COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT

DEPARTMENT of the TRIAL COURT

MICV2002-822-F(Lead Case)

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

GREGORY FORD, et al

v.

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

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

PAUL W. BUSA

v.

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

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

ANTHONY DRISCOLL

v.

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

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

VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. MCCORMACK
VOLUME III



VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. McCORMACK
Deposition taken at the law offices of
Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green,
1000 Elm Street, Manchester, New Hampshire,
on Friday, September 27, 2002, commencing at
10:12 a.m.

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

APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiffs:

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
One International Place
3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110

By: Roderick MacLeish, Esq.
Courtney Pillsbury, Esq.

-and-

NEWMAN & PONSETTO
One Story Terrace
Marblehead, MA 01945

By: Jeffrey A. Newman, Esq.
(Not present.)

-and-

HALL, HESS, STEWART, MURPHY & BROWN, PA
80 Merrimack Street
Manchester, NH 03101

By: Francis G. Murphy, Esq.
(Not present.)

For the Defendants:

THE ROGERS LAW FIRM
One Union Street
Boston, MA 02108

By: Wilson D. Rogers, III, Esq.

For Bis. McCormack:

HANIFY & KING
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA

By: Timothy P. O'Neill, Esq.
(Not present.)

-and-

RATH, YOUNG and PIGNATELLI, PA
20 Trafalgar Square
Nashua, NH 03063

By: Brian T. Tucker, Esq.

For the Diocese of Manchester:
SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03105

By: Bradford E. Cook, Esq.

Also present: Rodney Ford

STIPULATIONS

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

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

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

[Exhibits]

EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:

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

MR. MIELKE: We are on the record. Today's date is September 27th. It is approximately 10:12 a.m. in the morning. We're at the office of Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green for the continued deposition of Bishop John McCormack.

EXAMINATIONBY MR. MacLEISH:

Q. Good morning, Bishop. I'm Eric MacLeish, as I think you know, and thank you again for giving us your time this morning.
MR. ROGERS: We're going to agree we're going to continue objections as before?
MR. MacLEISH: Continue objections.
MR. ROGERS: Reserve all objections except as to form and motions to strike until the time of trial.
MR. MacLEISH: Motions to strike until the time of trial.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, you may [8] recall during the first day of your testimony I asked you questions about a statement, an address that you gave to the people of New Hampshire on or about May 2nd, 2002.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall your testimony on that?
A. I recall that I gave testimony, yeah.

Q. Have you had the opportunity to review the first day of your deposition by any chance?
A. The first videotape?

Q. The first day you were deposed, yes, have you reviewed that at all?
A. I read the deposition, but I did not view the tape.

Q. Right, okay. You saw the transcript?
A. Correct.

Q. So you recall, do you not, the testimony that you gave concerning your statement to the people of New Hampshire?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Rogers, could you please show the Bishop Exhibit Number 7. [9]

Q. And Exhibit 7, Bishop, which you now have in front of you, is a copy that address, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Could you please turn to the third page if you would, please. And the first day of your deposition we went over the third page and specifically the last four paragraphs of the third page where you describe certain actions that you took with respect to Father Shanley. Do you recall that, the first day of your deposition?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And we focused on the first day on your statement in the last sentence -- second to the last sentence, concerning the Higgs' letter, that was the letter in 1985. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.

Q. And the Higgs' letter, as I think we went through it -- I don't want to go over it again, but the Higgs' letter made statements about what Paul Shanley had said in Rochester, New York not only concerning -- allegedly concerning homosexuality but also concerning children having sex with adults. Do [10] you recall --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- the Higgs' letter?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall the Higgs' letter.

Q. Okay. And in the last paragraph of Exhibit 7, page three of Exhibit 7, when you say "As I have reread that letter," you're referring there to the Higgs' letter, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you also stated in your address to the people of New Hampshire, you stated in the last two sentences -- last three sentences, "It is always the adult who bears full responsibility for that horrible act. Why I did not focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then previous to that you were describing the Higgs' letter, were you not, when you stated "I believed then and do now that sex between an adult and a minor is wrong and it's also a crime"? [11]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that would have been an interpretation of what Paul Shanley, according to Mrs. Higgs, had said out at that conference in Rochester --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know; I'd have to see the letter.

Q. Okay. Let's take a look.
A. Yeah.

Q. Let's get the letter, which is Exhibit Number -- it's Exhibit Number -- if you could show Exhibit 14 to the Bishop, please, Will.
Showing you Exhibit Number 14, you'll see in the fourth paragraph of the Higgs' letter she attributes or describes some of Paul Shanley's statements, which include in the fourth paragraph an alleged statement attributed to Paul Shanley "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. The children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison knowing that they are the [12] guilty ones," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And if you go back to your statement, Bishop, you, in your statement to the people of New Hampshire, when you stated "Why I did not focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know," you were referring, were you not, to that section of the Higgs' letter that I just read, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And during your deposition, you recall on the first day, you indicated that you had in fact spoken to Paul Shanley and received some sort of satisfactory explanation concerning that particular paragraph "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them," do you recall your testimony on that subject?
A. Yes, I recall that I testified that I did remember something like this.

Q. And you recall me asking you questions on why you did not state that in your address to the people of New Hampshire, that you had in fact spoken to Father Paul Shanley about that, is that correct?
A. Yes, I remember you asking me why I [13] didn't remember that.

Q. All right. In fact, at the time you issued the statement of May 2nd, 2002, you testified that you didn't remember that you had had that conversation with Paul Shanley; you remembered it later on, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So your statement to the people of New Hampshire of May 2nd, 2002, at least with respect to this particular paragraph, is not an accurate statement, would you agree with me about that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It was accurate at the time, but it was inaccurate as I remember.

Q. Right. So my question is have you gone back in any way to the people of New Hampshire since May 2nd or since the first day of your deposition and told them that the statement that you made to them on May 2nd in the final paragraph of page three is no longer accurate? Have you done that, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I have not.

Q. Is there any -- [14]
A. Except --

Q. Go ahead, Bishop.
A. Except in small groups when I --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- when I have been asked about this event.

Q. About the deposition?
A. No, about the Shanley letter and --

Q. Your address that's embodied onExhibit Number 7 was to all the people ofNew Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So as I understand your testimony, you have not corrected the statement in the same public way that you first got it out on May 2nd, 2002, would that be a fair statement?
A. That's a fair statement.

Q. Your address to the church and people of New Hampshire was in fact carried on a local television station here, was it not?
A. Yes, it was.

Q. That was WMUR, is that correct?
A. Correct. [15]

Q. Channel 9?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And have you gone back to anybody at WMUR and say that you now want to correct your statement that you made to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd, 2002?
A. I was interviewed by MUR afterwards. I'm not too sure whether this might have come up in the question and answer period.

Q. That was an interview in the lobby of this office building where we're --
A. No.

Q. -- taking this deposition?
A. No, it was an interview on television.

Q. Do you have a clear recollection --
A. I don't have a clear recollection.

Q. So as you sit here today, you can't state with any degree of certainty that you've corrected this statement that you made to the people of New Hampshire, is that accurate?
A. That is accurate.

Q. Okay. And you haven't taken any action since this was first pointed out to you or since it [16] first came up in the first day of your deposition, you can't recall any action that you specifically have taken, outside of speaking to people in small groups, to correct your statement, is that fair?
A. I corrected it here.

Q. You corrected it here, but you know -- you corrected it here?
A. Right.

Q. I'm talking about to the people of New Hampshire, the people that you told on May 2nd, 2002 in your words "Why I did not focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know," that statement has not been corrected in a public way --
A. Public way.

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

Q. And why has it not been corrected?
A. Because I -- we have not -- I have not thought that -- I have not made another public address to the people of New Hampshire.

Q. Well, you could make a public address, is that correct?
A. I could, right. [17]

Q. You also deliver homilies and addresses periodically as Bishop of New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Uh-huh, correct.

Q. And you've talked about the church sex abuse scandal in some of your homilies, sermons, other remarks since the first day of your deposition?
A. I've talked about it in general not specifics.

Q. Have you ever talked about it in the church where you deliver your homilies, have you ever done it there?
A. I've talked about it in varied places.

Q. Okay. And does that include church?
A. So that -- I've given homilies in churches, yes, right.

Q. And so in any of the homilies that you've given in churches since the first day of your deposition, have you taken it upon yourself to correct the statement that you now say is inaccurate that was given to the people of New Hampshire onMay 2nd, 2002?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and [18] answered.

Q. I'm talking about in homilies, Bishop.
A. I don't deal with specifics in homilies.

Q. Bishop could you turn to the next page of Exhibit Number 7, if you would, please.
A. Yes.

Q. And if I could just focus your attention -- it's the fourth page of Exhibit 7 on the middle of the page it starts "Effective onFebruary 15th of this year, I made public my decision not to assign a priest to pastoral ministry if the Diocese had a credible allegation about him regarding sexual misconduct with a minor." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then it goes on to say "As a Bishop and a Christian, I will continue to try to help priests who have committed abuse. I will pray for them. I will offer them professional assistance to gain control over their lives.
"But, be clear ----- I will not hide them." Do you see that?
A. Yes. [19]

Q. Those were your words to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd, 2002?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know a Father Roland Cote?
A. Yes.

Q. Father Roland Cote was at one point a priest assigned to a parish in Nashua, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And he was -- has subsequently transferred to Jaffrey, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you were the person who approved his transfer, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And when did you approve his transfer, Bishop?
A. In June of this year.

Q. Okay. And after you -- you approved his transfer, Bishop, as I understand it, after there had been an allegation that Roland Cote had engaged in misconduct with a minor, is that correct? [20]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And in fact that was the reason for the transfer, was it not?
A. No.

Q. Okay. He was transferred in June. When did it first come to your attention, Bishop, that there was an allegation of sexual misconduct involving a minor and Father Cote?
A. This spring.

Q. Okay. When you say "this spring," could you try to be a little more specific.
A. May I correct, the finding was that there was no sexual misconduct with a minor.

Q. Well, there was an allegation initially, was there not?
A. There was an allegation.

Q. Yes. And there was an allegation that it involved a young person, is that correct, between the ages of 15 and 16?
A. No, this is -- the person wasn't a minor.

Q. The person -- when the person came forward, the person wasn't a minor? [21]
A. No, when the misconduct took place, the person was not a minor, that was the finding.

Q. That was the finding, that it was not -- and the finding was, was it not, according -- let me back up.
Did you assign anybody to investigate what had happened with Father Cote and this person?
A. The civil authorities did the investigation and then we followed through on our own investigation.

