1 1 COMMONWEALTH of MASSACHUSETTS 2 COUNTY of MIDDLESEX 3 GREGORY FORD, Et Al., Plaintiffs, 4 Superior Court Vs

1 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 2 COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX 3 GREGORY FORD, et al., Plaintiffs, 4 Superior Court vs. Civil Action 5 No. 02-0626 BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a 6 CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Defendant. 7 ------PAUL W. BUSA, 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. Civil Action No. 02-0822 10 BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al. 11 Defendants. ------12 ANTHONY DRISCOLL, Plaintiff, 13 vs. Civil Action 14 No. 02-1737 BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a 15 CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al. Defendants. 16 17 THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the 18 Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil 19 Procedure, before Kathleen M. Silva, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and 20 for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, One International 21 Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, commencing at 10:06 22 a.m. 23 K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES P. O. BOX 6094 24 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02209 TEL. (781) 598-6405 - FAX (781) 598-0815

2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 Greenberg Traurig (by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, Robert 3 Sherman, Attorney, David G. Thomas, Attorney, Courtney Pillsbury, Attorney, and Gina Dines 4 Holness, Attorney) One International Place 5 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 6 Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney 7 One Storey Terrace Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 8 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 9 The Rogers Law Firm, PC (by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, Wilson D. 10 Rogers, III, Attorney, and Mark C. Rogers, Attorney) 11 One Union Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 12 Attorneys for the Defendants 13 Todd & Weld (by J. Owen Todd, Attorney) 14 28 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 15 Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally 16 ALSO PRESENT: Colleen Surrette 17 Diane Nealon Rodney Ford 18 Paula Ford Anthony Driscoll 19 Andrew Magni Father John Connolly 20 Father Christopher Coyne Sandy Grossman 21 George Libbares Wayne Martin 22 23 24

3 1 2 WITNESS 3 Page BERNARD F. LAW 10 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 6 7 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 8 1 Complaint and Jury Demand 5 9 2 Answer of the 5 Defendant Bernard 10 Cardinal Law to Plaintiffs' Complaint 11 3 Review Board 36 12 Memorandum, Case No. 62, 2/5/96 13 4 Document 40 14 5 Review Board Meeting Notes, 45 15 6/5/95 16 6 Memorandum 62 17 7 Excerpt of 72 Deposition of Charles 18 Higgins 19 8 The Five Principles to 79 Follow in Dealing with 20 Acusations of Sexual Abuse 21 9 Document 86 22 10 Letter, 6/1/02 115 23 24

4 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 11 Responses of the Defendant, 135 Bernard Cardinal Law, 3 to Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions 4 12 Statement, 5/20/02 147 5 6 13 Document 147 7 14 Report to Cardinal Cushing 171 of 1964 Re: Eugene 8 O'Sullivan 9 15 Handwritten Document 181 10 16 Globe Article 184 11 17 Note 199 12 18 Letter, Received 5/2/85 207 13 19 Letter, 5/15/85 217 14 20 Letter, 6/4/85 221 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (Law Exhibit No. 1, Complaint and 3 Jury Demand, marked for 4 identification.) 5 (Law Exhibit No. 2, Answer of the 6 Defendant Bernard Cardinal Law to 7 Plaintiffs' Complaint, 8 marked for identification.) 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now 09:55:40 10 recording and on the record. My name is George 10:06:31 11 Labbares. I'm a certified legal video 10:06:34 12 specialist for National Video Reporters, 10:06:37 13 Incorporated. Our business address is 58 10:06:39 14 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, 10:06:43 15 Massachusetts 02110. Today is June 5, 2002, 10:06:46 16 and the time is 10:06 a.m. 10:06:56 17 This is the deposition of Cardinal 10:06:59 18 Bernard Law in the matter of Gregory Ford, et 10:07:02 19 al., Plaintiffs, versus Cardinal Law, a/k/a 10:07:06 20 Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, and Paul W. 10:07:11 21 Busa, Plaintiff, versus Cardinal -- versus 10:07:16 22 Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. 10:07:21 23 Law, et al., Defendants, and Anthony Driscoll, 10:07:27 24 Plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a 10:07:32

6 1 Cardinal Bernard Law, et al., Defendants, in 10:07:37 2 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of 10:07:40 3 Middlesex. 10:07:43 4 This deposition is being taken at One 10:07:45 5 International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on 10:07:51 6 behalf of the plaintiffs. The court reporter 10:07:51 7 is Kathleen Silva with K. L. Good and 10:07:54 8 Associates of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, 10:07:58 9 Massachusetts 02209. 10:08:03 10 Counsel will now state their 10:08:07 11 appearances and the court reporter will 10:08:09 12 administer the oath. 10:08:10 13 MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, 10:08:12 14 Jr., for the plaintiffs. 10:08:12 15 MR. THOMAS: David Thomas for the 10:08:16 16 plaintiffs. 10:08:17 17 MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman for the 10:08:19 18 plaintiffs. 10:08:19 19 MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman for the 10:08:19 20 plaintiffs. 10:08:21 21 MR. MARK ROGERS: Mark Rogers on 10:08:21 22 behalf of all defendants, including His 10:08:23 23 Eminence, Cardinal Bernard Law. 10:08:24 24 MR. ROGERS III: Wilson Rogers, III, 10:08:26

7 1 on behalf of Cardinal Bernard Law and all the 10:08:27 2 defendants. 10:08:29 3 MR. ROGERS, JR.: Wilson Rogers, Jr., 10:08:29 4 on behalf of His Eminence, Cardinal Law, and 10:08:31 5 all the defendants. 10:08:32 6 MR. TODD: Owen Todd on behalf of the 10:08:34 7 Cardinal personally. 10:08:36 8 MR. MacLEISH: Before you do the 10:08:39 9 oath, we have some stipulations for the record. 10:08:39 10 As I understand it, we are stipulating that all 10:08:40 11 objections except as to form and motions to 10:08:42 12 strike are reserved in this case until the time 10:08:44 13 of trial. 10:08:45 14 Mr. Todd, you also want to make 10:08:47 15 another stipulation? 10:08:49 16 MR. TODD: That prior stipulation 10:08:49 17 will apply to the audio-visual deposition as 10:08:51 18 well. 10:08:54 19 MR. MacLEISH: That's correct. 10:08:54 20 Mr. Rogers, you also wanted to make a 10:08:55 21 continuing objection on First Amendment 10:08:57 22 grounds; is that correct? 10:08:59 23 MR. ROGERS: Yes. We would interpose 10:09:00 24 an objection as to any questions going to the 10:09:02

8 1 internal workings of the Church, and to obviate 10:09:05 2 the need of raising it on an ongoing basis, I'd 10:09:08 3 like to agree we have a continuing objection to 10:09:11 4 this line of inquiry. 10:09:12 5 MR. MacLEISH: We have such an 10:09:13 6 agreement. 10:09:15 7 Could you swear the witness in. 10:09:15 8 MR. TODD: And the objection of one 10:09:16 9 party will stand for all parties, correct? 10:09:18 10 MR. MacLEISH: That's acceptable. 10:09:20 11 MR. ROGERS: Did we -- is it clear on 10:09:22 12 the record that this deposition applies in four 10:09:24 13 cases? 10:09:26 14 MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. 10:09:27 15 MR. ROGERS: I'm not sure when we 10:09:28 16 did -- 10:09:29 17 MR. MacLEISH: Yes, it is. That's my 10:09:30 18 prior agreement with your son. It also applies 10:09:32 19 to the case of Andrew Magni as well. 10:09:33 20 Are we ready to swear the witness in? 10:09:36 21 BERNARD F. LAW 22 was sworn on oath by the reporter. 23 ********* 24

9 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH 10:09:49 2 Q Good morning, Your Eminence. 10:09:49 3 A Good morning. 10:09:51 4 My name is Eric MacLeish and I'm counsel 10:09:52 5 for the plaintiffs in these actions. To my 10:09:54 6 right is Paula Ford, who is also a plaintiff. 10:09:57 7 To my left is David Thomas, Robert Sherman, 10:09:59 8 Mr. Rodney Ford, who is also a plaintiff, 10:10:01 9 Attorney Jeffrey Newman, Andrew Magni, who is a 10:10:04 10 plaintiff in another case, but is here by 10:10:07 11 agreement of the defendants, and Anthony 10:10:08 12 Driscoll. Both Mr. Magni and Mr. Driscoll are 10:10:11 13 victims of Father Shanley. 10:10:14 14 I'd like to thank you first for coming in 10:10:16 15 here, and as is typical in depositions, I'd 10:10:18 16 like to go over a few ground rules. Nothing 10:10:21 17 exceptional, but a few ground rules. 10:10:24 18 The first is if at any time during this 10:10:26 19 deposition you care to take a break, if you'd 10:10:28 20 like to take a pause, just tell me and we're 10:10:30 21 happy to accommodate that. If at any point in 10:10:33 22 time you want to go over your answers to any of 10:10:36 23 the questions that you've given, modify or 10:10:40 24 change them in any way, I'm going to give you 10:10:40

10 1 that opportunity and you can just indicate that 10:10:43 2 to me and I'll let you do that. 10:10:44 3 I would like you to -- and this is 10:10:46 4 something that happens frequently. It's not 10:10:49 5 directed at you. If you could listen to the 10:10:50 6 question and try to respond to the question. 10:10:52 7 Your attorneys will have the opportunity for 10:10:55 8 cross-examination. If at some point you care 10:10:56 9 to give an explanation, I'll be happy to 10:10:58 10 accommodate that. 10:11:02 11 Finally, there is a problem that exists in 10:11:02 12 many depositions, and it's certainly not unique 10:11:06 13 to this one. The witness sometimes has a 10:11:08 14 tendency to anticipate what the question will 10:11:10 15 be and then answer before the question is 10:11:13 16 finalized, which makes it difficult for our 10:11:16 17 court reporter. 10:11:19 18 Do you understand those instructions? 10:11:19 19 A I do, and I'll try to abide by them. 10:11:21 20 Q I appreciate that. 10:11:23 21 If I refer to you as Cardinal, is that 10:11:25 22 acceptable, Your Eminence? 10:11:28 23 A Sure. 10:11:29 24 Q Could you please state your name. 10:11:30

11 1 A My name is Bernard Francis Law. 10:11:31 2 Q And you are presently the Archbishop of Boston; 10:11:35 3 is that correct? 10:11:42 4 A That is correct. 10:11:42 5 Q And you're one of 17 cardinals in the United 10:11:42 6 States; is that correct? 10:11:47 7 A I don't think there's 17 of us. 10:11:47 8 Q How many are there? 10:11:49 9 A I think there are 12 U.S. citizens who are 10:11:51 10 cardinals. 10:11:55 11 Q And you're one of those 12? 10:11:55 12 A I'm one of those 12. 10:11:57 13 Q And you have held your position as Archbishop 10:11:58 14 of Boston since 1984; is that correct? 10:12:03 15 A That is correct. 10:12:06 16 Q And you were elevated to cardinal by Pope John 10:12:06 17 Paul II in 1985; is that correct? 10:12:08 18 A Correct. 10:12:11 19 Q Now, you're aware that a complaint has been 10:12:11 20 filed against you in this matter by Paula, 10:12:14 21 Rodney and Gregory Ford. Are you aware of 10:12:18 22 that? 10:12:20 23 A I am. 10:12:21 24 Q Have you had the opportunity to review the 10:12:21

12 1 complaint? 10:12:23 2 A I have not reviewed the complaint in its 10:12:23 3 detail. 10:12:27 4 Q Okay. What we have in front of you as Exhibit 10:12:29 5 No. 1 is a copy of the complaint, and you'll 10:12:31 6 see the caption in the complaint of Gregory, 10:12:34 7 Paula and Rodney Ford. 10:12:38 8 Do you see that at the front of this 10:12:41 9 action? 10:12:44 10 A Yes, I do. 10:12:44 11 Q If you could turn, Your Eminence, to page 5 of 10:12:45 12 the complaint, if you could, please. You'll 10:12:57 13 see Paragraph 15, it states: 10:13:07 14 "Father Shanley's sexual molestation of 10:13:08 15 Gregory" -- and it states Gregory was born in 10:13:11 16 1977. "While Gregory was a minor between the 10:13:14 17 ages of approximately six and twelve, Father 10:13:17 18 Shanley repeatedly sexually molested him, 10:13:19 19 approximately between 1983 through 1989." 10:13:23 20 That last portion is in parentheses. Do 10:13:27 21 you see that? 10:13:30 22 A I do, yes. 10:13:30 23 Q And you're generally familiar with complaints 10:13:31 24 in civil lawsuits that to start a civil action, 10:13:34

13 1 a complaint is filed? 10:13:38 2 A Yes. 10:13:40 3 Q And you're a defendant in a number of cases at 10:13:40 4 the present time; is that correct? 10:13:43 5 A That's correct. 10:13:45 6 Q You've been deposed previous to today; is that 10:13:45 7 correct? 10:13:48 8 A That is correct. 10:13:48 9 Q Are you also generally aware that after a 10:13:48 10 complaint is filed, there is an answer that 10:13:50 11 gets filed on behalf of the defendant? 10:13:53 12 A I presume so. I don't handle legal matters, 10:13:58 13 but... 10:14:02 14 Q Could you look at Exhibit 2, please, which is 10:14:05 15 the answer that has been filed in this case, 10:14:06 16 and let me ask first whether you've ever seen 10:14:09 17 that answer that was filed on your behalf? 10:14:11 18 A Well, let me go through it. 10:14:16 19 Q Sure. Absolutely. Please take your time. 10:14:21 20 A (Witness reviewing document.) 10:14:28 21 The answer to this is that I have not seen 10:14:44 22 this document. 10:14:46 23 Q You've engaged attorneys on your behalf to file 10:14:47 24 the answer; is that correct? 10:14:50

14 1 A That's correct. 10:14:51 2 Q And that would be Mr. Todd and Mr. Rogers; is 10:14:51 3 that correct? 10:14:55 4 A That's correct. 10:14:55 5 Q And Your Eminence, I've got a note from down at 10:14:55 6 the end of the table if you could try to speak 10:14:58 7 up just a little bit because this room does not 10:15:01 8 have good acoustics. 10:15:03 9 A Yes. 10:15:06 10 Q If you could turn your answer to page 5, if you 10:15:06 11 could, please. 10:15:08 12 MR. ROGERS, III: Page 5 of the 10:15:13 13 answer? 10:15:15 14 MR. MacLEISH: Page 5 of the answer, 10:15:16 15 that's correct. 10:15:18 16 Q Would it be accurate to state that you are 10:15:19 17 generally familiar with the nature of the 10:15:23 18 Fords' allegations against you and the 10:15:24 19 Archdiocese of Boston? You're generally 10:15:28 20 familiar with it? 10:15:29 21 A I'm generally familiar, yes. 10:15:30 22 Q You're generally familiar with the fact that 10:15:32 23 they are alleging that their son Gregory, when 10:15:34 24 he was a young child, was molested by Father 10:15:37

