THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
August 14, 2002, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston
On August 14, 2002, Cardinal Bernard F. Law was deposed by Boston lawyer Roderick MacLeish Jr. in connection with civil lawsuits filed against Law by three alleged victims of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley. Questioning also took place on Aug. 13, Oct. 11, and Oct. 16, 2002. Two previous days of deposition were taken June 5 and June 7, 2002.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
GREGORY FORD, et al.,
Plaintiff,
Superior Court
vs. Civil Action
No. 02-0626
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a,
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,
Defendants.
---------------------------------
PAUL W. BUSA,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action
No. 02-0822
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a,
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------
ANTHONY DRISCOLL,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Action
No. 02-1737
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a,
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al.
Defendants.
THE FOURTH DAY OF THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, before Kathleen L. Good, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts 0, on Wednesday, August 14, 2002, commencing at 10:00 a.m.
K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-
APPEARANCES:
Greenberg TraurigALSO PRESENT:
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, and David G. Thomas, Attorney, Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for the PlaintiffsThe Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, and. Wilson D. Rogers, III Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for the DefendantsTodd & Weld
(by J. Owen Todd, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts
Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally
George Libbares
Rodney Ford
Paula Ford
Father John Connolly
George Libbares
Shirley Fairclough
Anthony Driscoll
Thomas F. Maffei, PC
Wendy Champagne
WITNESS
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW,
Resumed
EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH
DIRECT EXAMINATION
(Law Exhibit No. 51, Copy of Helmick Deposition, marked for identification.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Libbares. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts 0. Today is August 14, 2002, and the time is 10:01 a.m.
This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard F. Law in the following matters: Gregory Ford, et. al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action 02-, Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, Civil Action 02-, Anthony Driscoll, Plaintiff, Civil Action 02-1737, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior Court.
This case -- this deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The court reporter is Kathleen L. Good, with K. L. Good & Associates, of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts.
Counsel will now state their appearances and the deposition will begin.
MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for the Plaintiffs,
MR. THOMAS: David Thomas for the Plaintiffs,
MR. ROGERS, III: Wilson Rogers, III, on behalf of all Defendants.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., on behalf of all Defendants.
MR. TODD: Owen Todd on behalf of Cardinal Law.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH, Cont.
Q: Good morning, your Eminence.
A: Good morning.
Q: Again, thank you for coming into our offices this morning. As I have in previous occasions, I want to give you the opportunity now, if you would like to take it, to modify, correct or supplement any portion of your testimony from the first three days of your deposition. Is there anything that you'd like to say?
A: I think there is one thing that I would like to say. Yesterday, you focused your remarks or your question to me earlier on about the -- I forget exactly your words -- but the primary focus being the protection of children. And I simply wanted to indicate that the reference to that in my statement has to do with the handling of sexual abuse cases; that in the handling of the sexual abuse cases, the primary focus is the protection of children.
And I simply mention that because, obviously, the mission of the Church is broader than the handling of sexual abuse cases. But the point that I was trying to make there, and in some preceding public statements in the last seven months, has been that the primary focus, the primary goal -- that the primary focus, I think, is the term that I usually use -- in the handling of sexual abuse cases is and must be the protection of children.
I explained that in a press conference by indicating that looking back into the earlier handling of these cases, it seemed to me, in retrospect, that there was too much of a tendency to focus on individual component elements of the handling of the case so that you'd be concerned in terms of assessment to be sure that -- of what kind, if any, assignment might be given for the protection of children. Then you'd be concerned about what kind of care needed to be given, follow-up care to the priest.
And what has become the focus of our handling of these cases now is that the primary focus has to be the protection of children, and if that is the case, then, obviously, the way in which one handles the priest is going to be guided by that principle. So we put in place a zero toleration policy for that reason; that no matter what might be indicated, it wouldn't be sufficient from the perspective of the protection of children to have this person in place.
I realize that that's going -- bringing us forward in time, but the statement that I made on that was in a certain context. I wanted to be sure that the record shows that that focus on the protection of children is primary is in relationship to the handling of sexual abuse cases.
Q: Cardinal, I just had a request if you could speak up a little bit.
A: Surely.
Q: I would appreciate it.
A: Thank you.
Q: Is there anything else you'd like to say to supplement?
A: I don't believe so.
Q: Cardinal Law, just so I'm clear on what you just said, even back in the 1984 to 1990 period where my clients allege that they were sexually molested by Paul Shanley, it was still the primary focus, in your mind, in the handling of sexual abuse cases, the protection of children; is that correct?
A: It was certainly a primary focus. But I think the difference between 1985 and 2002 is that in the handling of cases -- and this is looking back and trying to explain how it is that things were done -- in the handling of cases, I think there was a tendency to focus on a specific aspect at a specific time. So you would deal with -- the assessment would give you certain information with regard to what was or was not appropriate relative to the safety of children. You would deal with the treatment of the priest and the possibility which existed then of the priest being reassigned.
But if -- the switch came in saying that everything that is done has to be done in view of the safety of children, and when that's your focus, then the handling of the individual elements of that problem are going -- are going to be different.
I believe that if that's the focus, then it's essential to adopt a so-called zero toleration policy, which we came to do.
I didn't have that in '85. So the question, in looking back in '85 and saying, well, how is it that we didn't have a zero toleration policy in '85, I think, you know, one way of understanding that, for me, has been that the tendency to focus on the individual elements of the problem and not seeing them always together in terms of the safety of children. And that's why that is our policy now.
Q: For which I commend you, and I mean that sincerely, but I'd like to focus, if we could, and try to agree today, not on the current policy, but on the policy that was in effect prior to the current policy, and the policy, in particular, from 1984 to 1993. Can we agree upon that? I do understand your current policy. And I do understand the distinction. But my questions are going to be more centered today on the policy in effect between 1984 and 1993.
A: And the reason why I raised what I did is that I didn't want to inject into 1985, what I have said in 2002.
Q: I think that is --
A: That's my point.
Q: I think that's been made clear. You just said that your earlier policies envisioned the possibility of priests being reassigned. Do you remember what you said?
A: That's correct.
Q: And that was after there was assessment and credible allegations of sexual abuse; is that correct?
A: If the assessment would indicate that that was an appropriate course of action.
Q: Well, the assessments didn't indicate -- did they not, Cardinal Law -- we don't have any of the assessments -- but the assessments did not generally indicate this priest should be reassigned. That was a decision that was made by the Archdiocese; is that correct?
A: That would be correct.
Q: And that would be a decision made by you; is that correct?
A: That would be correct.
Q: We know that following two assessments, Father Geoghan was reassigned. We know that, right?
A: That's correct.
Q: That was one of the cases where there was reassignment after an evaluation?
A: That's correct.
Q: We covered Father Rosenkranz yesterday. Another priest that was reassigned after an evaluation; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And we've covered Father Graham, who, in 1988, was -- admitted to child molestation who was reassigned and eventually promoted by you; is that correct?
A: With, of course, as you know, the intervention of a review board mainly of lay people. You don't want to go forward, but, in fact, that occurred.
Q: The review board wasn't in place in 1988, Cardinal Law, was it?
A: No, no. But the review board reviewed his case --
Q: In 1995?
A: -- as all cases were reviewed, and indicated that there was absolutely no reason for him not to remain in place.
Q: Cardinal Law, you remember the first review board indicating that he should not have any parish ministry and then that changed eight months later? There was an initial review board, do you recall that, that recommended that he not be assigned to parish ministry, and then there was a change?
I think we covered that in the first day of your deposition.
A: And that was followed, was it not, the first --
Q: The first one? I don't know whether the first one was followed. And I don't think you knew that. But what we do know is that eight months later -- I'm happy to bring up the exhibits if you'd like to see them again -- there was a change and Father Graham was deemed to be -- was deemed to be appropriate for reassignment. That was eight months after the first review board hearing.
I can refer you to the exhibits if you'd like to see them again.
A: That would be fine. If the review --
Q: Let's take a look then at Exhibit No. 5 on Daniel Graham. I'm sorry.
A: Excuse me.
Q: Exhibit No. 5. I'm sorry. Let's start with Exhibit No. 3.
A: No. 3?
Q: Yes. This is Father Graham. Hold on just one moment, please. It appears that one of the -- the first assessment -- hold on a second, please. All right.
If you look at Exhibit No. 3, let me read you the first paragraph. "This case was originally before the board on June 5, 1995." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: "At that time, the recommendation was that the priest not be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors; that he engage in therapy as recommended; that another ministry be sought where this priest's talents may be used. In light of the ongoing review of the policy, it was decided not to act on the recommendation at this time." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: So the original recommendation was that he not be involved in parish ministry that would involve contact with minors. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And then we have the next exhibit, which is Exhibit No. -- let's go to Exhibit No. 5. And we have a statement on the first page: "The board recommends that the priest not be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors; that he engages in therapy as recommended; that another ministry be sought where the priest's talents may be used." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: That's Exhibit No. 5. And that's dated June 5, 1995. And then on February 7, 1996, you approve -- that's Exhibit 4 -- you approve the recommendation of the delegate, which was that this priest not be involved, Daniel Graham, be involved in parish ministry or ministry that involves minors. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And then there was a change, was there not? I don't know whether we have that as an exhibit. Let me just check and see. Okay. Then we have Exhibit No. 3, going back to Exhibit No. 3, which I believe to be the writing of, typewritten of Father Flatley, but I can't say that with certainty. But it says at the bottom: "The delegate's recommendation" -- this doesn't say the recommendation of the review board; this is the delegate's recommendation -- "That this be determined to be a case reported and handled appropriately before the present policy was in place and that" -- it's, again, hard for me to read -- "and, thus, one to which the policy does not apply. Father does not require further assessment and there should be no limits or restrictions on his ministry." Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: We did not get a second review board recommendation that indicated that it was appropriate for Father Daniel Graham to go back into parish ministry with minors. We have a delegate's recommendation. You see that in Exhibit No. 3? And then we have a review board, a review board meeting some eight months prior to that in which it was recommended that he not be involved in parish ministry. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: I asked you at the deposition if you had any explanation for that change, and you indicated at that time that you did not have any such explanation. Do you have any explanation now?
