yeah, that's fine.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: I'd be happy to take one at your and the Bishop's convenience.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I'd like to take one every hour.
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah, that's fine.

MR. MIELKE: We're going off the record. It's 12:01.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record. It is 12:15. [89]

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, showing you again Exhibit 14 and directing your attention to what is the fourth paragraph that begins "When adults have sex with children," do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When you received that letter, there was no qualification to your understanding in the letter that, as was being reported byWilma Higgs, Paul Shanley was qualifying his statement with respect to street kids, is that correct?
A. There's nothing in the letter that says that.

Q. Okay. And then you spoke toPaul Shanley regarding the letter, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you raised specifically the statement in that paragraph, is that correct?
A. That's my recollection, yes.

Q. Okay. And what did he tell you?
A. My recollection is that he and I had a conversation about his working with street kids in Boston and that these kids were prostituting [90] themselves and that they seducing men and that he wanted -- and so his work was with them to stop them doing this.

Q. And you accepted that explanation as being satisfactory to allay any concerns that were expressed by Wilma Higgs?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, since the Higgs' letter in 1985 up until the time Paul Shanley left in 1990, was there any other information that came to your attention regarding Paul Shanley and his views of deviant sexuality? And I'm not talking about homosexuality; I'm talking about sex abuse or sex between men and boys or actual charges of sex abuse, was there any other information that came to your attention between '85 and '89 --
A. Not to my --

Q. -- '85 and '90, sorry?
A. No, no.

Q. Okay. Prior to the break I asked you some questions in 1993 regarding a meeting that took place -- that was alleged to have taken place involving the Newbergers and yourself and Cardinal [91] Law. Do you remember that topic?
A. Yes.

Q. And I asked you and I read to you a series of statements as to what had transpired in those -- in that meeting and asked you if it refreshed your recollection of having attended the meeting. Do you remember that?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form, okay.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I remember that.

Q. I just want to clarify for the record. Am I correct that it's your position that the criticisms that I had read to you or recommendations that I had read to you were not communicated to you in any other form, either by writing or orally, as opposed to being at a meeting, at any other time, is that --
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That is not what I said.

Q. I'm sorry.
A. I said I don't remember the meeting, I don't remember being at that meeting. [92]

Q. Okay. Do you remember any criticisms of the way the Archdiocese was handling charges of sex abuse being made by either the Newbergers or by the Nadelsons being communicated to you in any other form?
A. I don't --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Other than in your questions earlier?
Q. Other than in my questions earlier.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form.
But go ahead.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't recall that.

Q. When you say you don't recall, you have no memory one way or another, is that your testimony?
A. No memory that they were making those observations about the Archdiocese and what it is doing.

Q. Okay. So their observations regarding the Archdiocese and their recommendations were not -- you don't have any -- strike that. Let me ask it again.
You have no recollection that their observations and their recommendations were ever [93] communicated to you either at a meeting, in a letter, orally or in any other form at any other time, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I don't recall the observations that you mentioned as being communicated to me, I don't recall. What I do remember is that there was a couple -- and it seems like the name of the first couple -- were offered to help the Archdiocese in its area of sexual abuse, that they thought they had knowledge that could be beneficial.

Q. Okay. And when you say the first couple, you're talking about the Newbergers sounds familiar?
A. I think so, that sounds familiar, but I'm not sure.

Q. And what you remember only is the invitation on their part to be helpful to the Archdiocese; you don't remember any substantive comments, critiques or recommendations, is that correct?
A. Right, I don't. [94]

Q. Do you remember who that invitation was received by?
A. No.

Q. Do you know whether it was sent to you?
A. No, I don't know -- I don't think it was sent to me.

Q. Okay. How do you remember hearing about it?
A. I remember hearing about it, that's all I remember.

Q. You have no recollection as to who you heard about it from?
A. No.

Q. Do you recall whether you actually -- whether that invitation came in the form of a writing of some sort?
A. That's my recollection, that it came in the form of a letter.