Q. Okay. And the civil authorities, that means the police, is that correct?
A. The district attorney's office.

Q. District attorneys. Did you speak with any of the district attorneys?
A. I didn't but my delegate did.

Q. Did you receive any report from your own internal investigation into this matter?
A. Yes.

Q. And you understand that Father Cote admitted to having a sexual relationship with this person, is that correct?
A. Correct. [22]

Q. Okay. And you also understood that this person was under the age of 20, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You understood that there was some question about whether the sexual conduct had occurred when the person was either 15 or 16 years of age, is that correct?
A. I did not hear that age when I was told. I was told that the question was was he a minor and --

Q. Was he a minor?
A. -- and it was determined that he was not a minor --

Q. And did you ever --
A. -- when this occurred.

Q. Okay. You knew that he was a young individual, however, did you not, when this occurred?
A. I learned that, yes.

Q. And did you ever make any inquiry as to how young this person was when he had a sexual relationship with Father Cote?
A. We did, yes.

Q. Okay. And how old, as you sit here [23] today, how old do you believe this young person was when he had a sexual relationship with Father Cote?
A. My understanding was that it was past the age of majority -- the age of minority.

Q. Which is 16 in New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. I'm not sure of that; I thought it was 17.

Q. All right. So --
A. So that he was older than the age of minority when it took place.

Q. Well, let's -- I think the way to describe it is the age of consent, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Is that the way you described it in your internal report, the age of consent?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It wasn't my report so I can't --

Q. Your internal -- the internal investigation done by the diocese of New Hampshire.
A. The internal investigation was it was demonstrated that this person was not a minor when [24] the act occurred.

Q. All right. Well, my question is how old did you think this young person was?
A. Beyond the age of minor, probably a year or two more.

Q. Okay. So somewhere in the area of --
A. 17, 18.

Q. 17, 18.
A. Right.

Q. And this was a sexual relationship that Father Cote admitted to having with a young man that he met through his parish in Nashua, is that correct?
A. No, that's incorrect.

Q. How did he meet this young man?
A. I'm told that he picked him up as a hiker.

Q. Picked him up as a hiker, okay, in the mountains while hiking?
A. No, hiking -- thumbing in the road.

Q. Thumbing in the road. And then what is your understanding about the nature of the allegedly consensual sexual relationship that he had with this person that he picked up on the road? [25]
A. My understanding was is that at some time he approached him and made some advances --

Q. Father Cote or the young man?
A. I don't know.

Q. Did you consider this to be a serious matter, Bishop, when you were investigating?
A. Sure did, very serious.

Q. And there was some --
A. My delegate is the one who investigates it, so I want to be clear about that.

Q. Who's the delegate?
A. And the delegate makes a report to me.

Q. Who's the delegate?
A. The delegate is Father Edward Arsenault.

Q. Okay. And was there a recommendation from the delegate?
A. Yes.

Q. What was the recommendation?
A. The recommendation from the delegate was that there was no actual sexual misconduct with a minor.

Q. Because of the age of the person? [26]
A. Because of the finding by both the civil authorities and our own investigation due to his age.

Q. Which was 17 or 18, as you best understand it here today?
A. I'm going to say 17, 18 or 19, I don't know what it was. I really don't know the actual age that it was finally concluded he was because that was where the discussion was.

Q. Okay. How old is Father Cote?
A. Father Cote is, I'd say, his early 50s, late 40s, early 50s.

Q. And this was an event that occurred when, Bishop, this sexual relationship between this young person and Father Cote?
A. My memory is that it related to between 15 -- around 15 years ago, I'd say.

Q. Okay. And there was subsequently a lawsuit brought against the diocese of Manchester as a result of this incident by the young man who was picked up by Father Cote, is that correct?
A. I don't know that there was a lawsuit. He reported it to the civil authorities. [27]

Q. Well, did he make a claim against the diocese of New Hampshire?
A. And he made a claim against the --

Q. For monetary damages.
A. He didn't -- I don't know whether he made a claim, you know, whether there was a formal claim, but he did seek a settlement.

Q. He did seek a settlement. He was paid a settlement, is that correct?
A. Yes, for counseling purposes.

Q. Well, Bishop, did you see the settlement agreement?
A. No.

Q. Do you know that every money, every bit of money in that settlement agreement was for counseling purposes?
A. I'm told that that was the purpose for it --

Q. Well --
A. -- was to resolve it to help this person for counseling.

Q. He was paid money by the diocese of New Hampshire, is that correct -- [28]
MR. TUCKER: Objection.

Q. -- diocese of Manchester?
MR. TUCKER: Objection. Could I have a moment to speak with the Bishop?
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, absolutely.

MR. MIELKE: Go off the record.

(Recess.)
MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record.

MR. MacLEISH: There was a pending question. I assume you were consulting on an issue of privilege?
MR. TUCKER: Well, it's a little broader than that. Typically in these cases, if there's a settlement, there's a confidentiality agreement, and I'm led to believe in this case there was a confidentiality agreement. I don't want the Bishop to violate that agreement --
MR. MacLEISH: Okay.
MR. TUCKER: -- answering questions.
MR. MacLEISH: Fine.

MR. ROGERS: And I'd just note for the record it was a confidentiality agreement that was not requested by the diocese of Manchester; it was [29] requested by the claimant.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, let's have the Bishop's testimony on that, Will. I mean --
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. MacLEISH: I don't think we're noting that for the record.
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. MacLEISH: He doesn't have any knowledge --

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: You don't have any knowledge of what this settlement -- you didn't actually see the settlement document, Bishop, did you?
A. No, I didn't, but I am told, because a policy of ours is not to have confidentiality agreements, that's our goal and --

Q. Sure.
A. -- but when the person requested it for a serious reason, we will consent to it, and I was informed that it was for this reason that it was made confidential.

Q. Okay. I'm not going to ask you anything about the amount or the name of the person [30] involved in any way. I would ask you what the date was, approximate date was when a settlement was reached with this young person?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: And I can't remember.

Q. This spring?
A. This spring, early summer.

Q. Prior to the transfer of Father Cote to Jaffrey?
A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. But certainly you do recall that the allegations first surfaced about Father Cote while he was a priest in Nashua, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He was pastor in Nashua?
A. Yes.

Q. Which parish was he at?
A. St. Louie Gonzaga.

Q. St. Louie Gonzaga. And then after the allegations surfaced in the spring, he then is transferred by you to a parish in Jaffrey,New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct. [31]

Q. Where he's serving as pastor?
A. Yes.

Q. And have you taken any steps to inform the individuals, the parishioners at Jaffrey, about the circumstances of Mr. Cote's -- Father Cote's, admitted sexual involvement with a young person 15 years ago?
A. Yes, we have.

Q. What have you done?
A. My delegate and he worked out a statement that he would make to his parishioners that following Sunday.

Q. A statement at Jaffrey --
A. About the -- yes, at Jaffrey about the accusation.

Q. And what was the substance of that statement, Bishop?
A. That there was no finding of sexual misconduct with a minor and that he -- that he was sorry that this has been raised in this parish, that it's a matter of concern for people, that anybody has some questions about this matter that they could speak with him. [32]

Q. Did he admit that he had had a sexual relationship in this statement with this young person, who you believe may be -- I think we've gone from 16 or 17 to 18 or 19, whatever that range is, did he --
A. No, I never said 16.

Q. Okay.
A. I said 17, 18 or 19.

Q. 17, 18 or 19, fair enough, Bishop.
Did this priest, who was transferred by you after these allegations surfaced to Jaffrey, New Hampshire, did he tell his parishioners in this public statement that he had engaged 15 years ago in a sexual relationship with someone who was between the ages of 17 or 19 or words to that effect, Bishop?
A. I don't know whether he has said to that effect, but I know that he was willing, if asked, to talk about it with people --

Q. The question is --
A. -- to admit that he did. Did he make it publicly to his people? To my knowledge he didn't make it that specific.

Q. He didn't make it known that he had [33] engaged in sexual conduct with someone who was at the time 17, 18 or 19 years of age, is that correct?
A. Would you ask that question again.

Q. Sure. He didn't, to your knowledge, tell his parishioners that he'd actually engaged in sexual conduct with a 17, 18 or 19 year old young man, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You did not instruct him to tell his parishioners to admit that he had engaged in sexual conduct with a 17, 18 or 19 year old man, correct, Bishop?
A. Incorrect.

Q. You did tell him to admit to his parishioners that he had engaged in the sexual act?
A. If asked.

Q. If asked.
A. Right.

Q. But I'm talking about whether you instructed him in any way to affirmatively disclose in his --
A. Public statements.

Q. -- remarks -- well, affirmatively [34] disclose in his remarks to his parishioners that he had in fact engaged in sexual conduct with a 17, 18 or 19 year old young man?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, we did not instruct him to be that explicit.

Q. Well, did you consider it important, Bishop, that parishioners have, at the Jaffrey parish, have a full understanding and complete understanding of what had happened between Father Cote and this young person, did you consider it important?
A. I thought it was important that the parishioners know that there was an allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor, that he was investigated and that the investigations ended up that he had not had that. And so any parishioner who heard that knew that he was investigated for it and that the finding was that there was not sexual misconduct with a minor.

Q. Go ahead, Bishop.
A. And then we said to him, "However, you must be ready to talk about this if people ask you [35] about 'Well, what did happen?'"

Q. To your knowledge, did anybody ask?
A. He said he was ready and willing; whether -- to my knowledge -- I don't know whether anybody asked.

Q. Bishop, you would agree with me that Father Cote violated his priestly vows when he engaged in sexual relations with a 17, 18 or 19 year old man, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever instruct Father Cote or anyone else to disclose to the parishioners in Jaffrey that Father Cote had engaged in a violation of his priestly vows by having sex with a young person?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I think you're asking the same question only in a different way, and it was basically is that we did not instruct him to reveal specifically but told him that if ever asked he should be very upfront about what the -- what actually did happen.

Q. Okay. Bishop, you understand that [36] there was a significant age difference at the time these acts occurred between Father Cote and this -- let's call him young person, this young person who you believe was aged 17 to 19, there was a significant age difference, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider a priest --
A. I'd like to --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- be clear, I'm not sure how significant it was. By that I mean is that this person was young and Father Cote was an adult; how significant I'm not clear.

