1 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 2 COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX 3 GREGORY FORD, et al., Plaintiff, 4 Superior Court vs. Civil Action 5 No. 02-0626 BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a, 6 CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Defendants. 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 SECOND DAY OF THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by 18 the 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 Friday, June 7, 2002, commencing at 9:03 a.m. 22 K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES 23 P. O. BOX 6094 BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02209 24 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, and Courtney Pillsbury, Attorney) 4 One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110 5 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 6 (by Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney) One Storey Terrace 7 Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 Attorneys for the Plaintiff 8 The Rogers Law Firm, PC 9 (by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney, Wilson Rogers, III, Attorney, Mark Rogers, Attorney, 10 Francis J. O'Connor, Attorney) One Union Street 11 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Attorneys for the Defendants 12 Todd & Weld 13 (by J. Owen Todd, Attorney) 28 State Street 14 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Attorneys for Cardinal Law personally 15 ALSO PRESENT: Rodney Ford 16 Paula Ford Father John Connolly 17 Father Christopher Coyne George Libbares 18 Wayne Martin Sandy Grossman 19 Shirley Fairclough 20 21 22 23 24

3 1 WITNESS 2 Page CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, 6 3 Resumed 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 6 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 7 21 Excerpt of Deposition from 21 8 Father Higgins 9 22 Excerpt of Father Higgins 27 Deposition 10 23 Handwritten Document 29 11 24 Letter 61 12 25 Letter, 11/17/77 71 13 26 Letter, 10/4/77 72 14 27 Letter, 12/2/77 76 15 28 Letter, 4/2/79 83 16 29 Memorandum, 4/6/79 93 17 30 Letter, 4/6/79 94 18 31 Letter, 4/12/79 97 19 32 The Homosexual Network 102 20 33 Handwritten Document 104 21 34 Letter, 6/1/83 106 22 35 Handwritten Document 108 23 36 Handwritten Note 110 24

4 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 37 Handwritten Document 111 3 38 Letter, 7/13/83 112 4 39 Letter, 12/11/84 118 5 40 Memorandum, 7/11/96 130 6 41 Photograph 135 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

5 1 ********* 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording 3 and on the record. My name is George Labbares. 4 I'm a certified legal video specialist for 5 National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our 6 business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 7 243, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. 8 Today is June 7, 2002, and the time is 9 9:05 a.m. This is Volume 2 in the deposition of 10 Cardinal Bernard Law in the following actions 11 being heard in Middlesex Superior Court: Gregory 12 Ford, et al., Plaintiffs, versus Cardinal -- 13 versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal 14 Bernard F. Law, Defendant, Civil Action 02-0626; 15 and Paul W. Busa versus Bernard Cardinal Law, 16 a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, Defendant, Civil 17 Action 02-0822; and Anthony Driscoll, Plaintiff, 18 versus Bernard Cardinal Law, a/k/a Cardinal 19 Bernard F. Law, Defendant, Civil Action 02-1737. 20 This deposition is being taken at One 21 International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on 22 behalf of the plaintiffs. 23 The court reporter is Kathy Silva of K. L. 24 Good Associates. Counsel will state their

6 1 appearances and the examination will continue. 2 MR. MacLEISH: Good morning, Your 3 Eminence. Roderick MacLeish, Jr., representing 4 the plaintiffs. 5 MR. THOMAS: David Thomas, also with 6 Mr. MacLeish, representing the plaintiffs. 7 MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman, 8 representing the plaintiffs. 9 MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman, 10 representing the plaintiffs. 11 MR. MARK ROGERS: Mark Rogers, on 12 behalf of His Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law and 13 all defendants. 14 MR. WILSON ROGERS, III: Wilson Rogers, 15 III, on behalf of His Eminence Bernard Cardinal 16 Law and all defendants. 17 MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., on 18 behalf of His Eminence Cardinal Law and all 19 defendants. 20 MR. TODD: Owen Todd appearing for the 21 Cardinal personally. 22 23 CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed 24

7 1 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH, cont. 3 Q Good morning, Your Eminence, and thank you for 4 returning this morning for your deposition. 5 During your deposition that we had on 6 Wednesday, there was a variety of references to 7 your existing policy that you're proposing for 8 the Boston Archdiocese. 9 Do you recall that testimony that you gave 10 on Wednesday? 11 A I do. I do. You'll refresh me if I don't. 12 Q Today we're going to be focusing on events 13 principally between 1977 and 1993. We're not 14 going to be going up to the current date. So if 15 I could respectfully request in your answers if 16 we could try and focus on the dates which are 17 going to be in question, which are, again, 1977 18 to 1993. 19 Does that sound fair? 20 A Surely. 21 Q Now, you said at the last deposition -- I want to 22 give you this opportunity -- that you were going 23 to do some thinking about another priest in 24 Jackson, Mississippi, of which you may have been

8 1 aware was involved in the molestation of 2 children? 3 A During my time. 4 Q During your time. That's exactly right. 5 Have you now had the opportunity to do that? 6 A I have, Mr. MacLeish, and I don't have a name to 7 bring forward. 8 Q Now, Cardinal Law, you attended the Pontifical 9 College of Josephinum. Have I pronounced that 10 correctly? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q In Columbus, Ohio. Is it not a fact that Father 13 Broussard, the same Father Broussard that you 14 later learned had been involved in sexual 15 misconduct when you were in Jackson, Mississippi, 16 as vicar general, was one of your seminarian 17 classmates? 18 A Not a classmate, but he also was at the 19 Josephinum, yes. 20 Q You were in the class of 1961; is that correct? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q He was in the class of 1964? 23 A I believe that's correct. I wouldn't be certain 24 of his ordination class, but --

9 1 Q And the total number of seminarians who were 2 there at the time was approximately how many, 3 Your Eminence? 4 A In the theology department? 5 Q Yes. 6 A That would have been six years. I would hazard 7 that in that department, that six-year 8 department, there would have been -- which would 9 have been the two years of philosophy and the 10 four years of theology -- there would have been 11 around 100, perhaps a few more. 12 MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Todd? 13 MR. TODD: Mr. MacLeish, you started 14 off asking the Cardinal whether he had reflected 15 more on that one subject. 16 MR. MacLEISH: Certainly. 17 MR. TODD: And in the past, you've 18 invited him to make any additions. I believe 19 there is another further reflection the Cardinal 20 had, so at a convenient time. 21 MR. MacLEISH: Fine. 22 Q I'll certainly afford you the opportunity, if we 23 could just continue with this, and then I am 24 going to give you the opportunity to modify,

10 1 change or supplement any of the answers that you 2 gave -- 3 A Thank you. 4 Q -- on Monday. 5 You knew Father Broussard when you were a 6 seminarian, though; is that correct? 7 A I did. 8 Q And you were friends with Father Broussard when 9 you were a seminarian; is that correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Were you close friends with Father Broussard when 12 you were a seminarian? Would you use that term 13 to describe your relationship? 14 A We were certainly not distant, but we were not 15 the closest of friends, yes. 16 Q And you knew, when Father Broussard was at the 17 seminary in Columbus, Josephinum, you knew that 18 Father Broussard was the high school choir 19 director for what I think was called, at the 20 time, Unchanged Voices. 21 Do you recall that? 22 A I don't, but he had a very good voice, and so it 23 would have been likely to have been the case, but 24 I don't recall that.

11 1 Q When you learned in -- let me just back up for a 2 second. The Josephinum Seminary also had a 3 school that was in some way associated with it or 4 attached to it; is that correct? 5 A Well, the Josephinum, somewhat unique in the 6 country, had a minor seminary, which was four 7 years of high school, and the first two years of 8 college; and then it had a major seminary, which 9 was two years of -- the last two years of college 10 and the four years of theology. And there was a 11 strict separation between those two sections. It 12 was like two different institutions on the same 13 campus. 14 In its later configuration, the high school 15 seminary was dropped. The four years of college 16 were brought together as a separate unit, which 17 is the college, and then the years of theology 18 were brought together. And as a matter of fact, 19 I'm out of touch as to what their curriculum is 20 today. It may be that they have a fifth year of 21 theology for all I know. Many people do. Some 22 people have added a sixth, but... 23 Q But when you were there with Father Broussard, 24 there was a high school program on the campus; is

12 1 that correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q And so you knew in 1973, when you became aware of 4 the sexual abuse allegations involving the 5 Morrison children and Father Broussard, you knew 6 that when Father Broussard was at the seminary 7 with you, he may have had access to children; is 8 that correct? 9 MR. TODD: Objection. 10 A One of the things, Mr. MacLeish, that I want to 11 be able to have greater time to reflect upon is 12 how and when I may have become knowledgeable 13 concerning the letter that you put before me the 14 other day. 15 Q Certainly. 16 A And so I was, as you recall when you questioned 17 me, I was not very clear in a recollection, and 18 as much as I try, I'm still not very clear, and 19 so I would rather not -- 20 Q Sure. 21 A -- rather not be as specific as to say that I 22 knew this before 1973 or after 1973. I really 23 need more time for that. 24 Q Fair enough.

13 1 A But your question is what I know -- 2 Q Well, let me rephrase it in light of what you've 3 said. 4 When you became aware, whether it was before 5 you left as vicar general or after you left as 6 vicar general, that there were allegations of 7 sexual misconduct involving Father Broussard, 8 would it be a fair statement that you also knew 9 that when Father Broussard was at seminary with 10 you, that he had access to children at the high 11 school? Would that be a fair statement? 12 A Well, as I answered your question previously, I 13 really don't recall that he was a choir director 14 at the seminary. If he hadn't been a choir 15 director at the seminary, the ordinary rule of 16 separation would have precluded contact. There 17 was a very strict rule of separation between the 18 two segments, if you will, of the seminary. 19 Perhaps, you know, 30 years ago I would have 20 had a different and clearer memory, but I can't 21 sit here now and say that I knew then that he had 22 contact with high school seminarians at the 23 Josephinum. I just can't say that. 24 Q Do you know -- would it be fair to state, 14 1 Cardinal Law, that as you sit here today, you 2 can't recall any specific action that you took in 3 alerting administrators at the Josephinum 4 Seminary that Father Broussard had admitted to 5 being involved in sexual misconduct with the 6 Morrison children in Mississippi? 7 Is that a fair statement? 8 A Mr. MacLeish, it's a statement that says many 9 things that I cannot say with certainty. I am 10 not certain how or when I learned of this matter 11 that you put before me the other day, and so the 12 predicate -- the underlying -- the first 13 statement there that you've made, I would have 14 difficulty agreeing with, but I certainly did not 15 alert the authorities at the Josephinum about 16 anything. 17 Q But you do remember that at some point -- I think 18 you said this earlier, whether it was before you 19 left as vicar general or after you left as vicar 20 general, you do remember learning about 21 allegations of sexual misconduct involving Father 22 Broussard and minor children; is that correct? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q Okay. Thank you.

15 1 Now, you -- if we could go to Exhibit 2 No. 13, Your Eminence. This was your statement 3 of April 12, 2002, some of which we covered on 4 Wednesday. In Paragraph 2, you state: 5 "The case of Father Paul Shanley is 6 particularly troubling for us. For me, 7 personally, it has brought home with painful 8 clarity how inadequate our recordkeeping has 9 been." 10 Okay? Now, when did you first discover how 11 inadequate your recordkeeping had been at the 12 Archdiocese of Boston? 13 A In the course of the last -- we're in June now -- 14 in the course of the last six months. 15 Q Okay. 16 A As we have dealt with these cases. 17 Q And so would it be fair to state that, as you sit 18 here today, you can't recall any difference in 19 the adequacy of your recordkeeping between 1984 20 and the last several months? Would that be a 21 fair statement? 22 A Excuse me? 23 Q Sure. You state you had learned about the 24 inadequacy of the recordkeeping at the

16 1 Archdiocese within the last several months; is 2 that correct? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q Are you aware of anything that occurred between 5 1984 with respect to the adequacy of the 6 recordkeeping and the present time? Do you 7 understand my question? 8 A Yes. Well, I was unaware of the inadequacy of 9 our recordkeeping until this past six months when 10 we have had occasion again and again and again to 11 retrieve a whole host of records. And as 12 difficult and frustrating as that has been, I'm 13 frankly very grateful for the fact that that 14 inadequacy has come to light and that we are 15 addressing it. 16 Q So would it be a fair statement that since you've 17 been the Archbishop of Boston, the recordkeeping, 18 as you understand it, has been inadequate over 19 the past 17 years? Would that be a fair 20 statement? 21 A No. I'm not sure that saying that our 22 recordkeeping has been inadequate is a necessary 23 reflection on the recordkeeping since 1984, 24 because we're talking about records that go back

17 1 to 1966 and before, that go back to two 2 archbishops before me; to the fact that records 3 were kept in a variety of different places. So 4 I -- but there's certainly, in terms of where we 5 are today and the handling of these kinds of 6 cases, they certainly -- our recordkeeping 7 certainly has to be modified. We recognize that, 8 and we're doing that. 9 My presumption is that successive delegates 10 who were following these kind of cases, just to 11 speak to these cases -- 12 Q Right. 13 A -- records, obviously deal with more than this. 14 Q Right. 15 A But to deal with -- when I say that our records 16 were inadequate, I'm really focusing on records 17 dealings with this type of aberrant behavior, and 18 I would think that our recordkeeping in later 19 years on this matter has been adequate. But 20 where our difficulty has been is retrieving some 21 previous material, which is in a lot of disparate 22 places, rather than coming together in one place. 23 Q And you're referring, when you say that, to the 24 allegations of sexual abuse, for example, against

18 1 Paul Shanley that were reported to the 2 Archdiocese in 1966? 3 A Yes. 4 Q You're referring to those types of records? 5 A That's correct. Things before '84. 6 Q You're referring principally to records before 7 '84, that's correct? And that -- 8 A I would have -- if I may? 9 Q Sure. Absolutely. 10 A I would have greater confidence in the ability to 11 retrieve material post '84. 12 Q Post '84. And as far as you know, it has always, 13 since you arrived as Archbishop, it has always 14 been the case that it's been difficult to 15 retrieve post-1984 records; is that correct? I'm 16 sorry. Pre-1984 records? 17 A Pre-1984. 18 Q Is that your testimony? 19 A It's been -- what has been my knowledge of that, 20 certainly my knowledge is very keen on that 21 today -- 22 Q Right. 23 A -- that the information wasn't brought forward. 24 And as I say -- as I tried to say here in this

19 1 letter that you put before me -- which, 2 incidentally, is my letter -- 3 Q Yes. 4 A -- it's not someone else's letter. 5 Q Yes. No. 6 A A continual institutional memory concerning 7 allegations and cases of abuse of children was 8 lacking; and I think that expresses the 9 frustration I have had and it's that that we have 10 tried to address in terms of ensuring that, 11 moving forward, that institutional memory is 12 going to be readily accessible to anyone having 13 to deal with this kind of an issue in the future, 14 and that means having the pertinent information 15 carried forward in a way that the full case is 16 there for somebody to see. 17 Q So you're suggesting that there was some 18 difficulty perhaps during the time that you 19 received the Wilma Higgs letter in having access 20 to information about Paul Shanley's -- the 21 allegations against Paul Shanley in 1966. Is 22 that what you're suggesting? 23 MR. TODD: Objection. 24 MR. ROGERS: Objection.