Q. Okay. And beyond that you have no memory whatsoever, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And let me just ask you specifically, do you recall whether you heard about [95] that directly from the Cardinal?
A. About the --

Q. Invitation from the Newbergers.
A. Honestly, I don't recall.

Q. Okay. And does that exhaust your memory on that topic of an invitation of the Newbergers --
A. Yes.
Q. -- invitation by the Newbergers?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.

MR. SHERMAN: May I have this marked as the next exhibit, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 36 was marked for identification.)

Q. And if you'd take a moment and read that to yourself, please.
A. (Witness complies.) Okay.

Q. Bishop, is it fair to say that between December 7th, 1989, which was the date of the last exhibit, and December 22nd, 1989, which is the date of this exhibit, you did have a conversation with the Cardinal regarding Bishop Shanley -- I'm sorry, [96] regarding Father Shanley's leaving St. Jean's?
A. I don't know. No, I don't recall a conversation about Father Shanley leaving St. Jean's.

Q. Do you see in the last paragraph the Cardinal writes "I have asked Father McCormack to see you as quickly as possible after you call as I know that these matters are important to you in regard to your plans for the days and weeks ahead."
A. Uh-huh, right.

Q. Do you see that? Does that indicate to you that indeed you did have some communication with the Cardinal regarding Father Shanley's leaving St. Jean's?
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My sense is that he could have talked to me or he could have given this to the Vicar for Administration to bring to my attention to deal with.

Q. Okay. So that statement in the letter would not mean to you that you had direct communication with the Cardinal, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Do you recall having [97] communication with anybody, either the Vicar for Administration or anyone else, regarding Paul Shanley's leaving between December 7th, 1989 and December 22nd, 1989?
A. I don't recall, but I assume that, you know, when I received a copy of this letter that it would prompt me to seek further information.

Q. Okay. When you got the letter that says that Paul Shanley should be in touch with you immediately after Christmas so he can address with you some of the details, do you know what details this letter refers to?
A. Do I know now or do I know -- did I know then?

Q. Well, let me ask you both. Let me ask back then, did you know back then what details were being referred to?
A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay.
A. So that -- so that I would have had to ask questions.

Q. Okay. And do you know now what details were being referred to? [98]
A. Yes, they were about his arrangements about where he would be and go.

Q. Okay. And what did you do to follow up with respect to finalizing those details or finalizing those arrangements?
A. Specifically, I don't recall; I know the outcome, but I don't know what I did.

Q. Okay. And what do you know the outcome to be?
A. That he moved to California and that he lived in a rectory and that we paid the rectory for his board and room and we gave him a monthly stipend, and then later on he began to assist in a parish there and he asked for permission and a letter of recommendation to do that and Bishop Banks eventually sometime sent a letter of -- about that, and then the outcome was is that I then learned more and more about what Paul's health issues were.

Q. Okay. Was anything about his -- the arrangements being made for him to go to California and his living arrangements something other than standard and customary practice within the Archdiocese at this time? I guess what I'm asking [99] you is was there anything special about those arrangements?
A. It would be unusual for a priest to leave the diocese and to go to another diocese because of his health problems, and it would be -- it was kind of an open-ended sick leave, I think, or eventually it was worked out to be for a year or something like that, but there was something that -- there was a lack of clarity about what was to be accomplished during this leave, you know, what his health issues really were, but they became more and more apparent.

Q. Okay. Did -- were you the person that permitted or approved Paul Shanley's going to California?
A. No. See, I wouldn't approve it; I think the Cardinal approved it. I think Paul Shanley requested it because of his asthma.

Q. And that request was made to you?
A. I don't know; I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Do you recall having discussions with Paul Shanley regarding his going to California?
A. No. [100]

Q. So --
A. I probably -- I might have, but I don't recall.

Q. You don't have a recollection one way or another, in other words?
A. The only recollection I might have -- I have of his being in California is where he was going to live, I remember discussing that with him.

