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 understand -- and when I use it from now on, I will use it as you do, synonymously. In other words, if I [128] say sick leave I mean either.
A. Right.

Q. And am I correct that back during the time that you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel -- and if there was a difference after you became the delegate, please tell me -- the use of the term sick leave applied to a priest that had medical problems, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Emotional problems, correct?
A. If he was placed on leave, yes.

Q. Yeah --
A. That's right.

Q. -- right, that's the subject.
And if a priest were accused or if it were determined that a priest had engaged in sexual misconduct and was placed on leave for sexual misconduct, that would also fall within the term sick leave, is that correct?
A. I think at first we would use the word he was on administrative leave, and I think, though, that the term sick leave could have been used to apply to his status, but there was no final [129] disposition. I think eventually it might have been that he's on leave. So that it was either administrative and then probably it would become sick leave and then eventually it would be leave, that's my recollection.

Q. Okay. And when you're talking about administrative and then sick and then leave, are you talking about that -- in terms of the time, that earlier in the '80s it was originally called administrative leave and then it became sick leave and then leave, or are you talking about at the beginning of the leave for that period it's originally called administrative leave and then called sick leave?
A. I think that we probably mixed it up. We weren't too sure how to describe this in the beginning, in the '80s and even, I think, probably even in the early '90s. And so we would use the word -- officially when I spoke to a priest we'd ask him to take administrative leave because of the allegations, and that is a -- that is a temporary leave while everything is being done.
Then we have to determine that he was [130] then to be placed -- eventually he was to be placed on leave or he was assigned to a restricted ministry. If he was placed on leave, we would use the term leave or we'd use the term sick leave, and so that was basically -- it would never be on the long-term administrative. That was for a definite period of time during the resolution of the case.

Q. Okay. So if a priest was placed on leave because of allegations of sexual misconduct, that would be, again, characterized as sick leave or leave --
A. Correct, right.

Q. -- as, you know, either or?
And likewise, if he were placed on -- in the long-term a priest were on leave for medical reasons, that could also be characterized as sick leave or leave?
A. Yes, sometimes no, it would be sick leave and then the Clergy Personnel office had a permanent sick leave. And so sometimes -- so eventually a priest who was on sick leave even that was considered to be time limited but because of some priests, of their physical condition, they would be [131] given permanent sick leave.

Q. Okay. Can you think of any --
A. Like a stroke.

Q. Can you think of any priest that was put on leave because of a determination that they had engaged in sexual misconduct, can you think of an example where it was characterized as leave as opposed to sick leave?
A. Can I think of an individual priest?

Q. Uh-huh.
A. No.

Q. So to the outside world if a priest at that time -- or if it was said that a priest was on sick leave, there would be no way of distinguishing, without asking follow-up questions, what the basis for the leave would be; it could be for sexual misconduct, it could be for emotional reasons --
A. Right.

Q. -- it could be for medical reasons, correct?
A. Right. That's why I think we started using the term that he's on leave. I think that we introduced that term so not to -- but I can't tell [132] you a priest that I recall --

Q. Well, I was going to ask you that question. Do you know when the term -- and let me use your words -- do you know when the term just plain leave was introduced?
A. No.

Q. Was that -- do you recall whether it was during your tenure as the delegate or prior to that?
A. No, I can't make the distinction; I just remember the issue and determining that, you know, saying sick leave was too broad and it really didn't reflect what was happening.

Q. There was also a term that was used for priests that were -- where there were confirmed allegations of sexual misconduct as being, quote, warehoused, is that not correct?
A. I never used that term.

Q. Never used that term?
A. I never recall -- I don't recall ever using that term. That might have come up with -- in a conversation with somebody, but that would not be a term I would say. [133]

Q. Had you ever heard that term being used to describe priests who were involved in sexual misconduct or -- I'm sorry, who were on -- let me rephrase the question.
Did you ever hear that term being used to describe priests who were placed in a certain status because of sexual misconduct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was it your understanding that the term warehoused -- strike that.
Let me ask you what was your understanding that the term warehoused referred to?
A. It was that we were marginalizing the priest, sidelining them, and that they were warehoused, they were like in storage, and it was -- so I took it as kind of a critical term of what was being done with priests.

Q. That was not an official term --
A. No.

Q. Let me finish the question, please.
A. Oh.

Q. That was not an official term of the Boston Archdiocese, that was just the slang [134] expression within the Archdiocese used by some to describe what you call the marginalization of those priests?
A. Yes.

Q. When a priest was, to use your word, marginalized in that way, what was done?
A. It was that the priest was no longer in ministry, that he couldn't function as a priest and that he wasn't allowed to present himself as a priest. And so that some people thought that we, you know, were warehousing them and that we -- and they didn't like it.

Q. Was there supervision that was required over those priests' activities?
A. Okay. Now, from my experience, okay, the idea would be if a man was taken out of ministry and no longer in ministry, he was to be assigned a living situation and eventually we began to -- he'd be assigned a mentor who would meet with him to help him adjust to this new way of living.
And we also would encourage him to not only tie into a psychotherapy -- not only encourage, we'd require him to going to some type of [135] psychotherapy. So that was often recommended by the treatment institution as a follow-up, and also we would be trying to tie him into some form of spiritual direction.

Q. Okay. And how would the mentors be assigned, where would they come from?
A. We'd ask certain men to volunteer and to understand what mentoring was. It was basically was to keep in contact with this man so that -- it was twofold; it was to help the man make the transition, and it was to help us to keep some form of oversight.
Q. And when did that mentoring program come into effect, as best you can recall?
A. I would say at the time of the policy, so January of '93 we began to develop it.

Q. Okay. If there was a priest -- and strike that.
Other than the use of the word "warehouse," is there another term that you would prefer to use for a priest that was put in this marginalization -- marginalized situation?
A. We would say that we would require him [136] to live in a structured situation.

Q. Okay. So if we could, for the purposes of this -- and I want to use a term that you're comfortable with, that's what I'm seeking to do.
A. Yeah.

Q. If we could say that, for the purposes of this, a priest living in a structured --
A. Structured life situation.

Q. -- life situation is tantamount to what in slang would be warehousing or marginalizing priests --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- that would be okay with you?
Prior to 1993 if a priest was put in that kind of structured situation, what was the oversight that was in existence of that priest's activities?
A. Well, where he was living the head of the institution -- I think initially when we did it we had assigned them to live in a rectory, to the pastor, and the men in the rectory would know. And so the structured situation was more trying to find a location where somebody could take some [137] responsibility of oversight. So it would be the head of the institution or the rectory or a person who was in charge of a program, but that would be the best oversight that we initially began to develop, and then we realized that we needed to provide more.

Q. And you realized you needed to provide more, again, at the time of the policy in 1993?
A. It became enfleshed in the policy. We might have realized it sooner, but I'm not sure; I'd have to -- but let's say -- but the policy enfleshed it, and my memory is that that's when we did some formal formation of priests to be mentors.

Q. Was it your goal or your intent, when a priest was placed in that kind of structured setting, that children be protected in the sense that he not come in contact with children?
A. Correct.

Q. And what did you do to implement that intent prior to the mentoring program, prior to 1993? In other words, what did you do to insure that a priest placed in a structured setting wouldn't have unsupervised contact with children?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: By "you," do you mean [138] Bishop McCormack individually or --
MR. SHERMAN: That's a fair comment.

