THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily
Day 2
On August 22, 2002, lawyers for three men who claim they were sexually abused by the Rev. Paul Shanley continued their deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., a former top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
)
GREGORY FORD, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Superior Court
vs. ) Civil Action
) No. 02-0626
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a )
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, )
)
Defendant. )
---------------------------------)
PAUL W. BUSA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action
vs. ) No. 02-0822
)
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a )
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
---------------------------------)
ANTHONY DRISCOLL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action
vs. ) No. 02-1737
)
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a )
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et at., )
)
Defendants. )
---------------------------------)
CONTINUED VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF BISHOP THOMAS DAILY
Brooklyn, New York
Thursday, August 22, 2002
Reported by:
DIANE HARTY
Job No. 138570
August 22, 2002
10:10 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
GREENBERG TRAURIG, ESQS.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
BY: RODERICK McLEISH, ESQ.
THE ROGERS LAW FIRM P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
BY: WILSON D. ROGERS, JR., ESQ.
- and -
MARK C. ROGERS, ESQ.
HANITY & KING, P.C.
Attorney for Bishop Daily personally
One Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
BY: TIMOTHY P. O'NEILL, ESQ.
WINGATE, KEARNEY & CULLEN
Local counsel for Bishop Daily
20 Court Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
BY: KEVIN M. KEARNEY, ESQ.
ALSO PRESENT:
GRIESINGER, TRIGHE & MAFFEI, LLP
155 Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
BY: THOMAS F. MAFFEI, P.C.
PAUL JANSEN, Legal Video Specialist
Esquire Video Services
RODNEY FORD
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is tape No. 6 of the continuation of the video deposition of Thomas Daily taken by Roderick McLeish on August 22, 2002, at approximately 10:09 a.m. BISHOP THOMAS DAILY , called as a witness, having been previously duly sworn by a Notary Public, resumed and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. McLEISH:
Q: Good morning, Bishop Daily. Thank you for returning. Bishop Daily, would it be fair to state that when inquiries came in about a particular priest during the time that you were working for the archdiocese from 1973 to 1984, that you would from time to time consult records about that priest?
A: Possibly, yes. I would -- yes, possibly I would say yes.
Q: And you had access to all of the records; is that correct?
A: If I didn't have immediate access, I would try to get records.
Q: You continued to have that access right until the time you left for Palm Beach in 1986; is that correct?
A: The accessability was there.
Q: The accessability was there. And it remained there until you left for Palm Beach; is that correct?
A: Yes, nobody shut me off, let's put it that way. I'm not saying I actually used it, but the accessability was still there, yes.
Q: Just so I'm clear, from time to time you would actually look at the records of the individual priest; is that correct.
MR. O'NEILL: Does he have a specific memory of looking?
A: No, I had them. Whether or not I actually used it and how often I used it, but I would just say that I had that ability to ask for records of one sort or another.
Q: Would it be fair to state, understanding it occurred some time ago, that there were occasions upon which would you look at records of individual priests?
A: Very rarely.
Q: When you did look at records of individual -- let me ask you this: You described a number of locations yesterday where records might be kept. Do you recall your testimony yesterday?
A: Yes.
Q: Your files, an archive file, a personnel file, I think you listed three or four different locations where records might be kept.
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Would it be fair to state from your observation the records of the archdiocese of Boston were kept in an orderly fashion?
A: I could certainly speak for my own records. I assume records were, yes. My general assumption was that they would be in an orderly fashion.
Q: You never made any observations about there being bad recordkeeping in the archdiocese of Boston, did you?
A: No, but I never inspected myself of the records.
Q: But you looked at your own records?
A: Yes.
Q: And isn't it true, Bishop Daily, that when a matter involving a priest was referred to you by Cardinal Medeiros, one of your jobs was to go out and get the facts, problem with a priest, problem with a priest?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection.
A: It depended on the cardinal's request what records he wants.
Q: You know William Helmick, do you not?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Who was William Helmick when you worked in the archdiocese?
A: He was a secretary. He started out -- we were secretaries together. He was secretary for a long time afterwards as almost and then after that I, when I moved to -- as I say, to the chancery office in '73 he continued as secretary.
Q: I've given you a copy of his deposition that I have given all counsel. On the top I would like you to turn, if you would, to page 211. I'm going read you a section of it and then I'm going to ask you a question. I'm sorry, I apologize. It's 113, 113. And it's referring -- there will be an exhibit it 28 refers to, which is this exhibit that's been marked Exhibit 44. You recognize -- Take a moment and familiarize yourself with that. That's the letter from Mrs. Sweeney.
A: Correct.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: 113.
MR. McLEISH: Yes, 113.
Q: I'm going to read a section of this and you can -- you are welcome to look at other sections of the deposition if you want at some context but I'm going to start reading on line 8 and continue on to page 114. This is a deposition of Father Helmick similar to the deposition that we took here today where I was asking him questions. I will read you questions and answers and ask you a question. Do you understand the procedure?
A: Yes.
Q: This is my question starting on line 8 on page 113. So again there were circumstances, I just want to make sure I understand what the practice was, when a complaint came in about a priest, was it always stamped not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence?
A: This is from Father Helmick. This shows it was usually stamped not acknowledged at cardinal's residence but there's no stamp.
Q: But there's no stamp on this?
A: The reason for that would be that although I don't recall as I sit here, I would have read the letter and said this is really something serious and we should send this over with a memo to Mr. Daily so it won't get lost in the shuffle.
Q: So the procedure is you are testifying that the stamp not acknowledged at cardinal's residence was so to be taken seriously by Bishop Daily who would then bring it to the attention of the cardinal; is that correct?
A: From Father Helmick, and prepare a response get and get all of the background answer from Father Helmick, get the facts. When something came over to you that was stamped, not acknowledged, at the cardinal's residence, not a complaint was it your job as a general practice and policy to go out and get the facts and bring it back to the cardinal's attention?
A: Generally speaking, yes.
Q: So in the case --
A: That's normal procedure.
Q: In the case of the Sweeney letter which we went over yesterday, and here is Exhibit No. 42, this is the letter from Delores Stevens, do you remember that that talk about incest, bestiality, pedophilia. It was your job to go out and get the facts it was not about whether or not this complaint of Miss Stevens and Miss Sweeney whether or not the facts were there to support the complaint, that was your job, Bishop, was it not?
A: It certainly would be part of my procedures, that's right.
Q: But you can't remember doing anything to try to find out from Miss Stevens or Miss Sweeney or anyone else what the facts were about the speech that Paul Shanley made in Rochester, New York where he spoke of incest, pedophilia and bestiality?
A: No, because I accepted what was here.
Q: You accepted what was there? 1
A: Um hum.
Q: You accepted that Paul Shanley, you accepted that as true?
A: Yes.
Q: You accepted that Paul Shanley went out --
Can I have Exhibit 42 back, please. I have another copy.
You accepted that as true?
A: My general recollection is that I accepted it.
Q: You accepted as true that Paul Shanley in 1977 gave a speech in Rochester, New York where he stated that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer and the kid is not traumatized by the act per se, the kid is traumatized when the kid is dragged in for questioning? You accepted that as being said?
A: I accepted that as what Gene heard him say.
Q: Did you ever call -- actually Miss Delores Stevens?
A: I bed your pardon?
Q: Do you see the signature on page --
A: Yes.
Q: You accepted that's what Mr. Stevens heard him say?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever question Mrs. Stevens yourself or direct anyone else to question to see if she might have misheard what Father Shanley said?
A: I do not recall asking him to do anything.
Q: You accepted Ms. Stevens' statement when he stated he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality, closed quote; you accepted that as what Miss Stevens heard Paul Shanley state; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you are also aware, are you not; there were names of newspaper reporters that were contained in some of the exhibits presented to you yesterday who were present at the speech of Paul Shanley? Do you have a recollection of that?
A: I don't recall that.
Q: Do you remember talking to newspaper reporters who could verify what Miss Stevens said?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You don't recall asking Paul Shanley what he said, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. Argumentative and I think it is demeaning and insulting to say, "You don't even recall." I think it's inappropriate.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Wait. It may be noted but I don't want to get down a slippery slope here where we are going to have that type of questioning. If you want to ask factual questions, ask them. I will not let you ask questions that are insulting.
MR. McLEISH: I don't mean to insult you.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I'm not suspending anything. I will tell you, you are not asking questions in my presence that are insulting.
Q: Bishop, I'm not insulting you. You don't remember talking to Paul Shanley about whether what Mrs. Stevens said in her letter was true or not true?
A: Today I do not remember.
Q: And if you locate some record to indicate that you followed up in any way to this complaint from Miss Stevens, I would like you to bring it to my attention, okay?
A: Fine.
Q: If you think of any during the deposition any facts at all to suggest that you followed up in any way to this complaint for Mrs. Stevens, then I want you to bring that to my attention. Is that fair?
A: Depending upon what the complaint is and what the situation is. What the complaint is.
MR. O'NEILL: I would suggest he will respond to any questions you ask. He's not going to volunteer anything other than the question asked.
Q: Bishop, what I'm stating, I'm providing you with the opportunity at any point, if you at any point think of something responsive to my questions, I want it to be clear you are free to interrupt me and we can go back.
MR. O'NEILL: Thank you for your help. The bishop will answer questions. Don't answer that question. You made your point. Get on with the questioning.
Q: You understand we can go over anything you want to go over.
Now, Bishop Daily, I'd like to -- let's have the next exhibit, please, which will be No. 49. We're going to give you another exhibit, Bishop. I want you to hold on to Exhibit 42 for me. Hold onto that one. This is 49. This is a series of documents. You have 49 in front you, Bishop?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: This is a series of documents that was produced by the Archdiocese of Boston. The first one you will see a letter to Cardinal Medeiros from John J. McGeady. You will see it's stamped "Received cardinal's office of the secretary"?
A: It's stamped, that's right.
Q: It states that "Dear Cardinal Medeiros: I thought you should be aware of an interview that Father Shanley apparently gave the Gay Community News last month as it involves personal conversations between you and Father Shanley. I also included an item from Gaysweek in which Father Shanley is designated as your representative." Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Have you ever seen that letter before today?
A: No.
Q: The next -- MR. MARC ROGERS: You gave this one as 42. You gave a copy as 42, so what is this?
MR. McLEISH: That might have been 42 at another deposition. It's Exhibit 49. MR. MARC ROGERS: Yesterday it says 42.
MR. McLEISH: This is what you are saying: No, it wasn't, it was going to be marked but it wasn't. 42 was another exhibit. 42 is another exhibit. Exhibit 49, thank you, Marc. That's just your personal copy.
Q: What you have in front of you is Exhibit 49. See the second page?
A: Yes.
Q: That's a memo from Father Helmick to you; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: It says, "Attached" -- this is from Father Helmick to you April 6, 1979. "Attached to this memorandum is a letter the Cardinal received from Paul J. McGeady, Esquire, together with some enclosures from Gay Community News as well as a copy of my response. Then it goes on to say, "You will want to review this material and perhaps write a letter to Mr. McGeady for the cardinal's signature after you've spoken with His Eminence." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: It's marked "Received, Office of the Chancellor." Do you see that, the upper right-hand corner?
A: Yes.
Q: That would be you; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: There's some handwriting up at the top?
A: Yes.
Q: Whose handwriting is that?
A: That appears to be mine.
Q: What does it says?
A: "Cardinal aware 4/11." That's April 11th cardinal aware, Father Paul Shanley.
Q: There's some handwriting at the bottom, initials at the bottom. Whose initials are those?
A: Monsignor Helmick.
Q: You see it makes a reference. Father Helmick is bringing this to your attention. He indicates on this you will want to review this material; is that correct?
A: He's saying this but that doesn't necessarily mean he will do it. He doesn't give me -- he never did give me instruction. He may have given me a suggestion.
Q: He was your colleague; is that correct?
A: That's true.
Q: Was it your practice at the time when Father Helmick would send over something that was of a serious nature, you would review what Father Helmick suggested you review?
A: Depending upon the material and the fact that whether he had in fact talked to the cardinal about it or said anything or what have you, and I felt that the cardinal should be brought to the attention, even if he suggested it as he suggested, then I would do so.
Q: You write right at the top, "Cardinal aware"?
A: That's right.
Q: Does that suggest you reviewed the enclosures sent to you by Father Helmick?
A: It appears so.
Q: Let's turn to the enclosures, the first one. There's two. The first one is men and boys at the Boston conference, do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: The title, Bishop, "150" -- you see at the very top, "150 people turned up for the daylong series of panels discussing the issue of man/boy love. Organizer Tom Reeves expected several dozen." Do you see that at the very top?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: I would like to go down to the paragraph starting with E. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: It says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: turn over to the next page. I would like to read you a section and ask you a question.
"Father Paul Shanley, representative of Boston's Cardinal Medeiros for outreach to sexual minorities, told a story of a boy who was rejected by family in society but helped by a boy lover. When his parents found out about the relationship, the man was arrested, convicted and sent to prison and there began the psychic demise of that kid. He had loved that man. It was only a brief and passing time thing as far as the sex was concerned, but the love was deep and the gratitude to the man was deep and when he realized that the indiscretion in the eyes of the society and law caused this man to lose 20 years... the boy began to fall apart. 'We have our convictions upside down if we were truly concerned with boys. The 'cure' does far more damage.'"
Do you recall reading that statement?
A: No, I don't recall.
Q: Do you recall?
A: I can't say I did. That's not to say I didn't but that's --
Q: Do you recall reading the statement that "Even speakers representing various religions" this is on the first page of the article. "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs joined their endorsement of love between man and boy"; do you recall reading that?
A: I don't recall reading that.
Q: Go to the next page, page 17. It's marked down at the bottom. It says in the second to last paragraph, "At the end of the conference, 32 men and 2 teenagers caucused and formed the Man Boy Lovers of North America. A newsletter in a March meeting in New York City are planned."
Do you recall reading that in 1979?
A: No, I don't recall.
Q: Can you think of any reason today why if you had been so requested by Father Helmick, you would not have read these articles?
A: I can't think of a reason why I would not have read them. I can't read them but I can think of a reason why I did read them.
Q: Based on your practices and your procedures as they existed at the time in 1979, it's your belief you did in fact read that article that I just referred to you in 1979; is that correct?
A: I would think it would be normal procedure if he suggested I read them and he gave me the material and it's pertinent.
Q: You will see another article follows on the next page which is an article, comment and analysis, "Father Paul Shanley versus Cardinal Medeiros" from Gay Community News. Do you see that?
A: I see it.
Q: When you read the comment as contributed to Paul Shanley in the Gaysweek article that I quoted, as you sit here today do you find those comments troubling in any way?
MR. O'NEILL: You are asking for his opinion now?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, right now.
A: To what do you refer immediately? Do you want me to read the whole column?
Q: The parts I quoted. You are free to read it if you want to.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: He's not talking about the last page.
A: Comments and analysis?
Q: The portions we just read.
A: On the previous page?
Q: Yes, previous page.
A: What is the question?
Q: Let's start with the comment in this publication.
You'll see this publication is entitled "Men and Boys"; do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And it talks about 150 people turning up for a daylong series of panels discussing the issue of man and boy love.
A: Yes.
Q: You see there's quotes from Father Paul Shanley that are attributed to Father Paul Shanley?
A: Yes.
Q: You'll see that on the first page it says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you see Paul Shanley quoted on the following page?
A: Um hum.
Q: And we read the quotes several minutes ago?
A: Um hum.
Q: Looking at this article today, are you troubled by any of the comments that are attributed to Paul Shanley?
A: I am.
Q: And are you troubled, Bishop, because his comments about the man/boy -- the quote about the man/boy love suggests to you that as a result of law enforcement being involved, there began a psychic demise of that boy; does that concern you?
A: What is the question?
Q: Are you disturbed by the comments?
A: Yes.
Q: They appear to be stating, do they not, as we read them today, they appear to be stating that the cure to the issue of man/boy love does far more damage --
Let me put it a different way.
He talks about in this quote, what is allegedly attributed to him is that the sex -- you see this, the sex, it was -- he had loved that man, it was only a brief and passing thing as far as the sex was concerned but the love was deep and the gratitude to the man was deep. Are you concerned about those comments?
A: I am.
Q: And then it goes on to state, "When he realized" -- that's the boy realizes -- "the indiscretion in the eyes of society and law had cost this man perhaps 20 years... the boy began to fall apart." Is that a comment that disturbed you?
A: Yes.
Q: You understand the 20 years, meaning 20 years in jail, correct?
A: I would think it would be, yes.
Q: And did you read this in from the quotes that I just stated as suggesting in some way that there is an endorsement here by Paul Shanley of sexual relations between men and boys?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form.
MR. O'NEILL: You mean did he read that then or now?
MR. McLEISH: Now.
A: I read this as -- I read this as -- at that time I can't recall what my reaction was but it -- obviously I'm disturbed now and I would have then. Then it seems to be probably I would suggest that I was disturbed.
Q: Were you disturbed then about the statement on the first page of the article, "Even speakers representing other religions voiced their love of man and boy" and Paul Shanley's name appearing in the following paragraph?
A: I don't understand the question.
Q: You see where it says on the first page of the article "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy" and then there's a section on Canon Clinton Jones? Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And then the very next reference is to the statement of Paul Shanley?
A: Yes.
Q: And you'll see it's described that Paul Shanley is the representative of Boston's Cardinal Medeiros for outreach of sexual minorities, you see that?
A: Yes, where is that?
Q: The first line second page. The first and second line?
A: Okay.
Q: Was Paul Shanley to your knowledge the representative of Boston Cardinal Medeiros for the outreach of sexual minorities?
A: No.
Q: Would that be the type of statement that disturbed you as well?
A: It is there and I am disturbed, yes.
Q: And you would have been disturbed back in 1979; is that correct?
A: I would think so.
Q: What did you do when you -- do you recall anything that you did, anything at all that you did after Father Helmick brought this article from Gaysweek to your attention?
A: I'll sure I had a conversation with the cardinal and informed him. It says that "cardinal aware."
Q: Right. Did you do anything to get the facts, though, of what Paul Shanley had actually said at that conference?
A: No, I think -- No, because I wasn't -- my conclusion was and is that there was a recite -- there was recitation of alleged facts. The facts are being reported by a newspaper that perhaps might be questioned, that their opinion's being uttered. And even now regarding this whole question of man/boy love and while -- I have no -- I have no reason to think they would be false but at the same time I would -- I question the fact -- I don't question. I would assert that we're talking about a situation and in that situation certain opinions and ideas that were discussed and talked about and recorded presumably by this conference, at this conference.
Q: Did you in fact talk to the person who wrote the article to see if the statements that you find disturbing that are attributed to Paul Shanley were actually made by Paul Shanley? Did you do that? Do you recall doing that?
A: No, I think they were talking about -- here we were talking about statements. We weren't talking about actual acts and we haven't verified that, in fact, the acts took place.