Q. Whether this person was above or beyond the age of consent -- I guess he was -- he wasn't far beyond the age of consent, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. He wasn't far beyond the age of consent; he was a young person?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't -- you know, I don't refer to it as the age of consent; I refer to it as a minor. [37]

Q. Okay. He was a young person --
A. Correct.

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

Q. Did it trouble you at all that Father Cote had admitted in engaging in a sexual act with this young person?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you discipline Father Cote in any way?
A. We have asked him to seek help and he is seeking help.

Q. And do you feel comfortable, as you sit here today, Bishop, with having Father Cote serving in a family parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire without the parishioners knowing that he'd admitted engaging in a sexual act with a young person? Do you feel comfortable with that?
A. I feel comfortable with the fact that he acknowledged that there was an investigation. So that to that point people in the parish know that someone has accused him of it. I feel comfortable with the fact that having gotten up in public and [38] spoken to his people about it, that they know that, again, he has said that he's sorry for whatever he has brought to the parish in terms of this.
And I know that if anybody wants to speak with him about this, that he is ready to admit that he did it. Do I feel comfortable with that? I feel comfortable with that with the fact that knowing his history since then that there have been no reports; and secondly, knowing that he has been required by us to seek help, that I feel comfortable about that.

Q. Sorry, I thought you said you asked him to seek help?
A. Well, we require him to.

Q. You require?
A. Yeah.

Q. My question is the parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire has adolescents and young people that are served there, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. In fact, I recall it's a parish that is a fairly active parish, the one in Jaffrey, with over -- I think it's over 100 parishioners, is that [39] correct --
A. There's more.

Q. -- that attend mass regularly? More?
A. Oh, more, yeah.

Q. 200 parishioners?
A. In the parish? Yes, several hundred.

Q. Several hundred. And have you had -- did you ever instruct that Father Cote be sent for evaluation to determine what caused him to engage in sexual conduct against his priestly vows with a young person?
A. Yes.

Q. Where was he sent?
A. The evaluation has not been completed yet.

Q. So the evaluation hasn't been completed, but you don't have any difficulty in having him serve as the pastor in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. I wouldn't say that I don't have any difficulty, but I -- one is that he did not do it with a parishioner; this was outside of parish work. Secondly, he -- it happened many, many years ago. [40]
And thirdly, the person was not a minor, and so at this point we are treating it as that he needs to be -- have an evaluation completed and determine just what his orientation is. I have this sense that Father Cote is in charge of his sexual impulses and that he lives a chaste, celibate life, and I think that he told his parishioners that.

Q. Yeah, he told his parishioners that, but what would have been the downside of giving the parishioners the full story, Bishop, that he had in fact engaged in sex, separate and apart from whether it was a minor under the law or not a minor? What would have been the downside in fully informing and you instructing either Father Cote or someone else to fully inform the parish that he'd admitted engaging in this act, this sexual act, with a young person, what would have been the downside?
A. I know that there would be a downside of a person getting up publicly before his people and being that specific, I think it would be difficult for him. But having said that, to do it in public in a parish from a pulpit, would be difficult; I think to do it in person or with groups of people, outside [41] of the church setting, would be less difficult.

Q. Well, but you never instructed him to do that; you only told him if asked he has to tell?
A. If asked, correct.

Q. But you never instructed him to meet with small groups of parishioners to tell them that he'd engaged in a sexual act with a young person, you never told him that, did you, Bishop?
A. I didn't speak with him; the delegate did so I can't say because there was a question whether he should reveal it to the pastoral counsel.

Q. Did you ever instruct that it be revealed to the pastoral counsel, the fact that he'd had admitted to having sex?
A. We discussed it; whether he has done that, I don't know because he wasn't instructed to do it.

Q. One of the downsides also would have been, if he were to admit that he was now a pastor in Jaffrey and had engaged in sexual conduct with a young person, that it could have brought scandal to the church, is that correct?
A. I don't consider that, no. [42]

Q. So just, Bishop, putting yourself in --
A. I think people are aware that this has happened.

Q. Put yourself in -- well, you think that people are aware that he admitted into engaging in a sexual act? You're not saying that, are you?
A. I think, you know, people are aware that priests have, you know, broken their vows of chastity.

Q. I'm not talking about --
A. So that it wouldn't, in terms of scandal --

Q. We're talking about a young person here; we're not talking -- we're talking about whether that person is over the age of 16 or not; we're talking about a young person, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And that makes it particularly troubling, does it not, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. And it was troubling to you when you first heard about this, correct?
A. Correct. [43]

Q. And it was troubling to you when Father Cote admitted it to you, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. It was inconsistent with his priestly vows, correct?
A. To be specific, Father Cote admitted that to the delegate first before he spoke with me.

Q. And it was troubling when you heard that, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You sent him out for an evaluation, is that correct?
A. Yes. He's still under that, he's still under that evaluation and he --

Q. Go ahead.
A. That's it.

Q. Do you have any facts that would support the notion that the parishioners of the parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, where he serves as pastor, know that he's currently in the process of receiving an evaluation, as you said earlier, to determine his, quote, orientation?
A. Well, to determine not only his [44] orientation but to determine how he handles his sexual impulses.

Q. And to determine whether he's a threat to children --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't consider him to be a threat to children.

Q. Well, put yourself, Bishop, in the position of someone in that parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire that has heard Father Cote say what you said he was instructed to say but does not hear that he admitted engaging in a sexual act with a young person, and let's assume that that person is the mother of a 14 or 15 or 16 year old child.
Can you understand that knowing that he admitted engaging in a sexual act with a 17 to 19 year old young person would be important for that parishioner to hear, as a mother of an adolescent boy, can you understand that, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [45]
THE WITNESS: I think that I want to bring home again that the incident was not with a parishioner.

Q. I understand that. Why does that make a difference?
A. It makes a big difference, I think, that a -- you know, that a person uses his office to take advantage of a parishioner is very different from a person who, on his day off, involved in sexual misconduct with a person that he picked up in an automobile is very --

Q. A 17 to 19 year old?
A. 17 to --

Q. You think there's a big difference?
A. There's a big difference in the type of activity.

Q. Okay.
A. You know, one is an activity where you have a trusted relationship with a parishioner; the other is an activity where you're away from the parish and you're off on your own and whatever was going on that day he picked up this person and engaged in a sexual activity, and I'm very concerned [46] about that, he was a young person and that he did it in that instance, but it's quite different from being with a parishioner, so.

Q. Bishop, you're a former social worker, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. There may be a difference, but you condemn both situations?
A. Correct.

Q. When someone who's a priest has a sexual relationship --
A. Both of them --

Q. Excuse me, when someone who's a priest has a sexual relationship with a 17 to 19 year old young person, regardless of whether that person is a parishioner, you condemn both types of acts, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So my question is if you -- going back to my question, Bishop, and I understand that you make this distinction, but you're not saying it's okay when it happens with someone who's not a parishioner?
A. Not at all; I'm just saying that he's [47] not a threat to parishioners.

Q. Well, Bishop, how do you know that? You don't have the clinical expertise to know that, do you? All you know is that he's --
A. Well, I'm a social worker.

Q. Well, you're not a licensed social worker, correct?
A. I'm a social worker.

Q. So you're telling me that there is some clinical literature that supports the notion that if a priest has a sexual relationship with nonparishioner that's inappropriate and wrong, he's not likely to do it with the parishioners, is that correct?
A. No, I'm not saying that.

Q. All right. So you --
A. Excuse me.

Q. Sure, go ahead.
A. What I am saying is is that a person who does it with a parishioner will do it most likely out of a trusted relationship with that parishioner.

Q. And can you cite any --
A. And -- [48]

Q. Go ahead.
A. And that's my experience, and that most people who have done it with young people have developed a trusting relationship with them and sometimes their families. This is a very different type of activity; same act, sexual act, but a very different context.

Q. Okay. But going back to my question, Bishop, and I understand the distinction that you're making --
A. Thank you.

Q. -- I'm not adopting it, but I understand you're making a distinction.
I want to go back to that mother in the parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire who has young boys aged 14 to 16. Do you think it would be important for that young mother to know that Father Cote not only had an allegation made against him that was not proven because of the age limit but that Father Cote admitted to having sexual relations with a 17 to 19 year old young person, can you see why that might be important for her to have that information?
A. And I think if she was that -- if she's [49] concerned about her children and she thinks that Father Cote, from listening to what he said about the allegation and the investigation, if she was concerned that -- he's the kind of person that you can approach and ask. I think he said -- he told them "If you have any questions about this, you may ask me."

Q. But he said --
A. So this person could go to him and she could speak to him about it, you know. So that what I'm saying is that I think he made himself quite vulnerable. You're saying he should have made himself more vulnerable.

Q. I'm not saying he should have made himself more vulnerable; I'm just asking you whether because you don't have any facts to show that he told anybody that he'd actually engaged in a sexual act, as I understand, is that correct?
A. At this point I have no facts, no.

Q. He was not instructed to --
A. But he could have.

Q. But you don't know. We only can go on what you know, Bishop. So if we just go on what you [50] know, you don't have any facts to support that, correct?
A. But I would not be surprised that he has been asked.

Q. You don't have any facts to support it, do you?
A. No.

Q. Okay. And so my question is he was under no requirement to affirmatively state that he had engaged in the sexual act, no requirement to do that, correct?
A. Yes, he agreed that if he was asked that he would admit to what happened.

Q. But not that he affirmatively disclosed it. Do you understand the distinction I'm making between --
A. You mean proactively?

Q. Yes.
A. Okay.

Q. Affirmatively, he was not told --
A. He was not told --

Q. -- affirmatively --
A. -- to be that specific. [51]

Q. Well, he was not told that he had to affirmatively disclose that he had engaged in a sexual act, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He was not instructed that he had to disclose -- go ahead.
A. Publicly.

Q. Publicly, affirmatively disclose. Do you understand what I'm saying, affirmatively disclose? It means making, as you said, a proactive statement.
A. Public statement.

Q. Public statement. Well, he wasn't told he had to -- he wasn't told he had to proactively make any affirmative disclosures even in private, only when asked, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So he wasn't told that he had to disclose to this parish that the sexual act was with someone who was between the ages of 17 and 19, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He wasn't instructed by you -- [52]
A. Publicly.

Q. Publicly. He wasn't instructed by you that he had to affirmatively disclose that the reason why this investigation did not result in a prosecution was because of the age of the victim at the time, he was not required to do that, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So, again, coming back to my question --
A. Well, no, excuse me, he was required to say that he was -- there was a criminal investigation about sexual misconduct with a minor and that it was unproven -- it was proved not to have taken place.

