THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
October 16, 2002, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston
On October 16, 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. 13-14 and Oct. 11, 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 SIXTH 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 02110, on
Wednesday, October 16, 2002, commencing at 10:04
a.m.
K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02209
TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-0815
APPEARANCES:
Greenberg TraurigALSO PRESENT:
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110The Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attorneys for the DefendantsTodd & Weld
(by J. Owen Todd, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally
George Libbares, Videographer
Rodney Ford
Father John Connolly
Mona Patel, Attorney
Wendy Champagne
WITNESS CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed
EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH
DIRECT EXAMINATION
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 October 16, 2002, and the time is 10:04 a.m. This is the continued deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law, Volume 6, in the following matter being heard in Suffolk Superior Court: Gregory Ford, et. al., Plaintiffs, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, Civil Action 02- and related actions.
This deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is Kathy Good of K. L. Good & Associates. Counsel will now state their appearances and the examination will continue.
MR. MacLEISH: Good morning, Cardinal, Eric MacLeish for the plaintiffs.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., for His Eminence Cardinal Law.
MR. TODD: J. Owen Todd, personal counsel for Cardinal Law.
MR. MacLEISH: Good morning, Cardinal.
THE WITNESS: Good morning.
MR. ROGERS: Can I just interpose. Maybe I missed it, but when the introduction was being given, we do have an understanding and an agreement that this deposition is not just in the Ford case, but in all of the pending Shanley cases, do we not?
MR. MacLEISH: It is in all -- we had an agreement on Magni and the three consolidated cases. I don't think we have an agreement yet on the W case or the R case, but I'm perfectly willing to talk to you about that. I don't see the need, absent some extraordinary circumstances, to bring the Cardinal back for depositions in those depositions. We have not yet reached agreement on that. We did reach it on four cases.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH, cont.
Q: Good morning, Cardinal.
A: Good morning.
Q: Again, thank you for coming in today. I'd like to return to Exhibit 87, which is before you now, which is the letter from Bishop D'Arcy to you concerning John Geoghan, dated December 7, 1984. Would you like a moment to review that letter?
A: I would, thank you. (Pause.)
Q: Have you had the opportunity to review the letter, Cardinal?
A: I have.
Q: And do you remember meeting with Bishop D'Arcy in response to this letter?
A: I don't recall meeting with Bishop D'Arcy in response to this letter.
Q: As I understand it, it was your earlier testimony that in the matters relating to assignments of priests, you would typically rely upon your regional bishops; is that not correct?
A: You know, I'd want to see if I could see that --
Q: Okay.
A: -- testimony as to what I said. But we're talking here at a relatively early time in my ministry.
Q: That's correct.
A: And one of the issues that I see out of this letter is precisely to the point that you raise, and that is, what should be the involvement of regional bishops in assignments? And I believe that that's -- I believe that when Bishop D'Arcy speaks of helpful and constructive conversations on this with both Father Banks and Father Oates, it is with -- it is relative to what that participation should be.
It was, in part, as a consequence of this, I'm sure, that it became routine. It certainly is routine now. And I can't say exactly when it became routine, but it was influenced by this, that before an assignment would be made, there would be -- the Personnel Office would be in touch with the regional bishop to determine what the regional bishop thought about that assignment.
Q: Do you, as you sit here today, have a memory of receiving this letter of December 7, 1984, from Bishop D'Arcy?
A: I cannot recollect receiving the letter. I can recollect the issue raised by the letter having been a matter to be discussed, yes.
Q: All right. And just so we're clear, in Paragraph No. 1, what Bishop D'Arcy numbers as No. 1, he states: "Father Geoghan has a history of homosexual involvement with young boys. I understand his abrupt departure from St. Brendan's, Dorchester, may be related to this problem." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And this was right at the time when -- look in the first paragraph of the letter -- when John Geoghan had been assigned to St. Julia's in Weston. Do you see that?
A: I do, yes.
Q: And that was an assignment that was made by you; is that correct?
A: It was.
Q: Okay. And when you made that assignment, Cardinal Law, did you know that Father Geoghan had, in the words of Bishop D'Arcy, a history of homosexual involvement with young boys?
A: I knew that there had been a problem at St. Brendan's. I did not know, and do not recollect knowing at that point, of an earlier history beyond that. But it was sufficient to have known of St. Brendan's, and he, as you know -- and I think we went over it last time -- was removed from St. Brendan's -- well, the letter says this here.
Q: Yes.
A: And it was -- he was not simply reassigned to St. Julia's, but there was assurance given, reliance upon medical review that this could be done safely.
Q: All right. Do you recall that was done by Dr. Mullins and a Dr. Brennan?
A: I don't recall -- I couldn't recall the names, but I'm sure that it's there in the records.
Q: So your testimony, Cardinal, is that you were relying on medical advice, of course, but the final decision on the assignment was yours. Is that a fair characterization?
A: Any assignment of a priest in this diocese has to have my signature.
Q: Right. Including your assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's?
A: Any assignment of a priest in this Archdiocese has to have my signature.
Q: Okay. Now, do you remember in 1984, if we could focus on, again, on that period, Cardinal, whether you had in place any system that ensured you that the medical professionals that were providing you with advice were qualified in this particular area?
When I say "this particular area," I mean assessment of individuals who had a history of sexual misconduct with minors?
A: In 1984, and subsequently, I relied on those assisting me in administration of the Archdiocese in the areas of the kind of an issue that we're discussing now. That would have been originally the Moderator of the Curia, Vicar General. Later that responsibility would have devolved upon the Secretary for Clergy Personnel. Subsequently would have been the Delegate.
But whoever the person was that was handling those cases, I relied on those persons to consult with, to refer to either physicians, psychiatrists or medical institutions that seemed -- that seemed worthy.
I didn't enter into the decision as to this physician, that center. I really relied on those persons who would be more knowledgeable because they would be following up. They would have some reason to know these individuals.
Q: So that would include, at the beginning, it would include Bishop Daily; is that correct? And then Bishop Banks, then Father McCormack; is that correct?
A: In the very beginning, it would have included Bishop Daily for the length of time that he was here. And subsequently, it would have included Bishop Banks and Father McCormack.
Q: Well, what did you do, Cardinal, to satisfy yourself that those three individuals had the qualifications to make recommendations to you concerning priests who had been the subject of allegations of sexual misconduct?
MR. TODD: I object to the form.
Q: Do you understand the question, Cardinal?
A: Not exactly. Would you repeat it.
Q: Let me try again. You testified that you relied upon certain individuals in ensuring that the professionals that were relied upon were qualified. Do you remember that testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. What did you do yourself to ensure that those individuals, Bishop Banks, Bishop Daily, Father McCormack, possessed qualifications to make recommendations to you on medical professionals that would evaluate priests accused of sexual misconduct?
A: I simply relied on their general intelligence, their general knowledge, their recognition along with me of the importance of this issue, the importance of being able to get responsible assistance in reaching judgments, and trusted their judgment.
Q: So you're not aware of any specialized training or expertise that Father Daily, I mean, Bishop Daily, Bishop Banks or Bishop McCormack, I'm sorry, Father McCormack, had in relationship to the assessment of individuals who had been accused of sexual misconduct with minors?
MR. TODD: Object to form.
A: I was relying on their general intelligence, their sense of responsibility, the fact that they would not simply open up a book and go to the Yellow Pages, but that they would use sound judgment in reaching these kinds of decisions. I didn't second guess them.
Q: I understand. My question is: Were you aware of any specialized knowledge that they possessed in this area concerning individuals who'd been accused of sexual misconduct? I understand your acknowledgement of their general intelligence. I'm asking if you knew of any specialized knowledge they had.
A: The reason why, Mr. MacLeish, these individuals were relying on those who would be qualified to render some judgments about this pathology, is that they themselves lacked it. Priests generally would not have this kind of expertise.
As a matter of fact, I think I said in some earlier moment sitting here that one of the things that is very important is for priests themselves and for others to realize that priests generally do not have -- generally, do not have expertise as psychologists. They may, but that's incidental to their training as a priest.
They -- one of the things that a priest should know is the need to rely upon others and that's what is in play here.
Q: But, Cardinal, do you ever recall stating to either Bishop Banks, Bishop Daily or Father McCormack or anyone else in the Archdiocese that we need to get professionals in this field who have had experience in assessing individuals who have been accused of sex crimes? Do you ever recall that?
A: I cannot, sitting here and going back 19 years -- which is part of what you're doing -- recall the specifics of a conversation in the detail or in the specificity that you're suggesting.
On the other hand, I certainly do recall that in the general handling of this situation, it was clear from the perspective of my desire, but also clear from the desire of those working with me, that the assessments that we would receive would be the kind of assessments that could be relied upon with confidence because of the competence of the medical staff or of the centers.
Q: All right. Cardinal Law, you always understood during this entire period from 1984 to 1989, that the sexual molestation of young children was something that was morally reprehensible? You always understood that?
A: Morally reprehensible, certainly.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:20. We're off the record
(Discussion off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:24. We're on the record.
Q: Cardinal Law, just so that we're clear, you have testified that sexual molestation of children is morally wrong, reprehensible; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
A: I think, yes, that what you're stating is true. That it -- this is a morally reprehensible act.
Q: Okay. And certainly, you knew in 1984 that if it happened once with a child, there was the possibility that it could happen again; is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: In 1984, I did not have the knowledge that I have in 2002. And I cannot sit here with certainty and say that in 1984, I knew that this could happen again.
You know, was it possible that a person who had been guilty of an act of sexual abuse of a child, was it possible that with treatment and with reinforcement of spiritual motivation, that that person would be able to function safely? My presumption was that that was possible in 1984 and subsequently was.