Q: My question, you were the person that testified earlier was the person to get the facts. Did you go out and get the facts?
A: Where was I?
Q: Remember we read Father Helmick's deposition when a matter came over to you such as the Sweeney letter, it was stamped "not acknowledged" at the cardinal's residence. One of your jobs was to get the facts. Do you remember that testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: My question to you is, did you go out and get the facts as to what Paul Shanley had allegedly said at this conference?
A: No. I accepted the fact that he was present and that he was saying these things that were disturbing. I accepted the fact he was present. I did not deny the fact, that fact. I had no reason to deny the fact, the gay community report of what had happened.
Q: Gaysweek it's called.
A: Gaysweek. What happened at this particular time and in this particular situation. It was a question of ideas and opinions that the newspaper was promoting obviously in regards to this being men and boys -- what is it?
Q: Man/boy?
A: -- conference.
Q: You see at the end the Man Boy Lovers of North America; do you see that?
A: Precisely. And it was an occasion for the newspaper presumably to promote their own policy.
Q: But they quote from Paul Shanley; is that correct?
A: They quote from Paul Shanley, yes, they do.
Q: And the article suggests, does it not, that Paul Shanley -- it says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy."
MR. O'NEILL: You asked that question four times.
MR. McLEISH: I haven't finished the question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: You asked the question four times.
MR. McLEISH: If I can finish. When I finish the question you'll have your opportunity.
Q: When it says, "Even speakers representing various religious beliefs voiced their endorsement of love between man and boy," were you concerned at all, Bishop, that Paul Shanley was actually endorsing sexual relationships between men and boys?
MR. O'NEILL: Does he have a memory that he was concerned then?
Q: Answer my question. The objection is noted.
A: I don't have a memory of reading and digesting this material. Anything that I say would be an assumption of material that reports an incident and it -- and promotes ideas and opinions and so forth relative to the whole question of the gay community and man/boy, whatever this -- whatever, you know, men and boys.
Q: This doesn't talk about the gay issue, Bishop, it talks about man/boy love.
A: Only the context which it was placed discussed in the newspapers.
Q: Bishop, you'll see at the end, I read "At the end of the conference 32 men and 2 teenagers caucused and formed the Man Boy Lovers of North America." Were you concerned that Paul Shanley might have caucused to form the Man Boy Lovers of North America?
A: If Paul shanley was there. If he was there and part of the group, I would have been interested.
Q: Did you undertake as you sit here today any steps to find out whether he was there and was part of that caucus to form the Man Boy Lovers of North America?
A: No, not the caucus. What I would have been disturbed was that he was at the meeting in the first place, whatever happened.
Q: If he had been at the caucus to form this further organization.
A: I would have been further disturbed.
Q: The question is, understand we are talking here about man/boy love. This is April of 1979, and understanding that you have a report in front you that Paul Shanley was in attendance and said certain things, did you undertake anything at all to find out specifically whether Paul Shanley had attended the conference or had been part of the caucus?
A: As you know, there's a note on the memorandum that says the cardinal was aware.
Q: Apart from making the cardinal aware of this article, did you do anything else that you can recall?
A: I gave -- I made the cardinal aware in case he wanted to give me directions as to further action, because if that was -- because that was my responsibility to do that. I was taking my orders from him and my direction from him because he's obviously the cardinal and bishop of Boston and he would direct me, whatever, counsel me, regarding the situation; but direct me as to what actions we should take or not take.
Q: You are not contradicting your earlier testimony that the procedure was in this type of instances you would get the facts?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of that question, and we have been over this now four times and there was nothing contradictory in what the bishop said and I think it's inappropriate to suggest there was.
MR. McLEISH: The objection is noted.
A: I can't say it was contradicted because I don't recall.
Q: Excuse me, it's a little distracting. I want to make sure. At this time in 1979 when these types of complaints came in as Father Helmuk testified, it was your job to go out and get the facts, was it not?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. That wasn't his testimony.
A: No. My objection was to get the cardinal's direction and if he said to -- asked me to go out and get the facts, I would have done it. Maybe I did, I don't know, but we have this.
Q: Next exhibit. This is Exhibit 53, Bishop.
A: Okay.
Q: Take a moment and look at that. Now, you'll see that Exhibit No. 53 is a letter April 12, 1979, to Paul Shanley from Cardinal Medeiros, do you see that, assigning him to St. John Parish?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you see it states that he is ending his appointment to the ministry to alienated view?
A: Yes.
Q: St. John the Evangelist parish in Newton, you are familiar with that parish, are you not?
A: Yes.
Q: You have been there?
A: Yes, once that I recall.
Q: It was a parish that had a school at the time, is that correct, 1979?
A: I don't recall but if you are saying -- if you say it is, then I would have to say "yes." I don't recall.
Q: The parish --
A: It's a small parish anyway.
Q: Small parish attended by families with children; is that correct?
A: I have to presume, yes.
Q: As are all parishes of the Archdiocese of Boston, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You would certainly assume that Paul Shanley when he was assigned to Newton would have access to children; is that correct?
A: I would. It would be an assumption because the children are there with their parents and all and in the parish it was the makeup of the congregation. I would have to assume through his ministry, priestly ministries, he would have access to parents and children.
Q: You would work in the parish; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You know there are times when parish priests would take children on an outing or overnight trip; that would happen from time to time?
A: Yes. I did it myself.
Q: You did it yourself; you took children on overnight trips; is that correct?
A: Not overnight; I always took day trips.
Q: There were occasions where a priest of the diocese would take kids overnight?
A: Yes.
Q: For a ski trip?
A: Yes.
Q: This would be without their parents, is that correct, on certain occasions?
A: Not necessarily. That could possibly be, yes. I'm saying possibly. I didn't follow all the ski trips and all, but you know...
Q: Were you generally aware -- I think you are now the No. 2 man in Boston -- there were occasions separate and apart from delivering the gospel and CCD classes in schools where priests would have the opportunity or children would have the opportunity for social interaction outside of the church with priests of the archdiocese; would that be a fair statement?
A: Yes, I would have to say that's a fair statement.
Q: That could include being overnight with a priest without the presence of parents; is that correct?
A: It could and I hear that it was in certain cases.
Q: All right. Now, you'll see the second page of Exhibit 53.
A: No. 53, yes.
Q: And again Mr. Father -- Attorney McGeady's letter, Exhibit 49, that's received on April 6, 1979, do you see that, the previous exhibit, Mr. McGeady's letter?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Received by whom?
MR. McLEISH: Cardinal's residence, received April 6, 1979.
Q: The previous exhibit, the one that contained the article about Gaysweek in which Father Shanley's --
A: Okay.
Q: You see it's received April 6, 1979?
A: Yes.
Q: It was received on the next page at the office of the Chancellor on April 9, 1979; is that correct?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: This letter assigning Paul Shanley to St. Jean's was within six days after the McGeady letter was received at the cardinal's residence; is that a fair statement?
A: That's the mathematics of it, yes.
Q: Then you see on Exhibit 53 a letter assigning "Paul Shanley to St. Jean's in Newton." You'll see it says, "Please notify Most Reverend Thomas B. Daily and the Chancellor and personnel director that you have received this letter." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: The protocol in effect is that when a priest is assigned to a particular parish that there would be some confirmation to you that he acknowledged the assignment; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: The next page is a document which appears to be a draft of the first letter. Is that Cardinal Medeiros's handwriting on that?
A: I see it as his handwriting, what my recollection is.
Q: You see the date was originally April 9th and then it gets scratched out for April 12th; do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Within six days after Attorney McGeady sends in his letter to Cardinal Medeiros containing the article from Gaysweek, Paul Shanley gets assigned to St. Jean's parish in Newton; is that fair to state?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you consider at the time, given your receipt of the letter from Jean Sweeney which talked about incest, bestiality, pedophilia attributing it to Paul Shanley and the Gaysweek article which we have just been over that makes various remarks about man/boy love, did you consider it at the time that it was appropriate to assign Father Paul Shanley to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection.
MR. O'NEILL: The statement of that question is attributed bestiality and incest to Paul Shanley it was certainly remarks about that.
MR. McLEISH: Right.
Q: You remember we went over yesterday and today the statements attributed to Paul Shanley where he said that there was no sexual act that could cause psychic damage, in his opinion, including bestiality and incest?
A: Yes, this is what he said.
It's important to me, the distinction this counsel brings out, that the interest between -- let's not get confused. It seems to me what he said and what he did or did or did not do. I want to keep that very much because it has bearing on the following, this assignment and the following time.
Q: Do you feel it's appropriate or did you feel it was appropriate in 1979 if in fact Paul Shanley was endorsing man/boy love and saying there was no sexual act that caused psychic damage including sexuality, bestiality or incest, those were words, they were words, Bishop, they are not acts?
A: Um hum.
Q: Did you consider on the basis of those words that it would be appropriate to place Paul Shanley as a priest in a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. Are you asking his opinion now as to whether it was or are you asking whether he had an opinion back then?
Q: Did you have an opinion back then, Bishop?
A: I'm sure I would have. If that was -- I'm just saying I would have. Did I elicit an opinion? Not necessarily, but God knows I would have an opinion.
Q: What would that opinion have been in 1979?
A: I would refute the whole incident of bestiality and incest.
Q: Given that Paul made these statements allegedly, and given you received six days earlier a copy of the Gaysweek magazine where further remarks were made about man/boy love, did you consider understanding they were just words, it was appropriate to assign Paul Shanley to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. That contains facts not before us. The dates were incorrect. Bishop Daily had not received any such documentation six days before, so I object to the form of the question. I think it's inappropriate and misleading.
Q: Let's go over this again. You are not -- we have been through the Gaysweek article. It was received at the archbishop's residence I think on the 6th and then it was received at the office of the Chancellor on the 9th; is that correct? You have a memo from Father Helmick?
A: Yes.
Q: Three days later Paul Shanley is assigned to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Given the Sweeney letter, which is Exhibit No. -- the Stevens letter, which is Exhibit No. 42, which you have in front of you, given the letter from Mr. McGeady which is Exhibit No. 49, given what was attributed to Paul Shanley as being said in the Gaysweek article, did you consider it appropriate in 1979 that he would be assigned to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form. You are asking did he have an opinion in 1979?
MR. McLEISH: It's not an opinion. Did he consider it to be appropriate.
Go ahead. Your objection is noted.
Q: Answer the question, Bishop, please.
A: Only if there was good reason for that, and what the cardinal's rationale was and he indicated by removing him from alienated -- ministry to alienated -- was to put him in a regular, regular -- I mean a room atmosphere and situation whereby in fact these man/boy type situations would not exist.
Q: How do you know the man/boy love situations would not exist? How did you know the man/boy love situation did not exist?
A: Because he would be, in the cardinal's terms, in a regular situation. He would be a busy priest doing what priests normally do.
Q: And that -- are you aware of any restrictions that prevented Paul Shanley when he was assigned to St. Jean's parish in 1979 from having unsupervised contact with young people? Are you aware of that?
A: Yes, from the point of view -- from the cardinal's instructions to him, which he wrote in longhand to emphasize the fact of his ministry and what he was to do and not to do.
Q: I'm not talking about what Mr. O'Neill pointed to you.
A: I had already --
MR. O'NEILL: He was looking for the document. Don't insinuate that I was -- Wait a minute. You are insinuating something with your sly smile --
MR. McLEISH: I am.
MR. O'NEILL: -- that I handed something to him. He was looking to for the document. I pointed the document was beside him. He was looking for the page. Do not try to insinuate yourself and make statements about me and my conduct in this deposition.
MR. McLEISH: Fortunately, we will have a record.
MR. O'NEILL: As you trundle out people to speak to the press and everything else you do, which I will call attention to Judge Sweeney.
MR. McLEISH: Fortunately we have it on videotape of what happened. We will have it on videotape and it will speak for itself.
A: I just want to say that --
MR. O'NEILL: You may not like what the bishop has to say but he has a right to say it.
MR. McLEISH: If you could confine yourself as the rules required. We have been through it before I think as Judge Persad told you make the objection and instruct the witness not to answer.
MR. O'NEILL: You are not a judge, thank God.
MR. McLEISH: That is unnecessary ad hominem and I ask that you refrain from doing that, but the rules are quite clear as you have been previously instructed so I ask you confine yourself by that.
MR. O'NEILL: You were instructed by Judge Persad. He instructed all counsel and I hope you abide by that and abide by the rules of this deposition.
MR. McLEISH: Are you concluded, Mr. O'Neill?
MR. O'NEILL: I am.
Q: Can you answer the question?
A: Can you repeat?
Q: I'm sorry for the interruption. Are you aware of any instructions specifically placed on Paul Shanley that would prohibit him in any way from having unsupervised contact with minors when he was sent to St. Jean's parish?
A: May I refer to what the cardinal wrote?
Q: You can certainly look at it.
A: It's part of the response.
Q: Certainly. Does it say anything about minors?
A: Just may --
MR. WILSON ROGERS: That's a separate question. Are you striking the earlier question? Which question is before the bishop now?
MR. McLEISH: The one I asked.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: The original question? Wait a second. Which question are you asking?
MR. McLEISH: He's confused so let's ask him another question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Who said the bishop is confused?
A: I just said --
MR. WILSON ROGERS: That's the second question. He was confused by a series of questions.
MR. O'NEILL: You changed the question.
MR. McLEISH: We have different questions, Mr. O'Neill.
MR. McLEISH: Let's withdraw them and start again.
Q: My question is very specific, Bishop. Paul Shanley is sent to St. Jean's parish; is that correct?
A: Yes, by this letter.
Q: By this letter. I'm asking a very, very specific question if I could, Bishop. Are you aware of any restrictions that were placed on Paul Shanley when he was sent to St. Jean's parish that would specifically prevent him from having unsupervised contact with young people?
A: No.
Q: Thank you.
A: That's not to say there weren't any other restrictions, though.
Q: I'm not asking about other restrictions.
A: It's very important, it seems to me.
Q: I'm sure you will have a chance to testify on your cross-examination, but I'm asking you about the specific subject of whether there were any restrictions that were placed on Paul Shanley you can testify here under oath that you were aware of that prevented him from having unsupervised contact with minors. You can't identify any; is that correct?
A: Specifically unsupervised minors or restrictions? I still -- I would like to read what the cardinal wrote.
Q: You can absolutely read it.
A: For the record.
Q: If it relates to the question. If you need to look --
A: It doesn't do it directly, it does it indirectly. That's the point and that's the point I'm making.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Let him finish his answer. You reserve motions to strike so --
A: May I read?
Q: If it's responsive to the question, sure, if it relates to restrictions on minors, go ahead.
A: "It is understood your ministry at St. John's parish and elsewhere in this Archdiocese of Boston will be exercised in full conformity with the clear leadership of the church as expressed in paper documentsof the Holy Sea, especially those" -- it's not finished, but regarding sexual ethics. "The pastor or ministry of priests can hardly be effective apart from the healing and saving truth of Christ proclaimed by his church even when, quotes, the sayings may be hard, end of quote. I am confident that as an obedient priest you will render fine priestly service to the people of God." I wanted to read that paragraph.
Q: Sure.
A: Only because the end, the teachings of the church specifically in regard to morals and ethics, the whole question of illicit love relationships homosexuality, any of the other things we have been talking about, the point of view of child abuse are taken up and they are, they are very much a part of the positive faith taught to Catholics.
Q: I understand the cardinal's letter.
A: Thank you.
Q: My question is: Given the statements that were attributed to Paul Shanley from Mrs. Stevens in Exhibit 42, given the article that's contained in Gaysweek separate and apart from what the cardinal asked Paul Shanley, they were told, instructed him to do that you just read, were you aware of any specific restrictions imposed upon him that would prevent him from having unsupervised access to minors?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. That's the third time it was asked. It's been asked, it's been answered and if you don't like the answer, you certainly reserve the ability to file a motion to strike.
MR. McLEISH: Then instruct him not to answer the question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I'm saying this is not productive. Read back the last answer because that's the same question.
Q: Can you answer my question, please.
A: Would you want to repeat the question?
Q: Bishop Daily, the cardinal's instructions to Paul Shanley say nothing about him having unsupervised access to minors; would you agree with me about that?
A: Specificly, word-by-word?
Q: Let's start word-by-word. No, is there anything word-by-word, there's nothing in the teaching of the scriptures that prevents priests from having unsupervised access to minors? When I say "unsupervised," do you understand what I mean? Being alone with a child. I'm not talking about having sex with a child. I'm talking about being alone with a child. There's nothing any theological which in itself prevents a priest such as Paul Shanley from being alone with a child, correct?
A: Let me just say this, if I may.
Q: If you can answer my question.
A: I will answer the question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to these statements you are making. You ask a question, the bishop starts to answer and you give instructions. He can answer the question any way he likes.
MR. McLEISH: He has to respond to my question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Wait just a minute. You asked the question, he answers. That's the --
MR. McLEISH: Yes.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: That is the rule. That's how the process goes. If you feel that the answer is nonresponsive either in whole or in part, you reserve motions to strike until the time of trial. What you're doing is you have a specific answer in mind you want and if the bishop doesn't answer the way you want, you interrupt.
MR. McLEISH: I just want him to answer the question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I suggest you ask the question and refrain from giving instructions.
MR. McLEISH: I will handle the deposition the way I want.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: No, you can't finish. You are not going to interrupt the bishop, not while I'm here.
MR. McLEISH: He's going to answer my questions and if he doesn't answer my questions, I will ask the questions until he answers it.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are not going to interrupt his answers.
MR. McLEISH: Let's go back to the question. Do you remember the question?
Q: Can you answer the question?
A: I answered the question. There's nothing specific.
Q: There's nothing specific in the scriptures?
A: Excuse me. There's nothing specific here in instructing -- the instruction of the cardinal about it. That's the answer that I gave.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Can I ask that we take a five-minute recess. I did learn checkout time is 11:00, so we will take a five-minute recess.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 10:58 a.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 11:16 a.m.
Q: Bishop Daily, given what you had read in the report from Mrs. Stevens as well as the report from Attorney McGeady, were you personally comfortable having Paul Shanley go to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts without any restrictions on his access to minors?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. I assume you are referring to his opinion back in 1979.
MR. McLEISH: No, it's not an opinion.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are asking a personal level. The question is, is it focused in 1979?
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q: Were you comfortable with that at the time?
A: From the point of view his assignment there because the cardinal made it, what he said, yes.
Q: You were, good. Now, it's true, is it not, that back in 1979 you were conducting some investigations for other priests over whether allegations against them concerning sexual molestation were credible; is that correct?
A: At the time specifically?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: The only one I could think of was John Geoghan.
Q: I would like to show you what we're going to be marking, again I apologize for this being out of order, Exhibit No. 63.
A: This is Exhibit 63?
MR. McLEISH: 63 in the Daily proceeding.
Q: Do you recognize that as a letter you wrote to Father John Geoghan in 1979?
A: I do.