Q. It was proven not to have taken --
A. However --

Q. That wasn't my question.
A. But the phrasing was he -- I don't know the phrasing -- is that he was asked to say to his people that there was an allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor and that --

Q. It was not proven --
A. That's not the word, it was not proven, but -- that might be; it was not found to have [53] taken -- to be true.

Q. Not found to have take place --
MR. ROGERS: Are you going to --
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.
MR. ROGERS: -- let him finish?
MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely.

Q. I apologize, Bishop.
A. And I don't have the exact words, but the idea was that he was to admit that there was a criminal investigation about this.

Q. But my question, Bishop, was whether he was told that he had to --
A. I know your question, Mr. MacLeish.

Q. Let me finish my question.
My question, Bishop, is whether he was told by you, your delegate or anyone else to state that the reason why the criminal case did not proceed forward was because while the act had occurred there was no proof that it was below the age of consent, was he told to say that, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: He was not to say that.

Q. All right. So if you're sitting when [54] he makes this disclosure, one could have come to the conclusion that Father Cote had been exonerated in this investigation, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. One could have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons he might have been exonerated was because the victim's complaint about having sex, that specifically was found not to be credible, one could have concluded that, correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, it's possible, Bishop, is it not?
A. Possible.

Q. Bishop --
A. I think there was more said, though, to intimate that something did take place and that he was -- that he was sorry that he brought embarrassment to the parish.

Q. I'm talking about the sexual act itself, do you have any facts to indicate --
A. I have no facts; I'm telling you that it was said in such a way that it was -- it was said in such a way that he was not to give the intimation that something didn't take place. [55]

Q. But he was not told to state that the reason why the criminal prosecution didn't take place was because, even though he admitted the act, the act wasn't with someone who was a minor below the age of consent, correct --
A. Correct.

Q. -- never told to do that?
Can you understand that this sounds, Bishop, like Father Cote, when he was instructed to make this statement, disclosed some of the facts but not all of the facts that would be relevant to those parishioners, can you understand that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I understand that.

Q. And can you understand how some people might have come away believing that he did nothing wrong at all, can you understand that, Bishop?
A. It's possible, but I would be surprised.

Q. So you think everybody up in Jaffrey, New Hampshire knows that Father Cote had admitted into engaging this -- into a sexual act with a 17 to [56] 19 year old, you don't think that would be a surprise to anybody?
A. I would be surprised that -- that many people there have an idea something happened.

Q. All of them?
A. I can't say all of them, no, I can't.

Q. Bishop, how -- up here in New Hampshire, on what basis are priests transferred between parish to parish? There was a period, I think, in Boston. Is there a similar period?
A. No.

Q. There's no strict limitation on when someone has to be a pastor?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Were there plans to transferFather Cote as pastor from Nashua to Jaffrey before this young man made an allegation of sexual misconduct by Father Cote?
A. The discussions about transfers begin around February and March, so it could have been, I don't know.

Q. And your sworn testimony is the decision to transfer Father Cote had absolutely [57] nothing to do with this allegation that had surfaced?
A. No, nothing.

Q. Didn't have anything to do with it?
A. Nothing.

Q. Okay. It was -- okay. Why was Father Cote transferred?
A. Because we were merging parishes in Nashua and in Father Cote's parish we needed a priest assigned there who spoke both Spanish and French and Father Cote doesn't speak Spanish.

Q. All right. Now, as a result of our discussion here today, do you intend to do anything affirmatively to disclose to the parishioners in Jaffrey that there was an admission of sexual misconduct between a -- Father Cote and someone who was 17 or 18?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I will take it into serious consideration.

Q. Okay. Now, you talk about --
MR. ROGERS: Eric, it's 11:00.
MR. MacLEISH: Want to take a break? Sure. [58]
MR. ROGERS: Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely, yeah.

MR. MIELKE: We're going off the record.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, do you know a Father Robert Gorski?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know a Monsignor Paul Bouchard?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And they share a house, do they not, with Father Cote up in Newport, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. It's a summer camp type house, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you understand the nature of the allegations that were made against Father Cote was not just a single incident of having sex with this young man, you understand that, don't you?
A. Yes. [59]

Q. You understand that the allegations were that this young man came up to this camp that is owned by Father Cote, Father Gorski and Father Bouchard and had a series of sexual acts up there with Father Cote, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that there was in fact money paid to this young man for sexual acts by Father Cote, is that correct?
A. I don't know that.

Q. Okay. And the young man was brought up to the camp by Father Cote initially on the pretense of doing some painting work at the camp, do you understand that to be the allegation?
A. Nor do I know that.

Q. Okay. Well, have you undertaken any action to have -- to investigate whether Father Gorski or Father Bouchard were physically present when some of these sexual acts occurred in New Hampshire that were admitted to by Father Cote?
A. Yes, the delegate has spoken to them.

Q. And did they remember this young man being at the camp? [60]
A. My knowledge was -- is that they were not present when any such physical act was taking place; whether they ever met him, I don't know.

Q. But we're not just talking about one sexual act; we're talking about a series of sexual acts that Father Cote admitted to in engaging with this young man, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That occurred up at this camp that is owned by Father Cote and two other priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And do you know whether any of that information has been shared in an affirmative, public way with the parishioners at the parish in Jaffrey?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A. No, it has not.

Q. Now, do you know the name of that parish in Jaffrey where Father Cote serves as pastor?
A. Yes.

Q. What's the name of that --
A. St. Patrick.

Q. Okay. Could we go back, Bishop, to [61] Exhibit Number 7, your statement which I think is in front of you, where -- we went over this language previously -- you said "Effective on February 15th of this year, I made public my decision not to assign a priest to pastoral ministry if the Diocese had a credible allegation about him regarding sexual misconduct with a minor." Do you see those words?
A. Correct.

Q. What did you mean when you used the word "minor," when you used those words on May 2nd?
A. That the person was, you know, under age by the civil authority or the canonical authority under 18.

Q. Under age 18?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. You just testified, Bishop, that this young man was the subject of these allegations, made these allegations against Father Cote which he admitted to, may have been as young as 17, do you recall your testimony?
A. I said that there was a possibility, but I learned that he was over 18.

Q. You've now established that he was over [62] 18 at the time --
A. That he was -- yes.

Q. -- at the time these acts occurred?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you certain of that, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So he was not 17 or 18; he was 18 or 19, is that your testimony?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's my understanding, yes.

Q. I'm sorry, I thought I heard your testimony earlier to be that he could have been as young as 17?
A. Because I thought that that -- as I said, I don't -- I don't know all the specifics of the age of the minority. You said it was age 16. I'm saying no, I think it's higher than that. So then I said it must be 17 or 18, and I checked to see; it's age 18.

Q. Okay. Bishop, between now and the time that we next convene, can you discuss with your attorneys any information that you have within your [63] files that would help us identify the age of this young man. I'm not asking for you to respond; I'm just asking if you would discuss it so you would have more specific information.
A. Yes.

Q. You're not required to answer that question. Take it up with your attorneys.
But just so now your testimony is, as I understand it, that you believe this young man was 18 or 19 at the time these acts occurred, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you have no knowledge of whether any of these sexual acts were paid for by Father Cote?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You have no knowledge on that either way?
A. Correct.

Q. Now, Bishop, you own property inCape Neddick, Maine, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you own that property with two or [64] three other fellow priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And one of them is Father MacInnis, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And he's someone from the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. How long have you knownFather MacInnis?
A. 22, 23 years.

Q. Okay. Was he a classmate of yourself in seminary or --
A. No.

Q. Okay. You met him subsequent to seminary?
A. Yes.

Q. And did Father Paul Shanley ever meet Father MacInnis?
A. Not with me.

Q. But do you know whether they ever had occasion to meet each other, Paul Shanley andFather MacInnis? [65]
A. No.

Q. Did you ever discuss Father MacInnis with Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. Did Paul Shanley ever discussFather MacInnis with you?
A. No -- excuse me, to my knowledge. Father MacInnis was the director of continuing education for priests, so he might have had some conversation with Paul Shanley in that role, and he was also a seminary professor.

Q. Okay.
A. He was also a spiritual director, but now whether -- but to my knowledge, I don't know.

Q. Is he presently a priest with the Archdiocese?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know where he serves?
A. St. John's Parish, Peabody.

Q. Okay. And the other individuals that you own that parish with include George Moran,Father George Moran?
A. Correct. [66]

Q. Is there anybody else?
A. No.

Q. Bishop, you spent time up there in the summer, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And were you there in June of this year, Bishop?
A. I assume I was on a day off.

Q. On a day off. I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary. Did you have a -- did you have a -- burn any papers in June of this year up at your house in Cape Neddick, Maine?
A. No.

Q. Have you ever burned any papers since January of 2002 of any kind, apart from starting a fire, obviously, but documents of any kind?
A. No.

Q. Do you have a computer up in -- that you use when you're up in Cape Neddick at all?
A. No.

Q. All right. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 43 was marked for identification.) [67]

Q. Bishop, here, let me provide you with the original.
Bishop, when someone like Paul Shanley is placed on sick leave in 1990, is it fair to state that there was a customary sick leave allowance monthly stipend that was given to someone?
A. Yes.

Q. And that monthly stipend, as I understand it as a general practice, was $400 a month?
A. No.

Q. How much was it?
A. Well, it varied over the years, but I think it might have been around eight or $900 initially and became up to $1,100, I think, by the time -- eight or 900 seems very familiar to me and 400 -- if that was 400, it was not -- it didn't last long.

Q. Bishop, would you agree with me that Father Jack McCarthy, who was director of Clergy Personnel in 1990, would be in a better position to answer that question than you would be?
A. Jim McCarthy? [68]

Q. Yes, Jim McCarthy.
A. Yes, he would be.

Q. Jim, I'm sorry.
A. He would be, yeah.

Q. Now, was it typical, Bishop, for you in May of 1990, as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, to get involved with the details of priests who were going to be sent on sick leave, was that typically part of your responsibilities?
A. It would have been shared with the Vicar for Administration and with the Cardinal and Father McCarthy. No, I think all -- any one of us might have been involved in that.

Q. Okay. With respect to assignments, new assignments for priests, was it not the case that in 1990 assignments of priests was typically, absent any special circumstances, dealt with by the Clergy Personnel Board?
A. No, the Clergy Personnel Board generally dealt with the assignments of pastors, priests as pastors, but a lot of other assignments would have been dealt directly by the Clergy Personnel director and the priest himself. [69]

Q. Okay. Was that something that you were typically involved in in 1990, the assignment of individual priests?
A. No.

Q. Okay. And we have before us Exhibit Number 43. You'll see that this is a memorandum to you from Father Ryan, and it says at the top "Checks for your 'Special Delivery' to priests with whom you are working." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, when did you last speak with Father Jim McCarthy?
A. I would say probably around 19 -- at least 1998 if not 1995.

