1 1 (Video on.) 2 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're now recording 3 and on the record. My name is Wayne Martin. I'm 4 a certified legal video specialist for National 5 Video Reporters, Inc. Our business address is 58 6 Batterymarch Street, Suite 143, Boston, 7 Massachusetts, 02110. We are here in association 8 with Hennessey Corporation, doing business as 9 Robert H. Lange Company of 50 Congress Street, 10 Boston, Massachusetts, 02109. 11 Today is May 8, 2002 and the time is 12 9:17 a.m. This is the deposition of Cardinal 13 Bernard Law in the matter of Francis Leary, 14 Plaintiffs, versus Father John Geoghan, 15 Defendants in Suffolk Superior Court, Civil 16 Action No. 99-0371. The deposition is being 17 taken at the Suffolk Superior Courthouse in Post 18 Office Square at Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf 19 of the plaintiffs. The court reporter is Loretta 20 Hennessey of Hennessey Corporation. At this time 21 counsel will state their appearances and the 22 court reporter will administer the oath. 23 MR. GORDON: I am Attorney William H. 24 Gordon and I represent Plaintiff Francis Leary 2 1 and 85 other plaintiffs who have brought claims 2 against Father John J. Geoghan, and his 3 supervisors at the Boston Archdiocese at 4 different times. My office address is 100 State 5 Street, 6th floor, Boston, Massachusetts, at the 6 Law Offices of Mitchell Garabedian. With me 7 today is also Attorney Mitchell Garabedian 8 representing the same plaintiffs. We do not, the 9 only plaintiffs we do not represent are Messrs. 10 Hardigan, Ezdra and Pagliuca. 11 MR. GARABEDIAN: Good morning. 12 MR. TODD: My name is J. Owen Todd. I 13 appear for the Cardinal, Cardinal Law personally. 14 MR. ROGERS: My name is Wilson D. 15 Rogers, Jr. I appear for His Eminence Cardinal 16 Law personally and for all of the remaining 17 defendants excepting only Thomas Duane and John 18 Geoghan, and I'm with The Rogers Law Firm at One 19 Union Street, Boston. 20 MR. ROGERS, III: Wilson Rogers, the 21 Third on behalf of all of the defendants 22 excepting Thomas Duane and John Geoghan. 23 MR. MARK ROGERS: Mark Rogers on 24 behalf of all defendants except for Thomas Duane 3 1 and John Geoghan. 2 MR. O'CONNELL: Tim O'Connell 3 representing Mr. Pagliuca. 4 MS. JACKSON: Susan Jackson for Thomas 5 Duane. 6 MR. O'DONNELL: Michael O'Donnell for 7 Joseph Ezdra and Michael Hardigan. My address is 8 165 Washington Street in Quincy. 9 MR. MURPHY: Tom Murphy on behalf of 10 Thomas Duane. 11 MS. TANNENBAUM: Shauna Tannenbaum for 12 the Law Offices of Mitchell Garabedian. We 13 represent the 86 plaintiffs. 14 MR. GARABEDIAN: With me today I have 15 a victim who is also a plaintiff. His name is 16 Mark Keane. 17 MR. KEANE: Good morning. 18 BERNARD F. LAW, Sworn 19 a witness called on behalf of the Plaintiffs, 20 having been duly sworn, was examined and 21 testified as follows: 22 MR. GORDON: The parties will enter a 23 stipulation that all objections except objections 24 as to form are reserved until time of trial. 4 1 Further, all motions to strike are reserved until 2 time of trial. The plaintiffs will agree that 3 the deponent may sign under pains and penalties 4 of perjury without having to have his signature 5 notarized. 6 And let me state, I know there's going 7 to be an objection that is going to be made 8 generally for First Amendment. Let me state an 9 objection for the record, I'm not sure it will 10 create a problem, but it may. As I understand it 11 from counsel who have identified themselves, 12 there are now two counsel at the table both 13 personally representing Cardinal Law, and I guess 14 I'm a little confused as to who will be making 15 objections on behalf of Cardinal Law because it's 16 not normal to have two lawyers able to do that at 17 a deposition. 18 MR. ROGERS: Well, first of all, let 19 me take the first issue, the First Amendment. I 20 suggest that we agree that I can have a 21 continuing objection as to the First Amendment. 22 I have raised the First Amendment as a defense 23 and feel the inquiry into the internal workings 24 of the Church is inappropriate. I think it would 5 1 be a more orderly deposition if we go forward 2 with just an agreement on the record that that 3 objection is reserved and is considered made as 4 to all of the testimony and it will be raised in 5 an appropriate forum. I just think it would make 6 for a more orderly inquiry. 7 As to the Cardinal, Mr. Todd and 8 myself are co-counsel. I was going to suggest 9 that we take the position that an objection by 10 any lawyer on behalf of a defendant runs to all 11 defendants to avoid the situation where one 12 attorney makes it, then everybody else wakes up 13 and say oh, yes, me, too, and then we have all 14 these people yelling out "objection." I just 15 suggest that anybody makes an objection, it runs 16 to all defendants. Now, that obviates your 17 concern, but I don't, I just think it will all 18 make for a more orderly progression. 19 MR. GORDON: Let's see how it plays 20 out. I think you may be right. Let's see how it 21 plays out. It's my understanding now that there 22 is a standing objection on First Amendment 23 grounds to the questions at the deposition. 24 MR. ROGERS: Yes. 6 1 MR. GORDON: And our position has been 2 clear before. We think there has been an attempt 3 to over, to make an overbroad interpretation of 4 the First Amendment, we don't think it applies to 5 the scope you do and this is an issue we continue 6 to disagree on and the Court has generally more 7 often than not. 8 MR. ROGERS, III: But we can agree 9 it's a standing objection. 10 MR. GORDON: Yes. 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. GORDON: 13 Q. Would you state your name for the record? 14 A. Yes. My name is Bernard Francis Law. 15 Q. And what's your date of birth? 16 A. November 4, 1931. 17 Q. And where do you reside? 18 A. I reside in Brighton, Massachusetts, 2101 19 Commonwealth Avenue. 20 Q. And is that the Archdiocese Cardinal's residence? 21 A. And office, that's right. I live over the store. 22 Q. Are you, you're a citizen of the United States; 23 is that correct? 24 A. I am. 7 1 Q. Are you a citizen also of the Vatican State? 2 A. You know, I am. But may I qualify that? I am 3 because I inquired of that this week since the 4 question was raised, and I had never considered 5 it before. The answer that I have is that I am. 6 But I must say that it hasn't been something that 7 I've been conscious of in the past 17 years. 8 Q. It was something that we had heard raised this 9 week. It didn't come from us, but it is now 10 something that we have some interest in knowing. 11 You're not a citizen of any other 12 country that you know of? 13 A. No. I was born in Mexico, and by a change in our 14 own law I believe now I would have the ability of 15 dual citizenship in terms of both countries, but 16 I, as a matter of fact, do not have that. 17 Q. As I understand it now, you could have 18 citizenship in Mexico, but you -- 19 A. As well as the United States. 20 Q. Yes? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do you know if you have any ambassadorial 23 standing with the Vatican? 24 A. No, I do not. I have represented the Holy See as 8 1 a legate for a conference, but that was not 2 ambassadorial standing. 3 Q. Do you have a summer address? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. And your primary residence, then, is the 6 Comm. Ave. address? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And you don't have a winter address, winter home? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. You graduated high school when? 11 A. 1949. 12 Q. And where did you graduate high school? 13 A. Charlotte Amalie High School in St. Thomas, 14 Virgin Island. 15 Q. Oh how is that high school name spelled? 16 A. C-H-A-R-L-O-T-T-E, and then capital A-M-A-L-I-E, 17 High School. 18 Q. And did you go to college right after graduation 19 from high school? 20 A. I did. 21 Q. And where did you go to college? 22 A. I went to Harvard. 23 Q. And how many years did you stay at Harvard? 24 A. Four years. 9 1 Q. And did you get a baccalaureate degree? 2 A. I did, 1953. 3 Q. And what was your degree in? 4 A. History. 5 Q. Did you graduate with honors? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Okay. After you graduated from Harvard, what did 8 you do next? 9 A. I entered the seminary. 10 Q. Which seminary did you enter? 11 A. I entered the St. Joseph's Seminary in St. 12 Benedict, Louisiana, and I was there for two 13 years, and then I went, was sent by the Bishop to 14 the Pontifical, P-O-N-T-I-F-I-C-A-L, College, 15 Josephinum, which is Joseph and then I-N-U-M, in 16 Worthington, Ohio, and I was there for six years. 17 Q. Did you receive any degrees from the seminary? 18 A. The -- no. I received a second Bachelor's in 19 philosophy, but I had -- it was -- by our system 20 it would be a graduate study, but the seminary 21 didn't give you a degree. You finished the 22 course of theology leading to ordination. 23 Q. While you were at Harvard, did you meet the late 24 Bishop Lawrence Reilly? 10 1 A. I did. 2 Q. And when you met him, was he a priest or a 3 Bishop? 4 A. He was a priest. 5 Q. And it was at the time Father Reilly? 6 A. Father. Might have been Monsignor, I wouldn't be 7 sure of that. As a matter of fact, I think it 8 was Monsignor. 9 Q. Did you have discussions with Monsignor Reilly 10 about entering seminary? 11 A. I did. 12 Q. Did you keep in touch with Monsignor Reilly after 13 you left seminary? 14 A. Sporadically. 15 Q. When you knew Monsignor Reilly, had he served as 16 secretary for Cardinal Cushing at that time, if 17 you know? 18 A. I -- he was secretary to the Cardinal at one 19 point of my knowing him as chaplain also of 20 Harvard Catholic students. 21 Q. What year did you become ordained a deacon 22 A. I was ordained a deacon in 1961. 23 Q. Do you remember approximately what month? 24 A. I want to say April. 11 1 Q. Spring time? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. When you were ordained a deacon, how much 4 later was it before your ordination as a priest? 5 A. I was ordained a priest, May 21, 1961, Pentecost 6 Sunday. 7 Q. Was there an internship at all while you were a 8 deacon, did you serve any parish doing parish 9 work? 10 A. As a deacon, no. I -- no. 11 Q. As a seminarian, did you ever assist in any 12 parishes? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What did you do as a seminarian in parishes? 15 A. For six years I worked fully in the summer in 16 parishes, what seminarians do do, helping. I had 17 a pastor who was a wonderful mentor and I went on 18 sick calls, I taught religious education, I 19 tutored, I visited the sick, I did census, I 20 participated in liturgies to the extent that it 21 was appropriate for my status as a seminarian. 