COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT

DEPARTMENT of the TRIAL COURT

MICV2002-822-F(Lead Case)

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

GREGORY FORD, et al

v.

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

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

PAUL W. BUSA

v.

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

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

ANTHONY DRISCOLL

v.

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

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

VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. MCCORMACK
VOLUME V


VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. McCORMACK

Deposition taken at the law offices of
Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green,
1000 Elm Street, Manchester, New Hampshire,
on Friday, November 22, 2002, commencing at
10:08 a.m.

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

APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiffs:

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

By: Robert A. Sherman, Esq.
Courtney Pillsbury, Esq.

-and-

NEWMAN & PONSETTO
One Story Terrace
Marblehead, MA 01945

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

-and-

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

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

For the Defendants:

THE ROGERS LAW FIRM
One Union Street
Boston, MA 02108

By: Wilson D. Rogers, III, Esq.

For Bis. McCormack:

HANIFY & KING
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA

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

-and-

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

By: Brian T. Tucker, Esq.

For the Diocese of Manchester:

SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03105

By: Joseph A. DiBrigida, Esq.

STIPULATIONS

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

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

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

INDEX

WITNESS:
Bishop John B. McCormack

EXAMINATION:
By Mr. Sherman[:] Page 7

EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:

MR. MIELKE: Today's date is November 22nd, 2002. It is approximately 10:10 a.m. in the morning. We're at the office of Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green in Manchester, New Hampshire for the continued deposition of Bishop McCormack. The parties will now identify themselves for the record.
MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman representing the plaintiffs in this matter, with me Courtney Pillsbury.
MR. TUCKER: Brian Tucker, personal counsel for Bishop McCormack.
THE WITNESS: Bishop McCormack.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson Rogers the Third on behalf of all defendants.
MR. DiBRIGIDA: Joseph DiBrigida on behalf of the Diocese of Manchester.
MR. MIELKE: The court reporter will now swear the witness -- or the witness has been sworn

BISHOP JOHN B. MCCORMACK having been previously sworn, was deposed and testified as follows: [7]

EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:

Q. All set. Good morning, Bishop.
A. Good morning.

Q. Thank you for being here again.
Prior to coming here this morning, did you review any documents in preparation for your testimony here today?
A. Yes.

Q. What documents did you review?
A. Some of the documents that were given to me by your office in the previous -- before the previous testimonies.

Q. These would be documents that had been produced by the Archdiocese or produced --
A. Or by you.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. Yes, by your -- but I think we received them through you.

Q. Okay. Did you review the transcript of your prior testimony?
A. Some of it, yes.

Q. Did you review anybody -- the [8] transcript of anybody else's testimony?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Were there -- other than review of those documents and review of the transcript, were there any other documents that you reviewed?
A. No.

Q. Other than conversations with your counsel, and I don't want to inquire in that, did you talk to anybody regarding your testimony here today?
A. No.

Q. Did you talk to anybody regarding their testimony, and I'll specifically will ask you about did you have any conversations with either Bishop Banks or Cardinal Law?
A. No.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Could we have document 67 please. That's a prior document.
MR. ROGERS: Bob, before we get into it, some of these I've marked up with some personal notes on some of these exhibits.
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: So if I have one, we may need to pull yours out. Some of these I know I've [9] written a couple personal notes on. I have no problem sharing some of my clean copies.
MR. SHERMAN: And just so you know, I've got a lot these marked up myself.
MS. PILLSBURY: I should have clean copies.
MR. ROGERS: That's fine. I'll share whatever I can.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, do you remember that exhibit? And if you need a minute to refresh yourself, please do.
A. Okay.

Q. All set, Bishop?
A. All set.

Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you testified that this was the first time a specific allegation against Father Shanley was made that he had abused -- or sexually abused a young man that was brought to your attention, is that correct?
A. I'm not sure that I would say this was the first. My memory was that several came at one time, and I'm going to say like within a week or a few days, and this clearly was one of them because it [10] was September.

Q. Okay. So around this time that --
A. Was one of them.

Q. I'm sorry, let's go back. Let me ask the question.
A. Yeah.

Q. I know we've been through this before.
A. I'm sorry, okay.

Q. Around this time there were several allegations of abuse that were being made against Father Shanley and this was one of them, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now -- and I believe you characterized this as a serious allegation, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the conduct, would it be fair to state that the conduct, as at least was alleged, was horrific?
A. Yes.

Q. And with respect to this particular allegation, do you recall how it came to your attention? [11]
A. Father Scott Hendricks called me.

Q. Okay. And Father Scott Hendricks is who?
A. He is a priest who was serving at Saint Patrick's Parish, Stoneham, at the time.

Q. Okay. And that's referenced in the first paragraph of on or about July 28th, 1993, is that the reference you see regarding Scott Hendricks having called you?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you have an independent memory of that happening, or is your memory based on what you read here?
A. I have an independent memory that Scott Hendricks called me about something, and whether it was Father Shanley, I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. And the details of this allegation, was that first brought to your attention in this memo, or did somebody have any oral communications with you before you saw this memo?
A. My memory is it came through this memorandum.

Q. Okay. And when you received this [12] memorandum, did you have a conversation with Sister Catherine about what was contained in the memorandum?
A. I'm not sure. You know, is the question do I remember our conversation or did I have a conversation?

Q. Well, let's ask first if you remember having a conversation with her?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Was it your policy and practice at the time, when you received a memo such as this, to indeed have a conversation with her?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is there anything about this memorandum that would lead you to believe that you didn't follow your policy and practice at that time?
A. Do you want to say that again, is there anything in the memorandum?

Q. Would it be consistent with your understanding that you, in all likelihood, would have followed your practice at that time and spoken with her?
A. Yes, and spoken with her. [13]

Q. Okay. Now, did you at some point make a determination as to whether this allegation was credible?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you know -- I'm not asking for a date, but do you know when in the process you made that determination?
A. Do I know when?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Like a date or --

Q. No, I'm not asking for a date, but let me ask you this: When you got this memorandum here, did you make a determination at that time as to the credibility of the allegation?
A. I would -- the determination would have been that there was substance to the allegation and that it needed to be followed through.

Q. Okay. And when you say "substance," what do you mean?
A. That what is said here is serious matter, there's a credibility to it or a substance to it and so you needed to learn from the person, you know, Father Shanley, what he thought about this. [14]

Q. Okay. And --
A. That would be the practice, I think that's the point I want to make.

Q. Okay. So was it your operating assumption at that time or operating belief, I should say, at that time when you got this memorandum that indeed what was alleged here had taken place?
A. I missed that, the first part of the question.

Q. Was it your operating assumption that what was alleged in this memorandum dated September 27th, 1993 had indeed taken place?
A. The assumption was is that there's substance to it and Father Shanley would have to explain, you know, if there wasn't substance, in other words. So that there would be an assumption that there was substance to this that needed to be investigated.

Q. Okay. And as part of the investigation, would it have been your practice to also speak with the complainant?
A. Not my practice; it would have been Sister Catherine's practice. [15]

Q. Why wasn't it your practice to also seek out the complainant and get more information as part of your investigation?
A. Sister Catherine would be the one who would seek out the complainant to do the investigation because we -- it was our theory or our philosophy that complainant's found it easier to talk to a person who was not a priest, so if it was a woman or a man but not a priest, and that they could elicit information and help them. So the whole purpose was to help the victim tell their story.

Q. Okay. And when you received this complaint, did it cross your mind that this may not be the only person who was sexually abused by Father Shanley -- or, actually, strike that.
Let me ask it again in this context: You said around this time you received several complaints?
A. Yes.

Q. Were you at all concerned that the complaints that you had received around this time did not reflect all the people that might have been sexually abused by Father Shanley? [16]
A. Do I recall at this time thinking that?

Q. Yes.
A. No, I don't recall thinking that, no.

Q. Would it have been your practice to try to -- I'm sorry.
A. She would tell me to speak up. No, I don't recall thinking that, no.

Q. Okay. Well, you knew from your work as of 1993 that there were other priests that had allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made against them, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you think at that time that the only acts of sexual misconduct that were committed by those priests pertained to those -- were confined to those that had come forward and made allegations?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Did I think that these were the only ones out there?

Q. Uh-huh, yes.
A. No, I don't think I thought that, either. [17]

Q. Okay. Did you think it was important to try to ascertain whether there were in fact other people out there who were victimized by priests?
A. At this time did I think it was important to ascertain whether there were others?

Q. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Objection. Let me jump in. I want to be clear because I'm not sure, I think you asked a different -- are you talking as of September 1993 did he think it was important?
MR. SHERMAN: Well, I'll rephrase the question.

Q. Let me ask you a question this way: You knew that there were allegations made -- allegations of sexual misconduct being made against priests, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And this is during your -- I'll apply this as during your tenure as first the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel and then as the delegate. And when you received those allegations, you didn't think that the only victims of misconduct by these priests were the ones that had come forward; you knew that [18] there were probably others that might be out there, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't think that I thought that in that kind of clear line. I think -- was there a possibility of others being out there? I think eventually that became part of our discussion because the question was should we go to the parishes and give this priest's name to see whether there were other victims. So at some time during this we came into that discussion and it was a part of our discussion.

Q. And when you say "we," who were those discussions between?
A. That would be with those who worked with me in the delegate's office, Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, Father Kevin Deeley, I think, I'm not too sure, maybe Father John Dooher could have been part of that, Wilson Rogers, our attorney, would have been part of that and -- that's what -- and myself.

Q. Okay. And do you remember whereabouts in your tenure those discussions would have taken place? [19]
A. We would meet regularly to review cases at the -- at my office, the chancery.

Q. Okay. Did you -- but I'm talking about the discussion regarding whether to go back to the parishes. Do you remember when those discussions arose?
A. No. I remember that they arose, but I don't know -- remember when.

Q. Do you remember whether it was before your tenure as the delegate?
A. I don't, no.

Q. Was it your understanding that you had the authority to make the decision as to whether to go back to the parish or not and inform the parish about the priest?
A. No.

Q. Whose authority would that -- strike that.
Who had the authority to make that decision?
A. I would say eventually a change in policy would be something that -- or practice would be something that would be agreed to by the Cardinal. [20]

Q. Did you ever have a discussion with the Cardinal regarding whether you should go back and -- back to the parishes regarding priests who had allegations of sexual misconduct made against them?
A. I don't recall the discussion, no.

Q. You don't recall ever having a discussion or -- let me rephrase that.
You don't recall whether or not there was a discussion, or you don't recall having a discussion yourself?
A. I don't recall whether there was a discussion and I don't recall having the discussion myself.

Q. Okay. When a complaint such as this came to your attention, what did you understand your authority to be in terms of handling this kind of complaint?
A. I'm not sure what you mean by "authority." Can you say that again.

Q. Okay. In other words, the complaint came to your attention. Could you remove the priest from ministry if a complaint such as this came to your attention? [21]
A. I could only make a recommendation. I could ask him, due to the substance of the allegation, would he be willing to be placed on administrative leave, and because of the seriousness of the allegation, I would point out that that's what the practice of the diocese is. And so he would then either consent or dissent, and then I would report that to the Vicar for Administration at first and then to the Cardinal, but it could be through the Vicar. I could have done it directly to the Cardinal, but it usually would be -- up to when I was delegate, it would have been through the Vicar for Administration, I think.

Q. Okay. So I understand it, in the period prior to your being the delegate, you believe that your reporting would have gone to the Vicar for Administration as opposed to reporting directly to the Cardinal, and that after you became the delegate, you reported directly to the Cardinal, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Where -- was there -- strike that. [22]
Going back to an allegation -- or let's take this allegation that's in Exhibit 67. Would it have been your practice, upon the receipt of an allegation like that, to inform any of your superiors, such as the Vicar for Administration or the Cardinal, of the existence of an allegation such as this?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And as of 1993, who would you have informed, as of September 27th, 1993, who would you have informed?
A. Usually the Vicar for Administration, he should know it immediately.

Q. Okay. And in 1993 that would have been Bishop Banks?
A. No, it would be Bishop Hughes.

Q. Right, I'm sorry, Bishop Hughes, yes.
Now, would you -- and do you have a specific recollection, with respect to Father Shanley, of having a conversation with Bishop Hughes around this time regarding the allegations that had been coming in pertaining to Father Shanley? [23]
A. A specific recollection, no.