A: No, I really don't. I would be very surprised if this report, this Case No. 62, did not go before the review board and that I did not receive, through the delegate, the opinion of the review board. But I don't see it here.
Q: What you do see is in terms of recommending that there be no restrictions placed on his ministry, you see the delegate -- which, at that time, would have been Father Flatley; is that correct?
A: I'm not sure of that, but I presume it is. You would know.
Q: Father Flatley is saying because this was before the present policy being implemented in 1993, it doesn't apply, and then he can go back to parish ministry. Do you see that in his conclusion --
A: I do.
Q: -- Cardinal Law?
MR. TODD: It says more than that.
Q: Now, Cardinal Law, so we know that in the case of Father Daniel Graham, that the allegations back in 1988 were admitted to and that he remained in active ministry, the policy was not in effect, and we know that he was maintained in an assignment.
I think we went through that in the first day of your deposition. And then subsequently he was promoted; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And then we have -- we did Father Geoghan; we did Father Rosenkranz. Father Tourigney is someone that you know as well; is that not the case?
A: I know the -- I know him as a priest of the diocese and I have dealt with his case and he is not in active ministry, as you know.
Q: Right. I know he's not in active ministry, but we're going to come to that case in a moment, but you're aware, are you not, that back in the 1980s, he admitted to engaging in sexual misconduct with a minor and was allowed to remain at Immaculate Conception Parish in Revere following a one-week assessment at Southdown. You do know that?
A: I don't have that record actively in my mind.
Q: We're going to be going over that at some point during your deposition, but I just want to go back to your comment you made that there was the possibility of priest reassignment before your current policy.
I would ask you again, Cardinal Law, if you can identify one priest -- and if you've had any time since yesterday to reflect -- one priest, just one, who had a credible allegation of abuse made against him, went for an assessment and was not returned to active ministry?
Have you had the opportunity to reflect on that since yesterday?
A: I think Father Mahan would be one, that when an allegation was made, the first allegation that I knew, he was removed, he was assessed and he did not return to active ministry.
Q: How about Father Lane?
A: I thought Father Tourigney was the same.
Q: No. We will get to Father Tourigney. And we had Father Birmingham yesterday, and we had three assessments -- I think we went over that yesterday -- with Father Birmingham, and we had three assessments, and after those three assessments -- and some were in the '60s, one was in 1985, there was another in 1987 -- you assigned him to St. Brigid's in Lexington; is that correct?
A: He was in St. Brigid's in Lexington as -- assigned there as a sick man, basically dying.
Q: Well, he was a sick man dying, but there were no -- I think we covered this -- there were no restrictions on --
MR. TODD: You keep on saying that. I'm going to object to you insert --
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Your objection --
MR. TODD: Don't do that. I'm going to object to questions in which you insert predicates. If you're going to insert the predicate, please point out where in the record that predicate appears.
MR. MacLEISH: The witness is free to correct me. I'm going to conduct the deposition the way I see fit. If you instruct him not to answer --
MR. TODD: You anything you like.
MR. MacLEISH: Then you instruct him not to answer. That's not appropriate.
MR. TODD: You do anything you like.
MR. MacLEISH: Fine.
MR. TODD: And I'll do what I like, which is to object to that question and to warn you that I will object to any question which you insert these predicates in some fashion of argument rather than asking questions.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted.
MR. TODD: Not only that, I'm sure you wanted the names of other priests who had not been reassigned.
Q: Cardinal Law, if I say anything that mischaracterizes your prior testimony, I want you to interrupt, and we will -- I assume you've reviewed your first two days of deposition because you signed the errata sheet; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So you are familiar with the errata sheet and you're familiar with the deposition; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Forget what you testified about. Is it not a fact that in the case of Father Joseph Birmingham, after three assessments, you sent him back to St. Brigid's in Lexington, Massachusetts, with no restrictions placed on his ministry? Is that not a fact?
A: I don't -- first of all, I don't have the record before me so I can't answer specifically as to what kind of restriction was or was not placed on Father Birmingham.
My recollection is that Father Birmingham went there as a dying man, and there was, by that very fact, a severe restriction on him.
But I would need to check the files and see whether there was a restriction or not.
Q: Cardinal Law, when priests became terminally ill -- as unfortunately happens to all of us at some point -- isn't there a facility where the Archdiocese sends terminally ill priests? Not typically sent to family parishes in the Greater Boston area?
A: No. It differs. As a matter of fact, very often priests do die in a parish. And we also have a retirement home and we also use nursing homes. It depends on the individual case.
Q: Well, it was at least -- when you assigned Father Birmingham to St. Brigid's in Lexington, it was at least determined that he didn't need to be in a hospital or a nursing home. Is that a fair statement?
A: You know, Mr. MacLeish, I really would have to review that decision with those who were making it with me. I don't have a recall on everything, on exactly what the situation was when he went to that parish. And I can't answer that. I just don't have that.
Q: But we know that you made the assignment.
A: That's correct.
Q: Like you make all assignments?
A: That's correct.
Q: We know there were three evaluations. We know that?
A: I take that on your word.
Q: We went through the notes on your records.
A: Yes.
Q: So that was another case where there was a reassignment following assessment, correct?
A: Presumably, yes.
Q: And we don't have the records of all of the priests -- obviously, we're seeking that -- we don't have all of the records, but were there others, apart from the ones I've mentioned, in the period from 1984 to 1993 where priests were assigned to ministry, apart from those that I mentioned, after there were credible allegations of abuse and an assessment?
A: Is that a question?
Q: Yes, it is.
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Who were they, that you can recall?
A: Who were the priests who were --
Q: Other priests. We've mentioned Father Birmingham, we've mentioned Father Geoghan, we've mentioned Father Rosenkranz, we've mentioned Father Graham, and we've mentioned Father Tourigney. We have records on some of those priests.
A: And Father Mahan. Did you mention Father Mahan?
Q: I haven't gotten to Father Mahan.
A: Father Mahan would be one. Father Tourigney. Father Hanlon.
Q: Father Hanlon was --
A: Father Hanlon was not reassigned.
Q: He was indicted; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: He was sent to prison; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Well, hold on. Let him finish his answer, will you? You asked him for names of priests, and then every time he gives you a name, you interrupt him and make some speech.
MR. MacLEISH: I'm not making a speech.
MR. TODD: Yes, you are.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, you're entitled to, again, under the rules to object and to instruct the witness not to answer. I'm fully prepared to give you the opportunity to take your client out if there's any issue of privilege, but that is what you're allowed to do under the rules.
MR. TODD: Mr. --
MR. MacLEISH: Excuse me. May I finish, please, Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I couldn't believe you hadn't finished, but go ahead.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, that's what the rules --
MR. TODD: Now, I'm --
MR. MacLEISH: No, no. I'm sorry.
MR. TODD: As soon as you take a breath, I'll go ahead.
MR. MacLEISH: I'd like to be able to breathe.
MR. TODD: Go ahead. Finish up because --
MR. MacLEISH: That's what the rules say. On the break, we'll mark the rules as an exhibit so everyone will have a copy of it.
Above and beyond that, if I interrupt the Cardinal -- I think it was a pretty straightforward question. I asked him whether he went to prison and he said yes.
Q: Is there anything else you'd like to add to that, Cardinal?
MR. TODD: No, I'm going to add my comments in rejoin to your comments. I'm familiar with the rules and, apparently, more familiar with them than you are. I am required, if I make an instruction to form -- Mr. MacLeish, I want your attention.
MR. MacLEISH: You have it, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: We'll wait until you to find --
MR. MacLEISH: You have my attention. I'm not required --
MR. TODD: We'll wait until you find the time and courtesy to --
MR. MacLEISH: You have my full attention, Mr. Todd. Go ahead, please.
MR. TODD: No, I'll wait until you --
MR. MacLEISH: You have my full attention.
MR. TODD: No, I don't have your full attention.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, do you want to take a break or --
MR. TODD: No. I want your attention to make the --
MR. MacLEISH: Is that an order? I have your full attention, Mr. Todd, full attention.
MR. TODD: Now, then, my duty here in representing my client is when I make an objection as to form, to tell you what the objection is so you can correct it.
My objection to you was that you had interrupted the witness in the middle of the answer to comment on one of a series of names. And I'd ask you, out of courtesy, not to do that again.
MR. MacLEISH: Certainly, out of courtesy, I would, and I don't think I interrupted the witness.
Q: When I asked you, Cardinal Law --
MR. TODD: Now, have you finished your answers to the priests?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: If I could take the deposition, that would be helpful.
Q: Is there anything that I interrupted you on with repect to Father Hanlon? He went to prison. I think that's pretty much of a yes or no answer, isn't it?
A: I think I was in the process of making an answer and then you interjected.
Q: I'm sorry. I apologize.
A: He was indicted, wasn't he, I think you said.
Q: Yes. He went to prison; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: You would visit him at prison; is that correct?
A: I have visited him at prison.
Q: Approximately every month?
A: No, no, no.
Q: Let's get back on your earlier statement that there was the possibility of priests that were being reassigned. That's what I'm interested in.
Those priests that were reassigned after assessments -- and we can cover, during your cross-examination, those priests who were removed from active ministry -- but right now I have, from the limited records that we have, we have -- I think we've acknowledged five priests: Father Geoghan on two occasions, after an evaluation; Father Rosenkranz; Father Graham; Father Birmingham; and Father Tourigney. Is that correct, so far?
A: I'm not -- I'm not sure that that's a taxative list. I'm not prepared to supply other names, and I'm not certain that I would list -- well, I think you have to look at each individual case in making a judgment about them.
But the record speaks for themselves and you have those records and you know that these men were reassigned and that was a possibility.
Q: It was really more than a possibility in the period from 1984 to 1993, was it not, Cardinal Law?
A: It was a possibility. Was everyone handled in a way that they were put back in? I would say no. I think -- and I mentioned Father Mahan is a case in point.
Q: He was removed immediately from active ministry?
A: To my recollection, he was removed from his assignment at the time that that allegation came and he was assessed.
Q: All right. And anybody else that you can think of who was removed from that --
A: I thought that --
Q: We can't run over each other on the questions. I apologize. But I have to finish the question. Anyone else that you can recall right now who was removed from active ministry in the period from 1984 to 1993, apart from Father Mahan?