15 1 Shanley, as you just read out of the complaint? 10:15:39 2 A I am aware of that. 10:15:42 3 Q And you're generally aware that the complaint 10:15:44 4 of the Fords is that their young son was 10:15:48 5 molested at the rectory at St. Jean's Parish in 10:15:51 6 Newton, Massachusetts? 10:15:55 7 A I'm aware of the allegation that he was 10:15:55 8 molested. I was not -- I don't have a 10:15:59 9 recollection of where that molestation took 10:16:02 10 place. 10:16:05 11 Q But you were aware that the acts of molestation 10:16:06 12 are alleged to have taken place at St. Jean's 10:16:09 13 Parish in Newton, Massachusetts? 10:16:11 14 A I'm aware they were alleged to have taken place 10:16:13 15 by Father Shanley. 10:16:15 16 Q That's correct. And you've also been -- you 10:16:16 17 were at St. Jean's Parish when it was still 10:16:18 18 open on at least one occasion; is that correct? 10:16:22 19 A I believe that's correct. 10:16:25 20 Q Was that for the Silver Jubilee, so-called 10:16:25 21 Silver Jubilee of Paul Shanley? 10:16:31 22 A I cannot recall what the occasion was. 10:16:40 23 Q Turning to Exhibit No. 2 and looking at 10:16:40 24 Paragraph 5, it states as follows, and -- I'm 10:16:40

16 1 sorry. Page 5, about halfway down the page, it 10:16:42 2 states: 10:16:47 3 "And further answering, the defendant 10:16:47 4 says" -- 10:16:50 5 A Excuse me. I'm confused. 10:16:51 6 Q Sure. Absolutely. 10:16:53 7 A I have the wrong document. 10:16:54 8 Q Okay. You see there's numbered paragraphs and 10:16:55 9 then there's two paragraphs without numbers. 10:16:58 10 Do you see that? 10:17:00 11 A Yes. 10:17:00 12 Q I'm going to read from the second one. 10:17:01 13 "And further answering, the defendant says 10:17:03 14 that the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of 10:17:05 15 due care but, rather, the negligence of the 10:17:08 16 plaintiffs contributed to the cause -- to the 10:17:11 17 injury or damage complained of; wherefore, the 10:17:14 18 recovery of the plaintiffs is barred in whole 10:17:20 19 or in part or subject to diminution." 10:17:21 20 Do you see that language? 10:17:25 21 A I do. 10:17:25 22 Q And you see in that language that it is stated 10:17:26 23 by the defendant that the plaintiffs were not 10:17:29 24 in the exercise of due care. 10:17:32

17 1 Do you see that? 10:17:33 2 A I don't see that, but -- yes. I was below 10:17:40 3 that. Yes, I see that. 10:17:43 4 Q And that it was, rather, the negligence of the 10:17:46 5 plaintiffs that contributed to cause the injury 10:17:49 6 or damage complained of? 10:17:50 7 A I see that. 10:17:51 8 Q And the injury and damage complained of here is 10:17:52 9 the sexual molestation of a young child. You 10:17:54 10 understand that, correct? 10:17:59 11 A I understand that. 10:17:59 12 Q Can you provide any factual basis to support 10:18:00 13 the assertion that is contained in your answer 10:18:02 14 that somehow the negligence of Paula Ford, 10:18:05 15 Rodney Ford or Gregory Ford, in the words of 10:18:07 16 the complaint, contributed -- the answer, 10:18:11 17 rather, contributed to cause the injury or 10:18:13 18 damages complained of? Do you know of any 10:18:15 19 facts to support that? 10:18:17 20 MR. ROGERS: I object to the form, 10:18:19 21 but go ahead and answer. 10:18:20 22 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead and answer. 10:18:21 23 A This -- no. My answer to the question is no. 10:18:22 24 Q Okay. As you sit here today, can you conceive 10:18:26

18 1 of any facts that would support the assertion 10:18:30 2 that a six-year-old child was somehow negligent 10:18:31 3 in allowing himself to be abused by a Roman 10:18:35 4 Catholic priest? 10:18:38 5 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:18:39 6 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:18:40 7 MR. MacLEISH: Objection is noted. 10:18:41 8 MR. ROGERS: The plaintiffs -- 10:18:42 9 MR. TODD: The plaintiff is not a 10:18:43 10 child. 10:18:44 11 MR. MacLEISH: The plaintiff -- if 10:18:44 12 you'll turn to the first page, the plaintiff is 10:18:46 13 Gregory Ford. 10:18:48 14 MR. TODD: And Paula Ford. 10:18:49 15 MR. ROGERS: Paula Ford. 10:18:52 16 MR. TODD: And Rodney Ford. 10:18:52 17 MR. MacLEISH: Gregory Ford. 18 Q Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. We just 10:18:54 19 read from the complaint, Your Eminence. 10:18:57 20 Gregory Ford was a six-year-old child. 10:18:59 21 Are you aware of any set of facts that 10:19:01 22 could conceivably support the argument that a 10:19:03 23 six-year-old child could in any way be 10:19:05 24 responsible for his abuse by a Roman Catholic 10:19:08

19 1 priest? 10:19:12 2 MR. ROGERS: I object to the form. 10:19:12 3 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:19:16 4 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can 10:19:16 5 answer. 10:19:16 6 A As I indicated earlier, Mr. MacLeish, I have 10:19:16 7 not seen this document before now. 10:19:20 8 Q I understand that. 10:19:22 9 A I was being represented in this document by 10:19:23 10 counsel. I did not enter into the formulation 10:19:29 11 of that response, and so I haven't a basis upon 10:19:33 12 which to engage in a response on this. 10:19:39 13 If you're asking me personally if a 10:19:46 14 six-year-old child could have contributed 10:19:47 15 negligence in a case like this, I would say the 10:19:51 16 answer to that is clearly no. 10:19:53 17 Q What about the parents, Cardinal Law? Can you 10:19:56 18 in any way conceive of a set of facts that 10:20:00 19 would support the assertion that the parents of 10:20:01 20 a six-year-old child could somehow be negligent 10:20:03 21 with respect to the sexual abuse of their child 10:20:07 22 by a Roman Catholic priest? 10:20:10 23 MR. TODD: Objection. Speculative. 10:20:12 24 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:20:14

20 1 A Mr. MacLeish, I can answer that theoretically. 10:20:14 2 I cannot answer that with specificity to the 10:20:18 3 parents of this child because I have no facts 10:20:24 4 concerning the parents of this child. 10:20:27 5 Q Mm-hmm. 10:20:30 6 A But theoretically, I would suppose that one 10:20:31 7 could presume that if parents were to put their 10:20:36 8 child in the position of jeopardy for someone 10:20:41 9 whom they suspected to be a risk, there would 10:20:47 10 be some degree of negligence there. But I say 10:20:51 11 that's a theoretical response. It in no way 10:20:53 12 moves to the victim himself or herself, and it 10:20:57 13 no way mitigates the responsibility of the 10:21:03 14 person who would have committed the abuse. 10:21:07 15 But could there be contributory negligence 10:21:10 16 on the part of those who have supervision? I 10:21:17 17 presume that, theoretically, that could be the 10:21:20 18 case. 10:21:21 19 But, again, I respond that under the terms 10:21:21 20 of the specific case before us, I have no 10:21:24 21 knowledge whatsoever of contributory 10:21:27 22 negligence. 10:21:31 23 Q And you have never spoken to anyone, apart from 10:21:32 24 your counsel, in which they have provided you 10:21:35

21 1 with facts that would support the assertion 10:21:37 2 that Paula and Rodney Ford were somehow, in 10:21:39 3 your words, contributorily negligent to the 10:21:43 4 abuse of their son; is that right? 10:21:47 5 MR. TODD: Objection to his words. 10:21:51 6 MR. MacLEISH: He just used those 10:21:53 7 words in his last response, but your objection 10:21:56 8 is noted. 10:21:56 9 Q You used the words "contributorily negligent" 10:21:57 10 when you were talking about a theory on which 10:21:58 11 parents would be liable? 10:22:00 12 A A theory, that's correct. 10:22:01 13 Q I'm asking you whether you have ever spoken to 10:22:03 14 anyone, apart from your counsel, that would 10:22:05 15 support the proposition that Paula Ford or 10:22:07 16 Rodney Ford were somehow negligent with their 10:22:09 17 son when it came to his alleged abuse by Paul 10:22:15 18 Shanley? 10:22:17 19 A I have not spoken to anyone concerning that. 10:22:17 20 Q Now, you just talked about individuals who were 10:22:21 21 in a position of supervision could be 10:22:23 22 theoretically negligent for abuse that takes 10:22:26 23 place of a young child. 10:22:30 24 Do you remember your testimony? 10:22:33

22 1 A Yes, I do. 10:22:34 2 Q That would also apply to those within an 10:22:34 3 institution that supervised that priest, such 10:22:37 4 as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston? 10:22:40 5 They could likewise be negligent if they were 10:22:43 6 aware that the priest was inclined to engage in 10:22:47 7 deviant behavior towards children. Would you 10:22:51 8 agree with that? 10:22:53 9 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:22:54 10 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:22:55 11 A If they were aware that someone was a potential 10:22:55 12 risk, and if that -- and they had not attempted 10:23:01 13 to have that case reviewed by people competent 10:23:11 14 to render a judgment as to whether indeed that 10:23:17 15 risk was present or not, then, yes, they would 10:23:20 16 be responsible. 10:23:24 17 Q Cardinal Law, since you were ordained and 10:23:24 18 incardinated, you have had occasion, have you 10:23:29 19 not, to be involved in situations involving the 10:23:31 20 abuse of young children -- alleged abuse of 10:23:35 21 young children by Roman Catholic priests; is 10:23:39 22 that correct? 10:23:41 23 A I have had cases to deal with, unfortunately, 10:23:41 24 yes. 10:23:44

23 1 Q You have even had cases where -- such as Father 10:23:44 2 O'Sullivan -- where there has been a conviction 10:23:48 3 for rape of a young child? 10:23:52 4 A That's correct. 10:23:54 5 Q And Father O'Sullivan was a Roman Catholic 10:23:54 6 priest; is that correct? 10:23:57 7 A That's correct. 10:23:58 8 Q Now, you just made a statement -- answer 10:24:00 9 several questions ago. What I think you were 10:24:04 10 referring to was there could be contributory 10:24:07 11 negligence or negligence if the person -- the 10:24:10 12 priest who was engaged in the molestation had 10:24:13 13 not been subject -- and I forget your exact 10:24:17 14 words, so I'll give you the opportunity to make 10:24:18 15 it clear -- but some sort of medical review. 10:24:20 16 Was that what you were stating? 10:24:23 17 A Mr. MacLeish, if you could be specific in your 10:24:24 18 question so I could be clear in my answer. 10:24:29 19 Q Absolutely. In situations, Cardinal Law, where 10:24:31 20 there are either credible or admitted 10:24:34 21 allegations by a Roman Catholic priest that he 10:24:36 22 has engaged in the sexual molestation of 10:24:39 23 children and there is then a reassignment of 10:24:42 24 that priest to another parish, do you believe 10:24:44

24 1 that the parishioners of that parish have the 10:24:46 2 right to know that the person who is now their 10:24:53 3 pastor or working in the church has credible 10:24:54 4 allegations or even a conviction against him of 10:24:58 5 child molestation? 10:25:01 6 MR. ROGERS: Objection. I object to 10:25:03 7 the form. "Right" in what sense? Are we 10:25:06 8 talking legal? 10:25:06 9 Q Do you understand the question? 10:25:08 10 MR. ROGERS: Are we talking legal 10:25:09 11 right? Are we talking moral right? 10:25:10 12 MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is 10:25:12 13 noted. 10:25:13 14 Q Do you understand the question, Cardinal Law? 10:25:13 15 A Mr. MacLeish, I understand your question. 10:25:16 16 Q Thank you. 10:25:18 17 A It's a very general question, and if you will 10:25:18 18 bear with me -- 10:25:21 19 Q Sure. 10:25:22 20 A -- to give what I think is a general answer. 10:25:22 21 As you know, we currently report every case of 10:25:28 22 abuse, credible case of abuse to public 10:25:36 23 authorities. And we also, as you will note, 10:25:38 24 and has been reported in the newspapers, go to 10:25:43

25 1 the parishes in order to address the situation 10:25:47 2 to the affected parish. This represents a 10:25:51 3 development in our 1993 policy. And you're 10:25:54 4 aware of that policy, I know. 10:26:00 5 In 1993 we formulated a written policy 10:26:02 6 which was based upon our previous experience 10:26:07 7 and based upon consultation. In that '93 10:26:11 8 policy we did not go -- the Archdiocese did not 10:26:17 9 report, and that decision was taken because of 10:26:26 10 the conviction that it was more appropriate 10:26:29 11 that the victim or parent of the victim, in 10:26:32 12 appropriate cases, would make that decision; 10:26:39 13 and had we presented ourselves on that policy 10:26:43 14 as going to report to public authority these 10:26:49 15 cases immediately, we felt that we would 10:26:53 16 inhibit some victims from coming forward. The 10:26:55 17 reason for that reflects a -- the way in which 10:27:01 18 these cases were handled. These cases tended 10:27:08 19 to be handled with a desire on the part of the 10:27:13 20 victim for confidentiality. We recognized 10:27:20 21 that. I'm not talking here about legal 10:27:23 22 settlements. That's a separate question. But 10:27:33 23 what I'm talking about is the pastoral handling 10:27:36 24 of these cases. 10:27:39

26 1 And very, very often, persons came forward 10:27:41 2 with a desire to deal with their situation and 10:27:46 3 to deal with the removal of a priest, but they 10:27:50 4 did not want to be party to something becoming 10:27:57 5 public. That was the culture for handling 10:28:00 6 those cases. I have said, and our policy 10:28:05 7 demonstrates presently, that that culture was 10:28:13 8 wrong, and that it's essential to deal with the 10:28:20 9 parish. In our efforts now, we do that. We 10:28:34 10 have people going to the parish immediately 10:28:40 11 after having received an allegation, 10:28:43 12 immediately after having put someone on 10:28:46 13 administrative leave, even as we consider 10:28:50 14 further the allegation, which is also 10:28:53 15 presumably being studied by public authorities, 10:28:55 16 and I think that's the appropriate way and the 10:28:58 17 right way to go. That's 2002. 10:29:00 18 In 1993, our written policy stands as it 10:29:13 19 is, and we have learned in this area. I 10:29:13 20 presume all of us have a lot more to learn as 10:29:17 21 time goes on, and I'm grateful to God that 10:29:20 22 we're at the point now where we are. I think 10:29:24 23 it's the good place to be. I wish to God it 10:29:26 24 were possible, as I have said on other 10:29:30 27 1 occasions, to go back in time, but it isn't. 10:29:32 2 I'm not able to go back in time. 10:29:34 3 I think that it is essential that -- if 10:29:38 4 the primary focus is the protection of 10:29:46 5 children, which I think it must be, I think it 10:29:49 6 is essential that parishes where priests have 10:29:52 7 been guilty of sexual abuse, or where there 10:29:58 8 have been credible allegations concerning 10:30:03 9 sexual abuse of minors, I think it's essential 10:30:08 10 that that information be shared with the 10:30:08 11 parish. 10:30:14 12 Q Cardinal Law, how long has it been the primary 10:30:16 13 focus of the Archdiocese of Boston on the 10:30:18 14 protection of children? How long has that 10:30:21 15 policy been in place? 10:30:22 16 A I can speak only in terms of my tenure. I 10:30:25 17 would say that that has always been a concern, 10:30:33 18 but, as I've spoken on previous occasions 10:30:37 19 publicly, it does seem to me that, in 10:30:42 20 retrospect, we tended to view cases in 10:30:49 21 isolation and view the component parts of those 10:30:52 22 cases. So one would deal with a victim. One 10:30:57 23 would deal with the priest. 10:31:00 24 What I believe has changed, from my 10:31:06