Q. Okay. But it would have been your policy and practice to have talked to Bishop Hughes about these allegations?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what would be the purpose --
A. I just want to add --

Q. Sure.
A. -- it would be the practice; I don't know whether it was the policy.

Q. Okay. It would have been your practice?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of informing Bishop Hughes?
A. As the Vicar for Administration, he was the one who coordinated the administration of the diocese. And so in dealing with a priest who we -- who I had learned there was a serious allegation, I would inform him with the view that we needed to investigate this, and then there would be the ensuing -- and during the investigation to ask him to be on administrative leave. [24]

Q. Okay. And I think we went through some documents, and we can get them out if it would be helpful to you, that shows that you did in fact have some conversations or some communications with Father Shanley regarding this complaint --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- that's reflected in the memo of September 27th, 1993. Do you remember we discussed that last time?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. The topic, do you remember we discussed the topic?
A. Yes, right.

Q. And I don't want to go back through the communications, but when you were talking to Paul Shanley about this allegation, was it your -- or you were talking to any priest about an allegation, was it your practice to ask whether there were any other victims or any other individuals out there that may have been sexually abused that had not come forward?
A. I don't recall that being a practice. I think that, depending upon the priest and the [25] allegations, I might have, you know, asked him that, but it would be depending on my suspicions.

Q. And with respect to Paul Shanley, did you have a suspicion at the time that these allegations came forward that there may be others that were out there that had not come forward?
MR. ROGERS: As of September of '93?
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry, yes, as of September of 1993.
THE WITNESS: At that time I think I was just learning about Paul Shanley, what he was doing, so I can't say that I had a suspicion right then.

Q. What would have been the kind of information that you would have needed to have a suspicion that there were others form in your mind? What were you looking for?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's hard to recall; it's just that I would be suspicious. There's something about either what the priest was saying or what he said or the type of allegation that it was, [26] that the allegation informed -- you know, that the person who made the complaint said that there were others, the way that the priest responded -- there would be something that would develop that would make you suspicious and then you want to ask whether there were others.

Q. Okay. I believe you testified the last time that as of September of 1993 you were dealing with approximately 30 cases where there had been allegations of sexual abuse made against priests. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Can you remember, in any of those 30 cases, asking the priest involved whether there were other victims who had not come forward that may be out there?
A. Do I remember now? No.

Q. Can you name me anybody, as you sit here today, any priest that you can think of out of the 30 at this time that you asked that question of?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: See, I can't say that I [27] asked the question of, but I can think of a couple priests who I realized that there was more than one victim.

Q. Who?
A. Father Richard Matt and eventually I think Father Ron Paquin.

Q. Okay. And when you say that there was more than one victim, are you talking about more than one victim that had come forward?
A. No, I think people eventually told me that there were other victims.

Q. Okay. And when you found out with respect to Richard Matt that there were other victims -- and again, just so I understand, you're talking about victims that hadn't come forward to the --
A. Right.

Q. -- to the church, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. What -- did you take any steps to identify who those victims were?
A. No.

Q. Why not? [28]
A. Because of the policy we had about confidentiality.

Q. Okay. And tell me again what that policy on confidentiality was.
A. That one of the things that the church practices is that we were dealing with it from a pastoral point of view; someone comes to us about a concern and they don't want it made public, and so we deal with it in a confidential way. And then we deal with the priest and we tree try to learn from him what happened, and so we deal with that in a confidential way. And our idea was is that we were trying to work with this on a pastoral way, and if we started making everything public about what we did, people who were afraid of confidentiality being broken wouldn't come to us.

Q. Okay. Now, you knew from these -- from the allegations that you had reviewed, both with respect to Father Shanley and with others, that victims had alleged, fair to say, serious consequences in their lives as a result of the abuse?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And were you at all concerned -- [29] let's take Father Matt -- when you learned that there may be others out there that you were letting people suffer without taking steps to go and identify them and provide them, were you at all concerned about that, Bishop?
A. I would say that there was a concern about the victims who came were hurting, and because they were hurting, they came to us; whether I knew there were other victims out there who at that time were hurting, they might not have been hurting and I think the question was, you know, should we make a person hurt? I can remember that being part of a discussion, you know, should you raise a person's consciousness in something that they have dealt with? This is early on; I think we look at it very differently now.

Q. Well, given your experience as the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel in dealing with these kinds of complaints and given your training as a social worker and the courses that you took in your experience as part of your social work degree and your license as a social worker, didn't you recognize the possibility that there were people out there who [30] might have been hurting and would benefit from the fact that they were identified and provided -- and directed to service -- to get services to deal with their problems?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Can you say that question again because I'm not sure what you were really --

Q. Yeah, it was poorly phrased. Let me try it again.
Given your experience as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel and given your background and training as a social worker, didn't you believe that there were victims of sexual abuse out there who indeed were hurting and indeed would benefit from receiving help through the Archdiocese?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. Okay. And despite that belief, however, that there were people out there that were hurting and would benefit from help, you still did not take any action seeking to identify who they were and to provide help for them, is that correct?
MR. TUCKER: Objection. [31]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I think that we tried to raise people's consciousness at that time that the Archdiocese was taking these allegations seriously and that it would welcome any victim who wanted to come to report and make a complaint to us, that was the whole purpose of the policy and the publicizing around that.

Q. Okay.
A. I think --

Q. Sorry. Go ahead.
A. -- at the other time is to go further and to raise in people's experience or mind that they're hurting, you don't do -- I think a lot of social workers or behaviorists will say you don't tell people that they're hurting until they recognize they're hurting.

Q. Okay. And --
A. Or I shouldn't say it that way, you don't -- yeah, unless you see a person hurting, you don't, you know, go out and make them hurt.

Q. Okay. Who made that determination, unless you see them hurting, you don't go out and ask [32] them --
A. I can't say who made the determination.

Q. That was your understanding?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, that was part of the understanding.

Q. Okay.
A. Confidentiality was part of it, confidential -- how do you help people? How do you help them with their experience? And so we tried to do it and at that time what we thought was a helpful and effective way and you know that we had a discussion at the same time whether we should do more and we thought that it would be counterproductive. It was a judgment --

Q. I'm sorry, I cut you off.
A. No, as I say it was a --

Q. Okay. In order to make that judgment, did you seek the input of any professionals in the field, trained psychologists or psychiatrists or neurologists, as to whether that judgment was a correct judgment, at least as to seeking out people who were hurting and whether it was a worthwhile [33] thing to do, to wait for them to come forward as opposed to affirmatively identifying them?
A. We didn't see it solely as an emotional or psychological problem; we saw it as a pastoral issue in the role of the church, how it helps people who are hurting. And so the pastoral issue that we were dealing with, too, was how do we preserve the aura of confidential -- people come to us and feel they can talk to us in confidence and that everything won't be made public, which was what a lot of victims were concerned about, and so that played into it probably more so than the idea of what a psychologist would say.

Q. Well, in terms of being --
A. So in answer to your question, I don't recall talking to a psychologist although we have psychologists advising us.

Q. You were talking -- let me just back up. Certainly that component, that part of it, you know, the victims' needs, that was a component of the decision, is that correct?
A. I don't know what you mean by that.

Q. What the victims' needs were, whether [34] going out and affirmatively identifying those victims or waiting for them to come forward, that was a component of the decision that you were making, correct?
A. I'm still not clear what you mean by that.

Q. Let me go back. You said that you were responding on a pastoral basis; it wasn't solely focused on the issue of the victim, there was an issue of confidentiality, et cetera, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That was focused on the victim, the confidentiality.

Q. Okay. Let me ask it this way: At this time you were having conversations regularly with Dr. Ned Cassem, correct?
A. I think so, yes.

Q. Okay. And I believe you testified to that at your last deposition. Was this something that you ever brought up with Dr. Cassem? And when I'm saying "something," I mean what the approach should be in terms of the needs of the victim.
A. I don't recall that. [35]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Okay. When you say you don't recall that, is it your best memory that you never talked about it or you don't have a recollection one way or another?
A. I don't have a recollection one way or another.

Q. Okay. Now, just to complete the line, I asked you the question about seeking out other victims of Father Matt. I take it it's the same answer that you gave for Father Paquin as well, that you didn't do anything to seek out other victims, correct?
A. Right. I have to be careful here. My sense is is that I asked a priest who felt that there were other victims, you know, to encourage them to come to us.

Q. Okay.
A. But -- and I don't think that -- I think he was saying that it was hearsay, but I said, "If you know of any other victims of Father Paquin, please encourage them to contact us."

Q. Okay. Would it have been violative of [36] the policy that was in existence at that time to ask the priest himself for the names of any other victims that -- or, strike that -- of the names of any other people that might have been sexually abused by him?
A. I think that's what I asked him, did he know of some; and if he did, if he would have them contact me.

Q. Well, I'm saying how about asking Father Paquin that question or Father Matt or Father Shanley?
A. Father Paquin would have denied it, if I recall correctly.

Q. How do you know?
A. I think I asked him.

Q. So it's your memory that you did in fact ask Father Paquin for the names of any other victims?
A. I was concerned whether there were other victims and who they -- I don't know whether I asked him for names, but I was wondering whether there were other victims.

Q. And it's your memory that he denied that there were any other victims? [37]
A. No, that's not my memory. I don't recall what his response was; all I know is that I didn't get names.

Q. Okay. I'm not understanding, so let me just go back and I'll ask you a question, and that is it is your memory, though, that you asked -- I'm sorry, strike that.
What is your memory as to what you asked Father Paquin?
A. One time I became concerned because, I think, what the priest spoke to me about, whether there were other victims, and I asked him about that. In some way or other I remember -- I have this memory of speaking to him about this. Now, what that conversation was, I can't say.

Q. Okay.
A. But I can say that I was concerned and that I addressed it with him.

Q. And was it your -- and is it part of your memory, with respect to Father Paquin, that you were seeking to ascertain the names of other victims so you could go out and identify them?
A. My goal would have been to learn [38] whether there were others; and if there were others, who they were.

Q. And if you learned -- and you said your goal would have been to learn if there were others and who they were. And if you learned that there were others and you learned who they were, what would have been your practice at that point?
A. Well, I don't recall getting any names so there was no practice.

Q. And if you had gotten names, what was your intention?
A. As I sit here now, my intention would be, you know, to in some way reach out to them, but I can't say that that -- I don't know what my intention was at that time because it was -- I'm talking about a conversation I had with them, and I remember Matt and I remember Paquin being concerned about there being others.

Q. Okay. And would it have been your practice at the time that if you had that conversation with Father Paquin to keep a note of that conversation?
A. Not all the time, no. [39]

Q. With respect to -- you know, with respect to Father Matt, you said you also had a suspicion that there were other victims that were out there. Did you ask him a similar series of questions, you know, as you did Father Paquin?
A. Again, I don't know; I just remember the conversation, that it being reported that he had a lot of boys in the house and that he -- and that he was inappropriate with them. I can't even tell you what the actions were, but that he was inappropriate. I think a lot of times it was about his conversation with the boys.
And so my concern was, you know, how many, you know, boys would have been affected by his manner. And so that was my conversation, was to learn just how he did act in the rectory when all these young boys would gather with him. It would seem to be that they would do it in groups -- you know, my memory is that there were groups.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. There were groups of boys used to visit the rectory, I think this is how the allegation surfaced. [40]

Q. And that your knowledge had to do with inappropriate conversations as opposed to inappropriate actions on the part of Father Matt?
A. In terms of the rectory, yes.

Q. Were you also aware of inappropriate actions; in other words --
A. Later.

Q. Let me finish the question.
A. I'm sorry.

Q. And, I'm sorry, I paused in that one.
Were you also aware of inappropriate actions, sexually abusive actions, on the part of Father Matt towards young boys?
A. My memory is that we learned that later.

Q. Okay. When you learned that later, did you go back to Father Matt and seek at that point to have the same kind of conversation as you testified you had with Father Paquin, to ascertain whether in fact there were others and to learn their names?
A. I don't recall when I had the conversation about other boys with him, I really -- or whether it was -- I don't recall, no. [41]

Q. Given the fact that around September of 1993 there were, as you testified, several complaints coming in around the same time of -- regarding Father Shanley, did that raise a suspicion in your mind that there may be others beyond the ones that had come forward?
A. At that time?