A: I thought Father Tourigney was.
Q: We'll cover his case later on and I'll show you some documents. Okay.
A: I understand that, but I'm just telling you, from my memory is that he was.
Q: Now, yesterday -- if you could turn to our new exhibit, Exhibit No. 51 -- I read you a portion of your personal secretary's deposition and --
A: Would you give me the page.
Q: Yes. I started on page 213, but I'm going to highlight a question and answer that he made on page 216.
A: You're going to start 213?
Q: Yes. I read it to you yesterday, Cardinal Law. You're welcome to review it if you'd like to take some time to do that, but my question is going to be focusing on -- this has to do with the Higgs letter, if you recall the testimony of William Helmick, your personal secretary. I'd like to focus on the question that appears -- and you're welcome to take your time in reading the context of the question and the preceding pages should you wish -- but I asked him on page 216, after a series of questions, line 3, "But, again, knowing what you know about Bishop McCormack, is it fair to state that you believe a note at one point existed?
ANSWER: Yes.
Q: Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: You recall -- if you want to take your time to look at it -- we were talking about the note that was referred to in the letter that Paul Shanley sent to, I'm sorry, that Bishop McCormack sent to Paul Shanley. You recall that letter?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have any explanation as to why, that you would like to advance, as to why Father Helmick believed that there was an actual note and your recollection is that there was a stamp?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection. That's been asked and answered yesterday.
MR. MacLEISH: No, I didn't give him a chance to explain Father Helmick's testimony versus his own recollection. I want to give him that opportunity.
MR. ROGERS, III: Object to form.
A: I find it rather difficult to explain Father Helmick's testimony. He'd have to do his own explaining. I can hardly read his mind.
What I think I said yesterday to this point -- and I thought it was answering this question yesterday because we covered this yesterday -- as you will recall, my original response to your question on this issue, that is, the issue of the Higgs letter and Father McCormack's response and how do I explain the -- my original response to you was that I had not seen that letter; that that note, that stamp on it would indicate that this was to be handled by Father McCormack.
When I saw the letter that you put before me from Father McCormack referencing a note, it's at that point that I changed my testimony in that earlier deposition, on the basis of that letter.
But then on further reflection, I went back to my original testimony, because the manner in which I routinely handled this correspondence was to have it reviewed, to have it stamped, and that stamp would indicate that the person receiving it was to follow it up for me.
And my presumption is that Father Helmick, having placed before him the letter of Father McCormack and seeing a reference to "note," would have said, as I thought momentarily must have been the case, that there must have been a note.
But when I thought further on it, realizing how this correspondence routinely was handled, it seemed to me that my earlier recollection was the correct recollection, and it was a tempore non suspecto I responded as I had that put before me, that letter put before me. I didn't recall seeing it, I don't recall seeing it, and I, therefore, don't recall writing a note about it. But there is that stamp, and I think that that stamp generated the response of Father McCormack referencing a note, and I think that his reference is to that stamp.
Q: You think Father McCormack's reference is to that stamp?
A: I do.
Q: Okay. You -- really what I asked you was, Father Helmick, in page 216, states that his belief that it's fair to believe that he thought a note existed at one point in time, and I just want to give you the opportunity to reconcile your testimony, if you'd like, with Father Helmick's testimony on the existence of this note.
MR. TODD: Objection.
Q: Is there anything else you'd like to say?
MR. TODD: Have you just answered that question?
MR. MacLEISH: You have your cross examination.
MR. TODD: Excuse me. If you've answered that, just indicate that.
THE WITNESS: I believe I've answered that.
MR. TODD: Just indicate that.
A: Not only do I believe that I have answered that question, but I don't think -- if your implication is that there is a note there, I don't think that there's any evidence of that in the record other than that reference of Father McCormack. And from my perspective, and the handling of this kind of correspondence, I would say that that's not established.
Q: I'm merely reading to you what Father Helmick said. Is there anything further you'd like to say about Father Helmick's testimony about the existence of this note? Anything else you would like to say, Cardinal Law?
A: No.
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form. Go ahead.
A: I know of no note. I certainly didn't have -- I certainly have no recollection of writing a note and don't believe that such a note exists.
Q: Okay. Could you please turn to page 205 of Father Helmick's deposition, and if you want to, read to yourself from page 205, line 14, to page 208, line 24. Again, if you'd like to look at other pages, you're free to do that.
A: 205, line what?
Q: Line 14.
A: Thank you.
Q: This is of your personal secretary, Father Helmick. To 208, line 24. (Pause.)
A: How far do you wish me to read?
Q: 208, line 24, but you're free to go beyond that if you would like.
(Pause.)
MR. TODD: All set.
Q: Are you finished, Cardinal Law?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Now, the actual affixing of the stamp, would that be done by someone in Father Helmick's office?
A: It would be done by whoever was handling the opening of the mail that day. It could be Father Helmick; it could be someone assisting my administrative assistant, Mrs. Woodward.
Q: Now, do you see on page 206 and 207, there's reference to some of the letters that we have covered here in our deposition yesterday?
A: I see that, yes.
Q: Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: I referenced a time period on page 206, line 18, from 1977 through 1985. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And you agree with me the Higgs letter was sent in 1985 when you were Cardinal, is that correct, Archbishop?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you'll see on page 207, line 14, it states: "Would it have been important for Bishop Banks and Cardinal Law to understand that this was the type of information that had been presented to you on previous occasions?" Do you see what his answer is, Cardinal Law?
A: I do.
Q: And he says: "It would have been important, yes." Then I asked him: "But you can't remember whether you did it?" And his answer: "Well, the fact that we established a record, a folder on Father Shanley, Paul Shanley, at the Chancery Office would be a way of Bishop Banks, you know, finding out that this is not the first allegation of his speaking in this way.
Q: Speaking this way, meaning speaking about children having sex with grownups?
A: Yes.
Q: And children being the seducers?
A: Yes.
Q: So you were --
A: I'm saying now, by the way.
Q: You were expecting Bishop Banks to go, after he got this communication, to go look at the file?
A: As I sit here now, that's what I would have expected him to do. "You would have expected him to do that in 1985?
A: Yes.
Q: And you would have expected him to speak to Cardinal Law about this as well?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: So Father Helmick's sworn testimony is that he would have expected Bishop Banks, do you see, to look at the file and to speak with you?
A: I read that that's what Father Helmick thought, yes.
Q: And Father Helmick was your personal secretary?
A: He was my secretary, my personal secretary, yes.
Q: And you have stated that the files were not accessible, I'm sorry, the files were accessible but they were not looked at during this period of time. That's been your testimony today; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection, objection.
A: I have said that the files were not in an orderly fashion that readily assisted in an institutional memory in these kinds of cases.
Q: But you don't know, do you, Cardinal Law, that when the Higgs letter came in and was sent over to Bishop Banks or Father McCormack, you don't know what they actually did in terms of looking at the file of Paul Shanley that was at the Chancery, do you?
A: That's correct. I do not know how it is that Bishop Banks followed up on this matter. I do not know what steps he took. I had confidence in him in his responsibilities, and I did not second guess what people did.
Q: And he also states, your personal secretary, that he would have expected Bishop Banks to speak to Cardinal Law about this as well. Do you see that testimony?
A: I do.
Q: And would you have expected Bishop Banks to speak to you about what he found when he looked at the 1985 Higgs letter? Would you have expected him to speak with you about it?
A: I would have expected Father Banks to speak to me in whatever matters he thought were appropriate to bring to me.
Q: And that includes instances where there were allegations such as those made in the Higgs letter that were of a serious nature involving possible misconduct by a parish priest, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A: I would have expected Bishop Banks, Father Banks, to bring to me all pertinent material that I needed to have brought to me to make decisions that were mine to make.
Q: Okay. Now let's turn, if we could, to -- let's turn to page 112, line 9, Cardinal Law, of your personal secretary's deposition, former personal secretary. If you could just read to yourself, read the whole page, page 112, 113 and 114, please.
A: Excuse me. Lines again?
Q: I'm sorry. You can start page 112, line 1, if you care to, to 113, all the way over to 114, line 19.
A: All right. (Pause.)
Q: I'm happy to tell you what the exhibits are too.
MR. TODD: Do you have them?
MR. MacLEISH: I do. I can tell you what they are. Let me show you what Exhibit No. 6 -- which is referred to in Father -- let's start with 6. Is the -- actually, that has not been marked but I'm happy to show it to you. Exhibit 7 is the letter of 11/29/1977, which, in this case, is marked as the Sweeney letter. That's the Sweeney letter -- I believe that that's Exhibit No. 25. And then I'll get you the November 29, 1975, letter.
MR. TODD: I don't think --
MR. MacLEISH: I think you're right.
MR. TODD: I don't think Exhibit 7 is Exhibit 25.
MR. MacLEISH: No, I agree with you.
MR. TODD: It isn't that, Cardinal.
MR. MacLEISH: It's not. We're going to get that for you, Cardinal Law, but if you could read it in the interim. We'll get you the exhibit.
THE WITNESS: Read?
MR. MacLEISH: Read pages 112, 113 and 114.
THE WITNESS: Done that.
MR. TODD: I want you to see what it's in reference to.
MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely. Fair enough. Do you want to take a break for five -- take a five-minute break?
MR. TODD: Sure.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:46. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:56. We're on the record.
Q: Cardinal Law, if we could go back, there was a point I omitted on page 207 of Father Helmick's deposition.
A: 207?
Q: Yes. Just if I could read starting on line 14: "Would it have been important for Bishop Banks and Cardinal Law to understand that this was the type of information that had been presented to you on previous occasions?
A: It would have been important, yes.
Q: But you can't remember whether you did it?
A: Well, the fact that we established a record, a folder on Paul Shanley, Paul Shanley, at the Chancery Office, would be a way of Bishop Banks, you know, finding out that this is not the first allegation of his speaking in this way." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: So Father Helmick states the fact that there was a record, a folder on Paul Shanley in the Chancery Office. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And Father Helmick would be in a better position, at the secretary at the Chancery Office, to know whether there was a folder on Paul Shanley than you would be; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A: Father Helmick was not a secretary at the Chancery. He was a secretary to the Cardinal.