Q. Okay. Were there -- you had been Secretary of Ministerial Personnel now for approximately five years, a little short of five years, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you said before that it was not the norm for a priest going on medical leave to be allowed to leave the Archdiocese, is that correct?
A. I don't think the question is "allowed to leave"; that wasn't the norm for a priest when he was on sick leave. He probably would live at home or he would live in a rectory or he -- but the idea of going to California was unusual.

Q. And why was the decision made thatPaul Shanley should be allowed to go out of the [101] Archdiocese and specifically go to California?
A. I'm not sure of that, but my sense is one reason was because of his asthma.

Q. Would it have been normal and customary practice at the time within the Archdiocese that if a priest were, such as Paul Shanley, were saying that he needed to go to California because of his asthma to get a medical opinion as to whether California would be a suitable environment for somebody with asthma?
A. Sometimes you might do that, yes, sometimes you would.

Q. And you don't know whether that was done in this case or not?
A. I know that there was conversations with the doctor about his health problems. I'm not sure when those conversations took place, whether they were here or while he was out there, but I remember there was conversations about what his health was.

Q. But you are sure that you were not the one that made the decision regarding Paul Shanley going to California, is that correct? [102]
A. I do not recall making a decision that Paul Shanley go to California; I recall discussing with him where he would live in California. My sense is he needed permission from the Cardinal to go there.

Q. Okay. When the Cardinal said in his December 22nd, 1989 letter that he would leave it to Paul Shanley and to you to work out the details, was it your understanding that the decision to go to California was already being -- had already been made and that that was not a detail that needed to be worked out?
A. I don't know.

Q. No recollection one way or another?
A. (Witness shakes head.)
Q. Would it have been normal in --
MR. ROGERS, III: Verbalize the last question, Bishop.
Q. I'm sorry.
MR. ROGERS, III: You shook your head no.
THE WITNESS: Oh, excuse me, my answer is no to that question. [103]
MR. ROGERS, III: You need to verbalize your answer.

Q. Okay. Would it have been normal, in your capacity as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, to be the one to work out with the priest where the priest would serve during the time of his sick leave or where the priest would be during the time of his sick leave?
A. If I was the one involved, like in this instance, I would be the one who would be conversing with him about where he would live --
Q. Okay.
A. -- during the time of his sick leave.

Q. When I say leave -- live, I'm not talking about whether a rectory or private residence; I'm talking about location in the United States.
A. Sure, that would be part of it, yeah.

Q. Okay. But you don't recall having any of these discussions with Paul Shanley at this time?
A. Well, at some point I did because I discussed with him where he would live, but now who gave him permission to go to California and who recommended that and who did -- I don't remember, but [104] what I do recall is that that was the decision to allow him to do this.

Q. Okay. Is it fair to say -- do you know whether Shanley's request, Father Shanley's request to leave the diocese, was favorably received by officials at the Archdiocese because, frankly, people wanted to get him out of the Archdiocese?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form.
THE WITNESS: I can't say that, no.

Q. Do you have any knowledge of that -- is your answer to that question no?
A. No.

Q. Let me rephrase the question. I'm sorry, I'm being confusing. Is your answer to that question no or you don't know?
A. I don't know; I never heard that.

Q. Okay. So that's something that at the time was not something that was spoken about, not something that was said, words to the effect that "Good, let's get him out of our hair" or words to connote that kind of -- [105]
A. That was never voiced to me.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection.

Q. And that was not your sentiment, either?
A. He wasn't in my hair at the time so I don't think that was my sentiment. I was concerned about, you know, his leaving and his illness and I had some, you know, concerns about what it was that prompted him to, you know, resign a parish and his health problems and going to California, but they weren't serious concerns; they were just concerns about what is it about Paul Shanley that isn't working well.