Q. Yeah.
A. I don't recall. I don't recall thinking that, no.

Q. Okay. Was it part of your goal to figure out just how large the problem was with respect to Father Shanley?
A. No.

Q. Why not?
A. I think at that time I didn't have the suspicion that it was extensive.

Q. In any event, you have no recollection of asking Father Shanley whether indeed his activities with respect to the abuse of young boys extended beyond the names of the victims that you were aware of as of September of 1993, is that correct? [42]
A. I have no recollection, was your question?

Q. Yes.
A. Yeah, I don't, no.

Q. Okay. And we went through notes that you had kept -- or the last time we went through notes that you had kept of your conversations with Paul Shanley. Would it be fair to say that if you had had that conversation with Paul Shanley, in all likelihood it would have been reflected in the notes that you kept of your conversations?
A. Can you ask that question again? I just want to answer it correctly.

Q. Sure. We went through in the last deposition your conversations with Paul Shanley as reflected in the notes that you had kept of the conversation. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.

Q. And is it fair to say that if you had had a discussion with Paul Shanley regarding the names of other victims, that that discussion would have also been reflected in your notes?
A. I can't say yes or no. I think I put [43] down in my notes what I thought, you know, I needed to remember about what, you know, what was important here.

Q. And wouldn't a question regarding the existence of other victims be, you know, a topic of importance to you?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Not unless I had a suspicion that this was a -- at that time I don't recall being suspicious how extensive it was.

Q. Okay. And I might have asked this before, but let me just hit this last question on this topic, and that is: As you sit here today, can you think of any priest that you asked the question as to whether there were other victims -- well, let me ask it in this way: Other than Father Matt and Father Paquin, can you think of any other priest that you asked the question of whether there was -- there were other victims beyond those that came forward?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Can I think now?

Q. Yes.
A. I can't think of any right now. [44]

Q. Okay. In prior depositions, prior days of this deposition, Bishop, we talked about some of your communications with Cardinal Law regarding stipends for Paul Shanley and his living arrangements while he was out in California. Again, do you remember generally those topics?
A. Yes.

Q. So at this time you were having some direct communication with the Cardinal regarding Paul Shanley, as opposed to going through the Vicar for Administration, is that correct?
A. Yes, this was prior to -- although I don't recall -- if you recall correctly, I forget the year now, but the Cardinal asked me to be the liaison with Paul Shanley with the diocese. I think that although a memo might be to the Cardinal, it also would be shared with the Vicar for Administration at that time.

Q. Okay. But in any event, I guess what I'm trying to get at is there were some communications that were going directly between you and the Cardinal, whether the Vicar of Administration was also copied on it; it wasn't a situation where [45] you were reporting directly to the Vicar of Administration, the Vicar for Administration was then reporting to the Cardinal and that was the chain of communication?
A. That can vary, you know, in my memory because the Vicar for Administration represented the Cardinal. So oftentimes when you were speaking with the Vicar for Administration about something, it would be that he would communicate it to the Cardinal; other times if the Cardinal had, you know, asked me something or something like that or was looking for something, then I probably would communicate directly to the Cardinal but bring the Vicar of Administration into the conversation.
Now, that's my memory on how it worked.

Q. Okay. When did you bring allegations of sexual misconduct against a priest to the attention of the Cardinal?
MR. ROGERS: Speaking in general terms?
MR. SHERMAN: In general terms, yeah.
THE WITNESS: When did I, is the question?

Q. Uh-huh. [46]
A. It would have been, you know, once we heard about an allegation and we thought there was substance to it, the Cardinal would be informed, my sense is, again, that most likely through the Vicar for Administration, who I would inform directly.

Q. Was it your understanding, then, as of September of 1993 or around September of 1993 --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- that the Cardinal would have been informed as a matter of practice of the allegations that were being made against Father Shanley?
A. Sometime in that time, yes. Now, I'm not sure when but some time in that time, yes, he would be informed.

Q. And do you recall at any time -- at any point around September of 1993 having conversations with the Cardinal regarding the abuse allegations that were being made against Father Shanley?
A. No.

Q. And I think I asked that question a little bit vaguely. Is your answer that you didn't have any conversations or you don't recall whether or not -- [47]
A. I don't recall.

Q. -- whether or not you did?
A. I don't recall.

Q. You don't recall one way or another?
A. Correct.

Q. Might have, might not have?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And as I believe you testified, your practice -- I'm sorry, your authority would have been at that point up to and including recommending that the -- recommending to the priest that he take a leave while the -- or placed on leave while the investigation was taking place?
A. Correct.

Q. You did not have any further authority to take any action beyond -- beyond that; it would have been up to your superiors, either the Vicar for Administration or the Cardinal to take further action, is that your understanding?
A. Can you give me an example what you mean by "further action"?

Q. If the priest refused to be placed on leave, for instance. [48]
A. Right, that would be up to the Cardinal and the Vicar for Administration, right.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm going to get into another topic for a little while. Do you want to take the break right now --
MR. ROGERS: Sure.
MR. SHERMAN: -- since we're going to do it every hour --
MR. ROGERS: Sure.
MR. SHERMAN: -- and then we'll start the other topic which should last --
MR. ROGERS: Sure.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Good.
MR. MIELKE: We're going off the record.

(McCormack Exhibit 76 was marked for identification.)

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

Q. Bishop, let me show you a document that we, during the break, marked as Exhibit Number 76. If you could take a minute and look at that document.
A. (Witness complies.) [49]

Q. Have you had a chance to take a look at that document?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. Bishop, the name of the victim or the author, I should say, of the document has been redacted, and if it helps, I'll show you a piece of paper with that name on it.
A. Okay.

Q. Okay. Now, my question to you, Bishop, is that as of July 10th, 1986, would this be the type of correspondence that would be normally directed to your attention?
A. No.

Q. Is it my understanding that in 1986 you -- strike that.
In 1986 you did hold the position of Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And was it my understanding from your previous testimony that when there were allegations of sexual misconduct that were raised about a priest, that would be normally the type of matter that was given to you in your capacity as [50] Secretary of Ministerial Personnel back then?
MR. ROGERS: Object -- as of 1986?
MR. SHERMAN: Yes, yes.
THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Okay. When did that happen?
A. It would come -- during those years, the Vicar for Administration would ask me to handle this case or that case, this complaint or that complaint, and so it developed through the Vicar for Administration's office.

Q. Okay. So is it your testimony that as of 1986 there was no policy or practice with respect to these types of complaints?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: There was no policy and --

Q. I'm sorry, go ahead.
A. -- I'm not aware that there was a, you know, a definite practice, either.

Q. Okay. Around 1986, however, you were dealing with complaints of sexual misconduct that had been made against priests, is that correct?
A. Around 1986 I would have been given a [51] case, I'm sure, yeah.

Q. And as you sit here today, can you recall, as of the date of this letter, whether you were dealing with any cases of sexual misconduct that had been brought against a priest?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Was there a practice that you're aware of within the diocese as of July 10th, 1986, in terms of how to respond to letters such as this?
A. I'm not aware of a practice, no.

Q. Do you know whether this letter, which is marked as Exhibit 76, was given to you or whether you ever saw this letter before today?
A. I never saw it before today.

Q. Okay. And you're stating with certainty that this is not a letter that you yourself had ever seen, correct?
A. According to my recollection, I don't recall this at all.

Q. Okay. And if -- and fair to say that getting a letter on official stationery from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Human Services, Department of Social Services was not [52] usual; it would have been an unusual letter to have been received, correct?
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: By the Cardinal or by me?

Q. By the Archdiocese.
A. I don't know; I can't speak -- it would be by me; I can't speak how often he was --

Q. Okay. And since it would be an unusual letter for you to receive, it would have been something that would have remained in your memory had you seen it, is that a fair statement?
A. Oh, no, I can't say that. I mean --

Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. You know the Department of Social Services to be the child protective agency in the State of Massachusetts, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, in terms of 1986 -- strike that.
In July -- as of July 10th, 1986, if you had received a letter or you had received this letter, can you state what your practice would have [53] been in terms of responding to this letter?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: By "practice," can you tell me what you mean by that.

Q. How would you have responded to this letter, do you know?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I can't go back to 1986 so that's --
MR. MIELKE: Could we go off the record here.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. MIELKE: We're on the record.
MR. ROGERS: There was apparently a technical snafu and the videographer did not get the Bishop's answer, so we'll just ask the court reporter to read back the question, the objection and answer just so the videographer has it.
(Testimony read.)

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Do you remember what the completion of your answer was, Bishop?
A. So that is difficult for me, you know, [54] to say today I mean how I would have responded in 1986.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Could we go back to Exhibit 74, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: Sure.
THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. Bishop, drawing your attention to the --
A. Excuse me.

Q. Sure. -- the third paragraph on page one beginning "Also the loan from the Archdiocese came (for the lawyer)" and going on --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- from there, we talked about the issue of loans for lawyers during the last deposition, and do you recall -- do you recall that topic being discussed?
A. Yes.

Q. Again, in general?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, other -- in the matters that you were involved in, did you, [55] other than for Paul Shanley, assist in arranging loans for priests who were accused of sexual abuse to allow them to hire lawyers?
A. It was not the practice for me to arrange that. Usually if a priest brought up that he didn't have money for a lawyer, I told him that, you know, the only thing he could do is ask the diocese if they could loan him, and at that time I think the practice always was to go to the Vicar for Administration.

Q. Okay. And you see from this paragraph that indeed Father Shanley did receive a loan from the Archdiocese to hire a lawyer, is that your understanding?
A. Yes, right.

Q. Okay. And with respect to Father Shanley, was that something that you had control of? In other words, were you the decision maker in terms of how much he would receive in a loan, what the terms of repayment were, anything like that?
A. No.

Q. That would have been the Vicar of Administration? [56]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so would you have, for instance, the power to extend the terms of the loan, change a loan or even forgive a loan?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, turning to the last page of this document, which is page five, in the last paragraph --
MR. ROGERS: Page five or page six?
MR. SHERMAN: Oh, I'm sorry, the next to the last page of the document. I'm sorry, I misspoke.

Q. You see in the second -- or what may be the second paragraph the one that starts "You laughed when I suggested moving to Mexico or Costa Rica"? Do you see that? [See Exhibit 74.]
A. Yes.

Q. That's in reference to a conversation that you had with Paul Shanley about his going to Costa Rica or Mexico, do you recall?
A. I don't recall the conversation, but obviously he said that.

Q. As you sit here today, do you have any [57] understanding of what was -- what is referred to in this paragraph regarding Paul Shanley going to Mexico or Costa Rica?
A. My sense is is that he was referring to it's much cheaper to live there than it is here, in the states.

Q. Okay. When he says in the next sentence "It might be cheaper and it might" also -- "and it might allay the concerns of the victims" --
A. Okay.

Q. Okay. -- do you have any understanding of what was meant by allaying the concerns of the victims?
A. The concerns of victims -- this is any understanding now because I can't be exact -- would be that he not in ministry and that he have -- you know, as a priest he have no access to youth. So that would be the concern, that he not be in ministry as a priest and that as a priest have access to youth. So it would be within that context that I would read that.

Q. The concern -- those concerns, however, could have been allayed by his being taken out of [58] ministry in California, is that not correct?
A. Uh-huh.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Except that probably in Costa Rica or Mexico he couldn't do it because he doesn't speak Spanish.

Q. Okay. Did you understand at the time or does this refresh your recollection at all that the context of that statement was that he was going to flee the country to put himself out of reach of the legal process of victims?
A. No.

Q. You had no understanding of that at all?
A. (Witness shakes head.)

Q. Okay.
A. Excuse me, no.
MR. SHERMAN: Could we look on with Exhibit 75, please.

Q. All set?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. And, Bishop, as we talked about the last time, Exhibit 75 is your response to [59] Paul Shanley's letter --
A. Yes.

Q. -- of January 16th, 1994, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, directing your attention to the third paragraph, the one that begins "I can understand your not being at ease," do you see that paragraph?
A. Uh-huh, yes.

Q. Is it fair to say that the import from -- strike that.
Is it fair to say that a fair reading of that paragraph was your telling Paul Shanley that he would not have to pay the loan, and only if he were to win Megabucks should he think about the loan and think about repaying it?
A. Is it a fair reading?

Q. Uh-huh.
A. Can you repeat the question again; I'm not sure what --

Q. Sure. Is it a fair reading of that paragraph that you were advising him not to worry [60] about repaying the loan until and unless he won Megabucks?
A. Well, I think Megabucks is a metaphor, that the thing was is that he didn't have any money, therefore, he shouldn't worry about paying the loan.

