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 IV


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 Tuesday, October 1, 2002, commencing at
10:06 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: Robert A. Sherman, 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.

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 FOR IDENTIFICATION:

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

MR. MIELKE: Today's date is October 1st, 2002. It is approximately 10:06 a.m. We're here for the continued deposition of Bishop John McCormack. The parties will now identify themselves for the record.
MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman, attorney for the plaintiff.
MS. PILLSBURY: Courtney Pillsbury, attorney for the plaintiff.
MR. TUCKER: Brian Tucker, personal counsel for Bishop McCormack.
THE WITNESS: Bishop John McCormack.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson Rogers, the Third on behalf of all defendants.
Mr. COOK: Bradford Cook for the diocese of Manchester

EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:

Q. All set. Good morning, Bishop.
A. Good morning. [9]

MR. ROGERS: Just so we're clear, we're continuing reserving all objections except as to form and motions to strike until the time of trial?
MR. SHERMAN: Correct, same stipulations as in the past. And likewise, we'll plan on taking a break every hour, if that's all right. If you need to take a break before that for any reason, Bishop, that's fine, just let me know and we'll certainly accommodate you.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Likewise, as I said before, which was day two of your deposition when I was here, I'm going to ask you a question. If you don't understand the question, please feel free to tell me that; I'll try to rephrase it. If you don't ask me to rephrase the question, I will assume that you understand it. Is that acceptable to you?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Thank you.
Bishop, when you testified last week, certain questions were asked concerning Father Cote. Do you remember that subject matter coming up?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so I understand, and I'm not [10] intending to replow a lot of old ground, you left the investigation of the Father Cote matter to your delegate, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. How involved were you in terms of what he was determining and what his findings were?
A. I received his report.

Q. Yeah. And so --
A. I knew that he was, you know, investigating it and then I received his report.

Q. Okay. As he was doing the investigation, was he keeping you up to date with the progress of the investigation, interim reports and things of those nature?
MR. COOK: I object to this and I'm going to say this for the record because I was going to say it at some point. We came here on Friday and the Cote matter, which has nothing to do with the Shanley case and is totally irrelevant to it, but I understand the technical scope of the deposition, was brought up. It was completely irrelevant to the proceedings, completely irrelevant to the case and [11] following that the matter was telephonically transmitted to the press by Mr. Ford. It was then totally disruptive to the diocese of Manchester for an entire weekend, disrupted the Bishop's life, disrupted that for no particular reason that I can determine except to put pressure and disruption on things. It is just as irrelevant today as it was then.
On behalf of the diocese, I would strenuously object to anything that doesn't have anything to do with Massachusetts and that has to do with New Hampshire because it's totally irrelevant. This is years and years after the fact of this case and I strenuously object to it, and I've got to tell you if that kind of activity took place again -- and Mr. Ford is not here so I doubt that it will happen, but if it happens again, I've asked Mr. Rogers, because it's his case, to take this matter before Judge Sweeney because, frankly, this is totally out of line and totally irrelevant and may be technically within deposition practice, but we are very upset about what happened on Friday and Saturday and it's put a tremendous change of cast over these [12] proceedings.
Now, Mr. Sherman, I know you weren't here and I may be preaching to the wrong choir, but we are outraged by what happened on Friday and Saturday. And to continue this activity, which has no relevance to this case, is maybe technically appropriate; it's irrelevant, I'm sure Mr. Rogers will object to the whole thing, but we are beside ourselves about what happened this weekend.

MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Cook, I understand from your statement you are at least acknowledging that the subject matter is within the scope of the rules for a deposition, and accordingly I intend to pursue the line of inquiry.
With respect to your other statements, obviously we have a vehement disagreement as to the propriety of those. If somebody wants to take it up with the judge, then we would welcome that because we are certainly convinced and at peace with the notion that nobody acted irresponsibly. So that having been said, I'm going to continue my line of questioning unless somebody wants to instruct the Bishop not to answer. [13]
MR. ROGERS: No, there's no instruction not to answer.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: I join Mr. Cook's objection and --
MR. SHERMAN: The object -- I'm sorry.
MR. ROGERS: That's all right.
-- and I would note that a continued line of questioning along this basis would potentially lead to a motion for protective order for harassing and annoying the Bishop, but at this point I agree with Mr. Cook and I agree with you that it is fair game.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Okay. My question, to you, Bishop, was, and I don't remember if you gave the answer just now, but --
A. I didn't.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what the question was?
A. I'd ask you to repeat it now.

Q. Okay. The question was did your delegate provide interim reports to you regarding the factual -- regarding his investigation into the [14] facts?
A. That's the custom, that he -- you know, when we meet regularly, that he keeps me updated about what he's doing. So in terms of the facts of the Cote investigation, it would have been the same.

Q. Okay.
A. I can't recall anything specific.

Q. Well, let me ask you this question: Did at any point during the delegate's investigation and his reports to you, did he inform you that the victim in that case had made statements to the effect that the abuse took place in the early '80s, which would have been before he had turned 18, or the relationship took place in the early '80s before he had turned 18?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My memory of the discussion was that when the complaint was made to the civil authorities that the victim thought that he was a minor, that he was under age 17. And so at that time I was informed, yes, and that's why I understood there was an investigation.

Q. And at the time that you were informed [15] of that, did not the Manchester diocese have a policy of removing a priest from active ministry if they're subject of sexual allegations -- I'm sorry, of allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, we are, and I have to be careful that I don't know whether I'm revealing something confidential. Can I talk with you?
MR. ROGERS: Can we take a break?
MR. SHERMAN: You may.

MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Recess.)

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

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, you've had a chance to consult with your counsel?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you remember the question that was placed before you?
A. Yes, you wanted to know whether it was the policy of the diocese to remove a man from ministry even temporarily while there was an investigation.

Q. Yes. [16]
A. Yes, that is our policy.

Q. And did you take steps to remove Father Cote from ministry at that time?
A. We were asked by the attorney -- it was the Attorney General who told us that he was making the investigation, and so I'm told that -- by our counsel and my delegate that, in the conversations with the Attorney General's office, that we were not to inform the complainant, nor take any action against the complainant until they completed their investigation.

Q. And so I understand so your reason -- strike that.
So if I understand and I can summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, even though your policy would have dictated that you remove Father Cote during the pendency of the investigation, at the request of the Attorney General's office of New Hampshire, you did not, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Correct, because the complaint was made to him and not to us and so we had no substance of the complaint except what he informed [17] us about.

Q. Was there an allegation that was brought to your attention regarding Father Cote that Father Cote had paid for sex with this -- with this adolescent?
MR. ROGERS: I'm going to object, and respectfully, Bob, you can review some of this, but this is material that was gone over on Friday and I don't want to rehash the entire line of questioning.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm not going to go through the entire line; I'll be quick.
MR. ROGERS: All right. Note my objection.
THE WITNESS: Would you want to repeat your question.

Q. My question was was it brought to your attention that Father Cote had paid for -- for sex with this adolescent?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: It was not brought to my attention at the time; I think I learned this later, probably even last week, that someone raised the [18] issue that he paid for it, but I did not know that, no.

Q. The -- and in your testimony last week -- in your testimony last week, you stated that Father Cote had admitted to having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection --
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- asked and answered.

Q. Okay. And is your policy, with respect to allegations of sexual relations with minors and with teenagers, different, teenagers who may not be minors?
A. Yes. You know, if a teenager is over 18 -- is 18 and over, it's different from being considered as a minor.

Q. And how is your policy different in that regard?
A. It states a minor is below 18.

Q. And what happens -- in other words, what's the difference in terms of treatment of that case?
A. Well, one is is that -- [19]

MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: One is is that when you are accused of sexual misconduct with a minor you are removed from ministry.

Q. Okay. And if it's sexual misconduct with a teenager who may be over the age of 18, then your policy does not remove that priest from ministry?
A. Correct.

Q. Now, it was reported in the newspapers over the weekend that your spokesperson, Patrick McGee, said, and I'm quoting from the news report, "that there was no violation because the diocese's independent review board determined the allegation against Cote was not credible." Did you see that statement being made, or did you read that statement having been made by your spokesperson?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. I could show you the article if that would help.
A. It would help because --

Q. Yeah.
MR. SHERMAN: Why don't we mark it and [20] then we'll have copies.

(McCormack Exhibit 54 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, directing your attention to the last full paragraph on the first page, do you see that statement?
A. I do.

Q. Okay. And is that statement consistent with what you understand the facts to be?
A. It depends on how you interpret what he means by the allegation. The allegation here is a allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor was deemed not to be credible.

Q. And --
A. That would be my understanding of it.

Q. And what was the basis in which that allegation was deemed not to be credible?
A. Because the person was determined not to be a minor.

Q. Okay. And who made that determination?
A. The -- our investigation by the delegate and our lawyer and the complainant and the complainant's lawyer. [21]

Q. Do you understand that the investigation by the Attorney General has been completed?
A. That's my understanding.

Q. Okay. Now, did -- during the course of the investigation of this matter, do you know whether the delegate or anybody on behalf of the diocese spoke with the complainant?
A. Would you repeat that.

Q. Sure.
A. During the investigation --

Q. During the course of the investigation --
A. Which investigation?

Q. I'm sorry, during the course of your office's -- do you want to call it an investigation or review, how do you prefer to term it?
MR. ROGERS: Well, it depends what you're referring to, Bob.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: So I think you need to pose the question.
MR. SHERMAN: Let me go back. Let me [22] go back.

Q. The delegate, at your request, conducted his own investigation into this matter, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. And calling it an investigation would be a term acceptable to you?
A. Yes.