20 1 A Well, the question that you've asked me, I 2 didn't -- I wasn't thinking of the Wilma Higgs 3 letter. 4 Q Okay. 5 A But certainly there was information about Paul 6 Shanley that was not readily available and it 7 would be helpful to have been. 8 Q Okay. And that's not something you know of your 9 own personal knowledge; that is something that 10 you've been told. Is that correct? 11 A That is something that I have been told by those 12 who assist me in these cases. 13 Q And that would be including your delegate, Father 14 Higgins, who has been someone looking for 15 records; is that correct? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Now, Your Eminence, you're aware, are you not, 18 that in April -- early April, certain records 19 were produced to our office at the order of the 20 Superior Court Judge Leila Kern? 21 Are you aware of that? 22 A Mr. MacLeish, I must tell you that I am not aware 23 of the details of the many things that have 24 occurred in response to court orders. I rely on

21 1 counsel for that. 2 Q I don't wish to get into your conversations with 3 counsel, but are you generally familiar with the 4 fact that records were produced in this case 5 involving the Ford family? Are you generally 6 aware of that? 7 A I am generally aware that many, many records have 8 been produced in response to many cases. 9 Q And do you know when the records of the 1966 10 complaint about Paul Shanley sent in by a priest 11 at the LaSalette Center was first located by the 12 Archdiocese of Boston? 13 A No, I don't. 14 Q You would rely on Father Higgins for that; is 15 that correct? 16 A That's correct, and those assisting him. 17 Q Okay. 18 MR. MacLEISH: We are just going to 19 mark an exhibit. 20 (Law Exhibit No. 21, Excerpt of 21 Deposition from Father Higgins, 22 marked for identification.) 23 Q Now, with respect to the 1966 allegation against 24 Paul Shanley, you don't know either way whether

22 1 that was located in what we've referred to as 2 either the secret archive or the confidential 3 file; is that correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q You don't know whether that information about 6 Paul Shanley was accessible at the time you 7 received the letter from Mrs. Higgs in 1985, do 8 you? 9 A No, I do not. 10 Q You do agree with me that it related to a matter 11 of scandal, is that correct, alleged scandal? 12 A The 1966 letter? 13 Q Let's start with the -- let's start with the 1966 14 letter, yes. 15 A The 1966 document, as I recall, it was a very 16 serious allegation of abuse. 17 Q And you're aware, are you not, that, as I think 18 you testified previously, that matters relating 19 to abuse or scandal within the Church would 20 customarily, under canon law, be kept in the 21 confidential file; is that correct? 22 A Customarily, yes. 23 Q And that's been a policy -- is that the correct 24 way of putting it -- of the Church since you were

23 1 in seminary? Is that correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q So you don't, as you sit here today, don't have 4 any reason to believe that that 1966 record was 5 not in the confidential file in 1985 when you 6 received the letter from Wilma Higgs, correct? 7 A I have no confidence that that letter was in the 8 secret file. 9 Q You have no confidence? 10 A I have no confidence. 11 Q What is the basis for that, Cardinal Law? 12 A The fact that it is -- it has become, as I wrote 13 here, it has been -- for me, personally, it has 14 brought home with painful clarity how inadequate 15 our recordkeeping has been, a continual 16 institutional memory concerning allegations and 17 cases of abuse of children was lacking. 18 It's conceivable that that letter was in 19 some other file. 20 Q You just don't know either way, do you? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q And do you know of any changes in how letters 23 were filed in the confidential file, any change 24 between 1984 and 2002?

24 1 A Mr. MacLeish, I myself do not keep the files. 2 Q I understand that. 3 A And I rely on others to do that. Out of this 4 experience, one of the things that -- one of the 5 things that has -- I was going to say has highest 6 priority, but it seems everything has highest 7 priority, but one of the things we're attempting 8 to do is to go through our records and ensure 9 that this institutional memory is adequately 10 recorded and easily accessible. Now, at what 11 point that is now, I cannot say. 12 Q All right. Your Eminence, I'd like to direct 13 your attention to Exhibit No. -- is that No. 21? 14 A 21, yes. 15 Q And I'd like to read a section from Father 16 Higgins' deposition and then ask you a question. 17 A What page? 18 Q It's actually marked -- this is what we call a 19 Min-U-Script, page 48, starting at line 2. 20 A Yes. 21 Q Okay. I'm sorry. Let's go to page 47 first. 22 Question there is to Father Higgins: 23 "Are you able to identify whether any of the 24 archived files that were produced as part of what

25 1 I think we can call the first production of 2 documents, the first 850 or so pages? 3 "ANSWER: None. 4 "QUESTION: None. At the time that you 5 located the files that were" -- 6 A Excuse me. I must be looking at the wrong place. 7 Q Page 47, line 16. 8 A Oh, 16. All right. 9 Q Yes. Do you want to take a moment and just look 10 at that? 11 A Yes. 12 Q I'll start with line 21 when you've read 16 13 through 20. Starting on line 21. 14 "QUESTION. None. At the time that you 15 located the files that were produced as part of 16 the first production pursuant to Judge Kern's 17 order of April 3, had you checked the archives? 18 "ANSWER: No. 19 "QUESTION: With respect to the second 20 grouping of documents, the files that were 21 produced on or about April 3, 2002, did you at 22 that point go to the" -- 23 MR. TODD: April 25. 24 Q I'm sorry. 25 -- 2002.

26 1 "Did you at that point go to the archived 2 file room to see if there were archived files on 3 Father Shanley? 4 "ANSWER: I did it. 5 "QUESTION: Is that where the second group 6 of documents, approximately 813 pages came from? 7 "ANSWER: Correct." 8 Then if I could just refer you to another 9 section of this as well. 10 If I could refer you to page 49, Cardinal 11 Law, starting at line 16. 12 "QUESTION: You're the keeper of the 13 records" -- this is, again, to Father Higgins. 14 "You're the keeper of the records; is that 15 correct?" 16 "ANSWER: Correct." 17 MR. ROGERS: Hold on. 18 Q I'm sorry. Page 49. It's on the same page. 19 A Oh, 49, okay. 16. Good. 20 Q Okay? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Page 49, line 16: 23 "You're the keeper of records; is that 24 correct?"

27 1 "ANSWER: That is correct. 2 "You have a file for Paul Shanley? 3 "ANSWER: Correct. 4 "QUESTION: You have a file for other 5 priests; is that correct? 6 "ANSWER: Correct. 7 "And are those files maintained by the 8 Archdiocese in some particular room at the 9 Chancery? 10 "ANSWER: Correct. 11 "QUESTION: What room is that? 12 "ANSWER: It's a locked cabinet at the end 13 of the hall. 14 "QUESTION: Where are the confidential files 15 kept? 16 "ANSWER: That is the locked cabinet. 17 "QUESTION: That's where the confidential 18 files are kept? 19 "ANSWER: Correct." 20 MR. MacLEISH: I'm going to mark 21 another exhibit, if I could, please. 22 (Law Exhibit No. 22, Excerpt of Father 23 Higgins Deposition, marked for 24 identification.)

28 1 Q If we could, Your Eminence, go to Exhibit 22, 2 which is another excerpt from the deposition of 3 Father Higgins. 4 A Yes. 5 Q And page 38. I should start at page 37, line 15. 6 "Who provided you with a copy of this 7 subpoena?" 8 This is the subpoena for the records of Paul 9 Shanley. 10 "ANSWER: The law firm of Rogers. 11 "QUESTION: Who at the law firm? 12 "ANSWER: I don't remember. 13 "QUESTION: Was it given to you personally 14 or sent to you by fax or mail? 15 "ANSWER: I believe it was mailed. 16 "QUESTION: And you received it. What did 17 you do after getting the subpoena? 18 "ANSWER: Collected the appropriate records 19 that were asked for. 20 "QUESTION: And did you do that yourself or 21 did you have any -- did you have other 22 individuals assist you? 23 "ANSWER: I did that myself. 24 "QUESTION: Well, you are thoroughly

29 1 familiar with the subpoena and you've turned over 2 to your attorneys all records which are 3 responsive to the subpoena. Is that your 4 testimony? 5 "ANSWER: Correct. 6 "How much time did you personally spend 7 locating records that were responsive to the 8 subpoena? 9 "ANSWER: About three hours." 10 Do you see that? 11 A I do, yes. 12 MR. MacLEISH: Now, let's mark this 13 document, please. 14 (Law Exhibit No. 23, Handwritten 15 Document, marked for identification.) 16 Q Your Eminence, I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 17 23 and ask if you recognize that as the 1966 18 letter that you referred to in your statement of 19 April 12, 2002, about the inadequate 20 recordkeeping? 21 A I don't recall seeing this. I recall seeing a 22 printed, typed report, which has reference to an 23 allegation. I don't recall seeing this itself. 24 I recall a reference to what I presume this is in

30 1 a written file report. 2 Q Was this something written by Paul Shanley, or 3 was it written -- 4 A Oh, no. I don't think so. I think it was a -- 5 maybe my memory is failing me, but it seemed to 6 me that I saw a typed report -- 7 Q All right. Well, let's go through -- 8 A -- that references this. 9 Q Certainly. All right. Okay. 10 Well, this is Exhibit No. 23 and you see 11 it's from the Shrine of our Lady of LaSalette. 12 Do you see that? 13 A Yes, I do. 14 Q It says, "Reverend Paul Shanley, St. Patrick's 15 Church, Stoneham, Massachusetts." 16 And I can represent to you that this was 17 part of the first production of documents that we 18 received. In fact, you'll see the Bates stamp 19 down underneath. That's what we call a Bates 20 stamp, which is a way of marking documents. It 21 says RCAB00001. This was received by our office 22 on April 5 in response to Judge Kern's order. 23 You'll see in the first sentence, it states: 24 "During the summer, July or August, August,

31 1 1966, said priest masturbated the boy." 2 Do you see that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And you'll see down at the bottom of the second 5 paragraph, there's reference to a cabin in the 6 Blue Hills. 7 Do you see that? 8 A I do. 9 Q And you've heard about that cabin in the Blue 10 Hills where Paul Shanley molested children; is 11 that correct? 12 MR. TODD: Objection. 13 A I have not. 14 Q You'll see down at the bottom a reference, 15 although that's blanked out in the exhibit 16 because we want to eliminate the names of 17 victims, it says, "The boy in question is," and 18 then there's a redacted portion. 19 Do you see that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And then on the second page, it says: 22 "The boy mentioned above" -- there in the 23 second paragraph, Cardinal Law -- "The boy 24 mentioned above knows of two other boys who go

32 1 with said priest without knowing if this is going 2 on or not with them." 3 Do you see that? 4 A I do. 5 Q And there's also a portion -- two separate 6 portions that are blacked out. 7 Do you see that? 8 A Yes. 9 Q This was a file that was produced for us on April 10 5. Now, you've read the testimony of Father 11 Higgins where he states that it took him three 12 hours to find these documents in 2002. 13 Based on that testimony, and looking at 14 Exhibit No. 23, the report of molestation in 15 1966, do you have any factual basis to believe 16 that this document, this report in Exhibit 23 of 17 molestation, was not accessible in the 18 confidential file or personnel file of Paul 19 Shanley at the time you received the Wilma Higgs 20 letter in 1985? 21 A First of all, Mr. MacLeish, as Father Higgins' 22 testimony, as I read it very cursorily as you 23 just put it before me, indicates you received 24 over 1600 pages of documents.

33 1 Q Right. 2 A And when I say that the institutional memory is 3 faulty -- and I stand by that statement -- I 4 mean that such material should have been filed in 5 such a way that it would be immediately and 6 readily accessible as material that -- first of 7 all, such an allegation would have resulted in a 8 much different action today and so I stand by my 9 comment that our institutional memory was 10 lacking. I think that proves that it was lacking 11 in terms of documentation, and that our filing 12 system needs to be improved. 13 Now, whether -- I'm not certain what file 14 this came from. If Father Higgins says he 15 retrieved this from the confidential, locked 16 file, then I presume that's where he got it, 17 along with the other 800 pages that he got from 18 that file, but my point is that this kind of 19 sensitive material needs to be filed in a much 20 more accessible way that is kept actively 21 together so that this kind of a history can be 22 immediately and readily known. 23 As I have said earlier, it was not my 24 practice in '84, and I doubt it was the practice

34 1 of any bishop to check on -- or to view with 2 suspicion people in place. 3 I would hope, when I have a successor, that 4 there can be some confidence that the people who 5 are in place are appropriately so in terms of 6 this kind of behavior. 7 However, I also hope that there will be a 8 very clear type of recordkeeping so that these 9 things are more immediately and evidently 10 available and are kept apart, not with 1600 11 pages, but kept apart in a way that it's 12 immediately there. 13 Q Your Eminence, I'm not referring to institutional 14 memory. I'm referring to the remarks that you 15 made about the inadequacy of the recordkeeping. 16 Now, Father Higgins has testified it took 17 three hours to find these documents. 18 Do you have any basis to believe that at the 19 time you received the Higgs letter in 1985, this 20 document, Exhibit 23, from a priest at the 21 LaSalette Center concerning allegations of abuse, 22 was not as accessible then as it is now? Do you 23 have any facts to support that? 24 MR. ROGERS: Objection.