Q. Was it up to you to make that determination as to whether to extend the loan and to determine what the terms of payments were?
A. No.

Q. Do you think -- then how is it that you were advising him whether or not he should return the loan if that wasn't within your purview, that that was up to the Vicar of Administration?
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Because my recommendation wasn't about whether it should be paid; it's -- and I don't know what the terms were about the payment. My concern was that he was worrying about it and he was not in a good state of mind, so I didn't want to add to him to be worrying about that; he had other things to worry about.

Q. Did you talk to the Vicar of [61] Administration about the issue whether you could communicate to Paul Shanley that he didn't have to worry about making repayments on the loan?
A. I don't recall.

Q. Would it have been your practice to talk to the Vicar of Administration about something like this before you made a statement to a priest regarding repayment of a loan?
A. Again, I'll say that I don't think I was addressing the repayment of the loan as whether it should be repaid or not; it was that he shouldn't worry about it, that when he's able to pay, he should pay.

Q. Did -- do you recall testifying a few minutes ago that you had authority to change the terms of the repayment of the loan or anything having to do --
A. Correct.

Q. -- with the terms of the loan?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you have any idea at the time of what the terms were for repayment of the loan that he received from the Archdiocese? [62]
A. My understanding was that the terms would be is that the priest would repay when he had the money to repay it.

Q. Okay. And where did that understanding come from?
A. From conversations we had about -- some time about when priests came to me about making a request for help with a lawyer, and I -- at some time I had talked with the Vicar for Administration about this and I know that that was part of the discussion, "Well, how do they pay?" And in some way or other it was when they were able to pay, they would pay, that was why they would get the loan.

Q. So as far as -- so it was your understanding that these loans were made to priests strictly on the basis that if they ever had the money they would repay; if they didn't the money, then there would be no repayment of the loan to the Archdiocese?
A. If they didn't have the money, correct.

Q. Okay. Now, in the next paragraph, again, the issue of a safe house. I'm sorry, did you want to add something? [63]
A. No, I want to clear my throat. I know I have a microphone here.

Q. Okay. You all set?
A. Yes.

Q. In the next paragraph the concept of a safe house again arises, and this is at your response to him. And you state that this is an idea that you have been thinking about for some time. Okay. What was the idea that you had been thinking about for some time?
A. We knew that there were priests who couldn't be in ministry, who shouldn't be assigned to ministry, and that they should live in a house where there would be a structured setting and where it would be a safe place for them to live.

Q. Safe meaning what?
A. Well, you know, I'm not sure that the safe house is my term; I think it's his term, but my understanding is he was referring from a conversation he and I must have had about a place for priests to live who couldn't do ministry who needed to have some kind of supervised living situation, counseling, a structured living, some -- whether it's prayer or [64] whether it's some activities. So the idea was a place where priests could live, and now I think -- maybe he used the word "safe house," I'm not sure about that.

Q. Well, do you want to refer to the earlier exhibit to see whether he used the word "safe house"? I can represent to you that indeed he did, and I'm happy to read you that section.
A. Yes, I recall that now that you say that.

Q. And it's your testimony, as I recall from the last time, that the concept of the phrase "safe house" was not a phrase in your understanding that implied any kind of concealment, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. You say there that there was a place that we had in mind. Where was the place that you had in mind as of January 24th, 1994?
A. I know that we thought of two, if not three places, and there was a place in, I think, a former convent and then --

Q. Where? [65]
A. In Millis, I think it's Millis, in that area.

Q. Yeah.
A. And the other was a former -- I don't want to say it's a nursing home -- I think it was a nursing home in Brighton. I can't think of the third place -- oh, the third place was we also were talking with Mclean Hospital about a building on their property.

Q. Okay. And when you refer to priests that needed this kind of structured setting, are you talking about priests exclusively who were accused of sexual abuse, or are you talking about others beyond that?
A. Sexual abuse.

Q. Exclusively?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And in your answer you -- when you were describing the places you had in mind, you used the word "we." Who is the we that were involved in that decision?
A. Again, in January of '94, it would have been myself, again -- I can't think of the exact [66] staff, but the staff who worked with me on this would be Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, eventually Sister Rita McCarthy replaced Sister Catherine, and then there was Neil Hegarty who was a social worker and then Father Kevin Deeley, Father John Dooher and eventually Father Brian Flatley came on; I don't think he was on at this time.

Q. Okay. Were there -- I'm sorry?
A. And also Wilson Rogers, our lawyer.

Q. And were there superiors of yours that were also involved in these discussions?
A. Yes, I would have discussed this with the Vicar for Administration.

Q. And again, that would have been, as of 1994, Bishop Hughes?
A. I think that would have been Bishop Murphy, at that time it would have been Monsignor Murphy.

Q. How about the Cardinal, was the Cardinal involved in these discussions?
A. Not in our discussions, but I'm sure that he was involved and informed in his discussions with Bishop -- excuse me, Monsignor Murphy. [67]

Q. Why are you sure of that?
A. Because he would always keep him abreast of what, you know, was happening within the administration of the diocese.

Q. Okay. And do you know where the idea originated about creating this kind of safe place for priests accused of sexual abuse?
A. It developed within our conversations about, you know, where do we place priests? We can't put them in rectories, we can't put them in a place where they would have access to youth, and some of them needed, from the recommendations of the treatment institutions, you know, ongoing treatment, therapy. So the idea would be what is the best way to provide this and do this because the man needed housing in some way.

Q. Going back for a second to the complaints that you received on Father Shanley in around September of 1993, was it ever a thought in your mind to make reports of those complaints to law enforcement authorities, such as the D.A. or the police?
A. Our practice was that, you know, the [68] person who met with the complainant would tell them that, you know, that this is a matter where they could report it to the public authorities, whether it was the Division of Youth Services or the children's services or whether it was the police or district attorney.

Q. Okay. So at least as to Exhibit 67, which I had shown you before, which is the memo of Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, pursuant to the practice it would have been Sister Catherine that would have advised the complainant in that case that -- or, actually, let me ask you --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- tell me again what Sister Catherine would have advised the complainant.
A. It would have been our -- you know, when we developed this as a practice, I'm not sure, but I know that we developed it as a practice to say that when people came to us we would inform them about their right to inform public officials. Sometimes it would come to us through a lawyer and sometimes it would come to us directly, but we would always take the advantage of telling them that [69] besides telling us -- because usually, again, now this is 10, 20, 30 years later than the abuse, we would then tell them -- and again, it was Sister Catherine or Sister Rita McCarthy who would do that.

Q. Okay. And as far as you know, that practice was in place as of 1993 and, as far as you know, consistently followed?
A. I don't know whether it was in place in 1993, but I know that it became a practice; now, when, it could have been before. I just know that we were concerned eventually about how the people who wanted to keep it not -- people who wanted this to be kept confidential that they also had a right to report it.

Q. Okay. Now, turning back to Exhibit 75, in the paragraph regarding the safe house and it being an idea that you had been thinking about for some time, you state that "we are not" -- "However, we are not ready to move ahead. If and when we do, your thoughts and offer would be seriously considered."
At this point in time, in January 24th, [70] 1994, Paul Shanley had been accused of at least multiple instances of sexual abuse with respect to adolescents, is that correct?
A. Well, you say multiple; I'm going to say probably around four.

Q. Okay. That's fine.
A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. Why was it that you were interested in having his thoughts and offer be a part of the Archdiocese decision making?
A. He was a person who worked with a lot of wounded people in his ministry and so he knew a lot about, you know, dealing with people who were wounded. And so I think more than anything it would probably -- it came out of that.
Plus, also, I think I might have been trying to be supportive to him, who wanted to do something and knew he couldn't do anything, and he was depressed. So I was trying in some way to be supportive to him.

Q. I guess what I'm trying to get at is -- is that -- by my question is that you acknowledged in the past, both today and in the last deposition, that [71] these allegations were horrific or heinous, correct?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Yet you wanted to make somebody that had engaged in activities that were not only contrary to the teachings of the church, contrary to societal norms and indeed horrific and heinous, part of the process in developing this program. Why did you want to support somebody like that?
A. At that time I didn't know how extensive his behavior was, how horrific it was, and I think I said the two things, is that he had some knowledge about how to deal with people like this so he might have some helpful insights. At the same time, as I look at it now, you know, and as I know his situation now, I would never do that --

Q. Well, when you say --
A. -- because he denies or he's lived in denial, it seems to me.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear it.
A. It seems to me that he has lived in denial about the impact of his behavior on people.

Q. Okay. Well, what is the basis for your statement that he has lived in denial about the [72] impact of his behavior on people?
A. In that how extensive it was. You know, my knowledge now is just how deep and extensive his behavior was.

Q. And how do you know that he's in denial of that?
A. Because he continued to do that for, you know, so many years, it seems.

Q. Okay. The next paragraph concerns the public charges. Do you see that paragraph?
A. Yes.

Q. And you state that you're "unaware of any further activity by the lawyers or the complainants." And then you say "Be assured if and when they begin to make a move, you will be informed." What did you mean by that?
A. Just that, that he would be informed that, you know, there was now -- whether it was civil suits moving -- you know, moving forward or whatever the -- whatever was happening, he would be informed.

Q. Did you intend it as a warning --
A. No.

Q. -- to him? I'm sorry? [73]
A. No.

Q. At this point in time he had already hired Tim O'Neill, is that correct?
A. I'll have to --

Q. Do --
A. I -- you know, I have to -- I'm not sure, but it would be around this time he would be --

Q. Well, you know that a loan had already been arranged for him to hire a --
A. Excuse me, yeah, I was just going to say, he had the loan and he had had the assessment and he had returned to California, correct.

Q. Okay. Why was it important to you to inform him directly if there was a move made by the complainants or their lawyers, as opposed to Tim O'Neill doing that?
A. Well, Tim O'Neill would be one person, but I was also -- we were also responsible for him and so we would also, no matter how the activity -- if the information came through me, then I would inform him; if it came through Tim, I'm sure Tim would inform him.

Q. Okay. Now, you also -- you also [74] supported his request, and I'm referring now to about the seventh paragraph which starts "Regarding room and board," you supported his request for an increase in his monthly stipend, correct?
A. It would be a supplement, to the -- a current sick leave stipend, yes.

Q. Okay. Is that different?
A. Well, the stipend is the same, but it would be a supplemented because of his circumstances.

Q. Okay. And again, was that something that you normally did in your capacity, which is weigh in on the amount that a -- of a stipend for a priest that was on --
A. Okay. Not the stipend but the supplement that was needed to meet his other expenses, yes.

Q. Okay. So this was something that was normal and customary for you to participate in?
A. Yes, for two reasons: One is because I had been assigned this by Cardinal Law with respect to Father Shanley, but also I sit on the Clergy Fund Board, and so when priests had a need for extra help, some of them would come to me and I would present [75] that to the Clergy Fund Board.

Q. Okay. You and Paul Shanley were seminarians together --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?
A. Right.

Q. Do you consider yourself friends?
A. I wouldn't say friends; we were friendly. I wouldn't say friends.

Q. Okay. The last paragraph on that page states "It is wonderful how you maintain your sense of humor in the midst of your difficulties, Paul." Do you see that sentence?
Bishop, what I want to ask you is -- and again, I want to ask it in this context: Here's a man who has engaged in actions which you consider to have been horrific, yet you seem to have this minimizing view in terms of -- in terms of him, as at least reflected of a concern about his sense of humor in light of -- let me rephrase it; I'm saying that the wrong way.
In that paragraph you're expressing your support for his sense of humor as opposed to [76] addressing the seriousness of the allegations against him. Do you find that statement to be inconsistent with -- to be inconsistent with the -- with a response to a person -- with the proper response to a person that had engaged in activities that were as horrific as you described Paul Shanley's?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I was trying to be supportive to him as a person who was -- had just gone through an assessment, had just been -- if you read the letter, you know all the complaints that he had and yet he maintained a sense of humor, and I guess my sense is is that I was trying to be supportive of that so that he didn't get any more, for want of a word, depressed.
I didn't -- because I also try to recognize that he had many difficulties and he had to deal with them, but I was trying to lift up that. At the same time, you know, it's good not to lose your sense of humor. I suppose I see humor as the opposite of tears and it would be good if he had both. [77]

Q. Okay. Turning the page, the third paragraph down, it starts "You mentioned in your letter that you received a copy of the assessment, Paul. Nothing can happen in your situation until you free your lawyer to share the evaluation with me. As you know, the assessment belongs to you and your lawyer and, therefore, my understanding is it is not discoverable." You see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Where does that understanding come from?
A. From his lawyer, I would assume.