28 1 perspective, is that the overriding concern, 10:31:13 2 the moving concern for any credible policy -- 10:31:19 3 any adequate policy, that there must be an 10:31:28 4 overriding concern. I've used -- and that 10:31:32 5 needs to be -- that focus needs to be the 10:31:40 6 protection of children. 10:31:44 7 It isn't as though you don't deal with a 10:31:44 8 priest who abused the child -- that person has 10:31:47 9 to be dealt with -- but that person is dealt 10:31:51 10 with through the prism of the protection of 10:31:54 11 children. And so that limits what is done. 10:31:58 12 And that's one of the reasons why our policy of 10:32:03 13 assignment has changed. 10:32:05 14 The policy of assignment in this 10:32:08 15 Archdiocese is that no priest who -- against 10:32:12 16 whom a credible allegation of sexual abuse of a 10:32:15 17 minor has been made may hold any assignment 10:32:19 18 whatsoever. Now, that's a change. That's an 10:32:23 19 evolution. That's an evolution that, frankly, 10:32:27 20 some experts in the field might not agree with. 10:32:30 21 But I believe it's the appropriate policy and 10:32:32 22 it is our policy. 10:32:39 23 Q Could you answer my question now? 10:32:41 24 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:32:43

29 1 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:32:45 2 Q My question was quite clear. We can have it 10:32:45 3 read back. 10:32:47 4 My question was for how long has it been 10:32:48 5 your policy and the policy of the Archdiocese 10:32:50 6 of Boston that the primary focus is on the 10:32:52 7 protection of children? That was my question. 10:32:54 8 MR. TODD: And that was his answer. 10:32:57 9 MR. ROGERS: And that was the answer. 10:32:58 10 If you want to make a motion to strike, we 10:32:59 11 reserved that. 10:33:01 12 MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Rogers and 10:33:02 13 Mr. Todd, you're not to make -- I don't think 10:33:03 14 you were in court on Friday. Your objections 10:33:06 15 are noted. 10:33:08 16 Q Could you now, Your Eminence, answer my 10:33:09 17 question on for how long it has been the 10:33:10 18 primary focus in the Archdiocese of Boston on 10:33:13 19 the protection of children? 10:33:16 20 You spoke in your answer -- which I would 10:33:17 21 submit was non-responsive -- about the concern 10:33:19 22 for the protection of children. There is a 10:33:22 23 difference between the primary focus being on 10:33:25 24 the protection of children and a concern, is 10:33:27

30 1 there not? 10:33:29 2 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:33:30 3 A Mr. MacLeish, I attempted to answer your 10:33:32 4 question, and I felt that I had answered your 10:33:36 5 question. 10:33:39 6 Q Okay. 10:33:39 7 A In 1984, a primary concern in handling these 10:33:39 8 cases was indeed the protection of children. 10:33:44 9 In 2002, the primary concern in handling these 10:33:48 10 cases was the protection of children, but we -- 10:33:54 11 I have benefited from the experience of these 10:33:57 12 intervening years, and I see it now in a very 10:34:02 13 clear way that that primary focus demands 10:34:07 14 certain things that I didn't feel were demanded 10:34:14 15 previously. 10:34:17 16 Q So if I understand your answer, from the time 10:34:19 17 that you started as Archbishop of Boston, the 10:34:22 18 protection of children has always been a 10:34:25 19 primary focus. Is that your testimony? 10:34:28 20 A That's correct. 10:34:30 21 Q Okay. But there have been other focuses, have 10:34:30 22 there not, Cardinal Law? 10:34:34 23 A There have been and there are. 10:34:35 24 Q One of those has been to avoid scandal in the 10:34:37

31 1 Church? 10:34:40 2 A That's correct. 10:34:40 3 Q And another primary concern has been to assist 10:34:41 4 priests who have had allegations made against 10:34:44 5 them, credible allegations of sexual 10:34:48 6 misconduct? 10:34:51 7 A To assist priests, Mr. MacLeish, I'm not sure 10:34:51 8 that I would put it that way. I would say to 10:34:55 9 be responsive in a pastoral way to those 10:34:59 10 priests in the context of what their behavior 10:35:05 11 has been. So, for example, if a priest has had 10:35:09 12 a credible allegation brought against him, we 10:35:13 13 tested that with some medical evaluation, with 10:35:16 14 treatment. 10:35:24 15 By the time the '93 policy was in place, 10:35:27 16 if there was to be a reassignment, that would 10:35:31 17 be -- that was the subject of the review board, 10:35:34 18 based upon medical evaluation and treatment and 10:35:41 19 a report from the delegate. 10:35:44 20 Q You're aware that in 1988 there was an 10:35:46 21 allegation made against Father Daniel Graham, 10:35:50 22 and Daniel Graham admitted to the allegation of 10:35:53 23 sexual misconduct with a minor. 10:35:56 24 Are you aware of that? 10:35:59

32 1 A I am. 10:36:00 2 Q okay. And that was in 1988; is that correct? 10:36:00 3 A Well, I can't speak to the date, but I was 10:36:02 4 aware of the fact that there had been an 10:36:06 5 allegation. 10:36:08 6 Q And did Daniel Graham continue in ministry in 10:36:08 7 Quincy after he'd admitted to molesting a 10:36:13 8 minor? 10:36:15 9 A He was allowed to continue, yes, after 10:36:20 10 intervention from -- by a medical source. 10:36:24 11 Q But you're aware that he admitted the 10:36:28 12 allegation, are you not? 10:36:30 13 A That's correct. 10:36:31 14 Q And he was allowed to continue in ministry in 10:36:32 15 Quincy, I believe; is that correct? 10:36:35 16 A That's correct. 10:36:37 17 Q And were the parishioners of the church in 10:36:37 18 Quincy informed when Father Graham was their 10:36:42 19 pastor that he admitted to molesting a child? 10:36:44 20 A Mr. MacLeish, the answer to that is no, based 10:36:48 21 on my prior response, which I have already 10:36:50 22 given you, that our present policy is to inform 10:36:53 23 parishes. It was not the policy in '88, '89, 10:37:00 24 '90, '91, '84, '85, '86, '87. 10:37:04

33 1 Q Just so I'm clear on your testimony, your 10:37:07 2 policy during the 1980s was even in cases where 10:37:10 3 the priest had admitted to having engaged in 10:37:14 4 the molestation of a young child, that the 10:37:18 5 parishioners at the church where that priest 10:37:21 6 was serving would not be informed if the priest 10:37:26 7 returned to ministry, correct? 10:37:29 8 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:37:30 9 A When there was a judgment based -- when there 10:37:31 10 was a judgment by a medical professional 10:37:38 11 indicating that this priest was not -- did not 10:37:41 12 pose a risk, he was returned, and there was no 10:37:46 13 information given to the community served. 10:37:53 14 Q Now, in the case of Father Graham, do you know 10:37:57 15 when the medical assessment, if any, took 10:38:01 16 place? Was it at the time the allegation was 10:38:05 17 made, Cardinal Law? 10:38:08 18 A I cannot respond to that. I don't know. I'd 10:38:08 19 have to check the files for that. 10:38:11 20 Q And it's true, is it not, that you personally 10:38:14 21 made the decision to return Father Graham to 10:38:16 22 ministry after this allegation of sexual 10:38:20 23 misconduct with a minor had been admitted by 10:38:23 24 Father Graham; is that correct? 10:38:26

34 1 A These cases, Mr. MacLeish, were handled 10:38:27 2 directly for me either by the moderator of the 10:38:31 3 Curia or by a priest delegate who had specific 10:38:36 4 responsibility to follow such cases. I would 10:38:42 5 make the appointment, but I would make the 10:38:45 6 appointment based upon their recommendation. 10:38:49 7 Q All right. Now, just so I'm clear, you 10:38:52 8 would -- in the case of Father Graham, you made 10:38:55 9 the decision after you knew that Father Graham 10:38:58 10 had admitted to sexually molesting a minor, you 10:39:00 11 made the decision to return him or keep him in 10:39:04 12 ministry without the parishioners at the parish 10:39:08 13 in Quincy being informed? 10:39:12 14 MR. TODD: Objection. That's been 10:39:15 15 asked and answered. 10:39:16 16 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:39:16 17 MR. MacLEISH: No, it hasn't. 10:39:17 18 A I believe I answered your question, 10:39:18 19 Mr. MacLeish. If you would rephrase it again 10:39:20 20 so I'll be able to answer it. 10:39:23 21 Q I'd be happy to. I think your last answer, if 10:39:25 22 I may, stated you were relying on the advice of 10:39:27 23 others as a more general statement. I'd like 10:39:30 24 to focus more specifically on Father Graham. 10:39:32

35 1 Will you agree to do that? 10:39:34 2 A Certainly. 10:39:36 3 Q You made the decision after you became aware 10:39:36 4 that Father Graham had admitted to molesting a 10:39:38 5 minor that he should continue in ministry, is 10:39:41 6 that not the case? 10:39:45 7 A As I stated to you previously, Mr. MacLeish, in 10:39:47 8 the handling of such cases, including Father 10:39:50 9 Graham's case, I depended upon the assistance 10:39:54 10 of the moderator of the Curia and/or the 10:40:00 11 delegate assigned to handle these specific 10:40:04 12 cases. 10:40:08 13 Any assignment of Father Graham would have 10:40:08 14 been made upon their recommendation, and their 10:40:10 15 recommendations would have been made upon the 10:40:15 16 basis of a study of that case and an informed 10:40:16 17 opinion that he did not pose a risk. 10:40:25 18 Q Now, Cardinal Law, you were the person -- you 10:40:29 19 are the person within the Archdiocese, and you 10:40:31 20 have been since 1984, to make decisions on 10:40:34 21 assignments or reassignments of priests. 10:40:38 22 You're the ultimate authority; is that correct? 10:40:40 23 A I am the ultimate authority, that is correct. 10:40:42 24 Q And sometimes you acted on the recommendations 10:40:44

36 1 of others when it came to matters involving 10:40:47 2 sexual misconduct by a priest; is that correct? 10:40:48 3 A Always on those cases I relied on the judgment 10:40:51 4 of others working directly with the case. 10:40:54 5 Q You relied on the judgment of others, but you 10:40:57 6 also were the person who had the ultimate 10:40:59 7 responsibility. Would you agree with that? 10:41:02 8 A That is correct. 10:41:03 9 Q So when you were relying on the recommendations 10:41:04 10 of others, you would speak with those who were 10:41:07 11 making those recommendations; is that correct? 10:41:08 12 A I would speak or I would receive in writing a 10:41:10 13 recommendation, that's correct. 10:41:13 14 Q And then you would act based upon the 10:41:14 15 recommendation; is that correct? 10:41:17 16 A That's correct. 10:41:18 17 MR. MacLEISH: Now, with -- let's 10:41:19 18 just mark some exhibits in the case of Father 10:41:25 19 Graham. 10:41:28 20 (Law Exhibit No. 3, Review Board 21 Memorandum, Case No. 62, 2/5/96, 22 marked for identification.) 23 MR. ROGERS: Mr. MacLeish, while 10:42:16 24 they're marking these, off the record. I 10:42:20

37 1 wonder if we could agree to take a five-minute 10:42:21 2 break every hour? 10:42:24 3 MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely. Whenever 10:42:24 4 you want to take a break. 10:42:26 5 Q I'd like to -- I think you have it in front of 10:42:57 6 you -- take your time in looking at it -- a 10:43:00 7 review board memorandum of February 5, 1996, of 10:43:03 8 Case No. 62. 10:43:08 9 Do you see that? 10:43:09 10 A Yes, I do. 10:43:11 11 Q And was this prepared by your delegate, or was 10:43:13 12 it prepared by some other person? 10:43:17 13 A I cannot be sure, but my presumption is that it 10:43:21 14 would have been the delegate. This would have 10:43:26 15 been within the purview of his responsibility 10:43:28 16 to prepare such a... 10:43:32 17 Q Was your delegate Father Flatley at the time or 10:43:34 18 was it Father Higgins? 10:43:37 19 A In '95 -- 10:43:39 20 Q This is '96. 10:43:43 21 MR. ROGERS: '96. 10:43:46 22 A '96. I think it was Flatley. I can't be sure 10:43:46 23 of that. I'd have to rely on the files. 10:43:49 24 Q I think you're right. 10:43:52

38 1 A But I would presume it was Flatley. 10:43:53 2 Q Okay. You'll see in the delegate's 10:43:54 3 recommendation -- and feel free to read the 10:43:59 4 whole document at your leisure if you want to 10:44:01 5 right now -- but you'll see -- you see at the 10:44:04 6 bottom, the delegate's recommendation that this 10:44:06 7 be determined to be a case reported and handled 10:44:09 8 appropriately before the present policy was in 10:44:12 9 place, and thus one to which the policy does 10:44:16 10 not apply. Father blank does not require 10:44:18 11 further assessment and there should be no 10:44:22 12 limits or restrictions on his ministry. 10:44:24 13 Do you see that? 10:44:28 14 A I see that. 10:44:28 15 Q And this was produced by -- last Friday by the 10:44:28 16 Archdiocese in a folder marked Daniel Graham. 10:44:33 17 Do you now recognize this document, Cardinal 10:44:38 18 Law, as the document that you received from the 10:44:39 19 delegate which allowed Father Graham to return 10:44:41 20 to ministry with no limits or restrictions? 10:44:47 21 MR. TODD: Take a moment and read 10:44:51 22 that. 10:44:52 23 A (Witness reviewing document.) 10:44:54 24 This case is -- while the victim came 10:45:41

39 1 forward in '88, the behavior took place in the 10:45:47 2 late '60s and early '70s is the indication in 10:45:50 3 here. I don't recall -- I don't have a present 10:45:54 4 memory of seeing this piece of paper, but I'm 10:45:59 5 sure that the substance of this was 10:46:04 6 communicated to me. Whether it was 10:46:07 7 communicated to me by handing me this or 10:46:09 8 whether it was communicated to me orally, I 10:46:14 9 can't say. 10:46:15 10 Q You mentioned one allegation. You'll see also 10:46:16 11 in the paragraph above the delegate's 10:46:18 12 recommendation, you'll see in September of 10:46:20 13 1992, there was a vague secondhand complaint 10:46:23 14 about the present pastor of St. blank in blank. 10:46:24 15 This report from a reportedly mentally-limited 10:46:28 16 individual concerned sexual abuse approximately 10:46:32 17 ten years earlier, 1982. Our attempts to 10:46:35 18 contact this individual were not successful. 10:46:38 19 Do you see that? 10:46:40 20 A Down below, yes. 10:46:45 21 Q Do you see that? 10:46:56 22 A Yes. 10:46:57 23 Q There was one allegation that Father Graham had 10:46:57 24 admitted to, but there was reference to a 10:47:01

40 1 second allegation that couldn't be 10:47:02 2 substantiated either way; is that correct? 10:47:07 3 A Yes. Well, the characterization in the report 10:47:11 4 is of a vague secondhand complaint. 10:47:17 5 Q It came from a priest -- 10:47:22 6 A Which -- 10:47:25 7 Q I'm sorry. About the present pastor. 10:47:28 8 A About the present pastor of somewhere, and that 10:47:31 9 this report -- this secondhand report was -- 10:47:33 10 and that their attempts to contact this 10:47:42 11 individual were not successful. 10:47:44 12 I presume the individual was the 10:47:45 13 individual alleged to have been abused, 10:47:49 14 although that victim did not come forward. 10:47:52 15 It's a secondhand complaint. 10:47:54 16 (Law Exhibit No. 4, Document, 17 marked for identification.) 18 Q You didn't know at the time you received this 10:47:56 19 document -- and I'm happy to give you Exhibit 10:47:59 20 4, Cardinal Law, which shows your action on 10:48:02 21 that recommendation. 10:48:04 22 MR. ROGERS: Do you have a copy? 10:48:06 23 MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Do you have 10:48:08 24 Exhibit 4? I think we just gave it to you. 10:48:13