22 Assisted in any way I could. 23 Q. In any of this parish work that you did while in 24 the seminary, was any of it within the confines 12 1 of the Archdiocese of Boston? 2 A. No. 3 Q. What diocese was it in? 4 A. It was then the diocese of Natches Jackson, 5 Natches-Jackson, which covered the state of 6 Mississippi. 7 Q. After you were ordained a priest, were you 8 assigned to serve in a parish? 9 A. I was. 10 Q. What parish? 11 A. St. Paul Parish, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 12 Q. Were you called a curate then or parochial vicar? 13 A. No, parochial vicar comes later. Curate at that 14 time. 15 Q. Who was the pastor at St. Paul when you were 16 there? 17 A. Monsignor Michael J. McCarthy. 18 Q. How long did you serve as vic -- as curate, 19 excuse me, as curate as St. Paul's? 20 A. About a year and a half. 21 Q. After that year and a half, what did you do next? 22 A. I was named editor of the Diocesean Newspaper, 23 and given a few other jobs as well because it was 24 a small diocese in terms of clergy and number of 13 1 Catholics. There are only about 40,000 Catholics 2 in the whole state. And I helped out in the 3 parish on weekends where I lived, but it lead 4 into more work than weekends. 5 Q. How long were you editor of the Diocesan 6 Newspaper? 7 A. Until 1968. 8 Q. So that was approximately five, five and a half 9 years? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. While you were at the diocese of Natches Jackson, 12 did you have the opportunity to work with any 13 priests who were assigned to the Archdiocese of 14 Boston? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you -- do you remember if during that period 17 you visited Boston? 18 A. I don't recall. 19 Q. After your service as editor of that newspaper, 20 what did you do next? 21 A. I was assigned -- well, as you know, assignments, 22 your assignment is in accord with what canon law 23 lays out in terms of process, and I was a priest 24 of the diocese of Natches Jackson, so that was my 14 1 affiliation, and my superior was the Bishop of 2 that diocese. I was asked if I would serve the 3 Conference of Bishops in the Office of Ecumenical 4 and Interreligious Affairs. The Bishop felt that 5 it would be good for me to do that and released 6 me, and I went there. 7 Q. Who was the Bishop at the time? 8 A. Bishop Richard Oliver Gerow, G-E-R-O-W. 9 Q. And when you say the Conference of Bishops, are 10 you referring to the National Catholic Conference 11 of Bishops? 12 A. That's correct. It's the United States National 13 Catholic Conference of Bishops now. 14 Q. Was it called National then? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. So you went to Washington, D.C. to work 17 with that organization? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Technically you were still, though, assigned to 20 that diocese? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And the diocese gave you permission to work 23 there? 24 A. That's correct. 15 1 Q. How long did you work at that Office of 2 Ecumenical -- what was the title again? 3 A. Ecumenical and Interreligious. 4 Q. How long did you work in that office? 5 A. A little bit more than three years. 6 Q. Did you have a title in that position? 7 A. Executive director of that office. 8 Q. Did you have occasion while you worked in that 9 office to meet Bishop Lawrence Reilly? 10 A. I don't recall. There would have been no reason 11 to have done so, and I don't believe I did. 12 Q. What were the duties and responsibilities -- 13 A. Excuse me. 14 Q. I'm sorry? 15 A. Yes, I would have seen him at the general 16 meetings of Bishops if -- no, I'm not sure he was 17 a Bishop at that time. I don't believe he was a 18 Bishop during that time. No, I wouldn't have 19 seen him. 20 Q. Okay. When the Conference of Bishops, the 21 National, United States Catholic Conference of 22 Bishops meets, is it, are the auxiliary bishops 23 of dioceses invited usually? 24 A. Yes. They're members of the conference. 16 1 Q. Are there ever separate conferences just of 2 ordinary bishops? 3 MR. TODD: Objection as to form. 4 Q. Let me ask this. Is there something in canon law 5 that refers to an ordinary? 6 A. Yeah. 7 Q. And what is the ordinary? 8 A. The ordinary would be the Bishop of the diocese 9 as distinct from the auxiliary Bishops who may be 10 assisting him. 11 Q. Were there ever national meetings just of 12 ordinary Bishops? 13 A. Not that I know of, no. 14 May I go back to -- 15 Q. Sure. 16 A. -- a question concerning whether or not I had in 17 a certain time frame seen Bishop Reilly. I do 18 recall that there was an occasion when I did come 19 to Boston and I saw him, and it was to -- I was 20 invited to give a talk, and I saw him on that 21 occasion. And I had no recollection of when that 22 was, but it was in this time frame. 23 Q. Was this a talk on civil rights? 24 A. It was a talk about my experience in Mississippi, 17 1 yes. 2 Q. And obviously when you came to Boston, you had 3 some conversations with Bishop Reilly? 4 A. I would have seen him, yes. 5 Q. You don't remember -- 6 A. I viewed him as a very important person in my 7 life. 8 Q. Do you remember at all what you talked about? 9 A. I have no recollection of the conversation. 10 Q. Okay. Did you ever meet Cardinal Cushing? 11 A. Met him, yes. 12 Q. You don't remember any conversations with 13 Cardinal Cushing, though? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Was there anybody else that you can recall who 16 was with Bishop Reilly when you met him that time 17 you came to Boston? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Okay. While you were -- actually, let me ask 20 you, what were your duties as executive director? 21 A. To assist a committee of Bishops and the 22 responsibility of this committee was to chart the 23 ecumenical and interreligious relationships of 24 the Catholic Church at the national level. 18 1 Q. While you were serving as executive director, did 2 you meet a Father Thomas Doyle? 3 A. Well, I met Father Thomas Doyle, and I'm trying 4 to look, I'm trying to pinpoint the time. It 5 could very well have been the time if he was 6 serving at the Nunciature at that time. 7 Q. You met Father Doyle at the Nunciature? 8 A. While he was there, yes. 9 Q. What was the Nunciature? 10 A. The Nunciature which was then, in those days was 11 the delegation, not the Nunciature, the 12 Nunciature is the headquarters for the 13 representative of the Holy See in this country. 14 Q. After your three years -- strike that. 15 While you were executive director, did 16 you ever attend meetings of the National Catholic 17 Conference of Bishops? 18 A. Yes, particularly if there was an issue before 19 them relating to the office. 20 Q. Were you present when a report by Dr. Conrad 21 Baare, B-A or Baare, B-A-A-R-E, was given, or S? 22 A. I don't recollect that. 23 MR. GORDON: Okay. Why don't we have 24 this marked as Exhibit 224. 19 1 (Document marked as Exhibit 224 2 for identification.) 3 Q. Your Eminence, I'm going to show you Exhibit 224, 4 The Role of the Church in the Causation, 5 Treatment and Prevention of the Crisis in the 6 Priesthood. It's a document that was filed, I 7 gather, in the Worcester Superior Court and was 8 marked as depositions in 1995 and 1997. I'm 9 going to ask if you've ever seen this report 10 which today is marked as Exhibit 224. 11 MR. TODD: The question is ever seen 12 at any time? 13 MR. GORDON: Yes. 14 (Document exhibited to witness.) 15 A. Well, you know, do you want me to just go ahead 16 and read this now and see if I can recall it? 17 Q. No. I'm asking if you've seen it before. 18 A. I have no recollection of seeing this. 19 Q. Have you heard of -- 20 A. But let me -- 21 Q. I'm sorry. 22 A. -- look through and see. 23 I don't recall seeing this report. 24 Q. Do you recall anybody ever discussing this report 20 1 to you? 2 A. This report? 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. I can't say that I've heard people describing 5 this report. In the -- I have heard some 6 discussion of a report, and if it's this report, 7 then I've heard that. 8 Q. Approximately what was the date of the report 9 that you've heard of? 10 MR. TODD: Objection as to form. 11 MR. GORDON: Okay. 12 Q. You can answer. 13 MR. ROGERS: You can go ahead and 14 answer, yeah. 15 A. It's difficult -- I see here, November, 1971, and 16 so -- but I must tell you that I do not recall 17 seeing this report. 18 Q. Okay. But you seem to remember in the early 19 1970s mention of a report covering this issue? 20 A. No, no, no, no, no. Not in the 1970s. In the 21 discussion of this case I've heard -- 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. -- mention of report, and I didn't know whether 24 it's this report or not. 21 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. But I.... 3 Q. Did that come up with discussion with people 4 other than your lawyers about this report? 5 A. I mean -- yes, yes, not with my lawyers, but with 6 the press. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. Reading press reports. 9 Q. Anybody other than the press or the attorneys 10 describe this report to you? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. After you finished your service as 13 executive director, what was your next 14 assignment? 15 A. I went back to the diocese and I served as vicar 16 general. 17 Q. When you served as vicar general in that diocese, 18 was that the second position within that diocese? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. How long did you serve in that diocese as vicar 21 general? 22 A. From '71 until I left the diocese in '73, 23 December of '73. 24 Q. And did your status change at that point in 22 1 December, '73? 2 A. Yes, I became a Bishop. 3 Q. And were you assigned to a diocese? 4 A. I was. 5 Q. And what diocese was that? 6 A. The diocese of Springfield-Cape Giradeau, 7 G-I-R-A-R-D-E-A-U. 8 Q. And you were the ordinary Bishop at that diocese? 9 A. I was. 10 Q. And how long did you serve as ordinary there? 11 A. I served there until March of 1984 when I was 12 installed as Archbishop of Boston. 13 Q. While you were the ordinary Bishop of Springfield 14 Cape Giradeau? 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. Did you have reports that came to you about -- 17 I'm not asking for any names, but did you have 18 reports of priests having inappropriate contact 19 with children? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. What were the -- what was the procedure that was 22 in place there to deal with those reports? 