Q. You have not spoken to him since his deposition which took place earlier this week?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, this particular document, 43, references -- from Father Ryan -- references the word "special delivery." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. What did you take those words to mean?
A. I don't recall what I took it at that [70] time nor do I recall what I took it at this time, now.

Q. Well, it references certain priests with whom you are working. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, is it not the case that there were priests who were accused of sexual misconduct, that when the accusations came in, you would take over from the Clergy Personnel the process of working with those priests?
A. As the delegate, yes.

Q. Well, you became the delegate when?
A. '93, '92 -- '93.

Q. But you were performing some of the functions of delegate prior to that, although you didn't have that title, is that correct?
A. Right, correct, but they were also shared with the Vicar for Administration.

Q. That would have been Bishop Banks?
A. And Bishop Hughes.

Q. And Bishop Hughes after 19 --
A. Bishop Banks, yeah.

Q. Bishop Banks and Bishop Hughes, is that [71] correct?
A. Yes.

Q. But when there was an allegation of abuse concerning -- sexual abuse concerning a priest, it would end up at some point coming to you, is that not correct, from the time -- from 1986 up until the time that you formally became the delegate?
A. No, sometimes the Vicar for Administration would handle the case himself.

Q. Well, when did you handle cases involving priests who were accused of sexual abuse?
A. When the Vicar for Administration would ask me to take -- to handle the case.

Q. You handled some. You handled Father Birmingham, for example, we went through that on the first day of your deposition?
A. No, I think Bishop Banks handled Father Birmingham.

Q. Do you remember the letter that you sent to that man --
A. Yes, I remember the letter, but in terms --

Q. Well, let me finish the question. [72] Do you remember the letter you sent to the man who made inquiry about whether it was the same Father Birmingham who was at St. Ann's that earlier had been in Salem, you recall that letter, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So you had some involvement with the Father Birmingham case in terms of dealing with people who wrote in with questions aboutFather Birmingham, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. We've already been through that letter, but you agree with me that your letter that was responsive to that man who wrote in about his son did not provide the full facts and the full answers to his questions, is that correct?
A. No, I don't agree with that.

Q. All right. So there were certain priests in May of 1990 that you were working with because there had been allegations of sexual misconduct against them, is that correct?
A. I missed that. Can you --

Q. Yes. There were certain -- [73]
A. I was thinking back to that response I made to the man. I thought that I did answer his questions in a general way than I think you were asking me; I just --

Q. Well, he asked you specifically, did he not, whether it was the same Father Birmingham who had --
A. Right.

Q. -- accusations of sexual abuse against him in Salem, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you knew that it was the same man, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you did not answer that question, did you, Father -- Bishop?
A. I told him that I spoke withFather Birmingham about his inquiry and that I felt -- and that I was assured that nothing had occurred between Father Birmingham and his son.

Q. I don't want to reiterate this --
A. But I'm just saying that, you know, how I answered it. It wasn't as specific as I know you [74] have pointed out, but I did think that I answered his question about his concern about Father Birmingham.

Q. He asked you a very specific question about whether it was the same Father Birmingham who had accusations of sexual misconduct against him and you did not specifically answer that question, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Correct.

Q. Now, so would it be fair to state that there were some priests in May of 1990 against whom there were allegations of sexual misconduct that you were working with even though you'd not formally been appointed as delegate?
A. Correct.

Q. And you started in that role working with some of these priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct when you first arrived at chancery, is that correct?
A. Early on, I think, yes; I'm not sure.

Q. So that would have been back in 1985, starting in 1985?
A. Yes. [75]

Q. And continuing up until the time that you ceased to become Secretary for Ministerial Personnel?
A. Correct.

Q. And that date was --
A. On November of -- or December 1994.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, you'll see inExhibit 43 you'll see a first reference to a Reverend Alfred Connick, C O N N I C K, and it says "on 'sick leave' in Florida." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Was Father Connick a person against whom there had been an allegation of sexual abuse?
A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Okay. You'll see underneath that, Bishop, it says "The June 1990 check and others to follow will be noted in the usual listing at Clergy Fund Advisory Meetings: 'special cases'." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And what did special cases mean?
A. Again, I think that possibly what I meant was is that this man was on sick leave not due [76] to physical illness but due to emotional illness.

Q. Okay. So individuals at the time in 1990 who had --
A. Or probably both, both emotional and physical. I think Father Ryan was probably pointing out that I was in communication with these men.

Q. So the special cases would be one where there was not a physical sickness but an emotional sickness, is that your testimony?
A. Or both, or both.

Q. But they would have to have an emotional --
A. Not have to, but that I was in contact with them and these two instances it was men who were emotionally had some difficulties but also physically had difficulties.

Q. Okay. So the special cases in May of 1990 were people who had emotional and physical difficulties or just emotional difficulties, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. What did you understand Father Paul Shanley's emotional difficulties to be in May of [77] 1990?
A. That he felt marginalized, you know, by the diocese, he felt alone, and it was just a sense that he was having some difficulties adjusting to his life circumstances.

Q. Now -- and did he have any sort of a diagnosable mental illness that you were aware of?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You are aware that Paul Shanley was asked to leave his parish at St. Jean's, you're aware of that, are you not?
A. No, my understanding is that he resigned.

Q. He resigned. So if I were to tell you that Father McCarthy testified that it was an involuntary resignation, you would have a contrary understanding to that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you testified on the second day of your deposition you believed it had to do with some sort of physical ailment, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Not an emotional ailment? [78]
A. No, I was told that the Cardinal assigned him to medical leave and that -- I don't think the word "emotional" was used but that he asked me to remain in contact with him because I think he was concerned about his emotional -- I don't think it was ever stated that clearly but that Paul was in some kind of a personal emotional state that he really needs some attention.

Q. Okay. So -- I think you anticipated my question. So right from the start when you were assigned -- I think you went over this in your last day of depositions with Mr. Sherman -- right from the start that it was decided voluntarily or involuntarily that Paul Shanley would leaveSt. Jean's, it was referred to you because the Cardinal felt there might be an emotional problem, some sort of emotional problems with Paul Shanley, is that a fair statement?
A. That would be implied, yes, that's a fair statement as being implied, yes.

Q. But you're not able to identify the type of emotional problems that the Cardinal felt Paul Shanley had in 1990? [79]
A. Right.

Q. Was there a general policy within the Archdiocese of Boston that when a priest was accused of sexual abuse that, with respect to transmissions such as Exhibit Number 43, the word -- the allegation would not be included in these types of documents that we have here as Exhibit 43? That's a bad question. Let me try it again.
Did you ever take, at the time before Paul Shanley left for California, did you ever take the time to find out from the Cardinal specifically what the emotional issues were with Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. But wasn't that the reason why he was assigned to you, Bishop McCormack, was that so you could help him with his emotional issues?
A. No, I think initially I said that was part of it; the other part was that he was given permission to go to California and he had difficulty with -- around allergies and that the Cardinal wanted somebody to maintain contact with him. So that was my initial, I think, understanding. As I began to deal with Father Shanley, I began to realize that, [80] you know, he was emotionally upset as well.

Q. But you also understood that in order for you to be involved right from the beginning there had to be some belief by the Cardinal that there was some emotional issues that Paul Shanley was having?
A. No.

Q. Well, you wouldn't typically get involved, Bishop McCormack, unless there was a priest that had both a physical and an emotional problem?
A. No, it could be -- he could have other issues that I could be involved with as well; it could be a vocational issue, it could be relationship with the Bishop, it could be other things that, you know, the Cardinal would ask me to maintain contact, particularly in this instance when he had given him permission to reside outside the diocese, the idea was to maintain contact.

Q. So I thought I heard you testify several minutes ago that you believed, at the time you were assigned Paul Shanley's case in 1989 by the Cardinal, that you believed the Cardinal felt there was some emotional issue with Paul Shanley?
A. I said that I felt that it was implied, [81] and I think that it came through as I began to deal with Father Shanley.

Q. All right. You also testified, though, that you think the principal reason why he had to leave St. Jean's was because of his problems with allergies, was that your testimony?
A. That, and I also felt that I understood he was having some difficulties around the church requirement about a pastor taking a new form of oath of fidelity, I think, is what --

Q. Right. You're aware, are you not, that there was no requirement that Paul Shanley --
A. That's right, I am.

Q. -- take -- I have to finish.
A. Sorry.

Q. You're aware, are you not, Bishop, there was no requirement that Paul Shanley, as an existing pastor, had to take an oath, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. So let's just focus not on the oath for the moment but on the allergy. Didn't you testify the second day of your deposition that [82] you thought that the reason why Paul Shanley had to leave was because of his asthma?
A. I might have made that distinction; if I did, as I recall the correspondence I had with him, it was more on allergies that probably may be affected him so that he had asthma as well.

Q. All right. So what difference would it make whether Paul Shanley went out to California to deal with his allergies or remain in Massachusetts? What was your understanding about how this would help?
A. My understanding was that he needed a dry climate.

Q. Okay. Like Palm Springs?
A. Or San Bernardino, wasn't it?

Q. Do you know where San Bernardino is, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Where is it?
A. In California.

Q. Okay. Where -- is it near Los Angeles?
A. I'm not that familiar. I know that it's near Palm Springs and I know that it's in that [83] vicinity.

Q. Do you know that it has some of the worst air pollution in the country, do you know that in 1990?
A. No, no.

Q. Do you know that now?
A. No.

Q. Okay. So wasn't it the typical process, when someone was going to be getting medical leave, be placed on medical leave, that that person receive some sort of evaluation by a doctor to determine whether they were eligible for sick leave, wasn't that the usual protocol?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, you were working as secretary for ministerial affairs and you dealt with people who were on sick leave from time to time, is that correct?
A. From time to time, yeah.

Q. Well, wasn't typically when someone went on sick leave, that was a change of status, correct?
A. Yes. [84]

Q. And that was different than the unassigned status, being on sick leave was a different status than unassigned status, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that there was discussion of Paul Shanley being on unassigned status for some period of time in 1989?
A. No.

Q. What types of individuals are placed on unassigned status, Bishop, in 1989, 1990?
A. I can't think of someone right now.