41 1 Let's pause for a second. 10:48:16 2 Q Let me withdraw the previous question, Cardinal 10:48:21 3 Law. You, in fact, in Exhibit No. 4, accepted 10:48:23 4 the recommendation of the delegate; is that not 10:48:28 5 correct? 10:48:30 6 A I accepted the recommendations of the delegate 10:48:30 7 and the review board. 10:48:34 8 Q And the review board. And did you ever ask -- 10:48:35 9 do you have a recollection of ever asking 10:48:39 10 anyone to explore further the second allegation 10:48:41 11 against Father Daniel Graham that is referred 10:48:44 12 to in the previous exhibit? Do you ever recall 10:48:47 13 doing that? 10:48:52 14 A In this -- to answer your question 10:48:54 15 specifically, no, I do not recall doing that. 10:48:58 16 I do recall that I had asked, in June of '92, 10:49:05 17 as this document states -- Document 3 -- that I 10:49:19 18 wanted this case of Father Graham's to be 10:49:25 19 looked at again in the light of the review of 10:49:30 20 our files. I had confidence in those who were 10:49:34 21 doing that, and this matter, including the 10:49:36 22 reference of the September '92 secondhand vague 10:49:44 23 allegation, was part of the report that was put 10:49:51 24 before the review board, and so I did, with 10:49:55

42 1 confidence, accept the recommendation of the 10:50:00 2 delegate and the review board. 10:50:03 3 Q Okay. And subsequently, in fact, Cardinal Law, 10:50:06 4 Daniel Graham was promoted to a higher position 10:50:12 5 where he was in charge of supervising -- after 10:50:15 6 you accepted the recommendation of the review 10:50:18 7 board in 1996, he was subsequently promoted; is 10:50:19 8 that not correct? 10:50:22 9 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:50:23 10 A It is true that on the basis of the 10:50:26 11 recommendations of the review board, his case 10:50:31 12 was considered closed, and, therefore, he would 10:50:35 13 be viewed as any other priest would be viewed, 10:50:39 14 and he was made a vicar. And vicars are made 10:50:45 15 by -- I get a vote from the pastors -- the 10:50:52 16 priests of the area, and based on that vote, I 10:50:57 17 choose the vicar. 10:51:01 18 I don't recall what the vote was on that 10:51:04 19 occasion, but my practice is to take, if not 10:51:07 20 the person with the highest number of votes, 10:51:15 21 the person with the second highest number of 10:51:17 22 votes. 10:51:19 23 Q And when you're a vicar, you're in charge of 10:51:19 24 other parishes; is that not correct? 10:51:23

43 1 A When you're a vicar, you assist the regional 10:51:26 2 bishop in his responsibilities. 10:51:29 3 Q Does that include supervising other parishes? 10:51:31 4 A Not supervising parishes, but acting -- no, 10:51:33 5 because the pastor is responsible for the 10:51:36 6 parish. 10:51:40 7 Q Right. 10:51:40 8 A But it might be a coordinating function if 10:51:40 9 there's going to be some things done together 10:51:43 10 assisting the regional bishop in parish 10:51:46 11 visitations. 10:51:50 12 Q Is there some supervisory responsibility when 10:51:50 13 one is promoted to vicar, as Father Graham was? 10:51:52 14 A There's not a supervisory provision. I would 10:51:55 15 say no. The regional bishop would have a 10:51:59 16 supervisory position. It would be more 10:52:00 17 assistance, support in that -- it would be 10:52:03 18 brother to brother, but it would not be a 10:52:06 19 supervisory responsibility unless delegated by 10:52:08 20 the regional bishop. 10:52:11 21 Q But you would agree with me that subsequent to 10:52:13 22 the 1996 report, you promoted -- you made the 10:52:15 23 final decision, based upon the votes of the 10:52:19 24 other pastors in the area, to promote an 10:52:23

44 1 admitted child molester, Father Daniel Graham. 10:52:27 2 Is that not accurate, Cardinal Law? 10:52:30 3 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:52:32 4 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:52:33 5 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can 10:52:33 6 answer. 10:52:34 7 A I appointed Father Graham as vicar, 10:52:34 8 Mr. MacLeish, after a recommendation from my 10:52:38 9 review board, which included the parent of the 10:52:44 10 victim, which included a retired Superior Court 10:52:47 11 Chief Justice, which included a psychiatrist, 10:52:51 12 that this case could be considered closed; that 10:52:54 13 this man did not provide -- present a risk; and 10:52:57 14 that his case could be considered closed. I 10:53:01 15 did appoint him after that as vicar, yes. 10:53:04 16 Q And the review board were individuals that you 10:53:08 17 had appointed; is that correct? 10:53:10 18 A That's correct. 10:53:12 19 Q And you knew when you appointed, just so we're 10:53:12 20 clear, when you appointed Father Graham to the 10:53:17 21 vicar position, you knew that he had admitted 10:53:20 22 to molesting a child, is that not correct, 10:53:22 23 Cardinal Law? 10:53:25 24 A Yes, that's correct. 10:53:25

45 1 Q Now, you also -- 10:53:26 2 MR. MacLEISH: The next exhibit, 10:53:30 3 please. 10:53:31 4 (Law Exhibit No. 5, Review Board 5 Meeting Notes, 6/5/95, 6 marked for identification.) 7 Q Now, there was another meeting of the review 10:53:50 8 board, Cardinal Law, less than a year earlier 10:53:52 9 than the February 1996 review board, dated June 10:53:58 10 5, 1995, there was a meeting at the Chancery on 10:54:03 11 the same case. 10:54:06 12 Do you see that? 10:54:08 13 A Yes. 10:54:09 14 Q Was it your practice at the time to receive 10:54:09 15 copies of the meetings of the review board? 10:54:11 16 A No, not necessarily, unless they would be 10:54:13 17 brought -- unless the delegate brought them to 10:54:16 18 me. 10:54:18 19 Q And it was the delegate's responsibility to 10:54:19 20 bring recommendations of the review board to 10:54:21 21 you, is that not the case? 10:54:24 22 A That's correct. 10:54:25 23 Q And you'll see attached to this document, the 10:54:26 24 first page of Exhibit No. 5, you'll see the 10:54:30

46 1 delegate's recommendation less than a year 10:54:35 2 earlier -- when I say a year earlier, a year 10:54:37 3 earlier to the February 1996 recommendation -- 10:54:42 4 you'll see in 1995 the delegate recommended 10:54:45 5 that the priest not be involved in parish 10:54:49 6 ministry or ministry that involves minors; that 10:54:52 7 he engage in therapy as recommended; that 10:54:55 8 another ministry be sought where this priest's 10:54:58 9 talents may be used. 10:55:03 10 Do you see that? 10:55:05 11 A I do. 10:55:05 12 Q And then you'll see the cover sheet to the 10:55:05 13 review board meeting, it stated that the board 10:55:07 14 recommends that the priest not be involved in 10:55:10 15 parish ministry or ministry that involves 10:55:12 16 minors; that he engage in therapy as 10:55:15 17 recommended; that another ministry be sought 10:55:18 18 where this priest's talents may be used. 10:55:18 19 Do you see that? 10:55:22 20 A I do. 10:55:22 21 Q Now, do you know what changed between June of 10:55:24 22 1995 when the board recommended that Daniel 10:55:28 23 Graham not be involved in a parish ministry 10:55:33 24 that involves minors, and eight months later, 10:55:36

47 1 less than eight months later, where the board 10:55:42 2 recommended that he be engaged in a ministry 10:55:45 3 without limitation or restriction and with full 10:55:51 4 access to minors? What changed, Cardinal Law? 10:55:54 5 A I cannot respond to that. I would have to -- I 10:55:57 6 would have to ask the delegate. 10:56:00 7 Q And the delegate would be Mr. Flatley? 10:56:04 8 A Father Flatley. 10:56:06 9 Q But as you sit here today, you can't identify 10:56:08 10 any facts as to why this review board, that I 10:56:10 11 understand you appointed, changed its opinion 10:56:11 12 about Father Graham within a period of seven or 10:56:15 13 eight months? 10:56:20 14 A No. Unless it was a matter of therapy and a 10:56:20 15 professional recommendation, but I would -- as 10:56:30 16 I say, I would have to seek the memory in the 10:56:31 17 files of Father Flatley to answer that 10:56:35 18 question. 10:56:38 19 Q Well, we have in fact sought them, but we'll 10:56:38 20 get on to that a little bit later. 10:56:42 21 MR. TODD: I object to the remarks. 10:56:46 22 MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. 10:56:48 23 MR. TODD: Just ask questions. 24 MR. MacLEISH: I appreciate it, 10:56:49

48 1 Mr. Todd. 10:56:50 2 Q Cardinal Law, that's purely speculation on your 10:56:51 3 part that Daniel Graham might have received 10:56:55 4 some sort of treatment between the first review 10:56:58 5 board recommendation in June of 1995 that he 10:57:01 6 not be involved in a parish ministry or 10:57:03 7 ministry that involves minors and the 10:57:06 8 recommendation that you adopted some seven 10:57:09 9 months later that he be permitted to be 10:57:13 10 involved in a parish that would involve having 10:57:15 11 access to minors? 10:57:19 12 MR. TODD: I object. I object to the 10:57:20 13 form. 10:57:22 14 A It's a conjecture based on what the 10:57:24 15 recommendation of the review board is. That's 10:57:25 16 all. You've asked me how could that have 10:57:27 17 happened. The review -- it says that he 10:57:30 18 engaged in therapy as recommended. 10:57:32 19 Q Right. And you don't know whether he did -- 10:57:35 20 A I cannot -- 10:57:41 21 Q You have to wait until I finish. 10:57:41 22 A I cannot -- 23 Q You have to wait. 10:57:41 24 You don't know whether he did within that 10:57:41

49 1 time period, do you? 10:57:44 2 A I do not. 10:57:47 3 Q And did the thought ever consider to you -- 10:57:47 4 ever come to you, Cardinal Law, in the case of 10:57:53 5 Daniel Graham, that the parishioners at the 10:57:55 6 parish where Daniel Graham was pastor, and at 10:57:58 7 the parishes where he later had some 10:58:03 8 responsibility as vicar, that would be 10:58:05 9 important for the parents to know that the man 10:58:08 10 who was their pastor had admitted to molesting 10:58:09 11 a child? Did that thought occur to you at any 10:58:15 12 time, Cardinal Law? 10:58:17 13 MR. TODD: Objection. Argumentative. 10:58:19 14 A Mr. MacLeish, I thought I answered that 10:58:21 15 question previously, but I presume that this 10:58:24 16 is -- you indicated to counsel a moment ago 10:58:25 17 that this was not the trial, that this was a 10:58:27 18 deposition. 10:58:31 19 Q It is, in fact. 10:58:31 20 A Sometimes I feel you're conducting it as though 10:58:31 21 it were a trial. 10:58:34 22 Q No. We're talking about Daniel Graham 10:58:35 23 specifically, not in general. 10:58:38 24 A Yes. Fine.

50 1 MR. TODD: Now you're talking over 10:58:38 2 him, Mr. MacLeish. 10:58:40 3 MR. MacLEISH: I understand. 10:58:40 4 MR. TODD: Good. So let him finish 10:58:41 5 his answer. 10:58:42 6 MR. MacLEISH: If the answers could 10:58:43 7 be responsive. But go ahead, Cardinal. 10:58:44 8 MR. TODD: Please finish your answer. 10:58:44 9 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead, Cardinal 10 Law. Finish your answer. 11 MR. TODD: Please don't interrupt him 10:58:45 12 when he's answering. 10:58:46 13 MR. MacLEISH: Well, go ahead. Your 10:58:48 14 Eminence, go ahead. Feel free to answer the 10:58:49 15 question. 10:58:51 16 A I believe that I've answered that question 10:58:51 17 previously, but I will be happy to answer it 10:58:53 18 again. 10:58:56 19 I did not, as a matter of policy, in 1984, 10:59:01 20 '85, '86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '91, '92, '93, 10:59:04 21 '94, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99, 2000, 2001 go to 10:59:12 22 parishes on the occasion of dealing with a 10:59:23 23 priest against whom an allegation of sexual 10:59:25 24 abuse of a child had been made. I see now that 10:59:29

51 1 that should have been done, but we did not do 10:59:33 2 that. So it was not done in '88. I did not go 10:59:37 3 to the parish. 10:59:39 4 Did I think that I should have informed 10:59:41 5 the parish and then not done it? No. I simply 10:59:46 6 didn't have that as part of our response to 10:59:52 7 these cases. We were dealing with a case 10:59:56 8 admitted from the '60s or early '70s. It had, 11:00:02 9 I thought, on the basis of the review board 11:00:06 10 recommendation that I acted upon, I thought 11:00:10 11 that that had been dealt with adequately; that 11:00:15 12 he could be -- he could be placed in continued 11:00:19 13 assignment without being a risk. And that was 11:00:26 14 the critical question. 11:00:27 15 Was it adequate in retrospect? No, it was 11:00:29 16 not adequate in retrospect. But, 11:00:35 17 unfortunately, you can't go back and you can't 11:00:36 18 inject into the past knowledge and insight that 11:00:38 19 you have in the present. 11:00:41 20 Q You would agree with me, Cardinal Law, that 11:00:43 21 part of the mission of the Church is to serve 11:00:46 22 the Catholic laity; is that correct? 11:00:48 23 A The Catholic laity and to serve others as well. 11:00:50 24 Q And the laity includes children, does it not? 11:00:54

52 1 A Yes, Mr. MacLeish. 11:00:57 2 Q And my question to you is, it's not what your 11:00:58 3 policy was, Cardinal Law, but whether in this 11:01:04 4 case of an admitted child molester, you ever 11:01:07 5 considered in your own mind that it would be 11:01:11 6 important for the laity in the parish where 11:01:13 7 Father Graham was serving to know that he had 11:01:15 8 admitted to molesting a child? 11:01:18 9 MR. ROGERS: That question has been 11:01:21 10 asked and answered. 11:01:22 11 MR. TODD: That question has been 11:01:22 12 asked and answered more than one time. 11:01:23 13 MR. MacLEISH: No, it hasn't. Your 11:01:24 14 objection is noted. 11:01:26 15 MR. ROGERS: Yes, it has. 16 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead, Cardinal. 17 You can answer. 11:01:27 18 MR. TODD: It's more than just 11:01:30 19 objection. 11:01:30 20 A Mr. MacLeish -- 11:01:32 21 MR. TODD: In repeating these 11:01:32 22 questions, you're engaging in harassing and 11:01:34 23 abusive interrogation. This is now the third 11:01:38 24 time you've asked the same question. 11:01:41

53 1 Cardinal, if you believe you have answered 11:01:42 2 it fully, just indicate that and we'll move on. 11:01:44 3 MR. MacLEISH: Let me withdraw the 11:01:48 4 question, Cardinal, and put it a little more 11:01:49 5 clearly if I could, as a result of Mr. Todd's 11:01:51 6 request. 11:01:54 7 Q You've talked about what your policy was. I 11:01:54 8 understand what your policy was, was not to go 11:01:57 9 to the parishes. I understand that. And I 11:02:01 10 understand your policy is different now. We're 11:02:01 11 going to get to that later on. 11:02:05 12 But my question is in your own mind, did 11:02:05 13 you at any point consider that it might be 11:02:09 14 important in cases such as Father Graham's, 11:02:13 15 where he had admitted to molesting a child, 11:02:15 16 that the parishioners at the church where he 11:02:18 17 was serving, at the parish where he was 11:02:20 18 serving, should be the ones to make the 11:02:28 19 decision as to whether or not they wished to 11:02:28 20 have as their pastor someone who had admitted 11:02:28 21 to molesting a child? That's a different 11:02:32 22 question from the ones that I've asked you. 11:02:34 23 I'm asking whether you ever had that in your 11:02:35 24 mind. 11:02:37