Q: And it was also possible that even with treatment and spiritual reinforcement, that person would re-offend again, correct?
A: I would imagine that in terms of human behavior, it would be almost impossible to predict absolutely what the future is going to be in any kind of human behavior.
Q: Right. So when you would receive these medical assessments -- and let's take the one with John Geoghan -- it was impossible for you to predict whether or not John Geoghan would re-offend again?
MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative and asked and answered.
MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.
A: It seems to me that what you're asking me is something that I have attempted to answer before. My memory may not serve me well. It may not have been in this deposition, this series of depositions with you. It may have been somewhere else. But the possibility -- but what happens, is the more the question is asked, the more I'm able to think about it.
Q: That's fine. I don't think we've asked it with relation to John Geoghan, but if you could try to answer it.
A: All right. The question, again, is whether or not --
Q: Let me start again.
A: All right.
Q: You indicated that it was possible for -- you understood in 1984, that it was possible that with treatment and spiritual reinforcement, the priest would not re-offend again. Is that the substance of your testimony several minutes ago?
A: That it would -- but I also said that it is impossible to predict --
Q: Right.
A: -- with a hundred percent assurance what a human being will do in any way in his life. Because first of all, we do have free will.
Secondly, we are impacted by psychological and emotional conditions which sometimes go beyond free will.
And so the best you can do in predicting human behavior, it seems to me, is amass as much evidence as you can from sources that you believe to be reliable, to indicate whether or not a decision that you must make is a reasonable decision or not. That's the most you can do.
Q: Right. And with respect to the role of these medical assessments, after the medical assessment was received in the case of John Geoghan, you would have to balance the priest's interest in serving again as opposed to the risk that he would re-offend again. Is that not correct?
A: Would you state the first part of that again.
Q: Sure. Let's back up Cardinal. You've got a letter, December 7, 1984, from Bishop D'Arcy, expressing concern, as it says in the first paragraph, about John Geoghan's assignment as an associate at St. Julia's in Weston. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: This was a fairly unusual letter for you to receive from an auxiliary bishop; is that correct?
A: It was, right.
Q: And it recounts what Bishop D'Arcy describes as a history of homosexual involvement of Father Geoghan with young boys. Do you see that?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A: That's correct, yes.
Q: And then it goes on, in the second paragraph, to state as follows. This is the third sentence, Cardinal. "It is difficult to deal with the situation because Monsignor" -- I believe that is Monsignor Rossiter -- "is a good priest. He is always there. He is concerned. He does the traditional things very well, but there are many complaints from good people and there have been since I have come to this region, and, indeed, long before that." That's referring to Monsignor Rossiter, I believe. Is that how you understood it at the time?
A: That's correct. And it would be the way I understand it now. That there was -- yes.
Q: Okay. And then you'll see on the second page, there's a portion that was blanked out by the Archdiocese, but it states, in the first full paragraph, it states: "I'm afraid that this assignment has complicated a difficult situation." Did you understand that to mean to be the assignment of John Geoghan, Cardinal?
A: I understood that, yes.
Q: It says: "If something happens, the parishioners, already angry and divided, will be convinced that the Archdiocese has no concern for their welfare and simply sends them priests with problems." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And at the time, Cardinal, is it fair to state that when Bishop D'Arcy was saying "if something happens," he was referring to John Geoghan re-offending? Is that the way you understood that?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A: I cannot answer what he had in mind there.
Q: As you read it now, how do you understand it?
A: Well, as I read it now, given the context of this deposition, obviously, I would be -- I would read it in the context of the deposition.
But I think also it's important to point out that the problem -- I hesitate to say this because of the positive things that Bishop D'Arcy says about Monsignor Rossiter, in which I would concur -- but I think that he's talking about Monsignor Rossiter as possibly a problem in terms of the relationship with the people.
Q: Well, if something happens, he's referring -- this is what he says: "If something happens, the parishioners, already angry and divided, will be convinced that the Archdiocese has no concern for their welfare and simply sends them priests with problems." Then he goes on to say: "On the other hand, if Father Geoghan is now removed, parishioners will quickly claim once that again Monsignor Rossiter cannot live with other priests." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: So looking at that paragraph, Cardinal, is it fair to state that your understanding is that when Bishop D'Arcy said "if something happens," he's referring about John Geoghan re-offending?
MR. TODD: His present understanding?
MR. MacLEISH: Present understanding.
A: Yes. I would read it that way.
Q: Did you ever call up Bishop D'Arcy and ask for a clarification of any portion of this letter, that you can recall, back in '84 or early '85?
A: I do not recall calling Father D'Arcy, Bishop D'Arcy for a clarification because, as he has indicated already in the letter, "I have had helpful and constructive conversations on this with both Father Banks and Father Oates."
Q: Right.
A: There had been an intervention about which Bishop D'Arcy may not have been aware. I presume that he became aware in the course of discussions.
Q: All right. But he wrote to you, Cardinal Law -- this is a letter that was sent to you, not Bishop Banks or Father Oates, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay.
A: But it was appropriate to involve both Father Banks and --
Q: Of course.
A: -- Father Oates.
Q: Of course. And then in the second to last paragraph after the paragraph I just read, it states, from Bishop D'Arcy: "I am concerned about further scandal in this parish and further division and more misunderstanding by this assignment." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And you were -- did you share that concern about scandal, Cardinal Law, at this parish?
MR. TODD: In 1984?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
A: In 1984, I -- in 1984, in handling this case, I handled this case as -- in a way that I felt was responsible, relying upon those in whom I had reason and have reason to have confidence.
If I had been fearful that there was likely to be scandal resulting from the acting out, the sexual abuse of minors, the appointment would not have been made.
Q: Right. I understand that. But was the subject of scandal at this parish something that you can recall being concerned about in 1984?
A: May I ask -- I understand the word "scandal" is used --
Q: Right.
A: -- in this letter.
Q: That's by Bishop D'Arcy.
A: And I can't tell you in what way he is using the word "scandal."
Q: Okay.
A: Given the context of the letter, it could -- it could refer to a scandal in the fact that there is a pastor that is not generally appreciated or at least not appreciated by a number of people because of his style. That creates a certain scandal.
Q: It does?
A: I don't see the word "scandal" here in this letter as being specifically related to the issue of sexual abuse of minors. You're not implying that, are you?
Q: No. I think you would also concur with me if in fact John Geoghan re-offended and people learned about it at St. Julia, that that had the potential to create a scandal; is that correct?
A: Certainly.
Q: And you were concerned about preventing scandals, is that not correct, in 1984?
A: I was concerned that nothing -- I'm concerned in 2002 as well.
Q: Let's talk about '84.
A: Fine. But you know, it isn't a time-conditioned concern. It's a continuing concern that priests function responsibly and well. And when they don't, when they don't, there is scandal in the classical sense of people having their faith and confidence in what the Church is about shaken because of the action of others.
Q: Well, scandal suggests, by its very meaning, does it not, Cardinal Law, that the matter becomes, at least to some, whether it's the congregation -- let me withdraw that question. The word "scandal" by its very terms suggests the information that is the subject of the scandal becomes public in some way, correct?
A: Well, people can take scandal -- you know, individuals can take scandal -- if one person takes scandal, it's a bad thing.
Q: All right. Let's go on because I think we might get clarification later on in the letter from Bishop D'Arcy.
A: Fine.
Q: The second to last paragraph, three quarters of the way down, if you could follow with me. "While no parish can handle these shocking situations that we have witnessed recently, this parish is most vulnerable. I wonder if Father Geoghan should not be reduced to just weekend work while receiving some kind of therapy." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Now, that suggestion of Bishop D'Arcy's made in December of 1984, was that a suggestion that you in any way followed up on or implemented?
A: As you will see from Father -- Bishop D'Arcy's own action, this letter was copied to both Father Banks and to Father Oates.
Q: Right.
A: And both Father Banks and Father Oates appropriately followed this up with discussion with Bishop D'Arcy. And so I'm certain that in those -- I'm certain, I'm morally certain, given what he says in that same paragraph that you've just referred to several times here again, and that first sentence, that that discussion was -- that that point would have been raised in those discussions.
Q: Do you have any personal knowledge of that, Cardinal Law, that there was a discussion between Bishop D'Arcy, Father Oates and Bishop Banks on the subject of whether John Geoghan should be reduced to weekend work at St. Julia's while receiving some kind of therapy? Do you know that?
A: I do not know the specifics of the discussion, but that there was a such a discussion, the letter itself attests. And they would have received copies of this letter. So I'm certain that that would have been weighed.
Q: I'm asking, do you know, Cardinal Law, from your own knowledge -- which would include what you were told -- whether or not there was a follow-up meeting involving Bishop Banks, Father Oates and Bishop D'Arcy concerning the suggestion made in this letter that Father Geoghan be reduced to just weekend work at St. Julia's while receiving some kind of therapy? Do you know that?
A: I do not know the content in that kind of specificity of the discussions that went on between Bishop D'Arcy, Father Banks and Father Oates, no.
Q: Do you know whether there, for certainty, Cardinal Law, whether there even was such a discussion between Bishop D'Arcy, Father Oates and Bishop Banks?
A: I cannot say that for certainty.
Q: The question is, Cardinal Law, what -- since this letter was sent to you, and at the end, for the reasons that are recounted in the letter, there's a suggestion that's made by Bishop D'Arcy, he states: "I wonder if Father Geoghan should not be reduced to just weekend work while receiving some kind of therapy." I take it your testimony is that you don't recall at the present time whether you did anything specific to follow-up on that recommendation?