35 1 MR. TODD: Objection. 2 A I presume the letter was where it was found, and 3 so, therefore, it would have been accessible if 4 someone had gone there to go through 1600 pages, 5 yes. 6 Q And in fact, when -- you testified that you 7 regarded the matters raised by Mrs. Higgs in 1985 8 as serious matters involving Paul Shanley. You 9 testified to that on Wednesday. Do you recall 10 that? 11 A I'd like an opportunity to go back to some of my 12 testimony on that at a later time. 13 Q Certainly. 14 A But as I recall the letter, reading the letter, 15 as you put it before me, I said yes, those are 16 serious matters that need to be looked at. 17 Q But wouldn't it have been just common sense that 18 when one receives a letter like that, and knowing 19 that there is a confidential file which contains 20 allegations of priest misconduct of a sexual 21 nature or matters of scandal, wouldn't it have 22 been just common sense, when that letter was 23 received, to have someone go back and look in 24 Paul Shanley's confidential file to see if there

36 1 were other reports or allegations of a similar 2 nature? 3 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 4 MR. TODD: Objection. 5 A I'm not so certain that it would have been common 6 sense to have -- to receive a report about what a 7 priest allegedly has said in a talk, to -- to 8 immediately go back to the confidential file to 9 check the priest. I think the logical thing 10 first would be to deal with the letter and deal 11 with the priest and try to ascertain what did he 12 say, what is his reaction to this, as I think I 13 indicated when we met. 14 There are a number of times in my experience 15 when people will hear something one way that was 16 said in another. And I think the fair way to 17 handle something like that is to call the person 18 in and say, Look, we understand that you've said 19 this. Is this true? Do you have some 20 explanation here? 21 The allegation in the letter, as I recall, 22 had to do with what he had said. 23 Q That's correct. 24 A And that's what was being dealt with. Would it

37 1 be wise in every case, when any kind of an 2 allegation comes against a priest, what he said 3 or allegedly said, that the confidential file on 4 that priest be checked? Perhaps that would be a 5 good thing to do, but I'm not -- I wouldn't say 6 that that would be necessarily the thing that one 7 would immediately and appropriately do. 8 Q One would go to the priest first, is what you 9 said? 10 A If -- I think the appropriate thing to do, when 11 someone writes a complaint about what you had 12 said, is to ask you: What did you say? Clarify 13 this. What's your reaction to this? 14 Q Sure. 15 A And then on the basis of that, if the 16 clarification isn't convincing, isn't satisfying, 17 then to investigate the thing further. 18 Q Well, your understanding is -- and let's go to 19 the Higgs letter which we previously had marked 20 as an exhibit so that I can ask you a question 21 about it. 22 Let me get you the exhibit number. 23 MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Thomas? 24 MR. ROGERS, III: It's No. 18.

38 1 Q No. 18. In this letter, Mrs. Higgs is stating 2 that Paul Shanley said: 3 "When adults have" -- 4 A Excuse me? 5 Q I'm sorry. I apologize. Exhibit 18, Your 6 Eminence. 7 A Yes, I have it. 8 Q It says: 9 "When adults have sex with children" -- this 10 is attributed to Paul Shanley -- "the children 11 seduced them. Children may later regret having 12 caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they 13 are the guilty ones." 14 We established Wednesday that this was what 15 Mrs. Higgs was stating Paul Shanley had said at a 16 talk in Rochester, New York. 17 Do you recall that? 18 A That's what the letter says. 19 Q And you described this as a serious matter? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q Serious allegation. You said that in the -- I 22 think your last answer was that you had not seen 23 anything of -- like this about a priest since you 24 became Archbishop of Boston in 1984, any

39 1 allegation like this; is that correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q And so given that this was a serious and unusual 4 allegation, you would have expected, as I 5 understand it, that Paul Shanley be interviewed; 6 is that correct? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q And you also, being a person of common sense and 9 good judgment, would understand that when 10 individuals are sometimes asked about whether 11 they have done certain things of a serious 12 nature, they don't always admit it. 13 You would agree with me on that? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q And wouldn't it be just common sense if Paul 16 Shanley denied making this statement, wouldn't it 17 just be common sense that one would go to the 18 same file that Father Higgins went to to see if 19 there were other documents of a similar nature so 20 that one could arrive at the truth? Wouldn't 21 that be common sense? 22 MR. TODD: Objection. 23 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 24 A Mr. MacLeish, I must say that you and I are both

40 1 sitting here with the knowledge of certain things 2 that I did not have in 1985, and that Father 3 McCormack did not have in 1985, and it's very 4 easy for us to think back now and look at this 5 letter in terms of our present knowledge and say 6 this should have happened. 7 It would have been good for this to have 8 happened. But I think if you put yourself back 9 in 1985 and realize that Father Paul Shanley in 10 1985 was a pastor, that there was nothing on the 11 radar screen of mine, and there was nothing on 12 the radar screen of Father McCormack that would 13 have suggested that Father Shanley had been 14 guilty in 1966 of acts of abuse of minors; and 15 had that been on the radar screen, certainly this 16 letter in 1985 wouldn't perhaps even have needed 17 to have been written because he wouldn't have 18 given the talk as a priest. 19 However, that was not the case. Should it 20 have been the case? Should that knowledge have 21 been present? That's what I mean about the 22 faulty institutional memory. I think that our 23 institutional memory was faulty. 24 What Father McCormack had immediately

41 1 available to him was not as full as it should 2 have been, and had he had that knowledge, he may 3 have acted -- and would have acted differently 4 than he did getting this letter. 5 But he got this letter in tempore non 6 suspecto. 7 Q I'm sorry? 8 A There was no reason to suspect -- there was no 9 reason for him to be suspicious. There was no 10 reason for him to suspect. So he calls the 11 priest in -- and as I've indicated to you often 12 happens, and very often there are 13 misunderstandings in terms of what people hear -- 14 and so he puts this before Shanley and asks his 15 explanation. 16 And as I recall, the response of Father 17 McCormack, he felt that the explanation was 18 convincing, and that what he had said was 19 misunderstood. 20 Now, your question to me is would it have 21 been common sense to check the file? I'm not 22 certain that it's common sense to check the file, 23 the confidential file on every priest every time 24 there's a complaint. Would it make -- would it 42 1 be good when this kind of complaint comes in with 2 this kind of a reference to check a file that 3 brings together this kind of material and is 4 updated? I think that that would have been -- 5 had we had that -- that would have been a good 6 thing to do. 7 Q Again, we have Father Higgins stating that he 8 found these records -- we're going to be going 9 over some more -- in three hours in 2002. 10 Now, the question, Cardinal Law, is that 11 given that you, as the Archbishop of Boston, are 12 running 400 parishes and 200 schools and given 13 that you have just promoted, at the time this 14 letter is sent to you, Paul Shanley to pastor of 15 a church in Newton, Massachusetts, where 16 individuals such as Greg Ford and other children 17 were attending CCD classes, wouldn't it have just 18 been common sense if Paul Shanley were to deny 19 that he ever said such a thing as is quoted in 20 Exhibit 18 about adults having sex with children, 21 given the responsibilities that you had as 22 Archbishop towards the children being served in 23 your programs, would it not have been just common 24 sense, when you've got a dispute between

43 1 Mrs. Higgs and Paul Shanley, to go back and spend 2 a couple of hours and look at the records? 3 Wouldn't it have been common sense? 4 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 5 MR. TODD: Objection. 6 A I'm -- you know, as difficult as it may be for 7 you to appreciate this, I'm not so certain, going 8 back in time, that that would have been the 9 common sense thing to do. 10 Q Okay. You understand -- 11 A There -- 12 Q I'm sorry. 13 A You must realize that this man, in 1985, was not 14 under suspicion or I would not have appointed him 15 to pastor. My predecessor would not have 16 appointed him as the admin -- the administrator 17 would not have appointed him as administrator in 18 the interim period. He was not under suspicion. 19 This is a very volatile situation. The 20 general context here is the context of 21 homosexuality. This issue can easily lead to a 22 misunderstanding of what is being said when one 23 differentiates between a lifestyle and an 24 orientation.

44 1 The Church's teaching, as you well know, is 2 criticized by many people on this issue, because 3 we do not believe that a homosexual lifestyle is 4 a morally acceptable behavior, even though we 5 don't place a moral connotation on an 6 orientation, that one can't act out of the 7 orientation. 8 Father Shanley had a reputation of speaking 9 to the necessity of dealing in a compassionate 10 way with people who were homosexuals, and very 11 often when someone does that, it can, 12 unfortunately, create a backlash, and it's very 13 possible that when Father McCormack read this 14 letter, he read this letter in terms of that 15 context, which is a very understandable context, 16 and -- 17 Q I'm really not referring to that portion of it, 18 Cardinal Law. 19 A I understand that, Mr. MacLeish, but I think that 20 that context does set a certain -- that paragraph 21 does set a context for the letter. It sets a 22 context for how possibly someone is hearing what 23 is being said. 24 Q I'm not referring to the sections where Paul

45 1 Shanley is alleged by Mrs. Higgs to have made 2 remarks about homosexuality. You and I agree 3 that adults having sex with children and that 4 children later regretting having caused someone 5 to go to prison knowing that they are the guilty 6 ones, that doesn't have anything to do with 7 homosexuality, Cardinal Law? 8 A Absolutely not. 9 Q So my question is, would there have been any 10 reason, in 1985, why someone in the Archdiocese 11 who had access to Paul Shanley's files could not 12 have gone and looked at them? Would there have 13 been a reason, a policy, why they couldn't have 14 looked at those records? 15 A Your question is different now, Mr. MacLeish, and 16 my answer to that is no. There is no reason why 17 one could not have done that. Your earlier 18 question to me was would it be -- would it have 19 been common sense? Your earlier question implied 20 was there, on the part of Father McCormack, a 21 lack of due diligence in his investigation of 22 this matter raised in this letter, and it was 23 really that question that I was answering. 24 Q That's fine. I agree it's a different question.

46 1 Different question. 2 Was there any reason why the same thing that 3 happened in 2002, three hours of search for 4 records, could not, as a matter of policy, have 5 happened in 1985 when the Higgs letter was 6 received? 7 A There's no reason why it could not have happened. 8 Q And was there any reason, when this letter was 9 received, why Mrs. Higgs could not have been 10 contacted, and we went over it on Wednesday, and 11 asked to provide the tape that she refers to in 12 the first paragraph of her letter? 13 MR. TODD: Objection. 14 A She certainly could have been asked. 15 Q Cardinal Law, again, you know that St. Jean's 16 Parish serves children in 1985, because you had 17 actually just promoted Paul Shanley to pastor at 18 that parish, correct? 19 A Yes. You've made that point a number of times, 20 Mr. MacLeish, he was appointed in 1985 as pastor. 21 That hasn't changed. 22 Q By you? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q And he was made pastor after a recommendation of

47 1 the personnel board? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q And was that typically a written recommendation? 4 A As a matter of fact, I'm not certain that that 5 would have gone through the personnel board, 6 because those people who are appointed as pastors 7 during the administratorship often would be -- 8 can be routinely made pastor. The administrator 9 simply doesn't have the authority to name 10 somebody a pastor. He only has the authority to 11 name somebody an administrator. So the act of 12 appointing him as pastor would have been simply 13 to validate and do what would ordinarily have 14 been done had he been the Archbishop rather than 15 the administrator. 16 Q Well, when one is a pastor -- and we're going to 17 take a break just in a minute. 18 A Excuse me. 19 Q Sure. Absolutely. 20 A If I could say, you're correct that the ordinary 21 procedure in the naming of a pastor is that -- 22 ordinarily, but not necessarily, ordinarily, is 23 that I hear from the personnel board. I get a 24 list of three names, and ordinarily, I would

48 1 choose one of those three. Not necessarily. I 2 might send the three names back and ask them to 3 propose three others or I may make the decision 4 to make a direct appointment. 5 I, frankly, cannot recall in the case of 6 1985, Father Shanley's appointment, whether that 7 was simply an act validating what was done by the 8 administrator -- 9 Q Bishop Daily? 10 A -- Bishop Daily, or whether it's something that 11 came to me from the personnel board. 12 Q Yes. You're right that Bishop Daily was the 13 individual who made Father Shanley administrator 14 of the St. Jean's Parish in 1984. Is that 15 correct? 16 A That's my recollection. 17 Q But when one is elevated to pastor, one is in 18 charge of the parish; is that correct? 19 A Well, an administrator is also -- 20 Q Okay. 21 A An administrator has -- an administrator has the 22 full responsibility of the pastor, but what he 23 doesn't have is the term, and the pastor has a 24 term for his office.