Q. What I'm talking about is the Arch -- let me ask the Archdiocese -- let me ask that question with respect to the Archdiocese.
A. Let me just make sure that I understand it correctly. So that before the policy --

Q. Yes.
A. -- before we initiated mentors, what did we do to insure that we were trying to protect children from this priest? I go back to that we would inform those who were responsible for his oversight, the place where he was living, a place -- if he was in, let's say, a nursing home or a retirement home, we would inform those people, the director of the institution, and we would also try to keep in some kind of contact with the therapist. I think eventually worked out with the therapist that if the priest -- if he had learned anything about this priest having contact with children that the therapist was free to inform us. We tried to do it in those ways. We were trying to, in some way, keep tabs on his life-style. [139]

Q. Was it your understanding that a priest in that structured setting always had a therapist assigned to him?
A. Most of them if not all of them, yes. And that would be as a result of their treatment, institution where they were first treated, most of the time they always required that they be in some kind of treatment program afterwards.

Q. And if -- and did you require a therapist to provide you with regular reports on what was happening with the priest in that structured setting?
A. Eventually we did; I don't think initially we did, but eventually we did.

Q. And, again, when you say "eventually," are you talking about after the policy came into effect in 1993?
A. I can't say that. I would think that if it was enfleshed in -- I'm not sure when it was; I just know that as we went on we learned that we needed to get some kind of a report from the therapist as well.

Q. Well, would it be fair to say it was [140] close in time, if not at the time of --
A. I'd say it would be close in time.

Q. Okay. So -- and when we're saying "close in time," we're talking about close in time to when the policy came into effect?
A. That's my sense; I'm not sure, but --

Q. Now, you wouldn't always require that a priest in that kind of structured setting -- you mentioned being in a nursing home or something like that -- you, I think you testified earlier, that a priest could be living in a rectory, is that correct?
A. Initially we had put priests in rectories, yes.

Q. Was the pastor and the other priest at the church always informed of the reason that that priest was there?
A. Yes, that was the goal, yes, that was the intent and so to my knowledge, yes.

Q. And so it would have been the practice and the policy of the Archdiocese at that time to insure that all priests who were living with that priest in a structured setting would be aware of the reason why that priest was there? [141]
A. That's my -- yes, I'd say so.

Q. And, again, do you know how far back that policy and practice goes?
A. No.

Q. When you were in Salem in the late -- or in the mid '60s -- I think you were there until approximately 1968, is that --
A. '67.

Q. '67 in --
A. June of '67, something like that.

Q. And that's when you went to Boston College?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You were living in the rectory at St. James, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Were you informed of the reason why Father Birmingham was placed in St. James?
A. No.

Q. Okay. I understand he was not in a structured setting. When Father Birmingham left St. James in 1997 -- 1970, rather, to go to Lowell, what was your understanding of why Father Birmingham [142] left St. James?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: At the time?
MR. SHERMAN: At the time.
THE WITNESS: I don't know why he left St. James; I know about the report. I don't know whether he left St. James at the time of the report or before the report, I'm not sure.

Q. When you say "the report," what report are you referring to?
A. The person who reported to me that he had sexually abused his son.

Q. Okay. And -- but you knew Father Birmingham left St. James to go to Lowell at that time, correct?
A. Right, correct.

Q. You were at Catholic Charities at that time?
A. Correct.

Q. Weren't you curious to know why Father Birmingham left St. James?
A. No, that would not be, you know, unusual for a priest to be reassigned.

Q. Okay. You learned either before or [143] right after that there was an accusation against him for sexual abuse, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. At that point in time did you feel incumbent upon you to do any follow-up as to why he left St. James?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: My follow-up was not of why he left; my follow-up was as a result of the report that the father made to me that I went to the pastor to tell him, and I encouraged the man to tell the pastor -- my recollection is I told the man that he should tell the pastor, too.

Q. Did you feel -- and you're talking about the pastor at St. James, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. Did you feel it was important at the time for the pastor in Lowell to be informed of this as well?
A. My sense is -- and this goes back 40 years -- is that in those days -- [144]

Q. 30 years.
A. 30 years, was it -- 35 years.

Q. 32 and we'll call it even.
A. Okay. My sense is is that -- oh, cause it's 1970, I'm sorry, I was thinking it was '65, okay.

Q. I just was saying you're making me 10 years older than I am otherwise.
A. No, but my sense is at that time when the father came to me and reported to me and said, you know, "You should tell the pastor."
And I said "I will tell the pastor," and the pastor, who was responsible, you know, for the parish, would take responsibility for doing something about this, and in those days that's how you handled it. I wouldn't think of anything else about following it through any other way.

Q. Okay. The man that came to you, and we provided the name before --
A. Yes.

Q. -- and you remember who that is --
A. Oh, yes.

Q. Okay. -- said or has alleged that you [145] had said "It's being taken care of" when you -- when he had that conversation with you -- I believe in the actual exhibit, if you need to see it, which is Exhibit 29 in your binder, and I'll read it to you, it says he -- I'll give you a minute to find it.
A. Okay. Here it is. Yes, it is, yeah.

Q. Okay. If you take a second to look at the last three lines --
A. Yes.

Q. -- "He put his hand," he being you at that time "on my shoulder and assured me at this time the matter would be resolved." Okay. Do you remember saying words like that to this gentleman?
A. I don't remember saying those words, but I'm sure that my whole point was to reassure him. At first I was shocked, and I remember how angry and upset he was, and I'm sure that in some way he came to me about, you know, what can be done here --

Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- or what could be done. And so I assured him that I would do what I could. My sense is I also encouraged him, but it goes -- again, we're talking 32 years ago -- that he also speak with the [146] pastor.

Q. And when you said it would be your -- I think you said that your intent was that -- or that your intent was that it should be resolved, and I want to make sure I'm using your words here.
A. Yeah, I'm not sure that I would say -- I'd be surprised if I used the word it would be resolved.

Q. Tell me in your own words.
A. I would say -- well, my sense is --

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, wait a minute, what he would have said or what he did say?
Q. What you did say.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: What you did say.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what I said.

Q. Okay. And -- but your intent, as you recollect now, what was your intent back then when you were talking to him regarding, you know --
A. My intent was that this was terrible, I was surprised, I was shocked and that, you know, the pastor -- someone should know about this. And so I said "I will tell the pastor" and --

Q. Okay. And you did tell the pastor? [147]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And who was the pastor at the time?
A. My recollection, again, is it was Father Curtain.

Q. Okay. And what was the conversation again with Father Curtain?
A. I don't recall the conversation; I just recall going over there and said "This is just unbelievable news," and I remember telling him and him shaking his head. I don't recall much more, but I remember him -- again, it was -- my sense was that he was just devastated by this.

Q. Did you believe the report that was being made to you?
A. Oh, yes, yeah.

Q. Okay. You had no doubts that it was accurate?
A. I had no doubts that the father, you know, learned from his son that he was sexually molested by Father Birmingham.

Q. Okay. And this was a man that you had gone to seminary with, that being Father Birmingham, [148] correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That you had served with in St. James for a number of years?
A. Three years.

Q. Three years. Was this the first report that you had actually received regarding Father Birmingham sexually molesting a child?
A. To my knowledge -- yes, it is.

Q. Why did you believe it?
A. Because I knew the parishioner and I knew what he was saying, and there was an expression scrawled somewhere about, you know, something like "Damn Father Birmingham" or something that I had seen recently and that kind of made a connection so that's why I believed it.