23 A. As I, as I recall, there was a sending of the 24 person for a psychological evaluation and for 23 1 treatment. 2 Q. Were there less than five instances while you 3 were there? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Was it more than one? 6 A. I don't recall more than one. 7 Q. So it wasn't an ordinary thing that you came 8 across there? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Did you consult any of the other Bishops about 11 how to approach this issue? 12 MR. TODD: This issue? 13 Q. Being a report that a priest had an inappropriate 14 contact with a child. 15 A. I consulted people who were on my staff, but I 16 did not, as I recall, consult a Bishop beyond the 17 diocese as to what to do here. 18 Q. Is that priest still a priest at this time? 19 A. Yes -- no, the priest that I consulted. 20 Q. That's fair. 21 A. The priest I consulted. 22 Q. Is the priest you received a report on still a 23 priest? 24 A. He's not active, no. 24 1 Q. Okay. And what you were indicating earlier was 2 that some of the staff who advised you are still 3 active priests? 4 A. That's correct. That's correct. 5 Q. Are any of those priests who advised you working 6 in the Archdiocese of Boston? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Are they still at the diocese you left? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Are they -- is one of them the Bishop there now? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. Sometime in 1984, were you named to become 13 the Archbishop of Boston? 14 A. Yes, in January of '84 is when I found out. I 15 forget exactly when it was made public. 16 Q. Do you remember when Cardinal Medeiros died? 17 A. He died in September of '83. 18 Q. Did the -- do you remember who informed you you 19 were going to be the new Archbishop of Boston? 20 A. Yes. The Holy Father's representative in this 21 country, who was Archbishop Cardinal Laghi at 22 that time. 23 Q. It was directly by Cardinal Laghi? 24 A. He was Archbishop Laghi. It's normal that such a 25 1 notification would be given by the Pope's 2 representative to the candidate or the person. 3 Q. So it wasn't by Tom Doyle, Father Doyle? 4 A. No, no. 5 Q. Okay. When did you actually become Archbishop of 6 Boston? 7 A. March of, March 23, maybe, March -- 8 Q. Sometime in March? 9 A. March in the 20s of '84. 10 Q. And what is the term for when you became 11 Archbishop of Boston? 12 A. I was, I was installed as Archbishop. 13 Q. And what was the term used to indicate that your 14 status had become a Bishop approximately ten 15 years earlier? 16 A. Ordained or consecrated at the earlier years it 17 was called, but then later ordained. 18 Q. And so when you were installed as Archbishop of 19 Boston, you were already considered a Bishop? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. The only thing that changed is the diocese that 22 you were assigned to? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Now, the diocese here is an archdiocese; is that 26 1 correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And is that -- why don't you if you could briefly 4 describe why it's called an archdiocese? 5 A. An archdiocese would be, if you will, a major 6 diocese historically. For New England the first 7 diocese was the diocese of Boston, and when it 8 was established around 1908, it comprised all of 9 New England. Very, very few priests and very, 10 very few Catholics, a vast, vast territory. And 11 then, in time, it became subdivided so that now 12 there are four dioceses in the State of 13 Massachusetts, one archdiocese, three dioceses, 14 and a diocese each in Vermont, New Hampshire, and 15 Maine. And those dioceses together constitute 16 what's called the Province of Boston. And the 17 rest of New England comes around what was 18 established as the archdiocese of Hartford, and 19 there are several other dioceses in Connecticut 20 and the dioceses of Rhode Island. So it's 21 longevity, if you will, and the importance of the 22 city. 23 Q. There are provincial meetings of the Bishops of 24 the Province of Boston, isn't there? 27 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. Are those meetings once a year or twice a year? 3 A. Twice a year here in the province. 4 Q. Does the provincial meetings, do they have any 5 jurisdiction over individual dioceses? 6 A. No, no. Nor does the metropolitan Archbishop. 7 Q. So are these primarily collegial meetings? 8 A. They're collegial meetings, that's correct. That 9 would be a good way to describe them. 10 Q. But there can be no legislation that would affect 11 individual dioceses? 12 A. No. No. We could decide corporately on a course 13 of action. Rather, we could decide individually 14 on a course of action that we, together, 15 consider. 16 Q. Now, when you came to Boston in, I believe you 17 said, sometime in March, 1984, in the 20s, you're 18 not sure of which day, when you came, prior to 19 that time, had you ever heard of Father John J. 20 Geoghan? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you remember when you first met Father 23 Geoghan? 24 A. No, I do not. 28 1 Q. Do you remember when you first heard of Father 2 Geoghan? 3 A. I do not. 4 MR. GORDON: Do we have the exhibits? 5 (Document exhibited to counsel.) 6 MR. GORDON: Can we have this marked 7 as Exhibit 225? 8 (Document marked as Exhibit 225 9 for identification.) 10 (Document exhibited to witness.) 11 MR. TODD: Do you want to keep that in 12 the middle of the table? 13 MR. GORDON: Yes. 14 Q. Cardinal Law, you've been -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- given what's marked as Exhibit 225 which 17 appears to consist of two letters, the first of 18 which is a typed letter on the Chancery 19 stationery, apparently dated September 21, 1984 20 addressed to a Mrs. Marge Gallant, and which has 21 typed as signature Archbishop of Boston and what 22 appears to be, we'll ask if it appears to be your 23 signature. The second of which appears to be a 24 handwritten letter beginning with the salutation 29 1 Dear Excellency dated September 6, 1984, the 2 second page of which has what appears to be the 3 handwritten signature of Marge Gallant, some 4 handwriting on that last page, and the last page 5 of which appears to be an envelope addressed to 6 you as Archbishop on 2101 Comm. Ave., Brighton, 7 Mass. 8 Have you seen what's been marked as 9 Exhibit 225 before, any of the documents? 10 MR. ROGERS: Read it all. 11 A. Just let me see. 12 MR. TODD: Again, this is seen at any 13 time? 14 MR. GORDON: Yes. 15 A. I'm -- first of all, this is my signature 16 (Indicating.) 17 Q. Okay. On the first page, that is your signature? 18 A. Yeah. Yeah, that is my signature. I do not 19 recall having received this letter. I do not 20 recall having received the letter. I find the -- 21 MR. TODD: The question is actually 22 whether you've ever seen it up to date. 23 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I've seen it 24 before today. 30 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. But I don't recall receiving the letter. 3 Q. Okay. Do you remember when you first saw this 4 letter? 5 MR. TODD: This letter? 6 MR. GORDON: Being the letter 7 addressed to the Cardinal beginning with the 8 salutation "Dear Excellency" and the second page 9 of which appears to be a signature of Marge 10 Gallant. The handwritten letter. 11 A. I saw the letter from, I'm trying to get 12 refreshed on this issue, but I do not recall 13 having received the letter. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. But.... 16 Q. On the last page it looks to be a copy of an 17 envelope, there's some handwriting there. Do you 18 know whose handwriting that is? 19 A. Yeah. That would be my handwriting. That would 20 be my initial. I -- 21 Q. Okay. And what does that handwriting say? 22 A. It says, it's addressed to Bishop Daily and it 23 says urgent, please follow through. 24 Q. And those are your initials right after it? 31 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. And Bishop Daily had what position in the 3 Archdiocese? 4 A. Bishop Daily, at that time, he was vicar general 5 and he was chancellor, he was in effect chief 6 operating officer, to use a term that doesn't 7 really apply, but analogously I think it would 8 explain what his role was. 9 Q. Was he in effect the No. 2 person? 10 A. That's correct, yeah. The person upon whom I 11 would rely to assist me in the administration of 12 the archdiocese. 13 Q. You did not get in your first year here a large 14 number of letters informing you that a priest in 15 the archdiocese had been molesting boys; is that 16 correct? 17 MR. TODD: Objection to the form. 18 A. That's correct, I did not receive a great number 19 of letters. 20 Q. So a letter like this from Mrs. Gallant would 21 have been more of the exception? 22 A. It would have been. 23 Q. Do you recall talking to anybody about this 24 letter about the time it came in? 32 1 A. I do not recall. 2 Q. Do you recall if you were troubled by the 3 information in this letter? 4 A. I do not recall having seen the letter at the 5 time. 6 Q. Do you recall writing the note which is on the 7 last page of Exhibit 225 on the envelope? 8 A. I do not recall writing that note. 9 Q. But that is your handwriting? 10 A. But I have no doubt but that that's my writing 11 and signature. 12 Q. On the -- 13 A. And it would be the normal way in which I would 14 handle cases. 15 Q. There's a typed letter in the beginning. Did you 16 prepare that letter or did you have somebody on 17 your behalf prepare that letter? 18 A. Ordinarily letters of this kind would be prepared 19 for me, and they would be prepared by the person 20 who was handling the matter for me. 21 Q. So you would think that Bishop Daily prepared the 22 September 21 letter? 23 A. I would think either Bishop Daily would have 24 prepared it, and in given the note at the top, I 33 1 would presume that that's the way it was. The 2 letter could have been done by the personnel 3 office with, under the instruction of Bishop 4 Daily, but in this instance it would appear that 5 it originated with Bishop Daily and then the 6 copies went. 7 Q. So, in September of 1984 did you have 8 secretaries? 9 A. I did. 10 Q. Who were your secretaries then? 11 A. Father William Helmick was my secretary. I only 12 had one secretary, a priest secretary. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. And then Mrs. Kay Woodward was my secretary, 15 administrative assistant. 16 Q. Is Mrs. Woodward still -- 17 A. She is. 18 Q. She's still working for you? 19 A. She does. 20 Q. And do you know where Mrs. Woodward lives? 21 A. She lives in -- 22 MR. TODD: No, no. We'll supply that 23 information. 