54 1 Do you understand the distinction? 11:02:41 2 A That is a different question, Mr. MacLeish, and 11:02:41 3 I did not consider that. 11:02:42 4 Q But there were people within the Archdiocese of 11:02:43 5 Boston that recommended that when these 11:02:45 6 allegations started to surface, that there be 11:02:50 7 some notification to the parishes; that a 11:02:54 8 priest who had been removed or a prior priest 11:02:56 9 who had served a parish, that the parishioners 11:03:00 10 be notified. 11:03:04 11 There were recommendations on that, 11:03:06 12 Cardinal Law, were there not? 11:03:06 13 MR. ROGERS: Objection. To the 11:03:08 14 Cardinal? Is that the question? 11:03:08 15 MR. MacLEISH: Within the Archdiocese 11:03:10 16 of Boston. 11:03:11 17 Mr. Rogers, if he doesn't understand 11:03:13 18 the question, he can say -- 11:03:14 19 THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish, allow 11:03:14 20 me -- 11:03:15 21 MR. MacLEISH: Excuse me. This is 11:03:16 22 exactly the type of conduct that Judge 11:03:17 23 Brassard -- I'm sorry you weren't at the 11:03:19 24 hearing. I'm sorry Mr. Todd wasn't either. 11:03:22 55 1 Your objection is noted, but if the 11:03:26 2 Cardinal doesn't understand my question, he's 11:03:28 3 free to indicate that and I will rephrase the 11:03:30 4 question so he understands it. But suggesting 11:03:32 5 the question is one he can't understand is not 11:03:34 6 consistent with the rules. 11:03:36 7 Again, I'd urge you to look at the rules 11:03:37 8 and particularly the reporter's notes on 11:03:41 9 conduct during depositions. 11:03:42 10 MR. TODD: Let us respond to your -- 11:03:45 11 MR. ROGERS: I appreciate -- first of 11:03:45 12 all, since you're directing it to me, I 11:03:46 13 appreciate the observation, but if I am going 11:03:49 14 to take advice in how to conduct the 11:03:52 15 depositions, you wouldn't be on the list of 11:03:55 16 those I'd come to. 11:03:57 17 MR. MacLEISH: That's an unnecessary 11:03:58 18 ad hominem, Mr. Rogers. 11:04:00 19 MR. ROGERS: In response to your 11:04:01 20 unnecessary ad hominem. 11:04:03 21 MR. MacLEISH: Well, it's really not 11:04:04 22 -- mine was not -- be that as it may. If 11:04:04 23 that's the way you wish to conduct yourself, 11:04:06 24 finish, and we'll let Mr. Todd say something. 11:04:09

56 1 MR. ROGERS: I'm finished. 11:04:11 2 MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd, is there 11:04:12 3 anything else you'd like to say? 11:04:12 4 MR. TODD: No. We'll just leave it 11:04:15 5 and go on. 11:04:16 6 MR. MacLEISH: Fine. That's fine. 7 MR TODD: But these sermons and 11:04:17 8 preaching to us is unnecessary. 11:04:18 9 MR. MacLEISH: I agree. 11:04:20 10 MR. TODD: To quote a better lawyer 11:04:20 11 than perhaps -- more famous lawyer than either 11:04:25 12 of us, we're not sitting here as potted plants. 11:04:29 13 When we believe that your questions are 11:04:31 14 repetitive, harassing and abusing the process, 11:04:35 15 it is our duty to intercede and to protect our 11:04:37 16 client from that. And we will be exercising 11:04:41 17 that duty. 11:04:43 18 MR. MacLEISH: I urge you to do that. 19 MR. TODD: Thank you. 11:04:45 20 MR. MacLEISH: As it is, of course, 11:04:45 21 my right to return to court -- 11:04:46 22 MR. TODD: Of course. 11:04:48 23 MR. MacLEISH: -- over these speaking 11:04:49 24 objections. And this is a very serious case, 11:04:49

57 1 Mr. Todd, very serious allegations. I'm trying 11:04:52 2 to get answers from your client. Your client 11:04:55 3 is not responding in all cases to my questions, 11:04:57 4 and I hope that he will, but I'm perfectly 11:04:59 5 content to move on or we can have further 11:05:02 6 colloquy on this. 11:05:05 7 MR. TODD: No. I'm going to respond. 11:05:07 8 MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Fine. 9 MR. TODD: Every time you make a 11:05:08 10 speech, I will be responding. 11:05:09 11 MR. MacLEISH: And then I -- okay. 12 Go ahead, Mr. Todd. 11:05:10 13 MR. TODD: We understand this is an 11:05:10 14 important case. It is important for every one 11:05:11 15 of the plaintiffs. It is important for every 11:05:13 16 one of the defendants. It's important for 11:05:15 17 every member of the Archdiocese. 11:05:18 18 MR. MacLEISH: Sure. 11:05:21 19 MR. TODD: And for everybody whose 11:05:21 20 children -- has a concern about child abuse. 11:05:23 21 It's important for everybody, Mr. MacLeish. We 11:05:25 22 understand that every bit as well as you do. 11:05:27 23 Now, the Cardinal has answered the 11:05:31 24 questions fulsomely, thoroughly, and yet you 11:05:34

58 1 repeat and ask the same question. 11:05:38 2 MR. MacLEISH: Well -- 11:05:40 3 MR. TODD: Now, don't interrupt me, 11:05:40 4 Mr. MacLeish. 11:05:41 5 MR. MacLEISH: You tell me when 11:05:41 6 you're finished, Mr. Todd. 11:05:42 7 MR. TODD: You'll know when I'm 11:05:44 8 finished, Mr. MacLeish. I'll let you know 11:05:45 9 specifically. 11:05:47 10 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. Continue 11:05:48 11 with your speech. 11:05:49 12 MR. TODD: My response to your 11:05:50 13 speech. 11:05:51 14 MR. MacLEISH: Presentation and your 11:05:51 15 editorializing of the question. Please 11:05:52 16 continue. 11:05:55 17 MR. TODD: So he has been answering 11:05:55 18 the question, and you're out of place to 11:05:58 19 suggest on the record that he has not been. 11:05:59 20 Now, if you're satisfied, we'll go on. 11:06:02 21 MR. MacLEISH: Are you done? 11:06:05 22 MR. TODD: Next question. 11:06:06 23 MR. MacLEISH: Are you finished? 11:06:07 24 There was a question pending before 11:06:08

59 1 Mr. Rogers interceded. 11:06:09 2 Q Do you remember the question, Cardinal Law? 11:06:11 3 A I think I do, but I'd appreciate your 11:06:14 4 refreshing my memory. 11:06:16 5 Q I'd be happy to do that. Believe me, it is not 11:06:17 6 my intent here to in any way embarrass or annoy 11:06:20 7 you in any way and I will try -- 11:06:24 8 A You certainly are not embarrassing me, 11:06:25 9 Mr. MacLeish, but I must tell you that I'm 11:06:28 10 attempting to answer your questions -- 11:06:31 11 Q I appreciate that. 11:06:32 12 A -- as fully as I can. 11:06:34 13 Q I appreciate that. Let's continue then, okay. 11:06:35 14 Shall we? 11:06:38 15 A Fine. 11:06:38 16 Q Now, isn't it the case that you are aware that 11:06:39 17 there were recommendations within the 11:06:42 18 Archdiocese of Boston from various individuals 11:06:47 19 that as far back as 1993 there should be 11:06:51 20 outreach to the parishes in cases where a 11:06:53 21 priest had been removed for reasons involving 11:06:56 22 sexual misconduct against a minor? 11:07:00 23 Are you aware of any of those 11:07:03 24 recommendations, Cardinal Law? 11:07:06

60 1 A As I sit here, I cannot recall recommendations 11:07:12 2 with regard to that, but our 1993 policy -- and 11:07:16 3 I apologize for raising policy, but I think it 11:07:24 4 is important because it's the basis for my 11:07:26 5 decisions. The 1993 policy stands as a public 11:07:28 6 document of what we thought we should do. As I 11:07:39 7 recall, even you had some positive things to 11:07:42 8 say about what we were doing in 1993, and I 11:07:45 9 appreciated that very, very much. 11:07:48 10 Q There were a lot of things that were said in 11:07:50 11 1993, you're correct. 11:07:52 12 Cardinal Law, you have issued public 11:07:54 13 statements in which you stated that you became 11:07:58 14 aware of the allegations against Paul Shanley 11:08:01 15 in or about 1993. 11:08:04 16 Do you recall making public statements to 11:08:05 17 that effect recently? 11:08:07 18 A That's correct. 11:08:09 19 Q That was the first time you had any knowledge 11:08:09 20 about deviant behavior by Paul Shanley -- 11:08:11 21 A That's correct. 22 Q -- towards children? 11:08:15 23 You have to wait until I finish the 11:08:16 24 question. 11:08:18

61 1 A I apologize. 11:08:18 2 Q No problem. 11:08:20 3 You're also aware, are you not, that the 11:08:20 4 parishioners of St. Jean's were not given the 11:08:22 5 information that you had in 1993 about Paul 11:08:25 6 Shanley; is that correct? 11:08:28 7 A I am. 11:08:30 8 Q Now, there were recommendations -- I'd just 11:08:32 9 like to -- because I'm not sure that I got the 11:08:34 10 full response, and forgive me if I'm asking you 11:08:37 11 a question again -- but do you know whether 11:08:39 12 there were recommendations around the time of 11:08:41 13 the policy that the policy be changed so that 11:08:44 14 individuals such as Paula Ford, Rodney Ford, 11:08:47 15 Mr. Busa, Mr. Magni, Mr. Driscoll, that they be 11:08:51 16 informed about the information which you had -- 11:08:57 17 A Yes. 11:08:59 18 Q -- about particular priests? Do you remember 11:09:00 19 any recommendations to change the policy? 11:09:02 20 A To your specific question, the answer is no, I 11:09:06 21 do not remember. But as you probably know, 11:09:10 22 that policy, in its elaboration, had the 11:09:14 23 benefit of a lot of consultation; and not only 11:09:21 24 that, but the policy itself was reviewed by the 11:09:24

62 1 review board, and there was no recommendation 11:09:29 2 brought forward by that review board that it be 11:09:35 3 changed in that regard. 11:09:39 4 MR. ROGERS: Can I suggest, we're an 11:09:42 5 hour in. Can we take a five-minute break? 11:09:44 6 MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely. 11:09:47 7 Five-minute break. No problem. 11:09:48 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:09. 11:09:50 9 We are off the record. 11:09:53 10 (Recess taken.) 11 (Law Exhibit No. 6, Memorandum, 12 marked for identification.) 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:21. 11:22:14 14 We're on the record. 11:22:27 15 Q Cardinal Law, do you know a Sister Catherine 11:22:30 16 Mulkerrin? 11:22:34 17 A Yes. 11:22:34 18 Q Do you know where Sister Catherine lives at the 11:22:35 19 present time? 11:22:38 20 A At the present time, I'm not certain where she 11:22:39 21 is living. 11:22:41 22 Q She does not work for the Archdiocese of Boston 11:22:42 23 anymore, does she? 11:22:44 24 A As far as I know, she does not. 11:22:45

63 1 Q And you know of Father John McCormack; is that 11:22:47 2 correct? 11:22:50 3 A Yes. 11:22:51 4 Q He's now Bishop of New Hampshire? 11:22:52 5 A Yes. 11:22:54 6 Q He worked for you for some period of time as 11:22:54 7 your delegate on sexual misconduct of clergy; 11:22:57 8 is that correct? 11:23:00 9 A He did, and previously to that he was 11:23:00 10 secretary -- I believe he was secretary of 11:23:04 11 ministerial personnel and delegate, yes. 11:23:07 12 Q And he arrived in 1984, approximately; is that 11:23:10 13 correct? 11:23:12 14 A Approximately, yes. 11:23:13 15 Q And he left his position as delegate and 11:23:14 16 secretary of ministerial personnel in 11:23:19 17 approximately 1994; is that correct? 11:23:22 18 A I believe that's correct. 11:23:23 19 Q And Bishop McCormack was one of the individuals 11:23:25 20 that you relied upon in dealing with issues of 11:23:28 21 clerical sexual misconduct; is that correct? 11:23:31 22 A That's correct. 11:23:34 23 Q In fact, Bishop McCormack was one of those 11:23:34 24 individuals who was working on the policy that 11:23:37

64 1 you adopted in 1993; is that not also correct? 11:23:40 2 A That is correct. 11:23:43 3 Q In fact, was he the principal author of the 11:23:44 4 policy? 11:23:46 5 A He was principally responsible, so I think you 11:23:46 6 could say he was the principal author. 11:23:49 7 Q And you were aware in 1993 that Sister 11:23:51 8 Mulkerrin worked for Bishop McCormack in his 11:23:54 9 capacity as delegate; is that correct? 11:23:59 10 A Yes, I was aware of her service. 11:24:00 11 Q Did you ever speak directly with Sister 11:24:02 12 Mulkerrin concerning issues involving sexual 11:24:05 13 misconduct or the needs of victims of sexual 11:24:08 14 abuse at any time? 11:24:11 15 A I don't have a present recollection of speaking 11:24:12 16 with her directly, because the ordinary channel 11:24:14 17 for that to take place would have been for her 11:24:18 18 to be in contact with Father -- later -- with 11:24:22 19 Father McCormack at the time, but it's 11:24:28 20 conceivable that we had some conversation, but 11:24:32 21 it wouldn't have been in the ordinary course of 11:24:34 22 events that I would have been dealing directly 11:24:36 23 with Sister Catherine. 11:24:38 24 Q But you would agree with me in 1993 and 1994, 11:24:40

65 1 Sister Mulkerrin was on the front lines for the 11:24:43 2 Archdiocese in dealing with victims of sexual 11:24:46 3 abuse? Would you agree with me? 11:24:48 4 A She had a very important role. 11:24:50 5 Q Well, in terms of dealing with victims, was 11:24:51 6 there anyone that had more of a role than 11:24:53 7 Sister Mulkerrin? 11:24:56 8 A She would have been on the front line assisting 11:24:57 9 Father McCormack, yes. 11:25:01 10 Q If you could just -- was there anyone who had 11:25:03 11 more of a role in dealing with victims of abuse 11:25:06 12 apart from Sister Mulkerrin? 11:25:08 13 A I don't -- I would presume not. 11:25:12 14 Q Okay. All right. I've got marked for you, 11:25:15 15 Cardinal Law, Exhibit No. 6, which is notes on 11:25:19 16 allegations pertaining to Father Matte. If I 11:25:23 17 could direct your attention to page 2 of the 11:25:28 18 document -- and you're free to look at any part 11:25:31 19 of it that you wish to or read it in its 11:25:33 20 entirety. I'd like to address your attention 11:25:37 21 to one section. It says CEM -- which Bishop 11:25:39 22 McCormack testified was Catherine Mulkerrin -- 11:25:42 23 This may be by the books, but it feels like a 11:25:44 24 second victimization. The burden is put on a 11:25:47