49 1 Q And you were the one, in 1984 and '85, who was 2 exclusively making these assignments to 3 individuals? 4 A After March of '84. 5 Q After March of '84; is that correct? 6 A Right. 7 Q Was it your practice at the time that Paul 8 Shanley was elevated to pastor by you for there 9 to be any review of the priest's files to see if 10 there might be some matter of scandal or abuse 11 that would preclude him from being in charge of a 12 parish serving young children? 13 A No, there was not, because I would have assumed 14 that there was no matter of scandal or abuse if 15 the person was in place. 16 Q So you were relying on Bishop Daily's decision in 17 appointing Paul Shanley as administrator; is that 18 correct? 19 A That's correct. 20 Q Do you know whether when someone is appointed -- 21 elevated to the position of administrator, that 22 customarily, in 1984, there was any review of the 23 file to see if that person -- when I say the 24 "file," I mean the Church's own records -- to see

50 1 if that person might have been involved in 2 abusive conduct or inappropriate conduct? 3 A I'm not aware of such a policy. 4 Q Would there have been any policy that would have 5 been precluding you or Bishop Daily from 6 instructing someone to look at the file before 7 one is elevated to administrator or pastor to see 8 if there was any information in there suggesting 9 that the priest had engaged in inappropriate or 10 sexually abusive behavior? 11 A Here again, Mr. MacLeish, your question creates a 12 perception of reality that simply was not the 13 perception of reality that pertained for me, and 14 I'm sure for those working with me, in 1984 and 15 1985. 16 If a man was in place doing priestly 17 ministry, and had been assigned there, the 18 presumption, which, indeed, may be a naive 19 presumption, but nonetheless, the presumption was 20 that such a person was there as a trustworthy and 21 appropriate individual to carry out that 22 responsibility. 23 Q Cardinal Law, my question was, was there any 24 policy -- I believe my question was, was there

51 1 any policy that would have prevented you or 2 Bishop Daily, when Paul Shanley was elevated to 3 administrator and then pastor, to spend a couple 4 of hours looking at his files before that 5 occurred? Was there any policy that would have 6 prevented that? 7 A No. 8 Q Just one more question and we'll take a break. 9 On institutional memory, you would agree 10 with me, would you not, that institutional memory 11 is not simply records; institutional memory can 12 be something that's oral. Is that correct? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q And so when you were coming in as Archbishop of 15 Boston, you were relying on people who were there 16 who had been preceded -- I'm sorry. You were 17 relying on people who were there at the time to 18 provide you with relevant information about 19 priests that might be promoted or put in charge 20 of parishes. Would that be correct? 21 A Allow me to answer your question and then go back 22 to something that you said just before that. 23 Q Certainly. 24 A Certainly I was relying on what people would say

52 1 and what their memory was. However, when I refer 2 to institutional memory in that letter, what I 3 have in mind is not so much -- and you're correct 4 in broadening the concept, and I perhaps should 5 have been more specific, but I did use -- the 6 preceding sentence I think has to do with 7 recordkeeping. 8 I was thinking more on how that 9 institutional memory is served by records. I 10 think it is very important, the oral tradition, 11 but what -- where I think we need to be much more 12 effective, frankly, is -- and please God, we're 13 becoming more effective, and I must say you and 14 others are helping us do that. 15 Q Thank you. 16 A And I mean that. 17 Q I know you do. 18 A I appreciate the fact that we're going through 19 this exercise. 20 Q I know you do. 21 A But I was referring there to the written 22 record -- not to in any way denigrate the 23 importance of those personal, oral responses -- 24 but I think that there needs to be a clear and

53 1 concise and precise and readily accessible record 2 of things of this type that are not, if I might 3 say, in among 1600 other pages, but are there 4 clearly. 5 Q Three hours, yes. 6 Would you like to take a break now, 7 Cardinal? 8 A Might I just, since we're on this -- unless you 9 want to -- if you prefer the break -- 10 Q Go ahead. Please, please go ahead. 11 A I just wanted to address a remark that -- 12 MR. TODD: Identify what you have 13 there. 14 A You gave me an exhibit of my interrogatories. 15 Q Admissions. 16 A Which is that? No. 1, is it? 17 Q Yes. The one you wanted to change. 18 A Yes. And then you put before me a letter from 19 Bishop McCormack to Mrs. Higgs. Here it is. 20 Q Exhibit 20, about your note. 21 A Yeah. 22 Q That's your note. 23 A I'd like to talk about that again, if I may. 24 Q Certainly.

54 1 A I think that I would prefer to leave response to 2 No. 1 as I have it, because as I -- I thought 3 about this letter. It's one of the many things 4 that I've been keeping a lot to think about. He 5 says, "Recently I received a note from the 6 Cardinal." 7 Q Right. 8 A And when I saw that -- and that was the first 9 time I had seen that letter -- I thought of it in 10 terms of a note from me, and, obviously, if I 11 sent him a note, I would have read what that note 12 was about. At least I would have scanned it. I 13 would have seen it. 14 But I really think that it's conceivable and 15 not unlikely that Father McCormack is referring 16 to having gotten this, "not acknowledged at 17 residence," which implies, as I think I said 18 earlier, in the use of this stamp, that the 19 person getting it is to respond either by looking 20 into it, by doing whatever is necessary. If I 21 have to be involved, to get back to me about 22 that, but to take care of it, and it hasn't been 23 acknowledged at the residence, and the fact is 24 that it went to Father McCormack. I'm presuming

55 1 that that is that indication where -- 2 MR. TODD: You're pointing to -- 3 A I'm pointing to his name up there in the corner, 4 and it may very well be that that's the note, and 5 that note would not imply at all that I had seen 6 this. As a matter of fact, it would be quite the 7 opposite. 8 Something that is stamped in that way would 9 ordinarily be something that I have not seen but 10 that has gone to the person referenced. And 11 perhaps, if you're with Father McCormack again -- 12 and I have not talked to him about this -- I 13 mean, Bishop McCormack -- you might ask about 14 that, but I -- 15 Q Yes. 16 A But my sense is that when he says "note," that 17 that could be the explanation of that, because 18 seeing his letter does still not awaken in me a 19 memory of having seen this letter. 20 MR. MacLEISH: Would you mind if I just 21 had a few more questions before we break, on your 22 testimony, Cardinal? 23 MR. ROGERS: No. 24 Q Cardinal, so as I understand it, your original

56 1 admission says: 2 "The defendant does not believe he read the 3 Higgs letter in 1985." 4 A Yes. 5 Q If I could, Cardinal, at the conclusion of our 6 day Wednesday, you indicated you wanted to change 7 that admission based upon the documents I 8 presented to you; is that correct? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q Now you want to go back and change what you said 11 on Wednesday to indicate that your original 12 admission stands; you do not believe you read the 13 Higgs letter in 1985? 14 A That's correct. I believe that what is said 15 here -- that the defendant does not believe he 16 read the Higgs letter -- is the truth, as I see 17 it; and I was persuaded by the reference to the 18 note, that if I sent him a note about this, then 19 I must have read the letter, but I really believe 20 that that note could be a reference to what is 21 here. That would not indicate, if that's the 22 basis of his word "note," that would not indicate 23 that I read the letter. 24 Q Well, respectfully, he says he received a note

57 1 from the Cardinal. 2 A I understand. 3 Q He doesn't say he received a note. He said he 4 received a note from you. 5 A I know it says that. 6 Q And Bishop McCormack would not be someone who 7 would, to Paul Shanley, at this time, state 8 something that was not true? 9 A Well, I don't -- you know, it is not true to say 10 that he received this from -- 11 Q When you say "this" you're meaning Exhibit -- 12 A -- received Exhibit 18 from me, from my office, 13 which is receiving it from me, from my office. 14 Q Well, respectfully, Exhibit 18 is not a note; 15 Exhibit 18 is a letter from Wilma Higgs. 16 A No, no. I'm talking about -- 17 Q The stamp? 18 A Yes, the stamp with his name on it. 19 Q That that -- 20 A I believe that that could reference a note to 21 him. 22 Q Well, Cardinal, the truth is, is that -- and 23 memories are fallible, and I accept that and we 24 all accept that -- is that you just don't know

58 1 either way. Now, you're stating you don't know 2 either way whether you had read the Higgs letter 3 or whether you didn't read the Higgs letter; is 4 that correct? You just don't know either way? 5 MR. TODD: Objection. 6 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 7 A I don't believe that that's what I said in 8 response to this -- 9 Q No, I know that -- 10 A -- question. And that's what I'm referencing 11 here. You asked me, "Cardinal Law read the 12 letter addressed to him from a true and accurate 13 copy of the Higgs letter. Response No. 1. The 14 defendant does not believe he read the Higgs 15 letter in 1985. The defendant admits that he has 16 since read this correspondence." 17 Q Right. 18 A And I am saying to you that that's the response 19 that I would like to enter, and not the response 20 as I changed it yesterday. 21 Q On Wednesday? 22 A On Wednesday. 23 Q Respectfully, Cardinal, wouldn't the better 24 response be simply, as you reference in other

59 1 sections of your admissions -- and I can point 2 them out to you, for example, Response No. 15, 3 which is on page 3 of the admissions, where you 4 state that "The defendant has no recollection of 5 any such discussion, and therefore, can neither 6 admit nor deny this request for admission," 7 wouldn't the better response for No. 2 be that 8 you just don't know either way, so you can't 9 admit or deny? Wouldn't that be the better 10 response, Cardinal Law? 11 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 12 MR. TODD: Objection. It's No. 1, not 13 No. 2. 14 Q Yeah, right. No. 1? 15 A Number 1. 16 Q Isn't it true that you just, as you sit here 17 today, truthfully, you just don't know? You 18 might have seen it; you might not have seen it? 19 Isn't that what you're saying? 20 A Well, I think, Mr. MacLeish, at least as I 21 understand it, when I say "The defendant does not 22 believe he read the Higgs letter in 1985," I'm 23 not saying that I know without any shadow of a 24 doubt that I did not read the letter. That's not

60 1 what's being said. 2 If you want to suggest to me how I respond 3 to that, I -- you know, I can frame it in another 4 way, and perhaps you can give me a little bit of 5 time to think about it. 6 Q Sure. 7 A But the substance of what I want to say is that I 8 cannot here say to you under oath that I saw this 9 letter. 10 Q Nor can you say that you didn't? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q So the better answer is you just don't -- 13 MR. TODD: No. 14 Q Wait a second. The better answer, you would 15 agree with me, is you just don't know whether you 16 saw it or you didn't? Is that the truth, 17 Cardinal Law? 18 MR. TODD: Objection. 19 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 20 MR. TODD: Objection. 21 Q Go ahead; you can answer. 22 MR. TODD: Is it a better answer or is 23 it true? It's two questions. 24 Q Well, you just don't know either way?

61 1 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 2 A You know, perhaps you should let me think about 3 this over coffee and come back. 4 Q Sure. I'd be happy to do that. Why don't we 5 take our break. 6 A It's what does "believe" mean. I think that -- 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:14. 8 We're off the record. 9 (Recess) 10 (Law Exhibit No. 24, Letter, 11 marked for identification.) 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 10:25. 10:25:57 13 We're back on the record. 10:26:10 14 Q Cardinal Law, you wanted to say something? 10:26:13 15 A Yes, Mr. MacLeish, thank you. To go back, if I 10:26:14 16 may, just for a moment to my responses. 10:26:17 17 Q Yes. 10:26:20 18 A Request for admissions, and it's that response 10:26:23 19 number 1. 10:26:26 20 Q Yes. 10:26:26 21 A You know, with all due respect, I think I'm 10:26:27 22 more comfortable with my response as I 10:26:31 23 originally gave it, because the stamp on the 10:26:34 24 letter, the Higgs letter, and the note at the 10:26:43

62 1 top, that would indicate to me that this was 10:26:45 2 something that I did not see. Obviously I saw 10:26:48 3 this, as I indicate in the response 10:26:52 4 subsequently, but that I did not see it at the 10:26:55 5 time, and I would prefer to leave it as it is. 10:26:58 6 It's not an absolute does not believe, but I 10:27:02 7 think it conveys a tilt toward the fact that it 10:27:09 8 is my thought that it is likely that I did not 10:27:12 9 see it, and I think that's different than 10:27:17 10 saying I can't say whether I did or whether I 10:27:19 11 didn't. 10:27:23 12 Q Okay. 10:27:23 13 A You know, we could argue -- 10:27:24 14 Q Sure. No, I don't -- 10:27:26 15 A -- one way or the other. I perhaps could live 10:27:27 16 with the other, but I'm more comfortable with 10:27:30 17 this, so I would rather leave it as I 10:27:33 18 originally said it. 10:27:35 19 Q So the tilt on Wednesday was that you had seen 10:27:36 20 it; now the tilt is you didn't see it. Is that 10:27:39 21 correct? 10:27:41 22 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 10:27:41 23 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:27:43 24 A No, that is not correct. It's not -- when you 10:27:43

63 1 put before me the letter of Bishop McCormack. 10:27:46 2 Q Right. 10:27:48 3 A Which I had not seen before. 10:27:49 4 Q Right. 10:27:50 5 A And -- to Paul Shanley. 10:27:50 6 Q Right. 10:27:57 7 A Which is Exhibit 20. 10:27:57 8 Q Right. 10:27:59 9 A And it says recently I received a note from the 10:28:00 10 Cardinal. 10:28:04 11 Q Right. 10:28:05 12 A It's that that took me back. 10:28:05 13 Q Right. 10:28:08 14 A And it's based on that word "note" that I 10:28:08 15 altered my response, but as I have reflected 10:28:11 16 further on that, I believe that -- and the only 10:28:15 17 way to ascertain this is if you could question 10:28:17 18 Bishop McCormack further, and he may not have a 10:28:21 19 clearer memory than I, but it seems to me that 10:28:23 20 he could use certain literary license at that 10:28:27 21 point, and -- because he did receive the letter 10:28:31 22 with the stamp and with his name, and he could 10:28:38 23 reference that as a note. It's not a written 10:28:42 24 note, but it is a note out of my office from 10:28:48

64 1 those whose responsibility it is to assist me 10:28:51 2 with the mail, and they act on my behalf. So I 10:28:54 3 think it's appropriate that he may have 10:28:58 4 responded that way. 10:29:01 5 Q All right. So this reflection that you've had, 10:29:02 6 Cardinal Law, has this reflection included 10:29:05 7 communication with your attorneys about this 10:29:09 8 subject matter since Wednesday? 10:29:11 9 A I've let them know how I feel about this, and I 10:29:12 10 checked it out, because I don't want to be -- I 10:29:14 11 don't want to be, you know, doing something 10:29:17 12 that legally may not be the appropriate thing 10:29:20 13 to do, and I was told that I had the ability to 10:29:23 14 come and ask you if I could change that. 10:29:26 15 Q Sure. Absolutely. So your reflection has 10:29:29 16 included discussions with your attorneys about 10:29:32 17 this; is that correct? About this subject? 10:29:33 18 A Correct. I just discussed it with them at this 10:29:35 19 five-minute coffee break to let them know how I 10:29:39 20 felt about it, and what I would like to proceed 10:29:42 21 with, and they concurred that I should do that. 10:29:46 22 Q And your reflection also included 10:29:49 23 communications with your attorneys between the 10:29:52 24 time on this -- on this subject between the 10:29:54