Q. And when you say "working well," in what regard do you mean working well?
A. That his health issues appeared to be debilitating and --

Q. Okay. And when you refer to --
A. -- that would be a normal concern I would have for a priest.

Q. Okay. And when you say his health issues, you're talking strictly about his asthma?
A. At the time, that's what I knew was his [106] asthma, yes.

Q. Okay. Was Paul Shanley complaining to you about his asthma prior to this exchange of correspondence that begins in 1989?
A. I don't recall that, no, not at all.

Q. Okay. Did you hear from others thatPaul Shanley was complaining that his asthma had become a debilitating condition?
A. No.

Q. Then why did you have a concern? Where did -- or let me rephrase that.
Where did your concern come from that Paul Shanley's asthma was a debilitating condition as of 1989?
A. My recollection is that I learned it at the time when he and I were working out the details of what would happen to him as a result of his taking a medical leave.

Q. And it's my understanding that with respect to permitting or allowing a priest to go outside of the diocese, that would have been the Cardinal's decision, is that correct?
A. Yes. [107]

Q. Okay. Your role in doing something like that under ordinary practice would be to make a recommendation to the Cardinal, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And do you know -- and am I correct you don't recall whether you made a recommendation or didn't make a recommendation in this situation?
A. I don't recall making a recommendation, but I do recall the conversation about where he would live, and I think that at some point that became part of the conversation, and the conversation is that he would not live on his own, that he would live in a rectory.

Q. Okay. And that conversation was with him whom?
A. Again, I don't recall with whom it was, but I'm going to say it was either with Bishop Banks or the Cardinal.

Q. Okay. And that's all you can recall about your role in the -- in working out the details of Father Shanley's move to -- Father Shanley's sick leave?
A. Yeah, that's what I remember, yeah -- [108] yes.

Q. Okay. Were there other priests that were -- that you recommended be allowed to leave the diocese on sick leave and go to California?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: At any time?
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.

Q. During the time that you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel.
A. I'm not clear whether I recommended that or Father John White be given permission to go to California or whether he was given permission and then I was asked to look after him. He went to California to work in a hospital as a chaplain.

Q. And Jack White going to California, that was also a sick leave situation?
A. No, to my knowledge he went out there to work as a hospital chaplain. I'm not sure -- yeah, I don't recall whether he was -- he wouldn't be on sick leave. Now, why he went out there to work and why he was given permission, I don't recall, but --

Q. Okay. Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier question. Can you recall any other time, [109] during the time that you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, where a priest was permitted, a priest on sick leave, was permitted to go to California and serve his sick leave?
A. No.

Q. Shanley was the only one?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you remember any other time that a priest on sick leave was allowed to go, let's say, west of the Mississippi and serve his sick leave?
A. I don't recall.

Q. One way or another?
A. I don't recall a priest going west of the Mississippi, but I know some priests, when they were on sick leave, might go to Florida or might go to, you know, some other part of the country where the weather was, what, more comfortable --

Q. Okay.
A. -- you know, during his sick leave.

Q. And you don't know how the decision was made -- strike that.
And you remember -- but you do remember [110] the issue of California being chosen because ofPaul Shanley's asthma?
A. That's my understanding, he was given permission to go to that area of California,San Bernardino, because it was a dry climate and that would be okay for his asthma.

Q. Okay. And you don't know -- you don't remember where you got that understanding from?
A. I don't recall, no.

MR. SHERMAN: Have that marked, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 37 was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Okay.
Q. Had a chance to read that memo?
A. I read the memo, yes.

Q. Do you recognize that memo, Bishop McCormack?
A. Do I recognize it? No, but I see that my name is on it, though.

Q. Okay. Fair to state that -- or you don't have any reason to believe that this is anything other than a memo that you sent to Father McCarthy -- Father McCarthy at the time was the head [111] of the office of Clergy Personnel, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. -- on February 6th, 1990, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, in your numbered paragraphs a.1 and a.2 you seem to draw a distinction between medical leave and sick leave, is that fair to say?
A. I don't think -- you know, as I said before, I don't make a distinction so that I was just using both terms.