Q. And when you say scrawled somewhere --
A. It was graffiti somewhere, yeah.

Q. When you say "somewhere," again, could you be specific as to what your memory is?
A. It was on a fence of a family home in Salem.

Q. A fence in a family home in Salem? [149]
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And you saw it just as you happened to go by?
A. Uh-huh, yes.

Q. You're a director of Catholic Charities at that point, you're, you know, a former priest at St. James. Did you feel that you should go into the family home and find out why that might be scrawled there or follow up?
A. I had no idea that -- I didn't have any idea that this was the family that -- I just saw this and said, you know, obviously some kid is upset with Father Birmingham.

Q. Now, shortly after this report you testified before that you recall a woman, who we've referred to as Mary McGee and you knew her by another name at the time, I believe -- do you know who I'm referring to now or do you --
A. I know who you're referring to and I think I know who it is.

Q. Okay. Why don't we -- we can write it down just to make sure.
A. Oh, no, I know the name you're [150] referring to --

Q. Okay.
A. -- and I think I know who she is, but I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. But you said, I believe, that you had a faint memory of her also coming to you regarding an allegation of sexual abuse involving her son, but this was after the man had come to you. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What do you remember about what she said to you?
A. Nothing, honestly, nothing -- I remember nothing.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. But I'm not surprised, you know, to learn that she came to me because I have this very vague memory about -- if it's the woman I'm thinking of -- of her speaking to me; other than that, I don't recall anything else.

Q. And do you remember her telling you that a group of mothers from Salem had gone to the rectory and met with somebody at the rectory [151] regarding this allegation?
A. No, I don't recall that.

Q. Do you remember her telling you that they had met with the Monsignor Jennings and that they had asked Monsignor Jennings to keep Father Birmingham away from boys, that to insure that he received psychiatric help and that the pastor in Lowell be informed, but Monsignor Jennings essentially dismissed them out of hand so then she was coming to you for help, do you remember that?
A. No, I don't recall that.

Q. Okay. You don't recall that one way or the other?
A. No.

Q. You don't deny that happened?
A. I don't deny it happened, but I just don't recall it at all.

Q. Okay. But you at least have now in your mind a second instance of sexual abuse that has been brought to your attention about Father Birmingham?
A. Right, but I never would have even thought about it until it was raised at our last time [152] that we met and the woman's testimony was given to me. That's when I said, you know, vaguely I remember that a woman might have spoken to me.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Let me stop one second; I just have a question.
MR. SHERMAN: Sure.

Q. With respect the -- to your memory with respect to Mary McGee's coming forward, did you believe her?
A. Again, you see, I don't have enough specific recall about that interaction.

Q. Is there a reason -- I'm sorry, I want to make sure you finish.
A. That's basically -- I have no specific recall about that interaction. You know, it's just that -- as I do recall the interaction with the man that we were talking about.

Q. Is there a reason why you recall that specifically and don't recall your interaction with her specifically?
A. No.

Q. Okay.
A. Except that I would say the first time [153] I heard it was so significant to me that I remember that interaction clearly.

Q. Okay. You were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel when Father Birmingham was made pastor in St. Ann's in Gloucester, is that correct?
A. Yes. I think I -- I'm not sure, no, I have to be careful about saying that. Was I?

Q. Yeah, I can tell you he was made pastor in --
MS. PILLSBURY: '85.

THE WITNESS: What time --
Q. I think it was June of '80 --
A. June. Well, I became secretary in February of '85, so.

Q. Right, and I'll represent to you that it was after that you became Secretary of Ministerial Personnel. Do you recall expressing an opinion on whether Father Birmingham was qualified to be made pastor of St. Ann's in Gloucester?
A. Did I express an opinion? I don't recall expressing an opinion, no.

Q. One way or another?
A. No. [154]

Q. You had knowledge that was given to you directly by at least two parishioners at that time, one you remembered --
A. Right.

Q. -- clearly, one you now remember, you know, less clearly, and at the time your memory may be fresh, would you agree with me about that second report?
A. Yes.

Q. You had no way of knowing, did you, at the time whether that had found its way into the files of Father Birmingham because all that you knew was a report was made to the pastor, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So you had no way of knowing whether these reported instances of Father Birmingham abusing at least two children had found its way into the files, correct?
A. I had no way of knowing, but I assumed that the pastor would have acted on that and talked with the diocesan authorities, that's what I told the pastor.

Q. At the time in 1980 -- [155]
A. So, I'm sorry --

Q. Go ahead.
A. So knowing whether it was in the file, I'm not sure, but I would have assumed that that matter was addressed with Father Birmingham when he was transferred and that when the pastor was informed about that, whether it was before or after the transfer, that it was addressed.

Q. You were a member of the personnel board upon your assuming your duties as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, correct?
A. Some time around that time, yeah, I don't think it was immediate.

Q. Okay. And do you recall whether you had a role in determining a recommendation on behalf of the board to be given as to whether Father Birmingham should be made a pastor of Gloucester?
A. No, that wouldn't be my role then. The only one who would know about Father Birmingham at that time would be the one who was responsible for the confidential file, so that would be, you know, the Vicar for Administration and the Cardinal, thinking that -- assuming that it was in his file. [156] And I'm not sure that it was in his file, as you said, but my assumption is that a step was taken at that time.

Q. Well, I guess what I'm asking is you at least would have been aware in 1985 in your capacity as secretary for ministerial personnel that Father Birmingham was up for the position of pastor atSt. Ann's in Gloucester, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you had --
A. Well, no, I was aware that he was up for the pastor; I'm not sure I was aware -- I know he was named pastor, but whether I knew he was up for it, I'm not too sure.

Q. Okay. But wouldn't it have been ordinary course that before he was named, you, as the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, would be aware of the fact that --
A. Not unless I was sitting at the board meeting and knew that his name was being discussed.

Q. And you have no recollection as to whether you were at the meeting or not?
A. No. [157]

Q. But in any event, it's fair to say that you yourself didn't take any affirmative steps prior to Father Birmingham being named pastor of St. Ann's to bring to anybody's attention or to put in the records the fact that you were aware there were at least two or that you were aware of two complaints of sexual abuse back in the 1970s that had been made directly to you?
A. I took -- the only step I remember taking is saying to Father Birmingham one time -- I think I mentioned this in my last time -- that, you know, "I know about your -- about some complaints about you in Salem," and, I said, "I'm wondering, you know, how you're handling that."
And he said that "I'm clean."

Q. Did you believe him?
A. Yes.

Q. Why?
A. Because I considered him to be an honest person at the time.

Q. Did you --
A. I wasn't as aware of the deviousness of persons who are involved in this type of behavior. [158]

Q. But when the complaint of sexual abuse was made back in 1970 that you said you believed that person, correct?
A. Right.

Q. You didn't feel obligated at that point in time to ask Father Birmingham whether it was true from what -- I think you testified from what you heard about him, particularly -- at that time you had -- you believed that that was the case?
A. I believed what the father told me should be reported, and I believed -- I believed it.

Q. But -- and do you remember -- you said you had a conversation with Father Birmingham where you asked him if he was clean. Do you remember --
A. No, I asked him -- you know, that I knew about the reports in Salem and, you know, how was he handling this, you know, what was he doing about this? I think my question was, you know, "Are you still doing this" or something?
He said "No, I'm clean."