24 MR. GORDON: No, no. 34 1 A. I don't know her address. 2 Q. No, the city or town she lives in. 3 A. She lives in Walpole. 4 Q. Do you know the name of the street? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you know who her husband is? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. What -- 9 A. Frank Woodward. 10 Q. Does she have any children? 11 A. She, she does. She has two living, and she has 12 one deceased. 13 Q. Are any of the children living with her? 14 A. I can't answer that, I'm not sure of that. 15 Q. Okay. All right. 16 A. Well, not living with her, no. They're adult. 17 Q. Have you ever been to her house? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did Father Helmick, as your priest secretary, 20 ever draft letters for you in response to letters 21 you had received? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Do you know if it's -- how -- strike that. 24 How would you know that the first 35 1 letter in Exhibit 225 addressed to Mrs. Gallant 2 would not have been drafted by Father Helmick? 3 MR. TODD: Objection to the form. 4 MR. ROGERS: Go ahead. 5 THE WITNESS: Do I go ahead and 6 answer? 7 MR. ROGERS: Yes. 8 THE WITNESS: I have to get this down. 9 A. Well, first of all, I wouldn't have an absolute 10 -- I can't give you absolute recall on this, but 11 given the substance of the letter, it would not 12 be the kind of a letter that ordinarily my 13 secretary, priest secretary would handle. It 14 would be, the nature of the letter would be such 15 that it would need to go someone who would be 16 responsible for following through, checking out, 17 and that -- in a matter of that kind. 18 Q. And the matter of that kind, are you referring to 19 the fact that in Mrs. Gallant's letter in the 20 second paragraph she, I believe, there's a 21 reference here, a priest at St. Brendan's in 22 Dorchester who has been known in the past to 23 molest boys; that the matter you mean? 24 A. Certainly anything that would come to me that was 36 1 of substance, and a letter of this kind would 2 certainly be a letter of substance, would go to 3 the person who would be responsible for assisting 4 me in this type of matter. And the -- I don't 5 know whether it's -- the way in which I operated 6 -- 7 MR. TODD: Why don't you wait for a 8 question? 9 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I'll wait for 10 the question. 11 Q. Let me have a clear understanding. You believe 12 that because of the subject matter here, it 13 probably was drafted by Bishop Daily; is that 14 correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. Okay. As we sit here today, you don't know that 17 Bishop Daily in fact drafted this letter? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Okay. And do you know today as a fact that 20 Father Helmick did not? 21 A. My presumption would be that he would not have 22 drafted this. It would have been out of the 23 ordinary for him to have drafted that letter. 24 Q. Okay. Where is Father Helmick now? 37 1 A. His assignment now? 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. He's pastor of St. Theresa of Avila Church in 4 West Roxbury. 5 Q. Is he -- does he -- was he ever given the title 6 of Monsignor? 7 A. He was. 8 Q. So it's Monsignor Helmick? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Did you have a conversation with Bishop Daily 11 about Mrs. Gallant? 12 A. I don't recall having a conversation with Bishop 13 Daily on this matter. 14 MR. TODD: Do you mean to say whether 15 you had one or can't recall? 16 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I can't recall 17 having had the conversation, having had a 18 conversation with Bishop Daily. 19 Q. While Bishop Daily was working with you, while 20 you were in Boston, when you had reports that 21 came in such as this, did you have conversations, 22 when you could, with Bishop Daily about these 23 issues? 24 A. Well, let me say that I don't -- to say when we 38 1 received reports while Bishop Daily was with me 2 like this, I'm not certain that there were 3 reports like this, that there was -- but 4 anything, anything of substance ordinarily we 5 would have a, we would have a discussion, 6 particularly when it came down to a decision as 7 to what was to be done. I would get his 8 recommendation on what the action should be. 9 Q. And let me ask you, when you came to Boston, was 10 there something called either locked or secret 11 files? 12 A. There were confidential files, I presume in the 13 Chancery, but I did not go to those, I did not 14 keep those. 15 Q. On the first page of Exhibit 225 on the letter 16 under -- is there some language that indicates 17 copy to Father Oates and Father MCC, personal, 18 confidential, do you see that? 19 A. Yes, I do. 20 Q. Under that does it say "For the locked file"? 21 A. I see that. 22 Q. And do you know what it's referring to when it 23 says the "locked file"? 24 A. My presumption is that it would be confidential 39 1 files. 2 Q. And would those have been confidential files of 3 priests? 4 A. They would certainly have included that 5 confidential personnel files. 6 Q. Have you ever looked at those? 7 A. I have never gone through those files as a, as a 8 whole. 9 Q. Have you asked people to go through those files? 10 A. I have asked that the files -- yes, that the 11 personnel files be checked of all persons against 12 whom allegations have been made. 13 Q. And when did you first do that? 14 A. I did that subsequent to the policy that, the 15 written policy for the handling of these cases, 16 which would have been 1993, sometime past. 17 Q. Sometime in 1993? 18 A. Yes. It was January of '93 that the, that the 19 policy was committed to writing and elaborated, 20 and then after that it seemed to me that we 21 needed to go back and check all files of persons 22 against whom allegations had been made and test 23 them against the policy. 24 Q. Did you find out that the priest that this letter 40 1 was referring to in 1984 was referring to Father 2 John J. Geoghan? 3 A. Well, as I said, I can't recall seeing the letter 4 in 1984, but -- so I can't answer that. 5 Q. When you came here in 1984, who had ultimate 6 authority on assigning priests to parishes? 7 A. When I came, the authority in the interim after 8 Cardinal Medeiros's death, was Bishop Daily. 9 Q. And when you became Archbishop? 10 A. Then I would have the authority to assign. 11 Q. So -- and since then, you have had that 12 authority? 13 A. I have the authority. 14 Q. Okay. So that ultimately you've always had the 15 authority for the assignment of every priest in 16 the Archdiocese? 17 A. That's correct. 18 MR. TODD: Since the installation? 19 Q. Since the installation; is that correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And you don't recall now a discussion with Bishop 22 Daily as to what was being done with regard to 23 the assignment of this particular priest that you 24 had received a written complaint that he had 41 1 molested boys? 2 A. If you'd rephrase the question, because I find, 3 you know... 4 MR. TODD: Just rephrase the question. 5 MR. GORDON: Okay. I can rephrase it. 6 Q. As I understand it, you do not recall a 7 conversation with Bishop Daily regarding the 8 priest at St. Brendan's in Dorchester that this 9 written letter was sent to you about concerning 10 the molestation of boys? 11 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: Excuse me? 13 MR. ROGERS: Just objection to form. 14 Go ahead. 15 A. I do not recall seeing this letter as I sit here 16 before you and try to reconstruct what I knew and 17 didn't know in 1984. I do not recall seeing this 18 letter at that time. 19 Q. What was the practice for reviewing letters that 20 came to your residence in 1984? 21 A. Well, obviously it's a practice that evolved, and 22 I can't put a, I can't put a firm date on when 23 this policy took place or didn't take place. But 24 the custom is that the mail is reviewed, is 42 1 opened, and is sorted by my administrative 2 assistant and ideally assisted by a priest 3 secretary. That sometimes is not possible 4 because of other duties, and the mail has to go 5 through. And the mail is sorted and is directed 6 toward persons bearing responsibility for 7 assisting me in that particular area. So, for 8 example, if it is a matter that is dealing with 9 education, it would go to the person, my 10 secretary for education. If it's a matter 11 specifically for schools, it would go to the 12 superintendent of schools. They would be asked 13 to look at this correspondence and to either 14 prepare a response for me or to handle this 15 matter themselves, if that were appropriate. 16 Q. In 1984, was it the practice that either your 17 administrative assistant or priest secretary 18 would ask you to handwrite a note to Bishop Daily 19 without having you read what it was concerning? 20 A. No, are you referencing -- 21 Q. The last page. 22 A. -- the envelope here? 23 I must say -- no. No one would tell 24 me to put that note on. That kind of a note is a 43 1 note that I would put on. And I would put on, 2 having absorbed the content of whatever the 3 backup, backup letter is. So the only thing I 4 can say that is my signature, I wrote that. I 5 would be lying to you if I say I recall having 6 seen that letter before, but I can't sit here 7 before you and say that I saw it when I don't 8 think I did, when I don't remember seeing it. 9 Q. Would it be fair to say that when you wrote notes 10 to Bishop Daily, you didn't usually write urgent? 11 A. That means what it means, you know. That means 12 that I considered this an urgent matter, and that 13 I wanted it followed through, and I expected him 14 to follow through for me, follow through meaning 15 doing whatever it takes to deal with this thing 16 expeditiously and correctly. 17 Q. So it would be fair to say that you don't have a 18 specific memory of Marge Gallant's letter, but 19 the record seems to indicate you took it 20 seriously at the time and asked the person you 21 had given responsibility to -- 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. -- to address it in a serious manner? 24 A. That's correct. 44 1 Q. And address it quickly? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. Did Bishop Daily tell you at some point that 4 Father Geoghan was being relieved of his duties 5 at St. Brendan's in Dorchester? 6 A. I do not recall his having done that, but.... 7 Q. It would it have been consistent with what was 8 your practice at the time? 9 A. It would have been consistent, yes. 10 Q. Did -- I'm going to show you what was marked as 11 Exhibit 8 at Bishop Daily's deposition on 12 September 13. 