A: I've tried to state many, many times here that in these matters, I relied upon my Moderator for the Curia, subsequently my Secretary for Clergy Personnel, and subsequently my Delegate to handle these cases, to follow these cases up by very specific intent.
And I cannot, sitting here, tell you what discussions went on in what time frame between Father Banks and Father Oates and Bishop D'Arcy. But I feel quite certain that Father Banks and Bishop D'Arcy would have had a conversation concerning this matter.
Q: But that's speculation, Cardinal? That's not --
A: That's --
Q: Excuse me.
MR. TODD: Objection.
Q: That's speculation. That's not based on your personal knowledge; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.
A: It's speculation based upon the modus operandi that had developed between these individuals and myself in pursuing this type of matter, yes.
Q: Cardinal, when you made the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's, I think you testified that you were aware of one situation at St. Brendan's in Dorchester when you made the assignment where Father Geoghan was accused of sexual misconduct. Do you see that? Was that your testimony this morning?
A: I certainly was aware that there was a problem at St. Brendan's, yes.
Q: You'll see here that Bishop D'Arcy recounts that, on the first page, that "Father Geoghan has a history of homosexual involvement with young boys." Do you see that?
A: I do see that.
Q: And that would have been new information to you?
A: I cannot recollect what my knowledge was at that time as distinct from what my knowledge is at this time. But my very vague recollection is that I would have been under the -- I would have been operating under the knowledge of the St. Brendan's situation at that time.
Q: All right. And certainly, you had the power, after receiving this letter from Bishop D'Arcy, to remove the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's. You did have that power; is that correct?
A: I had that power, yes.
Q: You also had the power, did you not, to inform the parishioners at St. Julia's that there had been, in the words of Bishop D'Arcy, a history of homosexual involvement of John Geoghan with young boys. You had the power to do that; is that correct?
A: I would have had the power to do that.
Q: But consistent with your unwritten policy, you did not instruct anyone to do that; is that correct?
A: I did not.
Q: Okay. Are you aware, Cardinal Law, of action taken by other dioceses, such as the Diocese of St. Paul, to inform parishioners about past abuses committed by their parish priests during the 1980s?
A: I am not.
Q: You attended, I think we established, all of the NCCB and U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops conferences; is that correct?
A: I'm not -- you know, if I said that, I would need to -- someone would need to check the minutes. I attended all that I was able to attend.
Q: Right.
A: There may have been some occasion when there would have been a conflict with a responsibility for something -- for example, if you're serving on a congregation in Rome and the congregation happens to meet at the same time, that may necessitate -- there are a few times when I've missed the general meetings, but I think I have a pretty good record.
Q: Okay. And the meeting in 1985 at Collegeville, Minnesota?
A: I was at Collegeville in 1985.
Q: All right. Now, Cardinal Law, you'll see on the second page of Exhibit 87, the statement I just read just a portion of -- I'm going to read again -- "While no parish can handle these shocking situations that we have witnessed recently." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Now, you'll see that the word "situations" is in the plural; is that correct?
A: I do.
Q: And you had started in Boston in about April, March or April of 1984; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And I think we've already been through the O'Sullivan case, which occurred shortly after you arrived in Boston; is that correct?
A: I believe so, yes.
Q: And that was a case involving a priest who was accused of sexual misconduct with a minor; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Do you recall in 1984, as of December of 1984, whether there were also in front of you other situations apart from the O'Sullivan case and the Geoghan case involving priests accused of sexual misconduct?
A: I must say that, again, as I sit here and try to put myself back in December 7, 1984 --
Q: Right.
A: -- I don't remember. I don't remember the specifics of other cases or I don't remember other cases.
Q: Okay. You do know, however, that after Bishop D'Arcy's letter was received, there was no change that was implemented with respect to Father Geoghan's work at St. Julia's. He continued as a full-time parish priest. You're aware of that, are you not?
A: I'm aware of the fact that Father Geoghan was removed from St. Brendan's; that we received a medical report on him; that on the basis of that medical report, it was recommended that an assignment would be appropriate; and it was on that basis that that assignment was made.
Q: My question was different, Cardinal Law. I'm asking you whether on the basis of Bishop D'Arcy's recommendations contained in Exhibit 87, the suggestion is "wondering if Father Geoghan should not be reduced to just weekend work while receiving some kind of therapy," you know now that that specific proposal, wondering, suggestion of Bishop D'Arcy was not in fact implemented for John Geoghan following December of 1984. Is that correct?
A: I do not believe that that suggestion was implemented. As I indicated to you earlier, to an earlier question, I would feel confident that that suggestion would have been discussed with the person, with certainly Bishop Banks, Father Banks then, and Bishop D'Arcy.
Q: But, again, you do not know whether any such discussion took place, but you do know that there was no change in the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's?
A: That's correct.
Q: All right. Now, you again stated that, in response to a question I just asked, that decisions were made about the assignment of John Geoghan to St. Julia's on the basis, I think was your exact words, of medical recommendations. Do you recall that?
A: Yes, I recall that.
Q: Just to be clear, Cardinal Law, no medical recommendation that you ever received gave an unqualified bill of health to any parish priest who had been accused of sexual misconduct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
Q: Do you understand the question?
A: I understand the question, but in order to answer that question, I would have to have before me every single recommendation that I've received medically, the diocese has received.
Q: Well, I'm not going to bring them all up now. We don't have all of them yet. But perhaps we will at some future time. I want to just be clear on the protocol.
The medical report is received, but then would you not agree with me that there is the exercise of some judgment that is made, that was made in 1984 following the receipt of the medical report as to whether or not the priest was appropriate for parish ministry?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered many times prior to today.
MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead, Cardinal Law.
A: As you know, because we've gone over this a lot, on many different occasions in these depositions -- and my answer would not be different now than it was the first time you asked me this -- the policy under which we were operating was that an accusation against a priest would be made; that accusation would in some way be assessed; and the priest would be evaluated and in some instances receive treatment.
As time went on, the treatment would be -- would be very often in-patient treatment.
And on the basis of that, there would be an evaluation and there would be some type of a report, a final report. And it would be on the basis of that that a -- that a judgment would be made, a recommendation would be made by either -- depending on the point of time -- the Vicar General or the Secretary for Personnel or the Delegate as to whether or not an assignment would be appropriate and what kind of a assignment, if there would be a limitation.
After '93, that recommendation --
Q: Wait.
A: If you'd let me finish my answer.
Q: Sure, sure. Absolutely.
A: Because I think it is pertinent, Mr. MacLeish. You may not think it pertinent but --
MR. TODD: Go ahead. Finish.
MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. Finish your answer.
A: After '93, that recommendation of the Delegate -- and it would have been the Delegate in '93 -- would go before a review board consisting mainly of lay persons, including, among others, a retired chief justice of the superior court, the parent of a victim, psychiatrist, and then they would render their judgment.
And it was after receiving that, that I would make a determination as to whether or not that recommendation would be followed.
And that's -- that is how the process evolved.
At the point in time, it would have been -- it would have been medical recommendation upon -- it would have been on the basis of that, that an informed judgment would be made by the appropriate person recommending what should be done.
Q: An informed judgment made within the Archdiocese?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, you just stated several minutes ago that, you made the remark that it's impossible to predict human behavior.
A: I did.
Q: And certainly, you would agree with me from your knowledge of human behavior that one of the things that you look for in terms of determining the future of human behavior is what has happened in the past. Would you agree with that as a general statement?
A: I would agree with that as a general statement with the understanding that two things can impact the future of our behavior.
Q: Right.
A: One is a medical intervention --
Q: Right.
A: -- in terms of both of therapy and in terms of drugs, if it's a psychological problem. And then another thing that can impact is, while it's much, much -- it's impossible to predict --
Q: Right.
A: -- but which does impact -- and I truly believe does change human behavior, the pattern of human behavior -- is the grace of God.
Q: Cardinal, at least with respect to John Geoghan after 1984, neither treatment nor the grace of God, you would agree with me, changed his behavior?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
Q: Do you understand the question?
A: I understand that you're asking me about 1984. But now you're moving forward --
Q: Right.
A: -- in the life of John Geoghan.
Q: Right, right.
A: So with your indulgence, I too would like to move forward, and I'd like to move forward to the decision that I made in 2002, January, and which is the policy of this Archdiocese now. And that, I think, implicitly answers your question as to how I see that issue now. And that is that no one who has -- no one who has sexually abused a minor may have a position in the Church as a clergy person under any circumstances and --
Q: Go ahead.
A: And I think that that would indicate to you that however the grace of God may be working in a person's soul -- and it is very difficult for us to say that -- that the nature of this pathology is such that one cannot take that risk.
Q: Cardinal, my question was at least with respect to John Geoghan, you know, do you not, that there were individuals at St. Julia's after 1984 that have come forward to claim that they were sexually abused by John Geoghan. Is that correct?
A: I cannot --
MR. TODD: That wasn't your question.
MR. MacLEISH: No. I'm asking him a different question. You can answer the question.
MR. TODD: Yes, but you said your question was.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, he didn't respond to my earlier question so I'm trying another question.
MR. TODD: I think he did. Okay. It's another question.
MR. MacLEISH: It's another question.
MR. TODD: Different question.
MR. MacLEISH: Different question because I didn't get a response on the first.
MR. ROGERS: Objection to your comments. Move to strike.
THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish, I would really like you to repeat that earlier question because I'm trying to answer the questions as you put to me and I wouldn't want the record to suggest that I'm not trying to answer your questions.