Q. Okay.
A. And --
MR. ROGERS: Don't assume anything Bishop; if you remember.
THE WITNESS: That's not an assumption. I don't know, I learned it at some time, that if the assessment was given to his lawyer, that it was a client/lawyer relationship.

Q. Okay. And -- but it was your intention as of -- as reflected in that letter to receive the results of that assessment, is that correct? [78]
A. Yes.

Q. The assessment was done at the request of the Archdiocese, correct?
A. Correct, but I think my arrangement -- I think the arrangement was made through his attorney.

Q. Okay. But the initiation --
A. Initiation.

Q. -- of the assessment was done by the Archdiocese, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, you state in that last sentence "Once you release this information, I will then continue the process regarding your situation." Do you know what that's in reference to?
A. Yes, it would be, you know, what the decision would be about, his status with the Archdiocese.

Q. Okay. And the status being what?
A. Whether -- you know, where he would live, what he would do, what the decision -- what the recommendation would be of my office and the review board that would be made to the Cardinal about his [79] status.

Q. And as of January 24th, 1994, do you know whether the diocese of San Diego had been informed of the allegations of sexual abuse that had been leveled against Paul Shanley?
A. To my knowledge, you know, he was only there for a few weeks and so they hadn't been yet informed about his presence.

Q. Okay. And --
A. And he had said that he didn't think he could stay there much longer.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. He said in his letter that he didn't think he could afford to stay there much longer because he had no moneys.

Q. Was it your intent as of January 24th, 1994 to make sure -- strike that.
As reflected in that paragraph, you state that "I must act on this soon," meaning that a couple of complainant's asked about you and whether -- meaning Paul Shanley -- and whether Paul Shanley was being supervised. Was it your intention at that point to notify the diocese of [80] San Diego regarding Paul Shanley and regarding the allegations that were being made against him?
A. I just want to take time to read this.

Q. Sure, please.
A. Okay. And so your question is was it my intention to act on this?

Q. Yeah.
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what was it your intent to do, to notify --
A. Excuse me, go ahead.

Q. -- to notify the diocese of San Diego of what?
A. My intention would be is that he was living there and that he couldn't do any ministry.

Q. Okay. Was it your intention to inform the diocese of San Diego of what the allegations were against Paul Shanley?
A. I'm not sure that we would -- the intention was to specify the allegations or just to say that he was accused of sexual misconduct of minors.

Q. Okay. So at least, in terms of that [81] topic, you would have told them, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that would be something that would be conveyed to the pastor as well as the bishop?
A. In this instance, it would be to the bishop or the chancellor or the Vicar General, someone who represents the bishop.

MR. SHERMAN: Could I have this marked, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 77 was marked for identification.)

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. I understand that this has also been previously marked, this exhibit which is now 76 has also been previously marked as 53. So the question is why don't we just keep it referred to as the record and we'll keep them both in there since we've already marked it.
MR. ROGERS: Fine.

Q. Bishop, taking a look at that letter, you've had a chance to review that letter?
A. Yes.
MR. TUCKER: I think it's Exhibit 77; I think you said 76. [82]
MR. SHERMAN: Did I? I'm sorry.
MR. TUCKER: I think it's Exhibit 77.
MR. SHERMAN: No, it's 76.
MS. PILLSBURY: That's the wrong letter.
MR. SHERMAN: Thank you for asking.
MR. ROGERS: He's got the original in front of him.
MR. SHERMAN: Gotcha. Oh, gotcha, that's true. Okay. Thanks.

Q. I'm sorry, 77. In the second paragraph, Bishop, there's a reference to Paul Shanley's new address and the fact that you've asked that it not be made public. What were the circumstances in your informing him that his address would not be public?
A. I don't know.

Q. Was that your practice with respect to priests that were on -- that were on leave or out-of-state, that their addresses would not be made public?
A. Again, I can't answer that, honestly. I wasn't responsible for the addresses of priests. [83] You know, it was, I think, this instance it was he who -- in some way I'm telling him it would not be made public. I have a sense that he must have asked me, but it's a sense; I don't know.

Q. And do you have a memory, as you sit here today, as to why or what the context was of his asking you that his address not be made public?
A. No.

Q. Do you recall at any time his expressing a fear that victims -- that his prior victims might seek him out if they knew where his address was?
A. I don't recall that.

Q. No memory one way or another on that?
A. No memory one way or the other.

Q. Do you recall a conversation as to whether the safe house, as he used the term and as you responded the term, could be established in Palm Springs, California?
A. Can you ask that -- I'm not sure how you prefaced your question.

Q. Do you recall a conversation --
A. No. [84]

Q. Okay. Do you see a reference to that in this letter?
A. Yes.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection at all in terms of the context for which your respond -- strike that.
Does that refresh your recollection at all in terms of the context in which the subject came up?
A. No, I would be speculating.

Q. Okay.
MR. ROGERS: Well, the Bishop had indicated --
MR. SHERMAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. ROGERS: -- he had some business at 12:15. Is this a good time to take the break or --
MR. SHERMAN: That's fine, that's fine. Yeah, I'm sorry, I --
MR. ROGERS: No, that's fine.
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.
THE WITNESS: Is that okay?
MR. SHERMAN: Sure. How long do you want to take? It's your -- [85]
THE WITNESS: I would like to say 1:15 but if not 1:30, but I'd like to -- I'd like to get this business done as soon as I can.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: Say 1:15.
MR. SHERMAN: I understand, that's fine, as quickly as we can go and that way --
THE WITNESS: I don't want to keep you here.
MR. MIELKE: We're off the record.
(Luncheon recess.)

(McCormack Exhibit 78 was marked for identification.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record.

Q. Bishop, in front of you is a document marked Exhibit 78. Can you take a look at that document.
A. Yes.

Q. This is a memo that you wrote on February 14th, 1994 regarding Father Shanley's change of address?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know why Father Shanley was [86] moving his address so frequently around this time?
A. Well, when he returned in January to California, my sense is he went to San Diego, and in that letter he said they didn't have the money to live there so he was going to return to Palm Springs.

Q. Okay. And was his changing of his address from San Diego to Palm Springs in any way at the request or the behest of the Archdiocese?
A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 79 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, have you had a chance to review Exhibit 79?
A. Yes.

Q. What do you recognize that document to be?
A. My handwriting, it's my notes and it's a reflection of his testing by the Institute of Living.

Q. Okay. Do you know whether your notes came from the actual report from the Institute for Living or from a conversation that you had with [87] somebody about what was done at the Institute for Living?
A. From a conversation with somebody.

Q. Okay. And who was that conversation with?
A. My memory is that it was Tim O'Neill.

Q. Okay.
A. Attorney Tim O'Neill.

Q. Right. And you had also talked to Tim O'Neill previously about other testing or other -- another assessment that had been done by the Institute for Living, is that correct?
A. No, I think it's the same assessment.

Q. Okay. Is this additional information that came out of that same assessment?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. If you know.
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. But in any event, in March --
A. Excuse me, because I don't know what other one you're referring to.

Q. Okay. In March of 1990 -- strike that.
The memo you wrote in March of 1994, is [88] it --
A. May I clarify what I think you have been talking about?

Q. Sure.
A. Maybe what happened was was that after he had had --
MR. ROGERS: Let me interject, Bishop. You said maybe. I don't want you to speculate here --
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: -- Mr. Sherman doesn't either, just what you know or don't know.
THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. Okay. Do you have a sense of what the interrelationship is between the two communications?
A. Yes.

Q. What is that?
A. One is that he would have had a verbal communication at the end of his assessment, and this is most likely a summary of the written communication.

Q. Okay. And this is a communication you had with Attorney O'Neill on or around March 3rd, [89] 1994?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, at the top, very top of the page, if I read that correctly, it says "testing by" Institute of Living or "I of L"?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that's a reference to testing that was done by the Institute for Living of Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
A. And as we're talking, I'm saying wasn't it just recently that I wrote to him and said I don't have anything from Tim O'Neill?

Q. Yes.
A. So I think my recent speculation could be wrong, that this probably is not the written one; this probably is the verbal one.

Q. All right. In any event, it's information --
A. Correct.

Q. -- that you're receiving from Tim O'Neill. Did you at any point in time actually [90] get the actual report from the Institute for Living on Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, to this date do you know whether the Archdiocese ever received a report, or at least while you were at the Boston Archdiocese, do you know whether they received the actual report?
A. No.

Q. No, they didn't or no --
A. No, they didn't.

Q. Okay. If you could help me at the beginning, it says -- if you could read where it says -- starting "Paul Shanley - age 62" and then keep on going.
A. "Admits to substance of complaint. "- sexual activity with 4 adolescent males and" women -- no, "and with men and women over the years "- not sexually active since mid 1992." And then there's a redaction here so I don't know what that is, "take" something, but --

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, if you could -- let's stop right there and get on -- I just want to make [91] sure I understand your writing because I'm trying to follow it. It says "sexual activity with 4 adolescent males," and what's the next part?
A. "And with men and women over the years."

Q. Okay. So was it your understanding that what this refers to is separate categories of sexual activity with adolescents -- adolescent males being one category and also sexual activity with what would be adult men and adult women being two other categories, is that a fair characterization?
A. That's how I read it, yes.

Q. Okay. The next sentence, if I read it correctly, says "not sexually active since mid 1992," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you knew at that time from this report that his sexual activities stopped, at least according to the report, in mid 1992, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Which would have meant that he was sexually active while he was at St. Jean's during the 1980s, is that correct? [92]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. Okay.
A. I --

Q. Go ahead.
A. I can't say that it happened while he was at St. Jean's, but he was active up until 1992, so it could have happened while he was at St. Jean's.

Q. Okay. Did this information give you any concern at this point in time that there may have been other adolescents who had not come forward that were the subject of sexual abuse by Paul Shanley while he was at St. Jean's or during the time that he was at St. Jean's from 1980 to 1989?
A. No.

Q. Why?
A. He admits to sexual activity with four adolescent males and then talks about sexual activity with men and women over the years. So it doesn't indicate that -- you know, it doesn't indicate that there was sexual activity with other adolescents.

Q. But as far as you know, the only complaints as of this time that had been made to the [93] Archdiocese of Boston were by four adolescent males, correct?
A. Either three or four, correct, yeah.

Q. Three or four, okay. Keep on going down on the page after the redaction. The next line says "avoided self disclosure."
A. Yes.

Q. What did that mean to you?
A. Just what it says, that he avoids self disclosure, he doesn't volunteer disclosing about himself.

Q. Okay. So if he avoids disclosing more about himself, again, did that raise a concern in your mind that he had not been -- he was not necessarily completely open about the number of adolescent males that he had engaged in sexual activity with?
A. Well, you know, I don't know what I was thinking then, but as I read this, I read it more that he is not ready to volunteer; you have to elicit it from him.

Q. But if that were the case, that he were not ready to volunteer and that you had to elicit [94] from him, is it fair to say that you understood that what was contained in this report may not be the complete picture or the whole history?
A. My understanding was is that this is not the complete picture or that it was not the complete -- I don't -- I'm not sure what my understanding was, really, honestly.

Q. Okay.
A. You know, I can't think back.

Q. Okay. The next line says "somatizes his anxious condition."
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Somatize is a clinical term?
A. Yes, a medical term, yeah.

Q. Okay. And what do you understand the word to mean?
A. That his -- that his anxiety around things or his emotions become -- they affect his bodily functions.

Q. Okay. Next line says "concentration/attention difficulties."
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is that in relation to some [95] of the physical manifestations of his anxious condition?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Do you know what that line is in reference to, beyond what it says?
A. No.

Q. Okay. There are three lines of redactions. Could you read the next two lines to me, please.
A. "Was sexually involved with a priest at age 18 - oral sex - bad boys do same to him."

Q. Okay.
A. No, "had boys do same to him," I think that's probably what it says.

Q. Okay. And again, what's do you understand that to refer to?
A. That Shanley was sexually involved with a priest at age 18, it was oral sex and that had boys do the same to him. I'm not sure whether that refers to Shanley or to the priest, I'm not -- I'm not sure. You could understand it as that it was Shanley who had boys do the same to him.