Q. Okay. So "clean" was his word --
A. Right.

Q. -- not yours? [159]
A. Right.

Q. And do you remember that specifically being his words, or was that your term?
A. Yes, that was his words, yeah.

Q. Do you remember when that conversation took place?
A. No, I wish I could remember, but I don't.

Q. Do you remember where it took place -- well, do you remember whether he was in Lowell at that time?
A. I have to be clear that I don't remember when it took place; I wish I could.

Q. In a 30 year span between 1970 -- well, between 1970 and 1989 when he died, can you be a little more specific where that took place?
A. I wish I could, honestly, I can't. It was the interaction, I felt that I should tell him that I knew about it and that I wanted to know.

Q. Do you remember what capacity you were serving when you had that conversation?
A. No.

Q. You don't know whether you were at [160] Catholic Charities?
A. (Witness shakes head).

Q. You don't know whether you were at the Archdiocese?
A. No, honestly, I don't.

Q. Okay. You have, I believe in your testimony from the previous deposition -- I just want to point -- that should be, I think, at the beginning --
A. Uh-huh. What page?

Q. If you could take a look on page 239, Bishop, please.
A. (Witness complies.)

Q. If you could read lines ten to 18, and you can read, obviously, before or after if you want to see the context, but that's what I want to focus on for a second.
A. (Witness complies.) Okay.

Q. Do you see on line 14 the question at the time was "Did you recommend against him becoming pastor?
"Answer, I recall speaking to someone about him and wondering, you know, whether he ought [161] to be pastor."
Do you remember testifying back then that you did speak to somebody about Father Birmingham at the time he was about to become pastor at St. Ann's?
A. Well, clearly this says it was about him becoming pastor. My sense is that I had a question about him being a pastor and now this -- I kind of wondered again, you know, could he handle that responsibility.

Q. What was the question that you had about his becoming a pastor?
A. Basically, you know, whether he could handle the responsibility and knowing the background that he had, you know, was he still clean.

Q. When you say could he -- the background that he had, you're talking about allegations of sexual abuse?
A. In Salem, yeah.

Q. In Salem, okay. Were you aware at this point in time of allegations of sexual abuse against him in Lowell?
A. No. [162]

Q. Okay.
A. I wasn't aware of any other allegations.

Q. And, again, I'm going to just ask you a couple more questions and then we're going to leave this subject, but you wondered to yourself as to whether he could handle it. You testified that you were wondering about that prior to his becoming pastor.
A. That's what I'm not sure that -- I know it says here prior, but I'm not sure that that -- I can't say that.

Q. Okay. You didn't qualify it back on June 3rd, you'll agree with me on that?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you stated you wondered about whether he ought to be pastor. You're not sure when that was, and here you are in the position of Secretary of Ministerial Affairs and you have knowledge that you're not sure anybody else has, yet you kept that to yourself, is that correct?
A. Oh, no --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form [163] of the question.
THE WITNESS: -- I assumed other people had that knowledge in Salem.

Q. Why would you assume it?
A. Because I reported it to the pastor, and my assumption is at that time the pastor would take that seriously and would act on it.

Q. Okay.
A. So that he would inform the diocesan authorities as well.

Q. But, again, once you're in the Archdiocese now, once you're a cabinet level or a cabinet secretary to the Cardinal and you have that knowledge directly, why would you predicate your actions on an assumption that may or may not be true?
A. My assumption is that the church takes these things seriously. My assumption was that they took it seriously at the time. Whether I debated this with myself prior to -- talked about this prior to his being a pastor so that I knew that he was up to being named a pastor or whether it occurred after his being named a pastor, I'm not sure, but my assumption was that it was known and that it was [164] handled.
Now, whether I'm wrong in making that assumption is another thing --

Q. I'm sorry, are you finished?
A. -- is another thing, yeah.

Q. I don't want to interrupt you, so please, if I do, I apologize. I want you to be able to finish your answer.
You had access to the confidential file at that point in time of Father Birmingham, correct?
A. No.

Q. You couldn't request it from the --
A. I could request it, but I didn't.

Q. I'm sorry, let me ask it, then, this way: You could have requested from the Vicar of Administration the confidential file of Father Birmingham, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You could have assured yourself as to whether that information was in the file, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You chose not to do that, either, correct? [165]
A. I don't know that.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Object to the form of the question.
THE WITNESS: I can't say that --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Wait, I object to the form of the question. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I can't say that I chose not to. Again, I'm going to base it on the assumption that those responsible for making that assignment knew about those accusations.

Q. Who was responsible for making that assignment, then?
A. It would have been both Bishop Banks and Cardinal Law.

Q. Okay. Now, subsequently you know that Father Birmingham was removed from his ministry in Gloucester after yet another allegation of sexual abuse, correct?
A. Yes, right.

Q. He was sent to the Institute for Living, I believe, for an assessment, is that correct? [166]
A. Yes.

Q. And subsequently he was assigned to St. Bridget's in Lexington, is that correct?
A. I'm not sure of that. I know he was there, but my sense he was -- that he was living there, I didn't know he was assigned -- he was living there. I'm not sure he -- he could have been assigned as parochial vicar, I'm not sure.

Q. Well, again, this would have been in 1987 and you're Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, correct?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. And would you have a rolein that assignment of Father Birmingham at St. Ann's?
A. At St. Ann's?

Q. I'm sorry, at St. Bridget's, sorry.
A. No, no, after his -- I think his treatment -- his whole treatment and the work of Father Birmingham was handled, I think, by Bishop Banks, yes, it was, yeah.

Q. Okay. So it's your understanding thatBishop Banks, who was then the Vicar for [167] Administration, was handling everything having to do with Father Birmingham at that time and you had no role in the process, is that your testimony?
A. I don't recall having any part in his assignment; if anything, Bishop Banks might have talked to me about what was happening with Father Birmingham at the Institute for Living.

Q. Well, when Bishop -- and you have a memory of Bishop Banks having that kind of conversation with you, I take it?
A. I think so, yes.

Q. Okay. And when Bishop Banks had that conversation with you, do you remember at that time telling him that you had knowledge of prior allegations of sexual abuse against Father Birmingham going back to 1970 in St. James?
A. I don't have specific knowledge that I said that to him, but I would be surprised I didn't.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't --
A. Excuse me, I don't have a specific recollection that I said that to him, but I would be surprised that I didn't.

Q. Okay. You would be surprised if you [168] didn't is what you said?
A. Right.

Q. So it's your -- what, you don't have a specific recollection; your best recollection is that you probably informed Bishop Banks at that time of those allegations?
A. We would have talked about it. He might have already known, I don't know.

Q. Okay. And if he was -- and, again, you don't recall whether Father Birmingham was assigned as parochial vicar at St. Bridget's at the time?
A. Well, my memory is is that -- yeah, I don't know he was assigned parochial vicar, whether he was assigned to live there. I know eventually that he became sick while he was there and he died while there, but I'm not sure that he was assigned as a parochial vicar, I don't know that.

Q. Okay. And, again, wouldn't that normally be something you would be aware of --
A. No.

Q. Let me finish the question, Bishop, sorry. Isn't that something you would be aware [169] of in your capacity as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, if there was an assignment of a priest coming off of an assessment at the Institute for Living?
A. At that time, see --

Q. At that time.
A. -- I didn't have that responsibility. As Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, my job was oversight over the administrative dimensions of the offices that I was responsible for; it was not over the inner workings.
So the inner working of assigning him to St. Bridget's would be the Clergy Personnel office, the Vicar for Administration office and the Cardinal. My role in that would not be around the specific assignment of the priest as a parochial vicar.