MR. MacLEISH: I'm going to withdraw that earlier question and we can come back to it on your cross-examination. But let's move forward.
Q: You now are aware, regardless of what judgments were made about John Geoghan in 1984, there was a group of individuals that came forward to claim after 1984 that they were sexually molested by John Geoghan; is that correct?
A: I don't have a specific knowledge of who has come forward and where those allegations were made. But in a general way, my answer to your -- in a general fashion -- my answer to your question is yes, without knowing the specifics.
Q: Don't you know, Cardinal Law, from the case that was just settled, that there was a group of individuals included in that settlement of the Archdiocese who claimed that they were molested at St. Julia's in Weston after December of 1984?
A: I'm aware that there were a number of cases settled, and I am really not able to apportion out where the -- where the actions occurred.
Q: Do you believe --
A: I certainly -- no, I don't deny at all -- the answer -- I think I answered your question yes in a general way, I would have that knowledge, but I wouldn't have it in specifics.
Q: Well, the Archdiocese itself in 1989, sent John Geoghan back to the Institute for Living for another assessment; is that correct?
A: I believe I responded to that earlier, yes.
Q: And that was in response to credible allegations of sexual abuse at St. Julia's occurring between 1984 and 1989; is that not correct?
A: I'm not certain of that, as I sit here, as to whether the allegation -- you know, they wouldn't have needed to have been allegations for that, at that place for him to have been sent back.
The important thing is that there were allegations, and because of those allegations, we removed him and we sent him to the Institute for the Living.
Q: Cardinal Law, didn't you testify earlier in response to one of my questions about reaching out to parishes -- I think we went through Sister Mulkerrin's note to Bishop McCormack on that -- did you not testify earlier that there had been some outreach at St. Julia's, that that was one of the parishes where there had been outreach?
MR. TODD: Objection. If you could show him.
A: I'd want to see what I said with regard to that. I'm not certain that -- I may not have been referring to the outreach that we are now trying -- that we have in place at the present time.
Q: All right. So as you sit here today, you can't state one way or another whether you know that there were allegations of sexual misconduct involving John Geoghan after 1984 when he was at St. Julia's Parish?
MR. TODD: Objection. That was a mischaracterization of his testimony.
MR. ROGERS: Objection. That's not a correct statement.
MR. MacLEISH: Then the witness can answer. Go ahead, Cardinal.
A: I believe I answered that question. I said that I cannot give you -- I don't have in my mind specifics, but in a general way, my answer to that question is yes.
Q: So you would agree with me that whatever judgments were made back in 1984 about the future of John Geoghan's behavior, turned out to be incorrect?
MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Well, it depends on how you -- if you're telling me that they turned out to be incorrect because as a matter of fact he acted out later, that's true. If you mean that there was a fundamental flaw in the decision at the way it was reached or the intent, that's another matter.
Q: All right. When these decisions are made, Cardinal, there is a balancing, as I think we've covered before, concerning the potential for re-offense versus the priest's desire to be placed in an assignment. Is that a fair statement?
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form.
MR. TODD: By "these decisions," you mean with respect to placement?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
A: It's not the way I would frame the question --
Q: How would you frame it?
A: -- Mr. MacLeish, because it isn't a matter of balancing the desire of the priest. A person can have a desire and that can be absolutely irrelevant in terms of the risk that might be involved. It's a question of doing the best one can in a given circumstance of deciding what is appropriate given the history, given the -- given the advice one receives medically and otherwise. And where I am on that issue today is not where I was on that issue in 2002 -- I mean in 1984.
Q: I understand.
A: And I wish, as I've said before, that I could go back in time and revisit decisions and make them in the light of what I am firmly convinced is the appropriate way to deal with these issues as I sit here today. Now that's not possible. I can only tell you that at earlier points in time, there was a desire, there was an effort, there was an intent to act responsibly in a manner that appeared at the time to be a responsible approach to these issues.
Q: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: We're after eleven now. I suggest a five-minute break.
MR. MacLEISH: Fine. If you could try to keep it as short as possible.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:02. We're off the record. (Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:13. We're on the record.
Q: Cardinal Law, would it be accurate, therefore, to state, as I understand it, that you, throughout the period from 1984 to 1989, would rely upon others, specifically the three individuals I mentioned, Bishop Daily, Bishop Banks and Father McCormack, to bring to your attention any issues involving priests who were concerned with sexual misconduct?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
A: Yes. The answer is still yes to that question.
Q: Good. And you would expect them to bring to your attention matters that were relevant and important with respect to those priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered. Argumentative.
A: Yes. They handled those matters.
Q: Cardinal, I'm showing you Exhibit No. 88, which is a group of documents concerning Father John Geoghan.
MR. MacLEISH: We've given copies to you, Owen and Will, earlier. You should have it over there.
MR. TODD: It seems to end at 87.
MR. MacLEISH: We've got 88.
THE WITNESS: This is 88.
MR. TODD: Separate from --
MR. MacLEISH: Yes, yes. I gave you a copy of it earlier. If you don't have it, we have another one for you.
Q: Exhibit 88, Cardinal, which is a group of documents concerning John Geoghan that was obtained --
MR. ROGERS: Have you got one, Owen?
MR. TODD: No.
MR. MacLEISH: You don't have one?
MR. TODD: No.
MR. MacLEISH: Father Connolly is going to give you his.
MR. TODD: The man has fibbed on the record.
Q: If we could turn to the third page, please, Cardinal Law. This is a letter from Dr. Brennan which states -- this is December 14, 1984, it states: "Father Geoghan has been under my care for the past seven years. His emotional condition is stable and very satisfactory. There are no psychiatric contraindications or restrictions to his work as a parish priest." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Do you know Dr. Brennan?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you know whether he has any expertise in the area of psychiatry?
A: I do not.
Q: Consistent with your policy, would you have expected this opinion, in December of 1984, concerning John Geoghan to come from someone who had an expertise in psychiatry?
A: As I indicated earlier before the break, I relied on those working with me -- in this instance, Father Banks -- in making the determination that the medical personnel contacted would be persons upon whom we could have reasonable reliance.
Q: Right. And you understand that there are various specialties within the medical profession; is that correct?
A: I understand that, yes.
Q: And so you were assuming that the individuals who were being consulted about a priest accused of sexual misconduct had some relevant expertise in the area; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. But you don't know whether Dr. Brennan had any such expertise, of your own personal knowledge; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law. This is a memo from the desk of Bishop Banks, dated April 28, 1989. Want to take a moment and read that.
(Pause.)
A: Yes.
Q: Have you seen that note before?
A: No, I've never seen this note before.
Q: This is the handwriting of Bishop Banks, is it not?
A: It appears to be, yes.
Q: And just, it states: "Dr. Brennan," and it says, "Only problem I knew about was ten years ago."
A: That's correct.
Q: "I advised him not to work with kids in his parish work."
A: That's correct.
Q: "I know of no reoccurrence." "Recurrence" Do you see that?
A: That's correct.
Q: "You better clip his wings before there is an explosion." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: "You can't afford to have him in a parish." Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: "Since '84, my contacts have been scaled back. I thought everything was under control." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And this was produced in the Geoghan case, this particular document, Cardinal Law.
A: That's correct.
Q: And was this information, assuming that this is what it purports to be, which is some notations concerning a conversation Bishop Banks was having with Dr. Brennan, was any of this information brought to your attention in April of 1989?
A: I -- first of all, as I say, I've never seen --
Q: Right.
A: -- this memo. And I have no recollection of hearing the specifics of this recommendation. I do know that Father Geoghan was sent to -- was removed at some point, and I don't know exactly -- as I sit here, I can't reconstruct exactly when that was, and sent to the Institute for the Living.
Q: You are aware that doctors sometimes arrive at different conclusions and different diagnoses; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you'll see that in the previous page that we just reviewed, in December of 1984, Dr. Brennan expressed that Father Geoghan had been under his care for the past seven years. Do you see that?
A: That's correct.
Q: Right.
A: And --
Q: Go ahead.
A: And I also --
Q: Yes.
A: I think it's important to point out that final sentence of his letter.
Q: Right.
A: "There are no psychiatric contraindications or restrictions to his work as a parish priest."
Q: Right. But you have no knowledge of this man's expertise, Dr. Brennan, do you?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
A: My answer to that is the same as it was several minutes ago. That's correct.
Q: Okay. And then you have Dr. Brennan, in what appears to be a conversation with Bishop Banks in April of 1989, stating something rather different --
A: That's correct.
Q: -- about Father Geoghan. Do you see that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And "You better clip his wings before there is an explosion." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: It also states that since '84, his contacts have been scaled back. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And "You can't afford to have him in a parish." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Would you have expected, consistent with your policy, that if there had been some change of view of Dr. Brennan, who had given an opinion in December of 1984, that that would have been something that would have been brought to your attention?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. Turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law. This is November 13, 1989, your letter to Father Geoghan. And it states: "I am writing to advise you that I'm reassigning you as parochial vicar at St. Julia's Parish in Weston. The effective date of this course of action is November 17, 1989." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And this was after Father Geoghan had, as you said earlier, had gone to the Institute for Living for an assessment. Do you recall that?
A: I do.
Q: And you state in the second paragraph: "It is most heartening to know that things have gone well for you and that you are ready to resume your efforts with a renewed zeal and enthusiasm." Those were your words in November of 1989?
A: That's what the letter states.
Q: And this is a true and accurate copy of your letter to John Geoghan; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay. You don't make any reference in this letter, Cardinal Law, as I understand it, to the fact that John Geoghan had been sent to the Institute for Living; is that correct?