65 1 time you left the deposition on Wednesday and 10:29:56 2 the time that you arrived here this morning; is 10:29:58 3 that correct? 10:30:00 4 MR. ROGERS: I object. 10:30:01 5 MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is 10:30:02 6 noted. 10:30:03 7 MR. ROGERS: Well, you're asking 10:30:04 8 about the subject matter of communications 10:30:05 9 between counsel -- 10:30:06 10 MR. MacLEISH: I'm asking about 10:30:07 11 the -- the witness has, I think very candidly, 10:30:09 12 changed his testimony, which I allowed at the 10:30:13 13 beginning was perfectly appropriate to do, to 10:30:17 14 modify it. I invited him to do that. 10:30:20 15 Q My question is whether or not between the time 10:30:22 16 that we stopped on Wednesday and this 10:30:25 17 morning -- not the five-minute break we just 10:30:29 18 took -- whether your reflection included 10:30:32 19 discussions on the subject matter of this 10:30:34 20 admission with your attorneys. 10:30:36 21 A Listen, yes, I discussed with my attorney -- 10:30:39 22 Q I don't want the substance. 10:30:43 23 MR. TODD: Without a waiver. 10:30:43 24 MR. ROGERS: That's what you're 10:30:45

66 1 asking. 10:30:46 2 MR. MacLEISH: Only subject matter. 10:30:47 3 A But you've asked me that, so I should say in 10:30:49 4 context, Mr. MacLeish, lest it be 10:30:51 5 misunderstood, because should it be 10:30:54 6 misunderstood that this item was yanked out of 10:30:58 7 context, I discussed in a general way how did 10:31:00 8 the deposition go, where do you think it's 10:31:03 9 going, those kinds of questions, and in the 10:31:08 10 context of that, that change also emerged, and 10:31:11 11 my unease about it. 10:31:16 12 Q Now, you testified about you had not discussed 10:31:17 13 this specific issue with Bishop McCormack; is 10:31:20 14 that correct? 10:31:25 15 A That is correct. 10:31:25 16 Q Has anyone relayed to you the substance of 10:31:26 17 Bishop McCormack's testimony on this subject? 10:31:31 18 A The substance of his testimony? 10:31:31 19 Q Yes. 10:31:32 20 A No. 10:31:32 21 Q I have another exhibit before you, Cardinal 10:31:36 22 Law, which is Exhibit No. 24 -- I think we have 10:31:37 23 that right here -- which is Bishop McCormack's 10:31:40 24 letter to Wilma Higgs of May 15, and it 10:31:45

67 1 states -- again, this is the woman that is -- 10:31:49 2 from Rochester who has written in about this 10:31:52 3 discussion of Paul Shanley at this meeting in 10:31:55 4 Rochester, and it states, "Dear Miss Higgs": 10:32:00 5 First paragraph, "Archbishop Law received your 10:32:03 6 letter of April 29, 1985. He is sorry to hear 10:32:06 7 you were disturbed about the talk given by 10:32:09 8 Father Paul Shanley last November regarding 10:32:11 9 homosexuals and asked that I respond on his 10:32:14 10 behalf." Have you seen this letter, Exhibit 10:32:17 11 No. 24, before today? 10:32:21 12 A Yes. Did you put this before me earlier? 10:32:25 13 Q I don't believe it's an exhibit, no. 10:32:28 14 A Yeah. Yeah. I've seen this in recent days, 10:32:30 15 yes. 10:32:35 16 Q Well, here in this letter, Bishop McCormack is 10:32:36 17 describing to Mrs. Higgs your feelings. Is 10:32:39 18 that not the case? 10:32:44 19 A That's -- that's what he's describing, yes. 10:32:46 20 Q He says that you were sorry to hear that she 10:32:48 21 was disturbed about the talk. Is that correct? 10:32:52 22 A That's what the letter says. 10:32:54 23 Q And in order -- well, certainly Bishop 10:32:57 24 McCormack would not be stating something that 10:32:59

68 1 was untrue to this woman who had sent in the 10:33:01 2 letter about Paul Shanley. That wasn't his 10:33:05 3 practice at the time, was it? 10:33:07 4 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 10:33:08 5 MR. TODD: Objection. 10:33:10 6 A If you're asking me if this letter -- well, 10:33:10 7 what is the question? 10:33:14 8 Q Was it Bishop McCormack's practice, when he was 10:33:16 9 writing letters to people who had made 10:33:20 10 complaints about priests in 1985, 1986, 1987, 10:33:21 11 was it his practice to make statements about 10:33:26 12 your feelings on subjects without speaking with 10:33:29 13 you? 10:33:31 14 A You'd have to ask him about that. 10:33:34 15 Q Okay. All right. Let's go back to the 10:33:37 16 institutional oral memory, and I'd like to give 10:33:42 17 you a letter. 10:33:44 18 While Mr. Thomas is retrieving it, let me 10:33:50 19 first ask you about your relationship with 10:33:53 20 Bishop Daily. He was present when you arrived 10:33:55 21 as Archbishop; is that correct? 10:33:59 22 A He was. 10:33:59 23 Q He was one of the auxiliary bishops; is that 10:34:00 24 correct? 10:34:04

69 1 A He was. 10:34:04 2 Q And he was someone you would speak with 10:34:04 3 regularly; is that correct? 10:34:06 4 A I spoke with him a good bit. 10:34:08 5 Q I'm sorry. I didn't -- 10:34:11 6 A I spoke with him a good bit, yes. 10:34:11 7 Q When you first came in, you really didn't have 10:34:13 8 that much familiarity with the priests of the 10:34:15 9 Archdiocese; is that correct? 10:34:18 10 A That's correct. 10:34:19 11 Q And you would rely upon people like Bishop 10:34:19 12 Daily to keep you updated on matters of 10:34:22 13 importance; is that correct? 10:34:23 14 A That's correct. 10:34:24 15 Q And that would include matters relating to 10:34:25 16 priests; is that correct? 10:34:26 17 A That's correct. 10:34:29 18 Q When did Bishop Daily leave? 10:34:29 19 A Bishop Daily left -- was it -- he left in '8 -- 10:34:33 20 I'm not certain. 10:34:42 21 Q He left in '84 or '85? 10:34:42 22 A Yeah, around there, yeah. 10:34:45 23 Q But you had had the opportunity -- 10:34:46 24 A Some months, but he left, I believe, less than 10:34:49 70 1 a year after I came. 10:34:53 2 Q Less than a year? 10:34:53 3 A I believe so. 10:34:54 4 Q But during that year he was one of your closest 10:34:55 5 advisors; is that correct? 10:34:57 6 A That's correct. 10:34:58 7 Q And you have maintained a friendship with 10:35:00 8 Bishop Daily in the years since? 10:35:01 9 A Well, we are friends. You know, we both stay 10:35:02 10 rather busy, so that you see yourselves at a 10:35:06 11 meeting maybe, but that's about it. 10:35:10 12 Q Would you consider him to be a friend? 10:35:12 13 A Oh, yes, I consider him a friend. 10:35:14 14 Q And when he went down to Palm Beach, I think 10:35:14 15 that was his next assignment, is that not 10:35:17 16 correct, after he left Boston? 10:35:19 17 A That's correct. 10:35:20 18 Q That was from a recommendation from you; is 10:35:20 19 that correct? 10:35:25 20 A Well, you know, the issue of inter -- the issue 10:35:25 21 with regard to candidates for bishops come with 10:35:31 22 the understanding that you don't reveal that 10:35:41 23 you have been asked about them. So I'm really 10:35:44 24 not -- 10:35:47

71 1 Q Fair enough. 10:35:47 2 A I'm not willing to speak about who I recommend 10:35:48 3 or don't recommend to the office of bishop. 10:35:55 4 Q Fair enough. I don't want to get into these 10:35:56 5 types of communications. It would be fair to 10:35:59 6 state you thought highly of Bishop Daily when 10:36:02 7 he left for Palm Beach; is that correct? 10:36:05 8 A That's correct. 10:36:07 9 Q There wasn't anything about Bishop Daily 10:36:07 10 that -- let me just withdraw that question. I 10:36:10 11 think you've already answered the question. 10:36:12 12 Now, let's mark this next document, 10:36:14 13 please. 10:36:16 14 (Law Exhibit No. 25, Letter, 11/17/77, 15 marked for identification.) 16 Q This is a letter, again retrieved during the 10:36:31 17 three-hour search by Father Higgins, as part of 10:36:35 18 the first production, directed to His Eminence 10:36:38 19 Cardinal Medeiros on November 17, 1977. You'll 10:36:45 20 note, Cardinal Law, in the first paragraph, this 10:36:50 21 is yet another document, "Cardinal's Residence, 10:36:53 22 Received," do you see that at the bottom and "Not 10:36:56 23 acknowledged"? Do you see that? 10:37:02 24 A Yes. 10:37:02

72 1 Q If you'd take a look at the first paragraph. 10:37:02 2 This is from a Jeanne Sweeney, who indicates 10:37:05 3 she's a registered nurse married to a physician 10:37:06 4 and the mother of three children, and that 10:37:08 5 she's active in the Catholic Diocese of 10:37:11 6 Rochester, New York. Do you see that? 10:37:14 7 MR. TODD: Just take a minute. 10:37:16 8 A Let me just take a look at the letter. 10:37:19 9 Q Certainly. 10:37:21 10 (Law Exhibit No. 26, Letter, 10/4/77, 11 marked for identification.) 12 A Mr. MacLeish. 10:38:05 13 Q Yes. 10:38:06 14 A May I ask you a question? 10:38:07 15 Q Could we do that at the end? 10:38:09 16 A At the end. All right. 10:38:11 17 Q I'd very much appreciate that. You can ask, 10:38:13 18 absolutely. 10:38:16 19 A (Witness reviewing document.) 20 Q You've read the letter? 10:38:27 21 A I have. 10:38:28 22 Q You'll see that Mrs. Sweeney in this letter 10:38:29 23 produced from your files indicates that there 10:38:32 24 was a talk given in Rochester, the same place 10:38:35

73 1 as Mrs. Higgs' talk, about -- do you see 10:38:41 2 Mrs. Higgs was also reporting about a talk 10:38:45 3 given by Paul Shanley in Rochester? 10:38:49 4 A Is it the same date? 10:38:50 5 Q No. A different year. Totally different year. 10:38:52 6 This is 1977. 10:38:54 7 A All right. 10:38:56 8 Q Okay? 10:38:56 9 A Mm-hmm. 10:38:56 10 Q I'm sorry. To be clear, this is many years 10:38:57 11 earlier, before you were in Boston? 10:39:00 12 A I realize that, yeah. 10:39:01 13 Q November 17, 1977. And she refers to a talk -- 10:39:03 14 a meeting on homosexuality held in Rochester 10:39:08 15 where Father Shanley was speaking, and that 10:39:12 16 there's a woman who has written a report of the 10:39:15 17 meeting and enclosed is the report she wrote 10:39:19 18 from her notes. Do you see that? 10:39:21 19 A I do. 10:39:22 20 Q Then she also provides copies of -- in the last 10:39:23 21 paragraph she indicates that she's providing 10:39:26 22 "copies of clippings, correspondence, which are 10:39:28 23 pertinent to Reverend Shanley's appearance here 10:39:30 24 and my efforts in trying to bring Mrs. Stevens' 10:39:33

74 1 report before the channels of this Archdiocese 10:39:37 2 open to me as a laywoman." Do you see that? 10:39:39 3 A I do. 10:39:41 4 Q Again, we have Exhibit 26, Cardinal Law, again 10:39:42 5 contained in the first set of production that 10:39:47 6 was found by Father Higgins, a letter of October 10:39:50 7 4, 1977, entitled Report of Reverend Shanley's 10:39:53 8 talk to Dignity - Integrity, 9/23/1977. Do you 10:39:59 9 see that? 10:40:04 10 A I do. 10:40:04 11 Q Have you seen this document before today? 10:40:05 12 A I have not. 10:40:06 13 Q Why don't you take a moment and read Exhibit 10:40:07 14 No. 26. 10:40:09 15 A (Witness reviewing document.) 16 Q Have you read the letter, Cardinal? 10:41:49 17 A I have. 10:41:50 18 Q I'd like to read a section of it from the first 10:41:51 19 page. This is about three-quarters of the way 10:41:55 20 down. This is again about the speech that 10:41:57 21 Mrs. Delores Stevens -- do you see her as the 10:41:59 22 signatory? Do you see Delores Stevens, the 10:42:02 23 signatory? This is the letter she sent to 10:42:05 24 Jeanne Sweeney, and it is referred to in 10:42:08

75 1 Exhibit 25, Jeanne Sweeney's letter to Cardinal 10:42:10 2 Medeiros. Do you see that? 10:42:13 3 A Yes. 10:42:14 4 Q And at this talk, it is reported by Mrs. Stevens 10:42:15 5 that Paul Shanley said as follows: "He spoke of 10:42:21 6 pedophilia (which is a noncoerced sexual 10:42:26 7 manipulation of sex organs including oral-genital 10:42:31 8 sex between an adult and child.) He stated that 10:42:34 9 the adult is not the seducer -- the kid is the 10:42:36 10 seducer and further the kid is not traumatized by 10:42:40 11 the act per se, the kid is traumatized when the 10:42:43 12 police and authorities drag the kid in for 10:42:46 13 questioning." 10:42:48 14 Next paragraph, "He stated that he can 10:42:50 15 think of no sexual act that causes psychic 10:42:52 16 damage" quote, "'not even incest or 10:42:56 17 bestiality,'" close quotes. Do you see those 10:42:59 18 statements? 10:43:03 19 A I do, and they're terrible. 10:43:03 20 Q They're terrible statements? 10:43:04 21 A Absolutely. 10:43:05 22 Q And if Paul Shanley had said these things, he 10:43:06 23 would have absolutely no business being 10:43:10 24 assigned to any parish ministry which involved 10:43:11