Q: And in this letter you report that there were allegations made by a --
Let's call it Mrs. C. We will call it Mrs. Coveny of Walk Hills Street in Forest Hills.
-- you told John Geoghan which were "quickly proven to be irresponsible totally false, made by a woman who was well known without credence in the community"; is that what you wrote?
A: It's right there. That's what I wrote.
Q: That's in August of 1979?
A: August 23rd of 1979.
Q: You were assigned by the cardinal in that case to look at whether or not allegations made by a woman over sexual misconduct by a priest were credible; is that correct?
A: I don't remember the specific assignment but I took upon myself to check both these priests.
Q: Geoghan and Shanley?
A: Yes, so I could talk to the Cardinal and get their reaction.
Q: You were checking both Geoghan and Shanley?
A: No, I was checking Geoghan in this case.
Q: In 1973?
A: That's right.
Q: In light of the fact you were checking the credibility of the person who was making the allegation against John Geoghan, did it occur to you to check the credibility of Miss Stevens the woman who was making allegations against Paul Shanley?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. And try to link allegations of speech with allegations of conduct, I think is misleading.
MR. McLEISH: That's a speaking objection.
Q: Go ahead, Bishop.
A: No, I did not.
Q: You agree what Mrs. Stevens said was true is very serious; we have already been over that?
A: Regarding?
Q: Shanley alleged to have said in Rochester.
A: Yes.
Q: If he actually said those things, I think you said yesterday it would not be appropriate to have him in a parish; is that correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of that question.
A: I can't remember that. The time when you asked the question, my personal opinion was that I would find difficult to have assigned him.
Q: My question is: In August of 1979 we have some inquiries being made by you in the Geoghan case. A priest was also accused of sexual misconduct and my question is: Why if you did in this case some inquiry into the credibility of a complainant, why you did not make any inquiry into whether Miss Stevens had been a credible reporter?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question and I think it misstates facts because you said also accused of misconduct, inferring that Shanley had been accused of misconduct. I think that's an improper question and there is no foundation.
A: You want to re- -- you want me to answer that? I think there's a difference here, much closer to the Geoghan case, with people to whom I checked the name of the priest, not so much with the people in Rochester from the point of just distance. And it was my nature to rely on the testimony of priests because of the -- the two priests involved either had an indirect relationship with Father Geoghan and a very direct relationship with Father Geoghan from the point of view of Father Delaney in Forest Hills.
Q: In any event there were priests you mentioned in some of the correspondence about the speech that Paul Shanley gave in Rochester in 1977, do you remember that from yesterday?
A: Can you give me names?
Q: We don't need to go over them. If you want to, I can --
A: I just want to know specifically if that -- you asked me if I remember and I'm -- I can't remember. Pardon my old age. Short-term memory gets me once in a while.
Q: In any event, in 1979 in the Geoghan case you did some investigation with respect to what is in Exhibit 63 and determined it not to be credible; is that correct?
A: I did an investigation and I determined not to be credible at that particular time.
Q: Were you Vicar General in 1979?
A: 1979 I was.
Q: Now, can we have the next exhibit.
As Vicar General, Bishop, did you have the ability to end the employment of a particular priest that was assigned to a parish? Did you have that ability in 1979, 1980?
A: No, not directly under normal circumstances.
Q: I show you Exhibit 64 and ask if you recognize that.
A: Yes, I see it.
Q: Can you read the first paragraph.
Let me read it for you and ask you a question. It's a letter to John Geoghan. This would have been in February of 1980. We had the complaint about John Geoghan in the prior exhibit in August of 1979. Less than a year later. Do you see that?
A: Um hum.
Q: And it says "Dear Father Geoghan: I'm writing to inform you I am ending your employment as associate pastor in Forest Hills. I'm placing you on sick leave. The effective date of this action is February 12, 1980." Do you see that?
A: Um hum.
Q: Who is that, who is the author of that letter?
A: I sent the letter.
Q: At least as of February of 1980, you had the authority to end the appointment of John Geoghan as Associate Pastor of St. Andrew; is that correct?
A: Yes. And the reason, may I add?
Q: Certainly.
A: The last of this, down at the bottom, special mandate of the Ordinary, through special permission or mandate of the Ordinary. So there had to be some connection with the Ordinary, either generally the specific of the law that gave me the power to do what I did. That did not apply to the case of Father Paul Shanley.
Q: The mandate of the Ordinary, was that by a particular priest or was that a general area of responsibility that you would have had in 1980?
A: It was specifics of this particular situation. It is general order of the church. To actually ask me right now to quote a special mandate or give you interpretation, I'm not in a position to do it, but I would be happy to do it. The point is I had the power.
Q: You had the power in 1980 to remove John Geoghan as associate pastor; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You had the power in 1980 if you wanted to to end Paul Shanley's tenure at St. Jean's; is that correct?
A: Not without a special mandate.
Q: To get the special mandate, would that be something you would initiate?
A: Yes.
Q: You had the authority --
A: At least at the investigation I had.
Q: In 1980 you had the authority to initiate a request to His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, to have the authority to remove Paul Shanley as a priest of St. Jean's parish in Newton, Massachusetts? In 1980 you had the ability to ask for that?
A: Not to ask for it, to determine in law, it actually was contained in the law itself. I'm not so sure. I would have to check to determine whether the cardinal himself was ill or away or because of the law I had, the general law that I had that power or ability to do that.
Q: In February of 1980 you had the ability to do it in John Geoghan?
A: Because of the mandate of the special order.
Q: Can you think of why in 1980 you would not have the ability to remove Paul Shanley as priest at St. Jeans?
A: Yes. I didn't have a special mandate.
Q: Could you have asked for a special mandate?
A: The cardinal?
Q: Yes.
A: Not special mandate. I would go to the cardinal to ask. In this case is essentially different, the two cases.
Q: They are different in what sense?
A: In the sense that the cardinal is not available for whatever reason and the case of the special mandate to make that for me to consult and make him do the removal, whereas on the other hand I -- you know, I did not have that power from the point of view from Geoghan because the cardinal was around presumably and unless you can put him ill between '79 and '80. But be that as it may, he was not around and I did not need special mandate because the cardinal himself would do it. Those two things are essentially different.
Q: In February of 1980 the removal of Geoghan, John Geoghan, came from you; is that correct?
A: Removal of John Geoghan?
Q: Yes. You write, "I'm writing to inform you I'm ending your appointment as Associate pastor of St. Andrew Apostle parish."
A: Yes.
Q: Now let's go to the next exhibit if we could, please. Exhibit 54, Bishop.
A: I have read it.
Q: And you see the second paragraph that relates to Father Paul Shanley, the telephone call from the New York Times?
A: I see it.
Q: The reporter called asking if he might speak with Bishop Daily regarding an assignment of a priest. Do you see that?
A: Yes. That's the first paragraph.
Q: The second paragraph, it said, "He said he had an interview with Father Paul Shanley and would now like to the archdiocese." There's a word missing, "and would now like to the archdiocese." "Like to know," I presume.
A: Okay.
Q: And then this is from Father Ryan; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And he was working in the chancery at that point?
A: He was.
Q: Had he been removed from parish ministry because of allegation of sexual molestation?
A: No, he wasn't.
Q: "A reporter called asking if he might speak with Bishop Daily regarding an assignment of a priest. I told him you were at a confirmation, broad mental reservation as I think you were going to have one this evening," closed parenthesis, "but could I assist."
What is broad mental reservation?
A: That's a question of not telling a lie but at the same time not telling the whole truth.
Q: It's --
A: In other words, giving the impression on the one hand that I was not there and on the other hand that I was there but at a different time.
Q: Were you there that night or not?
A: God help me, I don't know.
Q: "Broad mental reservation" means making a statement not consistent with the church's order to protect the church?
A: No, that's a lie.
Q: Is a broad mental reservation the truth?
A: Let's put it this way: It's the impression that the truth is given. Is given, yes, it is the truth to a certain extent.
In other words, in this case he's indicating that I was at a confirmation. The broad part of it is that the confirmation is on that day and so the person hearing it might take it either way, might take it either in the broad context or specific context and make that kind of conclusion.
Q: Is it fair to conclude that at the time the call came in, you were not at confirmation; that's why Father Ryan uses the words "broad mental reservation"?
A: I believe so at that time.
Q: It wasn't factually accurate; is that correct?
A: Specifically at the time and the specific situation, that's true.
Q: Last paragraph, and you can read the whole memo if you like. It says, "I give this for your information so as to perhaps prepare RCAB" -- That would be Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: "For any," quote, "impending clouds in this matter."
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know what Father Ryan was referring to?
A: The only thing I can think of was relation to Father Shanley.
Q: Paul Shanley was giving out interviews to the New York Times; is that correct? Do you remember that happening?
A: Do I remember it happening?
Q: Yes.
A: Specifically, no. Should I remember, when did we talk about it?
Q: We are talking about when Paul Shanley went from his ministry to alienated youths to his parish at Newton.
A: He's at St. Jean's at this stage?
Q: Remember, we saw the April 12th letter we had previously that assigned --
A: Yes.
Q: Paul Shanley was not very happy about being assigned to St. Jean's; do you recall that at the time?
A: No, I don't recall that.
Q: Do you remember he gave interviews to various news media about his assignment?
A: I don't recall that.
Q: Were priests permitted to give interviews complaining about their assignments to the news media in 1979?
A: It's not a question of permission. It's a question of the right thing to do.
Priests were priests. You don't go around giving public -- complaining about their assignment. If they do, it disrupts the ruled order of the diocese and it would not -- should not be done unless there was really serious reason.
Q: Would you have been concerned if Paul Shanley in 1979 was giving interviews to the news media about his being assigned to St. Jean's of Newton?
A: I would be concerned.
Q: Do you remember whether -- but you don't recall that occurring?
A: I do not recall.
Q: Next exhibit, please. This is going to be Exhibit 55, a series of documents. At some point -- take your time and read the -- read the entire document, Bishop.
A: I am. First page.
Okay.
MR. McLEISH: What was the last number you had marked?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: 63.
MR. McLEISH: Let's mark this.
MR. MARC ROGERS: 64.
MR. McLEISH: Mark this as 65, then.
Q: Bishop, let me replace that. I'll put a new number on it, 65.
There you go, Exhibit 65.
A: You want me to read all of the material?
Q: Read the second page, which is your response to Paul Shanley.
A: Yes.
Q: I'll ask you some questions about that, but you are welcome to read it all.
A: Why don't we do that.
Q: That's fine.
The last page appears to be out of place but you can read that, too. I'm not going to ask you any questions about the last two pages.
A: Okay.
Okay, go ahead.
Q: In November of 1982, do you recall receiving the first page of Exhibit No. 55, which was a letter from Paul Shanley to you advising you about a woman who was giving what he calls annoyance calls?
A: Do I recall?
Q: Yes. Do you recall that?
A: No, no, I don't recall specifically, I just --
Go ahead.
Q: See, it says in the first sentence, "At the suggestion of Father Fred Ryan I'm writing to tell you the telephone company advised me it is powerless to stop the annoyance calls to this rectory from the Brockton woman." Do you see that.
A: Yes, I see that.
Q: He asks you for advice how to proceed with this.
A: I see that.
Q: And then "Father Fred Ryan suggested there may be measures short of a restraining order." Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: You wrote back to Paul Shanley and the copy is hard to read but I think I can make it out. But did you not say, "Dear Paul: I'm sorry to learn of the harassment you suffered from a woman in Brockton by constant telephone calls. As Father Ryan suggested, I'm not so sure a restraining order would be helpful. For us here at the chancery office, we stopped harassing calls like that from the use of the" -- I can't read that.
A: "Tape."
Q: "From the use of the tape." What did you mean by that?
A: The call would come in and the person would leave their message or whatever they wanted to say, short or long, on the tape.
Q: "It is rather an impersonal situation but we feel it does screen out calls that are from demented people and people we cannot help over the phone. The other recourse is not to speak at all when she calls but merely to leave her hanging until she hopefully gets discouraged." Are those your words?
A: That's in my letter, yes.
Q: "If you wish to pursue the legal matter, let me know." Then it says "With Best personal regards for a happy holy Christmas and New Year's. Sincerely, Christ Most Reverand Thomas B. Daily."
A: Right.
Q: Do you see that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Did you make inquiry of Paul Shanley as to what this woman was complaining about?
A: No. I don't recall I have.
Q: You don't recall doing that?
A: No, I just -- well, okay.
Q: By 1982 you would have remembered, would you not, the 1977 letter from Miss Stevens that we have been through and the article in Gaysweek? Would that have been in your mind in 1982?
A: Because of this call?
Q: Just would it have been in your mind. You knew Paul Shanley was involved in both of those instances?
A: I surely would not have forgotten. Not in relation to this call.
Q: In December 20, 1982, the next month, okay, do you see that?
A: December 20th?
Q: Yes, 1982.
A: This is the next page it's on.
Q: These are notes --
A: Excuse me, may I interrupt? This says December 14th, the next page, doesn't it?
Q: No, that's your letter. The page following that is December 20, 1982.
A: Thank you, okay.
Q: Take a moment. Do you want to read that?
A: Okay, I read it. There's one problem.
Q: What is the problem?
A: The problem is that after number 4, the sentence of the next paragraph, it says, "FJR suggested" --
Q: That's Frederick J. Ryan.
A: How does he suggest to himself?
Q: I'm not sure. I plan to ask him in his deposition.
A: All right.
Q: The next paragraph I'm interested in, "FJR spoke to TVD." That would be who?
A: TVD is myself.
Q: That's staff on 12/20: "Let her stay hanging on the phone. Have him get his own personal attorney." The quote ends after "let her stay hanging on the phone."
A: But there's no quote after the second line.
Q: No, there is none. The quote "Let her stay hanging on the phone," was that something that you recall Mr. Ryan or you stating to the staff?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: You mean Father Ryan?
MR. McLEISH: Father Ryan.
A: It says to the staff. It says to the staff. I don't recall.
Q: You don't recall either way?
A: No.
Q: Was there any policy of the archdiocese that if individuals were calling in with complaints about priests that they would be left hanging on the phone? Did that ever happen?
A: Well, let me just say this. You add the thought complaining about priests?
Q: Right.
A: That's something very specific. If they were complaining about priests, then we would not leave them hanging on the phone.
Q: You would not?
A: No, unless it was bizarre. If it was in fact or determined to be someone who just, you know, and -- well, I don't know. We use the word "demented" or some psychological or something like that, but normally to have a complaint about a priest we would not unless we knew the case, the background and the whole thing.
Q: Well, you only had Paul Shanley's version that this woman was calling in placing annoying harassing calls; is that correct?
A: He's the one who initiated the call for Father Ryan.
Q: Right.
A: He notes in this. This is noted in Father Ryan's -- as you said, that it's been going on for some time.
Q: Right. But no one -- There's a name mentioned, Sheila Burke, do you see that?
A: I see that. a
Q: Did anyone ever undertake any inquiry that you are aware of to find out why this woman was calling and what her specific problem was, Bishop?
A: Not that I remember.
Q: Next exhibit, No. 66. Before we get to that, Bishop, have you ever heard of an organization known as the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: As it's been referred to here, yes.
Q: When did you first hear of that organization?
A: Well, let me just say it would be speculation, but I would have to say it would have to be in regard to Father Chancellor because I know of no one else in the archdiocese.
Q: By May of 1983, Paul Shanley was -- remained -- was still at St. Jean's parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
A: May of?
Q: 1983.
A: Yes. Well, as I understand it, he went there from '79 to '83.
Q: And by May of 1983 were you aware of any restrictions that had been placed upon him having access to minors?
A: Specifically?
Q: Yes.
A: No. The only thing I would have to -- I get back to the original letter about which we had all of the discussions, the letter about disappointment by the cardinal.
Q: I'm talking about specific instructions that would prevent him in 1983 which would have unsupervised visits with children.
A: As I point out, they were specific in the nature of specifically teachings of the church regarding all kinds of moral situations, ethical situations, so forth. He was, it was a disappointed and instructed specifically to obey all of these instruction. See, that's the specificity of the instructions. If you say only the man/boy type of thing and then that kind of thing, that's something else again. The answer is "no," no.
Q: Do you know whether the pastor at St. Jean's was informed of the letter that you had received from Mrs. Stevens where Paul Shanley was alleged to have said things about pedophilia, bestiality and incest and the letter from Attorney McGeady concerning the gay man's article?
A: The pastor who was?
Q: The pastor at St. Jean's?
A: What was his name?
Q: I don't know.
A: Well, we can look it up. It seems to me you can look it up.
Q: I'm asking whether you have any awareness that when Paul Shanley went to St. Jean's, that the complaint from Mrs. Stevens and the letter from Attorney McGeady complete with the Gaysweek article, whether he was informed of those communications or given specifically --
A: I don't recall.
Q: Let's go to this exhibit, which is 67.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: 66.
Q: 66. This is -- Why don't you take a moment and look at that for me. Take a look at that.
A: Are we through with 65?
Q: We are through with 65, yes.
MR. O'NEILL: Do you want him to read all of the pages?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, he can read all of the pages. Actually I'm not going to ask him any questions about the -- I'm only going to ask him questions about the first four pages, because those are the only ones that involve him.
Q: And they are a little bit out of order, Bishop Daily. If I could direct your attention to your letter of June 1, 1983, in the sequence of documents, that's in the fourth page but it really should be the second page in the sequence of documents.
A: I see it. The point of view of time.
Q: The point of view in time. If you can read them in that order.
A: That's what, June 13th? Okay. Weston's letter was June 13th. My letter was June 1st.
Q: Weston's letter, the first page, this is coming from a minister?
A: Right.
Q: Not a priest but a minister in the Desert Christian Church, the first page of Exhibit 66, the Desert Christian Church, and he writes to Cardinal Medeiros "Isn't it a fact Father Paul Shanley represented you at the conference of NAMBLA North American Man Boy Love Association? There's an asterisk there?
A: He writes there -- he doesn't give the date. He writes received on May the 6th, I see.
Q: Where was it received?
A: Office of the Chancellor, Archdiocese of Boston.
Q: The Chancellor on May 6, 1983 was who?
A: The Chancellor in May of 1983 was myself.
Q: It was received also on May 5, 1983, at the cardinal's residence and not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence; do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Is there initials where it says "not acknowledged" at the cardinal's residence? Do you recognize these initials?
A: Monsignor Helmick. Those, I read those, yes.
Q: Is it fair to state from the stamps that Pastor Weston's question to Cardinal Medeiros was referred by the cardinal's residence down to you; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And it was received by you on May 6, 1983; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And then we have on the fourth page of Exhibit 66, we have a letter marked "personal and confidential" -- I'm sorry, it's the fifth page, fifth page of Exhibit 66.
Again these are the copies you got from the archdiocese. They are a little cut off. I think we can make it out.
A: June 1st.
Q: June 1st, 1983?
A: Which one are we looking at now?
Q: The fifth page. Your letter to Pastor Weston.