A: There is no reference to that here, specific -- no there is none. There is no overt reference.
Q: Okay. All right. And there's no --
A: If I may say --
Q: Go ahead. Sure.
A: If I may say, "It is most heartening to know that things have gone well for you and that you are ready to resume your efforts" would be an implicit reference to the Institute of the Living.
Q: There's no reference to the fact that John Geoghan had been assessed at the Institute for Living for his -- as a result of his sexual misconduct. No reference to that in this letter.
A: There is no explicit reference to the Institute of Living, no.
Q: There's no reference to the reasons why John Geoghan was sent there; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay. All right. The next letter, November 30, 1989, has been marked in the previous case, from Bishop Banks to Vincent Stephens, MD, at the Institute for Living. Do you want to take a moment and read that letter, please.
A: Yes.
(Pause.)
Q: Have you seen that letter before today, Cardinal Law?
A: I have not seen the letter, but I am aware of the response from the Institute of the Living.
Q: Right. Now, in November of '89, 1989, was the discharge summary from the Institute for Living concerning Father John Geoghan brought to your attention?
A: As a matter of fact, I was concerned by the fact that we had not gotten a response from the Institute of the Living in a timely fashion.
MR. TODD: That's --
THE WITNESS: Go ahead.
MR. TODD: I'm sorry. As soon as you're finished, I want to make a statement.
A: And I called and inquired about this. As I recall, I spoke with Father Gill, who was the director of the institute, and, in effect, received basically the understanding that Bishop Banks is referencing in the November 30 letter; namely, that it would be appropriate and safe for this priest, Father Geoghan, to be reassigned to parish ministry.
I immediately called Bishop Banks -- and I said to the Institute of the Living personnel -- and I believe it was Father Gill -- that it really is necessary for us to receive in a very timely manner, a written, full, written report in this instance, in this case, as it was in every case.
And then I asked Bishop Banks to go to the -- to himself go to the Institute of the Living and to meet with them, to review this case, because I wanted to be certain about it. I was concerned about it.
MR. TODD: Hold it, hold it.
MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.
MR. TODD: I would like to state for the record that all of the matters, issues, correspondence surrounding Father Geoghan was gone into in depositions of Cardinal Law on multiple days in the cases which Attorney Garabedian brought, and going over them, the same matters in this deposition, is the subject of my objection.
MR. MacLEISH: All right. Okay. Well, I'm not Attorney Garabedian, and I've read his deposition and I'm trying to avoid questions that he asked. But if you're offering that the deposition in that case can be utilized in this case, Owen, then I'm perfectly happy to discuss that with you.
MR. TODD: To the extent that you're conducting a discovery deposition, I submit that you know all of the information and answers to the questions you're asking, and if you don't know it, it's all available; and to go over examinations which have been conducted for many days on occasions prior to this is wasteful --
MR. MacLEISH: Well, I appreciate you --
MR. TODD: -- and harassing.
MR. MacLEISH: It's not wasteful and I'm certainly not intending to harass the Cardinal.
MR. TODD: I'm entitled to my opinion, which I've expressed.
MR. MacLEISH: Your opinion has been conveyed and it's noted. We'll continue now.
Q: Cardinal Law, when you made that call to the head of the Institute for Living, had a discharge summary actually been received by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A: No. I think I indicated that the reason why I made the call is because it had not been --
Q: Right.
A: -- and I wanted to know when we were going to get it.
Q: Sure. Okay. And was that typical for you to be involved in communications directly with the Institute for Living?
A: It was absolutely atypical.
Q: Why did it happen in the case of Father Geoghan?
A: Well, it happened in the case of Father Geoghan because Father Geoghan -- because of the history that is before us.
Q: All right. Well, there were other priests that were sent to the Institute for Living, St. Luke's and Southdown -- I think we've been over some of them -- during the period from 1984 to 1989. Why was it that you were involved in this particular situation?
A: My concern was that we had not received a report and it was -- and I felt that it was past time and we should have received a report, and, therefore, I made the call.
Q: Well, my understanding is that you delegated most of these responsibilities to the Moderator of the Curia, Bishop Banks and Father McCormack during this period of time. Is there any --
A: That's right.
Q: -- particular reason why you would have made the call?
A: Well, I had a personal relationship with Father Gill. I knew Father Gill. And I just wanted to push this along so that we could get to some resolution here.
Q: And your testimony is that during this conversation, you were told that it would be safe to return John Geoghan to pastoral ministry, parish ministry? I'm sorry.
A: I was.
Q: And that was an unqualified statement by the doctor that you spoke with?
A: You know, I hesitate to try to reconstruct a telephone conversation.
Q: Sure.
A: And I have no notes of that telephone conversation. I discussed the telephone conversation with Bishop Banks. He, perhaps, would be able to corroborate what I say. And I have not discussed this with him since.
But I received, as a layman here, but I received the impression in this telephone conversation that Father John Geoghan had responded in a most positive way to treatment, and that -- and that as a result of that, it was a -- it was a -- I don't think they used the term "classic case," perhaps even he used this term, "atypical pedophilia in remission."
But the impression that I got is that Father Geoghan presented himself in a way that persons with this pathology would not ordinarily present themselves at the end of treatment.
Q: Cardinal -- go ahead.
A: And I wanted -- that, to my mind, was very significant in its ramifications in terms of assignment and I wanted absolute assurance about that before any action was taken. And for that reason, I didn't want simply the written record, but I wanted Bishop Banks to go down and have a discussion with him as well.
Q: You said, "I wanted absolute assurances." Now, did you want absolute assurances that Father Geoghan would not re-offend? Is that what you're referring to when you just said that?
A: Well, what I meant by that is that I had this telephone conversation.
Q: Right.
A: I thought I heard something akin to atypical remission of pedophilia, "atypical pedophilia in remission," and I wanted Bishop Banks to go there to discuss with them so that we could be certain how we should respond to this case.
Q: But no doctor ever gave you, or, to your knowledge, Bishop Banks, absolute assurances that John Geoghan would not re-offend, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: No doctor told you unequivocally that it would be safe to have John Geoghan reassigned to a parish ministry, correct?
A: In the terms that you state, no. However, the understanding that I took from the term "atypical pedophilia in remission," a classic, as I recall the conversation, it was a classic case of someone responding to treatment and moving beyond the problem.
Q: All right. The reason I'm asking this, Cardinal, is because you used in your earlier testimony several minutes ago, you used the term "safe" to describe what you were told by the doctors. That it would be -- doctor -- that it would be safe to reassign John Geoghan to a parish ministry. I want to be clear that no doctor ever used that word "safe" in an unequivocal fashion.
A: That's correct. But I believe what I was attempting to say there, and I think I may have said there, is that it was a question of coming to some sort of moral certitude, reasonable certitude based on the evidence that you have before you.
Q: A reasonable moral certitude that would take into account the progress that John Geoghan had made and balance that against the history of John Geoghan; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And the risk that he might re-offend again, correct? That was also one of the criteria that you looked at in making this reasonable moral judgment?
A: The moral judgment was based on a diagnosis, discharge diagnosis of atypical pedophilia in remission.
Q: I understand that, Cardinal Law, but in looking at the criteria that went into the judgment, one of the judgments that you were making -- one of the criteria you looked at was John Geoghan's past behavior, correct?
A: Well, obviously the reason why the person is in treatment is because of past behavior. That's what you're checking out.
Q: Exactly. Right. And one of the criteria you were looking at is whether the degree of certitude with which you could state that John Geoghan would not molest another child. Was that one of the criteria that you looked at?
A: That's correct.
Q: Another criteria that you looked at was the interest in having John Geoghan continue with his priestly work. Was that another criteria that you looked at?
A: No.
Q: Okay. Well, John Geoghan did not have to be, when he came back from the Institute for Living, reassigned to St. Julia's. He could have been assigned to a function job where he would not regularly have contact with children; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: In fact, some priests were assigned, as I remember during this period of time, to actually working in the Chancery so that they would not have contact with children.
A: That's correct.
Q: I think Father Bernard Lane was at one point assigned to the Chancery, was he not?
A: He was.
Q: But the decision was made after the Institute for Living report was received, that it would be appropriate to assign John Geoghan to work in a parish without any restrictions on his access to children; is that not correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And that decision was made by you?
A: That's correct.
Q: And one of the factors, one of the factors, but not the only factor that you looked at was the discharge summary from the Institute for Living; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Can we turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law.
A: Which page is that?
Q: I'm sorry. Let me just go over -- the November 30, 1989, report, would that have reflected your views on the inconsistency between the oral report that you were given concerning the prognosis for John Geoghan and the written discharge summary?
A: That's correct.
Q: And it's accurate to state, as Bishop Banks states in the second paragraph, that he was a bit disappointed and disturbed by the report; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Okay. He felt that the report was not consistent with his oral conversation?
A: If I may say, I don't think -- well, I can't speak for Bishop Banks. I can speak for myself.
Q: Right.
A: Disappointment would not be in terms of the judgment rendered, but disappointment in terms of the judgment rendered in writing was different from the judgment rendered orally.
Q: Well, you can't speak for Bishop Banks?
A: No. But I can speak for myself. That would have been my disappointment.
Q: But Cardinal Law, isn't it true that if there was a favorable report, you personally wanted to have John Geoghan back in ministry. Is that not correct?
A: No, that is not correct. I wanted to do the right thing.
Q: Okay.
A: And if -- and I didn't want a favorable report as opposed to an unfavorable report. I wanted an accurate report.
Q: All right. But, again, one of your options when John Geoghan came back was to put him into a place where he would not have contact with kids?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
Q: Right?