Q. Wouldn't the assignment of a priest as parochial vicar, however, come before the personnel board of which you were a member?
A. No, not all -- no, not all the time. Remember, I think I said that, not all the time.

Q. Do you know in this -- [170]
A. It was generally pastors that came before the personnel board. Parochial vicars were usually handled outside the personnel board deliberations.

Q. So I don't recall you making that distinction this morning between pastors and other assignments of priests, but it's your testimony that the normal and customary course was that pastors came before the personnel board and other assignments of priests did not come before the personnel board?
A. In general, other assignments did not come before the personnel board, and I thought I made that distinction this morning.

Q. Okay.
A. And -- but sometimes, for one reason or another, it might come before the personnel board, but it was unusual.

Q. In that conversation that you remember with Bishop Banks, did you seek him out or did he seek you out regarding the subject of Father Birmingham?
A. I don't remember.

MR. SHERMAN: Can I suggest -- I'm done [171] with this subject. Do you want to take the break right now and then we'll switch topics and then finish up?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Fine.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Is that all right with you, Bishop?
THE WITNESS: Fine.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Why don't we take the break right now.

MR. MIELKE: We're going off the record. It's 2:55.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record. It is 2:12.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: Before you go on,Mr. Sherman --
THE WITNESS: Excuse me, three.
MR. MIELKE: 3:12.

MR. ROGERS, JR.: -- we would like to correct what I think might be a misapprehension by reason of the way you framed a question as to the complaint of a woman. You talked about the complaint [172] of the man; the complaint of the woman, and you had asked the question inferring that the complaint from this woman about Father Birmingham had to do with sexual molestation or sexual abuse or how you framed it, but that is not the Bishop's memory and I just don't want to leave the record clear and I would -- if you want to ask if he would clarify it, I just --
MR. SHERMAN: I'll give you all the opportunity.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: I wasn't following what Mr. Rogers had to say, but I'll let you clarify what you want to clarify, Bishop.
A. When, we were talking at the break, my memory is not that she complained about sexual misconduct; my memory was she was complaining about Father Birmingham, but I do not know what the complaint was and I have to be honest with you.

Q. Okay. So you don't recall what the subject matter of her complaint was?
A. No, the subject matter would be Father Birmingham; what it was -- it's so vague that I -- that's my memory at best.

Q. But did you carry in your memory [173] through the years that you had received one complaint regarding sexual misconduct of Father Birmingham --
A. One.

Q. -- or two?
A. One.

Q. That's all you carried in your mind?
A. Right.

Q. I'm sorry, you want to say --
A. As you recall, I think I said it was only when we discussed it at our last meeting that it became -- I said well, there's a vague -- I have this vague memory of a woman complaining to me and that was about it.

Q. So we're clear --
A. That's right.

Q. -- you cannot, as you sit here today, dispute the fact or dispute the fact if she were to say she came to you regarding sexual -- a complaint of sexual abuse, you don't remember one way or another what it was about, correct?
MR. ROGERS, III: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Can you rephrase that --

Q. Yeah. [174]
A. -- or repeat it?

Q. It was poorly phrased. Let me try it again. You would not be able to dispute her if she said that her complaint to you was regarding sexual abuse?
A. No, I would not dispute that.

Q. Okay. Are we all set in terms of the clarification?
A. All set.

Q. Let me move to another topic.

(McCormack Exhibit 39 was marked for identification.)
THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. Bishop, showing you Exhibit 39, in the left-hand margin there's a set of handwriting there.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize who that handwriting belongs to?
A. Yes.

Q. Whose handwriting is that?
A. Mine.

Q. Okay. And on the bottom of the page [175] there's also another set of handwriting. It looks like the words "Thanks Jack P."
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize that handwriting?
A. No, but my -- looking at his signature and that writing with the P, I assume it's his.

Q. Right. You would assume that -- his being that it would be Paul Shanley's --
A. Yes.

Q. -- at the bottom of the page?
Okay. Now, in the third paragraph Father Shanley writes to you and says "In a more recent phone call, you told me the contents of a letter to be sent, no longer to the Bishop but to the Vicar General."
A. Yes.

Q. First of all, what's the distinction between writing a letter to the Bishop as opposed to now the Vicar General, do you know?
A. Because the Vicar General would be administrating in the name of the Bishop this area of diocesan responsibility. So that's -- in some way the decision was made in conversation with the [176] diocese of San Bernardino to communicate with the Vicar General about this and not the Bishop.

Q. And as you sit here today, do you recall what the contents of the -- or your conversation with Paul Shanley regarding the contents of the letter that was going to go to the Vicar General?
A. No, I don't recall.

Q. Do you have any memory of that whatsoever?
A. No.

Q. Okay. In the next paragraph it says "No longer will the Archdiocese procure the rectory - instead I am to do that." Then in parentheses "There is no time left to accomplish that - it must wait until I get to Palm Springs." Do you know why Father Shanley was now required to make his own arrangements?
A. No.

Q. Do you have any memory with respect to that?
A. No.

Q. Now, going down to the next to last [177] paragraph it says "You agreed to send me a letter that will give me entree to rectories and assurances of my good standing - a celebret or whatever." This is a letter, I take it, that he's asking that states that he's in good standing with the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was that customary to be given to priests who were put on sick leave who were going to other locations and would be in other diocese?
A. It was a custom for many years. I'm not sure it was still a custom in 1990, but it was a custom.

Q. Okay. And why -- strike that.
It was a custom prior to 1990?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And at some point the custom was done away with?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know why?
A. Because usually you would -- no, I do not know why, I'll say that, I'll have to speculate. [178]

Q. Do you have an understanding of why the custom was done away with?
A. No.

Q. No understanding whatsoever?
A. I can speculate, but I don't have any -- there's no broad understanding; it would be my own personal understanding.

Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you what your personal understanding would be.
A. That the celebret was a card that said that this priest is in good understanding and has the faculties of the diocese or Archdiocese, and when you went abroad or when you went around the country and you wanted to celebrate mass or something, you would show that. After awhile that no longer -- that fell out of use, and so then what fell into use is that there would be a letter sent by one diocese to another diocese about the status of that priest who is, you know, traveling, who is moving. So it moved from a celebret to a letter.

Q. And I take it C E L E B R E T is pronounced celebret?
A. Celebret, yes. [179]

Q. And would it be my understanding, therefore, that the purpose of providing a letter of good standing or a celebret was to assure the diocese as to the integrity of the priest that was moving into that area?
A. Yes, that he enjoyed the faculties of his original diocese --

Q. Okay.
A. -- and a priest in good standing.

Q. Okay. And in the last paragraph of this letter Father Shanley informed you that he was at Jack White's at the time and he says "admittedly not the ideal scenario for rapid recovery."
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, all right, go ahead. I'm sorry, you haven't finished the question.

Q. Okay. Do you see the paragraph in which those phrases are contained?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: All right. I object to the form of that. I don't think it says he's at Jack White's, at the time, does it?
MR. SHERMAN: "Please write to me at Jack White's" -- [180]

Q. Let me rephrase it, okay. I was just referencing the paragraph, that's all I'm trying to do.
You see the last paragraph where there is references to writing to Father Shanley atJack White's?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that paragraph?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you know, as you sit here today, why or do you have an understanding why Father Shanley was saying that his staying on -- his staying with Jack White was admittedly not the ideal scenario for rapid recovery?
A. Do I have an understanding?