Q. Well, you can think of a number of people who were accused or being accused in the '80s and the '90s, early '90s, of sexual molestation of children, can you not, who were placed on unassigned status?
A. See, that wasn't the term we would use. We put them on -- said that they were placed on administrative leave.

Q. Sometimes they were placed on sick leave, too, Bishop in the 1980s, you testified that about --
A. Right, I was going to say initially I [85] think that we said "What do we use?" And we said sick leave, but we said this wasn't the appropriate title so we changed it.

Q. You changed it after 1990, though, is that correct?
A. I don't know when we changed it.

Q. All right. So my question is --
A. I would say beforehand.

Q. You think before -- are you sure of that, Bishop?
A. I'm not sure, but I would say that we became aware that it wasn't the right name because other men are on sick leave who had no problem.

Q. My question is whether you're certain that the term --
A. Am I certain? No.

Q. I have to finish the question here.
Are you certain, Bishop, that when someone had credible claims of sexual misconduct that before 1990 their status was to be placed on administrative leave as opposed to sick leave?
A. Am I certain?

Q. Yes. [86]
A. I'm not certain.

Q. Okay. And you agree with me that sick leave was sometimes used for people who had credible allegations of sexual molestation against them involving children, correct?
A. Yes, early on in the -- as we began to deal with this, yes, that was used.

Q. All right. Now, just before we move on, Bishop, you would agree with me, then, that as of May of 1990 Father Paul Shanley was -- fell into the category of special cases?
A. That's a term that Father Ryan used.

Q. He used it in quotes.
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, you also know, just before we leave Exhibit 43, that Father Ryan notes that "$800 will be going to Our Lady of Solitude Parish," California -- "Palm Springs, California for April and May 1990," is that correct?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. So you would have understood that Paul Shanley was leaving for Palm Springs, California and would be presiding at Our Lady of Solitude [87] initially?
A. I wonder whether Our Lady of Solitude is in Palm Springs; I thought that it was inSan Bernardino.

Q. Well, it's actually in Palm Springs, but --
A. Is it in Palm Springs?

Q. Yes.
A. Because I don't recall him living in Palm Springs. Was this in 1990?

Q. Yes.
A. Because he was in two parishes inSan Bernardino, was my understanding.

Q. My question is is --
A. So --

Q. -- looking at this memorandum, it refers to Palm Springs, California as a place where rent's going to be paid, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. When you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, did you ever see a determination by a doctor that someone was eligible for sick leave before they were placed on sick leave? [88]
A. Sometimes I would receive a letter from a doctor that I had asked the priest -- or the Vicar for Administration might have got a letter, someone might have got a letter saying that this is the priest's physical health, right.

Q. Okay. But you don't have any knowledge of that happening with respect to Paul Shanley, of requesting that a doctor's letter be obtained --
A. No, that's not my understanding.

Q. You have to just wait until I finish, okay.
A. I thought you were.

Q. -- before he was placed on sick leave, correct?
A. Well, I didn't place him on sick leave, nor did I recommend he be on sick leave. When I began to deal with him, he was already placed, so I don't know whether there was a doctor's letter or not.

Q. My only question is whether you ever requested or saw in 1989 or 1990 a letter documenting his alleged physical problems that caused him to be placed on sick leave? [89]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't -- I didn't.

Q. You never requested Paul Shanley in 1989 or 1990 to obtain any such letter, did you?
A. Because I didn't place him; he was already placed when I met him. So the person who placed him would be the person who would have received that letter, if there was a letter; it would not be me.

Q. Bishop, in 1991 is it not the case that you asked Paul Shanley to obtain a letter documenting his physical illness? Did you not do that?
A. Yes, because he talked about other ailments other than his allergies or -- and asthma, and he was asking, I think if I'm correct, to be placed on full-time disability or something like that. And so I said we couldn't even begin to discuss that until I had a reading from his own doctor about what -- he must have in some way said to me that his doctor was recommending this to him.

Q. Bishop, you were the one who recommended that his sick leave be extended to the Cardinal in December of 1990, is that correct? [90]
A. It's correct that I recommended that after one year that it be extended, yes.

Q. And weren't there situations when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel when, in order to continue sick leave, the priest had to obtain some sort of a medical report from a physician? Did you ever see that when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
A. Did I ever see a letter as -- yes, I said I did.

Q. And wasn't that the typical practice when there was going to be an extension of sick leave when a person was actually physically ill, that a doctor's letter would be obtained to document the fact that the person was still eligible for sick leave?
A. No, that wouldn't be typical for me.

Q. Well, but you saw such letters, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And when you recommended to the Cardinal that Paul Shanley's sick leave be extended, you did not make any request of Paul Shanley to [91] obtain a medical certificate, a doctor's letter indicating that he was still ill, is that correct?
A. Correct, because I saw that the presenting problems that he had were not only continuing but that they had increased and so that he had other ailments as well.

Q. Psychological ailments, is that correct?
A. No, physical ailments he was talking about.

Q. Just physical ailments?
A. No, I told you that I thought he had emotional issues around being marginalized and being alone, but he also talked about other ailments, physical ailments, that are listed in his correspondence.

Q. Did you invite Paul Shanley, since he was being marginalized and alone, invite him to come back to the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. I did.

Q. Did you want him to come back to the Archdiocese of Boston in 1990 and 1991?
A. I thought that it would be helpful if [92] he returned because of the way that he felt, but also he refused and he asked for permission to continue to live out there because of his physical ailments and because he felt that he was doing well out there.

Q. Just asking about your position, Bishop. You had a priest --
A. This is what I heard --

Q. Just let me finish the question.
A. All right.

Q. Bishop, you were -- I'm only asking about your feelings. You had a priest who was feeling marginalized and alone out in California in 1990 and 1991, so your position was that the priest should come back to the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. I encouraged him, yes.

Q. Encouraged that. And that was your official position and you recommended that to others, too?
A. I don't know. I know that I was encouraging it and that I asked him to consider it.

Q. There was no reason why you wouldn't want Paul Shanley to come back in 1990 or 1991, was [93] there, Bishop?
A. No.

Q. You wanted him back, is that correct?
A. I encouraged him to come back; I won't use the word "want."

Q. You encouraged him to come back in 1990 and 1991?
A. Sometime around there.

Q. You felt that Massachusetts would be a better place for him so he wouldn't have -- be alone and marginalized, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. So if we could go to the next exhibit, which have we marked that yet, Exhibit 44? Take a moment and look at that for me, Bishop.

(McCormack Exhibit 44 was marked for identification.)

Q. All right. Bishop, showing you Exhibit Number 44, do you recognize that as Bishop Banks' handwriting at the back --
A. Yes.

Q. -- at the bottom?
And is this a note to you? [94]
A. Yes.

Q. Jack -- okay. And this memorandum to the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee regarding Paul Shanley came from Father Ryan, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. But it would be fair to state that since your name appears on the handwritten portion of this that you would have seen Exhibit Number 44, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, it says that FatherPaul Shanley "is in the Class of 1960; the monthly stipend is $844.58 monthly." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then it goes on to say "Priest number 'D-9' is the only case of which I am aware that might be a precedent."
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what Priest D-9 referred to?
A. No.

Q. Is it some sort of a name of a priest?
A. My sense is that it refers to a priest. [95]

Q. Okay. Was -- were there codes that were being used for priests in some internal memorandums that were being generated by the Archdiocese in 1989, codes like this, D-9?
A. Every once in a while my memory is that when the Clergy Fund Board Advisory Committee met that a priest's name was not used and they would use a symbol like this, D-9.

Q. Okay. Now, you'll see from Exhibit 43 that in the case of Paul Shanley reimbursement in May of 1990, that would have been five months after the Exhibit 44 which is the December 13th, 1989 memo, you'll see that the Clergy Advisory Committee voted for a monthly reimbursement of $1,474. Do you see that?
A. No, I don't. Where are we?

Q. It's on Exhibit 43. "Reverend Paul Shanley: reimbursement voted" --
A. Oh, here it is, yeah.

Q. -- "by the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee at its meeting of April 11th, 1990," $1,474. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that. [96]

Q. Do you see in Exhibit 44 that the monthly stipend in December of 1989 was going to be $844.58. Do you see that?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. And you were advocating for more money to be paid to Father Paul Shanley because he was out in California, is that correct, Bishop, were you doing that in 1989 and 1990?
A. I advocated that more money be paid to help him with his expenses, and so that 1,474 represents expenses that he had.

Q. Right.
A. Okay.

Q. So the question is -- the question is why were you advocating that Paul Shanley receive reimbursement on top of the monthly stipend that was given to priests on sick leave?
A. Now, you use the word "advocate" and I guess that at one time I felt that the $844 was not sufficient to meet all his expenses out there, but at the same time I wasn't always an advocate as much as I was a facilitator of his request, so that it doesn't mean I always agreed with all his requests. [97]
And in this instance this is for room and board, you see, auto insurance, prescriptions and physicians expenses, and these normally fall under the diocesan policy. So that those expenses that are represented there in the $1,474 would also be received by a priest of the Archdiocese if you submitted them to the Clergy Fund Board.

Q. Well, had to be voted on, correct?
A. They had to be voted on, correct.

Q. Wasn't always approved, isn't that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And I want to ask you the question again: Is it not the case that you were not just the facilitator for Paul Shanley asking for more money, you supported personally his request for more money, is that correct?
A. I supported that his expenses were increasing with doctors and because of that I supported that he -- that those expenses be paid.

Q. Was this the type of -- was this the type of matter, Bishop, that at the time in 1990 you were typically involved in, supporting requests for [98] more money to be paid to priests on sick leave?
A. The Clergy Fund Advisory Committee would review requests, and someone would present, you know, the reasoning for granting the request or for not granting the request, and then the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee would make a decision.
And I think in this instance -- I don't know about this instance, but in some instances I think that the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee at that time was not in the custom of paying doctor's bills for allergies, and Father Paul Shanley had a high amount of doctor's bills for allergies from his notes, if I recall. And so I was at that time advocating that he receive these funds to pay for his doctor's bills. That's my memory of how I came about being an advocate, but there would be other times when I was not always that supportive.

Q. We're going to get to those other times, Bishop, but at least right now what your testimony is, as I understand it, is that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board would not typically pay beyond the monthly stipend for doctor's bills for allergy treatments, that was the typical -- [99]
A. That was my understanding, yes.

Q. Okay. But they did with Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. When I presented the bills, yes, I think they did.