A: The answer is the same now as it was a few moments ago, yes.
Q: Good. Now, let's turn to the next page, which is the Institute for Living, Dr. Swords' letter to Bishop Banks of December 13, 1989, that followed Bishop Banks' letter to Dr. Stephens of November 30, 1989. Do you want to take a moment and look at that?
A: Yes. (Pause.)
A: Yes.
Q: Looking at this letter from Dr. Swords to Bishop Banks of December 13, 1989, do you ever recall seeing this letter prior to today?
A: I do not recall seeing the letter, no.
Q: It has not been brought up in previous depositions that you can recall?
A: I don't recall it having been brought up. Perhaps it was, but I don't recall it.
Q: And you'll see that Dr. Swords states, in the first paragraph, that he's responding to Bishop Banks' letter to Dr. Stephens of November 30, 1989. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Then he says: "Let me first say that we judge Father Geoghan to be clinically quite safe to resume his pastoral ministry after observation, evaluation and treatment here for three months." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And is that statement consistent with the oral representations, statements that were made to you in the telephone conversation you described earlier?
A: As I recollect them, yes.
Q: So it goes on, Cardinal Law, this letter from Dr. Swords, to state: "The probability that he would sexually act out again is quite low. However, we cannot guarantee that it could not reoccur." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And then it says: "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: So when you made the decision to reassign John Geoghan back to St. Julia's, you understood, did you not, that there could be no guarantees with John Geoghan that his sexual molestation of minors, his history of that would not reoccur, correct?
A: As I indicated to you just a moment ago, I don't recall seeing this letter at the time, but the content of it would have been communicated to me. And whether or not it was stated explicitly to me by Bishop Banks that the Institute of the Living cannot guarantee that it would not reoccur, I don't know.
But as I said earlier in our conversation, I know that no one can absolutely predict the future of human behavior.
MR. TODD: Again, I want to state for the record this subject matter and these were gone into extensively in the Geoghan depositions.
MR. MacLEISH: Which I did not take; which is another case.
MR. TODD: Doesn't matter. They're available.
MR. MacLEISH: You know, we're happy to talk about a stipulation that they can be used in this case, but under the existing rules, they could not be used in this case so --
MR. TODD: You know that statements of parties can be used, prior statements of parties can be used. You know that. But I won't --
MR. MacLEISH: We can discuss this all day but I suggest we move on.
MR. TODD: Yeah.
Q: Cardinal Law, you'll see in the next paragraph, it states: "The clinical decision to have him resume his pastoral ministry was ours, but the final administrative decision had to be yours." Is that correct?
A: I read -- that's what this letter says, yes.
Q: And how did you interpret -- I understand you didn't see this letter, but the substance of it would have been communicated to you. Was that particular sentence communicated to you?
A: I don't recall that. I would interpret it the same way that the matter that we've gone over earlier today, that I -- that it is my responsibility to assign priests.
Q: Right.
A: I obviously do not give that to the Institute of the Living or anyone else.
Q: And the Institute of Living, as far as you know, did not have any explicit knowledge concerning the number of children that John Geoghan might have access to were he to return to St. Julia's?
MR. TODD: Objection to the form.
MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead.
A: My presumption is that they knew that as a parochial vicar, he would be doing parish work, which would put him in contact with everyone.
Q: When John Geoghan was reassigned after this report from the Institute of Living where it is stated that the Institute for Living could not guarantee that his sexual misconduct would not reoccur, were there any restrictions that were placed on him by you or anybody else at the Archdiocese in terms of having access to minors?
A: I think, Mr. Gar -- Mr. MacLeish --
Q: No, no. You almost said Mr. Garabedian there, Cardinal Law.
A: Mr. MacLeish. I'm sorry,
MR. TODD: Understandable mistake.
MR. ROGERS: High praise.
A: But the critical sentence here in terms of the decision that was made with regard to Father Geoghan's reassignment is the final sentence in the first paragraph where the Institute of the Living states: "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish."
Q: All right. Go ahead. When that statement was made, Cardinal Law, you don't know when you read that, whether the Institute for Living was talking about from the perspective of John Geoghan or from the perspective of the parishioners, including the children of St. Julia's, do you?
MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative.
A: I would read that sentence and the sense of that to certainly include the well-being of the people in the parish, because the whole point of this exercise is concerned with that, the impact of a priest on a parish, on people, the possibility of very, very negative behavior and abusive behavior. And so that's what's at issue here.
Q: Did you ever delegate to the medical professionals you were relying upon, the decision to make judgments about what was in the best interest of particular parishes of the Archdiocese?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
A: You know, I don't know -- I really don't know what you're asking there, but the answer to that is obviously no.
Q: All right. So you're the one that -- let me just be specific here, Cardinal Law. Why was it then, since the Institute for Living stated, "We cannot guarantee that John Geoghan's sexual molestation, acting out with children would not reoccur," why was it that he was put back into St. Julia's by you without any restrictions in terms of his access to children? That's my question.
A: And my answer would be, again, putting myself in the 1989 time frame, first paragraph of that letter, last sentence, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish."
Q: Well, Cardinal Law, again --
A: "The discharge diagnosis of atypical pedophilia in remission refers to a condition in the past, but the symptoms of which have been for sometime no longer in evidence or under firm control."
Q: We can both read selective provisions, sentences of this letter. My question is quite specific though. The Institute for Living states: "We cannot guarantee that his problem of sexual molestation will not reoccur." We agreed that that's what it said in this letter, correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: We agree that the substance of this letter was communicated by you to Bishop Banks, correct?
A: Excuse me?
Q: We agreed that the substance of this letter was communicated to you by Bishop Banks; is that correct?
A: Yes. And that the substance of this letter was essentially my oral conversation with someone whom I believe to have been Father Gill at the Institute of the Living, prior to the letters.
Q: We also agree that the Institute's letter accurately reflects that the final administrative decision on what to do with John Geoghan was yours, correct?
A: Yes. I mean -- yes.
Q: We also -- you've also previously stated that the protection of children in programs sponsored by the Archdiocese of Boston was a top priority for you from the time that you first arrived in Boston, correct?
A: I don't know how many times I've answered these questions --
Q: Right. I understand.
A: -- to you, and the answer is not any different now than it was the very first, second, third, fourth, fifth time you've asked that. Yes.
Q: Yes. Okay. So my question to you, Cardinal Law, is that in light of all of those considerations -- let's start specifically.
Why were there no restrictions placed on John Geoghan in terms of his access to children when he was reassigned to St. Julia's?
MR. TODD: Do you believe you have answered that question?
THE WITNESS: I believe I've answered it a hundred different ways.
MR. TODD: Then I'm going to instruct him not to answer. This is becoming abusive.
MR. MacLEISH: It's not being abusive.
Q: My question is very specific, Cardinal. I'm talking about now -- you have not answered the question, with respect.
MR. TODD: I believe he has. He believes he has.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, you don't even know what the question is, Owen. Let me ask the question again.
MR. TODD: When you start off saying I believe you haven't answered the question --
MR. MacLEISH: You've not --
MR. TODD: The question being --
MR. MacLEISH: Please don't interrupt me, okay.
Q: Cardinal Law, the question is very specific. One of the options that you possessed, understanding that there were no guarantees that this behavior would not occur again, that you possessed in 1989 with John Geoghan, was to send him back to a parish ministry with some sort of restrictions on him in terms of access to children. That was one of the options, was it not?
A: That was an option, right. There were other options. There were options not to assign him anywhere. There were options to assign him to something that was -- that would not put him, in the course of his work, in contact with children.
Q: Do you recall giving any consideration to putting John Geoghan into a situation at St. Julia's or elsewhere where he would not regularly have contact with children?
A: I, in the course of his -- to the extent that I reflected upon his future assignment in the course of his going to the Institute of the Living, I'm sure that I would have considered all possibility of options.
Q: We're talking about now when he returns from the Institute of Living.
A: That's right.
Q: Do you have a conscious recollection as you sit here today of thinking about whether John Geoghan should have some restrictions placed upon him in terms of his access to children?
A: Mr. MacLeish, you may view this as selectively reading from this letter, but all I can say to you is that the operative word from the Institute of the Living impacting the decision concerning his assignment is, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish."
Whether or not you think that was wise, whether or not I think it is wise at this point is irrelevant to trying to see what the situation was at that point. It was on the basis of that recommendation, that finding, if you will, of the Institute of the Living, fully understanding that I had to make the decision, but that finding of the Institute of the Living carried a considerable weight in the decision to reassign him to St. Julia's.
They knew that he was in St. Julia's. They knew that it was full pastoral ministry. And it was on the basis of that finding of that Institute, in which we had reason to have confidence, that he was reassigned.
He would not be reassigned today. He was, in fact, ultimately removed from that parish, as you know.
Q: I know.
A: But it was at that time on the basis of that finding that he was reassigned.
Q: Cardinal Law, did you place -- you placed considerable weight, as you just described, on that sentence in the first paragraph.
Did you also place considerable weight on the previous sentence, which said, "However, we cannot guarantee that it could not reoccur"? Did you place any weight on that in making the decision to reassign John Geoghan to St. Julia's?
A: First of all, as I think I told you previously, I don't recall seeing this letter.
Q: So -- okay.
A: But -- and the possibility of giving absolute assurance with regard to future human behavior is something that very few persons are able to do, and I don't know -- and so it would be -- you know, this kind of a sentence would be read in the context of that final sentence, which is the judgment that you understand, of course, that we can't be a hundred percent sure about what the future will -- how the future will unfold.
However, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him to be reassigned back to his parish." I think that that is their judgment --
Q: Okay.