Q. During the course of the delegate's investigation, do you know whether the delegate ever spoke to this complainant directly?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you know what the substance -- and specifically with respect to the issue of age, do you know what the substance of that conversation was?
MR. ROGERS: I need to take a break with Bishop McCormack, talk about an issue.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record. [23]

MR. ROGERS: Could we just have the last question read back. I want to make sure exactly how it's phrased, please.

(Question read.)

MR. COOK: This gets complicated. We had a discussion the other day with Mr. MacLeish about not going into things that are covered by a confidentiality agreement.
MR. SHERMAN: Uh-huh.

MR. COOK: The answer to that question would go into -- not the conclusion from it but the substance of the conversation and the resulting conversations are in the context of what's covered by that confidentiality agreement, which he said he wasn't going to inquire into.
So I'd have to say that the Bishop answering that question, if he knows the answer, which I'm not sure he does, but if he knows the answer would be delving into things that I thought we'd agreed weren't going to be covered.
MR. ROGERS: They fall within the parameters of the confidentiality agreement.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry? [24]

MR. ROGERS: They fall within the parameters. The question, as posed, begs a response that would cause the Bishop to breach a confidentiality agreement that was requested.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Just so I understand where we're drawing the line -- and I understand the agreement about the confidentiality provisions -- I want to ask him not what's in the agreement but his conversations with his delegate.

MR. ROGERS: And again, the way that agreement was structured, as I understand it, and I think Mr. Cook --
MR. COOK: I can represent to you that the delegate didn't have any discussions whatsoever with the complainant that were not in the context of things that are covered by the confidentiality agreement.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. So it's your position that anything that I were to ask about conversations between the Bishop and his delegate in this matter are also encompassed in the confidentiality agreement and therefore --
MR. ROGERS: No, I don't think that's [25] a --
MR. COOK: I'm not sure that's accurate.
MR. ROGERS: That's not a fair characterization.
MR. COOK: The point is --

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Again, I'm trying to understand where the line is.
MR. COOK: All of the conversations --
MR. SHERMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. COOK: -- and hit me if I'm going too far, but all of the conversations that the delegate had with the complainant --
MR. SHERMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. COOK: -- that would have been the subject of his discussions with the Bishop were in the context of those things that are covered by the confidentiality agreement because those were the only discussions that the delegate had with the complainant.
Therefore, anything he said about the substance of his conversations -- not maybe the conclusion of his conversations but the substance of [26] his conversations -- would have been reporting on the discussions that are covered by the confidentiality agreement because they were all in that context and that's why we're having difficulty.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. I'm not understanding the line and, again, let me just go at it one more time or maybe more than one time. I understand the delegate is conducting an investigation. The investigation is separate from the confidentiality agreement, that's the legal resolution of that, but there's a policy to conduct an investigation?
MR. COOK: Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.

MR. COOK: I'm not testifying, but let me tell you --
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.

MR. COOK: -- during the pure investigatory stage --
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.

MR. COOK: -- he never talked to the complainant. The only time he talked to the complainant was in a different context -- [27]
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.

MR. COOK: -- in which he obtained information, but --
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Then let me ask that question of the Bishop, okay, and then we'll go from there, okay.
MR. COOK: Sure.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, obviously you've heard the colloquy.
A. Yes.

Q. Let me summarize it. The counsel for the diocese has stated his understanding, that during the delegate's investigation or during the investigative phase of what the delegate did in this matter, he never talked to the complainant, is that your understanding as well?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When was this matter submitted to the review board?
A. September.

Q. And what was the occasion for submitting the matter to the review board?
A. Because it was a matter of sexual [28] misconduct and so we -- you know, I thought and I think the delegate thought that this matter should be something that we should share with the review board to get their input.

Q. You said it was a matter of sexual misconduct. Why do you use the phrase "misconduct"?
A. It's a broad term that we use in regard to, you know, anybody's behavior, you know, outside of -- has to do with sex because a priest is chaste and celibate, it's misconduct.

Q. And is it the policy of the Manchester diocese to submit all instances where a priest engages in sex, regardless of whether that's sex with a minor, sex, heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, sex with an adult, to the review board?
MR. ROGERS: Presently?
MR. SHERMAN: Presently.
THE WITNESS: Presently the written policy is sexual misconduct with a minor, but our intention is that because of the amount of time that we're living in that we have to be very, you know, careful about what we do, and so the intention is to pass cases by that have to do with sexual misconduct. [29]

Q. Okay. And that's regardless of whether it's consensual sex with an adult?
A. Regardless, yeah, yes.

Q. Okay. And when did that -- strike that.
Your written policy involves a minor, but what I understand you're testifying to is that you have a practice that goes beyond what the written policy is --
A. Right.

Q. -- is that a fair characterization?
When did that practice come in to be?
A. I'd say within the past few months, as these matters have become more public.

Q. Okay. And, again, without going into other instances, my question is have there been other instances outside of Father Cote's case where there have been allegations of sexual misconduct that did not involve a minor that have been submitted to the review board?
A. At present there is one being considered, but prior to the Cote one -- my sense is, though, is that there was another one that was under [30] investigation or under discussion, and I still think that that's under investigation, too.

Q. Okay. So --
A. So that I'd say I know of one, but I think there's another one.

Q. And when you say you know of one, one that has been submitted --
A. No, one is that it is still being investigated and will be submitted.

Q. Okay. So just so we can separate them out, in that latter instance there's one that's still under investigation, but you know that one will in fact be submitted, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. There's also another one that's out there that's still being investigated, and you don't know whether that will be submitted or not?
A. We haven't completed -- my sense is is that our intention is because of the climate that we should pass by any matters of sexual misconduct with the review board.

Q. Okay. Now, can you summarize for me, to the best of your understanding, what the review [31] board's findings were in Father Cote's case?
A. They accepted the recommendations, but they changed the recommendation from a outpatient evaluation to an inpatient evaluation.

Q. Okay. And did they also make any -- strike that.
Were there also any determinations made by the review board as to how old the complainant was at the time the sexual misconduct took place?
A. They accepted the finding that he was not a minor and that he was over 18 -- 18, in his middle 18 years, 18.

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, getting back to some of the questions and documents in the Father Shanley case that came off, it's my understanding that your testimony the last time was that your plan was to bring Father Shanley back to the Boston Archdiocese after he had completed a year of sick leave, is that -- is that a fair statement?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: To what your understanding is?

Q. I'm sorry. [32]
A. That wasn't my plan.

Q. I'm sorry, it was my understanding that was your testimony.
A. No, it was my opinion --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: -- that after his one year out there that I would encourage him to come back and -- into ministry here, in the Archdiocese of Boston, as opposed to being in California.

Q. Okay. And the reason, though, that he didn't come back was because he was not a healthy priest, is that -- is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what did that mean to you?
A. Both physically he was not well and emotionally he was not in good space.

Q. Okay. And when you say "emotionally he was not in good space," what -- can you be a little more specific?
A. I think that he felt that he was more secure out there at that time and that he would -- my sense is is that if he returned to Boston he would feel more agitated and he didn't know how he would [33] fit in.

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say, also, that you didn't want somebody to -- who was on sick leave -- to come back and be a pastor here in the Boston Archdiocese if that person was not healthy?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that he shouldn't return to parish ministry if he wasn't healthy, either as a pastor or as a parochial vicar.

Q. Okay. And that doesn't matter, that's not location specific; you're saying that somebody who's not healthy should not be a pastor or a parochial vicar anywhere?
A. On a full-time basis, yes.

Q. Okay. I think we had a prior exhibit which you had marked which is number 50. Could we get it, get back to that.
Bishop, if you want to take a minute to refamiliarize yourself with that document.
A. (Witness complies.)

Q. You all set? Do you see -- and I'm going to skip through this rather quickly because I know you were asked this before. Do you see in [34] one -- paragraph 1 d), "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him"?
A. Correct.

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

Q. And, again, just to go over it very briefly you -- what did you mean by that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: Basically that I did not know what we would do with him because, you know, his being -- sense of distance from the diocesan administration, a sense that he was alone and then where we would put him because the idea is where would he live, where would he -- you know, how would he get better?

Q. Okay. And the context for that statement was the fact that if he still wasn't healthy --
A. Right.

Q. -- correct?
If he were healthy, then you would have -- there would be a place that you could find for him [35] and an assignment that you could give him, is that correct?
A. That would be my understanding at the time, yes.

Q. Okay. So if I understand it correctly, once he got healthy, it would have been your intention at that time to bring him back and place him in another assignment, fair statement?
A. It would be my intention to encourage him to come back.

Q. Okay. If you read the paragraph under d) -- and let me read it for the record. It says, "Secondly, I recommend in January, February or March I arrange with Paul to make a visit to him to see how he is doing." Do you see that? "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?" Do you see that statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Why were you thinking about coaxing him to get a pastoral assignment out there if he got better if your plan was to bring him back here when he got better? [36]

MR. ROGERS: Again, note my objection. This is a topic we went over ad nauseam last Friday in your absence, Mr. Sherman. Mr. MacLeish covered this at length, and I appreciate the fact you maybe haven't had a chance to speak to Mr. MacLeish or review the Bishop's transcript, but to continue to pose the same questions again and again to the Bishop is inappropriate.
MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Rogers, I believe that -- and I have spoken with Mr. MacLeish and I have reviewed the Bishop's transcript -- that I believe the question I'm asking was not asked before.
MR. ROGERS: Well, it has been, but go ahead.
MR. SHERMAN: You can object. We can let the record speak --
MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it will.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: Note my objection.
THE WITNESS: Okay. My understanding is is that as he got better he should be doing something. So it wasn't a you're sick and you're healthy one day -- I mean sick one day and healthy [37] the next, but as he got better, he shouldn't be just out there by himself, for want of a better description, feeling badly, but that he should enter into some kind of pastoral ministry to see whether he could begin to have a more constructive, positive approach to his priestly life and ministry.