"Dear Pastor Weston: I wish to acknowledge your communications of His Eminence Cardinal Medeiros and your question regarding Paul Shanley, a priest of this archdiocese, regarding the founding conference of NAMBLA." That's in quotes. "I can assure you Father Shanley did not represent His Eminence Cardinal Medeiros with NAMBLA. With regards, Thomas V. Daily."
Is that your letter?
A: I believe that's what it says, even with all of the smudges in it.
Q: These again were the letters we got, and if there's better copies we can produce them. I think that's what it says, though. Certainly by June 1, 1983, you had some awareness about what NAMBLA was?
A: Yes, I think so.
Q: You knew in June 1, 1983, that NAMBLA was an organization that endorsed sexual relations between men and boys; is that correct?
A: I would have to say yes, you know, I was confusing even now in my own mind NAMBLA from that other organization.
Q: Man Boy Lovers of North America.
A: I would have to say, given what we talked about this morning, yes, this is.
Q: You were aware --
A: I would think so. Without any specific remembrance, I don't think I was confused, I think I knew what this meant.
Q: NAMBLA you might have been familiar with it from news reports?
A: Would have.
Q: So you write back to Pastor Weston and you tell Pastor Weston that Paul Shanley did not represent His Eminence at NAMBLA?
A: Right, that's what it says.
Q: You did not deny Father Shanley was at the founding conference of NAMBLA; you just said he didn't represent His Eminence, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Also the previous page you also alerted Paul Shanley or told Paul Shanley, you said, "Dear Father Shanley: I am enclosing an exchange of correspondence with the Pastor Hugh Weston I send it to you for your information," and you write "With best personal regards, I am Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily."
A: Correct.
Q: Would it be fair to say you did not ask Paul Shanley -- you sent it to him at St. Jean's rectory in Newton, you did not ask Paul Shanley whether in fact he attended the founding conference of NAMBLA, did you?
A: No, according to the correspondence. Okay.
Q: You did not ask him?
A: No.
Q: Correct?
A: No, maybe Father Medeiros did, but I can't say because I don't have documentation to that effect.
I think you have to keep in mind, it's a little confusing to me, if I may say so. The cardinal, we are talking about him going from the house to the cardinal's residence to the chancery office. It may well be that it lost in the times that man was referred to the cardinal, to the cardinal, even though it went to the house to the cardinal again at chancery office because he spent a lot of time in the chancery office and did a lot of his business and meetings and so forth in the chancery office.
Q: I'm not talking about the cardinal for the time being. I'm talking about you, okay.
It comes down I think, as you testified earlier, matters would be sent down to you from the cardinal's residence from time to time?
A: That's true, but I just -- I mentioned the other fact only because the cardinal did a lot of business out of the chancery office, most of it.
Q: My question is, is it fair to state from the correspondence you have in front of you you did not ask Paul Shanley whether or not he had actually attended the NAMBLA conference?
A: Specifically according to the documents, no, I can't recall having asked him. Not to say I didn't but I can't recall asking him.
Q: As the No. 2 man in Boston at the time you would have had the power to ask him; is that correct?
A: If anybody in Boston, I would have the power to act.
Q: Was there any reason why you did not ask him if he attended the founding conference of NAMBLA?
MR. O'NEILL: Wait, he hasn't said he didn't ask him. Let's not confuse the issue here. You are misstating his prior testimony.
MR. McLEISH: I don't mean to misstate.
Q: You testified from the correspondence, I think your testimony was you did not appear you asked Paul Shanley.
A: No. Excuse me, I do not recall whether I asked Paul Shanley.
Q: You wrote him a letter; is that correct?
A: That's the letter here, the one you are referring to, June 1, 1983, correct.
Q: You did not ask him in that correspondence whether or not he attended the NAMBLA conference, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: You cannot recall any other conversations you had with Paul Shanley about this letter from Pastor Weston, correct?
A: You have to give me that again now.
Q: You cannot recall as you sit here today any other communications, either written or oral, that you had with Paul Shanley about Pastor Weston's letter; is that a fair statement?
A: I do not recall.
Q: Then on the second page -- and this is received by the office of the Chancellor on June 13, 1983. This is Pastor Weston's response to your letter June 1, 1983 to him. Do you see that?
A: No. Where is it?
Q: Second page of Exhibit 66.
A: Second page back here. Excuse me. Okay, go ahead.
Q: Why don't you take a moment and read that.
A: Okay.
Q: It says this is Pastor Weston's response to your letter of June 1st, correct?
A: Pastor Weston's response to my letter of June 1st.
Q: Right.
A: Okay.
Q: You wrote to Pastor Weston saying that you assured him Father Shanley did not represent His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, and Pastor Weston writes back, received on June 13, 1983, office of the Chancellor: "Dear Most Reverend Thomas Daily: Was Father Shanley at" -- the word "at" is underlined -- "the NAMBLA conference? You said he did not represent Cardinal Medeiros but was he present? Was he later reprimanded? If" -- I think it's "no" or "if so."
A: No, "if so."
Q: "If so"?
A: "If so," question mark.
Q: Thank you. This comes from a minister out in California, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And we don't have in the records that have been produced by the archdiocese any response to this letter from you, so my question would be whether you recall responding to Pastor Weston?
A: Put it this way --
Q: Let me just finish. Do you recall responding to Pastor Weston's letter whether he asked you whether Paul Shanley was at the NAMBLA conference?
A: No, I do not recall and I have to say given the situation, I don't know. I obviously did not answer the question, put it that way.
Q: It's fair to state as of 1983 there's a question -- you best recall, your best recollection, there was a question in your mind in 1983 as to whether or not Paul Shanley working in St. Jean's parish in Newton may have attended a conference, the founding conference of the North American Man Boy Love Association? There's a question in your mind?
A: Yes, there's a question, but indication seems to me -- Well, ask the question.
Q: You did nothing that you can recall here today to pursue the issue of whether in fact he attended the founding conference of NAMBLA?
A: Not with according to Weston.
Q: You don't recall?
A: I don't recall it anyway, but obviously I did not answer the questions for Father Weston for whatever reasons I had at the time, not feeling obliged presumably or obliged to Hugh Weston to tell him whether or not he was there or not there.
Q: There was a minister writing to you with some expression of concern about Paul Shanley; is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: And certainly given the fact that Paul Shanley was at St. James in Newton without any restrictions in place on his access to minors, would it not have concerned you if in fact Paul Shanley had attended the founding meeting of an organization which endorsed sexual relations between men and boys? Would that have concerned you?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form. Go ahead.
A: My opinion, it would be out of order but I would see the investigation would be mine; not the question of being obliged to Weston but the obligation would be obviously between me and the priest.
Q: Were you somewhat annoyed at the tone of Pastor Weston's second letter to you?
A: No, just objectively I felt -- No, I don't know. I can feel that I was not obliged to answer the questions.
Q: But you also can't say whether you felt obliged to ask Paul Shanley out at St. Jean's Rectory parish in Newton, whether he actually attended that conference?
A: There's no documentation to that effect but that doesn't necessarily mean I didn't speak to him.
Q: He remained at St. Jean's; is that correct?
A: Correct. Until when, 19 --
Q: 1980. Sorry, 1990.
A: He was there until 1990?
Q: Yes, he was. Left in early 1990. I just want you to hold Pastor Weston's letter aside if you could just keep that near with Exhibits 42 and 44. We'll come back it.
A: That is 60.
Q: We'll find them for you.
A: This is 67?
Q: Yes, 67. Would you take a moment and look at this. This is -- the handwriting is hard but I think we can make our way through it.
MR. O'NEILL: At some time when appropriate I would like to make a telephone call.
MR. McLEISH: After this letter.
Q: You can read the letter and your response. Are you able to make out some of the handwriting? I know it's difficult.
A: Okay.
Q: Now, you'll see that the letter from Mr. Moynihan, you'll see he's -- on the last line of the third page of Exhibit 67, you'll see he's a communicant at St. Patrick's in Brockton?
A: Yes.
Q: He also writes to Cardinal Medeiros. This is received at the office of the Chancellor and this is in July. July 6, 1983. Do you see that?
A: Wait a minute, I don't see.
Q: At the top, the second page.
A: I beg your pardon. I don't have that. This is 67 you are talking about?
Q: 67. This is the letter from Moynihan, top of the second page. You see at the top it says "Archdiocese of Boston, received, Office of the Chancellor"; do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: You see at the top "Bishop Daily"?
A: Yes.
Q: I assume you were still the Chancellor in July of 1983.
A: July 5, 1983, yes.
Q: This is -- you recall that the letter from Pastor Weston came in in May of 1983?
A: Okay.
Q: Now, in -- this is another letter to Cardinal Medeiros that I take it it was sent down to your office; is that correct?
A: It says -- we can presume so, yes.
Q: There's actually a response from you to Mrs. Moynihan, is that correct, the following page?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form. The response is from Father --
A: The response was Father -- he was the Chancellor. He's probably deceased.
Q: It says "for Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily."
A: Yes.
Q: The initials under the response, T.V.D., do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Are those your initials?
A: Yes.
Q: E.M., who is that? Is that your secretary?
A: I had -- no, I have to assume that that is -- I don't know who E.M. is unless it would be his secretary. I don't understand that.
Q: Do you see your name circled -- not circled. Do you see your name on the front of the second page of Exhibit No. 67? It says "Bishop Daily"; do you see that?
A: The second page of?
Q: Exhibit 67.
A: Yes, all right.
Q: Whose handwriting is that, if you know?
A: I don't know. I would be guessing, it's not mine and I would be guessing if I were to say anything.
Q: Is it fair to state when this letter came down, it was sent down to your office for a response? Since the stamp "Office of the Chancellor" appears on the second page.
A: I don't think we can assume that because it may well be that Father Lil had it. That "Bishop Daily" may be his.
MR. O'NEILL: The question is response, not necessarily your response.
Q: Let's look at the response letter. The response letter comes from the Office of the Chancellor, do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was the Chancellor in July of 1983?
A: I was.
Q: There would be some times when you would have subordinates draft letters up for your response; is that correct?
A: Very rarely. I'm surprised. It must have been some kind of extraordinary circumstance where he stepped in. Very rarely did that happen.
Q: You can't say either way whether you saw the response letter that has the signature of Richard -- I'm sorry, Richard --
A: P.
Q: Litel?
A: Little.
Q: And he says "for Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily." He was writing this letter for you; is that correct?
A: That's what it says.
Q: Was it your practice to read letters that were being written for you in 1983?
A: Before sending or after sending?
Q: Before or after.
A: Not necessarily before. Afterwards I would.
Q: You would have seen this letter of July 13, 1983, perhaps after it had gone out?
A: Yes, because the cardinal obviously has to see it.
Q: So in this communication from Mr. Moynihan, he again brings to your attention the question of Paul Shanley in NAMBLA. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And in it's hard to read. In the handwriting on the second page of Exhibit 67, last paragraph, it says, does it not, "Among the speakers who voiced" -- See it? It starts, "Among the speakers who voiced their endorsement of sexual relations between" --
A: What page?
Q: The first page of the letter.
A: Yes, okay. Yes, I see it.
Q: "Among those speakers who voiced their endorsement of sexual relations between men and boys was" -- I think it's Canon Clinton Young, Pastor of Christ Church Cathedral.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Clinton Jones.
Q: Pastor of Christ Church Cathedral Episcopal in Hartford, and Father Paul Shanley, representative of Boston Roman Catholic Cardinal Medeiros, and the Reverend Robert Wently from the national office of the unitery Universalist Church. Do you see that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Then there is a question at the end. I'm sorry, second page. "I would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to confirm or deny the allegations made by Mr. Braunfeld" I think that is "that Father Shanley appeared at the NAMBLA conference." I can't read the next word. Something --
A: The conference -- no, conference.
Q: "Uttered the statement attributed to him that he personally endorsed the rightness of sexual relations between men and boys. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And then he says, "If the above is substantially correct, how can such perversion condemned by God and Bible be reconciled at a Catholic Church doctrine down through the ages?" And they list his name. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And so understanding that you may not have seen the response but understanding that your practice would have been to see -- to see this response, the response on the final page of Exhibit 67 from the office of the Chancellor, you would have seen something written for you afterwards?
A: Well, I would -- that would be just a courtesy.
Q: Does it not suggest that at least as of that date, July of 1983, Paul Shanley had not been asked whether he attended the NAMBLA conference? In the response written by Father Little?
A: Yes.
Q: And you remember that Mr. Moynihan wanted to know he was there at the NAMBLA founding conference?
A: Yes.
Q: It is stated "For information concerning Father Paul Shanley or his presence at the conference, His Eminence suggests you write directly to him at St. John's Church, 253 Watertown Street, Newton 02158."
A: I see that.
Q: Does that not suggest to you that as of July 13, 1983, despite this letter and the letter from Pastor Weston, no inquiry had been made of Paul Shanley whether he had attended the founding conference of NAMBLA?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form. Go ahead.
A: It would seem so.
Q: In light of what you knew about NAMBLA and in light of the fact that Paul Shanley is -- Let me back up.
MR. McLEISH: Let's take your break, Mr. O'Neill. We'll take your break now.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 12:12 p.m.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 12:30 p.m.
Q: Bishop Daily, I would like to focus now on the time period 1983 when you received the Moynihan -- I apologize for that. I would like to focus on the time period in 1983. We have been through Pastor Weston's letter; do you recall that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Which made reference to Paul Shanley -- questioned whether Paul Shanley attended NAMBLA; is that correct?
A: Yes, I recall that.
Q: That is a letter you responded to and saw?
A: Yes.
Q: You knew what NAMBLA was formed in 1983?
A: Yes.
Q: And its view was abhorrent to you, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I wouldn't use the word "abhorrent." I repudiated. "Abhorrent" that's fine.
Q: What word would you use to describe the views of NAMBLA on the propriety of boys having sex with men?
A: The bishop is opposed to anything that I know is correct, the law of teaching in the church, you know.
Q: You knew there was an allegation that Paul Shanley might have attended the NAMBLA conference, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: You can't recall anything specifically that you did to follow up on that in 1983, correct?
A: I can't recall, no. That's not to say I didn't but I can't recall.
Q: We had the 1977 letter which is Exhibit 42.
A: 42, okay.
Q: That's the Delores Stevens letter which she alleges that Paul Shanley made remarks about pedophilia stating that the adult is not the seducer?
A: Is she -- yes.
Q: And then she says -- she quotes Paul Shanley as stating that he can any think of no sexual act that causes psysic damage, not even bestiality?
A: Yes.
Q: Certainly you had not forgotten about that letter in 1938?
A: In '83?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: I can't recall what I had in my mind in 1938. I knew the cardinal was sick. I had him in mind. I know in my mind, you mean about this.
Q: Had you forgotten in 1983 that Mrs. Stevens had written to Miss Sweeney and been forwarded to you a letter in which Paul Shanley is reflected -- in Exhibit 42 is alleged to have said things related to incest, bestiality and pedophilia? Would that have been in your mind, if you know?
A: That I can't recall.
Q: In 1979 we had the letter from Attorney McGeady is attaching the Gaysweek letter; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Where Paul Shanley talks about children again, a boy feeling guilty when he had sex with an adult. We went through that this morning, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: That was something also that you had reviewed in 1979; is that correct?
A: We did that, yes. As I recall, yes.
Q: And you had -- then you had those, so there's a total of four letters on the subject of Paul Shanley expressing views that were abhorrent to you; is that correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A: As I say, yes, I -- I would say I repudiate the whole situation. But I mean, if you want to use the word "abhorrent," fine.
Q: What word would you be most --
A: I'm horrified by that kind of --
Q: Horrified?
A: Yes, horrified.
Q: You would be horrified if someone -- you would be horrified to have someone working as a parish priest who had actually said these things or who had attended the NAMBLA conference; is that correct? Would you be horrified about that?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of that question. At what point in time?
MR. McLEISH: In 1983.
A: Let's go back to "abhorrent." I think that, whatever, I think I would not be pleased, let's put it that way. I would be very displeased, because of just the idea of -- Well, what was said, what was reported, I would not be pleased at it at all.
Q: And these four letters, Exhibits 42, 49, 67 and 66, the four communications we have --
A: I have them all here. I have 49, 66, they contain --
Q: 62 is the Delores Stevens letter?
A: 40, this is 42.
Q: Yes, 42 is the Delores Stevens letter, that's 1977. 1979 is the McGeady letter with the Gaysweek article attached.
A: Okay.
Q: And then the Moynihan letter is July of 1983.
A: Correct, yes.
Q: Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And then the Pastor Hugh Weston letter is May of 1983; is that correct?
A: Yes -- no -- I beg your pardon. It's Pastor Hugh's.
Q: Pastor Hugh's, May 5th --
A: Where is Moynihan?
Q: He's Exhibit 66.
A: Yes, it's here.
Q: All right. And these are four letters that are not typical of the letters that you would have seen about a priest of the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: No -- that's correct. That's correct.
Q: You are not aware of any other priest who was accused of being a member of the North American man boy association?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
A: I don't recall. I have no recollection of anybody, of any priest being associated that I know we -- under my jurisdiction.
Q: These were four letters from four different individuals, not just one individual; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you were still aware by the time of the Moynihan letter, which is the last letter we have in July of '83, that Paul Shanley is working at St. Jean's in Newton, correct?
A: In '83 he went there in -- yes, he's there.
Q: In '79?
A: Yes, he's there.
Q: Then you made the decision in November of 1983 to elevate Paul Shanley to administrator of the parish; is that correct?
A: Well, you can call it elevation. I wouldn't call it elevation. I would call it to the position of.
Q: Well, the pastor died in 1983.
A: Okay, the position of administrator.
Q: Right.
A: That's right.
Q: You appointed him as administrator which meant for a period of time he was the No. 1 person at that parish as of November 1983?
A: As administrator.
Q: As the administrator?
A: He was not a pastor.
Q: The pastor died. When the pastor dies who is in charge of the parish?
A: The one appointed as the pastor or administrator.
Q: Were you aware of anybody who was appointed as pastor when -- I forgot the name of the -- we can find out during the break. -- when the pastor at St. Jean's died?
A: No. The fact is -- what is the fact, the fact is that Paul Shanley was named administrator, that was by me.
Q: That was a promotion for him?
A: No, it's a recognition. And most important of all, something had to be done about the administrative of the diocese itself, the adding and subtracting of money itself, the monies for the school and all of the rest of the money with it. And the trust was administration and all along with that, obviously, the priestly ministry.
Q: Administrators, administrators are the second in command at parishes; is that correct?
A: Depending -- no, not necessarily. You mean as a title?
Q: Yes.
A: It's below Pastor.
Q: It's below Pastor, second in command like you were in Boston; is that correct?
A: No, you can't make that either. But to a certain extent you can.
Q: You can. Okay. So on November 4, '98 -- I'm showing you Exhibit 68; is that correct?
A: 68.