Q. Well, let me read a.1. "His Eminence told Father Shanley he could have a medical leave." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. A.2, "I told him it would be a sick leave and said that he would receive" 600 monthly -- "$600 monthly and the diocese would take care of his room and board."
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You seem to have set forth the difference in terms specifically as opposed to just talking about -- strike that. [112] What was the purpose of the first 10 words in a.2 if it wasn't to draw a distinction between the term medical leave and sick leave?
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Again, probably it refers to the fact that the Cardinal used the word medical leave and the common term was sick leave. So I think I was bringing out the fact that it was a sick leave and that the stipend for sick leave was $600 monthly.

Q. Is it -- is the fact that sick leave and medical leave, terms that are synonymous, something that's your understanding of the term? In other words, what I'm asking is is it possible that others within the Archdiocese at the time would have a different understanding of the terms medical leave and sick leave?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My understanding is that most people -- all people I can't say, but the general understanding is that sick leave and medical leave is the same thing. [113]

Q. Okay. So it's not how you interpreted them --
A. No.

Q. -- that that was the way the terms were used by anybody would be the same?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall Father Shanley wanting to use the term sabbatical to describe his leave?
A. I don't recall it, but I see that I wrote it.

Q. Okay. Do you recall having any conversations with Father Shanley as to why he would want to use the term sabbatical?
A. I don't recall, no.

Q. Sabbatical implies that he's going to be returning, does it not?
A. Yes.

Q. The term implies --
A. No, sabbatical implies that he's taking some time for refreshment, renewal, even probably some time for study. It's a different term than sick [114] leave, which is for -- to renew one's physical or emotional health; this is to improve -- a sabbatical is to improve, enrich.

Q. Okay. And would it have been the practice of the Archdiocese at the time that when a priest went on sick leave, at the end of his sick leave, he would be expected to return to the Archdiocese and serve in some capacity within the Archdiocese?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Would the same be true for a priest taking a sabbatical?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So either way is it fair to say that at the time that you wrote this memo in February of 1999 it was your expectation that Paul Shanley would be gone for a defined period of time and that he would return in some capacity to the Archdiocese of Boston and serve within the Archdiocese?
A. It would be more that his sick leave was for a certain period of time and that it would be reviewed at that -- prior to the end of that time whether his sick leave should continue or not. [115]

Q. Okay. Do you remember whether you voiced any objection to his use of the term sabbatical?
A. I think -- I don't remember; my sense is is that number b.1, in some way or other, I wanted him to be clear that it was sick leave he was on and not sabbatical. It would be -- it's just a totally different arrangement.

Q. And, again, with all of these Bishop, as you've been doing, if you could take a moment to read them to yourself and I'll wait for you to indicate to me that you've done so.
A. Okay. Thank you.

(McCormack Exhibit 38 was marked for identification.)
THE WITNESS: I finished reading.

Q. Thank you, Bishop.
Now, Bishop, if I understood your testimony earlier, you said you understood that the reasons that Paul Shanley wanted to leave St. Jean's were twofold -- and, again, if I'm not correct, please correct -- please correct me -- one was for health reasons, and two, because he had a problem [116] taking the oath, is that -- did I understand that correctly?
A. No, you didn't.

Q. Okay.
A. He left for health reasons.

Q. Yeah.
A. And at the time this controversy was going on about his inability to be receptive to this new requirement of Rome for people who were being assigned as a pastor or reassigned.

Q. Okay. So --
A. So it was never stated, though, as the reason why he left St. Jean's.

Q. Okay. So the issue of taking the oath was not causally related to his leaving St. Jean's, as you understood it?
A. I was not told -- that's right, I was not told that, yeah.