Q. So is it fair to say that that statement about coaxing him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better still was not inconsistent with your view that ultimately you would bring him back here if he was better and give him an assignment here?
A. Correct.
MR. ROGERS: Again, objection, asked and answered.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Have this marked.

(McCormack Exhibit 55 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, this is -- placing Exhibit 55 in front of you, this document is, I'll represent to you, similar to what is Exhibit 52 except in the upper left-hand corner there's -- there's handwritten [38] notes. First, can you read what those notes say?
A. They're not very clear, so -- but it says "JBM" -- now, as I read them and you can probably correct me if you differ -- "What happened in California? Looks like keeping" -- and I don't know if he says -- "Looks like keeping the priest status, but providing" -- and I don't -- I can't read the next few words, but the last three words seem to be "would be" and I read the word inspired, but I don't know really what those -- "but providing" dot, dot, dot "would be inspired."

Q. Do you recognize the handwriting?
A. Yes.

Q. And whose handwriting is that?
A. Bishop Hughes --

Q. Okay.
A. -- I think.

Q. And taking a minute to read this letter over again, can you give me a context for that note?
A. Okay. Okay.

Q. Does reading this letter provide any kind of context for as much of that comment as you can read? [39]
A. Yeah, I think now I read the comment as "What happened in California? Looks like keeping the priest status, but providing an official link would be inspired," could be important.

Q. Okay. And what does the phrase "keeping the priest status" mean in the context of this letter?
A. That he would be doing some priestly ministry in some way in California rather than in the Archdiocese of Boston where -- which he's protesting.

Q. Okay. And what do you understand the import of Bishop Hughes' note to you to be?
A. My sense is it would be similar to mine, which is that for Father Shanley, Paul Shanley, to, you know, not be doing anything would not be helpful to him; it would just be more debilitating. If he could do something to some degree, it would be helpful.

Q. Okay. And the phrase "the official link" providing the official link, what do you understand that to refer to?
A. I interpret that as doing priestly ministry. [40]

Q. Official link wouldn't mean a link back to the Boston Archdiocese?
A. I don't think of it in those terms, but it could be as well.

Q. Okay. Now, at least in terms of --
A. Excuse me, because he already has an official link with the Archdiocese; he's a priest of the Archdiocese living in California, so that's why I --

Q. Okay. At least in terms of March 1991, as reflected in this letter, you do know that Paul Shanley is involved with youth -- with young people because he mentions in the letter in the first paragraph that he's doing youth retreats --
A. Yes.

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

Q. And is it your testimony that as of March of 1991 you had no knowledge whatsoever of any allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made against Paul Shanley?
A. Correct.

Q. So as a result of that, seeing that he [41] was involved with youth didn't raise any red flags or alarms in your mind, is that correct?
A. Did not raise any red flags or alarms in my mind.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Have this marked as the next exhibit.

(McCormack Exhibit 56 was marked for identification.)

Q. And what do you recognize that document as, Bishop?
A. As a letter that I sent to Paul Shanley --

Q. Okay. And --
A. -- on the same day that he sent his letter to me.

Q. And that's what I was going to ask you. It says in the first sentence "I received your note which reflected your deliberations about the proposal I presented to you when I visited with you a couple weeks ago." Do you see that, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That would not -- the note you're [42] talking about would not have been what has been previously marked as Exhibit 55 or 52, either, which is the same document, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I won't say correct because it seems to be responding to it, but the date is the same.

Q. Okay. But based on the fact that the dates are the same, would it be more consistent with your practice that it would be referring to some other document than what has been marked as Exhibit 55?
MR. ROGERS: Well, I'd note for the record Exhibit 55 references a stamp that is received by the Office of Ministerial Personnel on March 11, 1991.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: So I don't think it's entirely consistent.
THE WITNESS: Where's that?
MR. ROGERS: Right here, it's dated March 14th, but it says received March 11th.
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. [43]

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Okay. In light of what your counsel has pointed out to you, now looking at that document, does Exhibit 56 look like a response to what is Exhibit 55 or, again, 52?
A. Yes, it does.

Q. Okay. Now, you see in the upper right-hand corner -- I assume the exhibit mark is not over that -- a reference to C O N F. I take it --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that would be a reference to the confidential file, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when a response letter like this would have been placed in the confidential file?
A. This would usually be filed, and so my sense is is that when it was filed it was filed in the confidential file.

Q. Why was there -- strike that.
First of all, is that your handwriting?
A. It is.

Q. Okay. So you were the one that had instructed that this letter be placed in a confidential file, correct? [44]
A. Right.

Q. And therefore, is it fair to state that at the time that you wrote this letter, in March of 1991, there was the confidential file with respect to Paul Shanley?
A. There could have been another one; I think this is probably my confidential file on Paul Shanley, as opposed to having a file somewhere else I wanted to keep that in my confidential file.

Q. Okay. Let me back up.
A. Okay.

Q. Okay. And I want to go through some questions on the files. We've referred in past depositions to the fact that there was, you know, a confidential file maintained at the chancery on various priests, is that -- do you remember --
A. Yes.

Q. -- conversations about that?
Let me make sure I get the answer to the complete question. I kind of threw you for a loop by pausing in the middle. Let me ask it again, Bishop.
We've referred in the past that there [45] was a confidential file maintained in the chancery on various priests, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And these are -- and that file was maintained when there were -- when there was in part allegations, for instance, of sexual misconduct against a priest, those allegations would be maintained in that confidential file, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And there were -- and it's your testimony now, am I correct, that you also maintained a confidential file that was separate from that confidential file?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you know -- I'm sorry.
A. I'd like to also say, though, that the confidential file in the chancery also had other files on priests other than sexual misconduct, okay.

Q. If I didn't make that clear, I think I said in part.
A. I'm sorry.

Q. No, that's fine. With respect to your own confidential files, what was the purpose in your [46] maintaining your own personal -- that was a personal file to you?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What was the purpose in your maintaining your own personal confidential file?
A. That this was not part of the office file but this was part of a correspondence that I was maintaining with the priest over whom I had some responsibility.

Q. Okay.
A. It could have been -- I would maintain this in regard to priests who had vocational issues, priests who were -- so there could be other priests I was dealing with and so that it wasn't a matter of a public office file, but I was dealing with the personal issues with the priest and so I would have what I would call my confidential file.

Q. Were correspondence such as what has been marked as Exhibit 56 also put in the office files on a particular priest?
A. Not if I marked it confidential.

Q. So there are certain documents that you wrote in your capacity as Secretary for Ministerial [47] Personnel that would not have been maintained in the regular Archdiocese files, be them personnel files or the Archdiocese confidential files, but would have been maintained in your own personal confidential file?
A. When I was dealing -- at the time I was dealing with a priest around a personal matter, so it wouldn't be as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, which was an administrative role, but as a, for want of a better word, a priest who was counseling or assisting other priests through a difficult time in their priestly life in ministry, I would keep a file; and because it was something personal, it was confidential. And so I would have my personal confidential file and that would, you know, be kept until the work was ended.

Q. Well, in this piece of correspondence you are acting in your capacity as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, correct?
A. That was my -- no, I would say with Paul I was assigned by the Cardinal to keep in contact with him, and it wasn't -- didn't fall within the role of Secretary for Ministerial Personnel to do [48] that.

Q. But you are signing your letters in your official capacity, is that correct?
A. That's right, because that was my office.

Q. Okay. And through your -- you know, and through your office you've had -- you've had correspondence back and forth with Paul Shanley, and is it your testimony that that was -- that that was correspondence that you were engaged in not in your capacity as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel?
A. I guess maybe I'm not making the distinction clear. The Secretary for Ministerial Personnel was an administrative role that had to deal with the offices of the Archdiocese that dealt with ministry, so that could be priests, religious deacons, any lay ministries. And then, within that as time developed, I was asked to do some work with the priest that was not in the original job description and I don't think ever became part of the job description, but they asked me to do this and so I began to do it. And so that's why this would not be -- this would be something personal to the priest [49] more than it was to the office for Secretary for Ministerial Personnel.

Q. But aren't you in that -- even in that capacity you're representing what positions are of the Archdiocese of Boston, what the Cardinal's position are, what the -- what Bishop Hughes or other bishops' positions are with respect to Shanley, isn't it fair to say that you are acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Archdiocese?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. And wouldn't it be expected that when you are acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Archdiocese that the correspondence that you send out be maintained in official files of the Archdiocese?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My sense is is that, if you want to use that description, that this would be the official file of the Archdiocese, which at that time was being dealt with in a confidential way.

Q. Okay. And this file that you talk about that you maintained back in 1991 was also a [50] file that you maintained in a wide variety -- or, strike that -- in a variety of instances where you were dealing with, as you call it, personal issues with particular priests, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And where did you maintain this file?
A. In my office.

Q. Okay. And when you left your office -- when you left either as the delegate or as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, what happened to that file?
A. My memory doesn't serve me well, but my sense is is that it was all turned over to the delegate or to the person that was succeeding me as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel.

Q. Is it your testimony that those files are not files that you took with you?
A. Oh, no, no.

Q. Okay. And can you say with certainty, Bishop, as you sit here today, that that notation of -- which refers to a confidential file was intended to be your own personal confidential file as opposed to the confidential file which has also been [51] referred to in prior depositions as one being maintained by the Archdiocese?
A. I would say with certainty to the degree that I didn't have access to the Archdiocesan confidential file on my own until I was the delegate. So prior to that, if I was going to keep something dealing with a personal matter of a priest, I kept it in my own file.

Q. And was it your practice, therefore -- strike that. Let's go back. Did you do your own filing at this time?
A. Sometimes in things like this I did; in many other matters it was my secretary.