Q. Uh-huh.
A. My recollection is is that he didn't want to be living with Jack White and my reading of this paragraph is that he didn't care to be sleeping on the sofa.

Q. All right. Now, going to your marginal handwritten notes, am I correct that those notes line up with certain paragraphs of the letter, am I [181] looking at that correctly?
A. I'm not sure. I think that they relate to the letter and -- but I read it is that I telephoned Father Shanley.

Q. Okay. Maybe it would be best if you could just -- why don't you read the first section there beginning with I and, I believe, ending with the word assigned, if I'm correct.
A. Okay. "I called" and then I think I said there is "a change - you see" the change is that -- so that "you can choose" the rectory "rather than be assigned" to a rectory.

Q. Okay. And so what were those notes referring to?
A. The fact that he said his understanding was that the Cardinal would get him a rectory, and that I solicited the names of some from him and now I'm telling him that I will not choose the rectory; you choose the rectory.

Q. Okay. The next set of notes?
A. Okay. "Since he is the one who acts on this," and there's a dash there, which I think refers to that paragraph -- [182]

Q. And that would be --
A. -- which is about the Vicar General.

Q. Okay. And then the next set of notes, if you could just read what it says.
A. It says "A misunderstanding! It will pay if you do not want to do ministry because of your health," and that refers to the next paragraph -- the third to last paragraph.

Q. Okay. Where Father Shanley asserts that "No longer will the Archdiocese pay my room and board," and then it goes on from there. Am I right that the input of your marginal comments were that Paul Shanley was under a misunderstanding about that --
A. Right, correct.

Q. -- that in fact the Archdiocese willpay --
A. If he doesn't do a ministry.

Q. Right. And there's a final note which I can't read, which apparently relates to the next to the last paragraph, am I correct?
A. Yes, because, again, there's a line there so I assume that it means -- it refers to that [183] and it says "we are to meet."

Q. When you say "we are to meet," who are you referring to?
A. I'm not sure. My sense is it could be Father Shanley and myself, I'm not sure. In other words, we, in some way or other -- it also could have referred to Bishop Banks and that he would write the letter --

Q. Well, that --
A. -- but it's all speculation.

Q. I understand that, but let me go back because that leads me to the questions I was going to ask you. Was there an issue about whether a letter of good standing or a celebret would be provided, or was that not an issue at this point in time?
A. I don't think that was the issue. You see he says that "You agreed to send me a letter that will give me entree to rectories," and I'm surprised at that. I don't think that that is what would be done. I think that what would be done is that a letter would be sent to the Vicar General, and so that's what I understand would happen.

Q. Okay. So there was no question in your [184] mind as of that time that a letter of goodstanding --
A. No.

Q. Let me finish.
A. I'm sorry.

Q. Let me finish because I want to make sure I understand what you're answering here.
There was no question in your mind that a letter of good standing would indeed be sent to the Vicar General, is that correct?
A. Right, there would be a letter recommending him to the Vicar General, yes.

Q. Okay. And the only issue on that paragraph was whether or the only -- what you were taking issue with in that paragraph is the statement that "you agreed to send me a letter" versus a letter going directly to the Vicar General, is that correct?
A. Correct, uh-huh.

Q. Why did you need to have a -- do you know why you needed to have a meeting on that as opposed to just saying no, it's going to go directly to the Vicar General?
A. No, I'm not sure that that was the only [185] reason why I wrote "we are to meet," but that probably prompted it.

Q. Okay. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 40 was marked for identification.)

A. Okay.
Q. Okay. Have you had a chance to review what has now been marked as Exhibit 40, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And am I right that these are handwritten notes of yours?
A. Yes.

Q. And I think, if you look at the prior Exhibit 39 that's dated January 16th, 1990 and there's a notation on the top of the page of 1-22, referencing January 22nd, from your reading of this, does this seem to be in sequence to the past exhibit?
A. That would be my assumption.

Q. Okay. First of all, could you help me with your handwriting -- I struggle a little bit with that -- and just read into the record what -- you know, what this says starting with the top.
A. One period. [186]

Q. No, right from above.
A. I think it says "Reverend P. Shanley, personal and confidential" -- I don't know what that other word is -- "met Monday, 1-22."

Q. Okay. Stop for a minute right there. Does that indicate that you have actually met with Father Shanley on January 22nd?
A. I don't know, but -- whether I wrote that on the 22nd or whether we met on the 22nd, I'm not too sure.

Q. All right. Well, let me ask it this way, then: Does this indicate to you that you had a meeting with Father Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. And these notes would reflect what was discussed at the meeting with Father Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And would that indicate to you, from the prior exhibit, your handwritten note at the bottom "we are" --
A. -- "to meet."

Q. -- "to meet," that chances are you were referring to a meeting with Paul Shanley and these [187] are the notes of that meeting?
A. Could be, yes.

Q. Okay. If you could read the first numbered paragraph.
A. One period, "Gave one celebret, two letter of 'being in good standing,'" and I think it says two again, but it should be three, "copy of Bishop Banks' letter to Father Behan of San Bernardino introducing Father Shanley. He is on 'sick leave'. He describes it to others as a 'sabbatical' leave."

Q. Okay. And do I understand that in that paragraph you provided the celebret to Father Shanley himself?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you also provided a letter of being in good standing to Father Behan ofSan Bernardino -- or, I'm sorry, let me say -- and that you provided -- let me withdraw that.
And you provided a letter of being in good standing --
A. Yes.

Q. -- to the officials of there? [188]
A. No, I think my implication here is that -- you could read it that way, that I gave all three -- no, my reading of this is I gave a celebret, a letter of being in good standing and a copy of Bishop Banks' letter to Father Behan of San Bernardino. So I gave him three things.

Q. Why would you need to give Father Behan a celebret and a letter of good standing?
A. No, I wouldn't; those went to Shanley, the celebret and the letter of being in good standing.

Q. I see. Okay.
A. And then I also gave him a copy of the letter Bishop Banks sent to Father Behan.

Q. Okay. And, again, if I'm not understanding, wouldn't a celebret and a letter of good standing essentially accomplish the same thing?
A. I think any one of those would have accomplished the same thing except the third letter to Father Behan reinforces that the diocese, the Archdiocese, is willing to let him stay out there and serve and administrate.

Q. Before you wrote a letter of good [189] standing to officials of another diocese, was it your practice to check the files of a priest to assure yourself that there were no complaints or problems or issues that should -- that would be counter to that priest going out to that location? That's a terrible question -- let me rephrase that.
Was it your practice, prior to writing a letter of good standing, to check the files on the priest to find out if there was any information that would be inconsistent with the -- with a letter of good standing?
A. I didn't write -- my sense is I never wrote a letter saying the priest was in good standing; that would be one that would be signed by Bishop Banks or the Cardinal.
Now, whether I did in this instance, I'm not sure, but my sense is that that would have been written by the Vicar for Administration or the Cardinal. And saying that a priest is in good standing would not normally -- you would not go to the file unless you had reason, you know, to go to that file, and the fact that he was assigned as a pastor meant that he was in good standing. So it was [190] reinforcing what already was occurring within the diocese, Archdiocese.