Q: That's your letter to Paul Shanley of November 4, 1983, where you state "Upon the recommendation of the Personnel Board of the Archdiocese, I'm ending your appointment as Associate Pastor of St. John the Avengelist of Newton and I'm appointing you as Pastor of that parish."
A: Correct.
Q: "As Administrator, you will be responsible for the total administration of the parish which includes all financial matters, the administration of the rectory, all policy decisions and all other matters relating to pastoral care of the people of the parish." Do you see that?
A: Correct.
Q: So he was the No. 1 guy at least as of that time, correct?
A: For the administration.
Q: Include -- and administration included, all other matters contained in the pastoral care of the people of the parish?
A: That's true, but he was not the pastor.
Q: Well, the pastor died.
A: The pastor died. He was not the pastor, he was administrator. He was the one to do the duties of a pastor, but he didn't have a title of Pastor which has an effect in canon law.
Q: He had the duties of the pastor because the pastor had died?
A: Correct.
Q: All I'm trying to establish, Bishop, when you appointed him administrator in November of 1983, there was no one who was above him at St. Jean's; is that correct? He was the acting pastor?
A: To do -- okay. In that parish.
Q: In that parish?
A: He was doing the duties of a pastor.
Q: And you appointed him acting pastor doing the duties of the pastor even though you had received the Moynihan letter asking about his attendance at NAMBLA, you had received the letter from Pastor Weston, you received letter from Attorney McGeady enclosing the article of Gaysweek, and you received the letter from Mrs. Sweeney which enclosed the letter of Mrs. Stevens about his views on pedophilia, incest and bestiality?
A: Correct.
Q: When you sent this letter of November 4, 1983 to Paul Shanley, you also state "I would also request that since this parish is without a pastor at this time, you assume the obligation of the messa pro populo, what does that mean?
A: It means that on certain days of the year we have to celebrate -- we are required as a pastor and as a bishop even to celebrate mass for the people, pro populo behalf, for the people. Those days would include every Sunday, would include major feast days throughout the year, and I forget how many days would be total. There would be that requirement for the very office you have the responsibility to pray for the people.
Q: He was going to be the celebrant for mass; is that correct?
A: He was going to have that obligation.
Q: Was that obligation usually the pastor's obligation?
A: Yes.
Q: Again would it be accurate to state when you made this appointment to him to be the acting pastor, this was in fact a promotion from his appointment as -- previous appointment as associate pastor?
A: If you want to argue that he was added responsibilities, he was promoted.
Q: Well, added responsibility.
A: I think it was a work situation. Be that as it may, it was an administrative situation. But, yes, that's your opinion, I guess.
Q: Well, he had more responsibilities? Let's leave it at that.
A: Yes, he had more responsibility.
Q: In Exhibit 42, 49, 66 and 67, didn't you have some concerns about Paul Shanley potentially coming into contact with young people?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: At what point in time?
Q: When you appointed him as administrator and acting pastor of St. Jean's in November of 1983, didn't you have some concern about that?
A: I would say I had some concerns but keep in mind that if I'm not mistaken, there were no -- there were no calls, complaints, evidence of actions by him in regard to this whole field, that it was all ideas, it was all him making big speeches, which you need a kick in the pants in, if I might say. It was all ideas and he was promoting these ideas but no actions as I recall, as I recall were reported from anybody regarding bestiality, incest, all of the things --
Q: Man/boy love?
A: Whatever it it, yes.
Q: So, you are stating it was acceptable for him to espousing his support for man-boy love as long as he didn't act on it?
MR. WILSON D. ROGER: Objection to form.
A: No, I'm just saying there was a difference between espousing and doing.
Q: Did you believe that someone who could espouse his endorsement of man/boy love would be suitable to a act as a pastor in a parish in Newton, Massachusetts in 1983?
A: In mentioning and to teaching to the faithful. I would object to that very strongly. You asked the question. I would object to his -- if he was doing that in the parish of St. Jean, Newton, I would object to that very strongly and I would think, too, that along with that objection would be those closer to the scene, namely the regional bishop and the vicar, the vicar in that area.
Q: Would it be acceptable for him to be appointed as a pastor if he was making statements of his man/boy love outside of the parish? You made a distinction, you said it would be --
A: That's right.
Q: Would it be acceptable for him to have the position of acting pastor in 1983 as long as the statements about man/boy love, his endorsement --
A: Not with my endorsement.
Q: Outside of the parish?
A: No.
Q: Would it be acceptable for someone to be appointed, like Paul Shanley, as action pastor of parish of the Archdiocese of Boston, as long as he was expressing his endorsement of man/boy love outside of the parish?
A: I would have to say, I would have a difficult time doing that.
Q: My question is since you had, you certainly acknowledged receiving the Pastor Weston letter and said that consistent with your practice, he would have reviewed the letter sent in response to the Moynihan letter at some point. Why then did you appoint this man as acting pastor of a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts in November of 1983?
A: Because it was a temporary situation that had -- presumably that had to be taken care of, the administration of the parish. Because, as you indicated, the death of the pastor, someone had to do the adding and subtracting and administering the material goods and needs of that parish, so that in, for a temporary time, which is the very nature of an administrator, pastoral administrator, that he was placed in that position at the recommendation of the personnel board.
Q: There were certainly other individuals in the archdiocese of Boston apart from Paul Shanley who could have come in on a temporary basis and become the acting pastor; isn't that true?
A: Yes, because there are a lot of priests.
Q: Right. So it wasn't -- Go ahead, finish your answer.
A: Well, what I relied on was the recommendation of the Personnel Board.
Q: I thought that the Personnel Board you testified yesterday would come to you for sort of a final chat when there were appointments that were being made. Wasn't that your testimony yesterday?
A: Before appointments were suggested to His Eminence, the cardinal?
Q: Yes.
A: That was the general practice after the Personnel Board met that they would check with me on these appointments to see if in my file there was anything precluding anybody's promotion or appointment as a pastor.
Q: And you had access, even though -- you had access not only to your own files but access to all of the files if you wanted with the archdiocese on particular priests, correct?
A: Yes. But be that as it may, when it came to -- when it came to access to the files regarding -- containing presumably, acts improper or inappropriate for a priest, I felt that I had them all in my office.
Q: And you may have had Father Shanley -- remember that 1966 complaint, that may have been in your files in your office?
A: That's right.
Q: That might have been in your files in your office, correct?
A: There's a possibility that it could have been. Well, as a matter of fact if there was complaint in that nature, yes.
Q: Would have been in your files?
A: Yes, I would say from my point of view at that time, mistaken or otherwise, if I felt that was the only place, I would say it should have been there, anything like that.
Q: The files were organized in your view, is that correct, in the archdiocese?
A: I beg your pardon?
Q: In 1983 the files were organized well; is that correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are talking about the files in the bishop's office?
Q: In the archdiocese office were files --
A: We had -- the files in my office were organized well, in regard to the drawer and a half that I had regarding my point of view, my knowledge, the inappropriate activity of priests.
Q: I think the "special cases" was the word you used.
A: I guess so.
Q: You might well have looked at that letter sent in by the priest of the Lasserlet Center before you made the appointment based on the recommendantion of the Personnel Board, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection.
Q: Could have happened?
A: If there was something -- I could have made the appointment if there was information in there as administrator admitted to the diocese.
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, as a result I would have to say it wasn't there.
Q: There were complaints about John Geoghan in his file that you had knowledge of and he was eventually returned back into active ministry based on a letter that you sent; is that correct?
A: The question is the premise, is the premise true; did in fact I have complaints against John Geoghan in my file?
Q: Yes.
A: In my file?
Q: You did.
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: I don't want to belabor this. Apart from the Personnel Board, my question is that we are now looking in November of 1983. In May and July of 1983, the same year, there are letters that are coming into your office, one of which you responded to, one of which was responded on your behalf, raising the question of whether Paul Shanley had attended a meeting of the national -- sorry, of NAMBLA. You know what NAMBLA is? North American Man Boy Love Association.
A: I understand.
Q: So my question is: Since you knew what NAMBLA was and you don't recall having done anything as of right now pursuing whether Shanley had -- Father Shanley had attended these conferences, how could you have appointed Paul Shanley in November of 1983 acting pastor, the man in charge of a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts? How could you have done that?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: Because of the -- there was no -- there were no indications of actions regarding the actions that were mentioned and talked about and promoted in these meetings and so forth, and that the whole trust of His Eminence approached to him and mine is given the direction of His Eminence was to bring him into a situation where his ideas and opinions which were as we described earlier were changed to something normal and that that was the hope and that was the expectation.
Q: But you didn't establish by November of 1983 whether Paul Shanley's views on man/boy love had changed at all, had you?
A: Not that I recall. November of 1983?
Q: Right.
A: I'm just trying to think.
Q: If you take a look --
A: I'm just looking here because of the dates are important to me.
Q: If you take a look at Exhibit 67, it might help you. July of 1983, when Mr. Moynihan had asked whether Paul Shanley had been at the NAMBLA conference, the letter written by Mr. Little stated --
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Father Little.
Q: -- Father Little for information concerning his Paul Shanley or his appearance at the conference his Eminence suggests that you write directly to him at St. John's Church, that's the same as St. Jean's, 253 Watertown Street, Newton.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: What is the question?
Q: My question is: As of November of 1983 you hadn't spoken to Paul Shanley about whether any of his views on man/boy love changed, had you?
A: There's no indication here that I had.
Q: Looking back on it now, Bishop, with these letters that I have been through, do you believe that it was appropriate for you to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator and acting pastor of St. Jean's parish in November of 1983, given these four letters that we put in front of you?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. Are you asking him to form an opinion today as opposed to what his opinion was then?
MR. McLEISH: Not form an opinion; looking right now with all of this information, whether it was appropriate to assign Paul Shanley as acting pastor.
Q: Do you understand the question?
MR. O'NEILL: Including his present knowledge of the allegations against Paul Shanley; as he sits here today are you excluding that?
Q: Can you answer the question?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form.
MR. McLEISH: It's observed to trial.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Including everything he knows today?
MR. McLEISH: No, basically these four letters.
Q: Do you understand the question? On the basis of these four allegations that have been made against Paul Shanley from his beliefs in bestiality, incest, pedophilia, the McGeady letter, Gaysweek magazine about children feeling guilty when they have sex with men and men get sent to jail, on the basis of the two letters you received in May and July of 1983 about his attendance at NAMBLA, looking at those letters, do you still believe it was appropriate for you to appoint Paul Shanley as acting pastor of a family parish in Newton in 1983?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
A: I would have to agree that it would be extraordinary. The only thing, the only saving feature of it is that we are talking about ideas and opinions in his promotion verbally, that the only saving feature is that, to my knowledge at the time, he wasn't involved in activities. But having even said that, if in fact he was promoting ideas and God knows at St. Jean's parish, that would be terrible. And there was no evidence he was at St. Jean's parish doing that; he was doing it in other parts of the country. But having said that, I would have very great regrets.
Q: You have regrets you made the appointment?
A: I think I would have done much better if I hadn't made the appointment.
Q: Fair enough. Is there any other information that has come to your attention apart from those four letters that would in any way support the appointment of Paul Shanley as acting pastor in November of 1983?
A: Well, the only thing that, you know, that could be said was it was an attempt I suppose, whether I articulated it or not, but in my own mind the practice the pastor, pastoral approach that His Eminence Cardinal Medeiros used from the point of view of trying to change the man's ideas in thoughts and approach to these situations to -- as he had himself said in his appointment in the beginning, to Monsignor -- I mean to Father Shanley as a priest in the parish in conformity with the teachings of the church, specifically --
Q: I didn't mean to interrupt. You don't know whether any of those efforts to change his views on man/boy love, bestiality, incest and his other thoughts in this area had been successful, correct?
A: Only from the point of view from His Eminence approached to him.
Q: You can ask someone to change their views. It doesn't mean you will be successful.
A: Correct. Nor does it mean this person has to be involved in these kind of actions either, remember.
Q: Well, Bishop, isn't it true that priests are held to standards by the Archdiocese of Boston not only in terms of what they do but what they say?
A: True.
Q: You can't be a priest if, for example, you are actively making statements that are contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: Most specifically within the confines of the diocese.
Q: Even if you are making statements contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church outside of the diocese but in various public forums, that is something also that would not make you qualified to be a pastor at a parish for the New York archdiocese?
A: I would have to say yes, but there's a different situation. Outside the diocese there would also be other safeguards of other dioceses and bishops who would make the appropriate inquiry, as they did, regarding Paul Shanley.
Q: Were there any safeguards in place when you appointed Paul Shanley as acting pastor in November of 1983?
A: Only the supervisory of pastoral concern of the local regional bishop in that area, the Episcopal vicar in that area.
Q: That's Bishop Mulcahy?
A: That's Bishop Mulcahy and an additional bishop I don't recall, but that's it. The priest, they would be the ones.
Q: But acting pastors, pastors have no day-to-day supervision. Do then acting pastors have -- you mean acting bishops? Acting pastors like Paul Shanley, they have no day-to-day supervision, they don't have someone every day?
A: No, given the responsibility and they are asked to do it. But there was -- presumably in one sense he was doing it because to my knowledge, there was no reaction, there was no evidence of any kind of not doing it.
Q: He was doing what? I'm sorry, I didn't follow.
A: Fulfilling his responsibility as a legitimate and endorsed administrator and priest in the parish.
Q: You are aware, are you not, that there are four -- sorry, 16 count indictments against Paul Shanley right now alleging four counts of rape, 12 counts of indecent assault and battery four acts of child molestation and rape occurring between 1983 and 1989? Are you aware of that, are you not?
A: I'm aware generally speaking, yes.
Q: These are criminal indictments. And so you also knew in 1983 that someone who might express their endorsement of man/boy love relationships might also be someone that could be considered a threat to the children; is that correct?
A: He might be, yes, I'm aware of that.
Q: But you went ahead and appointed him despite the fact that you had information before you that suggested that Paul Shanley had attended and quite possibly endorsed the views of the NAMBLA organization?
A: Correct.
Q: And you regret that?
A: I regret that.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Time for lunch.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 1:00 p.m.
(Luncheon recess taken at 1:00 p.m.)
A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
(Time noted: 2:04 p.m.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:04 p.m.
BISHOP THOMAS DAILY resumed and testified as follows:
CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. McLEISH:
Q: Okay, Bishop Daily, did you consider at all, before you made the decision to appoint Paul Shanley administrator and acting pastor at St. Jean's, sharing with the parishioners of St. Jean's the fact that you had received two letters about Paul Shanley's possible involvement with the NAMBLA organization?
A: At the time I did not but I don't recall.
Q: Was there any particular policy in place in the Archdiocese of Boston that would have prevented you from sharing Paul Shanley's possible involvement with NAMBLA with the parishioners of the archdiocese?
A: Nothing I can think of. That is a public organization. I don't think it did.
Q: Did you believe it would be important for the parents of these children such as Mr. Ford, who is sitting here to my right, to know that the person who was going to be appointed as their acting pastor had had allegations made against him that he was endorsing man/boy love organizations? Do you think it was important that they know?
A: That certainly in the aftermath, given my present situation, yes, I do.
Q: At the time you didn't think it was important?
A: Well, it wasn't considered as a process but the fact is I didn't, and at the time I didn't make a decision in that regard because I didn't think of it in the sense it wasn't presented to me in that sense. And so, you know, I think, I know what I know now, it would be a different situation because it's almost, if not nearly, policy.
Q: Well, you have a doctorate in divinity as I understand it?
A: No, it's an honorary thing, you know, I have no theological degree.
Q: Did you attend college?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you go to college?
A: I went to Boston College for three semesters and I went to the seminary.
Q: And graduated from the seminary; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You knew when you were appointing Father Shanley as acting pastor and administrator, you knew he would come into contact with families, did you not?
A: Yes. I would, I presumed so because he was going to be in the parish.
Q: Part of the mission of Father Shanley as acting pastor would be to deliver the gospel to the Catholic laity; is that correct? The Catholic laity includes children?
A: It was my observation he did. I had a confirmation class there and he did deliver the sacrament confirmation there.
Q: You also know he did other things, do you not? You know now there were other things he did besides delivering sacraments?
A: Yes. You told me that today in more detail than I knew before I knew the father was arrested and so forth.
Q: But you didn't know there were four victims and 16 count indictments including four for rape?
A: Sure.
Q: 10 for rape, I'm sorry. I'm showing you Exhibit No. 69. Do you recognize this as the letter you received from Paul Shanley thanking you for appointing him the administrator of St. John the Evangelist parish in Newton?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you receive that letter?
A: Yes.
Q: And he also says for your kind words of confidence; do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Now, you are aware, are you not, that after Cardinal Law arrived in Boston, Paul Shanley was ultimately appointed pastor of St. Jean's? Are you aware of that?
A: Not aware of it, but I only -- Well, I guess we talked about it, but I'm not aware of it until the last day or so. I can't recall.
Q: I'm going to show you -- it's out of order but I will give Exhibit No. -- I'm showing you Exhibit 72 and ask if you would read that.
A: I read it.
Q: Do you think that Cardinal Law would have been justified in relying upon your decision in appointing Paul Shanley as administrator in making this decision to appoint Paul Shanley as pastor?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Well, I object. Are you asking him to form an opinion now about an act that took place after Bishop Daily left Boston?
MR. McLEISH: Do you understand the question?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Are you asking him to form an opinion now?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, I am. I'm not asking him to form an opinion, I'm asking him whether when he believed based upon his knowledge of Archidiosese and policies and procedures whether Cardinal Law could have made the appointment of Paul Shanley that's reflected in that document you have in front of you based upon your decision to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
Q: Go ahead, you can answer.
A: Not necessarily. I think he would have consulted with the -- maybe the bishop, Bishop Mulcahy. I don't know.
Q: It would not have been consistent with the practices as you understood it for Cardinal Law in making the appointment in December of '94 to simply rely upon the fact that you had just previously appointed Paul Shanley as the administrator?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. Again you are asking about practices at a point in time that Pastor Daily was not involved in day-to-day operations I think that's unfair.
MR. McLEISH: He left in September.
Q: Is that your testimony, you left the --
A: Physically, yes.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object.
Q: And the appointment was in December of 1984, okay. Before you left. You understood the practice and policies of the archdiocese in Boston; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And based upon the practices and policies of the Archdiocese of Boston as they existed at the time you left, would Cardinal Law have been justified under those policies and practices in making the appointment of Paul Shanley as pastor based upon your previous appointment of Paul Shanley as administrator?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form of the question.
A: He could have.
Q: And we've got in front of you the deposition of Cardinal Law, the various depositions of Cardinal Law. You'll see the second day. That's Father Helmick's, the second day. Please turn to page 49. It's actually -- it's page 49. As it appears in the mini-script it is page 13 in that document, page 13 in the bottom right-hand corner.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: What day?
MR. McLEISH: Second day, June 7, 2002.
A: Okay.
Q: Are you looking at the page?
A: The bottom right?