Q. All right. And you supported his request for these additional bills to be paid, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. This was not something that you did in typical -- strike that.
You did not typically appear before the Clergy Advisory Board asking them for -- to make special compensation for particular priests, correct?
A. Yes, I would, for other priests I would do the same.

Q. Okay. All right. But you would agree with me that the payment of these medical bills was something that was unusual in terms of the practices of the Clergy Fund Advisory Board at the time, is that correct?
A. No, I think all these bills fit within the policy of the Clergy Fund Board. [100]

Q. But you just testified that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board typically didn't pay for doctor's bills for allergies, correct?
A. I'm not sure that these are doctor's bills for allergies.

Q. Well, there's a doctor's bill right here on Exhibit 43, physician. Do you see that?
A. Right, but that doesn't mean it's for allergies.

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

Q. All you know is that you just testified here today that the reason why Paul Shanley was placed on sick leave was because -- I think when I first asked you -- allergies, is that correct?
A. Asthma and allergies, and he developed other medical problems as he was out there.

Q. All right. But you don't know what medical problems he had developed as of May 9th, 1990, the date of Exhibit 43, do you?
A. It would not be -- I do not know what the medical problems were for that physician bill [101] there, so I can't identify it, but that would not be unusual for the Clergy Fund to pay a physician's bill.

Q. I'm sorry, I thought you testified that they didn't typically pay for physician's bills for allergies, did you not so testify?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's right, and I'm not saying this is for allergies.

Q. We don't know either way, do we?
A. Correct.

Q. All we know is that you felt that Paul Shanley, the original reason for placing him on sick leave, was because of allergies, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: May I review this with you?

Q. Certainly.
A. I think that, you know, they would pay the doctor's bill; I think that the practice was not to pay the prescriptions for allergies.

Q. All right. So here we have the Clergy Personnel Board in May of 1990, with respect to [102] Paul Shanley, doing something that they don't typically do, is that correct?
A. Except in special occasions.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Well, that's not my question, Bishop. My question is the Clergy Fund Advisory Board paying for prescriptions that they don't typically pay for, correct?
A. Would you say that again.

Q. In May of 1990 the Clergy Fund Advisory Board, with you as an advocate for Paul Shanley, pays for prescriptions, something that they typically were not doing at the time, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It's not correct because I was not an advocate for Paul Shanley.

Q. Didn't you just use the word "advocate" to describe what you were -- you were advocating?
A. I said that I would facilitate much of what he was doing and at times I advocated, in terms of, as I recall, the payment for his allergies because it was such a large amount, and so that's what I remember. [103]

Q. You did not use the word "advocate"; you were --
A. I just want to --

Q. And I know you didn't support him all the time, but at least in May of 1990 you were supporting that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board, because this was a special case, make some compensation for prescription medication that they did not typically do, is that correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Let's go to the next exhibit.
MR. ROGERS: Is this a good time to take a break now?
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, it is. We came back at 11:20 and so we've only been doing this for 45 minutes. I mean if you want to take a break, certainly, I mean I would never begrudge someone a break. Can we come back in five minutes or --
MR. ROGERS: Fine. Can we go to one and take a lunch break at one?
MR. MacLEISH: That's fine.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record. [104]

(Recess.)

(McCormack Exhibits 45, 46 and 47 were marked for identification.)
MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, I show you three exhibits that you have in front of you which are 45, 46 and 47. Would you take a moment and review those for me, please.
A. Okay.

Q. Bishop, have you had an opportunity to review Exhibits 45, 46 and 47?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You received a letter from Paul Shanley in May of 19 -- May 13th, 1990, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. On June 5th, 1990 you sent a memorandum to Bishop Banks attaching that letter, as well as your answer to the letter --
A. Yes.

Q. -- your proposed answer to the letter, I gather?
A. Yes. [105]

Q. Would it have been the answer or the proposed answer?
A. Well, I asked for any thoughts, so I say I would assume it's a proposed answer. It's not signed.

Q. And then you see a handwritten note from Bishop Banks up in the top right-hand corner of Exhibit 45, "Father McCormack, Okay. Let's talk."
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Was it your typical practice at the time to be talking about requests from priests who were on sick leave with the Vicar for Administration?
A. I would say it would be typical for me to talk to the Vicar for Administration about a number of priests with whom I was working.

Q. Priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct, for example?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that could be one.

Q. Now, with respect to the letter that Paul Shanley sent on May 13th, 1990, I want to go over a couple of statements that are made in that [106] letter that I believe you've had the opportunity to read. If you could turn to page two, you'll see that Paul Shanley states "The media have found me again pressure me for a story. I'm uncomfortable with not talking to them." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then you see that Paul Shanley states in this letter to you on the third page, he states, "The only stress I have now, apart from what I've mentioned, is not knowing what will become of me. I would have to explain to any parishioners what has happened and that would precipitate the media whirlwind. I think the best for all concerned is medical retirement and let me do weekend supply." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then he goes to say -- he says "John, I know how busy you are and I don't expect you to resolve any of the problems I've mentioned but neither do I want it said later: "why didn't he tell us?" Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Does it appear to you that Paul Shanley [107] is making veiled threats in this letter to you?
A. No.

Q. When Paul Shanley talks about -- when Paul Shanley spoke about going to the media to talk about what had -- as we see on page two and page three, when he talks about going to the media and precipitating a media whirlwind -- do you see that on page four?
A. Yes.

Q. -- what did you understand him to be referring to?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Mischaracterized what that letter states.

Q. Well, I'll start again. Bishop, it says on page three to page four, "I would have to explain to any parishioners what has happened and that would precipitate the media whirlwind." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you see also in this letter that Paul Shanley wants money to cover medical expenses. [108] Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. What was the media whirlwind that you understood Paul Shanley to be referring to?
A. I don't -- you know, I can't say right here, I don't know.

Q. Well, as far as you know, he left because he had problems with physical ailments, allergies?
A. Right, that's right.

Q. Can you imagine under what set of circumstances there would be a media whirlwind concerning someone who had left his pastorship because he had allergies?
A. I could speculate, but I don't know.

Q. Well, did you ever -- don't speculate. Did you write back to Paul Shanley and say "What are you talking about?" You see your letter to him.
A. No, I did not.

Q. Well, why didn't you write back to him and say "What are you referring to when you're talking about a media whirlwind about what has happened, you'd "have to explain to any parishioners [109] what has happened and that would precipitate the media whirlwind'?" Did you ever ask him what he was talking about?
A. No, I didn't.

Q. Were you concerned about any of these statements, Bishop?
A. I don't recall being concerned about those statements. Paul -- because Paul was always the subject of the media in Boston and, you know, he was always -- and I think he probably had made some statements to the media and he was looking to -- my recollection is he was looking for a place to be assigned so that he could be -- he was looking for stability in his life, and so that that would be my memory of whatever might have passed through my mind.

Q. But you don't -- you didn't write back to him and say "What do you mean by your" -- him disclosing to parishioners what happened would create a media whirlwind, you never asked him what he meant by that, did you?
A. No, I didn't, no.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Had you ever, in your dealings for the [110] period of time when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, received a letter like this from a priest indicating that there could be a media whirlwind about his departure from a pastorship, ever receive a letter like this?
A. I don't recall, no.

Q. So then you write back to him onJune 5th, 1990, that's Exhibit 47. You state that it was nice to hear from him. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. And you say that you will ask the Clergy Fund Board to make an exception from its policy for Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you were in support of that exception for Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. For his medication, yes.

Q. It was an exception --
A. That's right.

Q. -- to the policy, you were supportive of that, is that correct?
A. Yes. [111]

Q. And then there's this other --
A. Although my letter doesn't say I was supportive so I must be careful here. My letter says I will ask the Clergy Fund Board.

Q. Did you support it or not, Bishop?
A. I presented it; for me to say I supported it, I can't say at the time that I did.

Q. Were you in favor of it?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I said I will ask, that was the issue that -- you see, I think that you have to understand my role was that I was to be in contact with Paul Shanley and make sure that he was cared for.

Q. Okay.
A. And so there were times when a priest would need some assistance and I would either facilitate it, and there were other times that I would advocate; they might ask what I thought. All I want to point out here is that at the time I wrote to him I said I will ask.

Q. Do you know whether you supported it?
A. I don't recall at this time whether I [112] did or not.

Q. We know from prior exhibits that it happened, correct, from Exhibit 43 we went through that, that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board -- we went through in Exhibit 43 --
A. But if you recall, I don't know whether that --

Q. -- May 9th, 1990, actually beforePaul Shanley's letter.
A. But, these would be -- these are not our typical grants by the Clergy Fund Board, that a priest for prescriptions could have the prescription money paid for after a 50 dollar deductible.

Q. Usual policy was not to pay?
A. No, usual policy was to pay after $50.

Q. All right. You said in your letter, Exhibit 47, that you would ask the Clergy Fund Board to make an exception to its policy, you said that to Paul Shanley, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, you testified earlier --
A. Excuse me, may I point out again that [113] the prescriptions and the physician are May 9th.

Q. Right.
A. This request around allergies was around June 5th when I responded.

Q. Right.
A. So all I -- I want to point out is that --

Q. We know that --
A. -- to my knowledge this had nothing to do with allergies; it might have, but I don't know.

Q. You're not changing your testimony from before, that you just don't know either way, correct, Bishop?
A. No, but what I want to point out is the difference in the dates.

Q. Okay. All right. I understand that he made the request on May 13th, 1990. It's also possible he may not have known about what had happened on May 9th, 1990?
A. But the request didn't come untilMay 13th and this is May 9th. Now, my understanding is is that that is for prescriptions; I'm not sure it has to do with allergies. [114]

Q. Okay. So he may have gotten additional money for allergy medication, is that correct?
A. On May 9th, no.

Q. No, after, after June, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Are you asking him to speculate, Eric?
MR. MacLEISH: Well --
THE WITNESS: I think, Eric, what I'm saying here is, if I might say so, is that it was normal for priests to receive funds for prescriptions each month after $50. If a prescription had to do with allergies, that was a special exception and it had to be approved by the Clergy Fund committee and that the request for this around allergy payment didn't come from him --

Q. Okay.
A. -- until May 13th.

Q. Right. You don't deny that you wrote Exhibit 47, that's your letter, correct?
A. Oh, correct, correct, yeah.

Q. Okay. So the only thing that we know is that you indicated to Paul Shanley is that if he did not have the funds to purchase the medication [115] "please let me know and I will ask the Clergy Fund Board to make an exception of its policy," that's what you said?
MR. ROGERS: I just object because, again, that's a mischaracterization. This was a proposed letter. There's no evidence that that was the letter sent.
MR. MacLEISH: He said --
MR. ROGERS: Just note my objection.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted and you're coaching the witness.
MR. ROGERS: No, just trying to find the right --
MR. MacLEISH: No, no, you're not here to testify.
MR. ROGERS: You want to take things out of context, go ahead.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, did you end up sending a letter like Exhibit 47 to Paul Shanley?
A. I'm sure --

Q. Do those sound like your words?
A. I'm sure I responded to him, yes.

Q. All right. Now, in this letter, even [116] though you indicated earlier you wanted him to come back so he wouldn't feel so alone and so marginalized, you did not mention that in your letter to him of June 1990, correct?
A. That's not mentioned here, no.