A: -- in terms of assignment. And it was upon that that we were relying.
Q: But they're not the Archdiocese of Boston, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: When it says the words in that sentence that you've spoken to a number of occasions, "therapeutic for him to be" -- let's just focus on "therapeutic," if we could, Cardinal. The Institute is referring to therapeutic for John Geoghan. It's not referring to therapeutic for St. Julia's, correct? You'd agree with me?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
Q: Do you agree with that?
A: Yes, I agree with that.
Q: So when it is stated, "It is both reasonable and therapeutic for him," do you read the first word "reasonable," or the third word, "reasonable," as being a reasonable decision for the parish or --
A: Absolutely.
Q: -- or do you view it as a reasonable decision for Father Geoghan?
A: No, I read it -- I would have accepted it at the time in terms of their discussion with me, because the whole point of the exercise is what is appropriate in terms of the risk here --
Q: Right.
A: -- to people. And so I would see -- I would understand "reasonable" there as the parish.
Q: All right. Well, in making the decision of the risk, as you put it, that's really your job, isn't it, Cardinal Law, not the Institute for Living's? It's your job to make a determination of whether the risks of doing this are worth it. That's your job, correct?
A: It is my job to make the assignment.
Q: Right.
A: I rely on others to assist me in doing that. In cases of this kind, I relied specifically on Bishop Banks.
He and I, through him, relied on the Institute of the Living in terms of an ascertation, given the pathological behavior, as to whether or not it was appropriate, reasonable, indicated that this person should be assigned or could be assigned. And that was the basis on which it was made.
Q: But you would agree with me that the Institute for Living is not charged in any way with making a determination of the reasonableness of priestly assignments. That's your job?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered repeatedly.
A: Mr. MacLeish, I don't want to appear exasperated here but I am --
Q: No.
A: But I feel a little bit exasperated because, you know, there's a reasonableness on my part, but for me to make an assignment of this kind -- I am not a psychiatrist, I am not a psychologist -- I need -- the issue here for me at that point was whether or not someone who had manifested this kind of pathological behavior could reasonably be reassigned or would it be an unreasonable thing to do. Reasonable in terms of risk involved and all like that.
And so you send somebody away to find that out. I can't make that judgment.
Q: Right.
A: Now, as a matter of fact, I now have made that judgment, and that judgment is as of January 2002, that one such acting out renders it unreasonable. And I think that that's an appropriate thing. I wish to God that that had been our policy much earlier.
Q: Right.
A: But at this point in time, what I was doing was relying upon, in this case, the Institute of the Living and --
Q: Go ahead.
A: -- to indicate to me what is appropriate in the assignment of this priest.
Q: So you were relying on the Institute for Living to make the decision on what was appropriate?
A: No.
Q: No. To assist you in making the decision?
A: That's correct.
Q: The word "reasonable" is not a precise term, you agree with me?
MR. TODD: Is not what? I'm sorry. Not a what term?
Q: It's not a precise term; it's a subjective term. Is that correct?
A: It's a judgment term.
Q: It's a term that implies that you have to look at a number of different factors in making a reasoned decision; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: All right. You know now, do you not, Cardinal Law, that after this reasoned decision that you made to send John Geoghan back to St. Julia's, that people have come forward that claim that they were molested since November of 1989? Do you know that, Cardinal Law?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
A: Yes. I think I've indicated already that we removed him subsequently when other allegations came forward.
Q: Right. My question to you is: Are you not aware that individuals did come forward following your reasoned decision to put John Geoghan back into ministry in December of 1989?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
Q: That's my question.
MR. TODD: That's the question you just asked and he just answered.
MR. MacLEISH: No, no.
A: Could you point out to me, Mr. MacLeish, in what way my answer was not to your question.
Q: Yes. If you could just answer -- Cardinal Law, you testified earlier about individuals who came forward after 1984 who claimed to have been molested at St. Julia's. Do you recall your testimony on that subject?
A: Yes.
Q: My question now is trying to narrow that a little bit. You're aware, are you not, that in that group of individuals who came forward to claim that they were molested at St. Julia's after 1984, there's also a subset of that group who claimed that they were molested after you made the decision to return John Geoghan to St. Julia's in 1989? That's my question.
MR. TODD: Question has been asked and answered.
A: My answer is, as I tried to say earlier, I am aware of the fact that we received allegations concerning Father Geoghan after '89.
Q: Okay.
A: I cannot say with certainty, as I sit here, in what time frame those acts were alleged to have been committed. But the allegation themselves were sufficient to remove him.
Q: I'm sorry. I'm being a little imprecise here. I'm referring to allegations that Father Geoghan molested children at St. Julia's following December of 1989, following your reinstatement.
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware that there are such allegations of molestation of children at St. Julia's after this decision was made to put Father Geoghan back in St. Julia's?
MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and answered.
A: What I think I have answered already, but I will try again to make it clearer in my answer, is that I am aware that there were allegations which came forward after '89. I cannot recollect what time frame within which those acts are alleged to have occurred. However, the bringing forward of the allegations was sufficient to remove him, regardless of the time frame.
Q: But you don't know whether those allegations, as you sit here today, the ones that came forward after '89, pertained to sexual misconduct by Father Geoghan at St. Julia's following December of 1989?
A: That's correct. I cannot -- I don't have that specific knowledge in my mind.
Q: Could you please turn to the next page, Cardinal Law. (Pause.)
Q: This is a -- this is after Bishop Banks has left to go to Green Bay, November 28, 1990. Have you seen this document before?
A: I think I may have seen the document in the course of these months, but I can't be specific on that.
Q: Do you see the words -- it reflects a conversation with John Geoghan. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And it says John Geoghan reports: "He said he met with Dr. Swords and Dr. Brennan and both cleared him." Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Yes. And then it says: "John would like to be a pastor." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: It says: "I told him to meet with Bishop Hughes to review the situation. Also, he should meet with the Cardinal for the same reason." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Then it says: "I said I would recommend him for pastorate, but decision left up to ACH and BFL." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: I take it that's referring to Bishop Hughes and yourself; is that correct?
A: I think it would, yes.
Q: So, again, in this type of situation where there had been an allegation of sexual misconduct and the person required an assignment as pastor, that decision would be left up to you; is that correct?
A: I think we've already established, Mr. MacLeish, that it is the responsibility of the Archbishop to assign priests, period. You know, it's not a specific group of priests, but it's any priest assignment.
MR. ROGERS: All right. Now, it's now 12 o'clock. I suggest we take a five-minute break.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Fine.
THE WITNESS: Is it already twelve?
MR. MacLEISH: Things go fast.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:00 p.m. This is the end of Cassette No. 1 in the deposition of Cardinal Law. (Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:09 p.m. This is Cassette No. 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're back on the record.
Q: Cardinal Law, when you made the decision to reassign John Geoghan to St. Julia's, do you know how many individuals at that point had come forward to make allegations that they were sexually abused as minors by John Geoghan?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you know whether it was more than one?
MR. TODD: I'm sorry. Are you asking did he know at that time in '89 it was more than one?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. In '89. Yes.
A: I believe I knew that it was more than one, yes.
Q: Did you know that it was more than five?
A: You know, I don't know that.
Q: Did you -- do you have a recollection of instructing anyone to prepare a report for you when you made the decision to reassign John Geoghan to St. Julia's without restriction in 1989, did you instruct anyone to make a report for you summarizing all of the allegations of sexual abuse that had been made against John Geoghan?
A: I made no such specific recommendation about that case or any other case. I had confidence in the persons that were assisting me in this matter for that.
Q: Right. As you described in your testimony, those individuals were charged with bringing to your attention important information that might bear on the assignment, correct?
A: They were to help me in making my decision, yes.
Q: And to provide you information that was relevant?
A: That's correct.
Q: And so my question is: Did you instruct any of them to summarize for you in any way the number of individuals as of December 1989, that were making allegations that they had been sexually molested by John Geoghan as minors?
A: I think the answer to that, implicitly anyway, from my previous testimony to you about the procedure followed, is no.
Q: So in looking at the various criteria that we've discussed here today that go into making a reassignment, you do not have a recollection that one of those criteria was the number of complaints that had been made against John Geoghan; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Could you turn to the next page, please, Cardinal Law, which is a letter from John Geoghan of June 29, 1990. If you could quickly take a look at that and then the following page, which is your letter acknowledging receipt. (Pause.)
A: Yes.
Q: So John Geoghan wrote to you in June of 1990 urging that his name be submitted to the Personnel Board for consideration as pastor; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you responded, did you not, on August 13, 1990, stating that you would communicate Father Geoghan's interest in being named pastor at St. Julia's to the Personnel Board; is that correct?
A: That's correct. That's a pro forma kind of a letter when someone writes requesting a specific parish, because the decision isn't going to be made in that way. It goes through a process.
Q: Right. It goes to the Personnel Board; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And that was the process in 1990; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And then there's also a review, was there not, in 1990, of the confidential file? Is that correct? Did that happen?
A: A review of the confidential file? What are you referring to?
Q: I'm referring to the confidential file that was maintained at the Archdiocese that was kept separately from the personnel file and contained matters relating to scandal, including allegations of sexual abuse.
A: And you're asking me in general terms if there was a review of the confidential file?
Q: Yes. Before someone was appointed to pastor, we've had testimony in other depositions that Bishop Banks or those individuals who had access to the confidential file, would make a review of it to determine whether there was anything you needed to know.
Was that your understanding of the process, Cardinal Law, in 1990?