Q: Yes, the bottom right.
A: About -- your question is what I know?
Q: No. Actually it's this one right here. Page 13 is down there.
A: I beg your pardon. Page 13 all by itself.
Q: Yes.
A: Okay.
Q: And it says, this is from the cardinal. I will read you what the cardinal said and then ask you a question about it. "Was it your practice at the time" -- this is my question -- "that Paul Shanley was elevated to pastor by you for there to be any review of the priest's files to see if there might be some matter of scandal or abuse that would preclude him from being a parish serving young children?"
A: "No, there was -- no, because I would have assumed there was no scandal or abuse if the person was in place."
Question: "So you were relying on Bishop Daily's decision in appointing Paul Shanley as administrator; is that correct?"
A: "That's correct."
A: I see it.
Q: Was the cardinal's reliance upon your decision consistent with the practices and policies of the archdiocese as you understood them before you left the archdiocese?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question because now what you posed to the cardinal was his personal practice and now you're trying to transpose that into the practices of the archdiocese. I think it's unfair to ask the witness to comment on the testimony of another individual.
Q: Do you understand the question?
A: I do, and I think this would be reliance on the cardinal's personal inquiry with meetings as to whether he -- my decision to appointment as interim administrator, that he would he would have relied on that, as he said, and named Father Shanley.
Q: Well, you testified previously that the Personnel Board would make recommendations on pastors.
A: True.
Q: And that before the pastors were finally appointed, that there would be a review of your records by you to make sure that there was not a matter that would -- such as a scandal that would prevent the person from being fit to serve as pastors.
A: Under normal circumstances, that would be it.
Q: Did that continue after the cardinal came in in March of 1984?
A: I can't say for sure.
Q: Do you remember there being any change in policy about the review that might occur before someone was named a pastor, any change in the protocol that you described before when Cardinal Law came in?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. You referred to that in one question as both the policy and a protocol and I believe the testimony was that it was a practice, so I object to the form of the question.
Q: Let's call it a practice.
A: Practice to consult?
Q: You.
A: In both, in every case.
Q: Well, when someone was appointed pastor, was there a practice that was in effect prior to the time that Cardinal Law arrived whereby you would be consulted to see if there was anything in the record about a particular priest that would mitigate against him becoming pastor?
A: Yes. That would follow the -- it would follow the Personnel Board meeting normally on a Friday evening. That was a kind of normal procedure that did not preclude other investigations and questions.
Q: That was a practice that was in effect; is that correct?
A: Yes, with me it was, that was, you know.
Q: Did the practice change as you recall, as you can best recall, when Cardinal Law arrived?
A: I don't think there's a formal change in policy as such of administrative action. I think that the cardinal relied on his own judgments and made that judgment as the Archbishop of Boston which was entirely within his purview.
Q: I'm talking specifically about the practice of checking with you before someone was named pastor. Was it a practice after Cardinal Law came to Boston, as you can best recall?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Either way?
A: Either way.
Q: Now, did you -- when Cardinal Medeiros was cardinal, were you -- was there a cabinet of the cardinal?
A: So-called cabinet in the question of development of the new law Cardinal Law, no.
Q: There were various departments of the archdiocese when Cardinal Medeiros was cardinal, was there not?
A: Yes.
Q: Were there so-called cabinet officials for various departments?
A: You can call them that, administrators.
Q: Would there be meetings of administrators from time to time with the cardinal?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were those called? Were they called admin- --
A: They were general meetings. More than likely the cardinal had a practice of seeing and interviewing administrators in an individual manner more than in a group manner, but it happened not very often, but regularly it was strictly one-on-one.
Q: Well, you at the chancery, as the No. 2 man in the chancery, you were in contact when Cardinal Medeiros was cardinal with senior officials of the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: Let me have that again.
Q: When you were the No. 2 man in the Archdiocese of Boston, were you in contact with other senior officials, bishops and others within the archdiocese from time to time?
A: Yes.
Q: You would know Bishop Mulcahy, for example?
A: Yes.
Q: You knew most of the bishops; is that correct?
A: I knew all of the bishops.
Q: You knew other senior officials that worked at the chancery; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Up until the time that Cardinal Law arrived, did you hear anyone state words to the effect that the recordkeeping of the archdiocese was poor?
A: No.
Q: After Cardinal --
A: I don't recall any.
Q: After Cardinal Law arrived, he instituted a process of cabinet meetings; is that correct?
A: It was preliminary meetings. He hadn't actually formed the cabinet but his organizational changes, the administration changed, yes. He was bringing in people to form a so-called cabinet, interview them and do so-called establishment.
Q: You were part of that; is that correct?
A: No, not very much.
Q: Did you hear after Cardinal Law arrived in Boston, March of 1984, anyone in the Archdiocese of Boston ever state that there was inadequate or poor recordkeeping within the archdiocese or words to that effect?
A: No, I never heard anybody say that.
Q: Now, did you ever tell Cardinal Law that there had been allegations that Paul Shanley had endorsed man/boy love relationships before you left the archdiocese of Boston?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell Cardinal Law that there had been letters written in 1977 and 1979 making allegations about Paul Shanley in the area of incest, bestiality, pedophilia and man/boy love?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form. Go ahead.
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about the Stevens letter?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about Mr. McGeady's letter that attached the Gaysweek article?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about Pastor Weston's letter?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about Mr. Moynihan's letter?
A: I do not recall.
Q: Was there any practice since Cardinal Law didn't know anyone, any of the priests, when he arrived in Boston, was there any practice of him seeking out consultation with individuals such as yourself about the various priests of the archdiocese?
A: I would -- I -- surely he had consulted. He was consulting with people all the time, talking to people, and most especially in relation to building up his administrative team and others too I supposes; basically administrative.
Q: Did Cardinal Law ever ask you whether there were any problems with any of the priests who held appointments within the archdiocese? Did he ever ask you that?
A: That general question?
Q: Yes.
A: Not that I recall.
Q: Did you ever see him asking anybody else that question such as Bishop Banks?
A: I did not see him but I have -- I presume he did but I didn't see him.
Q: You presume he did but you didn't witness that yourself; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, would it be accurate to state that when Cardinal Law arrived in Boston that you were one of the individuals that he would look to if there was a serious allegation involving misconduct by a priest?
A: I would say "yes."
Q: All right.
A: Okay, go ahead.
Q: You would say "yes." Okay, let me go ahead and show you this exhibit, please, marked as Exhibit 71. Bishop, you want to take a moment and look at that?
A: Okay.
Q: Exhibit 71. Have you read this exhibit, Bishop?
A: I have.
Q: And you'll see on the first page there's a letter from a Mr. Gregory Nash. In the first letter -- the first page of the letter he reports that in 1983 when his wife was a victim of two sexually graphic and degrading actions by Father Rivero. Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Did you know Father Rivero?
A: I can't recall. I can't put a face on it. I would say I probably knew him because he was Portuguese and we don't have too many Portuguese priests around.
Q: It says in one of the instances that he reports in May of '83 to receive the sacrament of reconciliation he blocked the only exit door and exposed himself and masturbated himself.
A: I see.
Q: It occurred in the home that's counted on the bottom of the first page, and then on the second page when you'll see on the second page Father Rivero is alleged to have arrived at Mrs. Nash's bedroom and Mrs. Nash spent two hours fighting off his pawing and pathetic pleas for her to give in to him. Do you see that at the top?
A: I read it, yes.
Q: You see your name is mentioned on page 3. It says in this letter from Mr. Nash, "The whole matter has been turned over to the office of the Administrator, Bishop Thomas Daily." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Then you'll see a letter from Cardinal Law in response of these allegations signed by Cardinal Law where it is stated in the second paragraph, "As you must know, my knowledge of the case is not complete. After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rivero and must be considered such." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Were you consulted with respect to the complaint of Mr. Nash and Father Rivero blocking the rectory door, or blocking the rectory door and masturbating in front of her, and then the second instance? Were you involved in this?
A: No. I have no recollection of being involved.
Q: All right, I would like to, if -- could you turn to page -- the second day -- I'm sorry, not the second day. The third day of Cardinal Law's deposition. I think you have in front of you.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: What is the date?
MR. McLEISH: The date on that is August 13th.
A: What page is it now?
Q: It's listed as page 9 in the bottom right-hand corner, the third day. I don't think you have the right one. Go to this document. Let me find it for you. The type of incident, Bishop, that is alleged by Mr. Nash, is that the type of incident that would stand out in your mind?
A: Yes, it certainly does. Well, it does now.
Q: Serious allegation?
A: Normally it would, yes.
MR. McLEISH: Why don't we change the tape.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 2:31 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:32 p.m.
Q: Let me read you a section of Cardinal Law's deposition, this is the third day, August 13th, page 33, and ask you a question about it. I'm starting on line 10.
Question: "We put in front of you Exhibit 43, a letter from Mr. Nash to you that in detail set out allegations that you yourself acknowledge were serious allegations."
A: "That's correct."
Question: "A gross misconduct by Father Rivero; is that correct?"
A: "That's correct."
Question: "And he wrote this letter to you and gave you details about other parishes where Father Rivero served and allegations of sexual misconduct and you wrote back and said, 'I find this matter something personal to Father Rivero and must be considered such'"; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Question: "So there was no investigation of these serious allegations there was simply a letter indicating this was a matter personal to Father Rivero, correct?" Mr. Rogers: "Objection." Mr. Todd: "Objection. Go ahead, answer." "My response in seeing Mr. Nash's letter which remains my response is that I have no recollection of seeing that letter. My presumption is that this matter was handled for me by someone assisting me and this letter was prepared for my signature."
Question: "Cardinal Law, do you read your letters before you sign them as a general practice? Did you in 1984?"
A: "You know, did I on April the 3rd, 1984, three days into the job, read every letter put before me? Probably not. It is my custom now to read every letter carefully. It depends. Some are matters of routine and I would not, but I cannot recall this letter. I cannot recall Mr. Nash's letter so it's really not possible for me to go into that matter further. I think you need to ask those who are handling this case for me in this instance I would imagine it would have been Bishop Daily." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Does that help refresh your recollection as to whether you were the person that was handling the complaint about Father Rivero from Mr. Nash?
A: No.
Q: And so Mr. Nash's letter is something -- as you just read it, I think you testified it stands out, that type of allegation stands out.
A: It certainly does.
Q: And so as you best recall, you had not had any prior involvement with Mr. Nash's allegations against Father Rivero?
A: To the best of my knowledge, none.
Q: You left in September of 1984 for Palm Beach as I think you testified. Did you tell anyone in the Archdiocese of Boston before you left or even after you left about the allegations that were made that Father Shanley gave a talk in 1977 in which he mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, incest and made other remarks?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are excluding discussions with counsel?
MR. McLEISH: Absolutely.
A: Is there any connection between what you said before and this question? I don't understand.
Q: Let me rephrase it. In September of 1984 you left, correct?
A: This is something new now we are talking about?
Q: September of '84 you left?
A: We are not talking about Nash any more?
Q: No, Nash is over. September of 1984 you left?
A: Okay.
Q: You were the person that had dealt with four of these complaints -- issues, let's describe it -- involving Father Paul Shanley that we talked about, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You were the one that appointed Paul Shanley as administrator and acting pastor of the parish?
A: Yes.
Q: Before you left, did you take it upon yourself to tell anyone else within the Archdiocese of Boston, including but not limited to Cardinal Law, that there had been allegations made about Father Paul Shanley as is reflected in Exhibits 42, 49, 66 and 67?
A: These are more in reference to those four. They speak about meetings, statements.
Q: The meetings, the statements of what he said about man/boy love, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, all the stuff we have been through?
A: Right.
Q: Did you take it upon yourself that you dealt with those four letters in some capacity? Did you take it upon yourself to tell anyone before you left that these four letters had been sent in to the archdiocese?
A: I can't recall. I can't recall.
Q: Wouldn't it have been important for you as a transitional matter to let someone in a position of authority know about what had been alleged concerning Paul Shanley that you were aware of? Would that have been important for people to know about?
A: Certainly at the time of any type of action, yes. Yes.
Q: I'm asking about the time you left. You had these allegations from four different reporters from 1977 up to 1983 about Paul Shanley. Would you agree with me they were serious allegations, would you not?
A: I do.
Q: And you're leaving. Did you think it important as a transitional matter to share your knowledge of these incidents with someone such as Cardinal Law or someone else in a position of authority before you left so there would be a continuation and understanding of what had occurred, what had been alleged in the past about Paul Shanley?
A: Thinking back, it would have been good if I did. However, I don't recall. The only safety factor was that those materials were put in a file and that if something arose, a question arose or and action was to be taken with regard to Paul Shanley, there would be an automatic search of those records and they would be available.
Q: So if there was a future allegation against Paul Shanley, it was your understanding that there would be, as you described it, an automatic search for those records; is that correct?
A: I would -- yes, I would say so, yes. I would have to assume that. Yes. Specifically I can't tell you but, yes, I would say yes if he were to be -- yes, if there was some action.
Q: To whom did you turn over your files, the ones in your office when you left?
A: My files remained in the office.
Q: The ones that were locked, the ones on the so-called special cases?
A: That's correct.
Q: And who occupied your office?
A: I can't remember.
Q: Were you the moderator of the curiae at this point?
A: No, I didn't have that title. I might have acted that way but I didn't have that title.
Q: Did you know, did you make arrangements with all of these files you had about priests where there are issues of misconduct that were in your office, did you make any arrangements to formally transition over those files to someone else?
A: No. Keep in mind, you speak of files -- you seem to intimate there were many, many files, and I get the impression in your mind there was a file cabinet, rather large, with several drawers and all the rest. And the file I had written "appropriate as a priest," there was one drawer, maybe half of another.
Q: Fine.
A: So having said that, when I left, in the interim I can't recall what I did or did not do.
Q: Okay, but this was information, forget how voluminous it was.
A: Obviously there had to be someone who had a key to get into the file.
Q: That was a locked file?
A: Yes. The key would be available so they would have access to the materials inside, certainly the cardinal.
Q: So consistent with your practice certainly the cardinal would?
A: He would have access to information to get that, to get access to that file.
Q: And the letters that we've put in front you, the Exhibits 42, 49, 66 and 67, those four letters, would those have the type of material that would have gone in a file in your office?
A: Yes, normally, that's true.
Q: Okay. Although you probably can't remember which of those letters specifically you put in, my question is: Were those the types of letters that would go in the files, the confidential files maintained in your office?
A: Um hum.
Q: You have to say "yes."
A: Say "yes," sorry.
Q: And you said Cardinal Law would have a key?
A: Well, he would. Let's put it this way. He would have access to that drawer. If he wanted to get into that drawer and drawer and a half, the means to do so would have been made available, presuming he had the key.
Q: So it's your best testimony when you left, those letters that we have been over, 42, 49, 66 and 67, were in some locked file drawer in good order?
A: Well, I -- without knowing specifically, I say "yes." Were they actually there, do I have a recollection of them actually being in that file, I can't say. They could have been in another file. They could have been in the archbishop's own file or the cardinal's file.
Q: It would be impossible for you to remember?
A: I can't recall.
Q: It would be impossible for you to remember what specific recdords were in any of those files; is that correct?
A: It would be difficult.
Q: All I'm asking, is that your practice? As you look back on what your practice was, would it have been your practice to put letters such as the Sweeney, Stevens letter, the McGeady letter, the Weston letter and the Moynihan letter in the file in your office?
A: Excuse me, it would have been my practice for any record regarding inappropriate activity of a priest that I had possession of and was in control of would have gone into that file.
Q: So as you sit here today is it -- Okay, all right. When you say "inappropriate activity," that could include allegations that a priest had been involved in an organization such as NAMBLA; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Or had made remarks about incest, bestiality or other deviant sexual acts?
A: And others, yes.
Q: It's also safe to say that file was organized?
A: It was organized in the sense it was good alphabetical order. There were folders with names attached.
Q: Were they in chronological order?
A: No, they were in alphabetical order.
Q: Within each file if there were several letters on a particular priest, would they be in chronological order?
A: I can't remember. There weren't that many letters. I can't recall whether they were in chronological order. It wouldn't actually be difficult. The names, we pull the name and very easily you can find out and put them in chronological order if that's what you wanted to do, if they weren't in chronological order. But I mean the point of the extent of the -- the file itself, the name would be the telling factor, the material inside would be there and then they -- it could be easily accessed and resource for the sense of information.
Q: You certainly didn't consider your own files to be disorganized, did you?
A: If you call it organized, they were organized.
Q: I call it organized. Do you agree with that characterization?
A: Whether the characterization is true or not, that's the way it was.
Q: All right. I'm going to show you what has been marked as Exhibit 62. Just look at the first page if you want, or you can look at the whole document if you like.
A: Are we through with this now?
Q: Yes.
A: We have this one now, 62?
Q: Yes. I'm going to ask you questions about the first page.
A: Do you want me to read it now?
Q: Read it to yourself, yes.
A: First page I read.
Q: Now, you testified several minutes ago that if there were future allegations against a priest alleging some form of misconduct, that it was your understanding at the time you left in September of 1984 that it would be virtually automatic for the files that were maintained in your office to be checked. Do you recall that testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Now, you have in front of you Exhibit 62, which is after you left. This is April 29, 1985. This would have been after you had gone.
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you'll see in the letter it's a letter to Cardinal Law from another woman in New York, a Wilma Hicks. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: She's from Rochester, New York it says, and she says -- You see in the first paragraph?
A: Um hum.
Q: In the third sentence, "Father Shanley apparently is involved in street ministry. He made some outlandish statements regarding the people involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not merely an orientation"; do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: "Here are some of the statements. Some are on tape."
A: Um hum.
Q: I want to address your attention to one of them. "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. Children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison knowing they are the guilty ones." Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Does it strike you there's a similarity between that alleged statement and the statement that appeared in the Gaysweek news article forwarded to you by Attorney McGeady in '79?
A: I don't make the recollection but I will trust your comparison.
Q: This statement that Miss Hicks alleges that Father Shanley made, when adults have sex with children, the children may seduce them, children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison, this is certainly another statement that you would find contrary to the teachings of the church?
A: Yes, very inappropriate.
Q: Would you agree that it's abhorrent?
A: Yes, I would say the statement is abhorrent.
Q: So as of September 1984 if there had been a communication received such as this one, isn't it true that your understanding of the policy at the time that you left would have been that automatically there would have been a search of Father Shanley's files?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form. Hypothetical question.
A: I can't recall if that was the actual policy but certainly if I had this at that time, this was in my file and I was the one to receive it from this lady, Cardinal Law said it to me, then I would assume, as I always had with Cardinal Medeiros, to check with Cardinal Law and ask him what he wanted me to do. If he said nothing and gave it to me to follow throught, or if he said, "Follow through," I would have followed through.
Q: When you said there were allegations it was automatic, the file would be looked at in your office did you not say that?
A: Yes, I would look at it. If I got this, if I had this, I always look at them, yes, because I would want to approach the cardinal, arch bishop and tell him.