Q. Okay. And if something was to go into your own personal confidential file, were those things that you also, as a matter of course, would give to your secretary and she would file it in your own confidential files. I say she, I'm assuming it's a she.
A. It could be both.

Q. Okay.
A. Yeah, I had a file drawer yea large and then I developed a file drawer in the office. [52]

Q. Okay. And if it was something --
A. Her office.

Q. Okay. If -- I guess what I'm asking is would that notation on that file indicate to you that that was something that you intended your secretary to file on your behalf?
A. It could be either; the filing was done sporadically.

Q. Okay. And was it your practice that if it was intended that a document be placed in your own personal confidential file that you would -- that it was your practice to make a notation of that on the document?
A. It depends, you know, where the document was. I notice that, you know, this was something that landed on my desk and I had to decide where it was to be filed; other times I might have noted it at the time, it really -- there's nothing consistent here.

Q. Okay. When you say this document landed on your desk, this was a letter that you generated.
A. Correct. And so when I get the copy, [53] and so I have copies I have to decide, you know, what goes in the office file and what was the confidential file.

Q. Was there a way, if it was intended to be placed in the other confidential file -- I don't know if there's a way --
A. I don't --

Q. Let me -- let me go back and ask this question: Is there a way to distinguish between these two confidential files in your mind? We called something the confidential file and now we're calling this --
A. Confidential file --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well --

Q. Is there -- did you refer to them differently?
MR. ROGERS: At what point, Bob?
MR. SHERMAN: Back in 1991.
THE WITNESS: I wouldn't -- I would be referring to my own confidential file in '91, I know that.

Q. Okay. [54]
A. And whether the chancery confidential file, I mean I didn't make any different notation; I just knew that I didn't have the file so that it would probably then go into the chancery confidential file, if it was a matter of whether that person had a file. So if there was a file of a man in the chancery confidential file, then I would, you know, give those probably to the Bishop's secretary and have -- I'm trying to remember how we did it -- but have her file them.

Q. And, again, so I understand, back in 1991 you were dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct involving priests other than Father Shanley --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And there were issues that were coming up in which you were generating correspondence that would go into the chancery confidential file, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And was it your testimony that when [55] that happened you would personally deliver those documents to the Bishop -- and I take it you're talking about the Vicar for Administration's secretary so that it could be filed in the chancery confidential file?
A. Either that or I'd ask for the key to file then myself.

Q. Okay. Did you ever leave those documents with your secretary to be delivered either to the Vicar for Administration or to be filed in the chancery confidential file?
A. It wasn't a practice so I can't say that I never did, but I'm going to say that it would be my exception, I think.

Q. Okay. But you didn't have a practice the other way, either, which, in other words, you didn't have a practice to never give documents involving sexual misconduct to your secretary for filing, either, that you always handled those yourself, that wasn't your practice, either?
A. She didn't have access to the file; the only person who could get access was myself.

Q. Okay. [56]
A. This is the chancery file that we're talking about.

Q. Right, but she could also deliver documents to the Vicar for Administration's secretary?
A. I'm not as clear on that practice, as I say; I think if I did it, that would have been by exception.

Q. Okay. I guess what I -- one of the things I want to ask you is that if this were a document, if 56 were a document that you left for your secretary, how would your secretary know whether it goes into your own personal confidential file or the chancery confidential file?
A. That's why I said it would be by exception; in this, I would probably have -- if this was my own file in my desk, this would have stayed, I would have filed it myself.

Q. And to your knowledge, when you left as -- strike that.
Did you maintain that same confidential file from the time you were secretary for administration -- Secretary for Ministerial Personnel [57] through the time that you were also the delegate?
A. Once again, I can't speak specifically to my memory, but once this became a matter of a sexual misconduct, this whole file would have been moved to the chancery file.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. I see we've gone over the hour and why don't we take a break right now and then we'll come back.
THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. MIELKE: Off the record.

(Recess.)

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

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, before we took a break, we were talking about your confidential file, and so I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this was a file that you personally maintained when you were dealing with a personal matter involving a priest that was, as you viewed it, outside your duties as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, is that a fair characterization?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And it was your practice that -- to put on the top of correspondence that was to be [58] kept in your confidential file the notation of -- notation to that effect to distinguish correspondence or other documents that needed to be maintained in that file, correct?
A. It wasn't my -- I can't say it was a consistent practice, that's the point, because I could have gotten this and gone immediately to the file and put it in and it might not have confidential on it, whereas if I was probably trying to write a lot of -- I was doing a lot of papers and deciding how they needed to be filed, I might write that on it, and then after a pile of papers, then I would begin to sift them out.

Q. Okay. And the file that you referred to as your confidential file was maintained in your desk drawer, do I --
A. Yes.

Q. -- I understand that correctly?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was this a confidential file that you started when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel and continued to keep once you became the delegate? [59]

A. Eventually I became delegate. No, I think I -- I think I merged all my confidential files into the chancery confidential file. I'm going to say once I realized I can't be going back and forth, nor could the Vicar for Administration, you know, he had to have access and I had to have access -- and, see, at one time if a case was active, you would keep kind of a personal file, but eventually, as these cases multiplied and the Vicar for Administration had some and I had some and we deal with this, at some time, I know that I decided that whatever we had had to be all put in the confidential file.
Now, whether everything -- every person I was dealing with got into the confidential file, I can't say, but anything that had to do with sexual misconduct did.

Q. Okay. So it's your testimony that if a matter became -- strike that.
It's your testimony that if a matter involved matters of sexual misconduct, if you had been dealing with that priest on another matter, that all the materials that you had kept -- strike that. Let me try that again. [60]
If you had been dealing with a priest on a personal matter and maintained a confidential -- your own confidential file on the matter you were dealing with, if eventually there was also a matter involving sexual misconduct with that priest, that you took those files and merged them with the chancery confidential file?
A. Yes --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: -- that would be my practice, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, before the break we had started -- you had started to say that once you left your role you had left your confidential files, correct, did you testify to that before the break?
A. Say that again.

Q. Before the break you had testified that once you left your role as delegate or -- I'm sorry, once you left your role as delegate, you left your confidential files, is that correct?
A. Whatever files I had as delegate or as -- or any other case, I would have turned over to the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel or to the [61] delegate, yes, that's correct. If that's what you understand, that's correct.

Q. Okay. And it's your assumption that those files got merged into confidential -- into the chancery confidential files or you know that they got merged into the chancery confidential files?
A. My sense is that all the files I had regarding sexual misconduct had been merged into the chancery confidential files; any other files I had that were active about a priest would have been turned over to the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, who would have, on my -- you know, would have responsibility for following through in some way.
In some way they had to work out who was going to follow through with these men, not those involved with sexual misconduct but those other matters could be vocation or another, you know, health issue and -- but there was a delegate then appointed. When I left, there was a Secretary for Ministerial Personnel assigned, but there was also a delegate named. So there were two people who followed me in office. [62]

Q. So is it your understanding that, with respect to Paul Shanley, the confidential file that you maintained on Paul Shanley eventually was merged --
A. Yes.

Q. -- into the chancery confidential file?
A. Yes.

Q. And you know that -- you know that -- is that your understanding or you know that as a fact?
A. I know that that was my practice and so that it had to be -- as a matter of fact, this is -- obviously this became part of the file at some time, but everything I had about Paul Shanley had to be moved into the confidential file at some time.

Q. How do you know that became part of the file?
A. Because you have it.

Q. Well, how do you know that there wasn't -- that there wasn't -- that it wasn't searched? Were separate files maintained in the office of the delegate or the office of Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, for instance? [63]
A. Okay. Well --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Say that again.

Q. How do you know that this came from the chancery confidential file as opposed to being found in separate files maintained in the delegate's office or in the office of the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know that. I thought that since you had it you got it out of the confidential file, but --

Q. All right. That was an assumption --
A. Assumption.

Q. -- that you made, okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 57 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had an opportunity to review that letter, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What do you understand this letter to be?
A. A follow-up to my letter of March 14th, [64] which meant that I had a conversation with either the Cardinal and/or his Vicar for Administration about his being assigned to permanent disability.

Q. And what was the distinction at that time between assigning Shanley to permanent disability as -- or giving him partial disability?
A. Partial disability would be that it was temporary and it would be for -- it could either be temporary or it could be that he was only able to do part-time work so he needed some other form of support, ministry, part-time ministry, or for some other form of support.

Q. Okay. And in this, in the third paragraph, you ask Shanley, Father Shanley, rather, to provide a letter from his doctor attesting to the fact that due to his physical condition he has permanent disability --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Was it the practice of the Archdiocese at that time to accept the word of the personal physician to a priest regarding personal disability [65] without getting independent verification from a doctor from the Archdiocese?
A. I'm not sufficiently versed in it to make a general comment. My sense is is that they -- that the priest who was responsible for the man who needed to go on disability, say it's a regional bishop or it could have been the director of the Clergy Fund, but someone would know him and they would know his condition and so they would have a sense of whether his doctor's recommendation made sense or not. I think that if they felt that it didn't make sense then they would seek a -- ask him for a second opinion, to get a second opinion.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, did you finish?
A. Something else came to mind, but I -- that's basically my understanding, yeah, I think that's it.

Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that there was no practice or policy back in May of 1991 regarding mandatory independent examinations before a determination of personal -- of permanent disability could be made?
A. I can't say that there was no policy [66] and I can't say there wasn't a practice, so -- it wasn't within my role. So all I can say is that I remember sometimes, as a member of the Clergy Fund Board, being informed that, you know, there was a medical support for this priest seeking a part-time disability or a permanent disability, but I can't remember whether there was ever any discussion about whether we have independent audit or -- independent assessment.

Q. So if there was such a practice, that didn't fall under the responsibilities of the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel to administer that?
A. Correct.

Q. Under whose responsibility would it have been to administer such a practice?
A. It would have been the staff person of the Clergy Fund and the Vicar for Administration.