Q. So if the information that allowed somebody to be made a pastor hypothetically was not communicated properly, that would have been carried through in the fact that a letter of good standing would issue nonetheless?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to form.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, can you repeat it?

Q. Yeah. If the information -- if there were information that was not -- that was, again -- let's take it this way: If there was information that was inconsistent with somebody being made a pastor that had not been brought to the proper attention and the person had been made a pastor, there was no check and balance in the system when somebody went outside the diocese or was assigned outside the diocese to make sure all the relevant information was gathered?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to form.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.

Q. You didn't, in any event?
A. I didn't, no. [191]

Q. Were there times that you wrote letters of good standing for signature by the Cardinal or signature by the Vicar for Administration?
A. I don't recall ever doing one.

Q. Okay. So --
A. So that if it occurred, it was by exception.

Q. Would normally before the Cardinal -- or let me rephrase that.
Before the Cardinal or the Vicar for Administration would write that letter, would it be the practice to consult with, for instance, somebody like you prior to writing that letter?
A. No.

Q. So what you're saying, as I understand it, is it was very much a routine event if somebody was a pastor the letter of good standing automatically went without either, to your knowledge, you, the Vicar of Administration or the Cardinal doing a file check on that person?
A. See, I'm not sure, they might have, but he wouldn't call me because I didn't have a file. He might call the Vicar for Administration or he might [192] call the office for Clergy Personnel about the priest, but he wouldn't call me.

Q. Okay. But in any event, what this letter reflects or what this memorandum reflects was that a letter of being in good standing was sent to San Bernardino?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Number two in the letter --
A. Excuse me, a letter of good standing was given -- see, that's what I'm not sure. It might have been given to Paul Shanley, it might have said To Whom It Might Concern --

Q. Okay.
A. -- because my sense is, from the previous letter, he was looking for rectories to stay in.

Q. A letter of good standing was issued?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Number two?
A. Two period, "He seemed reflective and concerned but yet revealed nothing when I pointed this out."

Q. Okay. Do you know what that sentence [193] refers to?
A. I don't know, but my sense is that he was calling it a sabbatical and it wasn't; it was a sick leave.

Q. Okay. Do you know why he was concerned about it being called a sick leave?
A. No.

Q. I mean I gather, Bishop, he was sick, at least according to the testimony it was your understanding the man suffered from allergies? Was there --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection.

Q. I'm sorry, asthma, asthma, I take it suffered from asthma. I think there's actually a letter document when he talks about his allergies, but anyway that he suffered from asthma.
Did you know of any reason why a man who was leaving the parish because he suffered from asthma would object to the characterization of his leave as being a sick leave?
A. Why any man?

Q. This man.
A. Why he -- no, I have no idea why he [194] objected. I don't remember why he objected.

Q. Okay. Could you read paragraph three, please.
A. "We agreed that he would not do ministry initially on arrival at San Bernardino - thus, the Archdiocese will pay room and board to the parish/institution where he lives until and if he becomes active."

Q. Okay. Was the decision that he not do ministry something that you requested of him?
A. No.

Q. Was it something that he requested?
A. Yes.

Q. And did he give you a reason why he would not do ministry?
A. Because his health was such that he thought that he would not regain his health if he was active in ministry, so he asked not to be in ministry initially. I think I was encouraging him to be in ministry so that he wouldn't get isolated.

Q. Okay. And the next paragraph?
A. Four period, "He will inform me where he will reside and the cost of room and board once he [195] arranges this. I will inform Clergy Personnel office and I will ask the Clergy Fund to make direct payment to the institution for his room and board."

Q. Okay. And the fifth numbered paragraph?
A. Five period, "He will contact me every three months to let me know how things are going. (Maureen - I should send him a note around Easter -)"

Q. Maureen being your assistant or secretary?
A. My secretary.

Q. Okay. And note around Easter would be just an Easter greeting, is that it, or was that --
A. To make sure that I was in contact with him.

Q. Okay. So it was more than an Easter greeting; it was to keep in contact?
A. Yes.

Q. And your purpose to keep in contact with him was?
A. To make sure that I knew that this didn't pass by because of my other responsibilities. I wanted to keep in contact to see how he was doing. [196]

Q. Okay. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 41 was marked for identification.)
A. Okay.

Q. Bishop, am I correct that this letter is just an administrative communication between you and Father McCarthy to make sure the systems are all in place?
A. Right, that he has the copies of all the information needed.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

(McCormack Exhibit 42 was marked for identification.)
A. Okay.

Q. Okay. And, Bishop McCormack, is it fair to say that this would be the letter of good standing that has been referred to in the previous documents?
A. I'm not sure. I think in the previous document it also refers to a letter of Bishop Banks to Father Behan. So this could be the letter of Bishop Banks but also incorporates the word he's in good standing, but I notice in the other thing that [197] this a celebret, one, two, the letter in good standing -- doesn't it say two, and a copy of Bishop Banks' letter, so --

Q. You can move back to Exhibit 40 if you need to refer to that.
A. And so I was surprised that it said two again for a copy of Banks' letter to Father Behan of San Bernardino. So my sense is that maybe those two are the same.

Q. Okay. So as you review those documents now, this would constitute, as best as you can tell, the letter of good standing --
A. Correct.

Q. -- that's referred to in your past memo?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. I'd like to direct your attention to the last paragraph of that letter, and I'd like to read -- read it. It says "His Eminence, Cardinal Law, will appreciate whatever assistance can be given to Father Shanley. If you have any questions about this matter, I will be happy to answer them. I can assure you that Father Shanley [198] has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So in the ordinary course -- first of all, would you have received, at the time this letter was sent, a copy of this letter?
A. I don't think so.

Q. You were the one that was designated by the Cardinal to handle the details, but it would not have been customary for the point person, if you will, to receive a copy of a letter such as this?
A. Not really because I would know that this would go to the Clergy Personnel office, I know that a copy would go to the -- so that if I needed a copy or something like this, I would go to them, but he might have. But to say that it was routine, I won't say that.

Q. Okay. You were familiar with letters of good standing that had been sent with respect to other priests prior to this -- to 1990, were you not?
A. No.

Q. This is the --
A. I won't say it's the first, but, no, I [199] would not see a letter of good standing. That would not come through my office normally.

Q. So you're not familiar with the document at all?
A. This one?

Q. Well, no --
A. In general?

Q. The general subject of letters in good standing.
A. No.

Q. Okay. And you have no idea, do you, what Bishop Banks would have done at that time to acquaint himself with the history of Father Shanley in order to have written the sentence "I can assure you that Father Shanley has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese"?
A. Right, I don't know what steps he would have taken to do that.

Q. Would you have just -- would you have expected that Bishop Banks would have taken certain steps to acquaint himself with the file before a letter like that would have gone out?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the [200] form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Would I have expected? I think, you know, I think some administrators would go to the file to see, and I think some other administrators say, you know, "I have not heard anything about him that I would say is, you know" -- what's the word -- "to be of concern," and so he would assume that.

Q. Well --
A. So that I'm saying it really depends on the person.

Q. Well, wouldn't it be a fair reading of this letter, Bishop, that there's a qualitative difference between what is the first sentence in this letter, which says "Reverend Paul Shanley, a priest in good standing and of the Archdiocese of Boston, was recently given a medical leave for one year by his Eminence, Cardinal Law," and the sentence "I can assure you" --
A. Right.

Q. -- "that Father Shanley has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese," there's a [201] qualitative difference between those two sentences, correct?
A. Right.