Q: Secretary to the Cardinal?
A: So he would not have been necessarily aware of what files were present or not in the Chancery.
Q: Well, he states right here, as you see, "The fact we established a record, a folder on Father Shanley, at the Chancery Office." Is that correct? Do you see that?
A: I do see that.
Q: And you're not in a position to contradict Father Helmick's testimony there was a file of Paul Shanley --
A: That's correct.
Q: -- at the Chancery Office? Let me finish the question, please. You're not in a position to contradict Father Helmick's testimony that there was, as a fact, there was a record, a folder, on Father Paul Shanley in the Chancery Office?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
Q: Are you?
A: No, I'm not in a position to comment on what was or was not existent at that time.
Q: And Father Helmick, as you've testified, was certainly one of the people that was involved in transmitting these allegations of sexual misconduct or other inappropriate actions by priests over to Father McCormack, Bishop Banks or other people for action; is that correct?
A: He very well could have been the person, yes. Maybe not exclusively the person, but he would have been a person who would have handled correspondence.
Q: But your testimony is you never saw the record, the folder that is referred to by Father Helmick on page 207 of his deposition; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: You don't know whether -- you've never discussed that with Bishop Banks, the existence of that folder?
A: I have never discussed the existence of that folder with Bishop Banks.
Q: And you stated that the Cardinal was your personal secretary. Is it not a fact that he worked in the Chancery Office?
MR. TODD: I think you mean --
MR. MacLEISH: I apologize. I elevated him.
Q: Is it not a fact that Father Helmick worked in the Chancery Office between 1977 and 1985?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. In the Chancery Office?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
Q: Did he work in the Chancery Office?
A: You know, I can't answer where he worked prior to 1984.
Q: Right.
A: And in 1984, my office was not in the Chancery. It never was in the Chancery. And my understanding was that Cardinal Medeiros' principal office also was not in the Chancery. To what extent Father Helmick was or was not in the Chancery, I cannot say. But his principal responsibility, his responsibility as secretary to the Cardinal would have put him where the Cardinal was.
Q: Right.
A: My understanding is that the Cardinal's office was where my office was, which was not in the Chancery.
Q: I understand that. But he wasn't -- Father Helmick was not assigned exclusively to be physically present in your office at all times. There were times, is it not fair to state, when he would be at the Chancery?
A: His office -- his office was in 2101 Commonwealth, which is where my office is now, where Cardinal Medeiros' office is now, and my presumption would be that there would have been enough to keep him busy in his office and accompanying the Cardinal not to be present in the Chancery.
Q: There were -- my question was: There were times, certainly, when, as part of his official responsibilities, that Father Helmick would have been in locations other than adjacent to your office, including the Chancery. Is that not a fact, Cardinal Law?
A: You know, in terms of what Monsignor Helmick did with Cardinal Medeiros, you'd really have to check it out with him.
Q: Fair enough. Fair enough.
A: I can't discuss that because I wasn't there. In terms of his duties with me, I would say that they were not at all involved in the Chancery. They were involved -- everything he had to do was there at his desk, it was on my desk, it was accompanying me, it was serving as master of ceremonies when we went out for events. So that was his ambience.
Now, there's no iron wall between the Chancery and that residence, and that isn't to say that there weren't occasions when he would have been in the Chancery. But in the normal course of events, his responsibilities were not in the Chancery.
Q: My question was: Isn't it fair to say there were times when he was in the Chancery, even accompanying you in the Chancery?
A: Well, I must say that I don't go to the Chancery -- with great infrequency do I go to the Chancery. And when I do go, I'm not usually accompanied by my secretary.
Q: You would rely on Father Helmick to state where he physically was in terms of his location and whether he physically visited the Chancery office?
A: Absolutely.
Q: You would rely on his testimony; is that correct?
A: Certainly. I would have no reason to deny it, but I would have no knowledge of what he was doing, particularly in the days of Cardinal Medeiros.
Q: That's a fair objection. We'll rely -- it's fair to rely -- I withdraw the question. Now, the confidential files, Cardinal Law, that would contain -- I think we've established this -- this information about sexual misconduct by a priest, where were those files physically located in 1984 and 1985?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: My presumption is that the confidential file would have been in the -- in the Chancery, with access to it by the moderator of the Curia or by the Chancellor.
Q: That would be Bishop Banks in 1984 was the moderator?
A: And earlier, it would have been Bishop Daily.
Q: Bishop Daily, that's correct. And you also had access, you had official access yourself if you had wanted to look at the confidential files?
A: Certainly, certainly.
Q: But I thought I understood you to state, and perhaps I'm wrong, that it was not routine in those days for -- certainly wasn't routine for you to access the confidential file in 1984 and 1985. That's a fair statement, is it not?
A: That's a fair statement.
Q: But you really don't know what Bishop Daily, Father Helmick, Father McCormack, Father Banks did by way of accessing the confidential files and the records of the Chancery when there would be a complaint of misconduct involving a priest? You really don't know what they did. Is that a fair statement?
MR. TODD: Objection to form.
A: It is a fair statement to say that I delegated certain responsibilities to persons and that I do not know, and would not know in this instance, what were the steps that they took. No. I trusted their judgment to handle the case adequately.
Q: And you trusted their judgment to come back to you if there was a serious allegation involving misconduct by a priest against a minor; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Can you think of anything that would be more serious in the 1984 time period to 1990 time period, that would be more serious in terms of your work than an allegation, a substantiated allegation that a priest had engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor?
A: A substantial allegation that a priest had --
Q: Yes.
A: -- abused a minor? No.
Q: You described -- and I understand there's many things that you do that relate to the mission of the Church apart from sexual abuse investigations, and that was certainly true in 1984 to 1990; is that not correct? There were many other things that you did?
A: Surely.
Q: But is there any one thing that you consider to be more important in 1984 to 1990 that would require your personal attention than a substantiated allegation that one of your priests had engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor?
A: That would certainly be that kind of a matter.
MR. MacLEISH: Do we have the exhibits for Father Helmick? Unless you feel otherwise, we won't mark this. Do you want this marked as an exhibit?
MR. TODD: No.
MR. MacLEISH: These are all -- 6 and 7 are the ones to look at.
THE WITNESS: 6 and 7?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Those are the ones that are referred to --
MR. TODD: I think there's was a reference to 8.
MR. MacLEISH: -- on page 112.
MR. TODD: There's a reference to 8.
MR. MacLEISH: And a reference to 8 as well.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. It's 6, 7 and 8 you want me to look at?
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. I'm focusing on page 112, and I want you to read page 112, starting at line 1, through page 114, line 9. And there's Exhibits, I believe, 6 and 7 that are referred to. I want to make sure that you've had the opportunity to look at those.
(Pause.)
THE WITNESS: 6 and 7.
MR. MacLEISH: Right. Two letters from a Joseph Eltges of Kenmore, New York.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q: Then if we could just go back to Father Helmick's testimony, he was presented with Exhibits 6 and 7, and I want to read to you a section of his deposition and ask you a question. It says -- this is on page 112, starting on line 12:
Q: You sent a memo, you've testified that you're familiar with a stamp that is affixed to letters that was used in 1977 where it states 'Not acknowledged at Cardinal's Residence.'
A: But from time to time, if a letter like this came in, which was really, you know, alleging that a priest was teaching something contrary to what the Church teaches, I'd send a memo with the correspondence so he'd have the whole file.
Q: Sent the memo to whom?
A: Bishop Daily.
Q: But it's also apparent His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, saw the letter first, at least, which was nonspecific, Exhibit No. 7; is that correct? "MR. O'CONNOR: Objection.
Q: Because you state that there was -- the Cardinal responded to that letter --
A: Yes. "-- on December 1st; is that correct?
A: That's correct." "So, again, there were certain 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: It was usually -- this shows it was usually stamped 'Not acknowledged at the Cardinal's Residence. "But there's no stamp on this.
A: The reason for that would be, although I don't recall this 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 wouldn't get lost in the shuffle.
Q: So the procedure is, you're testifying, that the stamp 'Not acknowledged at the Cardinal's Residence' was so it would be taken seriously by Bishop Daily, who would then, if he felt it was serious, would bring it to the attention of the Cardinal. Is that correct?
A: And prepare a response and get all the background.
Q: Get the facts?
A: Get the facts." Do you see that testimony?
A: I do.
Q: That relates, I think, specifically to a complaint that came in in 1977.
A: As I read these complaints, they are not allegations. Neither of these letters, as I read them, contains an allegation against Father Shanley committing an act of abuse of a child; but they, rather, reference a talk he gave in which he contradicted the Church's teaching on homosexuality.
Q: Right. That's correct. In the same way that the Higgs letter did not specifically accuse Father Shanley of molesting a child, but set forth an alleged statement by Father Shanley that you've, I think characterized -- I'm not going to recharacterize it here -- as also contrary to the Church's teaching.
A: That's correct.
Q: And if true, would have given you concern.
A: That's correct. I just wanted to be sure I understood where we were going on this correspondence.
Q: Right. You're absolutely correct. But you'll see that a process is described here, and the process, at least as it existed, apparently, in 1977, was that the whole file -- you see on line -- starting on line 16, and going on through line 20 --
A: Which page?
Q: -- page 112, he states: "I'd send a memo with the other correspondence so he'd have the whole file." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And that was over an allegation, again, that wasn't as serious as sexual molestation, but statements about homosexuality that were contrary to the Church's teaching; is that correct?
A: I presume -- it's what it says.
Q: And you have no reason to believe, since Bishop Daily and Father Helmick were also in place when you became Archbishop of Boston in March of 1984, you don't have any reason to believe that the practice changed between 1977 and 1984, do you, Cardinal Law?
A: As a matter of fact, the practice did change.
Q: Okay. Tell me how it changed.
A: It changed in the fact that I reorganized the way we functioned. Most everything went directly through -- as I reconstruct it, under Cardinal Medeiros, would have gone from his office to Father Daily's then and he would have handled everything for him.
Q: Right.
A: What I did shortly after I came is set up a committee that was headed by Father Banks. He was a pastor at the time.
Q: Right.