66 1 minor all over again and now on his family. 11:25:51 2 Quotation mark. Broken record by CEM. It has 11:25:53 3 come to our attention that a priest stationed 11:25:58 4 here between 19 blank and 19 blank may have 11:26:00 5 molested children. Please contact dot, dot, 11:26:04 6 dot, and then, in parentheses, parish bulletin. 11:26:07 7 Do you see that, Cardinal Law? 11:26:11 8 A Yes. 11:26:25 9 Q Was it not the case -- 11:26:25 10 A May I look at this? 11:26:27 11 Q Sure. You may read the whole document. 11:26:30 12 Absolutely. Take your time. 11:26:33 13 A Yes. 11:28:48 14 Q Cardinal, have you seen that document before 11:28:49 15 today? 11:28:51 16 A I have not. 11:28:51 17 Q Do you recall at any point in time that Sister 11:28:54 18 Catherine Mulkerrin was advocating that a 11:28:56 19 notation of the type described in Exhibit 6 be 11:29:01 20 put in church bulletins where priests who had 11:29:04 21 been accused or admitted to sexual misconduct 11:29:08 22 involving minors had served? 11:29:11 23 Do you recall anything like that? 11:29:13 24 A Would you repeat that question again? 11:29:15

67 1 Q Sure. You see the last paragraph of Exhibit 6? 11:29:16 2 A I do. 11:29:19 3 Q Do you understand what Sister Catherine is 11:29:19 4 saying in that last paragraph? 11:29:21 5 A Well, I didn't until you pointed it out to me. 11:29:33 6 Q Right. 11:29:37 7 A I was a little bit curious. I presume what she 11:29:37 8 is suggesting is that this be an insert in a 11:29:41 9 parish bulletin. 11:29:45 10 Q This document, Exhibit 6, is a report of abuse 11:29:45 11 by Father Matte; is that correct? 11:29:51 12 A Yes. And the predicate for Sister Catherine 11:29:51 13 suggesting that is, I think, in the preceding 11:29:57 14 paragraph, which faults the policies of DSS, DA 11:30:00 15 for victimizing the young person again for 11:30:09 16 having to come forward. 11:30:12 17 And so she is suggesting that if this is 11:30:14 18 put in the bulletin, perhaps other people would 11:30:23 19 come forward and that person victimized would 11:30:23 20 not be going through a second trauma. 11:30:24 21 Q And that other victims would come forward and 11:30:26 22 get the help that they need. Is that not what 11:30:30 23 she is suggesting? 11:30:32 24 A I would say that she is suggesting that, yes. 11:30:33

68 1 Q And she uses the word "broken record" -- 11:30:35 2 A That's correct. 11:30:38 3 Q -- to describe what she is saying to Bishop 11:30:38 4 McCormack in this memo involving abuse by 11:30:41 5 Father Matte? 11:30:44 6 A That is what I read here, yes. 11:30:44 7 Q That would suggest to you that they had had 11:30:46 8 more than one conversation on the subject of 11:30:50 9 putting a notation in parish bulletins that 11:30:50 10 particular priests that had been stationed in 11:30:53 11 those parishes had -- may have molested 11:30:55 12 children. 11:30:59 13 Do you agree with that? 11:30:59 14 A I think you can make that presumption from 11:31:00 15 what's here. 11:31:02 16 Q So my question is, in light of seeing this 11:31:03 17 document, do you recall yourself personally any 11:31:06 18 individual within the Archdiocese of Boston in 11:31:10 19 1993, in 1994, who was suggesting that there be 11:31:13 20 publication in church bulletins that a priest 11:31:18 21 against whom there were credible allegations of 11:31:21 22 sexual molestation, that there be some notation 11:31:24 23 for the parishioners? 11:31:29 24 A I do not recall such a suggestion coming to me. 11:31:30

69 1 Now, whether -- obviously if this suggestion 11:31:32 2 was made, then there is someone in the 11:31:36 3 Archdiocese making this suggestion, but I 11:31:39 4 did -- I have no recollection of such a 11:31:41 5 suggestion coming to me. 11:31:45 6 Q You testified earlier that one of the reasons 11:31:46 7 that you wished to keep these matters 11:31:47 8 confidential was so that other victims would 11:31:50 9 come forward. 11:31:53 10 Do you recall your testimony on that? 11:31:55 11 A I do. 11:31:55 12 Q Would it not be the case, based upon your 11:31:56 13 understanding in 1993, that the publication or 11:31:58 14 notification of some type of sentence in a 11:32:03 15 church bulletin might also encourage other 11:32:07 16 victims of sexual abuse who needed help to come 11:32:11 17 forward? 11:32:13 18 A Yes. And that is why we do that now. I do 11:32:15 19 believe, however, that -- to put in complete 11:32:20 20 context what I said or what I meant to say 11:32:28 21 earlier, the reasoning underlying the '93 11:32:30 22 policy had to do with keeping private the names 11:32:36 23 of victims and not having those names come 11:32:41 24 forward, and I think that remains a risk. But 11:32:48

70 1 the answer to your question is yes. 11:32:55 2 Q Would there be any downside in terms of 11:32:58 3 encouraging victims to come forward to put the 11:33:01 4 type of notation in church bulletins that 11:33:04 5 Sister Catherine is advocating in Exhibit 11:33:08 6 No. 6? 11:33:11 7 A I think that's -- I think that's a good 11:33:13 8 formulation. 11:33:17 9 Q It might help, for example, individuals who had 11:33:17 10 small children who were not speaking about 11:33:21 11 their victimization to approach their parents; 11:33:24 12 is that correct? 11:33:27 13 A One would hope so. 11:33:28 14 Q It might allow individuals to get assistance, 11:33:29 15 mental health assistance for their children who 11:33:34 16 may have been molested if this type of 11:33:36 17 notification had appeared in church bulletins? 11:33:40 18 A The reason why we -- not with this particular 11:33:43 19 wording, but the reason why we are going to 11:33:45 20 parishes where there is a credible allegation 11:33:48 21 of sexual abuse by a priest at this point, and 11:33:51 22 our current policy, is precisely to effect what 11:33:57 23 you're suggesting. We did not do this earlier. 11:34:01 24 Q Right. And the purpose why you're doing it now 11:34:03

71 1 is so -- as I just said -- is so individuals 11:34:05 2 can get help at the earliest possible time. Is 11:34:09 3 that a fair statement? 11:34:12 4 A The reason why we now make these presentations 11:34:13 5 in parishes is to find out and respond to any 11:34:17 6 victim -- any other victims who may be present 11:34:25 7 in the parish. 11:34:28 8 Q How many parishes has the Archdiocese been to 11:34:30 9 now to explain in the manner suggested by 11:34:33 10 Sister Mulkerrin or a similar manner that a 11:34:36 11 priest stationed there may have been involved 11:34:37 12 in the molestation of children? How many 11:34:39 13 parishes has the Archdiocese been to? 11:34:42 14 A Every parish that we have responded -- every 11:34:44 15 parish from where we have taken someone out, 11:34:50 16 and that includes new allegations that have 11:34:52 17 come forward in recent months, and that also 11:34:55 18 includes the taking out of persons who were in 11:34:59 19 assignment, either pastoral assignment or -- 11:35:06 20 well, if it was a parish assignment, and that 11:35:09 21 would be Father Daniel Graham, about whom we 11:35:13 22 spoke earlier. Others were in institutional or 11:35:15 23 specialized assignments. They weren't in 11:35:21 24 parishes. 11:35:25

72 1 MR. MacLEISH: Mark this, please. 11:35:26 2 (Law Exhibit No. 7, Excerpt of 3 Deposition of Charles Higgins, 4 marked for identification.) 5 Q Cardinal Law, I'm showing you Deposition 11:35:40 6 Exhibit 7, which is a transcript from the 11:35:42 7 deposition of Charles Higgins, Father Higgins, 11:35:45 8 who is your delegate on sexual misconduct. 11:35:48 9 I'd like to read you a section of the 11:35:51 10 deposition and ask you a question about it. 11:35:52 11 I'm starting, Counsel, on page 94 at line 14. 11:35:53 12 "Do you have an opinion" -- there is the 11:35:57 13 question: 11:36:00 14 "Do you have an opinion whether that would 15 be appropriate now, given it's the Archdiocese 16 policy and all the knowledge you have about 17 letting people know about these issues? Do you 18 think it's important that it happen now? 19 "ANSWER: My opinion would be that it 20 would be to the best advantage to the victims 21 to be able to reach them as best as we can in 22 any event now, no matter who they happen to be 23 and no matter where it happens. 24 "QUESTION: Could you answer my question

73 1 now? I'm talking specifically about going back 2 and meeting at the various parishes where 3 Father Shanley served, going back to Stoneham, 4 St. Francis, Exodus Center, if it still exists, 5 St. Jean's. 6 "Would it be consistent with the current 7 Archdiocese policy for someone from the 8 Archdiocese to go back to those parishes to 9 explain all of the information about Paul 10 Shanley? 11 "ANSWER: That would be appropriate. 12 "QUESTION: And it would be in the best 13 interest of the victims; correct? 14 "ANSWER: That is correct. 15 "QUESTION: But it hasn't happened? 16 "ANSWER: That is also correct. 17 "QUESTION: Has it happened with any 18 parishes that you're aware of with respect to 19 any priest? 20 "ANSWER: Yes. 21 "QUESTION: Which one? 22 "ANSWER: Abington. 23 "QUESTION: That would be Father Graham? 24 "ANSWER: No, it would not.

74 1 "QUESTION: Which priest?" 2 Mr. O'Connor states: 3 "Father, don't answer that. 4 "MR. MacLEISH: That's inappropriate. 5 We'll reserve on that. 6 "QUESTION: What other parishes? 7 "ANSWER: Quincy. 8 "QUESTION: Quincy? 9 "ANSWER: Kingston. That's all I can 10 remember right now. 11 "QUESTION: That's four? 12 "ANSWER: That was three. 13 "QUESTION: And you have 85 priests, 70 of 14 whom are alive, who have allegations of sexual 15 misconduct against them, as I understand it. 16 Is that correct? 17 "ANSWER: Correct. 18 "QUESTION: Serving in at least three 19 parishes on average, would you say? That would 20 be a conservative number? 21 "ANSWER: That would be conservative. 22 "QUESTION: So you have as many as -- how 23 many parishes are there in the Archdiocese of 24 Boston?

75 1 "ANSWER: 368. 2 "QUESTION: It would be conservative to 3 say that you probably have more than 200 4 parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston where 5 some of these individuals with substantiated 6 allegations of child molestation against them 7 have served, more than 200? 8 "ANSWER: That could be possible." 9 Do you see that testimony of your 11:38:13 10 delegate, Cardinal Law? 11:38:15 11 A I do, yes. 11:38:16 12 Q And your delegate in this identifies three 11:38:17 13 parishes where there has been someone from the 11:38:20 14 Archdiocese who has gone back to speak about 11:38:22 15 priests who served in those parishes where 11:38:25 16 there were allegations of child molestation. 11:38:28 17 Do you see that? 11:38:30 18 A Yes, I do. 11:38:30 19 Q Would you agree with me that your delegate, 11:38:31 20 Father Higgins, would be in a better position 11:38:36 21 than you to describe the number of parishes 11:38:37 22 that you have gone back to to communicate that 11:38:39 23 there may have been an individual priest in 11:38:42 24 that parish who had molested children? 11:38:43

76 1 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:38:48 2 A Yes. He would be the one I would rely upon to 11:38:49 3 monitor this and be on top of it. 11:38:54 4 Q Well, you said in your testimony previously 11:38:56 5 that you've been back to every parish and here 11:38:58 6 Father Higgins can identify three. 11:39:03 7 A I said every parish against whom a credible 11:39:04 8 allegation has been made in recent months, and 11:39:10 9 those who were in position -- who were in place 11:39:16 10 at the beginning of 2002 whom we then removed, 11:39:22 11 and that, as I think I indicated, the only 11:39:28 12 parish involved there was Father Graham. All 11:39:32 13 the others were in non-parish assignments. But 11:39:34 14 I could stand to be corrected on that by 11:39:38 15 perhaps, one, by looking at the records. 11:39:40 16 So since January of 2002, when we 11:39:47 17 instituted our new policy, when we came forward 11:39:51 18 with the names of everyone that we knew of at 11:39:53 19 that point, and as you may recall -- you'd have 11:39:55 20 no reason to recall -- but I made a statement 11:40:01 21 that everyone had been removed from active duty 11:40:05 22 against whom a credible allegation had been 11:40:10 23 made, and then I think six other names came 11:40:14 24 forward to me. And then we removed those six 11:40:17

77 1 names and I went public with those six names. 11:40:20 2 Every one of those six that we removed who was 11:40:25 3 in a parish -- and I believe that Father Graham 11:40:30 4 was the only one in a parish -- and anyone in a 11:40:32 5 parish subsequent to that date, we have gone to 11:40:38 6 the parishes. 11:40:39 7 This past weekend, if I'm not mistaken, we 11:40:40 8 were present in a parish where we removed 11:40:44 9 someone and put them on administrative leave. 11:40:47 10 Now, the question of whether we should go 11:40:51 11 back now to -- as you point out -- to every one 11:40:56 12 of these priests as well as every assignment in 11:41:01 13 which they have been, I think that that's 11:41:06 14 something that we really have to look at and 11:41:08 15 do, but I can tell you that we're going to have 11:41:11 16 to do this in a very well-defined plan. 11:41:17 17 Part of our policy is, as we're developing 11:41:24 18 it, and as is coming through from my 11:41:28 19 commission, is to have present in each parish 11:41:31 20 either a cadre or at least an individual who 11:41:38 21 receives some training as a, if you will, an 11:41:43 22 ombudsman person with regard to sexual abuse. 10:42:24 23 So that we want to be able to extend our 11:41:53 24 outreach into the parishes in a more effective 11:41:56

78 1 way. We want to do that. We're committed to 11:42:01 2 do that. It's essential that we have adequate 11:42:03 3 personnel to do that. And to answer your 11:42:06 4 question about do I think it would be wise, 11:42:13 5 well, responsible to have this kind of 11:42:18 6 outreach, my answer to that is yes, but it's 11:42:22 7 going to take us a while to be able to do this 11:42:24 8 in terms of the numbers involved. 11:42:27 9 Q All right. So you have not done it to date 11:42:29 10 except with respect to those individuals who 11:42:31 11 were removed at some point after 2002? 11:42:34 12 A That's correct. 11:42:38 13 Q Is that your testimony? 11:42:38 14 A Moving forward, we are doing these as they come 11:42:40 15 up retrospectively. 11:42:42 16 Q Go ahead. 11:42:44 17 A We have not yet been able to deal with that 11:42:45 18 problem. 11:42:48 19 Q But you acknowledge that in 1993 Sister 11:42:48 20 Mulkerrin was suggesting some outreach and 11:42:51 21 notification. 11:42:54 22 Do you see that? 11:42:55 23 A I see what she said here, and she is suggesting 11:42:55 24 that, yes. 11:42:58