13 MR. GORDON: I'm going to give him the 14 original. 15 MR. TODD: Bill, do we have the marked 16 copy? 17 MR. GORDON: I have the original. 18 MR. ROGERS: Okay. 19 MR. TODD: Do you have the original? 20 MR. GORDON: Yes, yes. 21 MR. GORDON: I don't have the original 22 on 225, I don't think. I think I have the copy. 23 That was the letter, Mrs. Gallant's letter. 24 MR. TODD: Was it marked? 45 1 MR. GORDON: I think it was marked, 2 yes. 3 MR. TODD: Only two exhibits and we've 4 already lost one. 5 MR. ROGERS: Are you putting an 6 original of this in front of the Cardinal? 7 MR. GORDON: Yes, I'm going to give 8 you that. 9 MR. ROGERS: You need that for 10 counsel. 11 MR. GORDON: We're going to have to 12 retrieve the marked Exhibit 225 at the break. 13 MR. TODD: Or remark one if you want. 14 Here it is. Okay. Thank you. 15 MR. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Todd. 16 Q. Cardinal, this is the original Exhibit 8 from 17 Bishop Daily's deposition. 18 (Document exhibited to witness.) 19 A. Thank you. 20 MR. ROGERS: Are you asking the 21 Cardinal to read this? 22 MR. GORDON: I'd like him to. 23 MR. ROGERS: Mr. Gordon, you want the 24 Cardinal to read just the first page? 46 1 MR. GORDON: Just the first page. 2 Bishop Daily represented the first page was a 3 reasonably accurate transcription of his notes 4 that follow. 5 Q. Cardinal, have you read Exhibit 8? 6 A. No, this is the first time I've ever seen this. 7 Q. Okay. Did Bishop Daily ever convey to you what 8 Father Geoghan told him in 1980? 9 A. No, not that I can recall. 10 Q. So as of 1984, your memory of September of 1984, 11 you were unaware that Father Geoghan had admitted 12 to Bishop Daily to molesting boys? 13 A. I do not recall having been informed of this by 14 Father, by Bishop Daily, no. 15 MR. GORDON: I believe we wanted to 16 take a break to see if we could meet with the 17 judge at 10:30. I have more questions, but why 18 don't we stop now, take a quick break and see if 19 we can meet with the judge? 20 THE WITNESS: Good. 21 VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 10:25, 22 we'll stop the video and go off the record. 23 (Video off.) 24 (Brief recess.) 47 1 (Video on.) 2 VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 10:58. 3 We're back on the record. 4 MR. GORDON: Could I have the 5 exhibits, please? 6 (Document exhibited to counsel.) 7 MR. GORDON: Where is 225 ? 8 MR. TODD: Coming down. Mr. Murphy 9 had it. 10 MR. MURPHY: That's 224. 11 MR. GORDON: Where's 225. That was 12 the letter from Mrs. Gallant. It was there a 13 little while ago. Mr. Todd, you had -- 14 MR. TODD: Yes, it was in the middle. 15 MR. ROGERS: That's my copy of it. 16 MR. TODD: They were here when we 17 left. 18 MR. GORDON: Tom, did you take it? 19 MR. MURPHY: I did not. 20 THE WITNESS: Could that be it? 21 MR. TODD: Can we operate with a copy 22 for the time being? 23 MR. GORDON: All right. From now on, 24 I will hold on to the exhibits. If anybody wants 48 1 to have them, please ask me. Obviously people 2 are not returning them. 3 MR. TODD: Sorry, here we are Bill, 4 took it right from the middle 5 (Document exhibited to counsel.) 6 MR. GORDON: All right. 7 Q. Cardinal, I'm again going to show you Exhibit 8, 8 and I'm again going to show you Exhibit 225. 9 (Document exhibited to witness.) 10 Q. And my question now is: Did you -- let me ask 11 you this: When letters came into the Cardinal's 12 residence, did you create a log of each letter 13 that came in, or did you have a log created? 14 MR. TODD: Object to the form. It's 15 -- 16 MR. GORDON: Okay. 17 MR. TODD: Personally or -- 18 MR. GORDON: That's fine. But let me 19 also put on the record, we agreed to waive 20 objections, not waive, but to reserve them until 21 the time of trial. 22 MR. TODD: Not form. 23 MR. GORDON: Okay. All right. Fine. 24 A. The filing system has evolved, and again, I can't 49 1 tell you at what point a particular system went 2 into play. The system currently in play, and 3 it's been in play for some time, is that as mail 4 comes in, it is logged in with regard to its 5 substance in the computer so we have a record as 6 to what has come in. I instituted a chron. file 7 on outgoing mail as soon as I came in because I 8 had found in previous work experience that that's 9 always, it's a manual thing, more difficult, but 10 at least it's, you're sure that you have that. 11 But that's on outgoing mail. 12 Q. Does that -- when you say chron. file, you mean a 13 chronological file? 14 A. That's right. That each day correspondence that 15 has gone out of the house is, a copy of it is 16 filed so that you, so that you, so that you have 17 a chron. file. 18 Q. And does the chron. file indicate to whom the 19 letter is sent? 20 A. It's a copy of the letter. 21 Q. Oh, it is a copy of the letter? 22 A. Yeah, it's a copy of the letter that's gone out. 23 It's a hard copy of the letter that's gone out. 24 It's a primitive form of filing. 50 1 Q. Sure. 2 A. But... 3 Q. There's no handwritten notation of a letter to 4 whom on a particular date? 5 A. No, no. No. 6 Q. What happens is just a copy of the letter is 7 filed -- 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. -- in your files? 10 A. And as I say, the incoming mail is filed now, and 11 I can't tell you when that began. It may very 12 well be, and I would presume that when I first 13 got there, the filing system was a more routine 14 filing system where you would keep a file of the 15 incoming letter. 16 Q. Now, Bishop Daily at some point in 1984 was given 17 another assignment, wasn't he? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And where was that assignment to? 20 A. Palm Beach. 21 Q. Do you remember approximately when that 22 assignment was given? 23 A. I think he left sometime in September of '84. 24 Q. So just about the time that you would have sent 51 1 him the letter from Mrs. Gallant which was also 2 in September of '84; is that correct? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. Did you make any provisions to have somebody else 5 follow through with what you had indicated to 6 Bishop Daily was urgent and to follow through? 7 A. The person who assumed the responsibility of 8 Bishop Daily as my, my first associate was then 9 Father Robert Banks. 10 Q. And Father Banks is now a Bishop; is that 11 correct? 12 A. He is. 13 Q. And he's the Bishop of Green Bay? 14 A. Green Bay. 15 Q. So did you follow through on Mrs. Gallant's 16 letter with Bishop Banks? 17 A. Bishop Banks would have been the person who would 18 have handled such cases, that's correct, as 19 Bishop Daily, Father -- well, Bishop Banks. 20 Q. And would you have expected Bishop Banks to have 21 pulled the file on the priest that was alleged to 22 have molested boys? 23 A. I would have expected him to have handled the 24 case appropriately. 52 1 Q. What would have been the practice that you would 2 have expected him to do at that time? 3 A. I had confidence in both Bishop Daily and Bishop 4 Banks. As the note indicates here to Bishop 5 Daily, I said, "Urgent, please follow through." 6 And the "Please follow through" was an indication 7 that I want you to handle this in an appropriate 8 way. And I had confidence in those whom I 9 appointed to these roles to do that. I had 10 confidence in Bishop Daily and I had confidence 11 in Bishop Banks, as I still do. 12 Q. But Bishop Daily was leaving about the same time 13 you were sending him this letter; isn't that 14 correct? September of 1984 he was leaving the 15 Diocese of Boston? 16 A. Well, but he was still -- he held the 17 responsibility. I would not have addressed 18 something to him if he didn't have that 19 responsibility. If Bishop Banks had it at that 20 time, I would have addressed it to Bishop Banks. 21 What I'm saying is Bishop Banks succeeded Bishop 22 Daily. 23 Q. But did Bishop Daily leave within a week or two 24 weeks of that date? 53 1 A. I can't -- I don't have recall on those dates. 2 Q. Do you recall if you asked Bishop Banks to follow 3 up with what Bishop Daily had been doing, then 4 Father Banks, to follow up? 5 A. I cannot recall having told him, follow up on 6 this case. But I'm certain that -- 7 Q. What would be -- 8 A. -- it would have been expected that he would have 9 followed up on all current cases. 10 Q. What was the practice -- 11 A. When I say cases, again, I'm not indicating that 12 this was one of many such cases, but it was not, 13 but what -- he would follow up on the business 14 that Bishop Daily had had. 15 Q. In 1984, you knew, did you not, that it would 16 have been wrong for a priest to have sexually 17 molested boys; is that correct? 18 A. Oh, absolutely. 19 Q. Okay. And that is something you would have tried 20 to stop from happening again? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Okay. What was the practice that you had in 23 place in 1984 when you were Archbishop to deal 24 with this kind of allegation when it comes in? 54 1 A. I viewed this as a pathology, as a psychological 2 pathology, as an illness. Obviously I viewed it 3 as something that had a moral component. It was, 4 objectively speaking, a gravely sinful act. And 5 that's something that one deals with in one's 6 life, in one's relationship to God. But I also 7 viewed this as a pathology, as an illness, and so 8 consequently, I, not being an expert in this 9 pathology, not being a psychiatrist, not being a 10 psychologist, my, my modus operandi was to rely 11 upon those whom I considered and would have 12 reason to consider to have an expertise that I 13 lacked in assessing this pathology, in assessing 14 what it is that this person could safely do or 15 not do. 16 Q. So in -- you would have relied on some sort of 17 medical or psychiatric expertise in dealing with 18 this issue -- 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. -- at that time? 21 A. At that time, that's correct. 22 Q. And you would have expected, whether it was 23 Bishop Daily or Bishop Banks, to refer to that? 24 A. That's correct. 55 1 Q. Okay. And to assist these experts, would you 2 have wanted to give them as much information as 3 you had about a particular priest with a problem 4 as possible so they could have an accurate 5 opinion? 6 A. My presumption would be yes, that one, if a 7 person was going to assist, one would have to 8 provide the information that's pertinent for that 9 to be able to describe the degree of illness. 10 Q. Did you explain this as, your reliance on this 11 kind of expertise, to Bishop Daily, that you 12 expected him to go through this process? 