A: And it included the president of BC, Father Monin, someone from Harvard Business School, Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, who was head of the Sisters at St. Joseph's, several other folks, and I asked them to look at the way in which administration of the diocese might be enhanced. And they proposed to me, and I accepted, a cabinet system, which would have segregated out areas of responsibility so that the flow would not be the Cardinal's desk, the Archbishop's desk at that point, to one person, but it would be to a number of persons who would have specific responsibilities.
So, for example, if the matter had to do with education, it would go to the secretary of education. And that person would be responsible -- she was responsible for me for Catholic schools, for religious education, for public school students, my relationship with colleges, campus ministry and anything within that orbit would go to her and not acknowledged at the Cardinal's office. She would be asked then to look at that and then research it and respond or indicate a course of action that would be appropriate.
So there was a difference between the time of Cardinal Medeiros and my own time.
Q: The process was improved; is that correct? In your view?
A: I hoped that it was an improvement.
Q: And certainly, Cardinal Law, in cases involving statements by a priest that were contrary to the teachings of the Church, alleged statements or alleged allegations involving sexual misconduct, the process wasn't diluted when you put these reforms in --
A: No.
Q: -- it was strengthened; is that correct?
A: My hope was it was strengthened. My hope was that we would be responding -- my hope was that I would be able to respond in a more timely fashion because, frankly, I didn't see how I could, without something like this, effectively administer.
Q: So when Father Helmick, in 1977 says, as he does on page 114, involving this complaint about Father Shanley and his making statements on homosexuality contradicted by Church doctrine, he states that the process in 1977 was to prepare a response and get all the background and get the facts. There was never any direction by you when you made these reforms that in cases such as these, there should be any deviation from past practice about getting the facts and getting all the background, correct?
A: Well, I think it's obvious that in dealing with a matter of such weight, it's essential, or in dealing with any matter, it's essential to have the facts and to have all the information. And I would presume that people delegated to handle a matter would want to get the facts and get the information, yes.
Q: All right. So when the 1985 Higgs letter comes in, in light of Father Helmick's statements that we've just reviewed about the records, the file, the folder on Paul Shanley, wouldn't you have expected that part of the process would have been to go to the confidential file and look at the records to see whether there had been other instances similar in nature in the past? Wouldn't that have been your expectation in 1985, Cardinal Law?
A: My expectation would be that the matter would be looked at, looked into adequately and investigated.
You would need really to ask, I believe it's Father McCormack, how it is that he dealt with that matter and why he dealt with it the way he did.
I would ask you, however -- I don't think it's -- I don't think it necessarily follows that the Higgs letter coming in 1985, which is critical of what someone has said and written, I don't know that the handling of that necessarily means going to the file to see if there is something else like that.
I think that a letter of that kind can also reasonably be handled on its own merits. I mean, was this said? If this is said, this is contrary to Church teaching. What is meant here?
And I think that the issue would be to try to determine the -- whether or not there is substance to what is being alleged.
Q: And part of the way you could determine substance would be to see if anything like this had happened in the past, Cardinal Law, right?
A: Surely that would be part of it, yes.
Q: And so one would expect -- you've already testified that if Paul Shanley in fact said the things that Mrs. Higgs said he said, that he would have been removed from ministry?
A: Let's look at that.
Q: Sure. Exhibit 20.
A: Well, let's look at that letter again, if I may.
Q: Absolutely.
A: Exhibit 20.
Q: I think it's Exhibit 20. No. 19. 18. Exhibit 18.
A: 18.
Q: And let's, if we could, Cardinal, take your time to read it again, but the letter states -- as I think we've covered before -- "Father Shanley apparently is involved in street ministry" -- this is in the first paragraph. "He made some outlandish statements regarding the people involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not merely in orientation." Not merely in orientation. Then it goes on to state: "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. Children may later reget having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones." If Paul Shanley had in fact said that, that would have been -- you had promoted him in December of 1984 to pastor at St. Jean's. Would that not have caused some action on your part to remove him as pastor if he in fact said those words?
MR. TODD: Objection to form.
A: What you have here in the letter of 1985, or what I see here in this letter is an allegation against a priest in terms of what he is reported to have said.
Q: Exactly.
A: And some of the -- so I have here before me this letter.
Q: Right.
A: The obligation of the secretary would be to look into this. One of the obvious ways of looking into this is, first of all, speaking to the priest --
Q: Right.
A: -- letting him know, you know, here is -- here are charges against what you have said. Can you explain this? You know, did you say this? What did you -- what did you intend by this? And my presumption is that that would have been done.
Q: Would that have been adequate by itself if he denied making the statements?
A: Well, you know, there's reference here to a tape.
Q: Right.
A: So my presumption would be that if a tape was in existence, that tape would be listened to.
Q: A call would be made to Mrs. Higgs?
A: Well, there would be some effort made to get the tape. Whether it would be necessary to do it that way or to call the place, this church in Rochester, New York, where the talk was given, that might also be a possibility, or to the administrator of the parish.
It says he -- so the thing needs to be looked into and a determination made at the end of that as to whether or not her understanding of what he said was in fact what he said.
Q: But if he did say it --
A: Obviously.
Q: If he did say it, you would not want this man in a parish ministry in Newton, Massachusetts?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A: I would not want this man teaching the faith, which a priest does every time he gets up and preaches, because I couldn't have confidence that what he was teaching was true to the Church's teaching.
Q: So you would have removed him if he said these things, if it was determined, from this family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
A: I would say that if in fact he said this, meant this and didn't retract this -- give him the opportunity to retract, give him an opportunity to see the error of what he is saying here and the implication of what he's saying -- if the person refuses that, then, yes, he would not be able to have a position. It wouldn't be appropriate.
Q: Okay. And what would be the down side, Cardinal Law, given that people don't sometimes acknowledge things that they've said, what would be the down side as part of your policy and practice in 1985 to have someone check the confidential file to see if, as is the case here, there were other similar statements made? Is there any down side to looking at the file?
A: If I implied there was a down side, I misspoke.
Q: No.
A: I certainly would not think there would be a down side to that at all.
Q: Wouldn't it be just common sense, if there was a dispute between Mrs. Higgs and Paul Shanley, to take a look at the confidential file to see if anything like this had been said?
A: You know, I really -- we're engaging here in conjecture as to what happened. I think that the appropriate person to put these questions to would be the person who handled this letter.
Q: Cardinal Law, I understand that, and I will put the specific questions. I'm interested in the practice and procedure that was in place in 1984 when my clients were at St. Jean's.
Wouldn't it have been, even though there were no written -- I think we've established no written policies. If you have an allegation like this, wouldn't it have been consistent with your unwritten policy and just plain common sense to look at the files?
A: The policy in place was a policy of delegated authority.
Q: Right.
A: And confidence in the person who was delegated. I think that all pertinent information is helpful in making a judgment, and I think that things that would be in the file which would be pertinent would also be helpful in reaching a conclusion. I'm not certain that it would be necessary to go beyond the investigation of the letter itself if it reached a firm conclusion.
Q: But no down side to looking at the file?
A: To answer the question --
Q: No down side?
A: No.
Q: But even though there was a delegation to others, and I understand that, you still were the person ultimately responsible for the safety of the children in the 400 parishes and 200 schools that were under the Archdiocese of Boston in 1985?
A: A bishop has pastoral care for the whole diocese, that's correct.
Q: You're the one who was responsible ultimately?
A: That's correct.
Q: You knew in 1984 and 1985 that you had to have adequate policies and procedures in place to protect children, correct?
A: I knew that I had to act responsibly as Archbishop, and that's why I set up the cabinet system to help me do that in all areas.
Q: Including the protection of children?
A: Including the protection of children and all other areas.
Q: So part of this restructuring you would have put into place would have involved discussions about how to protect children, because you were aware, were you not, from your prior experience, that there could be instances where priests would molest children?
A: I focused responsibility for the handling of these cases specifically in the secretary of ministerial personnel in order to be able to deal with these cases in an adequate fashion, yes.
Q: But you're the one who approves the policies and the practices of that office with respect to sexual misconduct of priests. You're the one who approves, not the specific investigations, but the policies and practices, correct?
A: I am the person who assigned the secretary of ministerial personnel who had the responsibility of following up on these cases, yes.
Q: Were you the responsible person?
A: I'm the Archbishop of Boston, yes.
Q: Were you the responsible person in 1984 and 1985 for the safety of children served in Archdiocesan parishes and schools?
A: I've been responsible as the Archbishop since 1984 until this moment.
Q: Now, Cardinal Law, I'd like to go back to your testimony concerning your experience in Mississippi and your awareness of these issues before you arrived in Boston. You gave testimony in the first day of your deposition concerning Father George Broussard. Do you remember that?
A: I believe that I have submitted a statement concerning that, which would indicate that because of the sources of information, that I am not really at liberty to discuss that case.
Q: So you're now declining, on the basis of some privilege, to discuss anything about Father George Broussard; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: You will not answer any of my questions concerning your knowledge of Father George Broussard's molestation of children; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And that is on the basis of the fact that these discussions, some of these discussions may have taken place within the internal -- from the internal forum within the sacramental life of the Church?
A: That is correct.
Q: That doesn't mean the confession, does it?
A: It does.
Q: Okay. And you're not able to segregate out which discussions you had that came from confession and which discussions you had that came from other sources?
A: That's correct.
Q: But you did specifically remember in the first day of your deposition several discussions that you had about Father George Broussard. You, in fact, stated that you thought that you had learned about this from Father Broussard directly; is that correct?
A: I stand by my refusal to go into these matters any further because of the fact that I have reason to believe that my knowledge about this information comes in part from a privileged forum, confession, and I am simply not taking the risk of invading the sacrament of confession.
Q: Why did you not invoke that in the first day of your deposition, Cardinal Law, when you answered extensive questions about Father Broussard?
MR. TODD: Objection. Go ahead.
A: I'm really not going to go into that.
Q: Well, did you not realize that there was confession during the first day?
A: I'm not going to go into that.
Q: Well, I'm pressing the question. Did you ever take confession from Bishop Brunini?
A: That's not an appropriate question.
Q: Well, I'm focusing -- can you recall any discussions with Bishop Brunini about Father Broussard?