Q: There were other complaints?
A: I would certainly tell him about this complaint and other complaints, too, with regard to Father Shanley if he was not aware of them or Father Shanley's story at the time. Then I have no hesitancy to respond to him and to tell him everything that I had.
Q: Just so --
A: Everything we do.
Q: Just so we're clear, understanding you weren't there in April of 1985, the time you had left, if you received a letter such as this one and had been asked to look into it, it would have been automatic that you would have looked at the locked files in your office concerning Father Shanley?
A: Yes.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: You know, to answer the question, it would have been automatic for me. That's a presumption for me that became fact, yes, as a general practice for me whenever I got a letter like this.
Q: It was automatic you look at the file?
A: Yes.
Q: That's what you would have expected someone to have done in April of 1985 when they got Exhibits 62. DI
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. Wait, I object to the form of the question. You are now asking for an opinion as to what someone should have done at a point in time when the bishop was not there. I think that's calling for an expert opinion and I think it's inappropriate. I instruct him not to answer.
MR. McLEISH: It's not inappropriate. You are perfectly free to ask him.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: It's asking for an expert opinion.
MR. McLEISH: It's not an expert opinion.
Q: Assuming the policy -- assuming that there was testimony that the policy didn't change between the time you left in April of 1985, do you believe there would have been some review of Exhibits 42, 44, 67 and 66?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. Now, first of all, there's no testimony that a policy; the testimony was a practice.
MR. McLEISH: Practice.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. McLEISH: Objection is noted. Answer the question.
A: In this case I do not know. '85 I don't know, in '85 it was.
Q: But if this letter had been received when you were there, it would have gone to the file.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. That's a hypothetical.
A: I would have said the same thing. That's a hypothetical question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Pretty good answer.
Q: You can answer the question. It's very -- it's not hard to do when your lawyer -- I'm asking you, when you received a letter such as this one, April 29, 1985, when you were there working for Cardinal Medeiros you would have put it in the file, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to the question. It's a hypothetical question. Go ahead.
A: The letter like this, would it have gone to the file?
Q: Yes.
A: If I had received it?
Q: Yes.
A: Directly?
Q: Yes.
A: I would say, you know, yes, but I would also add the note it is hypothetical. Normally that would have been my practice, to find out, because I would see that as being responsible.
Q: Now, do you -- when you came -- when Cardinal Law came to Boston, I think you testified in the first day of your deposition he didn't really have that much familiarity with the priests of the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: When he first came to Boston?
Q: Yes.
A: I don't know how much familiarity he did have but he certainly -- the point of view of the size of the diocese and the number of priests, there was alot to learn.
Q: He relied on people like you to keep him updated on matters of importance; is that correct?
A: He certainly relied on me for specific questions and any information I might be able to give to him I would report. Also, however, that a lot of his activity had to do with the building up of a cabinet among people who were working in the archdiocese and had access to different departments.
Q: Would you turn to day 2, I think you have day 2 of Cardinal Law's deposition.
A: What page?
Q: Page 69. 18 at the bottom but page 69.
A: Yes.
Q: Question -- this was to Cardinal Law starting page 69 line 7: "When you first came in you didn't have that much familiarity with the priests at the Archdiocese; is that correct?"
A: "That's correct."
Question: "Would you rely upon people like Father Daily to keep you updated on matters of importance?"
A: "That's correct."
Question: "And that would include matters with priests; is that correct?"
A: "Yes." That would include matters relating to priests; is that correct?
A: Um hum.
Q: Answer that's correct.
A: Um um.
Q: Would you concur with Cardinal Law he was relying on people like to you keep him updated on matters relating to priests?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A: Let me just say he would rely on me to give him information about a priests along with the others involved, particularly and most particularly the personnel department.
Q: Why did you not provide him with the information about Paul Shanley that we've gone through here in your deposition yesterday and today?
A: Because I -- for one thing, I do not recall him asking and at the same time he had other sources and, as I said before, the personnel department particularly. I do not -- That's not to say he didn't ask, but I don't recall him asking for a rundown on a list of priests and particular priests or priests in a certain section or what have you, you know.
Q: Cardinal Law comes to Boston at that time Cardinal Medeiros was ill for some time when he arrives in March; is that correct?
A: He died.
Q: He died before then. He had been ill for some time.
A: He died in September.
Q: You were the man in charge from September of 1983 up through the time that Cardinal Law arrived; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: So wouldn't it have been the case, Bishop Daily, that Cardinal Law would have asked you something, would have asked you something along the lines of "Is there anything I need to know about, anything I need to know about Bishop Daily?" Something like that, would there have been a conversation like that?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form.
A: Possibly, but I don't recall him asking but possibly, yes.
Q: You are certain you never told Cardinal Law about Paul Shanley's alleged involvement with NAMBLA and these other matters we have been over?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. He's already answered.
Q: And you understand, do you not, Bishop Daily, after you departed for Palm Beach, Father Shanley stayed on in St. Jean's, correct?
A: Well, from what I'm hearing now, yes.
Q: When did you first hear that?
A: That he stayed on?
Q: Yes.
A: I think maybe today I asked the question how long was he at St. Jean's.
Q: You didn't know until today that he stayed on until January of 1990?
A: I have to say I wasn't sure about that. I didn't know how long he stayed on. I had no -- I would have -- if I said anything, it would have been a guess.
Q: Is there anything you described earlier in your testimony your regret in one area, you used the word "regret." Do you have any other regrets as you sit here today concerning the case of Paul Shanley?
A: The regret I mentioned this morning had to do with information, specific information you gave me regarding his stay in the parish.
Q: Right.
A: After -- well, after the appointment, after -- Well, first of all, let's put it this way. We'll go back historically. He had gone to meetings, made presentations. Those presentations at meetings, NAMBLA, whatever the other organizations, were known to Cardinal Medeiros when he made the appointment to assign Father Shanley to the parish at St. Jean as administering priest. At the same time as you recall his letter of appointment contains what I regard as specific instructions how he was to conduct himself during that time. He was -- he went to the parish and from my knowledge, I had no knowledge of specific actions now, actions that he did, perpetrated or whatever that were -- to say the least were inappropriate. And it wasn't until that, whether he did them or not is something else. Whether he's alleged to have done them or not, I wasn't aware until you had mentioned it. And when you did "Did you regret," "Would you regret," you asked the question "assigning him if in fact you knew these things," the point was I didn't know these things in detail until you mentioned them to me or even in general when I read them in the paper or something like that. So that's the basis of the regret. If I had known and as I did, as I mentioned this morning, I did, I do regret having assigned him and if in fact I had known even these allegations, that's the basis of the regret.
Q: You knew there were allegations that Paul Shanley -- Just to be clear, Bishop, when you appointed him as acting pastor, you knew that there were allegations that Paul Shanley was associated with an organization that endorsed the views of an organization that encouraged, accepted sex between men and boys; is that not true?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. He never appointed him acting pastor. He appointed him administrator and the record should accurately reflect that.
Q: I think you testified earlier he was appointed acting pastor and administrator.
A: That's not true. There's only one title.
Q: He was also serving in the capacity as acting pastor because he was serving the sacrament; is that correct?
A: That was not his title. He was performing the actions of a pastor.
Q: When you appointed him to that position where he was performing the actions of the pastor and in charge at that time, temporarily in charge of the parish, you knew Paul Shanley had been associated with endorsing the views of NAMBLA, that there was an allegation to that fact, Bishop Daily; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: But you went ahead and appointed him, correct?
A: He was already appointed to the parish by a man, that is Cardinal Medeiros, who knew it also. And based on the judgment the cardinal made and based on the fact the cardinal had died and I was administrator, I appointed him the administrator, the -- what do you call it, yes.
Q: You appointed him administrator without looking at whether or not any of these allegations that had been made about what Paul Shanley was stating about the propriety of sex between men and boys, were true?
A: That's not necessarily true at all.
Q: Did you undertake any investigation?
A: Formal investigation, I don't recall.
Q: Any type of investigation?
A: I don't recall. I could have been quiet. I don't recall. Say specifically I do not recall. That's not to say I didn't ask questions.
Q: Do you have any recollection of asking Paul Shanley at any time in 1983 before you appointed him administrator whether he was a member of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: Those questions were asked and verified by Cardinal Medeiros before he died and he was appointed.
Q: I'm not asking when he was appointed to the parish. I'm asking what you did. After Cardinal Medeiros died did you make any investigation or inquiry whether Paul Shanley was openly associating himself with the man/boy love views of the North American Man/Boy Love association? Did you do that?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
A: What I had done and what I was relying upon, the cardinal's appointment of him to the parish and at the same time the unanimous opinion of the Personnel Board, that's what I relied on, and his good record and so on and so forth.
Q: His good record?
A: There was no report to me of any action he committed or did during that time. There were allegations. That's all it was.
Q: Allegations that were never investigated, correct?
A: There were no allegations of actions that were done. There would be allegations he made these statements. Not the allegations, the fact that -- the presentation of the fact that his presentations were known.
Q: Earlier you testified and I thought I heard you testify --
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Would this be a time to take a break.
MR. McLEISH: I have one more question.
Q: Earlier I thought you testified, Bishop Daily, that anyone who was openly encouraging sexual relations between men and boys, endorsing them, could be considered to be a threat to children. Do you remember that testimony?
A: I don't remember.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. Go ahead.
A: I don't recall, but if that was -- if that's accurate, if what you are saying is accurate and that he was encouraging action or just reporting action or that kind of -- not reporting action but approving policy, his thoughts with regard to these things, not anything specific then, yes, I would say that was serious, about as serious as doing the action itself or encouraging particular action between individuals who were known at that kind of thing.
Q: If Paul Shanley, as was reported in the materials that were sent to you by Attorney McGeady, was endorsing sex between men and boys, would that in your view render him unfit to be promoted by as to administrator to St. Jean's in 1983?
A: If that were true?
Q: Yes.
A: If that were true, yes, it would cause a real problem for me.
Q: But you didn't take any specific action that you can recall today to investigate whether those allegations were true, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to the form.
A: I made no contact with the individuals that I knew about. I would like to review the record and any correspondence that went back to the individual.
Q: You didn't even review with Paul Shanley the allegations of Pastor Weston and Pastor Moynihan, did you?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection.
A: Apparently there's a record of it. That's not to say I didn't do it. I don't recall.
MR. McLEISH: I don't have other questions.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Can we take a short break and see if we have questions.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 3:05 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 3:18 p.m. EXAMINATION BY
MR. WILSON ROGERS:
Q: Bishop Daily, you have testified about your role from time to time in appointment of priests both during the tenure of your time as Vicar General and as Bishop and Chancellor in Boston and during the time you were administrator in the Archdiocese of Boston following Cardinal Medeiros's death from September '83 to 1984. Is it fair to say your ability to assign and deal with priests within the context of their assignment was determined and circumscribed by the code of canon law in the Catholic church?
A: Yes.
Q: When you became chancellor of the archdiocese of Boston -- Which I believe you told us was in 1973.
A: Correct.
Q: -- Father Shanley, is it fair to say he was already working in a ministry to the homosexual community and in a ministry of alienated youth to the archdiocese of Boston?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he not in engaged in those two specialized ministries from a time going back to Cardinal Cushing's era?
A: That's what I understand.
Q: After Cardinal Cushing passed away, then Archbishop Medeiros who was elevated to Cardinal was archbishop in Boston?
A: Yes.
Q: These ministries by Father Shanley were continued, were they not?
A: Yes.
Q: They continued on into 1973 when you became Chancellor?
A: Yes.
Q: And as a matter of fact, between 1973, between 1973 and until you actually left the Archdiocese of Boston, you have gone through in response to questions by Mr. McLeish and identified complaints that were made regarding comments or talks given by Paul Shanley; isn't that a fact?
A: Yes.
Q: And as a matter of fact, you had talked about a letter that came from a Jean Sweeney to Cardinal Medeiros with respect to a talk given by Father Shanley in Rochester back in 1977; do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: And where there were statements alleged to have been made by Father Shanley during the course of this talk in 1977 in Rochester dealing with homosexual activity?
A: Yes.
Q: And there were comments made regarding pedophilia?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: You indicated you thought those comments were inappropriate?
A: Yes.
Q: Then there was also correspondence received in April of 1979 by His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, from a Paul McGeady, who was an attorney in New York; do you remember that?
A: Yes.
Q: He forwarded two copies of two articles, one from a publication known as Gaysweek and one from a publication known as Gay Community News; do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: And the one in Gaysweek talked about an organizational meeting of NAMBLA, North American --
A: Yes, that's my remembrance.
Q: -- Man Boy Love?
MR. McLEISH: Objection.
A: Yes, that's what I remember.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Where are the original exhibits?
MR. McLEISH: Rodney has them.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I can use my copies if you don't mind.
MR. McLEISH: Sure. Just identify by number.
Q: I will show you a copy of what has been identified as Exhibit 53 in your deposition, which is a letter to Father Shanley from Cardinal Medeiros. Do you remember seeing that?
A: Yes.
Q: And could I just see that one second. This is a letter within a week to ten days after Paul McGeady's letter, Paul McGeady's letter forwarding those two articles we just talked about which came to -- Paul McGeady's letter to Cardinal Medeiros, Cardinal Medeiros within two weeks writes to Father Shanley removing him from ministry or alienated youths; is that right?
A: Give me --
Q: He removes Father Shanley from his ministry of alienated youths?
A: As of April 15.
Q: In the last sentence of paragraph 1 Cardinal Medeiros refers to the fact he already ended his ministry to the homosexual community; is that right?
A: Yes, he says when he last visited me.
Q: At that point he assigns him as the associate pastor to St. John's the Evangelist as pastor in Newton?
A: I see that.
Q: Throughout the period you were Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Boston up through and including April of 1979 while Father Shanley was in the specialized ministries, is it fair to say he was reporting directly to Cardinal Medeiros?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. Lack of foundation.
A: Yes, it is. It is.
Q: And he would throughout this period of time report directly to the cardinal?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. Lack of foundation.
A: It's fair to assume, okay.
Q: It was your understanding that Cardinal Medeiros was directing these specialized ministries?
A: Yes.
Q: You told us that your role during this period of time in dealing with complaints about Father Shanley were to refer these for informational purposes to Cardinal Medeiros for whatever action he deemed appropriate?
A: Yes, I think that's the record.
Q: You were prepared to do whatever he asked to you do as Chancellor during that period incident to any of those complaints?
A: Yes. Or anything else. I was his assistant.
Q: During this period of time up until April of 1979, were you aware of any complaints of inappropriate activity by Father Shanley as opposed to inappropriate talks or comments?
A: No, just the comments.
Q: And as a matter of fact, during that period of time there were continued efforts, were there not, to try to get Father Shanley to conform his public comments to the teachings of the church in a way that would not mislead the faith; isn't that fair to say?
A: The cardinal demanded that.
Q: And as a matter of fact, taking a look at Exhibit 53, which is in front of you there, Cardinal Medeiros gives a specific direction to Father Shanley in the second paragraph of that letter, does he?
A: No, he does.
Q: Would you read that into the record.
A: "It is understood that your ministry at St. John's Parish and elsewhere for this Archdioces in Boston will be exercised in full conformity with the clear teachings of the church as expressed in tabled documents and other pronouncements of the Holy Sea, especially regarding sexual ethics. The pastoral authority of priests can hardly be effective apart from the healing and saving truth of Christ proclaimed by his church even when," and I quote, "the saying may be hard," end of quote.
Q: So this is a specific directive given by Cardinal Medeiros to Father Shanley as he undertakes a parish ministry?
A: Correct.
Q: And it's your understanding, is it not, that Father Shanley did undertake this assignment and serve in St. Jean's parish through -- certainly through 1983, when you appointed him administrator?
A: That's my understanding.
Q: And as a matter of fact, you had in front of you before Exhibit 66. Take a look at that. And I believe the date is May of 1983.
A: Yes. It's received May 5, 1983, there's no other -- No, May 6th received. Yes, the archdiocese, May 6th.
Q: 1983?
A: Um hum.
Q: You read this before today?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: And this refers to information that Pastor Hugh Weston had which he obtained in a book that had recently been published entitled "The Homosexual Network"?
A: That's my understanding, he has it here, yes.
Q: And the reference to Paul Shanley being at the founding conference of NAMBLA, which is found on the first page of Exhibit 66, you see that?
A: First page?
Q: Of 66. That references, the fact or inquiry regarding Paul Shanley being at the founding conference of NAMBLA.
A: Yes, I see that.
Q: As a matter of fact, isn't it your understanding from the earlier materials, specifically the Paul McGeady letter which is Exhibit 49, the founding conference of NAMBLA took place in the fall of 1979?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. That mischaracterizes that letter. It says the Man Boy Lovers Association, it does not say NAMBLA, as you well know. I object. It mischaracterizes the testimony and the document.
A: Well, for the sake of clarity, I think in parentheses it says "North American Man Boy Love Association," which in view of your letter it is -- would be NAMBLA. That's just an association I'm making.
Q: Is it your understanding that refers to activity involving Paul Shanley going back to 1978?
MR. McLEISH: Objection.
A: It's my understanding, yes.
Q: This was a book published a number of years later and includes information regarding the founding conference of NAMBLA; isn't that so?
A: That is my understanding.
Q: So this is --
A: I --
Q: This is not a reference to recent activity of Paul Shanley; am I right?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. No foundation.
Q: As you understood it, is that not correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, during the period of April of 1979 through to November of 1983 when Father Shanley was at St. Jean's in Newton, did any information come to your attention regarding inappropriate activity by Paul Shanley?
A: To my recollection is no activity, no.
Q: Did you have any additional new complaints of inappropriate comments or teachings taking place during that time?
A: During that time?
Q: Yes.
A: My recollection is no.
Q: Now, at some point in the fall of 1983 there was reference to the fact that the pastor at St. Jean's parish in Newton passed away. Do you remember that earlier today?
A: Yes.
Q: And you indicated that upon the recommendation of the Personnel Board of the archdiocese, you appointed Paul Shanley as associate pastor of St. John the Evangelist parish; am I right?
A: No, I appointed him as -- Clarify the letter, say what do you call it?
Q: You ended his appointment as associate pastor and appointed him administrator?
A: Yes.
Q: Let me show you a document. Can we have this marked as Exhibit -- this will be 73. Let me show you a document marked Exhibit 73.
A: All right.
Q: Which is a letter addressed to you as administrator of the Archdiocese of Boston signed by Dr. Maxine McHugh, professor at state college. Is that a letter of recommendation that you received as administrator of the Archdiocese of Boston regarding the position of administrator at St. Jean's parish in Newton?
A: Could I review the text?
Q: Please.
A: Yes, that certainly is a letter of approval and more than that praise.
Q: A letter in effect, in effect a letter recommending Father Shanley as a candidate for the position of administrator of St. Jean's parish?
A: Yes.
Q: And you received this letter back in 1983; am I right?