Q. And so is it fair to say that, in your capacity in this case, as being the contact person with Father Shanley, that if that were required -- in other words, if a second opinion were required -- you would have been instructed by someone else -- [67]
A. Yes.

Q. -- to get that second opinion?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And most likely that would have been the head of the Clergy Fund or the Vicar for Administration?
A. He was the head of the Clergy Fund and the staff person was the person who would sometimes speak for him, Father Ryan.

Q. And can you recall instances where you were the contact with a priest who was on sick leave or medical leave where you were in fact instructed to seek an independent opinion regarding his physical condition before a determination of permanent disability could be made, again, prior to 1991?
A. I think I recall a discussion about seeking a second opinion, but I can't name you who the priest was or whether it was I who was involved.

Q. Okay. Around 1991 how many priests fell into the same category as Paul Shanley, and by I mean priests that were on sick or administrative leave that you had responsibility for maintaining contact and following? [68]
A. I'd be guessing; I really can't even begin to guess.

Q. Well, I don't want to you guess, but an estimate would be okay. I mean are we talking about more than 10?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, if you can.

Q. If you can.
A. Honestly, I can't.
MR. ROGERS: Okay. You've answered it.
Another question.

Q. And can you tell me whether it was more than five?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: If I can't tell you it's more than ten, I can't really tell you it's more than five, really, I can't, honestly.

Q. So is it possible that Father Shanley was the only one?
A. On administrative leave or permanent disability or --

Q. No, no, or sick leave. In other words, somebody that you had the responsibility for maintaining, that you were assigned the [69] responsibility of --
A. Oh, it's more than Father Shanley, yeah; there were other priests I was dealing with.

Q. Okay. And now that we're discussing it, do you have any ballpark estimation of whether we're talking about more than five or more than 10 or more than 15?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by an estimate? You know, I guess, you know --

Q. More than picking a number out of thin air.
A. Thin air.

Q. Yeah, as you sit --
A. It's more than five.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 58 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Bishop, you testified on Friday that you had been out to visit Paul Shanley in California, is that correct? [70]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when you were out to visit Paul Shanley, he was residing in San Bernardino, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, this is a letter that you wrote on September 3rd, 1991 in which you make mention that you were notified that Paul Shanley had moved to Palm Springs, is that a fair characterization, at least of part of the letter?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was it the practice of the Archdiocese to require priests who were on sick or administrative leave to notify the Archdiocese prior to their moving to another residence?
A. I can't say, but I would say it would be normal that they would notify them, but now whether it was prior or during, honestly -- I mean I know he was on sick leave.

Q. Well, isn't it that -- didn't you testify previously that it was important that the priest be in a parish, you know, setting and have access to church, is it, facilities -- [71]
A. Shanley?

Q. I'm sorry?
A. Father Shanley?

Q. Yeah, for Father Shanley, sorry.
A. Yes.

Q. And wasn't it, therefore, for Father Shanley expected that Father Shanley would notify you if he intended to leave that kind of environment?
A. I would expect that, yes.

Q. Do you recall your reaction when Father Ryan, Monsignor Ryan -- was he Monsignor Ryan at that time, do you know?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. -- that now Monsignor Ryan had told you that Father Shanley had moved from San Bernardino to Palm Springs?
A. What was my reaction?

Q. Do you recall your reaction?
A. Well, I can't recall it, but I was surprised, I know that.

Q. Did you know at that point in time what kind of setting that Father Shanley was living in?
A. In Palm Springs? [72]

Q. In Palm Springs.
A. No.

Q. Okay. Was it important to you -- was it important to you to know that he was in a setting that involved some church-related property?
A. Was it important to me that he be -- yes, it was, yeah.

Q. Okay. Is there a reason in this letter why you didn't express that surprise and ask to find out what precipitated his move from San Bernardino to Palm Springs and what kind of setting that he was living in?
A. I think the second paragraph says that, "I'm sorry to hear that your illness has developed to be so incapacitating. I hope that it improves." That would be basically my reason for, you know, accepting what he did.

Q. Okay. So but you had no idea who he was living with, where he was living, other than having the street address that he was at 641 North Camino Real?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And did you know at that time [73] that Jack White was in Palm Springs?
A. Yes.

Q. And you had testified, at least -- strike that.
You had testified on the second day of your deposition that you didn't believe Paul Shanley living with Jack White would have been a healthy situation. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you still maintain that view in September of 1991, that Paul Shanley should not be living with Jack White?
A. My memory is, yes, I did.

Q. Did you inquire at the time to find out whether Paul Shanley was indeed living with Jack White?
A. I never thought he was.

Q. Why?
A. Because he had also said that he didn't think it was helpful for him to be living with Jack White, so it was something mutual. And so when he moved to Palm Springs, that didn't mean that he was living with Jack White. [74]

Q. Okay. So you made the assumption that it must have been a separate residence?
A. Yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 59 was marked for identification.)

Q. Sorry, Bishop have you had --
A. Okay. Yes.

Q. Do you understand this to be Paul Shanley's response to your note -- your letter of September 3rd which was marked as Exhibit 58?
A. Yes.

Q. And he informs you in there that he's still residing at St. Anne's and that's the parish in San Bernardino, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And he's just taking a room temporarily to November 1st, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you recall whether you were satisfied with that explanation?
A. I don't recall, to be honest, no, I don't recall, but my sense is that it kind of corrected what I was surprised at, that he had moved [75] without -- as you had said, without informing me --

Q. Okay.
A. -- and he really hadn't, that he kept St. Anne's, but it was a room there so he could be near his doctors.

Q. Okay. And did you have any understanding of how he was going to pay for an additional room?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Was it the policy of the Archdiocese at that time to continue to pay a stipend to St. Anne's for maintaining Paul Shanley, even though he had a room somewhere else?
A. My interpretation was is that he's still at St. Anne's and he's spending some time at a room in Palm Springs to be near his doctors. So that my sense was that he was still at St. Anne's.

Q. Okay. And you would have expected that St. Anne's, therefore, would have been paid for --
A. His residence.

Q. Yeah, having him in residence.
A. Correct.

Q. Now, in the upper right-hand corner of [76] this document -- again, it's cut off and correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but does that look like it says "S H confidential file," as in Shanley confidential file?
A. Yeah, I think so, but I --

Q. That would be your writing, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And as best as you can read it, recognizing that it's cut off, does that -- does that look like --
A. It's cut off, but it looks like it's an S H A.

Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, is it fair to say that your understanding that would probably say "Shanley confidential file"?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the Shanley confidential file, does that refer to your own personal confidential file or does that refer to the chancery confidential file on Shanley?
A. I would say that, you know, for me it refers to my personal confidential file.

Q. Okay. So a notation of confidential [77] file or Shanley confidential file would be a distinction without a difference --
A. Right.

Q. -- in terms of where the document was maintained?
A. Right.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 60 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it fair to say, Bishop, that this appears to be referring to a note from Paul Shanley that was received separate from what is Exhibit 59?
A. I can't say that, no. Excuse me, I can't say that, really, I don't know.

Q. Okay. You have no recollection --
A. No.

Q. -- one way or another?
Okay. It refers to, in the first paragraph, the fact that Paul Shanley was recuperating from facial surgery, is that correct?
A. Yes. [78]

Q. Were you ever told by any source that the reason Paul Shanley had facial surgery was that he had been beaten up?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you have an understanding of why Paul Shanley had facial surgery as of November -- I'm sorry, as of October of 1991?
A. My faint recollection is that it was skin cancerous.

Q. Again, you say a faint recollection. Do you have any different recollection now looking back --
A. No.

Q. -- than what you might have had at that time?
A. No, I'm surprised to hear you say it was being beaten up.

Q. Okay. And would it have been your practice if there were photos that accompanied the letter that that would also have been something that you would have a kept with the letter?
A. Depends whether I thought it was important or not, I guess. So that it isn't my [79] practice to keep photos, yeah.

Q. Okay. And would this have been a letter that you would have also maintained in your confidential -- or a copy of this letter that you would have maintained in your personal confidential file or one of the chancery files?
A. My sense is that all his papers were, you know, kept in my confidential file.

Q. Okay.
A. This is still an ongoing discussion about -- I don't know what it's about. Updating the original letters, I'm not sure what that's about.

Q. Okay. And your explanation for the fact that there isn't a notation regarding your confidential file is --
A. That I probably filed it myself immediately.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 61 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had a chance to review that letter, Bishop?
A. Yes. [80]

Q. Now, this was a letter sent to you by Dr. Shaner in October of 1991, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you understood Dr. Shaner to be Paul Shanley's physician, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it was the practice of the Archdiocese, I believe, consistent with, you know, prior practices, to put a stamp on it when the letter was received, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to me why this stamp is May 6th, 1994?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Is it your testimony, as you sit here today, that this was a letter that the Archdiocese did in fact receive in 1991?
A. Again, I can't say that, either, yeah. It's dated 1991.

Q. You have no explanation why there would be a stamp on it that says --
A. No.

Q. -- 1994? [81]
Okay. Are you aware of other times when letters that had been received by the Archdiocese had been misstamped with dates that were years different from the date of the letter?
A. I don't recall any.

Q. Okay. Now, the -- fair to say that this was the letter that Paul Shanley had mentioned to you that was forthcoming from his doctor outlying what the nature of his problems were in order to support the issue of whether he should be placed on permanent disability?
A. Or sick leave.

Q. Or sick leave?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, by the way, do you remember receiving this letter?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, as we look into it, the disability, according to Dr. Shaner, is divided into three areas, and he lists those particular areas, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the first area talks about a [82] number of different -- can we say physical ailments, is that correct?
A. Yes, uh-huh.