A: I am not going to get into that matter because of the fact that I cannot segregate out where it is that I obtained information, and I simply will not answer any questions about that case.
Q: Okay. We're going to respectfully -- and I do understand the sacrament of the confession, Cardinal Law, and I respect that and I would not ask you anything that was said during confession -- but I am going to press the answer to that question and we'll reserve on that and move on --
A: Fine.
Q: -- if that's acceptable to you. Now, Cardinal Law, you stated -- can we go back to your deposition, Day 1. If you could turn on Day 1, to page 92 of your deposition,
A: Page 92.
Q: Of the first day, line 1. I asked you at that time -- this is before the questions on Father Broussard. I think that I just finished some part of your -- if you look at page 91, I asked you whether you went to Harvard University. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Page 6 (sic). You graduated in 1953. And then we traced -- went to Vicksburg, Mississippi, and then you were assigned as editor of a newspaper in Jackson, Mississippi; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And on page 92, line 1, I asked you: "Did you believe or know that the sexual molestation of minors when you were serving in Mississippi was a crime?" And you stated: "You know, I have to say that in my early priesthood, the sexual molestation of minors wasn't even on my radar screen. It wasn't the issue that it is today. Even the incidence of it was something in those days" -- I'm sorry -- "Even the incidence of it was not something in those days that I knew.
Q: I'm sorry." The question is -- "The question was in -- when you were serving in Mississippi, did you know that individuals who molested children, when they did that, committed crimes? "Well, I thought I'd answered that question. The specific response to that is I wasn't -- as I said, it wasn't on my radar screen. I wasn't dealing with the case of -- sexual molestation wasn't something that was before me. It wasn't before us. It wasn't part of my responsibility. It didn't come up." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, that was your testimony on page 92. And then there were various questions about Mr. Morrison and Father Broussard that appear on the following pages, such as page 96, 97 and going on to page 101. They're followed by questions about Father Broussard. Do you see that?
A: Yes. I think that maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought that your question here was the time you were in Mississippi.
Q: Right. That's what I said, in Mississippi.
A: Yeah. Rather the time you were in Vicksburg.
Q: Well, I said Mississippi.
A: Yeah.
Q: Do you see that? But Cardinal Law, there were -- I understand you won't answer any questions about Father Broussard -- but there was another situation in Mississippi, and I think that you were trying to remember that at the end of the first day, and came back on the second day, as I recall, and could not remember a specific name. Do you remember that?
A: Could you point that out?
Q: Let's move on. Do you know a May Balanchia? Did you know a May Balanchia?
A: The name doesn't ring a bell.
Q: She was someone that you might have met through the civil rights movement down in Mississippi.
A: I don't recall. I don't recall the name.
Q: Do you recall that when you were vicar general, there was a Bernard Haddigan who was accused of molesting a young boy?
A: I knew there was a Bernard Haddigan, but I did not -- I don't recall his being molest -- accused of being molested -- of having molested someone.
Q: How well did you know Father Haddigan?
A: Well, he was a priest of the diocese. He -- I think perhaps one year I may have been in the seminary with him at St. Joseph's Seminary in Louisiana. And I forget where he went to major seminary, but we weren't in the same major seminary. Mississippi is 46,000 square miles, so you didn't necessarily meet that frequently, but I knew him as a priest of the diocese.
Q: And am I correct in understanding that his time at the seminary overlapped with yours somewhat, although he was not in the same class?
A: One year.
Q: One year.
A: One year. The time would have overlapped, but we weren't in the same seminary.
Q: You were not in the same class?
A: No, no. We were not in the same seminary except for one year. We were in one location for one year at the same place.
Q: Was Father Broussard there during that year as well?
A: I would imagine he would have been, possibly as a member of the monastery.
Q: Was this in Ohio?
A: No. This was in Louisiana.
Q: And then all -- what parish was that? Sorry, what seminary?
A: St. Joseph's Seminary, St. Benedict, Louisiana.
Q: And then, Cardinal Law, the three of you at some point in the late '60s and early 1970s end up in Jackson, Mississippi, is that correct, the Diocese of Jackson?
A: Well, we were, each of us was ordained for the diocese, which was -- which covered the whole state, yes.
Q: Right. And you were vicar general at some point when Father Haddigan was a priest; is that correct?
A: I was vicar general from '71 to '73.
Q: And Father Haddigan was a priest at that time?
A: He was.
Q: Do you know a Mark Balanchia?
A: I do not.
Q: You have absolutely no recollection of being presented with allegations involving sexual molestation by Father Haddigan. Is that your testimony?
A: I'm aware of the allegation because it's been made recently.
Q: Right.
A: I'm aware of that. But I was not able to recollect either the person nor the occasion alleged in the complaint.
Q: Do you keep any sort of personal notes, diaries, about your experiences in Mississippi or the other assignments where you've been?
A: No, I don't.
Q: You don't have any personal notes of a biographical nature or which you give chronologies of particular events?
A: No, I don't. While I was in Mississippi as editor of the paper, I wrote a column every week but --
Q: Right.
A: But that's -- but I don't keep a diary.
Q: Since you've been here in Boston as Cardinal, has there been any effort to preserve your papers or keep them in a form for archival purposes or biographical purposes?
A: Of course, my letters and talks and things of that kind are filed and I presume go to the archives.
Q: Go to the archives. And these letters and talks, would they also include notes of yours from time to time?
A: I don't think so. Not notes.
Q: Do you take notes at cabinet meetings, Cardinal Law?
A: I have -- I follow the agendas that -- the reports that are sent out.
Q: Do you take notes sometimes?
A: I sometimes take notes, yeah.
Q: Do you use a computer at all?
A: No. I'm illiterate.
Q: Me too. But you do -- what happens to the notes after you make them, do you know?
A: Well, they're not kept, you know. I usually throw them away once I've dealt with them. They're to remind me to follow up on things, and when I followed up on them, I followed up on them.
Q: But your letters and talks are in some archival file; is that correct?
A: Well, yes, I presume they are.
Q: Do you know whether that file has been searched for any documents concerning Paul Shanley?
A: My talks?
Q: Well, your letters. I'm talking about your letters. Paul Shanley was a fairly well-known priest.
A: Well, I believe certainly we're under order to find all sorts of documentation, and I think that's part of it, that we're going through -- the chron file is being gone through in order to surface any letters having to do with any persons against whom credible allegations have been made.
Q: The archival file has more of your personal correspondence and talks in it; is that not correct?
A: Well, I wasn't really making -- you know, I don't know that I'd make a distinction between the personal and the non-personal. You know, it's --
Q: It's an archival file?
A: Yeah. You know, anything that -- letters that I have written, that I have received are kept on file for --
Q: But that's not, for example, filed in the personnel file of the individual priest; it's a separate archival type file that is maintained at your offices. Is that correct?
A: Well, there should, you know -- things that belong in a personnel file should be there.
Q: Right, right.
A: And hopefully are. And then there are other kinds of letters that would perhaps not fall within that category of business and be filed --
Q: Sure.
A: -- in some other category that would be among my letters. Now, how many of those there are, I don't know.
Q: Who maintains that file?
A: Well, in my house, it would be maintained by -- Mrs. Kay Woodward would be overall responsible for the office, the management of the office. And she would have someone responsible to her for the maintaining of the files.
And I suppose at a certain point, because we'd have to move out otherwise, because a lot of paper is generated, the files would be transferred to the archives, the materials that are appropriate.
But this would be absent the kind of pertinent personnel matters which should be filed in another way.
Q: So you're confident that there's nothing in these archival files that would in any way concern policies and practices -- strike that -- concern Paul Shanley. You're confident of that?
A: I'm not confident about anything with regard to files, but -- and it's for that reason that the chron file is being reviewed.
Q: I'm not --
A: It's a rather primitive file, but at least it's a file that keeps a record of everything that went out from that office with my signature
Q: Again, I'm not -- the chron file is different from this archival file, correct?
A: Yeah. Yes. It would be different.
Q: And it's in a -- I understand portions of it are probably stored off-site, but there is an archival file that your secretary maintains in your office.
A: There are correspondence files, yes.
Q: Correspondence files. Are they grouped by category, do you know?
A: No. I don't know the system of filing.
Q: Now, just to be clear, you have no memory of any allegations against Father Haddigan?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you know a John Coon?
A: You'd have to refresh my memory a little bit further.
Q: When you were in Missouri, did you know a young man by the name of John Coon who later became a seminarian at St. Patrick's in Louisiana?
MR. TODD: Do you have a spelling?
MR. MacLEISH: C-o-o-n.
A: He became a seminarian at St. Patrick's, Louisiana?
Q: Yes.
A: Yeah. The name is familiar, but there were a number of seminarians that we had over the course of those ten years, and I wouldn't be able to give you those names because they would come and go.
Q: Sure. But you don't have any specific recollection of John Coon?
A: I don't, I don't.
Q: Do you ever remember visiting him down when you were in Springfield, this would have been, visiting him at St. Patrick's?
A: Well, I don't even know of a seminary of St. Patrick's.
Q: Okay. Maybe St. Benedict's. Is that a seminary?
A: St. Joseph's Seminary in St. Benedict, Louisiana?
Q: St. Joseph's? Maybe. I was told it was St. Patrick's, but it could well be St. Joseph's.
A: I don't know of a St. Patrick's.
Q: Is St. Joseph's Seminary in St. Benedict, Louisiana?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember going down and counseling John Coon when he was a young seminarian having difficulties at a seminary in St. Benedict, Louisiana? Do you remember doing that?
A: I do not. Doesn't say that I didn't. I can't remember the gentleman. But I visited the seminary from time to time, and seminarians would ask to see me and I would see them.
Q: Cardinal Law, you gave testimony in the first day of your deposition concerning sexual molestation that you became aware of when you were in Springfield, Missouri. I think we covered it on the first day and we alluded to it briefly yesterday. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: And the only individual that you believe that you -- the only priest that you believe that you heard about who had credible allegations of sexual molestation against him was a Leonard Chamers; is that correct?
A: Leonard Chambers.
Q: Chambers. I apologize. You don't recall being involved in any other situations in Springfield, Missouri, regarding allegations of sexual molestation by clergy?