13 A. I don't recall explaining it to him, but 14 certainly that would have been, I think, the 15 common expectation that we both would have shared 16 in what I, what I implied when I said, "Follow 17 through on this." 18 Q. So you, at that time, you don't recall requesting 19 to personally see the file of Father John J. 20 Geoghan? 21 A. That's -- I do not -- I did not do that. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. I relied on those who assisted me in this matter 24 to do all that was appropriate, and that would 56 1 include.... 2 Q. So the procedures you had in place then would 3 have been for this priest to have been sent to a 4 doctor? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Okay. 7 MR. GORDON: Can we have this marked 8 as Exhibit 226, please? 9 (Document marked as Exhibit 226 10 for identification.) 11 (Document exhibited to witness.) 12 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 13 BY MR. GORDON: 14 Q. Cardinal, you've been given what has been marked 15 as Exhibit 226, the first page of which appears 16 to be a letter from the Archbishop's Residence of 17 September 18, 1984, the second document appears 18 to be a handwritten letter from St. Brendan's 19 Rectory addressed to Father Oates of September 20 27, 1984, which would -- on the second page of 21 which appears to be a copy of the signature of 22 John J. Geoghan, and the last page of which 23 appears to be a phone message. 24 Have you had a chance to review 57 1 Exhibit 226? 2 A. I have. 3 Q. And does Exhibit 226 indicate to you that Bishop 4 Banks on September 18 was then vicar general and 5 serving in place of Bishop Daily? 6 A. It does. 7 Q. Okay. So sometime between your note on the 8 envelope from, of the September 6, 1984 letter 9 from Marge Gallant, to September 18, Bishop Banks 10 assumed the duties of Bishop Daily? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Okay. And does the first page of Exhibit 26 13 (sic) indicate that you had ended Father 14 Geoghan's assignment as St. Brendan's as of 15 September 18? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And was it your practice at that time, when 18 Bishop Banks was vicar general, to require 19 priests who were having their assignment changed 20 to notify Bishop, then Father Banks, now Bishop 21 Banks, and Father Oates, that they had received a 22 letter from you? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. Do you remember if you in fact signed the 58 1 September 18 letter? 2 A. I, I do not recall signing the letter. 3 Q. But it would have been the kind of letter you 4 would have signed at the time? 5 A. But if the letter went at the time, it would have 6 had to have had my signature and nobody else 7 would be authorized to sign in my place. 8 Q. Okay. And the September 27 letter, which is the 9 second letter in there, indicates that Father 10 Geoghan in fact had received your letter of 11 September 18; is that correct? 12 A. That's what it indicates. 13 Q. Okay. And the last page to this exhibit appears 14 to be a copy of a phone message to Father Oates 15 from Father Geoghan? 16 A. That's what it appears to be. 17 Q. Okay. Does it appear to say something about St. 18 Julia's Rectory, he has spoken to his doctor, who 19 is sending a letter to affirm his good health? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. So there is in the record, in the file, 22 that phone message, what appears to be a phone 23 message from Father Oates to Father Geoghan? 24 A. Yes. Which I'm seeing here for the first time. 59 1 Q. Okay. So you hadn't seen that before? 2 A. No. 3 MR. GORDON: Could we have this marked 4 as Exhibit 227, please? 5 (Document marked as Exhibit 227 6 for identification.) 7 (Document exhibited to witness.) 8 Q. Cardinal, we've given you a two-page document 9 which has been marked as Exhibit 27 (sic). It 10 appears to have handwritten notes on it. On the 11 first page it appears to have the date of 12 9/17/84, re: Father John Geoghan. The second 13 page of which appear to be some notes and a copy 14 of that envelope in which you wrote urgent to 15 Bishop Daily in the Marge Gallant letter. 16 Have you seen these notes before? 17 A. No. And I find them rather difficult to read, 18 but I'll give a try here. 19 Q. Before you do that: Have you seen them before? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Okay. Do you know whose handwriting they are? 22 A. I do not. 23 Q. Have you ever spoken with Father James Lane? 24 A. Yes, I've spoken to Father Lane. 60 1 Q. Did you ever speak with Father Lane about Father 2 Geoghan? 3 A. I believe that, not in this time frame, but 4 subsequently I think he may have mentioned 5 something about him. 6 Q. And when was that? 7 A. I couldn't say. 8 Q. Was it in the 1980s? 9 A. Possibly. I can't -- I really can't put a time 10 from. Just in my apperceptive mass there's 11 something there, but it would not have been in 12 this early time frame. 13 Q. So it wouldn't have been contemporaneous with 14 1984? 15 A. It would not have been, no. 16 Q. If this helps you, would it have been before or 17 after you issued the sexual abuse policy? 18 A. I think it would be after. 19 Q. Okay. And do you remember what Father Lane said 20 to you about Father Geoghan? 21 A. I can't. I cannot remember. 22 Q. All right. Did anybody report to you that Father 23 Lane had some serious concerns about Father 24 Geoghan being at St. Brendan's? 61 1 MR. ROGERS: At this time or at any 2 time? 3 Q. In 1984. 4 A. No, no, no. 5 Q. And you don't know if the handwriting in the 6 9/17/84 notes are either Bishop Banks' or Bishop 7 Daily's; is that correct? 8 A. I really don't. I would, I would be more 9 familiar with Bishop Banks' handwriting, and this 10 does not appear to me to be Bishop Banks' 11 handwriting, it's usually smaller than that, but 12 I really don't know. 13 MR. GORDON: The envelope appears to 14 be obstructing the bottom of the notes. Could we 15 get a copy -- this is to counsel. There may be a 16 name signed at the bottom of this, we have not 17 received this. The second page is obstructed by 18 a copy of the envelope. 19 MR. ROGERS, III: We'll go back. 20 MR. GORDON: I suspect it's Bishop 21 Daily and I can't testify to that and the 22 Cardinal doesn't know. 23 Q. Do you remember a conversation with Bishop Banks 24 about terminating Father Geoghan at St. Brendan's 62 1 in 1984? 2 A. I do not recall a conversation with him on that 3 issue. It would have been a customary thing, 4 though, for a discussion to have taken place. 5 Q. And if there had been reports of Father Geoghan 6 having inappropriate contact with children in the 7 discussion of the termination of his assignment, 8 would Father Banks have reported to you at the 9 time there were these issues? 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. GORDON: Can I have this marked as 12 Exhibit 228, please? 13 (Document marked as Exhibit 228 14 for identification.) 15 (Document exhibited to witness.) 16 Q. Your Eminence, you've been given an exhibit which 17 has been marked Exhibit 228 and which appears to 18 have two pages and two documents, the first of 19 which appears to be a letter dated October 31, 20 1984 from the Archbishop's residence, the second 21 of which appears to be a handwritten letter 22 addressed to Father Oates with an apparent 23 signature of Father John Geoghan. Would you 24 please review Exhibit 228? And then I'll ask you 63 1 some questions. 2 Have you reviewed it? 3 A. I have. 4 Q. Okay. And is the first document a letter from 5 you dated October 31, 1984 informing Father 6 Geoghan that he was appointed as parochial vicar 7 at St. Julia's parish in Weston? 8 A. My presumption is yes. 9 Q. Other than the phone message that we saw at the 10 back of Exhibit 226, do you know of any doctor's 11 reports in the files of the Archdiocese that 12 indicated it was now safe to send Father Geoghan 13 back to parish assignment? 14 A. As I indicated earlier, my policy would have been 15 that an assignment of this kind would be 16 contingent upon a professional opinion that such 17 an assignment would be appropriate. And so my 18 presumption is that such an opinion is extent. 19 Q. We have been given the records from the 20 Archdiocese, and I'm willing to look at it right 21 now, but we don't have any document prior to this 22 date that says Father Geoghan was safe to send 23 back to parish duty. Are you aware of any? 24 MR. ROGERS, III: Well, I'd object to 64 1 that characterization. 2 MR. GORDON: Well, produce it. 3 MR. ROGERS, III: You've got it, 4 you've used it. 5 MR. GORDON: Which one? 6 MR. ROGERS, III: You have letters 7 from Dr. Brennan and letters from -- 8 MR. GORDON: What dates? Not before 9 October 31, 1984. 10 MR. ROGERS, III: Sure you do. 11 MR. GORDON: No, not between the date 12 of the report and this date. 13 MR. ROGERS, III: You've got letters 14 prior to October 31, 1984. 15 MR. GORDON: Oh sure, 1981. But any 16 since the report of September -- let me rephrase 17 the question. I understand your issue now. 18 MR. ROGERS, III: Go ahead. That's an 19 unfair characterization. The report is before 20 October 31 of 1984. 21 MR. GORDON: Let me narrow it. 22 MR. ROGERS, III: Go ahead. 23 BY MR. GORDON. 24 Q. Are you aware of any documents from any doctor 65 1 between the date of Marge Gallant's letter of 2 September 6, 1984 and October 31, 1984 indicating 3 it was safe to send Father Geoghan back to parish 4 assignment? 5 A. If I may respond -- 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. What I am aware of is my expectation, and that 8 expectation was understood by those who assisted 9 me, it was no one could be assigned unless there 10 were an attestation from someone professionally 11 competent to give it that that person could be 12 safely put in place. Now, am I -- I do not have 13 recall about documents that are in the files 14 going back 18 years, but I can assure you that 15 this letter would not have been signed had there 16 not been the assurance given by a medical person. 17 I'm sure that that medical assurance 18 was given. Whether it was subsequently put in 19 writing and in an earlier form given orally, I 20 cannot say, but I can say, without any shadow of 21 a doubt, that this letter would never have been 22 put before me for signature had we not had the 23 assurance of someone competent to give that 24 assurance that this assignment was safe. 66 1 MR. GORDON: All I'm asking for is if 2 counsel has a letter prior to October 31, '84, 3 after September 6 of 1984, I'm more than willing 4 to look at it and ask questions about it and that 5 will answer this particular question. 6 MR. ROGERS, III: We've produced it 7 before. 8 MR. GORDON: We've not been able to 9 locate it. 10 MR. ROGERS, III: You've used it 11 before in deposition. 