76 1 young children; you would agree with me about 10:43:14 2 that, would you not? 10:43:16 3 A That's correct. 10:43:16 4 Q And you'll note the date of the communication 10:43:22 5 from Mrs. Sweeney that refers to this report 10:43:35 6 from Delores Stevens, that's November 17, 1977; 10:43:39 7 is that correct? 10:43:43 8 A That's correct. 10:43:43 9 (Law Exhibit No. 27, Letter, 12/2/77, 10 marked for identification.) 11 A If I may say, you know, it is not only that 10:44:05 12 paragraph which is -- which is wrong and 10:44:14 13 deplorable and would render a person incapable 10:44:21 14 of exercising ministry, but I must say that the 10:44:26 15 very second paragraph would also -- where he 10:44:31 16 says homosexual acts -- homosexual acts are not 10:44:35 17 sinful, nor are they immoral, if he were 10:44:40 18 teaching that, that would be contrary to the 10:44:43 19 Church's teaching. 10:44:46 20 Q Right. But that would -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. 10:44:48 21 That wouldn't suggest that he was 10:44:50 22 dangerous to children. The portion that I read 10:44:52 23 to you before would suggest to you that this 10:44:55 24 man was a danger to children, would it not? 10:44:57

77 1 A That's correct. 10:45:00 2 Q And that -- 10:45:02 3 A Well, excuse me. 10:45:03 4 Q Go ahead. 10:45:05 5 A It would certainly be that he is teaching 10:45:06 6 something that is dangerous. Now, whether he 10:45:10 7 himself was doing this, it doesn't say that. 10:45:17 8 Q Well, it would raise concerns, would it not? 10:45:18 9 A But it would certainly raise question about his 10:45:20 10 judgment, and if he were giving this opinion 10:45:23 11 and reinforcing others who may be acting in 10:45:24 12 this way, that would be wrong. 10:45:27 13 Q Well, he's speaking out in a parish in 10:45:28 14 Rochester, New York, as I understand 10:45:33 15 Mrs. Sweeney's letter, St. Luke's Episcopal 10:45:36 16 Church? 10:45:40 17 A To a group called Dignity - Integrity. 10:45:40 18 Q That's correct. And certainly someone who 10:45:43 19 would make a remark that he can think of no 10:45:45 20 sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even 10:45:48 21 incest or bestiality, would you agree with me 10:45:52 22 that that's a deviant, perverted thought? 10:45:54 23 A Absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt. 10:45:57 24 Q And that people who make statements like that, 10:45:59

78 1 it would at least raise a concern whether they 10:46:02 2 themselves are engaging in those types of acts? 10:46:04 3 A It would -- the teaching in and of itself is 10:46:08 4 sufficient to indicate that someone may not be 10:46:13 5 given the responsibility of teaching and being 10:46:16 6 a pastoral leader. I'm not certain that you 10:46:20 7 can move from what is written here to the fact 10:46:22 8 that the person is engaging in the act. 10:46:26 9 Q But you might? 10:46:28 10 A But you might, yes. You'd certainly -- it 10:46:29 11 would be a flag. 10:46:32 12 Q And you've not seen this document before today? 10:46:34 13 A I have not. 10:46:35 14 Q And are you aware that in 1977, that was the 10:46:36 15 year that Greg Ford, Paul Busa and Anthony 10:46:39 16 Driscoll were born? 10:46:43 17 A I was not. 10:46:44 18 Q So then I'd like to show you the next exhibit, 10:46:45 19 Cardinal Law, which is Exhibit No. 27, which 10:46:49 20 is, again, retrieved from your files in the 10:46:52 21 first set of documents. And it states "Dear 10:46:56 22 Mrs. Sweeney: Your letter to His Eminence 10:46:59 23 Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this 10:47:03 24 office. It concerns, as you know, a 10:47:04

79 1 presentation made by Father Paul Shanley, a 10:47:06 2 priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, September 10:47:09 3 23, 1977, at St. Luke's Episcopal Church, 10:47:11 4 Rochester, New York. 10:47:16 5 "I am grateful to you for your letter and 10:47:17 6 for the information which is enclosed. The 10:47:19 7 position of the Archdiocese of Boston is that, 10:47:21 8 while Father Shanley enjoys the faculties of 10:47:23 9 the Archdiocese of Boston, he alone must be 10:47:27 10 held responsible for any statements regarding 10:47:29 11 homosexuality. 10:47:31 12 "With a sincere hope that the above is 10:47:33 13 helpful to you, I am In Christ Most Reverend 10:47:35 14 Thomas V. Daily, Auxiliary Bishop of Boston." 10:47:38 15 Do you see that? 10:47:41 16 A I do. 10:47:42 17 Q You would agree with me, would you not, 10:47:43 18 Cardinal Law, that the report of Mrs. Delores 10:47:45 19 Stevens concerns matters separate and apart 10:47:47 20 from homosexuality, specifically deviant and 10:47:51 21 perverted thoughts, statements about bestiality, 10:47:56 22 incest and pedophilia? 10:48:01 23 A That's correct. 10:48:04 24 Q And you'll notice on Exhibit No. 26, you'll 10:48:05

80 1 notice, I think, a similarity between what was 10:48:09 2 said by Mrs. Higgs in 1985 and what is said by 10:48:11 3 Mrs. Stevens in 1977 where she reports, 10:48:16 4 Mrs. Stevens, "He stated that the adult is not 10:48:18 5 the seducer -- the kid is the seducer and further 10:48:21 6 the kid is not traumatized by the act per se, the 10:48:26 7 kid is traumatized when the police and 10:48:28 8 authorities drag the kid in for questioning." 10:48:30 9 There's some similarity there, is there not? 10:48:33 10 A There is similarity there. 10:48:35 11 Q Are you aware of any action undertaken by 10:48:38 12 Bishop Daily in 1977 -- I understand you were 10:48:43 13 not there at the time -- to investigate this 10:48:45 14 allegation -- again, portions of which are 10:48:50 15 similar to the Higgs letter -- in 1977? Have you 10:48:53 16 ever heard anything that was done at that time? 10:48:56 17 A Well, clearly I cannot respond to what was done 10:48:58 18 in '77, and I have not heard of anything 10:49:02 19 subsequently. 10:49:06 20 Q Well, you believe, based upon the report that was 10:49:06 21 provided by Mrs. Sweeney, on behalf of 10:49:10 22 Mrs. Stevens, that some further action would be 10:49:16 23 required, given the severity of those 10:49:20 24 allegations; is that correct? 10:49:22

81 1 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 10:49:23 2 MR. TODD: Further than what? 10:49:26 3 Q Do you understand my question? 10:49:27 4 A I'm not sure, but if you could repeat it. 10:49:30 5 Q Well, the only thing we have in the file that 10:49:33 6 was produced after this three-hour search by 10:49:35 7 Father Higgins is this letter from Thomas 10:49:38 8 Daily. Would you agree with me that in 1977 if 10:49:40 9 it is being alleged that a priest is speaking 10:49:44 10 about sexual acts such as pedophilia, incest, 10:49:47 11 bestiality and alleging -- stating that it 10:49:52 12 doesn't cause psychic harm and that in cases of 10:49:56 13 pedophilia the child is the seducer, that that 10:49:59 14 is the type of allegation that would require 10:50:02 15 some further inquiry, separate and apart from 10:50:08 16 Bishop Daily's letter to Mrs. Sweeney? Would 10:50:09 17 you agree with me about that? 10:50:11 18 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 10:50:13 19 A I don't think that the letter necessarily 10:50:14 20 exhausts what the response was to this report, 10:50:17 21 and I would think that the appropriate person 10:50:23 22 to ask about that would be Bishop Daily. 10:50:26 23 Q We intend to at a deposition. 10:50:29 24 A But if your question to me is whether I know of 10:50:31

82 1 what further action or additional action may 10:50:36 2 have been taken as a consequence of this 10:50:40 3 report, I do not know. 10:50:42 4 Q Well, you were at the time in 1977, you were 10:50:46 5 the bishop in Springfield, Missouri; is that 10:50:49 6 correct? 10:50:49 7 A That's correct. 10:50:50 8 Q If you had received a report such as this one, 10:50:50 9 you would have taken some affirmative action to 10:50:53 10 investigate the allegations; is that correct? 10:50:55 11 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 10:50:57 12 A I would hope that I would have, but what I 10:50:58 13 don't want to imply by that is that I presume 10:51:02 14 that Bishop Daily did not take any action. I 10:51:08 15 just -- 10:51:11 16 Q We don't know the answer. You don't know the 10:51:11 17 answer to that either way? 10:51:14 18 A I do not. 10:51:15 19 Q I'm just asking about, if you had received a 10:51:16 20 report in Springfield, Missouri, when you were 10:51:18 21 bishop in 1977, that a priest was going around 10:51:21 22 stating that bestiality and incest and 10:51:23 23 pedophilia cause no damage -- 10:51:26 24 A Or that homosexual acts are not immoral. 10:51:28

83 1 Q I'm not talking about homosexuality. 10:51:33 2 A But that's also in the letter. 10:51:34 3 Q I think that's in a different category -- I 10:51:35 4 think we agreed on that -- a different level of 10:51:38 5 severity, his remarks about bestiality. That's 10:51:42 6 having sex with animals, having sex with 10:51:45 7 brothers and sisters. If you had received a 10:51:49 8 report like that as bishop in Springfield, 10:51:51 9 Missouri, in 1977, a red flag would have gone up 10:51:54 10 and some investigation would have been 10:51:57 11 undertaken, fair statement? 10:51:59 12 A Very fair statement. 10:52:00 13 (Law Exhibit No. 28, Letter, 4/2/79, 14 marked for identification.) 15 Q Before you read this, Cardinal Law, when you 10:52:29 16 arrived in Boston, was Father Helmick your 10:52:31 17 chief secretary? 10:52:35 18 A He was. 10:52:36 19 Q And was he someone that you confided in and 10:52:37 20 spoke with? 10:52:40 21 A Confided in and spoke with. A secretary has a 10:52:44 22 very specific task. 10:52:50 23 Q All right. 10:52:51 24 A He keeps very busy, but yes, I would -- he 10:52:52

84 1 lives in the house. We speak, yes. 10:52:55 2 Q On a daily basis? 10:52:57 3 A On a daily basis. Celebrate mass together, if 10:52:58 4 I don't have mass outside. 10:53:02 5 Q Would you speak to him from time to time about 10:53:03 6 priests? 10:53:04 7 A You know, my policy has been with my 10:53:05 8 secretaries not to do that. 10:53:11 9 Q Mm-hmm. 10:53:13 10 A My policy. I wouldn't say that on occasion it 10:53:14 11 wouldn't occur. But, for example, Bishop -- 10:53:17 12 two of my secretaries that I call to mind, 10:53:24 13 Monsignor McInerney and Father McCune, would 10:53:26 14 complain in good humor to me, because they 10:53:34 15 would hear out of the house about impending 10:53:38 16 changes that they had not heard of in the 10:53:42 17 house, even when they were promulgated, and I 10:53:45 18 kept saying to them that it's much better for 10:53:49 19 them really not to know. 10:53:51 20 Q Okay. 10:53:52 21 A And so -- 10:53:53 22 Q Fair enough. 10:53:55 23 A So to answer your question, my general policy 10:53:56 24 has been not to discuss personnel issues with 10:54:00

85 1 my priest secretaries. 10:54:03 2 Q But your priest secretary, Father Helmick, he 10:54:03 3 is one of the people who makes the decision on 10:54:07 4 whether a piece of correspondence about a 10:54:09 5 priest such as some of the ones we've been 10:54:11 6 through here, the Higgs letter, for example, 10:54:14 7 whether that goes to you or gets sent for 10:54:17 8 action to one of your subordinates; is that 10:54:23 9 correct? 10:54:25 10 A The ordinary policy, as it has evolved -- and 10:54:27 11 exactly the point at which it got solidified 10:54:33 12 this way I cannot say with certainty -- is that 10:54:37 13 if a letter comes to me personal and 10:54:41 14 confidential, then I open that letter. 10:54:46 15 Q Right. 10:54:48 16 A Other than that, the mail is opened, and it 10:54:48 17 is -- and the priest secretary usually working 10:54:53 18 with my administrative assistant, Mrs. Kaye 10:54:57 19 Woodward, sends the mail into the appropriate 10:55:02 20 direction for handling. 10:55:08 21 Q All right. Let's move on, and if you could 10:55:10 22 take a look at the next exhibit, which is 10:55:13 23 number 28. If you could just take a look at 10:55:18 24 the front page first, and then we'll get to the 10:55:20

86 1 enclosure. Do you see that? 10:55:28 2 A Yes, I do. 10:55:36 3 Q This is a letter from an attorney in New York, 10:55:36 4 and he's bringing to Cardinal Medeiros' 10:55:38 5 attention periodicals involving -- two 10:55:41 6 periodicals that involve Father Shanley, 10:55:44 7 including Gay Community News and Gaysweek. Do 10:55:47 8 you see that? 10:55:53 9 A I do. 10:55:53 10 Q And then there's an article that was also 10:55:53 11 produced, and you'll actually see in the top 10:55:54 12 right-hand corner, there's a stamp. We don't 10:55:59 13 have a perfect copy of this from the 10:56:02 14 Archdiocese, but it was received, I believe it 10:56:05 15 says, in the Office of Chancellor; is that 10:56:06 16 correct? 10:56:08 17 A I can't read it either, but I presume that's -- 10:56:10 18 I'm sure that's what it says. 10:56:12 19 Q The chancellor at that time would have been 10:56:13 20 Bishop Daily; is that correct? 10:56:16 21 A That's correct. 10:56:17 22 Q In 1979? 10:56:17 23 A I believe so. 10:56:19 24 Q You believe so. I understand. 10:56:19