A: I don't immediately recall someone that I was involved in. Perhaps you could help me.
Q: Yes. Do you remember a priest who died, and you, while you were bishop, went to do some weekend parish work? Do you recall doing that at all when you were bishop in Springfield?
A: That I went to --
Q: You actually worked at the parish after this priest passed on.
A: Well, you know, there were several priests who died while I was there.
Q: Right, right. But this was a situation where you -- do you remember going and actually performing mass at this parish for a number of weeks after this priest died, when you were bishop?
A: A number of weeks? I can't recall going to a single parish for a number of weeks. But it certainly would have been normal in a diocese like that, which is a missionary diocese, to go and help out if somebody had died.
Q: Sure. Do you remember a young man coming up to you and telling you that he had been molested by three priests in Springfield who were assigned to the Springfield diocese and you undertaking an investigation of that?
A: I do not.
Q: Three priests?
A: I do not remember that.
Q: And you remember nothing more about any other priest in Springfield, in the Springfield diocese, that you had to deal with in the area of sexual molestation?
A: Of children?
Q: Of children. Apart from Father Chambers.
A: I do not at this moment remember any other.
Q: What about sexual assaults involving adults by priests, similar to what we dealt with yesterday with Father Rebeiro.
MR. ROGERS: What about? Is that a question?
MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry. It was a bad question. Let me put it in a better way.
Q: Do you ever remember when you were in the Springfield diocese, apart from the Leonard Chambers situation, being confronted with allegations that a priest had engaged in the sexual assault of an adult? A woman?
A: A charge that a priest had --
Q: Raped a woman.
A: Raped a woman? You know, I don't recall that, but I would ask if we could take a little bit of a break.
Q: Certainly. Absolutely. Be happy to.
A: It might be a good time anyway.
Q: Sure. Absolutely.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 11:48. This is the end of Cassette 1 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:01. This is Cassette 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're back on the record.
Q: (by Mr. MacLeish) Cardinal?
A: If I might just give a little more specific information about the filing system that the chron file --
Q: Uh-huh.
A: The chron file is, as I indicated, a copy of everything that is generated by my office with my signature. And that's kept in the house for five years and then it goes to the archives.
Also, incoming mail, letters that I receive and that go out are kept for five years in the house and then they also go to the archives.
And then also in the archives are statements, speeches, columns and things of that kind.
Q: Okay. And do you know whether there's been an effort to retrieve information, documents that might be responsive to the document request in this case from the archives?
A: My understanding is that there is. If I -- if I may ask Father Connolly for confirmation of that? He's here at the --
Q: You may.
THE WITNESS: John?
A: Yes.
Q: Where are the archives? Is it a service or some physical space at the Chancery?
A: The archives office is in Craig Library. I believe that there is also archival space in the Chancery.
Q: Has Father Connolly been involved, to your knowledge, in efforts to retrieve these documents?
A: Father Connolly has not been involved personally, but he has been involved in terms of asking that it be done.
Q: Okay. Now, Cardinal Law, we were talking about Springfield, Missouri.
A: Yes.
Q: And I asked you whether you were aware of any instances of sexual assault, rape against women that you came across when you were bishop of Springfield.
A: Yes. And I have no recollection of such an instance, a rape and assault.
Q: When you were in Mississippi, did you ever report a priest or direct others to report a priest to the police for committing criminal activity?
A: I don't recall having done that.
Q: Did you ever report or ask anyone else to report a priest to law enforcement when you were bishop of Springfield, Missouri?
A: No, I don't recall that.
Q: Did you ever, when you became Cardinal of Boston, request any person to, or do it yourself, to report any priest to law enforcement?
A: That would include the District Attorney?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: When was the first time that you did that?
A: I believe it was after putting in place in January of 2002 the policy of reporting cases of sexual abuse to proper public authorities.
Q: So in all the cases between, it's fair to state, between 1984 and 2002, there was not one instance where you directed anyone under your supervision to report a priest to law enforcement for allegations concerning rape or sexual misconduct. Is that a fair statement?
A: I believe that is.
Q: Okay. Now, have priests been reported in Boston to the police for any other reason apart from sexual misconduct or rape?
MR. ROGERS: By?
Q: By you? Have you ever directed -- stealing, for example?
A: No. I've had no reason to suspect theft --
Q: Okay.
A: -- on the part of any priest.
Q: Have any priests at your direction been involuntarily separated or laicized from the Church, apart from Father Geoghan, since you've been Cardinal of Boston?
A: Father Mahan.
Q: Father Mahan. Okay. Anybody else?
A: No.
Q: I'm not just referring to laicization; I'm talking about involuntary resignation. Have you ever urged any priest for any reason, not just sexual misconduct, to separate themselves from the Archdiocese of Boston?
A: Well, there have been a number who have been separated from active ministry. Whether, you know, whether you put on that the term "involuntary" or "voluntary," I don't know.
Q: Talking about the priesthood.
A: Well, that's what I'm talking about. Someone who would be deprived, for example, of functioning publicly as a priest, is effectively being derived of the priesthood, not laicized, but is derived of that, and there are a number of priests who would be in that category.
Q: Is it all for sexual misconduct?
A: I believe that all the cases would be for sexual misconduct.
Q: So we had Father Higgins in May testify of approximately 85 priests, 15 of which were dead. We've had four or five other allegations since then. So would it be fair to state that of the approximately 90 priests against whom there have been allegations, credible allegations of sexual misconduct, not one was reported by the Archdiocese of Boston to law enforcement until 2002? Is that a fair statement?
A: I think that's a fair statement.
Q: Now, Cardinal Law, are you familiar with what a mortal sin is?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you just describe briefly -- I don't want don't want to get too far into any controversial canonical issues -- but what is a mortal sin in layman's terms?
A: It's a strange kind of a question for me to have posed in a deposition in a civil suit.
Q: Sure.
A: And I would really wonder whether the law goes into the matter of mortal sin and venial sin. However, I'll be happy to try to --
MR. ROGERS: We would note a First Amendment objection. This does get specific questions into the teachings of the Church.
MR. MacLEISH: Let me try to phrase it in a way that is a leading question.
Q: Is a mortal sin one that is incapable of absolution?
A: No.
Q: It is capable of absolution?
A: Yes.
Q: And are there any sins that are incapable of absolution?
A: Well, there's -- scripture speaks of the unpardonable sin, and the unpardonable sin is the sin of thinking that there is the inability of receiving absolution. Absolution from sin necessitates certain things. First of all, it's the acknowledgement of the sin; it's sorrow for the sin; and it's a determination, insofar as is humanly possible and with the help of God's grace, to avoid that sin in the future. So it isn't -- confession is not a revolving door.
Q: Right. A venial sin is less severe than a mortal sin or an unpardonable sin; is that correct?
A: That's right.
Q: Now --
A: Unpardonable sin and mortal sin are not synonyms.
Q: I understand that. Is raping a child an unpardonable sin if you are a priest?
A: Well -- MR. ROGERS: Objection. First Amendment.
Q: Are you talking here -- you know, there are certain penalties, canonical penalties, and then sin is a whole other category, you know. Sin is handled in the internal forum; canonical penalties are handled in the external forum.
Before God, is it possible for someone to receive absolution for such a sin? Yes. But that doesn't mean that the person is free then because there has been sacramental absolution, to function.
Q: Is raping a child in any specific category of sin?
A: That's a mortal sin.
Q: That's a mortal sin. It's not an unpardonable sin?
A: No. As I said, the unpardonable sin is a very specific term in scripture that has a very specific reference. Jesus came to save us from sin.
Q: Right.
A: He died on the cross so -- and took upon himself the burden of our sin. As Paul says, he became sin for us. So that all of us, whatever our sin, if we are sorry for that sin, if we confess that sin, and if we seek to amend our life, are able to receive his pardon. And that's the meaning of his death on the cross.
Q: Are you familiar with a recent editorial, I think this last week's editorial in the Pilot?
A: I have not read that editorial.
Q: You're familiar with the substance of that editorial?
A: Really not familiar with the substance of it. I've heard that it caused a little bit of a reaction, but I have not seen the editorial.
(Law Exhibit No. 52, Copy of Pilot Article, marked for identification.)
MR. MacLEISH: I have the original too. (Pause.)
Q: Have you had a chance to read Exhibit 52, Cardinal Law?
A: This is it? 52?
Q: Yes.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: You're the publisher of the Pilot; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Are the views expressed in Exhibit 52 consistent with your views about Governor Keating?
A: First of all, I didn't -- I'm not aware of what Governor Keating said, and I'm hardly going to comment upon a quote that is taken out of context. But certainly, it would be inappropriate for any Catholic to urge Catholics not to go to mass.
Q: Or to boycott going to mass in their particular diocese if they were upset with their bishops?
A: Yes.
Q: Would that be a mortal sin?
MR. TODD: Objection. I'm going to instruct you not to answer that question.
Q: Cardinal Law, we had some testimony about Thomas Doyle in the first day of your deposition. Do you recall that?
A: I don't, but if you'd refresh my memory.
Q: Okay. Let's just start with Thomas Doyle. You first met Thomas Doyle in Washington, D. C.; is that correct?
A: Oh, yes, Father Doyle. Yes.
Q: Father Doyle?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And he was working at the Vatican Embassy at that time and you were the bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, Missouri?
A: Well, technically, it wasn't the Embassy at that time; it was the delegation. But, yes, he worked there as the Pope's representative.
Q: The Vatican Nuncio? Is that was it was called?
A: It wasn't then the Nuncio. He was the delegate, the apostolic delegate.
Q: And that was Archbishop Laghi -- have I pronounced that correctly -- who was the Vatican Nuncio at the time or the delegate at the time?
A: No. When I was first bishop, it would not have been Archbishop Laghi.
Q: Who would it have been?
A: He was a Belgian.
Q: That's all right. We don't need his name, Cardinal Law. At some point, you had occasion to meet Archbishop Laghi; is that correct?
A: Yes. I did know Archbishop Laghi, now Cardinal Laghi.
Q: You had occasion to meet Father Doyle who was working under Archbishop Laghi in Washington at some point in the mid 1980s; is that correct?