12 MR. GORDON: Tell me the date. 13 MR. ROGERS, III: October 20, 1984, 14 but this is your deposition, you conduct it the 15 way you see fit. We have produced such 16 documents. 17 MR. GORDON: Okay. 18 MR. TODD: There's also an allusion to 19 this letter in this phone message. 20 MR. GORDON: Well. 21 MR. TODD: A reference to it, excuse 22 me. 23 MR. GORDON: You're saying, what 24 deposition did we use it, if you're saying we 67 1 used it? 2 MR. ROGERS, III: I'm sorry? 3 MR. GORDON: What's the exhibit 4 number? 5 MR. ROGERS, III: I don't have the 6 exhibit number in front of me. This is your 7 deposition. You've used it. 8 MR. GORDON: I understand it. If 9 you're saying we used it, fine. 10 THE WITNESS: You need a chron. file. 11 MR. GORDON: We thought we had one. 12 The only thing I'm finding, and I'll 13 show this to the Cardinal, Father Flatley's 14 chronology, which is Exhibit 99, and you can look 15 at the entries between 9/6/82 and 9/18/84 and 16 11/84. There is no entry in Father Flatley's 17 chronology that indicates a letter. If you're 18 saying there's one, I don't have a problem, but 19 you haven't referenced an exhibit number, there 20 are over 226 exhibits, and we did not find it 21 readily available in the file. It's possible. 22 All I'm saying is why don't you just give it to 23 us? 24 MR. ROGERS: Well, I have notes here, 68 1 but I'm telling you this is your deposition 2 you're asking the Cardinal what he knows, what he 3 remembers, and that's -- 4 MR. GORDON: Okay. 5 MR. ROGERS: Seems to me that's the -- 6 MR. GARABEDIAN: You don't have a copy 7 of the letter? 8 MR. ROGERS: I'm sure I have a copy of 9 the letter, but I don't have it here. I have 10 notes, my own notes indicate there is such a 11 letter and that you've used it, but -- that's. 12 MR. GORDON: You know, there is. 13 MR. ROGERS: But that's not the issue 14 in terms of the question to the Cardinal. The 15 question to the Cardinal is what does he 16 remember, what does he know, and he's answered 17 that. 18 MR. GORDON: And right now the 19 Cardinal doesn't know whether or not there was a 20 letter. 21 Q. Is that correct, Cardinal Law? 22 A. Excuse me? 23 Q. Do you know if there was a letter from a doctor 24 between the time Father Geoghan's assignment as 69 1 St. Brendan's was terminated and the time his 2 assignment at St. Julia's was made? 3 A. What I said is there was no way in which this 4 letter would have been prepared for my signature 5 without there having been a prior attestation by 6 someone professionally competent to give it that 7 such an assignment was appropriate given the 8 pathology of John Geoghan. Now, whether that was 9 a letter already in hand, in written form at that 10 point, or whether that was a matter of 11 consultation personally or by phone, I cannot 12 respond to that. But I do see -- 13 Q. You're looking at Father Flatley's chronology? 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. And you're referring to the 12/11 -- 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. -- entry? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. That's December 11. What's the date of your 20 assignment of Father Geoghan? 21 A. September 18. 22 Q. That's his termination. But isn't October 31 the 23 date you reassigned him in Exhibit 228? 24 A. That's correct. 70 1 Q. And that's before that entry for Dr. Mullins? 2 A. That's before this entry, that's correct. 3 Q. Yes, yes. 4 A. But what I'm saying -- 5 Q. You believe there is a letter. 6 MR. GORDON: And, counsel, you're 7 representing you believe there is a letter? 8 MR. ROGERS, III: We'll get you 9 another clean copy of it. 10 MR. GORDON: All right. I don't want 11 to create, we don't need to create a bad record. 12 I don't want do that. I really don't, and so if 13 you can -- 14 MR. ROGERS, III: We'll secure you 15 another copy, but I can assure you you have a 16 copy, and my recollection is it's been published 17 in the papers, the newspaper. 18 MR. MURPHY: I was going to say, the 19 folks in the hall might have it. 20 MR. ROGERS, III: This is not a letter 21 that hasn't been produced. We'll get it for you, 22 October -- 23 MR. TODD: October. 24 MR. ROGERS: October 20, 1984. 71 1 MR. GORDON: Okay, okay. All right. 2 Q. Did you have your policies about attestation 3 before a priest could go back on assignment in 4 writing at that time? 5 A. No. I put the -- our policy went in in written 6 form in 1993, but those persons working with me 7 prior to 1993 were well aware, were well aware 8 that that was the way in which such a case should 9 be handled, and I'm sure they could attest to 10 that fact. 11 Do you want all these things just kept 12 here in a pile? 13 MR. GORDON: Yes, why don't we have, 14 why don't we have Exhibit 229 -- I see the 15 problem. I found it attached to another document 16 that has a later date on the cover page. 17 MR. ROGERS: Good. 18 MR. GORDON: I just want the record 19 clean. 20 MR. ROGERS: That's fine. 21 MR. GORDON: Can we have that marked 22 as Exhibit 229? 23 (Document marked as Exhibit 229 24 for identification.) 72 1 (Document exhibited to witness.) 2 Q. Your Eminence, you've been given a copy of 3 exhibit, or Exhibit 229 which appears to be a 4 copy of two letters: One of which is a letter to 5 the personnel office dated November, from the 6 personnel office of the Archdiocese of Boston 7 dated November 5, 1984, apparently to Dr. Robert 8 Mullins, and signed by Father Thomas Oates, and 9 the second page of which appears to be a 10 handwritten letter, a letter from Dr. Mullins of 11 October 20, 1984 to Father Oates. Now, unless 12 I'm mistaken, this is it. This was the medical 13 certification that I, that we've been able to 14 obtain, I guess, that says Father Geoghan was 15 fine to send back to the diocese, to parish 16 ministry? 17 A. Without any need for specific restrictions. 18 MR. TODD: Objection. 19 Q. Was there any standards you put in place for whom 20 you would have evaluate priests with this kind of 21 problem in 1984? 22 A. As you will recall, I came as Archbishop in March 23 of '84, and as time went on there was a group of 24 psychiatrists that we worked with on a routine 73 1 basis. That was not in place at this time. 2 Q. Okay. At some time did Father Doyle talk to you 3 about the problem of sexual abuse by priests of 4 children, talk to you about that issue? 5 A. I recall, in a vague way, conversations with 6 Father Doyle about the effectiveness of, of 7 treatment centers. It seems to me that that was 8 the general topic that we discussed relative to 9 this problem of sexual abuse of priests. 10 Q. At some point were you chair of the conference of 11 Bishops Committee on Research and Pastoral 12 Practices? 13 A. I was. 14 Q. When were you chair of that committee? 15 A. I do not recall. 16 Q. Were you chair -- 17 A. I'm sure -- 18 Q. Were you chair of that committee around the time 19 you became Archbishop of Boston or shortly 20 thereafter? 21 A. Perhaps shortly thereafter. 22 Q. And what were the duties and responsibilities of 23 the Research and Pastoral Practices Committee or 24 Conference? 74 1 A. That was a committee that was sort of a catchall 2 for things that didn't fit somewhere else, and it 3 had sort of a wide ranging scope. 4 Q. Did Father Doyle ever talk to you about having an 5 adjunct committee to that committee to address 6 the problem of sexual molestation by priests? 7 A. I cannot recall that kind of a conversation. I 8 do recall Father Doyle's interest in this, and we 9 would meet on occasion at the Nunciature, and I 10 shared a concern about the pathological nature of 11 this illness, of this behavior and the need to 12 deal with it as such. 13 Q. Was it after your discussions with Father Doyle 14 that you decided you needed to have a team of 15 psychiatrists working with these kinds of 16 priests? 17 A. No. You know, it was not as a consequence of 18 that. I think that my conviction about the need 19 to proceed with, in this area in this way was, 20 predated my conversations with Father Doyle. 21 Q. From what I can tell, those conversations at 22 least what's been recorded by Father Doyle, were 23 in 1985, the first half of 1985. So did you have 24 a team, this team of psychiatrists in before 75 1 then? 2 A. I can't say whether by then we had that or not. 3 I, you know, I'd have to rely on discussing with 4 others who were assisting me to say exactly when 5 did we do that. 6 Q. So you can't say with certainty whether it was 7 before or after -- 8 A. '85? I don't know that we were dealing with that 9 many cases. 10 Q. So it may have been after your conversations with 11 Father Doyle on this issue that you -- 12 A. -- that we had the team. 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. But not because of the conversations with him. 15 That, I thought, was the question. 16 Q. No, no, it was just after. 17 A. Oh, fine. 18 Q. Just time sequence. 19 Father Doyle imparted some of his 20 concerns about what was going on at some of the 21 centers to you? 22 A. I'm not sure that that was the point of issue. 23 My concern was how do we assess the various 24 centers for their effectiveness, which was an 76 1 ongoing concern for many years for me. 2 Q. Do you ever hear of something called the Seton 3 Institute? 4 A. Excuse me? 5 Q. The Seton Institute in Maryland. 6 A. The Seton Institute? I don't believe so. If I 7 did, I don't remember. 8 Q. Okay. Okay. 9 Did you explain to Father Oates what 10 kind of, in 1984, what kind of expert you wanted 11 to assess Father Geoghan? 12 A. Father Oates would not have been the person to, 13 that I would have had that discussion with. It 14 would have been Father, Bishop Daily when he was 15 there, it would have been Bishop Banks when he 16 took that responsibility. But in 1984, months 17 after I came here as Archbishop, I was relying 18 upon those assisting me to handle this 19 adequately, and I was relying on their discretion 20 in terms of the medical expertise. 21 Q. Did you have any system in place to make sure 22 that the right medical experts were involved? 23 MR. TODD: At what point? 24 MR. GORDON: In 1984. 77 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. Do you remember if you had any discussions 3 in 1984 concerning Mrs. Gallant or the Dussord 4 family? 5 A. No. As I mentioned earlier, I didn't have a 6 recall on the letter itself, but, but obviously I 7 saw the envelope. 8 Q. Sure. Without regard to the letter, do you 9 remember any conversations at all in 1984 with 10 regard to Marge Gallant or the Dussord family? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Okay. With regard to Father Geoghan, do you 13 recall any conversations you had in 1984 14 pertaining to him? 15 A. I cannot recall specific conversations in 1984 16 about Father Geoghan, but underlying, underlying 17 appointment letters such as you have put before 18 me, I can, I can assume that there was a 19 conversation. 