87 1 A I'm not sure. 10:56:20 2 Q You were not there. 10:56:21 3 A Well, I'm not -- I'm not being overly cautious 10:56:22 4 here. I simply don't know whether he was 10:56:27 5 Chancellor in '79 or not. He certainly was 10:56:29 6 when I got here. 10:56:31 7 Q This is an article about men and boys, and it 10:56:38 8 states, you'll see at the top, "150 people 10:56:40 9 turned up for the day-long series of panels 10:56:42 10 discussing the issue of man-boy love; organizer 10:56:45 11 Tom Reeves expected several dozen." 10:56:50 12 I'd like to direct your attention to 10:56:52 13 certain portions of this, because many are not 10:56:53 14 relevant to our discussion here today. If I 10:56:58 15 could direct your attention, Cardinal Law, to 10:56:59 16 the third paragraph that begins with the 10:57:01 17 capital E. 10:57:05 18 A Yes. 10:57:05 19 Q Do you see that? 10:57:05 20 A Yes, I do. 10:57:06 21 Q And it says, "Even speakers representing 10:57:06 22 various religious beliefs joined their 10:57:10 23 endorsement of love between man and boy." Do 10:57:14 24 you see that? 10:57:16

88 1 MR. TODD: Boys. 10:57:17 2 MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry. 10:57:18 3 A No, I really don't. What paragraph is that? 10:57:20 4 Q This is the one that begins with E. 10:57:22 5 A Oh, E. 10:57:24 6 Q "Even speakers representing various religious 10:57:24 7 beliefs joined -- voiced their endorsement of 10:57:28 8 love between man and boy"; is that correct? 10:57:32 9 A Yes. Yes. 10:57:33 10 Q And that's certainly not part of the teaching 10:57:34 11 of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, it's 10:57:35 12 contrary; is that correct? 10:57:38 13 A Absolutely. 10:57:39 14 Q It's repugnant? 10:57:39 15 A Absolutely contrary, absolutely repugnant. 10:57:41 16 Q Then there's a quote from one priest from 10:57:44 17 Hartford, Connecticut, but then I'd like to go 10:57:49 18 on to the other page, which is circled, and it 10:57:52 19 states, "Father Paul Shanley, a representative 10:57:57 20 of Boston's Cardinal Medeiros for outreach to 10:58:01 21 sexual minorities, told the story of a boy who 10:58:05 22 was rejected by family and society, but helped 10:58:08 23 by a boy-lover. When the parents found out 10:58:12 24 about the relationship, however, the man was 10:58:13

89 1 arrested, convicted, and sent to prison." 10:58:15 2 Quotes, "'And there began the psychic demise of 10:58:18 3 that kid.' Shanley commented," quote, "'He had 10:58:21 4 loved that man ... it was only a brief and 10:58:25 5 passing thing as far as the sex was concerned, 10:58:28 6 but the love was deep and the gratitude to the 10:58:30 7 man was deep, and when he realized that the 10:58:32 8 indiscretion in the eyes of society and the law 10:58:34 9 had cost this man perhaps 20 years ... the boy 10:58:36 10 began to fall apart.' Shanley concluded," 10:58:40 11 quote, "'We have our convictions upside down if 10:58:45 12 we are truly concerned with boys ... the'" 10:58:49 13 quote, "'cure'" close quote, does far more 10:58:53 14 damage,'" end of quote. Do you see that? 10:58:58 15 A I do. 10:58:59 16 Q That's certainly repugnant to the teachings of 10:59:00 17 the Catholic Church and your own moral code? 10:59:02 18 A Absolutely, and I would say not only the 10:59:05 19 Catholic Church. 10:59:08 20 Q The Catholic Church? 10:59:08 21 A But I would say all Catholic churches. 10:59:10 22 Q Society at large? 10:59:14 23 A Right. 10:59:15 24 Q This document was produced, Cardinal Law, as 10:59:19

90 1 part of the three-hour search that Father 10:59:22 2 Higgins refers to in his deposition. Then at 10:59:24 3 the end it says -- the last paragraph on the 10:59:28 4 second page it says, "At the end of the 10:59:31 5 conference, 32 men and two teen-agers caucused 10:59:34 6 and formed the Man Boy Lovers of North America. 10:59:39 7 A newsletter and a March meeting in New York 10:59:43 8 City are planned." 10:59:44 9 New paragraph. "The group can be 10:59:47 10 contacted by writing them care of Fag Rag, Box 10:59:49 11 331, Kenmore Station, Boston, Mass., 02115." 10:59:54 12 Do you see that? 10:59:59 13 A I do. 10:59:59 14 Q Have you ever seen this document before today? 11:00:00 15 A I have not. 11:00:01 16 Q And is this the type of document, again coming 11:00:03 17 from Attorney McGeady, an attorney in New York 11:00:06 18 City, that would -- when you were -- if you'd 11:00:10 19 received such a letter as bishop in Springfield, 11:00:13 20 Missouri, in 1979 would have raised yet another 11:00:16 21 red flag? 11:00:20 22 A Absolutely. 11:00:20 23 Q Would it have caused you -- particularly if you 11:00:21 24 had received the 1977 letter that we've just 11:00:24

91 1 been through -- caused you to undertake some 11:00:26 2 sort of inquiry now concerning Reverend Paul 11:00:27 3 Shanley and his suitability to serve as a 11:00:31 4 priest in the Archdiocese -- in the Diocese of 11:00:34 5 Springfield? 11:00:38 6 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:00:38 7 A Yes. 11:00:38 8 Q It would. This is now a second independent 11:00:40 9 report from someone two years after the Stevens 11:00:42 10 report. Do you see that? 11:00:45 11 A I do. 11:00:45 12 Q Now, if you had received these two reports, 11:00:49 13 Cardinal Law, when you were at the diocese of 11:00:52 14 Springfield, Missouri, would these two reports 11:00:56 15 cause you, in 1979, to undertake a review of 11:00:59 16 the priest's file to see if there were 11:01:03 17 allegations -- further allegations that 11:01:06 18 predated your knowledge of these two reports? 11:01:10 19 MR. TODD: I'll object to the word 11:01:13 20 "reports." 11:01:14 21 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:01:15 22 Q Do you understand the question? 11:01:15 23 A I think I understand the question. 11:01:16 24 Q Go ahead. 11:01:19

92 1 A I'm not certain that you'd have to go back to 11:01:21 2 previous files. I think what you would do is 11:01:26 3 you would investigate what was before you and 11:01:28 4 find out what the substance of that allegation 11:01:31 5 is. But I'm not sure where you're taking me. 11:01:35 6 You know, the question is not what I did in 11:01:44 7 '77. The question is what is happening now. 11:01:46 8 Could you rephrase that question again? 11:01:52 9 Q Sure. Absolutely. I'm asking you whether it 11:01:54 10 was your practice as a bishop -- would have 11:01:57 11 been your practice in 1977, if you received 11:02:00 12 reports from two independent sources that Paul 11:02:02 13 Shanley was making these kinds of deviant, 11:02:04 14 perverted remarks, and assuming Paul Shanley 11:02:07 15 was with your diocese, would you have 11:02:12 16 undertaken some investigation? 11:02:15 17 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:02:18 18 A First of all, I never received such kind of 11:02:18 19 reports. 11:02:19 20 Q I understand. 11:02:19 21 A And I guess what you're asking me is would I 11:02:19 22 have considered such a report a matter of such 11:02:23 23 urgency that I would have -- that I would have 11:02:28 24 done some serious investigation in some way or 11:02:29

93 1 other to determine whether this accurately 11:02:34 2 reflected what he said, and that is certainly 11:02:36 3 true. 11:02:39 4 Q Okay. All right. 11:02:39 5 (Law Exhibit No. 29, Memorandum, 6 4/6/79, marked for identification.) 7 Q Showing you another file that was received as 11:03:10 8 part of the first production, Exhibit No. 29, 11:03:13 9 Cardinal Law, this is a memo of April 6, 1979 11:03:16 10 to Bishop Daily from Father Helmick. 11:03:22 11 "Attached to this memorandum is a letter 11:03:25 12 the Cardinal received from Paul J. McGeady, 11:03:27 13 Esquire, together with some enclosures from Gay 11:03:30 14 Community News and Gaysweek, as well a copy of 11:03:34 15 my response. 11:03:37 16 "You will want to review this material and 11:03:38 17 perhaps write a letter to Mr. McGeady for the 11:03:40 18 Cardinal's signature after you have spoken with 11:03:46 19 His Eminence." Do you see that? 11:03:47 20 A I do. 11:03:49 21 Q So have you ever seen this memorandum before 11:03:49 22 today? 11:03:53 23 A No, I have not. 11:03:53 24

94 1 (Law Exhibit No. 30, Letter, 4/6/79, 2 marked for identification.) 3 Q Now, you'll see, this again from the files of 11:04:27 4 the Archdiocese, you'll see a letter from your 11:04:30 5 personal secretary, not at the time, but when 11:04:36 6 you arrived in Boston, Reverend William 11:04:38 7 Helmick, you'll see a letter unsigned, 11:04:43 8 presumably a copy, to Mr. McGeady in which it 11:04:45 9 states, "In the absence of His Eminence 11:04:48 10 Cardinal Medeiros, I'm writing to acknowledge 11:04:51 11 receipt of your letter of April 2 and the 11:04:54 12 enclosures from Gay Community News and 11:04:57 13 Gaysweek. 11:04:58 14 "I will certainly bring your letter and 11:04:59 15 enclosures to the Cardinal's attention when he 11:05:03 16 returns to Boston from Rome. 11:05:05 17 "With best wishes, I am Sincerely in 11:05:07 18 Christ Reverend William Helmick, secretary to 11:05:08 19 the Cardinal." Do you see that? 11:05:12 20 A I do. 11:05:12 21 Q Do you know how long after that letter was sent 11:05:12 22 to Mr. McGeady, Paul Shanley was removed as the 11:05:15 23 minister of Alienated Youth and placed in the 11:05:18 24 family parish St. Jean's in Newton, 11:05:23

95 1 Massachusetts? 11:05:25 2 A I do not. 11:05:25 3 Q We will come back to that, I think. We'll come 11:05:39 4 back to that. 11:05:41 5 Now, given that Bishop Daily was a 11:05:43 6 recipient of both -- from the records that we 11:05:50 7 have in front of us -- of the 1977 allegations 11:05:54 8 from Mrs. Stevens and was given, according to 11:05:58 9 your own records -- the Archdiocese's records, I 11:06:03 10 should say -- given by Father Helmick a copy of 11:06:05 11 the, as you've said, perverted writings of Paul 11:06:12 12 Shanley, would you not agree with me that Bishop 11:06:16 13 Daily had an obligation to inform you, when you 11:06:20 14 arrived in Boston, that these types of writings 11:06:26 15 had been attributed to Paul Shanley? Would you 11:06:29 16 agree with that statement? 11:06:32 17 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 11:06:33 18 A There's a step missing here -- 11:06:37 19 Q Okay. 11:06:41 20 A -- Mr. MacLeish, and I don't know the answer to 11:06:43 21 that step. 11:06:46 22 Q Okay. 11:06:47 23 A And only Bishop Daily would know that, and I'm 11:06:48 24 not going to discuss it with him, because I 11:06:51

96 1 presume you will be discussing it with him at 11:06:54 2 some future time. 11:06:58 3 Q I will. 11:06:59 4 A But that is what he did in response to this. 11:06:59 5 What kind of investigation he did, and what was 11:07:06 6 the result of that, and I'd have to -- and so 11:07:08 7 in order to -- my presumption at this point is 11:07:11 8 that there was an investigation, and that he 11:07:18 9 was satisfied as a result of that that he 11:07:23 10 could, with confidence, place him in the 11:07:27 11 position into which he placed him. But absent 11:07:30 12 that bit of information about which I have not 11:07:36 13 spoken with Bishop Daily, I can't answer. I'm 11:07:38 14 not going to conclude that there was no 11:07:41 15 intermediate action. I'm not going to conclude 11:07:46 16 that there was no just basis upon which he made 11:07:47 17 his assignment. That would have to be checked 11:07:51 18 out, and I'm sure that that will be done. 11:07:55 19 Q Fair enough. 11:07:57 20 MR. ROGERS: Mr. MacLeish, it's five 11:07:58 21 past 11:00. May we take a brief recess? 11:08:00 22 MR. MacLEISH: Yes. 11:08:03 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:07. 11:08:04 24 This is the end of cassette one in today's 11:08:07

97 1 volume of the deposition of Cardinal Law. 11:08:10 2 We're off the record. 11:08:12 3 (Recess.) 4 (Law Exhibit No. 31, Letter, 4/12/79, 5 marked for identification.) 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:16. 11:16:45 7 This is Cassette No. 2 in today's volume in the 11:16:47 8 deposition of Cardinal Law. We're back on the 11:16:50 9 record. 11:16:53 10 Q Cardinal Law, assuming -- and, again, we don't 11:16:55 11 know this until we have the deposition of 11:16:58 12 Bishop Daily -- but I'd like you to assume that 11:17:03 13 nothing more was done to follow up on the two 11:17:04 14 letters we've seen so far concerning the 11:17:08 15 deviant views of Paul Shanley. 11:17:11 16 Do you believe if any investigation had 11:17:13 17 been undertaken, Bishop Daily should have 11:17:14 18 brought these matters to your attention before 11:17:17 19 you promoted Paul Shanley to pastor in 1985? 11:17:21 20 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:17:25 21 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:17:26 22 Q You can answer the question. 11:17:26 23 A I'm not sure that I can answer the question as 11:17:29 24 you've put it, because I think the answer -- a 11:17:34 98 1 yes or a no would imply something that I do not 11:17:39 2 think I can say. 11:17:42 3 I believe that this letter you have placed 11:17:46 4 before me, which is Exhibit 31 -- 11:17:48 5 Q Well, before we get to that -- 11:17:51 6 A -- in its first and second paragraphs, 11:17:54 7 indicates to me that some action was indeed 11:17:56 8 taken. I think that that second -- that second 11:17:59 9 paragraph would imply to me -- and, again, you 11:18:07 10 will be in the position to determine that -- 11:18:12 11 but that second letter -- that second paragraph 11:18:15 12 would imply to me that there's been an 11:18:17 13 interaction here with Shanley, and that it's 11:18:20 14 been an interaction around this issue, and it 11:18:24 15 is this issue which you rightly raise in that 11:18:27 16 previous document, has Father Shanley 11:18:31 17 responsible for saying things which are 11:18:37 18 terribly deviant from not only the teaching of 11:18:39 19 the Church, but from sound and moral teachings 11:18:42 20 generally accepted. 11:18:46 21 So I cannot assume on the basis of this 11:18:50 22 document that you have put before me that there 11:18:52 23 was not something done. I would say that 11:18:56 24 something was done. Was it adequate? Was it 11:18:58