A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: And I asked you in the first day of your deposition about the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe from Lafayette, Louisiana, and you said you hadn't heard of that, had no recollection of that case.
A: That's correct.
Q: That's still your testimony; is that correct?
A: I do not -- I'm aware of the fact that there were a number of cases in Lafayette, Louisiana, which had a great deal of notoriety, but I don't recall any specific case.
Q: So you were aware before you came to Boston that there were a great number of cases in Lafayette, Louisiana, concerning sexual abuse of minors by clergy that had a great deal of notoriety; is that correct?
A: Well, you asked me about this Lafayette case within the last month. And I can't tell you when precisely I was aware of the Lafayette cases, but they -- but I am aware of the fact that there were many cases in Lafayette, Louisiana. I can't tell you when that was or whether it was at the time in '84. I can't pinpoint the time.
Q: Did you attend the Bishops' Conferences regularly in the mid 1980s?
A: I attended most of the November meetings, which would be our plenary meetings. There were -- there have been occasions when there was a conflict with a meeting, a congregation meeting in Rome, when I would not have been present, but for the most part, I would be present at those meetings.
Q: Do you remember whether or not you attended the meeting in November of 1984 where the priest abuse cases in Lafayette, Louisiana, was discussed as the agenda item?
A: I would presume that I was there in November of '84, but I'd have to check the minutes to see. I mean, I presume I was.
Q: Have you kept --
A: I was in -- at some point in there -- no, I think in '84, I would have been there, yes.
Q: And this would have been when you were at Springfield, November '84, before you came to Boston?
A: Would it have been?
Q: Yes.
A: Or would it have been -- I came in March of '84.
Q: I'm sorry.
A: So I would have been in Boston.
Q: Right. You would have been in Boston. Do you remember at your first meeting, annual meeting, November meeting of the Bishops' Conference, that one of the official agenda items was the topic of sexual abuse among clergy?
A: I really don't remember that.
Q: Okay. Do you remember talking to Father Doyle about sexual abuse by clergy and the situation in Louisiana in 1984 and 1985?
MR. TODD: Speaking to him at that time --
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
MR. TODD: -- or the abuse at that time?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Speaking to him about the Lafayette, Louisiana, cases and the topic of sexual abuse in 1984 and 1985.
A: Yes. I do not recall speaking to Father Doyle about the Lafayette cases in any specific way.
Q: Do you recall speaking with Father Doyle about the topic of sexual abuse by clergy in 1984 and 1985, Cardinal Law -- well, say -- yes, in 1984 and 1985?
A: I don't have my recollection of interaction with Father Doyle in time segments, so that I can't -- I would be hard pressed to say it was in this time frame or it was in that time frame. Nor do I have any specific recollection of conversations with Father Doyle. I know of his interest in this matter and it seems to me that I had some discussion with him, but this may be faulty memory, with regard to treatment centers and the need for having a better sense of quality of these.
Q: All right. Cardinal Law, I'm going to show you Exhibit No. 53.
MR. MacLEISH: If we can have that marked, please.
THE WITNESS: Is this it?
MR. MacLEISH: No, it's not. It's a document we're going to get for you.
THE WITNESS: Are we done with this?
MR. MacLEISH: I think we are, yes.
(Law Exhibit No. 53, Statement of Father Doyle, marked for identification.)
Q: Cardinal, this is Exhibit 53, which is a statement we obtained from Father Doyle. You want to take a moment and read it. We're going to be going through it paragraph by paragraph, but I invite you to read the entire document if you'd like.
(Pause.)
A: Yes.
Q: Have you completed reading No. Exhibit 53, Cardinal Law?
A: I have.
Q: Let's start with Paragraph 2 of Mr. Doyle's statement, if we could, here.
MR. TODD: Mr. Doyle or Father Doyle?
MR. MacLEISH: Father Doyle. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Todd.
Q: You'll see the Paragraph 2, he reports in this statement that the sex abuse issue hit the public in November 1994 with the case of Father Gilbert Gauthe from Lafayette, Louisiana.
Are you aware that Father Gauthe, after his arraignment, was actually in Massachusetts? Did you know that?
A: I did not know that.
Q: And he reports that, in the last sentence of Paragraph 2: "I recall discussing the case and my serious misgivings about the matter with Cardinal Law in early 1984 and in early 1985. By then, he was Archbishop of Boston." Do you recall any such conversations?
A: I do not recall these conversations. Which isn't to say they didn't take place. I simply don't recall them.
Q: When you were appointed Archbishop of Boston, was it Archbishop Laghi that made the call to you?
A: It was.
Q: Were you in New Hampshire at the time?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember where you were?
A: I was in -- I was on retreat in Louisiana.
Q: Then you'll see in Paragraph 3: "The idea of the 'manual' came up in discussions between Ray Mouton, Mike Peterson and Father Doyle in January of 1985." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Do you know who Ray Mouton is?
A: I believe he's a lawyer.
Q: Did you ever attend any conferences where he spoke about the problem of sexual abuse in the clergy and what to do about it?
A: Well, I think this says later, does it not, that he -- does it say that he spoke or somebody spoke? No, it doesn't say. I don't recall that, but that doesn't say that I haven't heard him.
Q: Well, do you recall the testimony on your first day of your deposition on page 141 and 142 -- I'm sorry. Start with 141, line 7. I asked you: "You don't have any recollection, though, either way, of receiving what is referred to as the manual -- when I say 'the manual,' I'm referring to The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy, Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Way, final draft compiled on June 8, June 9, by Ray Mouton, JD, and Reverend Thomas Doyle, OP, JCD." And then your answer was: "I do not have a recollection of having studied it. I cannot, sitting here, tell you I have a recollection of having received it. The date, again -- would you give me the date? "Sure. It was prepared June 8, 9 of 1985, and according to some of the evidence that will be presented in this case, sent to the Archdiocese . . . by the St. Luke's Institute in December of 1985." Your answer was: Yeah. I don't recall having read it. I would -- had I either -- had I received such a document, it would have either gone by my indication -- by my direct indication or by those who were giving me -- helping me handle the mail, it would have gone either to the secretary of ministerial personnel, who would have been Father John McCormack, or it would have gone to the moderator of the Curia. Is that your testimony on the first day of the deposition, Cardinal Law?
A: It was.
Q: And isn't it true that now having reviewed Father Doyle's statement, that you recall that in fact Father Doyle began asking you for advice and guidance about the idea of the manual?
A: I really don't recall that. As I've indicated to you, I have read his testimony. I don't dispute his testimony. But I simply don't recall -- those facts as he sets them forth are not facts that are in my recall.
Q: Okay. So if Father Doyle were to testify consistent with Exhibit 53, you would not be in a position to contradict any of those statements?
A: No, I would have no reason to contradict him. I simply can't recall what -- the interactions that he alleges.
Q: Okay. Well, let me just see if I can attempt to refresh your recollection in any way, Cardinal. Paragraph 5: "My discussions with Cardinal Law concerning the sex abuse case took place in 1985 and 1986. It was in March or April of 1985 that I spoke with Cardinal Law about the best way to get our planned document with its two-part action plan into the Bishops' Conference. Cardinal Law advised that the best approach would be to submit the plan to the Committee on Research and Pastoral Practices which he chaired. In April 1985 I wrote a memo to Archbishop Laghi describing my conversation with then Archbishop Law, a true and accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit A." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Have you read Exhibit A?
A: I have not read Exhibit A.
Q: Why don't you take a moment, since it refers it a conversation with you in 1985 about the pedophile problem, just take a moment and look at that and see if that helps to refresh your recollection.
(Pause.)
A: Yes.
Q: Now, having read Exhibit A, which is Father Doyle's communication to Archbishop Laghi in April of 1985, he states, in the first paragraph: "I spoke with Archbishop Law and Bishop Quinn yesterday and today about progress in the pedophile problem." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: It says, in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Law conferred with Quinn about the need for a policy for the country." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And does that bring back any recollection of your conversations with Father Doyle about the so-called pedophile problem in the priesthood in 1985?
A: It does not bring back any specific recollections. I have to say that -- if I may refer to Paragraph 5, No. 5, of the first document --
Q: Sure.
A: -- that you referred me to.
Q: Right. These are Father Doyle's statements?
A: Father Doyle's statement. It would be not an uncommon thing for someone to come with a point, with an idea, and say: How can this best be brought before the Conference of Bishops? And it's certainly true that the best way to get something before the conference would be to go through a committee of the conference.
So I can readily see that this sort of thing would have happened and our committee would have been the committee to do that at that time, because there was no specific committee to handle this, as, indeed, there is now, a specific committee.
As I think I indicated to you earlier, I did recall discussions in a vague sort of way with Father Doyle concerning the institutes or the, yeah, the institutions which were used for treatment and for assessment.
And the presence of Father Peterson's name here in this line-up, who, if not the founder, was one of the directors of St. Luke's, which is one of those institutions, would lend credence to that.
Now, it may very well be that what I am recalling in terms of a discussion about the need to have an assessment and helpful information to bishops with regard to the treatment facilities, may have been a more broad question, either in Father Doyle's mind or in my mind too at that time.
But what I take from it, in my memory, is a focus on an interest in getting a better sense of what of these many places that are available, which of them are truly sound. How do we get an assessment of the assessment facilities.
Q: Assessment of priests who are committing molestation against children; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So --
A: And how do -- how can we do a better service to ourselves in knowing what institutions are the better ones that can give us really an accurate kind of a reading and assessment.
Q: So it's fair to state that by 1985, you were generally aware that there were priests who were sexually abusing children that were in need of treatment at residential facilities; is that correct?
A: That's correct, yes.
Q: And that's separate and apart from Father Broussard, Leonard Chambers. This is now something you're aware of on a general basis occurring throughout the country in 1985, correct?
A: Well, I was aware of what was happening, yes.
Q: Okay. And is it not the case, as Father Doyle reports in Exhibit A, that you conferred with Bishop Quinn about the need for a policy for the country?
A: I don't recall that.
Q: Do you know Bishop Quinn?
A: I presume he is talking about the former Archbishop of San Francisco, who was president of our conference at some point, and perhaps he was president of the conference at that point.
Q: But if Thomas -- Father Thomas Doyle were to