Q. Isn't it more likely that you would [96] have written it down if it had relevance to Paul Shanley, as opposed to about another priest?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: This was a report I was receiving and I wrote it down to help my understanding so I wouldn't -- it could have been about the priest or about Shanley, really; I don't make that distinction.

Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, you have no way of making that distinction or in the context being able to tell whether it's more likely that you were referring at that point to Shanley as opposed to the other priest?
A. I can't.

Q. Okay. If you can, again, keep on reading the next few lines.
A. "Somatizes stress - thought processes and affect also affected."

Q. Can you read what's in the margin?
A. No, I can't. Can you?

Q. No. Keep going.
A. "Perceptions may be overpersonalized which result in his disregarding social expectations [97] and less consistent decision and judgment making."

Q. Okay. What does that mean to you or what did you understand that to mean?
A. That he overpersonalizes things, that he sees them in his world and that that kind of precludes him from dealing with social expectations or being -- and then it just adds, therefore, he's less consistent in his judgment making. It's just that his personal feelings about himself become so -- he becomes so absorbed in them that he kind of excludes social expectations.

Q. Okay. And give me an example of your understanding of what kind of social expectations would be excluded.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know; I'd have to --
MR. ROGERS: You're asking him what was intended by the evaluation by this? I mean this was --
MR. SHERMAN: No, what he understood that phrase to mean at the time, the context.
THE WITNESS: At the time it's kind of [98] hard to say because it's far back, but my understanding is that if you overpersonalize something you kind of block out your reading of other circumstances and it becomes solely focused on you. And so what happens is is that he so focuses on himself that he doesn't think about what the other social obligations or expectations are.

Q. Okay. Now, continuing to read down, I think I can read the next line. It says "he has not begun to address the allegations in the therapeutic environment." Did I read that correctly?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. In other words, he wasn't dealing with the allegations in treatment, is that a fair reading of that line?
A. I'm not sure -- no, because it talks about "has not begun to address." So my sense is is that in some way the expectation is is that he's going to enter some kind of therapeutic counseling.

Q. Okay. And again, going down to the next two lines, I can't read that.
A. "His desire to help priests in similar situations is a defense. Histrionic, narcissistic [99] tendencies."

Q. And again, what did you understand that to mean?
A. That he defends looking at himself, his own situation, by trying to help others.

Q. Okay.
A. And histrionic, narcissistic tendencies would be, you know, that he tends to be kind of excitable or dramatic and self-centered.

Q. Okay. And the last three lines on that page, again, I have trouble reading them.
A. "Preoccupied with issues of abandonment. Adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features with somatizing," soma something, somat --

Q. Yeah.
A. -- somatization, maybe, something like that.

Q. Yeah.
A. Then the next line is "Personality disorder - narcissistic, histrionic and dependent features," I'm going to say.

Q. Okay. [100]
A. The word "disorder" is above that, but I don't know where that fits.

Q. Okay. That would be -- those two lines would be the diagnosis from the Institute for Living?
A. That's what I would understand it to be.

Q. Okay. Continuing on to the next page, it says at the top "should be involved in"?
A. In.

Q. And then there's some redactions and then underneath that it says "clinically treated for suicidal ideation, avoids" -- what's the next word?
A. "Considering past behavior."

Q. Okay. Keep going, please.
A. "It will fail as he deals with issues legally and therapeutically."

Q. Okay. And then the next line?
A. Do "not be seduced" -- I add the word "do" "not be seduced by his confident attitude."

Q. Okay. What do you understand that to mean?
A. Which one?

Q. Well, let's start with "avoids [101] considering past behavior - it will fail."
A. His avoidance of considering past behavior will fail as he begins to deal with the issues legally and therapeutically, he'll be forced to deal with them.

Q. I see. So in other words, his avoidance -- let me see if I can phrase it so I understand, and please tell me if I'm wrong, that his avoidance of dealing with his past behaviors will -- strike that.
He will stop avoiding dealing with his past behaviors once he starts being able to deal with these issues legally and therapeutically?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Is that a fair statement?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You used the word "stop"; it says "it will fail." There's a -- you know, it will begin to stop.

Q. Okay.
A. Whether it stops altogether, is --

Q. Okay.
A. Yeah. [102]

Q. All right. And then there's a section called Allegations and there are -- there's a number of one. The redaction, I assume --
A. Yes.

Q. -- redaction is -- or redaction refers to a name of a person, and as to number one it says "oral and anal sex," which actually why don't you read it.
A. "While on a counseling visit."

Q. Okay. Keep going.
A. Excuse me, "to Paul in Roxbury - became involved in alcohol and drugs."

Q. Okay. And do you understand the "became involved in alcohol and drugs" to be a reference to the victim or to Paul Shanley?
A. To the victim, I think.

Q. Okay. Number two?
A. "Paul Shanley admits to long-term on-again/off-again sexual relationship."

Q. Three it says "male 3" --
A. "Died of AIDS."

Q. Okay. There's a crossing out of the word AIDS or appears to be a crossing out of the word [103] AIDS.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you understand what that means?
A. No.

Q. Okay. "Male 4" is a question mark?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you understand what the question mark is in reference to?
A. No.

Q. Could be --
A. I'm sorry, no.

Q. And then 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 --
A. "Heterosexual relationships - last one" -- "last one 10 years, others - adult males."

Q. Again, from your notes, do you understand what that means?
A. That there were five other people, that there were allegations of heterosexual relationship, one that lasted 10 years, and that there were others with adult males.

Q. Okay. And those would not be heterosexual relationships if there were others with adult males, correct? [104]
A. No, those would be homosexual.

Q. Correct. Okay. And then there's a line that says "Observation about self -" and then it says "- ashamed - embarrassed," and could you read the rest of it.
A. "Ashamed - embarrassed - wished I had found the gay community."

Q. That would be a reference to Paul Shanley wishing that he had found the gay community?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then there's a dash below that. It says "gay."
A. Yes.

Q. Again, presumably I take it that's a reference to Paul Shanley being gay?
A. Presumably, yes.

Q. And then the last two lines?
A. "Observation by testers - clear thinking, affable and upbeat mood - underlying depression."

Q. Now, once you received this information from Tim O'Neill, do you recall what you did? [105]
A. No.

Q. Did you have a practice once you received information such as this?
A. The practice would be to pull together all the allegations and his responses and then the recommend -- the observations -- and, see, there's no recommendations here. There's usually recommendations made, too. And then to pull all that together once you have the recommendations and develop what would be a recommendation from my office and then one to present to the -- a review board.

Q. Okay. Now, when you received these allegations prior to pulling together all this information for presentation to the review board, would you, as a matter of course or as a matter of practice, discuss it with the Vicar for Administration or the Cardinal?
A. Before I -- no, not usually; I might with the Vicar for Administration and I might not, it would depend.

Q. Okay. But who was the one that had the authority to make the decision -- or, strike that.
Let me ask you: Did you have the [106] authority at this time to decide what went before the review board and what didn't?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You didn't -- and so I understand, you did not have to get the approval of either the Vicar of Administration or the Cardinal to make that decision?
A. Generally speaking, no, I didn't; I made it myself.

Q. Okay. And you didn't have a practice of going to others to get approval before you made a presentation to the review board?
A. I would share it with the people who worked with me in the office, those names I shared with you. You know, we were dealing with many cases at this time and so we would be making presentations to the review board. And so what we would do is pull the information about each of these cases together and then go before the review board.

Q. Okay. And do you recall, in the specific instance of Paul Shanley, having a discussion regarding the allegations with either Bishop -- was it Reverend Murphy at this time? [107]
A. Yes, I think it's Bishop -- Monsignor Murphy.

Q. I'm sorry.
A. That's okay.

Q. -- Monsignor Murphy or the Cardinal regarding Paul Shanley independent of what you were doing with the review board?
A. I don't recall, no.

Q. Okay. Actually, while she's getting that, let me just ask you a couple of general questions. When you made your presentation to the review board, and I think you talked about pulling together information, I take it your desire was at that time to pull together all relevant information for presentation to the review board, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Would that have resulted in a file review as well?
A. It would be when it was ever ready, you know, it would be all that was in the file, all that I had in the file.

Q. Okay. Would you go to the confidential [108] file to see what was in there before you made a presentation to the review board?
A. This would have been in the confidential file.

Q. Well, the -- I guess what I'm saying to you is on Exhibit 79, those are your notes --
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. -- that you took of your conversation with Tim O'Neill, correct?
A. Right.

Q. And then you're going to pull together all relevant information for presentation to the review board, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And as part of your process of pulling together all review -- all relevant information, would that have meant that you would also seek out the confidential file to see what was in the confidential file and see what should be included as part of that presentation?
A. Yes, but for purposes of explanation, I think we would have been going to the confidential file previous to this note or any other note. [109]

Q. That's my --
A. It would have been an active file.

Q. Okay. And that's my -- that was going to be my next question, you know, in that line, which was fine, and I didn't ask you that this morning and I apologize. When you started getting the complaints on Paul Shanley, was that also a time when you would have gone to the confidential file to see what else --
A. Yes.

Q. -- was in the confidential file?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you recall doing that specifically with Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. But that would have been your practice?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 80 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set, Bishop?
A. All set.

Q. Okay. What do you recognize Exhibit 80 [110] to be?
A. A summary, probably -- yeah, a summary of much of what was included in Exhibit Number 79.

Q. And would this be -- strike that.
What was the summary used for?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Would this be the document that you would have presented to the review board?
A. No, because it has the names of the complainants and Father Shanley.

Q. Right. And when it comes time we'll make sure those names are redacted. We won't refer to those names for the purposes here.
Was it your practice at the time to take your handwritten notes and translate them into a written memorandum for the file?
A. Not all the time. Whatever I say for this would be speculation because I don't know why I did.

Q. Okay. In the -- in the handwritten notes it mentions that he had -- I'm sorry, in the handwritten notes it mentioned his sexual activity with adolescent males. Do you see that? This would [111] have been in the prior exhibit, 79.
A. At the top, yeah, okay, right, correct.

Q. And it also mentions sexual activity with women and also homosexual activity with other adult --
A. Right.

Q. -- other adult male. You mention in this report that heterosexual relationships, you know, correct, on that?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And -- actually -- actually, you know what, strike that, strike that. Let me move on. Let me move on.
Bishop, one question. There's references to the review board and the Clergy Fund Review Board. Are we talking about two separate boards at this point?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That will help avoid about four more documents.

(McCormack Exhibit 81 was marked for identification.)

Q. Exhibit 81, you've had a chance to [112] review Exhibit 81?
A. Yes.

Q. This is, again, a letter that you wrote, is it not, to Paul Shanley on May 23rd, 1994, correct, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. And this letter refers to a claim by somebody represented by Attorney MacLeish, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did you understand or do you understand that to be a new claim or one of the claims that was referred to previously in your letters, do you know?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Going down to the next to the last paragraph, you say "I am sure this request and all the legal activity will add to your stress. At the same time, Paul, I, too, am concerned for your health and the legal dimension of this claim." What did you mean when you talked about the legal dimension of this claim?
A. I don't know because I'm not familiar with the claim. My sense is that I followed up, I [113] talked -- asked him to come home. So my sense is that it's going to have an impact on him and he really should -- he needs a defense as well as he needs support.

Q. Okay. When you talk about the phrase "legal dimension," does that have -- does that have meaning to you in general, or is that specific to a particular claim that's in front of you?
A. I think that, you know, I'm concerned about that he has to address these issues and that he needs the help to do that because he's responsible. So I was concerned for his health and I was concerned for the legal dimension, that it gets addressed, but I really can't expand on that.

Q. Okay. Why was it important for Paul Shanley to come back to Massachusetts at this point?
A. Because the claim needed to be moved -- Eric MacLeish wanted the claim to move forward, to be addressed.

Q. And why did that mean that Paul -- let me ask you, in light of that, why did it mean that Paul Shanley had to come back to Massachusetts? [114]
A. My understanding is that he would need to be present for the legal dimension of that.

Q. Okay. Do you have, as you're sitting here now, today, do you have any better memory of what that was all about?
A. No.