Q. Indeed, a letter of good standing doesn't need to have the second sentence about the personal assurances if it is to accomplish what you said letters of good standing were designed to accomplish before?
A. Some dioceses might ask you, though, to state something like that.

Q. And would you expect that if a diocese was asking that question that the responder to that letter would take steps to review a file and to gather information before giving those kinds of personal assurances?
A. I would --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Pardon? I would, if I received this letter, I would say that this man has in some way confirmed that there's no concern.

Q. Right. And a fair reading of the [202] letter would be that the recipient of that letter, in this case Father Behan, would have no reason whatsoever to be concerned about anything having to do with Father Shanley being assigned to his diocese in San Bernardino?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Objection to the form.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, would you just rephrase the question.

Q. Isn't it a fair reading --
A. A fair reading, okay.

Q. -- a fair reading of this letter that there would be no reason to be concerned whatsoever with the fact about anything having to do with Father Shanley being assigned to --
A. A matter of concern to the diocese, right.

Q. Right. And there's no way, going back to the first sentence -- well, let me ask it this way: Before we said that a priest could go on medical leave if there were -- and it would be called medical leave or it could be called medical leave -- if in fact there were allegations of sexual abuse [203] that had been made against that priest, correct?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object. I don't think that was the testimony.
THE WITNESS: No, I never said that.

Q. When a priest was put in a structured environment, to use that word, you said it was called sick leave, and you also said medical leave is synonymous with sick leave, correct?
A. At one time we used that but changed and said that we -- as I said, we moved into the word leave because we thought that it was the same, what really was happening.

Q. Right. But as of 1990, you were still using the word sick leave for medical leave to describe that --
A. Oh, no, I won't say that, no, we could have changed that.

Q. Okay. You don't know that one way or another?
A. No.

Q. If a diocese is concerned with protecting children and that's a priority of the diocese, would you expect that before somebody gave [204] personal assurances that a priest had no problem that would be of concern to your diocese, that at the very least the confidential file would be checked before those assurances were given?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Are we talking about a time frame here?
MR. SHERMAN: In 1990.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: All right. Object to the form. Go ahead.
We're talking about a diocese, right, that's the question?
THE WITNESS: You're saying would a diocese in 1990 check its files on a priest out of care for the protection of children --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- before saying that there was no matter of concern?

Q. What I'm saying is this -- let me rephrase the question.
If it were the policy in a diocese to protect children as of 1990, would you expect that an official representing that diocese would at least [205] check the confidential file -- and I'm talking about the Archdiocese of Boston -- check the confidential file before providing personal assurances that a priest had no problem that would be of concern to another diocese?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form. It's a hypothetical question.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, it's hypothetical. So that -- it's kind of a difficult thing to answer. I guess that if I was concerned about Paul Shanley and his background and his work with youth or relationship with youth or something like that and thought that he was a danger to youth, I would check the file.

Q. Well, let me put it to you this --
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, wait a second, have you finished your answer?
THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry.
A. But if I had no concern about him and thought that he was a priest in good standing and whoever I checked with didn't give me any indication that "You really should, you know, check out more [206] about him," I don't think that I would expect someone to go into, you know, the files to say "Well, now, is there anything more about him?" I think at that time, you know, 1990, you know, the idea that every priest or some priests could be predators, it just wasn't as much a mind set then.

Q. So in 1990 your testimony was the fact that priests could be predators was not a mind set that existed within the Archdiocese such that when somebody was giving personal assurances they would make -- somebody like the Vicar for Administration was giving personal assurance, he would check the confidential file of a priest to make sure that there was nothing --
A. Well, he --

Q. -- there was nothing of that nature in the file?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form. I think that's a mischaracterization of the testimony just given, if not a misstatement.
If you understand it and can answer it, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I'd like you to -- you [207] know, it's a long question. Can you --

Q. I'll break it down for you.
A. Yeah.

Q. I believe you said that it was not the mind set of the diocese back in -- or the Archdiocese in 1990 that priests would engage in this kind of sexual misconduct, is that a correct characterization?
A. That's not correct.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: I object to the form.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.

Q. No, I'm sorry, what did you say?
A. What I said or meant to describe was that it was not the general mind set that the sexual abuse of children was so prevalent that every priest ought to be checked out, that -- and I -- I'm talking now about 12 years later, but looking at that I think we were just breaking into that so that that wouldn't have been something where you say, you know, "We have to be careful that every priest hasn't been involved with children."

Q. Well, wouldn't it be fair to say, also, that material in the confidential file didn't just [208] relate to --
A. That's right.

Q. Let me finish the question.
-- to sexual abuse of children, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. It could be other matters of concern or other matters that would bring scandal to the church, correct?
A. It could be -- yes, it could be.

Q. Okay. So wouldn't you expect at this point that before the Vicar of Administration provides personal assurances that there -- that a priest has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese, that he would check the confidential file to make sure that there's nothing in there that would be inconsistent with that representation?
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, I object. That question has been asked and answered and I mean can't we go on. You've already asked that. It's already been answered.
MR. SHERMAN: Well, let me get this answer and then we'll move on. [209]
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Well, do you want to have him read back the last --
MR. SHERMAN: No, no, no.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: -- he answered the question already. Why are we repeating questions?

Q. Can you answer it?
A. I would say again that I would think that when he is making a recommendation about a priest he would check on him; whether he would go to the confidential file, I don't think that he'd always go to a confidential file unless he was really suspicious about the man, that he had reason to be suspicious.

Q. Okay. You said that you would expect that he would check on him, is that correct? How would he go about doing that if not going to the file?
A. He would -- he could talk with the head of Clergy Personnel, he could depend upon his own knowledge and he might, just from his own experience -- well, from his own knowledge and his own experience, but I think that he also probably would check with Clergy Personnel and he might even [210] talk to the Clergy Personnel Board or members of the Clergy Personnel Board.

Q. Okay. Would he talk with you?
A. He could have, yes.

Q. Okay. Did Bishop Banks in this case talk with you before asserting that Father Shanley had "no problem that would be a concern to your diocese"?
A. I can't say he did or that he didn't, I can't say that.

Q. And you don't know who else he might have talked to --
A. No.

Q. -- or what else he might have done?
A. I don't know how he --

Q. Okay.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: 4:00.
MR. SHERMAN: We've got 4:00.
MR. ROGERS, JR.: Yeah, okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Thank you.
THE WITNESS: You're welcome.

MR. MIELKE: We're going off the record. It is 4:01. [211]

(Deposition suspended at 4:01 p.m.) [212]

CERTIFICATE OF WITNESS

I, Bishop John B. McCormack, do hereby swear/affirm that I have read the foregoing transcript of my testimony, and further certify that it is a true and accurate record of my testimony (with the exception of the corrections listed below):

Page Line Correction

Bishop John B. McCormack
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _____________, 20____.

Notary Public/Justice of the Peace
My Commission Expires: [213]

CERTIFICATE

I, Sandra Day, a Certified ShorthandReporter and Commissioner of Deeds of the State of New Hampshire, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes of the deposition of Bishop John B. McCormack who was first duly sworn, taken at the place and on the date hereinbefore set forth.

I further certify that I am neither attorney nor counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken, and further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed in this case, nor am I financially interested in this action.

THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER.

SANDRA DAY, CSR, RPR
N.H. Certified Shorthand Reporter

No. 30 (RSA 331-B)