Q. Okay. Now, in the first paragraph in Exhibit 38, you, again, refer to his intention to take -- and you call it a medical leave at this point, and, again, it's because you used the term synonymously, is that correct? [117]
A. Correct.

Q. And you talk about a period of one year, and I believe actually in the last exhibit, which would have been 37, you were -- you referenced in your point b.2 that the leave would end either at the end of the calendar year or January 22nd, 1991, which would be the one year anniversary of when he left St. Jean's, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now, in the second paragraph, you speak of the fact that he's grateful to the Cardinal for his understanding and patience, and you state "He hopes that the year will provide him the opportunity to get better and return to ministry here as a parochial vicar." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. As a parochial vicar, would he have been required to take the oath?
A. No.

Q. Okay. What is the position of a parochial vicar?
A. He is an assistant to the pastor in the pastoral ministry of the diocese -- [118]

Q. Okay.
A. -- of the parish.

Q. Okay. In the next paragraph you talk about the fact that it would be expected that he would live in a rectory or a religious house and that his status would that be of sick leave receiving six to $700 monthly, "he was a bit surprised that he was not supposed to be arranging matters on his own." What was the -- what was your understanding of what his surprise had to do with?
A. I don't have a remembrance, but as I read the paragraph he had some assumption, in his conversation with the Cardinal, that he could arrange matters on his own.

Q. And when you say "arrange matters on his own," you mean live wherever he wanted, is that what "arrange matters on his own" means?
A. I'm not clear, but I would read that into it.

Q. Okay. Well, this is your memo so I'm trying to go to your memory.
A. And I'm not clear, yeah, I'm not clear what he meant by that. It could have been a lot of [119] other matters, too.

Q. Would that, again, have been normal for a priest going on sick leave, normal and customary, that that priest be allowed to just live on his own with the Archdiocese paying for it?
A. No.

Q. As a matter of fact, the normal and customary process would be what is reflected in your paragraph, that he would live in a rectory or other religious institution, correct?
A. Or in a place approved by the Bishop. So that it could be -- he could, you know, live with his sister who's in California or his brother in California, and if the diocese -- the Bishop was willing to accept that, he could. So that it doesn't have to be a religious house or parish.

Q. Okay. Was the reason for wanting a priest to live in a rectory or with a family member, something like that, a cost issue?
A. No, it wasn't with me. I was -- I was concerned that he live in a situation where he would have support.

Q. Okay. And when you're talking about -- [120]
A. Social support.

Q. Okay. And let me arrange that. When you say "he," again, you're referring to Paul Shanley now?
A. Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. And when you're talking about that he have social support, in what context are you talking about social support? In other words, I know you have a degree in social work, but for --
A. By "social support," I mean that he be living with some other priest that he could be supportive to him, that he wouldn't go out there and be isolated.

Q. What was your fear at the time that would come from his being isolated?
A. It's not healthy for a priest to -- I think in his situation, as I -- and I can't give the -- my reading was that he should be living with somebody; he shouldn't be on his own. It wouldn't be healthy for him to live on his own.

Q. Well, as far as you knew at the time, at least as I understood your prior testimony, that your sole understanding of why Paul Shanley was going [121] out to San Bernardino was to overcome the effects of asthma?
A. Correct.

Q. How did whether -- how did the fact that he needed to live with somebody help him overcome the effects of asthma?
A. It wasn't related to the asthma; it was related to him as a person.

Q. And what did you know about him as a person at the time that made you think that it was important for him to have those, as you call them, social supports?
A. My sense is that -- my remembrance is I did not know anything as a person that he needed social supports. My sense was -- is that, from my conversations with him, that he needed social supports.

Q. Could he have got gotten those social supports from living with Father Jack White?
A. I didn't think Jack White would be helpful to him, and I'm not sure that he wanted to live with him.