Q. And can you also help me as to why you were the one that was talking to him about his need to come home to address the claim, as opposed to Tim O'Neill having those communications with him?
A. I'm not sure. I, again, I had that pastoral role with the victims and with the offending priest, and so I tried to be helpful to both, and in this instance I'm trying to persuade him in some way or another to come home because of this.
Now, whether I was asked by the diocese or Tim O'Neill or Eric MacLeish, I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. If this were indeed a new victim; in other words, somebody not previously referred to, would that have given you concern that there might have been others beyond the ones that had been previously identified out there that you needed to reach out and find? [115]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, that would be speculation whether it was a new one or not, or what I was thinking at the time, really.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 82 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had a chance to review what is Exhibit 81, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this is a memo to the file that you wrote on August 30, 1994 regarding Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Is this 82 or 81? I think it's 82, isn't it?
THE WITNESS: Exhibit 82.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry, Exhibit 82.
MR. ROGERS: Sorry, excuse me.
MR. SHERMAN: I wrote it down and I wrote it down wrong.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Do you know what [116] occasioned your consultation with Dr. Cassem?
A. The memo says about his continued presence in California and the advisability of his return to the Archdiocese.

Q. I guess what I'm asking is do you know -- and I know you testified you would meet with Dr. Cassem regularly?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you know whether this was just one of your regular meetings with Dr. Cassem or whether you specially sought Dr. Cassem out to talk about Paul Shanley?
A. Well, I think that whenever I met with Dr. Cassem it was purposeful, so that -- and it could be other priests besides him, but I'm sure that I wanted to talk with him about Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. And what was your -- do you recall what your concern was about his continued presence in California and the advisability of his return to Boston?
A. I'd be speculating.

Q. Okay. You have no memory whatsoever of why the issue was being addressed with Dr. Cassem? [117]
A. I'm not sure what occasioned this, except the advisability of whether he should stay there or return to Boston.

Q. Well, previously, you know, in the last exhibit you had already instructed him to come back to Boston, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you have -- in light of that, do you have any recollection of what would have changed in your thinking so that you were raising the issue with Dr. Cassem?
A. I don't have a recollection, but I would speculate that he was resisting.

Q. Okay. And what causes you to speculate that?
A. Well, between my asking him and my talking with Dr. Cassem about which is advisable.

Q. Okay. Now, you make mention in the next paragraph about the letter of Dr. Shaner's that we talked about in the last day of your deposition and the summary of the diagnostic report sent in March 1994. Do you see the reference to that?
A. Yes. [118]

Q. Okay. Is the summary -- do you know whether the summary of the diagnostic report was in fact that typed summary that we had previously marked as Exhibit 80?
A. Well, it's a summary to some degree; I'm not sure, it could be.

Q. When there's a reference to the diagnostic report sent in March of 1994, does that indicate to you that at some point you did in fact receive the actual report?
A. I know I didn't, no.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. I know that I didn't.

Q. Okay. Now, Dr. Cassem lists four or so -- or four observations. The first observation is that "Father Shanley is so personally damaged that his pathology is beyond repair." What did you understand that to mean?
A. His overall, you know, diagnosis there, that he somatizes, that he continually somatizes his stress, he somatizes his anxiety. If you recall over those months, he -- I recall that he's continually having physical health problems, asthma, allergy, and [119]
so he's the kind of person who it would be pretty hard to break through that defense.

Q. Did you understand the phrase "pathology beyond repair" to refer in any way to his psychological issues?
A. To me that's a psychological issue, what I just explained.

Q. Okay. Let me --
A. It's a defense, yeah.

Q. Let me rephrase it. Did you understand the word "pathology beyond repair" to refer to, in any way, his sexual disorders?
A. By "disorders" what would you mean?

Q. Well, let's say having anything to do with the issue of sexual abuse, for instance.
A. My understanding was that he was not sexually active and that he had a prostate problem, if I'm correct.

Q. So your under -- what I'm trying to get at, so your understanding of the word "pathology," as used by Dr. Cassem in your discussion, had to do with his physical ailments and the fact that he somatizes his anxiety? [120]
A. Right, I would say that he's highly defended and he somatizes his anxieties, yes.

Q. Okay. Number two, that "Father Shanley cannot do any kind of ministry." And why was it that he could not do any kind of ministry, or what was your understanding as to why?
A. Because of his understanding of his background and his pathology.

Q. Okay. And again --
A. His sexual abuse.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. Because of his sexual abuse of people --

Q. Okay.
A. -- minors.

Q. Okay. Did you see -- as of the time of this memo, you mentioned the fact that Father Shanley had said that he was not sexually active. Did you see in any way a danger to others in terms of Father Shanley sexually -- strike that. Let me ask that again.
You mentioned before that Father Shanley had said that he was not sexually [121] active. Was the issue of the potential sexual abuse of others in your mind at the time that you wrote this memo or part of your discussion with Dr. Cassem?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My understanding of his not being sexually active came from the Institute for Living --

Q. Right.
A. -- it was their report. And secondly, that he should not be allowed to work with youth.

Q. Why?
A. But that was he --

Q. Okay.
A. I understand your question, but was he a danger to minors, is that --

Q. Okay. Let me ask it this why: Why should he not be allowed to work with youth? Was it because of the past allegations, or did you feel that there was a present or future danger that would put those youths in harm, harm's way?
A. You know, I can't go back to this time to say what I was thinking then, but if you want me to say what I think I was thinking -- [122]

Q. Uh-huh, please.
A. -- my sense is that his psychological makeup was such that he shouldn't -- he couldn't have responsibility for doing ministry.

Q. Okay. And again --
A. Whether it was sexual abuse or whether it was anything else that he was experiencing psychologically.

Q. Because of his psychological makeup, people were at -- or youths were at risk with respect to Paul Shanley?
A. No, because of his psychological makeup, he could not perform good ministry.

Q. Okay. Let's go to number three. If that were the case, why was there a need to protect others from him?
A. Because of his psychological makeup.

Q. Protect others from him in what way?
A. That he didn't see -- he was highly defended. He didn't see his own failings. He tried to do just the opposite. He tried to help everyone and actually -- so that he personally didn't have the makeup at this time or in the past to be a [123] responsible minister of the church.

Q. But --
A. So how do we protect others from him that he couldn't do good ministry, is protect others from him -- I don't know what I meant by that other than --

Q. Okay.
A. -- we had to ensure that he wouldn't harm others, whether it was sexually or any other way.

Q. Okay. So did you feel that people were at risk for being harmed by him if he were in a -- if he were performing some sort of ministry, is that correct?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that.

Q. Okay.
A. I said that, you know, because of his past history and because of his psychological makeup, you know, he couldn't be put at risk to do any kind of ministry.

Q. Okay. And I'm trying to get to the -- [124]
A. To the --

Q. -- to the word "at risk." I'm trying to get what the risk was. What were -- what were you concerned about?
A. That his way of ministering was so narcissistic, so, you know, self-centered that he really couldn't relate to the needs and the feelings of others responsibly.

Q. And so it's your testimony that the notion of protecting others or -- strike that.
Let me ask the question: Is it your testimony that the notion of protecting others had nothing to do with the risk of sexual abuse occurring in the future?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm not saying that, either, no; I'm just saying it was overall. It was a general way that he shouldn't do any kind of ministry --

Q. Okay.
A. -- and it would include that.

Q. Okay. The issue of his being laicized was also raised, is that correct? [125]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And fair to say, you know, is it not, obviously that, at least within the church, being laicized is the ultimate sanction?
A. Yes. That can be voluntary as well as involuntary.

Q. And did you, in this discussion, did you understand the issue of his being laicized to be a voluntary -- to be voluntary or involuntary?
A. Well, at this time it would be voluntary, but it would be to encourage him in some way -- I think what this is saying, as I read this now -- and I can't tell you what I thought then -- is that how do you put restrictions on this man so that he doesn't try to be a priest and serve others? How do you do it to be effective? Because he was so highly defended, how do you break through that?

Q. And so one possibility was, again, to just laicize him and for the church to be done with him in terms of having to look out for him or to have the church as part of his life? That's a bad question.
A. Yeah. [126]

Q. Let me withdraw that, sorry.
The fact, though, that he's narcissistic or the fact that he somatizes ailments, that in and of itself would not be the basis for seeking to laicize a priest or seeking to have a priest voluntarily laicized, am I right?
A. Not those; it's, you know -- the question is how do we set some restrictions on him? And so I am writing a memo to the file saying, you know, he can't do any kind of ministry, he's highly defended, how do we limit it? And so Dr. Cassem says, you know, his pathology is so severe that, you know, it's beyond repair. So this is all the outcome of that conversation.

Q. Okay. And let me ask --
A. May I just finish?

Q. No, please, I'm sorry.
A. And so the idea is how do you, in some way -- here's a fellow who wants to do something but he can't but he doesn't serve people well and he can't serve as a priestly minister because he had sexually abused minors. So, you know, how do you in some way set some restrictions on him when he has [127] this defense that he doesn't look at himself, he doesn't -- you know, I can't say take responsibility, but in some ways he doesn't -- he doesn't see the harm he has done.

Q. Okay. Let me ask this question: Obviously he was currently out in Palm Springs, California, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did you feel that there were -- that there was a need to protect people out in California from Paul Shanley at the time that you wrote this memo?
A. I don't recall feeling that.

Q. Okay. Why not leave the situation alone, then? If you didn't feel there was a need to protect people, wasn't he in a situation where everything was stable?
A. Well, the problem was he, himself, wasn't stable.

Q. Okay. So your feeling was that in the future people could be at risk for Paul Shanley?
A. Unless he cooperated and we found him a stable environment where he got the support and the [128] assistance to begin dealing with his issues therapeutically.

Q. Did you have any fear that people in California might be at risk for sexual abuse, either then or in the future, because of Paul Shanley's history and psychological problems?
A. I don't recall that, I don't.

Q. That wasn't a concern of yours at all at the time?
A. I didn't think it -- I had the impression that he was not sexually active and that that was from the Institute for Living, that this was difficult for him to become involved in.

Q. Okay. Now, it's also fair to say from that memo and -- from this memo which is Exhibit 82, that as of August 30th, 1994 that the bishop in Palm Springs still had not been -- had been informed about Paul Shanley's presence and his inability to carry out priestly ministry, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you recall an earlier exhibit, and I can get it out for you if you need to, where you talked about the need to do so on a prompt [129] basis?
A. I remember somewhere in there it says that we should do this, yes.

Q. Okay. Do you have any explanation of why, as of August of 1994, that the bishop out in Palm Springs was still not contacted about Paul Shanley's presence there?
A. As I think back at those days, there's one thing is whether he was going to remain present there; I think second was that we had a lot of cases at that time and the review board would be going by cases. I don't recall that we had made a recommendation and developed a recommendation.
Now, what the issues were that prompted that recommendation or not to be developed, I'm not sure. So that as I look back at those days, I would say at least those three things came into play, that what was in May was still here in August. You know, discussing this, but I'm going to say that those three reasons at least prompted, you know, my not contacting the bishop yet.

Q. But wouldn't it be fair to say, also, Bishop, that, you know, somebody who, you know, felt [130] there was a need to protect others from him that had pathology beyond repair, that that's the kind of information that if you had been the bishop out there in Palm Springs you would want to know about some priest that was living within your midst, wouldn't it be?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would expect to be informed at some time that a priest was living out there and that he couldn't do ministry and the reasons why he couldn't do ministry, yes.

Q. And those reasons -- I'm sorry, and those reasons included the fact that he had sexually abused or there were allegations --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that he had sexually abused adolescents, correct?
A. Right.

Q. Okay.
MR. ROGERS: Bob, any sense how much more you have?
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry?
MR. ROGERS: Any sense how much more [131] you have?
MR. SHERMAN: We're getting close.
MR. ROGERS: What does that mean, five minutes, an hour and a half?
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah, I'm hoping -- you thinking about in terms of a break or are you thinking in terms of --
MR. ROGERS: If you're close, we'll just keep going.

MR. SHERMAN: Yeah. We're going to get to some of the review board stuff so that's going to take a little bit. You know what, let's do this: Let's do this one last one now. If we can take like a five minute break, that will also help me and I'll look through and I can give you a --
MR. ROGERS: Fine.
MR. SHERMAN: Good.