MR. ROGERS: I object as to the form of the question. I don't think that's a fair characterization of the prior testimony. I think it's --
MR. MacLEISH: All right. Fine.
MR. ROGERS: Maybe you'd like to point out what testimony you're talking about.
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Bishop McCormack's, Bishop Daily's --
A: Yes, I --
MR. MacLEISH: Let me answer your question. -- Father McCarthy and Father Helmick, I believe. But go ahead.
MR. TODD: If you know.
Q: If that's not your understanding of the process, then state that's not your understanding of the process.
MR. ROGERS: Is that a different question?
MR. MacLEISH: No. Answer the original question.
MR. ROGERS: Which?
Q: Cardinal Law, do you recall what I asked you?
A: It would be helpful for me if you would rephrase the question.
Q: Sure. Be happy to. Was it your understanding that before someone was actually appointed pastor, there would be a review of what was known within the Archdiocese as the confidential file?
A: My understanding was that there would be review of all pertinent information concerning this individual. It would also have been my understanding that if there were pertinent information in the confidential file which would have inhibited an assignment from, as a pastor, or as a parochial vicar, that that person wouldn't be in place to begin with.
Q: Right.
A: So whether or not the confidential file was referred to every time an assignment was made, I can't answer that.
Q: Okay. Fine. But at least as of August of 1990, you were prepared to consider John Geoghan, if it had been so requested by the or so -- sorry. Someone is walking by. Let me start again. (Pause.)
Q: Cardinal, would it be fair to state that at least as of August of 1990, you were not ruling out the possibility that you might actually name John Geoghan as pastor of St. Julia's?
A: I would rule out that possibility as of August 1990.
Q: Why?
A: Because of the -- by now, we have had the situations that had come forward in '89 and there was just -- you know, I would not have moved forward on it.
Q: If John Geoghan was not fit to be pastor, why was he fit to be parochial vicar?
A: Well, there are a lot of things that go into consideration of a pastor in terms of personality, in terms of leadership potential, and I do not believe that I would have actively considered appointing him as a pastor.
Q: But you just stated, I thought, that you would not have considered appointing him as pastor because of the Institute for Living report. Did I misunderstand your testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Turn to the next page, please, Cardinal.
MR. TODD: Yes, what? Yes, he misunderstood your testimony?
THE WITNESS: Well --
MR. MacLEISH: Well, you have cross-examination. The witness answered the question.
MR. TODD: I'm just trying to clarify.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, but you have that opportunity on cross-examination.
MR. TODD: Is that what your answer is?
MR. MacLEISH: Well, I object to that. I object to that.
MR. TODD: Fine. We'll let it stand as being ambiguous.
MR. MacLEISH: Fine. Well, that's your characterization.
MR. TODD: It is.
Q: Next page, Cardinal Law.
A: December 30, '94?
Q: Yes. Take a moment and see if you remember sending that letter to John Geoghan in December 30, 1994. (Pause.)
A: I don't -- you know, again, I don't recall sending this specific letter. I'm sure that I did send it, but I am generally -- I generally recollect the situation where this took place.
Q: All right. When you refer to "recent allegations" in the first sentence, I take it those are recent allegations concerning sexual misconduct?
A: That's correct.
Q: You don't describe the nature of the allegations in the letter, do you, Cardinal?
A: I do not.
Q: In fact, it was your practice not ever to describe in these letters the nature of the allegations when they pertained to sexual misconduct.
MR. TODD: Objection.
Q: Is that a fair statement?
A: I think it would be fair to say that I would not refer to the specifics of allegations of any kind, but the person to whom I'm writing knows what is being talked about.
Q: I'm not referring to specific allegations; I'm referring to the subject of sexual misconduct. It was not your --
A: I understand.
Q: Excuse me. It was not your practice to, when you informed -- when you wrote letters such as this letter of December 30, 1994, to characterize the nature of the allegations when it was sexual misconduct; is that correct?
A: I understood the nature of your question the first time, Mr. MacLeish, and I responded by indicating that when I wrote this kind of a letter, it wasn't simply sexual misconduct allegations that were not specified, but I wouldn't specify any kind of allegations because the person to whom I was writing would know what the reference was to.
Q: I see. Okay. You, in this letter, you state, do you not: "I realize this is a difficult time for you and for those close to you." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you also believe when you wrote this letter that it was a difficult time for the victims of Father John Geoghan who had come forward and made these allegations?
MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative and obviously --
A: You know, Mr. MacLeish, I just wonder if you want to rethink that question --
Q: No, I really don't, Cardinal.
A: -- because, obviously, I did. But I'm writing to Father Geoghan.
Q: Right. I would like to press the question.
A: I'm not writing here to others.
Q: Could you answer the question, please?
A: The answer is of course.
Q: Did you write to those victims of sexual abuse that had come forward to make allegations against Father Geoghan at that time, Cardinal?
A: I did not.
Q: Did you personally ensure that was some sort of support that was provided to those individuals that had came forward claiming that they were sexually abused by John Geoghan in 1994?
A: Here again, I relied on the Delegate for outreach to victims, and it's an area where I think we do a much better job today, and we did in '94, a better job than we had done earlier. I cannot be specific as to what actually occurred at that point.
Q: Well, Cardinal, I'm not asking about today. I understand what you do today. I'm asking about 1994. My question is very specific. My question is: What did you do, if anything, to ensure yourself that victims of Father Geoghan, the ones who had come forward, were getting the help that they needed?
A: As I think I indicated, I relied on the Delegate to be the point of contact for the diocese in terms of the victims.
Q: Well, in your letter to Father Geoghan of December 30, 1994, you also state: "If I can be of help to you in some way, please contact me." Those were your words; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: So you were offering to be of assistance to John Geoghan; is that correct?
A: John Geoghan was a priest of this Archdiocese. If you'll note from the address where he --
Q: Right.
A: He is not at St. Julia's at this point. He's already been removed from St. Julia's. He's been assigned to an office where he does not have contact with children. And having received yet further allegations, he was effectively retired at that point. And, yes, there is an offer to be of some help to him in what had to be also a very difficult moment for him.
Q: I understand that, Cardinal Law, and my question is, you, personally, in this letter to him offered to be of help to him and offered to have John Geoghan contact you if he wanted to; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: Did you send out any letter offering to be of help to any of the victims of Father John Geoghan who had come forward, that you can recall?
MR. TODD: I object to that question as being insulting. It's obviously grandstanding. It can be serving no legitimate purposes of deposition, and it's harassing, clearly harassing. It has no legitimate purpose in this deposition.
MR. MacLEISH: That's absolutely incorrect, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: It's correct, Mr. MacLeish.
MR. MacLEISH: You're absolutely incorrect.
Q: Can you answer the question, please, Cardinal?
A: Yes. And I would agree with my counsel that this is a harassing question but I will answer your question.
Q: I hope you don't think there's a harassing tone to it. You may think it's not a question that you wish to answer but --
A: No, no. I'm happy to --
Q: It's a very simple question.
MR. TODD: No. You just interrupted his answer.
MR. MacLEISH: And you just interrupted me, Mr. Todd. Let me withdraw the question and start again, Cardinal Law. We'll make it very easy.
MR. TODD: Why don't you withdraw it and go on to something that's relevant.
MR. MacLEISH: No, no. I appreciate that. This is very relevant to this case.
MR. TODD: No, it is not relevant to this case.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, what did you just throw?
MR. TODD: Why don't we certify that question and take it the judge.
MR. MacLEISH: Did you just throw something across the room here?
MR. TODD: At the basket, and I made a basket, and you ought to congratulate me for that. MS. PATEL: You missed.
MR. TODD: Oops. You put it in.
MR. MacLEISH: Whatever, it's inappropriate. You can certify any question that you want.
Q: My question is a simple question, though, Cardinal, of whether or not you can recall writing a letter to the victims that apparently had recently come forward against John Geoghan. That's my question.
MR. TODD: What's the relevance of that question? How does it lead to --
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, AS you well know, it is not related to a matter of privilege.
MR. TODD: Are you refusing to answer --
MR. MacLEISH: No. I'm not required to answer. Judge Sweeney has already ruled on these issues. That's not the standard.
MR. TODD: That's not true.
MR. MacLEISH: If you're instructing him not to answer the question, then so instruct him and we will continue the deposition. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But I'm pressing the question. And what you're allowed to say is "Objection." If it's an issue of privilege, you can take the Cardinal outside. But it's a simple question.
MR. TODD: No. That's a misconstruction about the rules.
MR. MacLEISH: Fine. Then --
MR. TODD: Now you're interrupting, Mr. MacLeish. Misconstruction of the rule. The rule also talks about coming to the assistance of a witness when the questions are harassing and serve no -- insulting, scandalous and serve no useful purpose.
MR. MacLEISH: So I understand your --
MR. TODD: But you may answer if you wish.
MR. MacLEISH: No, no. I understand your question that it's insulting for me to ask Cardinal Law whether or not he wrote to any victim of sexual abuse at this time in 1994. I really don't see how that's an insulting question.
MR. TODD: It's a grandstanding question.
MR. MacLEISH: It's not.
MR. TODD: It's not for any legitimate purpose involved in this case, but rather to adulate your ego and to appeal to your clients and the press and so forth. There's no legitimate purpose.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, Mr. Todd --
MR. TODD: But answer, Cardinal, if you like.
THE WITNESS: I would like to answer it, if I may.
MR. MacLEISH: You'd like to answer the question?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q: Would you answer the question, though, whether you wrote the letter? That's really what my question was.
MR. TODD: You answer the question as you understand it, in any way you wish.
MR. MacLEISH: The question is very specific.
MR. TODD: Answer it in any way