Q. Okay. Why was it that Jack White [122] wouldn't be helpful to him?
A. Because Jack was depressed.

Q. Okay. And in the next paragraph you said "In our discussion, it was agreed he would not be living with Reverend Jack White who is on sick leave and living on his own in Palm Springs," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that?
Now, Jack -- you go on to say "Up to a year and a half year ago John" -- I may have said Jack White before but it's John -- "John had been assigned to hospital ministry by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles." That's what you referred to earlier, and you thought he went out there to work in a hospital, is that correct?
A. Yes, yes.

Q. And it was only after he went out there that he ended up going on sick leave, is that the chronology of events with respect to Father White?
A. Yes, that's my understanding.

Q. Okay. Who was the one that permitted Father White to go on sick leave, would that have [123] been the Cardinal here or would it have been the Bishop out there?
A. The Cardinal in Boston.

Q. Okay. And were you involved in that decision?
A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you recall whether you made a recommendation with respect to Father White?
A. About being on sick leave?

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

Q. Was it -- would it have been normal and customary, with respect to Father White, for you to be the one that was involved in the details of administering his sick leave?
A. In 1990?

Q. Yeah, at that time.
A. I'm just trying to think. It could have been me or it could have been the Clergy Personnel office in conversation with the Cardinal, Bishop Banks.

Q. Fair to say that somebody that's suffering from depression probably needs strong [124] social supports as well?
A. Yes.

Q. Were you concerned that Father White was living on his own in California?
A. Yes.

Q. And was that something that you had expressed?
A. Eventually I think I did. I think I was concerned about both he and Father Shanley being out there on their own; I thought it wasn't healthy.

Q. And, again, emotionally healthy is what you're talking about?
A. Every way, oh, emotionally, socially, spiritually. I think humanly speaking they were not, to use a common term, in good space.

Q. Were there any conversations that you had had at this time -- and "this time" being around January 2nd, 1990 -- with Father Shanley which influenced your conclusion that Father Shanley needed to be in a place with, as you put it, social supports?
A. I'm not clear what you're asking.

Q. Did the -- was the determination that [125] you made that Father Shanley needed to be in an environment where he had good social supports something that you generally applied and he just happened to be somebody that was out there that you were applying it to, or had you had personal conversations with him in which you drew a conclusion that that would be important for Paul Shanley specifically?
A. My sense is that the Cardinal liked men who were not assigned in the diocese to live in a religious house or a rectory, that was a general principle; there were always exceptions. And I think in this instance my sense was that it would be under that umbrella of the Cardinal's desire but also from my own sense of Paul Shanley and his state of mind or his state of well-being that he needed some kind of support.

Q. Okay. And, again, I want to get into what was it about his state of mind that gave you that belief or that feeling?
A. My sense is that he was kind of agitated, he wasn't happy, he wasn't feeling good, and so I just thought that this man should not be on [126] his own; he needs -- he should be in a place where he could use himself, where he could get a sense of who he was and not just go off and be by himself.

Q. So it's fair to say you saw some potential emotional difficulties that he was experiencing at the time?
A. Mm-mmm, yes.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. Okay. Did you make a recommendation at any point in time or -- strike that.
Did you make a recommendation at this time, around January 2nd, 1990, that psychological or psychiatric help be available to him or recommend to him that he get psychological or psychiatric help?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form.
THE WITNESS: At this time I'm not sure that I felt he needed psychiatric help; I just felt that he needed, you know, a healthy environment.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Would this be an appropriate time to break for lunch?
MR. SHERMAN: We can do it.
MR. MIELKE: We're going off the [127] record. It's 1:03.

(Luncheon recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record. It is 2:05.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Good afternoon, Bishop.
A. Good afternoon.

Q. Bishop, we were discussing Exhibit 38 when we last left, and we were talking a little bit prior to the lunch break regarding Father John White. At the time that Father John White was out in California, were there allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made against him to your knowledge?
A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Have you become aware at any time of allegations of sexual misconduct that have been made against Father John White?
A. No.

Q. Okay. We were talking also about the use of the term sick leave or medical leave, and I under