79 1 (Law Exhibit No. 8, The Five 2 Principles to Follow in Dealing with 3 Acusations of Sexual Abuse, 4 marked for identification.) 5 Q Cardinal Law, I'd like to show you Exhibit 8, 11:43:13 6 if I could, and ask if you recognize this 11:43:16 7 document as the five principles to follow when 11:43:18 8 dealing with accusations of sexual abuse 11:43:22 9 adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic 11:43:25 10 Bishops in June of 1992? 11:43:30 11 A Yes. 11:43:38 12 Q You've been a member of the -- I think it was 11:43:38 13 previously known as National Conference of 11:43:41 14 Catholic Bishops. You've been a member of that 11:43:43 15 since you came to Boston in 1984; is that 11:43:45 16 correct? 11:43:48 17 A I have been. 11:43:48 18 Q You were -- actually worked at the National 11:43:49 19 Conference of Catholic Bishops at some point, I 11:43:52 20 believe, in the 1970s or '60s? 11:43:55 21 A As a priest, yes. 11:43:56 22 Q As a priest. Did you attend the conference in 11:43:58 23 June of '92? 11:44:00 24 A You know, I cannot say whether I did or not. I 11:44:04

80 1 presume I did. I've attended most of them, but 11:44:06 2 I have been absent from some. 11:44:09 3 Q Would it be fair to state that after these five 11:44:10 4 principles that were put out by the United 11:44:14 5 States Conference of Catholic Bishops, after it 11:44:16 6 came out, the Archdiocese did not follow all of 11:44:20 7 these principles? 11:44:22 8 A It would be fair to say that these are not 11:44:22 9 reflected in our '93 policy, all of them. 11:44:24 10 Q And one of them is No. 5, "Within the confines 11:44:27 11 of respect for privacy of the individuals 11:44:32 12 involved, deal as openly as possible with the 11:44:34 13 members of the community." 11:44:37 14 Do you see that? 11:44:39 15 A I see that, yes. 11:44:40 16 Q And the members of the community would include 11:44:43 17 the Catholic laity, would they not? 11:44:44 18 A Certainly. 11:44:48 19 Q And you've already testified that you did not, 11:44:48 20 between the time you formulated your policy -- 11:44:50 21 let's actually go back. Since 1984 up until 11:44:54 22 2002, there was no notification to the parishes 11:44:56 23 where these individuals served who had been 11:45:01 24 accused of child molestation, no notification 11:45:03

81 1 to the parishioners; is that correct? 11:45:07 2 A Certainly not by policy. 11:45:08 3 Q Right. And -- well, are you aware of any other 11:45:11 4 way that people were notified? 11:45:14 5 A I am not, but I don't -- you know, I could 11:45:16 6 stand to be corrected if some notification had 11:45:18 7 been given, but not to my knowledge and not by 11:45:21 8 policy. 11:45:24 9 Q But the United States Conference of Catholic 11:45:24 10 Bishops recommended in 1992 that there be some 11:45:27 11 notification to the community, did it not? 11:45:32 12 A It did. It recommended that within the 11:45:34 13 confines of respect for privacy of the 11:45:37 14 individuals involved, deal as openly as 11:45:40 15 possible with members of the community. 11:45:44 16 Q All right. And there were dioceses in 1992 11:45:47 17 that incorporated policies of going back to the 11:45:52 18 parishes where child molesters with credible 11:45:56 19 allegations against them had served and letting 11:45:59 20 the parishioners know that they had been 11:46:02 21 removed because of allegations of misconduct. 11:46:04 22 You knew that happened in some dioceses, did 11:46:06 23 you not? 11:46:11 24 A I can't say that I knew what the policies of 11:46:11

82 1 other dioceses were relative to this issue at 11:46:14 2 that time. 11:46:17 3 Q Were you generally aware that as a result of 11:46:20 4 the United States Conference of Catholic 11:46:20 5 Bishops and the five principles that are set 11:46:22 6 forth in this exhibit, some dioceses went back 11:46:28 7 to the parishes where individuals, priests 11:46:29 8 accused of sexual molestation had served, and 11:46:31 9 told the parishioners why the priest had been 11:46:35 10 removed? 11:46:38 11 A Mr. MacLeish, I do not have that knowledge now 11:46:39 12 and I did not, to my recollection, have that 11:46:41 13 knowledge then. 11:46:45 14 Q Okay. Did you understand or come to understand 11:46:46 15 the reasons in this document why there was a 11:46:49 16 recommendation that the diocese deal as openly 11:46:51 17 as possible with members of the community 11:46:55 18 within the confines of respect for privacy of 11:46:57 19 the individuals involved? Did you understand 11:47:00 20 why that was important in 1992? 11:47:02 21 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:47:06 22 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:47:06 23 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 11:47:07 24 Q Go ahead. 11:47:08 83 1 A It's difficult for me, Mr. MacLeish, to say 11:47:10 2 what I understood or didn't understand about 11:47:13 3 this in 1992. In 1992 I had determined that we 11:47:16 4 needed to elaborate a written policy, and we 11:47:23 5 were in the process of doing that. 11:47:26 6 Q But my question, Cardinal Law, I guess to put 11:47:30 7 it simply, what would have been the downside of 11:47:34 8 going to the parishes where individuals that 11:47:38 9 you knew had been involved in the molestation 11:47:39 10 of children, what would have been the downside 11:47:42 11 to going back in 1992 to let parishioners, 11:47:45 12 without disclosing the name of the victim, but 11:47:51 13 just to let the fathers and the mothers know 11:47:53 14 that within their midst had been someone 11:47:56 15 against whom there had been credible 11:47:56 16 allegations of child molestation? What would 11:47:59 17 have been the downside of that? 11:48:01 18 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:48:02 19 A As I sit here before you now, Mr. MacLeish, not 11:48:03 20 only do I think that there is not a downside, 11:48:05 21 but I think that there is only good to be 11:48:09 22 derived by the communication of such knowledge, 11:48:15 23 and that's why we're doing it. 11:48:17 24 Q But you didn't do it? 11:48:18

84 1 A But we did not do it in 1992. 11:48:19 2 Q And you did know that Paul Shanley had served 11:48:22 3 in a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts, 11:48:25 4 for a number of years before he left to go to 11:48:27 5 California; you knew that in 1992, correct? 11:48:30 6 A In 1992, I did not know of a case of sexual 11:48:33 7 abuse of a minor on the part of Paul Shanley. 11:48:39 8 As I've responded to you to your earlier 11:48:43 9 question, I learned of that in 1993 and we 11:48:45 10 acted upon it then. 11:48:49 11 Q But you didn't act upon it in terms of going to 11:48:50 12 St. Jean's and telling the parishioners what 11:48:53 13 had happened, correct? 11:48:55 14 A That is correct. 11:48:56 15 Q And looking back on it now, do you understand 11:48:57 16 that that was a mistake? 11:48:59 17 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:49:00 18 MR. TODD: Objection to the form. 11:49:01 19 A Looking back on it now, I think that it was a 11:49:06 20 mistake in our approach, yes. 11:49:10 21 Q And you understand that because you didn't go 11:49:12 22 back to St. Jean's, there were a number of 11:49:16 23 children who now allege that they didn't tell 11:49:19 24 their parents; that they felt that they were 11:49:23

85 1 the only ones who had been molested by Father 11:49:26 2 Shanley? Do you understand that? 11:49:29 3 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:49:31 4 A I understand that we did not go back to St. 11:49:32 5 Jean's Parish, and I also trust that you 11:49:35 6 understand that I did not know of an allegation 11:49:38 7 against Paul Shanley until 1993. 11:49:43 8 Q Would there -- go ahead. I didn't want to 11:49:49 9 interrupt. 11:49:53 10 In 1993 when you were aware of it, you 11:49:54 11 still didn't go back or instruct anyone to go 11:49:57 12 back to the parish where Paul Shanley had 11:49:59 13 served for ten years to let the parishioners 11:50:02 14 know, correct? 11:50:06 15 A That's correct. 11:50:07 16 Q Now, in 1992, Cardinal Law, you also became 11:50:07 17 aware not only of allegations involving priests 11:50:17 18 of the Archdiocese of Boston, but also you 11:50:19 19 became aware of the allegations involving 11:50:21 20 former priest James Porter; is that correct? 11:50:24 21 A Somewhere around then, whenever that broke, 11:50:28 22 yes. 11:50:32 23 Q And you remember there was a fair amount of 11:50:32 24 publicity about that case; is that correct? 11:50:35

86 1 A Yes. 11:50:37 2 Q And you spoke about that case, did you not, 11:50:37 3 Cardinal Law, at the time? 11:50:40 4 A I probably did, because I was asked questions 11:50:46 5 about it. It was very much before the press. 11:50:48 6 Q And you were critical of the press providing so 11:50:52 7 much coverage over the story. Is that not a 11:50:55 8 fair statement, Cardinal Law? 11:50:58 9 A I was critical about the exclusive way in which 11:51:00 10 there was focus on this story, yes. 11:51:04 11 Q And you asked at one point for the power of God 11:51:07 12 to come down on the media, and you singled out 11:51:12 13 the Boston Globe for its coverage in the Porter 11:51:15 14 case; is that not correct? 11:51:17 15 A I have a vague recollection of being charged to 11:51:21 16 have said that, and I see that you have the 11:51:25 17 text there, and I'd like to refresh my memory. 11:51:29 18 Q Certainly. 11:51:32 19 MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this as an 10:54:42 20 exhibit. 11:51:34 21 (Law Exhibit No. 9, Document, 22 marked for identification.) 23 A I didn't realize that you were involved in the 11:52:52 24 Porter case, Mr. MacLeish. 11:52:54

87 1 Q Oh, well. 11:52:55 2 A I forgot that. 11:52:57 3 Q You forgot it. Okay. Yes, I represented 101 11:52:58 4 people in that case. 11:53:07 5 A Yes, I do recall. 11:53:08 6 MR. TODD: Why don't you wait for a 11:53:10 7 question. 11:53:11 8 Q Do you recall, as you -- 11:53:12 9 MR. TODD: Are you finished reading 11:53:14 10 it? 11:53:15 11 MR. MacLEISH: Take your time, 11:53:17 12 Cardinal. 11:53:18 13 Q Do you recall -- and I'm looking at the first 11:53:27 14 column, Cardinal Law -- deploring relentless, 11:53:29 15 and that's in quotation marks, news coverage of 11:53:32 16 the abuse case involving a man who has since 11:53:35 17 left the priesthood? 11:53:38 18 He, that means you, asserted, quote, The 11:53:39 19 good and dedicated people who serve the church 11:53:42 20 deserve better than what they have been getting 11:53:45 21 day in and day out in the media, end of quote. 11:53:48 22 Do you remember saying that? 11:53:51 23 A Well, I don't remember those exact words. I 11:53:53 24 remember my frustration at the level and tilt 11:53:56

88 1 of news coverage in thoses case, and I think 11:54:05 2 what is here in the penultimate paragraph in 11:54:08 3 that first column would represent the basis of 11:54:12 4 my frustration, where it says -- where I am 11:54:18 5 quoted as saying that the news media, quote, 11:54:22 6 has covered the story irresponsibly to paint 11:54:25 7 all the clergy in a negative way. And that was 11:54:29 8 my concern. 11:54:32 9 Q That it wasn't balanced? 11:54:33 10 A That it wasn't balanced. 11:54:35 11 Q And do you remember also -- this is in the 11:54:36 12 third column -- do you remember also, Cardinal 11:54:39 13 Law, asking for -- to call down God's powers on 11:54:42 14 our business leaders and political leaders and 11:54:47 15 community leaders by all means. We call down 11:54:50 16 God's power on the media, particularly the 11:54:53 17 Globe. 11:54:55 18 Do you remember saying those words, words 11:54:56 19 like that? 11:54:58 20 A I don't remember saying words like that, but, 11:54:58 21 you know, calling down God's power is not 11:55:01 22 calling down God's wrath. 11:55:04 23 Q I'm not suggesting it is. 11:55:07 24 A Yes. And I don't think that would be a bad 11:55:09

89 1 thing to do, even today, to call down God's 11:55:17 2 power on the news media, including even the 11:55:21 3 Globe, yes. I think that would be good. 11:55:21 4 Q And suffice to say that you, in learning and 11:55:23 5 believing that the coverage was not balanced 11:55:28 6 about the Porter case, you actually saw many of 11:55:30 7 the articles and broadcast media coverage of 11:55:34 8 the Porter case; is that correct? 11:55:38 9 A I was aware of it, yes. 11:55:39 10 Q And you were also aware, in 1992, in the Porter 11:55:40 11 case, Cardinal Law, that there were individuals 11:55:43 12 who were stating that up until the time that 11:55:46 13 the case became public, they believed that they 11:55:50 14 were the only ones who had been victimized by 11:55:53 15 Father Porter. 11:55:57 16 Do you remember hearing that, Cardinal 11:55:58 17 Law? 11:55:59 18 A I have no active recollection of that. 11:55:59 19 Q Would it be fair to state, though, that by 1993 11:56:01 20 you had become more familiar with the topic of 11:56:06 21 sexual abuse and how it affected victims? Is 11:56:08 22 that fair? 11:56:11 23 A It certainly is fair, and it's in the light of 11:56:12 24 these events that we moved to develop a written 11:56:18

90 1 policy and a publicly-promulgated policy, and 11:56:24 2 why we made that policy available to everyone 11:56:27 3 so precisely -- precisely so we would encourage 11:56:34 4 victims to come forward. 11:56:39 5 Q Well, you've already described -- I think I 11:56:40 6 heard your testimony several minutes ago 11:56:41 7 ascribing one inadequacy in the policy about 11:56:43 8 not doing something along the lines of what 11:56:47 9 Sister Catherine had suggested. That was an 11:56:49 10 inadequacy in the policy; is that correct? 11:56:52 11 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 11:56:54 12 MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and 11:56:56 13 answered. 11:56:58 14 A It was an inadequacy in the policy. It wasn't 11:57:01 15 in the policy. I think that it -- certainly it 11:57:06 16 is our policy now, and I think it's appropriate 11:57:12 17 and good to do that. 11:57:17 18 Q All right. Now, did you not know by 1993, on 11:57:20 19 the general topic of sexual abuse, Cardinal 11:57:26 20 Law, that individuals who had been victims of 11:57:30 21 sexual abuse sometimes believed that they were 11:57:32 22 the only ones, and as a result, did not speak 11:57:35 23 out? Was that a topic of which you were aware 11:57:38 24 in 1993? 11:57:42

91 1 A Well, it's certainly something that I'm aware 11:57:45 2 of now. 11:57:47 3 Q I'm asking about 1993. 11:57:48 4 A And at what point I became aware of that, I 11:57:50 5 can't say. 11:57:55 6 Q Okay. Cardinal Law, you went to Harvard 11:57:57 7 University; is that correct? 11:58:00 8 A I did. 11:58:01 9 Q You graduated in what year? 11:58:02 10 A '53. 1953. 11:58:06 11 Q And Cardinal Law, you also then went on to work 11:58:10 12 in the civil rights movement; is that correct? 11:58:15 13 A Well, I went on to seminary after that. 11:58:17 14 Q You went on to seminary? 11:58:21 15 A For eight years. And then I was assigned as a 11:58:22 16 priest to Vicksburg, Mississippi, and then 11:58:24 17 assigned as an editor of the newspaper in 11:58:30 18 Jackson, Mississippi. 11:58:33 19 Q Throughout that time period, Cardinal Law, was 11:58:34 20 it your belief that as a Catholic priest, that 11:58:37 21 you had an obligation to take action that would 11:58:42 22 protect the safety of children? Did you 11:58:44 23 believe that when you were acting as a priest? 11:58:47 24 A Yes. 11:58:49