20 Q. But you don't remember any of the conversations 21 at this point? 22 A. The note such as I put on the envelope is of, is 23 in a sense engaging in conversation. One can 24 engage in conversation in different ways, and I, 78 1 and I was, I was involved with others about 2 Father Geoghan's case. 3 Q. Let me ask you if you recall if there was a 4 verbal conversation you had with anyone in 1984? 5 A. I don't recall a verbal conversation. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. But -- which is not to say there wasn't a verbal 8 conversation. 9 Q. I understand. 10 I'm going to give you what has been 11 previously marked as Exhibit 166, at the 12 deposition of Bishop McCormack. 13 (Document exhibited to witness.) 14 Q. And I'd -- exhibit -- you've been given a copy of 15 Exhibit 166 which appears to be a letter from 16 Bishop D'Arcy to you dated December 7, 1984. 17 First let me ask you, do you recall 18 seeing this letter? 19 MR. TODD: At or about the time of the 20 letter? 21 MR. GORDON: At or about the time. 22 A. That this was issued? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. I don't have a recall of this letter, no. 79 1 Q. Okay. At that time in 1984, was Bishop D'Arcy 2 assigned to the Archdiocese of Boston? 3 A. Yes, he was an auxiliary Bishop. 4 Q. And was he also a regional Bishop? 5 A. He was. 6 Q. And what region was he a regional Bishop of? 7 A. He would have been a region that would have 8 involved the west region now, which would have 9 included Weston. 10 Q. Do you know if -- have you seen this letter 11 before today, let me ask you that? 12 A. I've seen it before today, but I have not seen it 13 in the time frame -- I don't recall seeing it in 14 the time frame in which it was, it was 15 communicated. 16 MR. GORDON: We're going to take a 17 20-second break for them to change tapes. 18 VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 11:47. 19 This is the end of video cassette No. 1. We're 20 going off the record. 21 (Video off.) 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 (Video on.) 24 VIDEO OPERATOR: We're back on the 80 1 record. This is tape No. 2. The time is 11:49. 2 This is the beginning of video cassette No. 2 in 3 the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law. 4 BY MR. GORDON: 5 Q. Are you aware of any time in which Bishop D'Arcy 6 had a supervisory role of Father Geoghan? 7 A. No, I am not. 8 Q. Do you -- can you tell me how Bishop D'Arcy would 9 have known about Father Geoghan having a history 10 of homosexual involvement with young boys if he 11 was not directly involved with the supervision? 12 A. I cannot tell you that. 13 Q. As of September of 1984, were you aware that 14 Father Geoghan had a history of homosexual 15 involvement with young boys? 16 A. I was aware that there was involvement because, 17 because of the, of having removed him out of one 18 parish and putting him between assignments before 19 sending him back to another, and then 20 necessitating a letter that would not have been 21 necessary unless there had been a problem. 22 Q. Have you and Bishop D'Arcy ever discussed Father 23 Geoghan? 24 A. I don't recall, but we very well might have in, 81 1 when he was, when he was here as auxiliary 2 Bishop. 3 Q. Did you get letters questioning your assignment 4 of priests to parishes such as the one Bishop 5 D'Arcy sent on December 7, '84, had you received 6 letters like that before? 7 A. Before? 8 Q. Before December 7 of '84. 9 A. First of all, I don't recall -- 10 Q. This letter. 11 A. -- seeing this letter in that time frame. 12 Q. Okay. 13 A. But, no, I do not recall receiving similar 14 letters prior to that. 15 Q. Had anyone else in the hierarchy, up until 1989, 16 expressed to you concerns about Father Geoghan 17 being assigned to work in parish assignments 18 where he would have an opportunity to be exposed 19 to boys? 20 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 21 Could you tell us what you mean by "hierarchy?" 22 MR. GORDON: That's a good point. 23 Q. Had anybody else at the archdiocese ever 24 expressed concerns about assigning Father Geoghan 82 1 to parish work? 2 A. No. You know, the, the assignments that were 3 made were made after some attestation, and as you 4 -- and -- no, I did not receive complaints about 5 those assignments from Bishops or from others in 6 authority. 7 Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Monsignor 8 Rossiter about Father Geoghan? 9 A. I don't recall personally having had such a 10 conversation. 11 Q. Would you have wanted at that time Monsignor 12 Rossiter to be aware of the issues with Father 13 Geoghan? 14 MR. ROGERS, III: At what time? 15 MR. GORDON: In 1984 when Father 16 Geoghan was a assigned to St. Julia's in Weston. 17 A. I -- yes, I would have wanted that. 18 Q. And how would you have seen that that information 19 would have been conveyed to Monsignor Rossiter? 20 A. My presumption would be that those assisting me 21 in handling these matters would have also done 22 what was appropriate in relationship to Monsignor 23 Rossiter. 24 Q. And did you convey that to them, that you would 83 1 expect them to communicate with Monsignor 2 Rossiter about -- 3 A. I do not recall having conveyed that. 4 Q. Now, you indicated you wanted some attestation 5 before Father Geoghan could be sent back at that 6 time. Where did you learn or when did you come 7 to the understanding that you needed an 8 attestation for a priest who had molested boys to 9 be sent back? What was that based upon? 10 A. It seemed -- it just -- it's common sense. It's 11 not based on any canonical requirement or 12 anything of that kind. It just seems to me that 13 when you're dealing with something that is a 14 pathology, that you can't act with regard to this 15 person unless people who are competent can 16 indicate to you that a certain course of action 17 is appropriate. Had the letter come saying that 18 this person may not be safely assigned, he 19 wouldn't have been assigned, and I would have 20 assumed that that was the case, and I would have 21 trusted that. 22 And I, you know, where would that have 23 come from? It would have come from common sense. 24 Q. Do you recall if you attended any meetings with 84 1 the National Catholic Conference of Bishops 2 during the time you were a Bishop in your first 3 assignment as a Bishop, or within the first five 4 years of being assigned as an Archbishop to 5 Boston, of meetings at which experts came to talk 6 about dealing with issues that arise when a 7 priest has been accused of molesting children? 8 A. I can't -- and I've tried to go back in my mind 9 because I've heard about this in the press about 10 such meetings. I don't have a recall of such a 11 meeting, I have to say. But at the same time, it 12 wouldn't have taken a meeting to convince me of 13 the need to rely on professional expertise 14 because I was convinced of that before coming to 15 Boston. It isn't something that I learned in 16 Boston. 17 Q. But there was no -- at that point when you first 18 were here in Boston there was no written policy 19 that said -- 20 A. No, there was no written policy in place. 21 Q. No written policy at all? 22 A. And I was dealing with the case. 23 Q. In fact, there was no spoken policy saying, it 24 must be a certain skilled psychiatrist making the 85 1 evaluation? You at that point you just wanted to 2 have an expert say to send him back, you didn't 3 really qualify it more than that, a doctor? 4 MR. TODD: Object to the form. 5 MR. ROGERS: Go ahead. 6 A. I expected a professionally competent person to 7 make that kind of a recommendation. 8 Q. Had you explained the criteria to Bishop Banks 9 and Bishop Daily what you meant by 10 "professionally competent"? 11 A. I don't recall doing that. It seemed to me that 12 it was obvious. 13 Q. Let me ask you now: Do you think that it is 14 obvious, looking back? 15 MR. ROGERS, III: Objection. 16 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 17 Q. In other words, do you think people understood 18 what level expertise you expected at the time 19 without explaining it with a little bit more 20 detail? 21 MR. ROGERS: Object to the form, but 22 go ahead. 23 A. I think that all of us understand much more fully 24 today, not as fully as hopefully some day we will 86 1 all understand, but I think all of us understand 2 much more fully today what we're dealing with in 3 this terrible pathology than we did earlier on. 4 The -- as you know, I'm sure -- well, I'll leave 5 it at that. 6 Q. Okay. In 1985, was Bishop D'Arcy given a new 7 assignment? 8 A. In 198 -- let's see. Do you mean out of the 9 diocese? 10 Q. Out of diocese. 11 A. Or in the diocese? 12 I don't remember when he was assigned 13 to become the Bishop of, to become an ordinary, 14 but -- I'd have to look it up. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. In those days being an ordinary would have been 17 considered a promotion. 18 Q. Well, let me ask you now: Moving from auxiliary 19 Bishop or regional Bishop of Boston to being an 20 ordinary, is that a promotion? 21 A. Absolutely. 22 Q. And the diocese that Bishop D'Arcy was sent to 23 is? 24 A. South Bend, Fort Wayne. 87 1 Q. Fort Wayne? 2 A. Indiana. 3 Q. How many Catholics are in that region? 4 A. Oh, I couldn't tell you. But it's a good 5 diocese, good size diocese. University of Notre 6 Dame is there of course. 7 Q. That's the big center of that diocese, the 8 Catholic center of that diocese? 9 A. Well, it's a significant institution. 10 Q. Over the years, have you and Bishop D'Arcy ever 11 discussed Father Geoghan? 12 A. Not that I can recall. 13 Q. When is the last time you saw Bishop D'Arcy? 14 A. Oh, Heavens. I'm trying to think whether it was 15 at the Bishops meeting or whether we have been 16 together since then. It was at least I would 17 have seen him in November at the Bishops meeting. 18 We may have been together somewhere since then, 19 but I can't recall that. 20 Q. Have you had conversations with Bishop D'Arcy in 21 the last two years? 22 A. Casual conversations, yes. 23 Q. Have you and he ever discussed the litigation 24 going on -- 88 1 A. No. 2 Q. -- surrounding John Geoghan? 3 A. No. 4 MR. GORDON: We said we would stop at 5 12:00, reconvene at 1:00? 6 MR. ROGERS: Fine. 7 MR. GORDON: It's 12 o'clock. We'll 8 suspend for an hour. 9 VIDEO OPERATOR: It is 12 o'clock. 10 We're stopping the video to go off the record. 11 (Video off.) 12 (Luncheon recess.) 13 (Video on.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24