Q. Number two has to do with an emotional issue, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you have an understanding back in 1991 based on your, you know, background and degree in social work and your work for the Archdiocese as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel as to what chronic anxiety neurosis would have referred to?
A. I'm not sure what you mean by the question, when you say --

Q. Back in 1991 when you read those --
A. -- referred to.

Q. I'm sorry, let me rephrase the question. That's a fair characterization.
Back in 1991 when you would have received this letter and seen the doctor mention the words "chronic anxiety neurosis," did you have an understanding of what that phrase meant?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. He didn't [83] indicate that he received it in 1991.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.

Q. Okay. Let me rephrase it -- actually, let me -- you know, what I can do is mark another exhibit or make a representation to you that you did forward on this letter in 1991, Bishop. So if we can assume, for the purposes of this question -- and I'm going to mark the exhibit in a minute, anyway -- that there is a transmittal letter from you back in that time and that you did get it in 1991, if we can make that assumption for purposes of just this question, that you received the letter in 1991, would you have had an understanding of what the phrase "chronic anxiety neurosis" meant?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You know, it's hard for me to go back to '91 to say how I understood that, but my sense is I would have understood it, yes.

Q. Okay. And what would you have understood it to refer to?
A. That he was constantly dealing with an anxiety, I'll use the word a generalized anxiety.

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say in number [84] three, again, the reference is to physical ailments, that Father Shanley was suffering through his problems with allergies?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, in the paragraph that follows number three, Dr. Shaner also mentions other what he calls maladies, and, again, these are all physical ailments, correct?
A. Except the last one.

Q. I'm sorry, yeah, insomnia.
A. Right.

Q. And you would characterize insomnia as --
A. I don't know what I characterize it, but it's more than physical, I guess, yeah.

Q. Okay. So would it have been your understanding, at the time that you received the letter, that the majority of Paul Shanley's problems were physical as opposed to emotional?
A. Again, I can't remember back that far. I think that there was a time when I felt that some of his physical maladies were exacerbated by his emotional state. [85]

Q. Okay.
A. So that there was an interplay there.

Q. Okay. And do you remember or do you have any recollection of what you did in response to receiving this letter in 1991?
A. Do I recall?

Q. Uh-huh.
A. I think you've intimated that I've passed it onto Bishop Hughes.

Q. Well, I don't think I intimated as to who it got passed on to --
A. Oh, okay.

Q. -- but I know you did transmit it. But I'm not trying to ask you --
A. That's right.

Q. -- you know, if we could, but do you remember -- do you remember, in receipt of this letter, either talking to anybody about it or taking any kind of action in response to it?
MR. ROGERS: He's already testified he doesn't remember receiving it, Bob. So anything is based upon the documentation put before him.
MR. SHERMAN: All right. He can tell [86] me that.
THE WITNESS: As I say, I don't recall receiving this letter, but I do recall consulting with a doctor about -- a psychiatrist about Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. And that would have been Dr. Cassem?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that's the letter that I want to go --
A. Right.

Q. -- go to now.
MR. SHERMAN: If we could have this one marked, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 62 was marked for identification.)

MR. SHERMAN: Let's put on the record that 62 is the cover letter, if you'd like me to -- it does attach what we've previously marked as 61 to it. I can either put it in as a full exhibit that way or at least make reference to the letter that 62 contains the attachment which we have previously marked as 61. I'm happy just leaving it like -- [87]
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. SHERMAN: -- like that if you are.
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. If you can take a minute.
It's also five after 12. Do you want to take a break now or do you want to go through this letter and --
MR. ROGERS: Why don't we go through this letter and we'll take a break.
MR. SHERMAN: That's fine.
MR. ROGERS: We'll have lunch at one.
MR. SHERMAN: Fine.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Have you had a chance to review --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that letter?
Do you recall how it was, Bishop, that you happened to enlist Dr. Cassem into this matter?
A. In other words, excuse me, why him?

Q. Well, let's start with that, why -- let's start with this -- let me just go back.
Were you the one that, on your own [88] initiative, determined to send Dr. Shaner's letter to Dr. Cassem and bring Dr. Cassem in, or was that something that was a result of conversations with others?
A. I can't say that it wasn't with conversations with others, but I think it was my own initiative.

Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of you seeking out Dr. Cassem in this instance?
A. Because I used to consult with him around priests who had emotional issues or vocational issues, life issues, and so in this instance, with all that was noted there, he's both a doctor and a psychiatrist, I thought it would be good for me to review with Ned Cassem what Paul Shanley's diagnosis was by his doctor and whether he thought that it was sufficient to really, you know, be permanent, in terms of permanent disability --

Q. Okay.
A. -- with the idea that I always thought that Paul Shanley had the ability to serve, and so whether it was some ministry -- I just think that the longer he was off alone, ill, it was not helpful, but [89] I was so -- you can see I'm going back and forth, you know, should we give this man sick leave or permanent disability?

Q. Okay. Now, earlier you testified that if there was the need to get a second opinion, that normally would have been determined by somebody else, either the vicar -- I'm sorry, most likely the Vicar for Administration or the staff person for the Clergy Personnel Board, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. But this isn't something that, as you sit here now and you recall, this is not something you talked to the Vicar for Administration about or the staff person for the Clergy Personnel Board; this is something you did on your own initiative?
A. I did -- I think I did this on my own initiative. This was a consult more than it was a second opinion. And secondly --

Q. Well, --
A. -- but I could have mentioned it to the Vicar for Administration about what I was doing.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part.
A. I probably would -- no, not probably; I [90] possibly could have mentioned to the Vicar for Administration what I intended to do.

Q. Okay. But do you have a recollection, as you sit here today one way or another, of having mentioned it? And at this time the Vicar for Administration would have been --
A. Bishop Hughes.

Q. -- Bishop Hughes, correct?
A. Yeah, I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Were there other instances involving priests that you were dealing with because you had been assigned to maintain contact with those priests or follow those priests while they were sick or on administrative leave that you had also sought consultation from doctors concerning their -- their condition?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And, again, in those other -- about how many other instances, as of 1991, did you seek out consultation from other doctors?
A. I can't give you a number, but I would say that any time I thought that a priest was dealing with some emotional problems I would seek a consult [91] with a doctor to learn, you know, how he would understand the situation and what was the best way of trying to help this priest.

Q. Would you do that if the priest was suffering from physical problems and not emotional problems as well?
A. See, I probably wouldn't see a priest who had just physical problems, that wouldn't -- it was usually a priest who was dealing with vocational issues, emotional issues, living situation issues, relationship issues and the sexual misconduct issues.

Q. And those would be the types of priests that would be given to you to follow or to supervise?
A. Well, it wouldn't be to supervise --

Q. All right.
A. -- it would be to assist in some way.

Q. All right. I'm sorry, to follow or to assist, is that a better way of characterizing it?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. The -- and you had -- you said before that this was not a second opinion but a consultation. What's the distinction that you see between the two? [92]
A. A second opinion would be that we would require the man to have another assessment or diagnosis by another individual, whereas this was not requiring that; this was helping me understand his own doctor's understanding and diagnosis.

Q. Okay. And what was the relationship that you had -- and I mean you in your, you know, capacities as a -- as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel and a priest of the Archdiocese -- had with Ned Cassem?
A. What kind of relationship? Basically, you know, I would consult with him, so it was a working relationship, a helpful relationship.

Q. Okay. And, you know, as of 1991, do you have any idea of how frequently you were in contact with Dr. Cassem?
A. In 1991? I can't classify that. I mean I can't remember back then, but, you know, I would probably meet with him on a regular basis. I'm going to say maybe I would sit down with him and talk about three or four instances or sometimes it would be a telephone call. And so that could be every six weeks or -- it's really -- depends on what my agenda [93] was.

Q. Okay. But it wasn't a weekly --
A. No.

Q. -- thing?
A. No.

Q. It was more a monthly or --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- month and a half type --
A. Yes.

Q. -- regular contact?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. Now, in the second paragraph you say that "My sense is Paul would like to have a permanent status with the diocese, such as permanent disability, so that he will not have to wonder whether he has to get any better or be required to return to active ministry sometime in the future." And then you say "My sense is that the Archdiocese, in light of Paul's health and difficulties, would not want to press him to return here to active ministry." Do you see --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that sentence? [94]
When you say -- you make a distinction between problems of his health and, you know, quote, difficulties that Paul was having. When you refer to difficulties, what -- or when you refer to difficulties back in 1991, what were you referring to?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would think that -- and my basic sense is his difficulty was his relationship with the diocese and his sense of, you know, not being assisted or really having the helpful relationship that he ought to have, his resistance to returning to the diocese to do ministry or living in the diocese. So there was this real difficult he had about -- very basic, I'm going to say, relationship.

Q. Okay. And had you made a decision at this point that you didn't want Paul Shanley to return to the Boston Archdiocese?
A. That wasn't my decision as much as it was my understanding of where he was in terms of his health, in terms of his own relationship with the diocese and that it would be counterproductive at this time, you know, to recommend that he return when [95] we have all the understanding of what's happening to him out there.

Q. So is it my understanding -- or let me ask you: Was the issue of Paul Shanley coming back to Boston and assuming active ministry at some point a closed issue at this point?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't see that, I don't recall that. I think it was more at this time, you know, it's not good for Paul to come back here, it's not going to be helpful to him.

Q. Okay. Was Dr. Cassem -- strike that.
As of October 31st, 1991, you were also involved in your official capacity with priests who were accused of sexual misconduct, is that correct?
A. Was it my official capacity, is that what you said?

Q. Well, as part of your duties, you were involved with priests that were accused of sexual misconduct, correct?
A. Yes, I was, along with the Vicar for Administration at that time.

Q. Right. And did you use Dr. Cassem as a [96] resource in dealing with priests who were involved with sexual misconduct as of that time?
A. I would think so because I was dealing with some of those men.