92 1 Q Did you believe or know that the sexual 11:58:52 2 molestation of minors when you were serving in 11:58:56 3 Mississippi was a crime? 11:58:59 4 A You know, I have to say that in my early 11:58:59 5 priesthood, the sexual molestation of minors 11:59:05 6 wasn't even on my radar screen. It wasn't the 11:59:10 7 issue that it is today. Even the incidence of 11:59:14 8 it was not something in those days that I knew. 11:59:20 9 Q I'm sorry. The question was in -- when you 11:59:23 10 were serving in Mississippi, did you know that 11:59:26 11 individuals who molested children, when they 11:59:28 12 did that, committed crimes? 11:59:31 13 A Well, I thought I'd answered that question. 11:59:34 14 The specific response to that is I wasn't -- as 11:59:35 15 I said, it wasn't on my radar screen. I wasn't 11:59:41 16 dealing with the case of -- sexual molestation 11:59:45 17 wasn't something that was before me. It wasn't 11:59:52 18 before us. It wasn't part of my 11:59:54 19 responsibility. It didn't come up. 11:59:56 20 Q So it's your testimony then that you just -- 11:59:58 21 you didn't think about it, and then you didn't 12:00:00 22 know whether sexual molestation could be 12:00:02 23 considered a crime? 12:00:05 24 A In 19 -- 12:00:06

93 1 Q The time you were in Vicksburg. 12:00:08 2 A Yeah. I honestly -- I have to say that I 12:00:11 3 didn't think of it as I was an assistant there. 12:00:15 4 Q Did you know that at some level when you were 12:00:20 5 you in Vicksburg, Mississippi, that there were 12:00:22 6 instances where individuals were molesting 12:00:26 7 children, sexually abusing them? Was that even 12:00:28 8 a topic that you were familiar with? 12:00:32 9 A You mean any -- 12:00:33 10 Q At any time? Anywhere? 12:00:34 11 MR. TODD: Not priests, just any 12:00:37 12 people? 12:00:38 13 MR. MacLEISH: Anybody. That's 12:00:39 14 exactly right. 12:00:40 15 A I'm trying to think back, you know. 12:00:54 16 Q Take your time. 12:00:56 17 A You know, I'm sure that I was aware of this, 12:01:05 18 but I have no specific recollection. 12:01:09 19 Q So you can't state with certainty, as you sit 12:01:14 20 here today, that you knew when you were in 12:01:16 21 Vicksburg that the sexual molestation of a 12:01:19 22 child was a crime? You can't state that with 12:01:22 23 certainty? 12:01:26 24 A Well, certainly, you know, if someone were to 12:01:30

94 1 ask me is the sexual molestation of a minor a 12:01:40 2 crime, my presumption is yes, of course, it's a 12:01:41 3 crime. I couldn't cite you -- I couldn't have 12:01:41 4 cited you the law -- 12:01:44 5 Q Right. 12:01:45 6 A -- or anything like that. But it's certainly 12:01:47 7 not something that's tolerated by society. I 12:01:49 8 would have been aware of that. 12:01:51 9 Q But again, I don't mean to press you on this, 12:01:52 10 but I don't think you've answered the specific 12:01:55 11 question of whether you can state that the 12:01:58 12 molestation of children in the 1960s was 12:02:00 13 something that you considered and knew to be a 12:02:03 14 crime? 12:02:06 15 MR. TODD: Objection. I think he's 12:02:06 16 clearly answered it. 12:02:09 17 A I would have considered it to be a grave evil. 12:02:09 18 I would have considered it to be a sin. I 12:02:12 19 would have considered it to be contrary to the 12:02:15 20 common good. I could not -- I can't say that I 12:02:18 21 had active knowledge of the criminal code and 12:02:22 22 could have addressed it in those terms. 12:02:25 23 Q I'm not asking you a specific section of the 12:02:26 24 code. That would not be an appropriate 12:02:29

95 1 question. In any general way, were you aware 12:02:32 2 of it? 12:02:34 3 A In a general way, I would have presumed, yes, 12:02:34 4 that it would have been a crime. 12:02:38 5 Q Now you, at some point, were reassigned from 12:02:40 6 Natchez, Mississippi. I think that was in 12:02:45 7 1968; is that correct? 12:02:47 8 A From the diocese, right. 12:02:49 9 Q Then you returned back to Mississippi as vicar 12:02:51 10 general in approximately 1971; is that correct? 12:02:53 11 A That's correct. 12:02:57 12 Q And you served as vicar general in Jackson, 12:02:57 13 Mississippi, for how long, Cardinal Law? 12:03:05 14 A Until '73. 12:03:07 15 Q What month in '73, do you know? 12:03:10 16 A Probably, I finished in November of '73. 12:03:12 17 Q Okay. As vicar general, did you have 12:03:14 18 responsibilities overseeing other priests? 12:03:20 19 A I did. 12:03:24 20 Q Approximately how many priests? 12:03:26 21 A A -- 12:03:29 22 Q I'm sorry. 12:03:31 23 A A vicar general does pretty much what the 12:03:33 24 bishop wants him to do in his name, and I would 11:04:16

96 1 have assisted the bishop in personnel matters. 12:03:39 2 Q You would have been the bishop's eyes and ears 12:03:47 3 over a priest serving in that diocese? 12:03:49 4 A I would have been his first assistant. I would 12:03:53 5 have been his Bishop Banks, Archbishop Hughes, 12:03:55 6 as they were for me here. 12:04:01 7 Q Sure. Did you know the Morrison family when 12:04:03 8 you were in Mississippi, Cardinal Law? 12:04:05 9 A I did. 12:04:07 10 Q You knew Dr. Morrison; is that correct? 12:04:08 11 A I knew Dr. Morrison. 12:04:10 12 Q And you knew Mrs. Morrison; is that correct? 12:04:12 13 A I knew her. 12:04:14 14 Q You knew them socially as well as -- 12:04:14 15 A I knew them as members of the Church. 12:04:17 16 Dr. Morrison, I think, was on the faculty at 12:04:21 17 the University of the Mississippi Medical 12:04:25 18 School. 12:04:27 19 Q Did you ever socialize with the Morrisons at 12:04:27 20 all? 12:04:29 21 A I did not. 12:04:29 22 Q You knew their children? 12:04:30 23 A I did not. I knew that they had a number of 12:04:31 24 children, but I was not -- I was not that close 12:04:34

97 1 to the family, but I knew them. 12:04:37 2 Q You never knew a Kenneth Morrison, who is one 12:04:38 3 of the Morrison children? 12:04:44 4 A I may have known him, but I could not 12:04:44 5 distinguish between the children. 12:04:49 6 Q Did you write a recommendation for him to be 12:04:50 7 admitted into college? 12:04:54 8 A I could have. 12:04:55 9 Q Did you know Father -- 12:04:57 10 A I -- 12:04:58 11 Q Go ahead. I'm sorry. 12:04:59 12 A I was just going to say that I'm asked a number 12:05:00 13 of times, and have been, to do college appli -- 12:05:03 14 to write evaluations. And my policy, at least 12:05:09 15 as it's evolved, is to ask for a curriculum 12:05:12 16 vitae and record of the student's achievements 12:05:16 17 so that I can look at that and have some 12:05:22 18 attestation that this is somebody that ought to 12:05:26 19 go there. 12:05:29 20 But the fact that I wrote an application 12:05:29 21 doesn't necessarily mean that I know the person 12:05:32 22 very well. 12:05:34 23 Q When you were serving as vicar general in 12:05:34 24 Jackson, Mississippi, was it your goal to 12:05:37

98 1 protect children? 12:05:39 2 A It was my goal to serve the bishop in every way 12:05:41 3 I can, and, certainly, the mission of the 12:05:45 4 Church includes protecting children as well as 12:05:47 5 adults and old people and -- 12:05:51 6 Q Right. 12:05:52 7 A -- all people, yes. 12:05:53 8 Q Was one of your responsibilities to ensure that 12:05:54 9 children were free from any type of harm 11:06:17 10 perpetrated upon them by priests or other 12:06:03 11 employees of the Jackson diocese? 12:06:04 12 A I would have served the bishop in those areas, 12:06:07 13 yes. 12:06:11 14 Q Did you know St. Peter's Parish in Jackson, 12:06:13 15 Mississippi? 12:06:16 16 A I did. It's a cathedral parish. 12:06:17 17 Q Did you know a Father George Broussard? 12:06:20 18 A I did. 12:06:22 19 Q Did you become aware, as a result of contact 12:06:23 20 with the Morrison family, that Father Broussard 12:06:25 21 was taking children to the Morrison lake house 12:06:28 22 and sexually molesting them? 12:06:31 23 A I was not aware of that from knowledge that 12:06:34 24 came to me from the Morrisons. 12:06:40

99 1 Q Were you aware of it through some other 12:06:43 2 knowledge, Cardinal Law, that George Broussard 12:06:45 3 was sexually molesting children in Mississippi? 12:06:48 4 A I certainly am aware of the fact that he left 12:06:54 5 active ministry, and I am aware of the fact 12:06:59 6 that -- as I recall -- I'm aware of the fact 12:07:17 7 that there was inappropriate activity on his -- 12:07:32 8 by Father Broussard, then Father Broussard, 12:07:40 9 with regard to these -- some of the Morrison 12:07:42 10 children. 12:07:48 11 Q When you say "inappropriate activity," 12:07:48 12 inappropriate activity of a sexual nature? 12:07:51 13 A I don't know what the extent of it was, so I 12:07:54 14 can't -- but certainly boundary violations, at 12:07:56 15 least. 12:08:02 16 Q What do you mean by "boundary" -- I'm sorry. 12:08:02 17 A Boundary violations. Certainly there was 12:08:07 18 inappropriate affection shown. I'm trying to 12:08:12 19 reconstruct this. I know that he left active 12:08:18 20 ministry. My presumption is that he left 12:08:21 21 active ministry because of this, and I know 12:08:24 22 that when I heard of this on his part, it came 12:08:28 23 as a great shock to me. And my understanding 12:08:38 24 of it was that this was a matter that was 12:08:44

100 1 handled between George Broussard and 12:08:48 2 Dr. Morrison, and I can recall finding that 12:08:59 3 somewhat strange, that something like this 12:09:06 4 would have been dealt with in the way it was. 12:09:13 5 Q Cardinal Law, is it true that you were acting 12:09:20 6 as vicar general when you heard that one of the 12:09:24 7 priests of the Jackson diocese, George 12:09:26 8 Broussard, was engaged in inappropriate sexual 12:09:29 9 conduct with the Morrison children? 12:09:34 10 A My coming to the knowledge of that and his 12:09:35 11 departure from ministry and from his 12:09:45 12 assignment -- I'm not certain what the sequence 12:09:48 13 of events there is and what my involvement was 12:10:00 14 and what my reaction -- how I came to know 12:10:03 15 this, what I did. I know it's about the time 12:10:06 16 that I leave the diocese. 12:10:09 17 Q But it's during the time you're serving as 12:10:18 18 vicar general? 12:10:20 19 A It must have been, yes. 12:10:20 20 Q During the time that you're serving as vicar 12:10:23 21 general, you learn that Father Broussard is 12:10:25 22 engaged, as you described it, in some boundary 12:10:27 23 violations with -- 12:10:30 24 A I -- 12:10:31

101 1 Q Excuse me. Let me finish the question. 12:10:32 2 -- some boundary violations of some sort 12:10:34 3 of sexual nature with the Morrison children; is 12:10:37 4 that correct? 12:10:40 5 A Yes. 12:10:47 6 Q And your response was to have Father Broussard, 12:10:48 7 that you had some responsibility over as vicar 12:10:52 8 general, deal directly with Dr. Morrison with 12:10:55 9 this? 12:10:58 10 A No. 12:10:58 11 Q What did you do, Cardinal Law? 12:10:59 12 A I cannot tell you what I did. I can't 12:11:00 13 recollect what I did. My presumption is that I 12:11:04 14 discussed this with the bishop. 12:11:08 15 However, what I do know is that this 12:11:09 16 information, I think, came to me through George 12:11:16 17 Broussard, not through Dr. Morrison, and it 12:11:20 18 came to me as a -- as a closed matter, as an 12:11:28 19 event that had taken place, and had been 12:11:37 20 settled between them, and settled in a way that 12:11:41 21 the family -- when I say "settled," that the 12:11:46 22 family was convinced that whatever had happened 12:11:51 23 was adequately taken care of, and that this was 12:11:58 24 a -- that this was a unique occurrence. And as 12:12:04

102 1 I say, I was surprised that a matter like this 12:12:11 2 would have -- they were good friends. They 12:12:19 3 remained good friends. 12:12:22 4 Q They remained good friends after the Morrison 12:12:23 5 children were molested? 12:12:26 6 A They remained good friends after the event that 12:12:27 7 had been reported to me, and I -- yes. 12:12:30 8 Q Cardinal Law, isn't it a fact that after this 12:12:33 9 allegation of molestation came to you, Father 12:12:37 10 Broussard did not leave active ministry, but 12:12:40 11 was reassigned to a parish called Waveland? Do 12:12:44 12 you know that parish? 12:12:49 13 A I do know that parish, yes. 12:12:50 14 Q Is it not a fact that after Broussard -- Father 12:12:52 15 Broussard came to you and told you that he had 12:12:55 16 engaged in inappropriate boundary violations 12:12:58 17 with the Morrison children, that he was 12:13:03 18 reassigned to Waveland? 12:13:05 19 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 12:13:09 20 Go ahead. 12:13:10 21 A Yes. I don't -- I must say this is about the 12:13:10 22 time that I leave the diocese, if I'm not 12:13:19 23 mistaken, and -- and I don't have a clear 12:13:21 24 recollection as to his assignment. I know he 12:13:29

103 1 was the chancellor. I know that he did leave 12:13:33 2 active ministry. I obviously am mistaken in 12:13:36 3 thinking that he left active ministry at that 12:13:41 4 point. 12:13:43 5 Q You know he went to Waveland? 12:13:43 6 A Well, I hear you saying that. 12:13:46 7 Q No. I'm not -- 12:13:49 8 A I presume that. I honestly don't have a 12:13:49 9 recollection of where he went. 12:13:53 10 Q Cardinal Law, after Father Broussard came and 12:13:56 11 told you about these allegations involving the 12:13:58 12 Morrison children, of inappropriate activity 12:14:02 13 and boundary violations, what specific action 12:14:06 14 can you recall taking to put other potential 12:14:12 15 victims on notice of Father Broussard's 12:14:15 16 behavior? 12:14:24 17 When I'm talking about victims, I'm 12:14:24 18 talking about victims at the next parish where 12:14:25 19 he went. Can you recall doing anything? 12:14:29 20 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 12:14:31 21 Go ahead. 12:14:31 22 A First of all, I can't -- I would not have 12:14:32 23 assigned him to Waveland. That would not have 12:14:34 24 been my responsibility. It would have been the 12:14:37

104 1 bishop's responsibility, or to have assigned 12:14:39 2 him to any parish. And I did not -- I did not 12:14:44 3 personally inform people in Waveland or people 12:14:50 4 at St. Peter's about this activity involving 12:14:57 5 the children of Dr. Morrison. 12:15:04 6 MR. MacLEISH: All right. We're 12:15:08 7 going to change the tape now, if you'd like to 12:15:08 8 take a break. We'll come back and go until -- 12:15:13 9 what's your preference, Cardinal? When would 12:15:16 10 you like to go until for the lunch break? 12:15:19 11 THE WITNESS: Whatever you decide. 12 MR. MacLEISH: Do you want to go 13 until 1:00? 12:15:22 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:14. 12:15:22 15 This is the end of Cassette 1 in the deposition 12:15:24 16 of Cardinal Law. We're off the record. 12:15:27 17 (Recess.)