(McCormack Exhibit 83 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had a chance to look at Exhibit 83, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That's your handwriting, is it [132] not?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that's a note that you wrote regarding Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And is it fair to say that one of the decisions or one of the reasons for making a decision as to whether Paul Shanley should remain in California or come home had to do with the issue of charitable immunity?
A. That's what it says here.

Q. Okay. Do you recall this memo, when you wrote it?
A. No.

Q. Do you have an understanding of what was meant by the phrase "no charitable immunity in California. Legal counsel says come home"?
A. I understand the second line "legal counsel says come home!" more clearly than "no charitable immunity in California." I think it means that, you know, there was charitable immunity in Massachusetts but there is not in California.

Q. So the issue would have been that if [133] Paul Shanley engaged in conduct which gave rise to some sort of tort claim while he was in California, there would be no charitable immunity and the diocese would be fully exposed, is that a fair reading of what that -- of your understanding of that memo?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's my understanding now, as you explain it, yes.

Q. Okay. So the --
MR. ROGERS: Well, don't simply accept Mr. Sherman's explanations; it's what you understand. Mr. Sherman's offered a possible understanding and Mr. Sherman's asking you what your present understanding is of that. So simply because Mr. Sherman suggests what is there doesn't mean you need to adopt it because he's explained it in those terms.

Q. Okay. Is that a fair characterization or is that -- would your understanding be consistent with my characterization?
A. Your characterization, you know, makes sense, but my understanding was that only made sense -- excuse me, so that's one way of looking at [134] it. My understanding was is that there was no charitable immunity in California; my understanding is there is in Massachusetts, but I'm not too sure, I'm not clear.

Q. So under your characterization, what would the issue then be of leaving him in California, if there were no charitable immunity?
A. I'm not a legal expert so I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. So you have no understanding beyond what you've just testified to?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Isn't it fair to say, Bishop, that what the concern was that was reflected in this memo is that he might commit another act in California that would give rise to a legal claim, there was no charitable immunity out there, that the concern was future acts by Paul Shanley?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: See, I really -- I can't say that, honestly.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Let's take the break right now.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record. [135]

(Recess.)

(McCormack Exhibit 84 was marked for identification.)

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

Q. Bishop, showing you the next document which is marked as 84, I believe, can you take a minute and familiarize yourself with that document?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. You've had a chance to review it?
A. Yes.

Q. And what do you recognize Exhibit 84 as?
A. To be the recommendation about Paul Shanley to the review board in October 3rd.

Q. Okay. And this is a memo that you authored, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And when you made recommendations to the review board such as this, in addition to pulling together documentation that you needed, would you also consult with people before you made your recommendation?
A. Yes, often.

Q. Okay. And again, this is a general [136] question in terms of your practice, you know, who were the types of people or who were the people that you would consult with?
A. Well, Dr. Cassem was one, but there's a couple other psychiatrists, psychologists and psychiatrists at Mass. General, two other psychiatrists and a psychologist at Mass. General and there was a psychiatrist in Belmont.

Q. Okay. And do you know whether that -- other than your consultation with Dr. Cassem that was reflected in the memorandum we talked about a few minutes earlier, do you know whether you consulted with any other psychological or psychiatric professional about Paul Shanley before making your recommendation to the review board?
A. Sometimes there was a -- sometimes I would consult with a psychiatrist on the review board, there was a forensic psychiatrist who sat on the review board, and if I had some questions about something, I would speak with him before making the recommendation.

Q. And do you have a memory of whether you did consult with that person regarding Paul Shanley [137] before you made the recommendation?
A. No.

Q. Again, is that no, you don't have a memory or no, you did not?
A. Excuse me, no, I don't have a memory.

Q. Okay. And again, so I understand, when you're pulling together your recommendation, it would be based on information that was contained in the confidential file, is that correct, so you would make -- is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So you would have made a review of the confidential file before you put together your recommendation?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, I note under the assessments you did the -- in number two you said "The assessment of the inpatient residential treatment institute noted that" and then you said that "there are many conflicts in the area of sexuality." Was that their term or was that your term?
A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know where that phrase comes from? [138]
A. No.

Q. Now, you testified that the only information you had based on what the residential treatment institution -- that would be the Institute for Living, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. The only information you had was the information communicated to you by Attorney Tim O'Neill, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. As of this point in time, I believe you testified, as well as throughout your tenure, you never received the actual report from the Institute for Living on Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Is there a reason why in this recommendation you didn't outline exactly what the nature of the sexual abuse complaints were against Paul Shanley?
A. This is the recommendation; what the report -- we would make a verbal report to the board first that would outline all the allegations and the work that was done on behalf of the victims and then [139] with the offending priest or whatever other activities. So a lot of it was oral reporting, and this is basically a summary recommendation.

Q. Okay. Did the -- did your recommendation typically include the results of your file review, or was that part of the oral report that you made to the review board?
A. I think -- I'm not sure. Basically the recommendation would be in response to the allegations and the -- about the priest and then the recommendations that had been developed regarding how -- about his treatment in the future; whether it -- whether the -- this review encapsulated other material or not, if I thought it was appropriate, it would. You try to give the review board as complete a picture as possible of the offending priest.

Q. At the time that you made your presentation and your recommendation -- I take it you do both, you do an oral presentation and a written recommendation, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. At the time you made your presentation and your recommendation to the review board, did you [140] know that there were allegations of sexual abuse involving Father Shanley that went back as early as 1962?
A. No.

Q. Okay. And you had reviewed the confidential file prior to doing that presentation, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is it your testimony that --
A. Excuse me, it was my practice to review the confidential file.

Q. Okay. It was your practice. And is it your testimony that there was nothing that was contained in the confidential file at the time that you made your presentation to the review board regarding a complaint, particularly a complaint from the LaSallette Center regarding an allegation -- I think I said before '62; I'm reminded I meant 1966, going back to 1966? Let me ask the question again because I may have confused you as well.
Did you know at the time that you made your presentation and your recommendation to the review board that there were complaints of sexual [141] abuse involving Father Shanley going back to 1966?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.

Q. Okay. And is it your testimony or do you have a -- is it your testimony that upon reviewing the confidential file there was not a memorandum in the file from the LaSallette Center regarding an allegation of sexual abuse but regarding allegations of sexual abuse against Paul Shanley occurring in 1966?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would answer by saying I never saw a written report or an oral report about Paul Shanley having sexually abused minors from the LaSallette Fathers in 1966.

Q. Okay. You did know, however, because you were involved in this about the Wilma Higgs' letter regarding the talk that Paul Shanley had been given on -- where he had expressed some rather aberrant views on the relationship between men and boys, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was that something that was [142] part of your presentation to the review board?
A. I don't remember that, no.

Q. Okay. And when you say you don't remember, it's your best memory that that was not part of what you presented to the review board?
A. It could have been or it couldn't have been, I just don't remember doing it, no.

Q. You don't have a memory one way or another?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. Would that be -- would something like that be something that was normally part of your written recommendation as opposed to an oral presentation?
A. No, that would be an oral -- it could be either, but there wasn't sexual misconduct; that was a speech he gave and it was about homosexuality and it included that thing about men and boys. And so I could have made a report that there was this complaint back in '91, is it?

Q. Okay.
A. But I think I would -- you know, that would have been oral, I think. I don't think that [143] would have been written, no.

Q. Do you see in the last paragraph of your recommendation, and this is now October of 1994, again, stating that the bishop where he resides -- and again, that would be out in California -- that the bishop be informed about his presence. Do you have an explanation of why -- now we're in October of 1994 -- and the bishop is still not told about Paul Shanley?
A. I would say it was the same, that we would -- probably not, you know, inform him, I think, for all those reasons, that we had not come up with a recommendation, we had -- we were dealing with a lot of cases at this time, and I think it was probably much more than that and, you know, looking for some kind of final closure of this case before acting on it.

Q. And is it fair to say that you were not concerned at this time that there were young boys in California that might be at risk at the hands of Paul Shanley?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Based on the information that I had from the Institute for Living and his own [144] physical health, that was not within my spectrum of fears about him.

Q. Okay. Is that something that ordinarily you would have talked to the -- did you say it was a psychologist or a psychiatrist on the review board?
A. The psychiatrist, right.

Q. Is that something you would have talked to the psychiatrist on the review board about, again --
A. Excuse me, about?

Q. The issue of whether boys were at risk given the fact that Paul Shanley was still in California.
A. That would have come into the discussion; whether I would have consulted with him individually on that, I could have, but I don't recall whether I did, but he would have been privy to that because he was on the review board.

Q. Okay. And again, do you have a recollection of whether that topic was something that was discussed during the review board meeting?
A. I don't have a recollection, no.

Q. The psychiatrist in this case was [145] Tom Gutheil, Thomas Gutheil?
A. Yes, right.

Q. And without actually showing you the documents, do you have a memory that in fact the review board adopted your recommendation, Bishop, and the Cardinal adopted the recommendation of the review board regarding Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 85 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, before we get to Exhibit 85, let me ask you one follow-up question: Do you know whether the bishop in Palm Springs was ever -- was indeed ever notified about Paul Shanley's presence?
A. Do I know? I don't recall.

Q. One way or another?
A. One way or another, no.

Q. Okay. In the -- in Exhibit 84 it says at the bottom that the bishop in the area he resides "(a) be informed about his presence and his inability to carry out priestly ministry, (b) be asked permission for him to live there." Do you see that? [146]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you have any knowledge of whether the bishop in Palm Springs was asked for his permission to have Paul Shanley live there?
A. Again, I don't know. It was around this time that I -- or it's around this time or shortly after this that I think I ended my work as the delegate so that's why I'm vague on this.

Q. Okay. Now, the document that I just gave you, which was number 85, was written by Reverend Flatley.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that?
And as of April of 1985, Reverend Flatley was the assistant to the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel; in other words, he would have been your assistant, is that correct?
A. No, I would have been out of the position and so he would have been assistant -- did you say to my position or to me?

Q. To you.
A. No, to the position. I think the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel was Paul Miceli, [147] Father Paul Miceli --

Q. Okay.
A. -- he succeeded me.

Q. Do you know when you left your position as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
A. That's why I -- I have an idea it was in November.

Q. November of '94?
A. Yes, I think.

Q. The document that I just --
A. I stand to be corrected on that.

Q. Okay. Do you remember it being 1994 when you left as opposed to 1995?
A. Right. I'm almost sure that Brian Flatley came on and he began picking up the slack and I was introducing him to the work and I was winding down.

Q. Okay.
A. No. Now, when I -- I'm not sure what the definite date, but my sense is is that it was before the end of '94.

Q. Okay. The letter that I put in front of you, which is Exhibit 85, have you ever seen that [148] letter before?
A. No.

Q. Were you involved in any way with Paul Shanley after you left -- let me finish the question, please -- after you left your position as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel -- after you left your position as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
A. No.

Q. You also left as the delegate at that time as well?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you know who -- whether it was Brian Flatley that had the responsibility for Paul Shanley after you left your position?
A. Yes, it was Brian Flatley.

Q. Did you have any involvement in the issue of Father Shanley seeking a position at Leo House in New York?
A. No.

Q. Did anybody consult with you regarding your knowledge of Paul Shanley in conjunction with his prospective appointment at Leo House in New York?
A. No. [149]

Q. Did you keep in touch with Paul Shanley at all after you left your positions as delegate and as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
A. No.

Q. Is it fair to say that the last involvement that you can recall that you had with Father Shanley was the review board recommendation?
A. Yes.

MR. SHERMAN: I don't believe I have any more questions.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you.
MR. SHERMAN: Thank you.

MR. MIELKE: This concludes the deposition.

(Deposition concluded at 2:55 p.m.)

CERTIFICATE OF WITNESS

I, Bishop John B. McCormack, do hereby swear/affirm that I have read the foregoing transcript of my testimony, and further certify that it is a true and accurate record of my testimony (with the exception of the corrections listed below):

Page Line Correction

_______________________
Bishop John B. McCormack

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _____________, 20____.

Notary Public/Justice of the Peace
My Commission Expires:

CERTIFICATE

I, Sandra Day, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Commissioner of Deeds of the State of New Hampshire, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes of the deposition of Bishop John B. McCormack who was first duly sworn, taken at the place and on the date hereinbefore set forth.

I further certify that I am neither attorney nor counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken, and further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed in this case, nor am I financially interested in this action.

THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER.

SANDRA DAY, CSR, RPR
N.H. Certified Shorthand Reporter
No. 30 (RSA 331-B)