Q. Okay. Is it your testimony that your referral of priests to Dr. Cassem went beyond just priests who were involved with sexual misconduct?
A. Much more beyond that, yeah.

Q. Okay. Can you think of other instances where you brought Dr. Cassem to consult when the issue did not involve sexual misconduct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. I'm not going to ask you, obviously, to name --
A. Good.

Q. -- those priests.
Now, in the last paragraph you talk about breaking bread and "talk about some interesting stories." Do you see that reference?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any recollection of what you were referring to?
A. When we -- when I consulted, we used to [97] go out to supper together.

Q. Okay. And do you --
A. Interesting stories would be my -- how do you call it -- yeah, the questions I had about dealing with priests.

Q. Okay. Did interesting stories refer specifically to Paul Shanley in the context of that letter?
A. It doesn't exclude him, but I don't think it intentionally includes him. It says some interesting stories, so that could be about some of the priests I was dealing with.

Q. Okay. And, again, is it your testimony that as of the time that you made this referral to Dr. Cassem in October of 1991, you had no idea that there were allegations of sexual misconduct that had been brought against Paul Shanley?
A. I had no idea.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Why don't we take a break right now.
MR. MIELKE: Off the record.
(Recess.)
MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record. [98]

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, you were saying before the break that you would get together with Dr. Cassem and have dinner, with respect to his response when you brought him into consult, is that correct?
A. Initially that's what I was doing; then later I'd go to his office, yeah.

Q. Okay. But you would actually meet with him as part of the consultation process, is that --
A. Yes.

Q. That's a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Once again, I threw you for a loop because sometimes I hesitate in the questions; that's not your doing, that's mine.
A. Okay.

Q. And did you -- and were there -- was it your practice, also, to get a written report from Dr. Cassem, or did that vary?
A. Most often it was not written.

Q. Okay. Were there occasions when you did get a written report from Dr. Cassem?
A. If I sent him a letter, he would [99] respond by letter, yes.

Q. Okay. So it wouldn't be that you would send him a letter and then you would meet and have dinner or meet at his office and there would not be any written follow-up; if you sent him a letter, his practice was to respond in writing to you?
A. I think in general I would say that because most of the time we would meet and I would bring my questions or my concerns or my stories and we would talk about them there.

Q. So how did you determine when to send him a letter versus just to schedule a meeting with him and bring up issues at that time?
A. Are you looking for a working principle or something?

Q. I'm hoping to get one.
A. I think in this instance I would have written him a letter because I wanted him to read the letter from Dr. Shaner.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 63 was marked for identification.)

A. Okay. [100]

Q. You recognize this document to be the response from Dr. Cassem to your letter of October 31st, 1991, which we've previously marked, is that correct, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this letter was written approximately two and a half weeks after your letter to him, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall, as you sit here today, whether you had any communications or conversations with Dr. Cassem in between the two letters?
A. No, I don't.

Q. And just so I'm clear, when you say you don't, you don't recall one way or another?
A. I don't recall one way or another.

Q. Okay. Would it have been your normal practice, or was there a normal practice of getting together with Dr. Cassem to discuss the matter orally before receiving a written response from him?
A. There was no practice, no.

Q. Okay. Had you ever consulted with [101] Dr. Cassem regarding Paul Shanley prior to your sending him the correspondence dated October 31st, 1991?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. And, again, so I understand, I don't know means you don't have a recollection one way or another?
A. I don't have a recollection of talking to him about him beforehand, one way or another, right.

Q. Okay. Do you know whether anyone else other than you, prior to November 16, 1991 -- and when I say "anybody else," I mean anybody else at the Boston Archdiocese -- had a conversation with Dr. Cassem regarding Paul Shanley?
A. Do I know that anybody -- no, I don't know.

Q. Would it, in the normal course of your interaction with Dr. Cassem, if he had heard from somebody else at the Boston Archdiocese regarding Paul Shanley, would that be something that he would have raised with you?
A. Put it this way: I don't recall him [102] ever telling me that he had conversations about a priest with another person from the Boston Archdiocese.

Q. Okay. Now, I want to direct your attention to the second paragraph of his letter to you.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. He starts "At core is what causes his disability. It certainly is not his hiatus hernia. 'Anxiety neurosis' is not a diagnosis any longer made by modern psychiatric diagnostic nosology, but Dr. Shaner's sense of it is conveyed, namely, that Father Shanley is primarily crippled by his psychiatric illness."
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. Did you have an understanding back then of what Dr. Cassem was referring to as what his psychiatric illness was, what it entailed?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Did I have an understanding back then? I don't recall.

Q. Do you recall having any further communications with Dr. Cassem regarding what [103] Paul Shanley's psychiatric illness might have entailed?
A. I don't recall them, no.

Q. Okay. Do you recall discussing Paul Shanley with Dr. Cassem ever again?
A. I don't recall.

Q. So is it fair to say that, other than this letter, you recall no other communications with Dr. Cassem regarding Paul Shanley?
A. I don't recall any, right.

Q. Okay. And, again, that means that they might have happened, they may not have; you have no recollection one way or another?
A. Right, I just have no recollection.

Q. Okay. Would it -- did you have a practice and would it have been your practice, when you see a reference to psychiatric illness, to have picked up the phone and had a further or a follow-up conversation with Dr. Cassem regarding the contents of this letter and regarding that term?
A. That would have, you know, triggered my desire to find out further from him what he meant by a psychiatric illness in terms of Paul Shanley [104] because it's clear he read more into anxiety neurosis than I did.

Q. Okay. But you don't have a memory of whether you did follow up with respect to that with respect to --
A. I just don't have the memory, but it would have been practice, yes.

Q. Okay. So your practice would have been to follow-up, but you don't have --
A. An understanding --

Q. I'm sorry, let me --
A. That's right.

Q. -- let me see if I can phrase the question just so I can understand for the record.
It would have been your practice to have had a follow-up communication with Dr. Cassem, but as you sit here today, you don't have a recollection one way or another --
A. Right.

Q. -- of that having occurred?
A. Right.

Q. Dr. Cassem raises a question two sentences later of whether Father Shanley should be [105] diagnosed via a formal psychiatric consultation. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And, again, do you recall -- strike that.
First of all, do you recall receiving this letter back in 1991?
A. The letter looks familiar to me, yes.

Q. Do you recall or do you have any memory of, back in 1991, a suggestion or a question, rather, being raised as to whether Paul Shanley should be sent for a formal diagnosis?
A. Do I recall whether a decision was made?

Q. No, no, that a question had been raised about the issue of whether Paul Shanley should be sent for a formal psychiatric diagnosis.
A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you, in response to this -- in this letter seek to have Paul Shanley engage in a psychiatric consultation, as Dr. Cassem raised the question?
A. My memory is that I pressed him to get [106] some help and so that I was -- I don't recall whether it was -- I don't recall the specifics, whether it began with the consultation and then began with "We'll find somebody to treat you," but I remember pressing him that he needed some psychiatric help.

Q. Okay. And do you remember what -- when you say you "pressed him," what form that took?
A. Like?

Q. Did you write to him? Did you call him on the phone? Did you fly out there and meet with him?
A. I didn't fly out to meet with him, so it was either by telephone or by writing.

Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, when you were pressing him to get help, do you have in your mind what the nature of his problem was?
A. As I say, I don't recall at this time having an understanding what the nature of his problem was, except that it was chronic anxiety neurosis. I do recall the sense that he was somatizing his illnesses.

Q. I'm sorry, that he --
A. He was somatizing his emotional [107] problems.

Q. And when you say somatizing --
A. That some of his physical difficulties were caused by his emotional state.

Q. Okay.
A. And so -- but did I have a clear understanding of what his psychiatric illness is? I don't recall that, I don't.

Q. Okay. And --
A. I knew that later there was a diagnosis, but I don't think it was at this time.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what that later diagnosis was?
A. No, I just know that one took place.

Q. And do you know who -- do you know who did the evaluation that resulted in that diagnosis?
A. He went to the Institute for Living for an evaluation.

Q. Okay. So when you refer to that later diagnosis, you're talking about the Institute for Living diagnosis --
A. Yes.

Q. -- which took place at a subsequent [108] period of time?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall -- strike that.
Again, so I'm clear, is it that you have no recollection one way or another whether you pressed Paul Shanley to also, in addition to getting -- strike that. Let me ask the question better.
You say you remember pressing Paul Shanley to get some help, and when you say "help," you're talking about therapy services, I take it, or counseling services, correct?
A. I remember him pressing to get some help. I think that since Ned Cassem recommended a psychiatric consultation or a psychiatric assessment, that that would have been the first thing I would have pressed. My sense is that he must have opposed it because I remember pressing him to get some psychiatric therapy then.

Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.

Q. All right. So your recollection is, as you sit here today, that you pressed him both to [109] get -- to have that work-up done which would result in a diagnosis --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- he opposed that, and then you pressed him to get some therapy?
A. Uh-huh, yes.

Q. Okay. Going on, in the third full paragraph, he talks about the fact that "Palm Springs is not ordinarily associated with a life of hardship, so that finding a way to get someone to support you financially to live there without having to work is sufficiently appealing to make a liar and manipulator of at least a few people. To answer this question" -- I assume the question refers to whether Paul Shanley was a liar and manipulator -- "in the negative for Father Shanley there is insufficient information in Dr. Shaner's letter. You and others may have enough supplementary information to answer the question."
Do you recall ever communicating with Dr. Cassem -- strike that.
Do you recall having an understanding of what supplementary information you needed and [110] whether you had that information regarding Paul Shanley?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Do I recall having information about Paul Shanley?