A: Yes.
Q: And you indicated that you had no information regarding inappropriate activity by Father Shanley at that point?
A: Correct.
Q: And you had no indication that he had been teaching inconsistent in a manner inconsistent with the teachings of the church during his time at St. Jean's?
A: Correct.
Q: And you had a recommendation of the Personnel Board of the Archdiocese of Boston recommending Father Shanley's appointment as administrator?
A: Yes.
Q: Based on that information, you then appointed Father Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's Parish, am I right?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you had gone through some other documents with Mr. McLeish which indicated in due course Father Shanley was appointed pastor of St. Jean's parish in Newton?
A: Yes.
Q: That was at a point in time after you had left the Archdiocese of Boston; am I right?
A: Yes.
Q: You testified earlier today that -- in response to questions by Mr. McLeish that you had regret regarding your action in appointing Father Paul Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's parish in Newton?
A: I said that, yes.
Q: At the time you made the appointment that we just reviewed and which is -- was dated November 4, 1983, it was your opinion at that time that the appointment as administrator was appropriate in all of the information; is that so?
A: In my point of view in making the appointment, yes.
Q: As a matter of fact, the regret you voiced this morning is grounded in large part upon the fact that you now know there are allegations and in fact pending criminal indictments against Father Paul Shanley with respect to activity that allegedly took place at St. Jean's parish after you had appointed him administrator?
MR. McLEISH: Object. That was not his testimony, but go ahead. THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please. (Question read.)
A: Yes.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Okay, I have nothing further. Do we need to change seats?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, we do. FURTHER EXAMINATION BY
MR. McLEISH:
Q: Bishop Daily, showing you Exhibit 73, this was a letter from Dr. Aracene McHugh that counsel showed you.
A: Yes.
Q: Did you write back with Miss McHugh to tell her you received two letters in May and July of 1983, approximately five months before her letter indicating that there was an issue as to whether Paul Shanley was present at the convening of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you write back to her in any way and tell her Paul Shanley received two letters? They are Exhibits 66 and 67. We have them right here if you want to see them. Here it is, Bishop. 66 and 67, a letter from Pastor Moynihan. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And Pastor Weston and Mr. Moynihan. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Those were letters you received approximately I believe while you received them one in May that was the Weston letter and the other one was in July; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And if you take a look at the Moynihan letter, the last page of the letter of the exhibit, Exhibit 67, the last page.
A: Yes.
Q: It is stated by Father Little "For information concerning Father Paul Shanley or his presence at the conference" -- That would mean the NAMBLA conference, correct? Do you see that?
A: Where does that say that?
Q: Second paragraph.
A: Second paragraph?
Q: Second paragraph. "For information concerning Father Paul Shanley or his presence at the conference," do you see that?
A: Yes, but could you finish the paragraph.
Q: "His Eminence suggests you write directly to him at St. John's church, 253 Watertown Street, Newton 02158."
A: The right sentence.
Q: My question to you, isn't it true that as of -- as of July of 1983, you hadn't even bothered to inquire whether Paul Shanley had attended the NAMBLA conference; is that not true?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form. It's argumentative and wholly inappropriate.
Q: Go ahead.
A: Could I finish the paragraph?
Q: If you want to, sure. But if you can also then answer my question.
A: Okay. His Eminence also indicates in no way was Father Shanley authorized to represent him in any conference sponsored by NAMBLA and doubts any claim that Father Shanley represented him in this regard. Having said that, may I have the question again.
Q: The question is, Bishop, you didn't even know at the time that letter was written whether Father Shanley had actually attended the NAMBLA conference? That's the North American Man Boy Association, correct?
A: But His Eminence did.
Q: There's no suggestion in this letter that His Eminence knew that Paul Shanley had attended the NAMBLA conference. What is stated is that His Eminence personally doubts any claim that Father Shanley represented him in this regard. Do you see that?
A: I see that, but also the question is, from the point of view his knowledge, that is the cardinal's knowledge, he -- that he knew and in the light of his knowledge, his attendance and his presentations, he put the specific restrictions and instruction given him with regard to his appointment.
Q: Do you recall your testimony earlier today when I asked you whether this letter suggested to you that you were not aware as of July of 1983 whether Paul Shanley had attended the conference, the NAMBLA conference? Do you remember when I put that question to you today and you agreed this letter suggested that as of July 1983 the archdiocese did not know whether Paul Shanley had attended the NAMBLA conference; do you remember those questions?
A: No, I don't, but that's all right.
Q: You don't know for a fact, do you, that as of July of 1983, anyone in the archdiocese had ever asked Paul Shanley whether he had attended the NAMBLA conference, correct?
A: July 1983?
Q: Yes, the date of the Moynihan letter.
A: I was three years in Brooklyn, and I was --
Q: '83?
A: I beg your pardon?
Q: '83?
A: I thought you said '93. Go ahead again.
Q: As of July of 1983 you can't state whether anybody from the archdiocese asked Paul Shanley whether he attended a meeting of the North American Man Boy Love Association, correct? You can't state that, can you?
A: Well, did anybody at the archdiocese had scene or knew that Paul Shanley had gone to these? I certainly wasn't aware of it but the cardinal was.
Q: You don't know that for a fact, do you?
A: The cardinal doesn't mention it but he appoints him having reviewed all of these matters.
Q: Let's go to July of 1983. In what kind of physical condition was Cardinal Medeiros in July of 1983?
A: He was in condition -- he was composed, he went -- he loved to go to Montreal. He went to Montreal for two weeks. He came back, enjoyed himself, talked about going to the movies and things like that.
Q: He was ill in July of 1983?
A: He wasn't in tiptop condition. He died in September of '83.
Q: So when Dr. McHugh wrote to you on October 16, 1983 urging that Paul Shanley be appointed administrator, did you inform her in response that you had information in your files which indicated that Paul Shanley may have attended a conference of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: I don't recall informing her.
Q: I think you testified earlier that you didn't -- it indicates in Exhibit 72 that she's writing as a member of St. James parish. Do you see that, Exhibit 72?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: He does not have the exhibit in front of him.
MR. McLEISH: Let's change the tape.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I have another document marked Exhibit 72.
MR. McLEISH: It's Exhibit 73. Let's change the tape.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 3:43 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 3:44 p.m.
Q: Let's just make it clear. Mr. Rogers asked whether you were the person who made the decision to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's parish. You responded you were, it was your decision?
A: Correct, ultimately my decision.
Q: It wasn't Cardinal Medeiros's decision, he had passed on?
A: Correct.
Q: You testified in response from a question Attorney Rogers there was some recommendation from the Personnel Board; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Were these recommendations usually in writing?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have any explanation as to why we don't have that document, that written document recommending Paul Shanley for appointment as administrator in the files that have been produced to us?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A: You do.
Q: We don't have a written recommendation. We have a notation there was a written recommendation. We don't have the written recommendation.
A: Excuse me, did I or I did not see it here? I beg your pardon. There was a letter from Father Thomas Olsten.
Q: If you do have it, I would like to see it because it hasn't been produced in this case.
A: We are not hiding it, are we?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: We are not hiding anything.
A: Let me say it does exist. It's a formal letter. It's a recommendation from the Personnel Board and I mentioned this a couple of times as a basis for appointing him. We have it. Somebody's got it.
Q: Who do you think has it?
A: Let me say right now I don't have it. You don't have it obviously?
Q: No, I never received it. Does Mr. O'Neill have it?
A: He's looking.
Q: Well, if someone has that document, I would very much like to see it.
A: Maybe Mr. Ford.
Q: He's the father of a victim of sexual abuse. He would not have that. These are the records of the archdiocese. Well, we don't have it. I hope you'll take my representation for that.
A: Excuse me. Could I take my representation for the fact it exists.
Q: I'm happy to take that. I would like to see that document. It was not provided to me. I absolutely except your statement on that. In Exhibit 72, Exhibit 72.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: 73.
Q: 73, I apologize. Did you think it important that Dr. McHugh have the same information that you had about Paul Shanley, mainly there had been allegations he had been affiliated with the NAMBLA group?
A: No. That's an opinion. There was -- you are asking me for my opinion?
Q: I'm asking you whether you considered in your mind to be important. It's not an opinion question.
A: If you're asking me if it was important, that's an opinion.
Q: We can characterize it as such, but did you ever think it was -- did that thought ever cross your mind as a matter of fact that it might be important for Dr. McHugh, who had taken the time to write in about Paul Shanley, to have the benefit of the information there were allegations that Paul Shanley had associated himself with the views of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: I have no letter or information directed to Dr. McHugh about that but I assume like everybody else was reading the newspapers and had access to the public knowledge, he had gone to these places.
Q: Was that a publication that you are familiar with that he --
A: No, but I --
Q: Excuse me. Was there some publication which indicated Paul Shanley had attended a NAMBLA conference apart from the article that was sent to the archdiocese from Attorney McGeady?
A: My opinion is a check with the Boston Globe might reveal that.
Q: Are you able to identify with certainty any such information right now?
A: At this particular time, no.
Q: What do you think the reaction would have been of Miss McHugh, had she realized that Paul Shanley, the person you appointed administrator of St. Jean's parish had been associated with the group that openly espoused sex between men and boys?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. There's no testimony no evidence here she didn't know that, so I think that's an inappropriate foundation, an inappropriate question.
MR. McLEISH: You got an answer.
MR. O'NEILL: He's asking you to speculate what someone else's reaction might have been to something you might have done, and you don't have to form such speculative opinions if you don't want to.
A: My answer was to be, it would be presumptuous for me to say so.
Q: Do you know whether Dr. McHugh was the parent of any children who attended St. Jean's?
A: Do I know? No, I do not know.
Q: You knew there were parents of St. Jean's who had been at St. Jean's parish?
A: We both can assume that. That's not a difficult question.
Q: No, it's not. Do you think it would have been -- in your own mind, it would have been important for parents of children that would have contact with Paul Shanley to know the same information that you had in July, that there were allegations that he was associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A: Go ahead. What was the first part of the question?
Q: We can assume there were parents of children that attended St. Jean's parish?
A: Sure.
Q: We can assume there were CCD classes where little children would be in attendance?
A: Normal activities.
Q: My question is: Do you think as a parent of a child that it would be important in 1983 for those parents to have the information which you had in May and July from Pastor Weston and from Mr. Moynihan that Paul Shanley had an association with the North American Man Boy Love Association?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. Argumentative.
A: What I would feel, what I feel would be that in accordance with the law of the church, given that kind of information, there would about canon law now -- I'm talking about a canon law now that could have been -- might have been decided that there be a type of canon law, documents that would remind Father Shanley of the restriction that the cardinal placed upon him in the light of that report. That apparently did not take place but it might well have. I don't know that. I don't know that.
Q: My question is: You have little children going to this parish in Newton. You know that -- you know how much parents care about their children?
A: Absolutely.
Q: And wouldn't it just be common sense that people -- I don't know whether Dr. McHugh had a child. Let's assume she did. Wouldn't it be important for her to know Paul Shanley had associated himself with an organization that openly espoused sex between children and adults?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form. It's a hypothetical question asking Bishop Daily to speculate as to what Dr. McHugh might deem to be important or not important, and I do not think the bishop has to speculate as to the state of mind or potential state of mind of Dr. McHugh.
Q: You can answer.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I think it's an inappropriate question asking him to speculate.
A: Well --
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I don't think you have to speculate as to her state of mind.
MR. McLEISH: You are instructing him not to answer the question?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I don't think he should speculate, if he's uncomfortable speculating.
A: I accept counsel's --
Q: You won't answer the question?
A: I respect counsel. I would like to read Dr. McHugh's letter as an expert from the point of view of analysis of religion and who seriously analyze and research delivered for the past 10 years. From my research I find Mr. Shanley rare indeed. The one quality that impresses me is his deep spirituality quality may be overlooked but a quality not overlooked by people present in his masses." A woman of that kind of background and education and professional expertise from the point of view of church analysis would seem to me -- would you mind if I ask a speculative question of you? Would you presume that a woman with this kind of educational background might indeed know about these things have to do with religion as they affected the man in her parish.
Q: I think Miss McHugh would find it vitally important to know that Paul Shanley, namely you who appoint what associated with the Man Boy Love Association. If I can be permitted. Any parent of any child would want the benefit of that information?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Wait, there's no question.
A: I was going to continue the debate.
Q: Now we're back to my questions. Putting aside Dr. McHugh, isn't it common sense and given the notoriety of the North American Man Boy Love Association, anybody who had a parent -- who was a parent of a child at that parish would want the same information that you had about Paul Shanley association with NAMBLA; isn't it just common sense?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form. Argumentative question.
A: Given the way you put it and the point of view what his attendance at these meetings, I would think that parents would appreciate that kind of knowledge.
Q: But you didn't give it to them?
A: It was a decision to make if they wanted to make that decision. I didn't take it upon me at that time to do that because the -- we go back to the original situation, namely the cardinal had appointed him to a parish after he knew these situation and after he had given him the specific instructions, so he in his own mind felt that was sufficient. It was the direction he wanted to put the pastor in regarding his approach to people to the parish and to activities of the ministry of the priest.
Q: But Cardinal Medeiros passed on?
A: But he was alive.
Q: He had passed on by the time you made the decision?
A: He made a decision primarily -- excuse me for interrupting. He made the decision to appoint him to the parish as a priest.
Q: Listen to my question. You made the decision to elevate him. That was your decision. You testified on cross examination you had the authority to do it and you did it.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to "elevate."
A: We went through that this morning.
Q: You appoint him?
A: As administrator, administrator of the daily activities of a parish.
Q: And the person to deliver the sacrament in the absence of the pastor?
A: To be a priest.
Q: My question to you, that was your decision to make, Cardinal Medeiros had passed on?
A: Not in an arbitrary fashion.
Q: What I'm saying to you, I think you answered the question earlier that as parents of children attending this parish, you could have informed them that you had reason to believe that Paul Shanley had been associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association. There was no restriction to prevent you from doing that, correct?
A: There's no restriction from me doing that but at the same time, you know, there's also the matter of the fact that his attendance was a matter of public information anyway.
Q: Where?
A: And we can assume in the paper, maybe in the Boston Globe.
Q: Do you know his association with the North American Man Boy Love Association was published in the Boston Globe?
A: No, I don't know that, but I would be interested in finding out.
Q: But you appointed him believing he had the association with the Man Boy Love Association; you made that association, didn't you?
A: Knowing that the cardinal of Boston also knew that.
Q: But you don't have any information whatsoever or facts to support the notion that one member of St. Jean's parish knew that Paul Shanley was associated with NAMBLA, do you?
A: This particular person?
Q: Anybody, anybody in that parish. You don't have any information to suggest in any way that any one parishioner at St. Jean's knew that Paul Shanley was associated with NAMBLA?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Knew when?
Q: When you made the appointment.
A: When I made the appointment? There's no documentation, I have no specific knowledge.
Q: But you knew, correct?
A: I knew what?
Q: You knew he had an association.
A: So did a lot of other people.
Q: I'm talking about you, the man who made the appointment.
A: That he was at these two meetings.
Q: That he was at these two meetings?
A: Yes, I do. The documents show that. They do, don't they? The documents show that I knew.
Q: The documents show that you knew. And you knew, you knew about what Stevens, Miss Stevens, had said and you knew what was reported in Gaysweek magazine, what Paul Shanley said in a conference in 1979?
A: Because you presented the materials today. Yes, you presented the materials today and indicated that.
Q: That's what the record shows that you knew, correct?
A: I guess so, because of the time in the records and so on and so forth. I can't recall reading the material but I would have to say yes, the way you present the question, and it's not -- it's a general question and it's almost presumptive, but yes.
Q: Almost presumptive?
A: In the sense because of the fact that the cardinal knew about it, the fact he made the appointment and therefore it's presumptive that I knew because of the fact of the cardinal and his presumption.
Q: I don't want to go over all the documents but your name is associated with all four of those documents. I don't want to go through Exhibits 44, 46, 49, and your name appeared.
A: Yes.
Q: You are not blaming or in any way saying that you were bound -- you were required by Cardinal Medeiros, who was deceased at the time, to appoint Paul Shanley at that time?
A: No. Would you deny me the privilege knowing the cardinal knew about these before he made the appointment to the parish?
Q: I'm not asking that. I'm asking whether or not you were bound under some principle of canon law or any other restriction, you were bound, required to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's parish in 1983. You weren't bound by any restriction; it was your decision and you made it?
A: Correct. Based on what I told you before, mainly the cardinal's appointment of him to the parish, knowing these meetings had took place all before, is it all that presumptive to think and say that the cardinal didn't know about these meetings and his attendance and his presentation.
Q: Now you are the man in charge. You have to make your own decision.
A: That's right. I have a recommendation from the board, that you don't have, I'm going give to you, the Personnel Board, saying that -- the recommendation of the Personnel Board of the diocese recommending Paul Shanley, Father Shanley, for the office of administrator.
Q: And to be serving in the function, serving as -- in the capacity of pastor as well, acting pastor? Performing the functions of pastor?
A: Precisely.
Q: You are not blaming the deceased cardinal or the personnel clergy personnel board for the decision that you made; it was your decision, right?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form. That's really argumentative. He's not blaming anybody. He's here testifying under oath and I think it's inappropriate to say he's blaming somebody.
Q: I'm pressing the question. It was your responsibility ultimately not the clergy board and not the deceased cardinal? You take responsibility for it?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: For what?
Q: The appointment of Paul Shanley as administrator in St. Jean in November. It is your responsibility and you take responsibility?
A: That's what the letter says on the basis of the Personnel Board, the Archdiocese of Boston and their recommendation.
Q: On the basis of that you made the appointment?
A: That's right. Not the only basis. As I indicated before, we have that historical situation with the cardinal namely that he knew, but what you are objecting to and the fact he made an appointment to be a priest, act and exercise priest in the ministry by volunteering.
Q: And you knew the people, that there was a threat to children for people who were espousing their acceptance of sexual relations between children and adults, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. Threat of what?
Q: Threat, threat of harm, threat of harm. Do you understand the words "threat of harm"?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I don't think the bishop said that.
A: No. If I did say that, automatically he would --
Q: Not automatically. Threats are not automatic.
MR. O'NEILL: What the bishop said is what the bishop, said. It's certainly not my memory he ever said anything like that. Ask a question. Don't go back to what he said somewhere else unless you have a transcript of testimony.
Q: Wouldn't you agree with me someone who was openly endorsing sexual relations between men and boys could be displaced in the position of power without the parishioners knowing about it, the potential threat to children?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form.
MR. McLEISH: You can answer the question.
A: Well, I would have to consider that element, yes, sure.
MR. McLEISH: Nothing further.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 4:03 p.m. (Recess taken.)
MR. WILSON ROGERS: We have no further questions.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at 4:03 p.m. We are ending the video record at 4:03 p.m.
For complete coverage of the priest abuse scandal, go to http://www.boston.com/globe/abuse