Q. Okay. So at least in this communication you were not urging him to come home, correct?
A. That wasn't the purpose of the communication.

Q. I'm not asking what the purpose was; I'm asking whether or not you were urging him to come home in your letter of June 5th, 1990, as you indicated earlier in your testimony here today you wanted him to come home?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: This was after the year of his leave. I'm not sure that his leave was up already --

Q. No, it wasn't.
A. -- the one year term. So that that would not have been part of the discussion until the [117] one year term.

Q. So when the one year came up, when the one year leave came up, you wanted him to come back, is that correct?
A. My memory is that I encouraged him to come back and that I don't have the evidence to say that I did it at that year or not.

Q. We'll get to it in a moment.
Next exhibit, please. And just before we leave this, you'll see, by the way, Bishop, on Exhibit 47, the letter's sent to him at Our Lady of Solitude in Palm Springs, California?
A. I see that.

Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. So that refreshes your earlier recollection that you knew that Paul Shanley in 1990 was at Palm Springs, California?
A. It doesn't refresh my recollection because my memory is that he was in San Bernardino for most of the time, but obviously at that time he was in Palm Springs.

Q. Okay. At Our Lady of Solitude? [118]
A. Yes.

MR. MacLEISH: Mark that, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 48 was marked for identification.)

Q. Okay. Showing you Exhibit Number 48, Bishop, am I correct in understanding that it was your practice at the time to keep copies of letters that you would send out to various priests such as Paul Shanley --
A. Yes.

Q. -- for the file?
A. Right.

Q. And would you typically keep signed copies in the file or unsigned copies?
A. I can't answer that; that would be up to the secretary.

Q. Okay. But you would sign an original, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And then there would be a copy that would be placed in the file, is that correct?
A. I can't say that; I don't know.

Q. Well, did you think it important -- [119]
A. The secretary would take care of that. So whether it was a signed or an unsigned, I didn't go check.

Q. You're Secretary for Ministerial Personnel. Isn't it the case that you wanted to have a record of your written communications --
A. That's right.

Q. -- with priests --
A. Yes.

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

Q. So it's your understanding that the practice that was in effect at your office was to have a copy of communications with priests placed in the file, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And those were your instructions to your secretary, is that correct?
A. That's my assumption; whether it's my -- and my instruction. She was a well, you know, experienced secretary. So when I wanted a copy of something, she would find it for me.

Q. And you say you have no doubt that she [120] had a proper filing system, and when you sent a communication out, there was a copy that placed in a file, do you, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Thank you. Exhibit 48, if you could take a moment and read that, please. Read the letter, Bishop?
A. I did.

Q. All right. Now, in the first paragraph of the letter you'd indicated that you'd received some sort of communication from Jack White in which Jack White told you in the letter that Jack White felt relieved to know that Paul Shanley's doctor had come up with an understanding about what had been bothering Paul Shanley.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then the next section was blacked out. Do you know what was written in the next section?
A. No.

Q. Had you expressed a belief, prior to [121] the time that Paul Shanley went out to California, that it would not be healthy for him to be living with Jack White?
A. No, I'm not sure I said that; he -- I remember him saying to me that he didn't want to live with Jack White.

Q. You remember him saying that to you?
A. Yes.

Q. But you don't remember stating, on the second day of your deposition, that you believed it would not be healthy for him to be living with Jack White?
A. Oh, I believed it, too, yeah, but I don't think I said it to him, I don't know.

Q. Okay. My question was did you --
A. I'm sorry.

Q. -- my question was whether you believed it would be unhealthy for Paul Shanley to be living with Jack White?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Why did you consider it to be unhealthy, Bishop?
A. Because Jack White was depressed and -- [122]

Q. Were there any other reasons?
A. I'm trying -- he had a -- he was a critical person and he had kind of a negative outlook and I didn't think that that would be helpful to Paul.

Q. What was Jack White doing out, as a priest of the Archdiocese, in Palm Springs, California?
A. Well, he had been assigned to -- no, he had gotten permission to serve in hospital ministry out there, and the assignment did not work out and so he took up residence in Palm Springs.

Q. Why did the assignment not work out?
A. My sense is that he felt that he wasn't getting along with the staff in the hospital, if I remember.

Q. Why did he not -- why was he not instructed to return to Boston?
A. I don't know.

Q. Palm Springs, I think we can agree at least in 1990, is not an inexpensive place to live, is that correct?
A. Again, I didn't know it then and I [123] don't know it now.

Q. You've never been to Palm Springs?
A. Once.

Q. When you saw Paul Shanley?
A. Right.

Q. And what were Jack White's and Paul -- well, we'll get to that in a moment, Bishop.
So you, in Exhibit 47, wrote to Paul Shanley in June of 1990 at his address in Palm Springs. You knew that Jack White was in Palm Springs as of that time, is that correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. You knew that Paul Shanley and Jack White were friends, is that correct?
A. I knew that -- yes, I knew they were friendly, yes.

Q. When you learned that Paul Shanley was going out to California, you expressed concern that he not be in a living situation with Jack White, you expressed concern in your own mind, is that correct?
A. I don't know. I think it was when I -- eventually I came to that point probably when I knew Jack White was in Palm Springs, but I don't know [124] where -- I'm not sure that it was when he went out there.

Q. Right. All right. Now, in October of 1990, you'll see in the second paragraph of your letter, you state "Knowing that your health has been a problem and that your leave is up the first of January, I was wondering what your thoughts are about returning to Boston." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. This was a letter where you were encouraging Paul Shanley to return to Boston?
A. No, at this time I'm wondering what his thoughts were.

Q. Okay. But did you believe at this time that it would be helpful for Paul Shanley to return to Boston so he would not feel alone and marginalized?
A. I don't know whether I was thinking it at that time. What I was thinking at this time is that we needed to enter into a discussion about his return. So I wanted him to give me some thoughts about it.

Q. You mention in the letter that you're [125] going for a couple of weeks vacation with Paul O'Connell to Bangkok, Hong Kong and Kyoto, you mention that to Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. So you're on friendly terms withPaul Shanley, is that correct?
A. He was a classmate.

Q. Right.
A. So I wouldn't call that we were friends, but I would say that as a classmate, you know, you would share things at times.

Q. Was this your first trip to Asia?
A. Yes.

Q. And who is Paul O'Connell?
A. He's a priest.

Q. Okay. Have you taken other trips to Asia?
A. No.

Q. Do you know about Paul Shanley going to Asia at any time, Bangkok, specifically?
A. I think at the time of the -- that the papers were made public -- this spring was it --

Q. Yes. [126]
A. -- that it was announced that he was in Thailand, yeah.

Q. Okay. And did you undertake any inquiry to determine whether that was true?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, Paul O'Connell, is he a priest of the Archdiocese?
A. No, the diocese of Worcester.

Q. Diocese of Worcester, okay.
A. He's a classmate.

Q. Classmate, okay. All right. Now, let's go on to the next letter -- next Exhibit, which is a letter of November 20th, 1990.

(McCormack Exhibit 49 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, do you see in Exhibit 49 the return address is San Bernardino, California? Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this Exhibit 49 a letter that you received from Father Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Bishop, you'll see that one of [127] the subjects of Paul Shanley's letter is requesting that funds be allocated to pay for an allergy doctor. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And was that an exception to the policy of the clergy -- of the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee?
A. Yes.

Q. So first we had the issue with the prescriptions and now Paul Shanley is asking -- requesting that the Archdiocese pay for money for an allergy doctor, is that correct?
A. I don't think there was an issue with the prescriptions --

Q. No.
A. -- the issue was with the allergies.

Q. Because he said -- he says here that -- you'll see he says "At least in Boston I had access to a doctor and therefore to prescriptions for medication." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. You'll see on the first page he says "Bishop Banks assured me there would be no need to [128] work if I was on medical leave. 'All of your needs will be cared for.'" Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then on the second page he says "'A Monsignor Hart from Boston' corresponded with a hospital chaplain out here who warned my previous pastor who in turn warned my present pastor that he should not hire me. Thus the meagre income by which I had hoped to pay for an allergy doctor is jeopardized." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And I think that he also states in this letter, the first paragraph of the letter, he says "The problem is you need a doctor to write the damn prescription." He says "It was the doctor I could not afford." Do you see that in the first paragraph of the letter?
A. Okay. Yes.

Q. So you understand that Paul Shanley wants to be compensated so that he can get a doctor, an allergy doctor, to write prescriptions, is that correct?
A. Yes. [129]

Q. Okay. Now, on the second page of the this letter, the paragraph I just read about the Monsignor Hart from Boston calling the "hospital chaplain out here who warned" -- he used "warned my previous pastor who in turn warned my present pastor that he should not hire me." Do you know aMonsignor Hart, Daniel Hart, who is in Boston?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, I think you're mischaracterizing this, but, Eric --

Q. Okay. Did I read it accurately, Bishop? Do you want to read it again, "'A Monsignor Hart from Boston" corresponded with a hospital chaplain out here who warned my priest pastor who in turn warned my present pastor that he should not hire me." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Did I read it accurately?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you know a father or someone who at the time was a monsignor or a bishop by the name of Daniel Hart?
A. There's a Bishop Daniel Hart, and he would have been a bishop then. [130]

Q. He would have been a bishop then?
A. Yes.

Q. And was he formerly assigned to the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you know him?
A. Yes.

Q. And approximately when did he become a Bishop?
A. 25 years ago.

Q. 25 years ago. And when did he leave the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Around 1995.

Q. 1995.
A. Right.

Q. Okay. And you think that he was a Bishop 25 years ago --
A. I know.

Q. -- so that would have been in late the '70s, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. He's now in Norwich, Connecticut, is that correct? [131]
A. Correct, right.

Q. Did you ever speak to him about Paul Shanley?