Q. The kind of supplementary information referred to by Dr. Cassem in his letter.
A. Well, I'm not clear what he meant by "supplementary information," except my own and other people's understanding of Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. Do you -- again, would that have been something that, as a matter of practice, you would have picked up the phone and talked to Dr. Cassem about if you saw that in the letter?
A. It wouldn't be that I would pick up a phone; he and I would have talked about this at some time.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, pick up the phone or else meet with?
A. Right, meet with or wait until I meet with him the next time, yeah.

Q. Okay. So normally that would be something that you would raise? [111]
A. Oh, yeah.

Q. Okay. Did you have -- had you made a determination, as of November 16th, 1991, whether Paul Shanley was a liar or a manipulator?
A. I think, in my assessment of that, that I said I found it hard to believe that he was a liar and a manipulator since he tended to be a person that I would describe as kind of scrupulous about things, scrupulous.

Q. And when you say "scrupulous about things," in what way do you mean?
A. That he would really be very exact about always telling the truth or being direct or -- this is the image that he had, and my understanding of him he's a person who would always press for clarity and sticking to what is required. So he would -- he could be kind of overly exact about things.

Q. Did you see the need -- where Dr. Cassem brings up the subject of his having a psychiatric illness, did you see the need to go look at Father Shanley's confidential file? And now I'm talking about the one that was maintained by the [112] chancery at this point.
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.

Q. Why? Why wouldn't it be something that you would want to look into to see whether there was supplementary information that would have been contained in the confidential file that would help put the pieces of the puzzle together that you would otherwise have not known?
A. It just did not dawn on me at that time that Paul Shanley would have, you know, had other information in a confidential file about him.

Q. And -- sorry, go ahead.
A. No, that's it.

Q. And, again, at this time you're dealing with other priests who -- fair to say many other priests that have issues that have arisen regarding sexual misconduct and other misconduct that had resulted in their having confidential files maintained by the chancery on them, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes. [113]

Q. And so it would have been something that routinely you were aware -- you know, you were aware of; in other words, the existence of confidential files on priests, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And to -- wouldn't it have been prudent on your part to at least make a determination at this point as to whether even a confidential file on Paul Shanley existed?
A. You know, he had been assigned a pastor. My understanding is that he voluntarily left it, he was ill, and he was given a medical leave. There was nothing in my mind that surfaced that there was anything about Paul Shanley, up to this time, that was questionable in terms of his pastoral ministry in the Archdiocese.
He, as I've said before, he's one who would push the envelope in terms of reaching out to alienated, marginalized. Some people thought that he went too far, but in terms of, you know, doing pastoral ministry, there was never any question. And so when he left, I just did not assume that there would be anything questionable about him at this [114] time.

Q. Okay. Who would have known that there was a confidential file at this time that was being maintained on Paul Shanley? Who would have known, yeah, at this time, being November of 1991, if there was a confidential file that was being maintained?
A. I don't know.

Q. Bishop Hughes have known that?
A. I don't know.

Q. Would you have expected Bishop Hughes to know that?
A. I wouldn't expect Bishop Hughes to know that unless he had to -- he had reason to go to see that there was a confidential file.

Q. Okay. Same question with respect to the Cardinal, would you have expected that Cardinal Law would have known that?
A. Not unless he had reason to go to see whether there was reason to see whether there was a confidential file, he thought there was reason to check.

Q. Okay. You mentioned, back in response to questions at the beginning of the deposition, that [115] when -- that you put in your own personal confidential file issues involving personal issues with priests, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. When you, in your capacity as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, were given the Wilma Higgs' letter, which we've discussed in this deposition, back in 1985 and asked to respond to the Wilma Higgs' letter, was that the kind of document that would have gone into the chancery files or into your own personal files?
A. I probably would have given that letter back to the Vicar for Administration, so I'm not sure where it ended up, honestly, because I think it came from the Cardinal, and usually that stuff was handled sometimes and most times through the Vicar for Administration. I remember discussing that letter with him, so that my sense is is that he probably got the material back.

Q. Okay. And you would not keep a copy of that material in any of the other files, either your own personal files or other chancery files?
A. I can't say, honestly. I don't think I [116] would have been instrumental except to keep something in my own file, but whether I did or not, I don't know.

Q. So does that mean that if you were assigned to look into a matter, because something was not acknowledged at the Cardinal's residence and so therefore given to you to respond to it, that your practice was to give that correspondence back to the Vicar for Administration?
A. I think that this matter was being handled in conjunction with the Vicar for Administration. That's why I claim that it probably would go back to him, most likely.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. All right. Why don't we take the lunch break right now, if that makes some sense.

MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Luncheon recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record.

MR. SHERMAN: Mark this, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 64 was marked for identification.)

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: All set, Bishop? [117]
A. All set.

Q. Okay. Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 64, this is a memo you drafted in December 1991 to Bishop Hughes, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. What occasioned your getting Bishop Hughes involved in this issue?
A. Again, it would be that, you know, I wasn't responsible ultimately for making recommendations; I would be doing that in conjunction with the Vicar for Administration. So he would be the one who would be dealing with this as well as myself.

Q. In situations such as this, was it normally your practice to make a recommendation to the Vicar for Administration regarding issues of disability, permanent or partial?
A. No, but he would be asking me for my opinion. So that if I didn't give him one, he would ask me for one so usually I offered them.

Q. Okay. In the paragraph that follows the a., b., c., where it starts "It's clear to me that Father Shanley is a sick person," when you're [118] referring to the phrase "sick person," what are you referring to?
A. Well, I guess the overall assessment of Dr. Shaner and Dr. Cassem and my own sense.

Q. Okay. And what was your own sense that was separate and apart from what Dr. Shaner and Dr. Cassem had to say?
A. It wouldn't be separate; it would be confirming what they said, that he basically is a sick person. You know, he feels alienated from the diocese, he feels distanced, he feels unsupported. He has all his neuroses and psychiatric problems plus all his medical problems.

Q. Okay. Drawing your attention to the next to the last full paragraph where -- or maybe it's third to the last where it says "Based on Dr. Shaner and Dr. Cassem's observations" -- do you see that paragraph?
A. Yes.

Q. -- there's an issue that's raised there about maintaining contact with Father Shanley. What was the -- what were the considerations surrounding that issue? [119]
A. Again, it would be that I thought that the more isolated he was on his own the worse he was going to get and the more distanced he would be. So that, you know, the effort is to engage him and to really try to keep in contact with him, and so the more we could do that, the better off I thought he would be as well as the diocese would be.

Q. So is it fair to say that your desire in that was to in fact maintain contact as opposed to not maintain contact?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you see that there is a note back from Bishop Hughes to you handwritten at the bottom where it says "Jack," and if I can read this correctly, it says "I would be inclined to favor partial disability," that's number one. Number two, "I think that we need to keep contact even if rebuffed." Did I read that correctly?
A. That's the way I would read it too, yes.

Q. Okay. And essentially Bishop Hughes, with respect to contact, is endorsing your view in terms of maintaining contact with Father Shanley? [120]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 65 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, I'll represent to you that this letter becomes also part of subsequent correspondence that you're involved with that we'll get to in a bit, but my question is do you remember seeing this letter back in 1991?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Do you remember at all being involved in the issue of whether -- where Father Shanley was living and the fact that the -- Our Lady of Solitude in Palm Springs said that they hadn't seen Father Shanley in a year? Do you remember that issue coming up, whether or not -- irrespective of whether you've seen this letter?
A. No, I don't recall this at all.

MR. MIELKE: Could we go off the record.

(Off the record.)

MR. MIELKE: Back on the record.

Q. Bishop, do you remember the topic of [121] Paul Shanley not being seen by the parish in Palm Springs coming up around this time?
A. No.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Let's have this marked, please, as the next exhibit.

(McCormack Exhibit 66 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set?
A. All set.

Q. Okay. Having read what has now been marked as Exhibit 66, does that refresh your recollection in any way regarding the subject of Paul Shanley's whereabouts coming up as a topic around this time?
A. This does not raise my confusion -- my recollection about his whereabouts as much as it raises my recollection that I think Father Shanley, in August of '91, informed me or Father Ryan that he had -- I think it was Father Ryan that he had taken a room.

Q. Right.
A. And I was surprised, but then I learned [122] that he was still in residence at St. Anne's but that he had taken a room as well.

Q. Right.
A. And I think Father Ryan was sending his salary plus his room and board to him at the new address in Palm Springs, and I said, you know, that this is not to happen, that he didn't have permission to go there and that he's not to receive his room and board as part; the only thing he's supposed to receive is his stipend.

Q. Okay.
A. I think Father Ryan then took this initiative on his own, my sense is, to send these checks to Our Lady of Solitude rectory -- rectory -- parish, but I had no -- I have no recollection that we were confused about where Father Shanley was. I think Father Ryan was confused.

Q. Okay. So if I understand it, that you think that Father Ryan thought that Father Shanley was at Our Lady of Solitude in Palm Springs when in fact he was living in an apartment, but that was not your understanding at the time?
A. When he was both in residence at [123] St. Anne's in San Bernardino --

Q. Yeah.
A. -- plus he took that apartment in Palm Springs and he took it that he -- my sense is he took it that he moved out of San Bernardino, he was in Palm Springs, he sent his full board and room and the salary to Palm Springs. I said he's not to do that, that's not correct, he should only be getting his monthly stipend. And now how Our Lady of Solitude got involved in this, I don't know.

Q. Okay. That was my next question. So you don't know where the notion of Our Lady of Solitude had come from?
A. No.

Q. But at least in your mind, as I understand it, the confusion was not yours, it was Father -- it was Father Ryan's?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If you flip over to the memo that's attached to this, which is the memo from Fred Ryan to Bishop Hughes, you see a handwritten notation in the margins. Do you know whose handwriting that is? [124]
A. Mine.

Q. Okay. And that says "without permission," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Oka