99 1 not adequate? It depends on what it was. 11:19:01 2 Q Let's assume -- you're correct, Cardinal Law, 11:19:04 3 where it states that Paul Shanley is told that 11:19:07 4 he has to adhere to the pronouncement of the 11:19:11 5 Holy See regarding sexual ethics. I understand 11:19:13 6 that. 11:19:16 7 What I'm asking you is that, assuming 11:19:18 8 nothing was done to verify that Paul Shanley 11:19:19 9 was openly promoting or talking about 11:19:23 10 bestiality, incest, sex with children, saying 11:19:25 11 that when children have sex with adults, it's 11:19:28 12 not the fault of the children -- assuming that 11:19:31 13 there was no followup by Bishop Daily -- 11:19:35 14 A To that letter? 11:19:38 15 Q -- to those letters. 11:19:39 16 A And reports? 11:19:40 17 Q We have now got two of them. And reports. 11:19:41 18 Do you believe this was a matter that 11:19:44 19 Bishop Daily should have brought to your 11:19:47 20 attention before you promoted Paul Shanley to 11:19:47 21 pastor in 1985? 11:19:50 22 MR. TODD: Well -- 11:19:52 23 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:19:52 24 MR. TODD: I am going to object to 11:19:53

100 1 that. The Cardinal has already said he cannot 11:19:55 2 answer that question and I'm going to instruct 11:19:58 3 him not to answer it until we get before a 11:20:00 4 judge to make a ruling on it. 11:20:02 5 MR. MacLEISH: Well, what's -- it's 11:20:04 6 not a privilege issue. 11:20:05 7 MR. TODD: Under these 11:20:09 8 circumstances -- I didn't mean to interrupt 11:20:09 9 you. 11:20:11 10 Go ahead. 11:20:11 11 MR. MacLEISH: No. You can instruct 11:20:11 12 him not to answer, but it's -- fine. 11:20:12 13 Q You're accepting your counsel's instructions? 11:20:15 14 A I'm going to accept counsel's instructions. 11:20:16 15 Q Did Bishop Daily tell you anything about Paul 11:20:21 16 Shanley making remarks about incest, 11:20:22 17 bestiality, pedophilia or that when children 11:20:25 18 have sex with adults, it's the fault of the 11:20:29 19 child? 11:20:31 20 A No. 11:20:32 21 Q You're certain -- you're certain of that? 11:20:33 22 A I am quite certain of that. 11:20:34 23 Q Okay. Because if you had known that, you would 11:20:36 24 not have made Paul Shanley pastor of St. Jean's 11:20:38

101 1 Parish in Newton, Massachusetts; is that not 11:20:42 2 correct? 11:20:45 3 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 11:20:46 4 A Here again, to have been informed that he had 11:20:47 5 said these things and then to know how they'd 11:20:51 6 been checked out, what intervening action had 11:20:55 7 been taken, all of that's important. I don't 11:20:58 8 know that. And my presumption is that you will 11:21:00 9 find that out. 11:21:06 10 I'm not going to be talking to Bishop 11:21:06 11 Daily about it. As I read this letter from 11:21:09 12 Cardinal Medeiros, my assumption is that 11:21:13 13 something was done, and that Cardinal Medeiros 11:21:16 14 would not have made this kind of an appointment 11:21:19 15 if he wasn't confident that he could do so with 11:21:22 16 a clear conscience. And for that to have 11:21:26 17 occurred, something needed to transpire between 11:21:30 18 that report being received and this letter 11:21:33 19 being written. I don't know what that is. 11:21:36 20 Q All right. You don't know what it is, but you 11:21:39 21 do think that Exhibit 31 suggests that there 11:21:41 22 was at least some discussion with Paul Shanley 11:21:43 23 where he was told to adhere to the Church's 11:21:46 24 doctrines on sexual ethics, correct? 11:21:50

102 1 A As I read the letter, it would be more than 11:21:51 2 that. As I read the letter, it would be that 11:21:54 3 there has been some assurance given that this 11:21:57 4 is going to be the case. 11:22:04 5 Q All right. Okay. 11:22:06 6 MR. MacLEISH: Next exhibit. 7 (Law Exhibit No. 32, The Homosexual. 8 Network, marked for identification.) 9 Q Cardinal Law, this is Exhibit No. 32, which is 11:22:34 10 a document that we recently received from the 11:22:37 11 Archdiocese. 11:22:41 12 I'd like to direct your attention, if I 11:22:42 13 could, to page 296, which is -- you'll see in 11:22:43 14 the bottom left-hand corner. 11:22:51 15 A We're all set. 11:23:23 16 Q Okay. You'll see on page 296, it states -- and 11:23:24 17 the title of this is the "Homosexual Network." 11:23:27 18 Again, this was something that we got from you. 11:23:31 19 MR. TODD: From the Archdiocese. 11:23:34 20 MR. MacLEISH: That's correct. Thank 11:23:35 21 you, Mr. Todd. That's correct. 11:23:36 22 Q It states: 11:23:37 23 "Still, not only did the conference take 10:32:06 24 place in a church, but church 11:23:41

103 1 representatives" -- 11:23:43 2 A Excuse me. Where are you? 11:23:44 3 Q Top of the page on 296. 11:23:45 4 A Okay. 11:23:46 5 "Not only did the conference." 10:32:15 6 Q Yes. It says: 11:23:48 7 "Still, not only did the conference take 10:32:17 8 place in a church, but church representatives 11:23:51 9 also participated as speakers in the pederasts' 11:23:53 10 affair where, according to Gaysweek, members 11:23:58 11 'voiced their endorsement of love between man 12 and boy.' Among the speakers were Canon 10:32:37 13 Clinton Jones, pastor of Christ Church 11:24:09 14 Cathedral (Episcopal) in Hartford, Connecticut; 11:24:11 15 Father Paul Shanley, representative of Boston's 10:32:47 16 Cardinal Medeiros for sexual minorities (Roman 11:24:18 17 Catholic); and Reverend Robert Whentley, from 11:24:22 18 the National Office of the Universalist 11:24:24 19 Church." 11:24:28 20 Do you see that? 11:24:28 21 A And that's a quote from what I saw earlier, 11:24:29 22 isn't it? 11:24:32 23 Q Yes, it is. It's yet another document making 11:24:33 24 reference in the Archdiocese's files to Paul 11:24:36

104 1 Shanley. 11:24:38 2 MR. MacLEISH: Next exhibit, please. 11:24:41 3 (Law Exhibit No. 33, Handwritten 4 Document, marked for identification.) 5 MR. TODD: 33, right? 11:25:11 6 MR. MacLEISH: Yes. 11:25:13 7 Q This is two pages. This is Exhibit 33. If you 11:25:13 8 could just take a look at the first page for 11:25:16 9 the time being. This is a letter that we, 11:25:18 10 again, got as part of the second production from 11:25:21 11 the Archdiocese, from a Mr. Hugh Weston, of May 11:25:23 12 5, 1983, and he writes to Cardinal Medeiros, and 11:25:28 13 do you see he states: 11:25:32 14 "Is it a fact that Father Paul Shanley 11:25:33 15 represented you at the founding conference of 11:25:36 16 NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love 11:25:38 17 Association? Please advise as to all details. 11:25:43 18 Thank you. Pastor Hugh Weston." And then you 11:25:45 19 see it says, as asterisked down the bottom, 11:25:49 20 Cardinal, first page, it says: 11:25:52 21 "As reported in the book The Homosexual 10:34:09 22 Network." 11:25:56 23 Do you see that? 11:25:57 24 A Which is that? 11:25:57

105 1 Q Which is Exhibit 32. 11:25:58 2 A Right. 11:26:00 3 Q Do you see that? 11:26:00 4 A I do. 11:26:00 5 Q That's sent to Cardinal Medeiros, according to 11:26:01 6 the records we received from the Archdiocese, 11:26:04 7 and received at the Cardinal's residence, but 11:26:07 8 then not acknowledged on May 5, 1983. 11:26:09 9 Do you see that? 11:26:13 10 A I do. 11:26:13 11 Q All right. 11:26:14 12 And before we get to the second page, let's 11:26:15 13 do that Exhibit No. 34. 11:26:17 14 15 A May I read the second page? 11:26:21 16 Q I didn't -- you certainly may. We're trying 11:26:23 17 to -- we didn't put them in proper sequence. 11:26:26 18 MR. TODD: Are you going to mark this 11:26:29 19 separately, the second page? 11:26:30 20 MR. MacLEISH: Why don't we mark it 11:26:32 21 separately. I think that's a good idea. Let's 11:26:33 22 tear off the second page and mark the second 11:26:37 23 one separately. 11:26:38 24 THE WITNESS: If I may say so, I 11:26:38

106 1 think the second one is rather important, 11:26:42 2 because it clearly -- 11:26:42 3 MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Let's tear off 11:26:43 4 the second page. Let me take that back. And 11:26:46 5 show you -- we'll make this other one 34. 11:26:49 6 MR. ROGERS: Which is 34? 11:26:54 7 (Law Exhibit No. 34, Letter, 6/1/83, 8 marked for identification.) 9 A Father Weston and Monsignor Daily. 11:27:08 10 Q This was in the second production, Cardinal 11:27:18 11 Law, that we received from the Archdiocese. 11:27:22 12 It's a copy of a letter from, No. 34, from 11:27:23 13 Thomas V. Daily, auxiliary bishop of Boston, 11:27:29 14 chancellor, and although it's not a good copy, 11:27:34 15 it appears to read: 11:27:36 16 "Dear Pastor Weston: I write to 11:27:38 17 acknowledge your communication to His Eminence 11:27:39 18 Cardinal Medeiros and your question concerning 11:27:42 19 Father Paul Shanley, a priest of this 11:27:46 20 Archdiocese, regarding the founding conference 11:27:47 21 of NAMBLA." 11:27:49 22 You understand the acronym NAMBLA? 11:27:51 23 MR. TODD: You're looking at the 11:27:53 24 wrong -- 11:27:54

107 1 THE WITNESS: No, I think I'm looking 11:27:54 2 at the right one. 11:27:56 3 MR. MacLEISH: He's looking at the 11:27:57 4 right one. 11:27:58 5 MR. TODD: We marked this one 34, did 11:27:59 6 we not? 11:28:00 7 MR. MacLEISH: No, no. It's going to 11:28:01 8 be 35. 11:28:03 9 MR. TODD: I did. 11:28:03 10 MR. MacLEISH: Right. 11:28:05 11 Q "I can assure you Father Shanley did not 11:28:05 12 represent His Eminence Cardinal Medeiros at 11:28:08 13 NAMBLA." 11:28:11 14 You know what NAMBLA is? 11:28:11 15 A I do now. 11:28:13 16 Q Did you before today? 11:28:14 17 A I did before today. 11:28:15 18 Q "With best personal regards, I am sincerely in 11:28:15 19 Christ, Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily, 11:28:19 20 Auxiliary Bishop of Boston, Chancellor." 11:28:22 21 So this is the first response given to 11:28:25 22 Father Weston's -- Pastor Weston's letter, 11:28:28 23 Exhibit 33, where he asks Cardinal Medeiros 11:28:32 24 whether Paul Shanley represented the 11:28:34

108 1 Archdiocese at the founding conference of 11:28:40 2 NAMBLA. 11:28:40 3 Then it says -- you also note that Father 11:28:40 4 Weston had asked: 11:28:42 5 "Please advise as to all details" -- and 10:37:05 6 underlined that in Exhibit 33. 11:28:46 7 Is that correct? 11:28:47 8 A Yes. 11:28:49 9 Q Okay. 11:28:50 10 MR. MacLEISH: And then the next 11:28:51 11 exhibit, which is No. 35. 11:28:55 12 (Law Exhibit No. 35, Handwritten 13 Document, marked for identification.) 14 MR. TODD: That's the Weston to Daily 11:29:15 15 one? 11:29:17 16 MR. MacLEISH: That's Weston to 11:29:19 17 Daily. 11:29:20 18 Q Showing you Exhibit No. 35, you'll see -- again, 11:29:24 19 this is from the second production from the 11:29:28 20 Archdiocese: 11:29:31 21 "Dear Most Reverend Thomas V. Daily. Was 22 Father Shanley at" -- and the word "at" is 11:29:36 23 underlined -- "at the NAMBLA founding 11:29:39 24 conference (you say he did not represent 11:29:41

109 1 Cardinal Medeiros). But was he present? Was he 11:29:44 2 later reprimanded? If so, thank you. Reverend 11:29:48 3 Hugh Weston." 11:29:53 4 Do you see that? 11:29:54 5 A I do. 11:29:54 6 Q So this is Reverend Weston writing again back 11:29:55 7 to Thomas Daily about the issue of whether a 11:30:01 8 priest of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of 11:30:03 9 Boston attended the NAMBLA conference. 11:30:06 10 Do you see that? 11:30:09 11 A Yes. 11:30:09 12 Q Was Father Weston's letter -- 11:30:10 13 A Or Reverend Weston. He probably would not want 11:30:14 14 to be called Father. 11:30:19 15 Q I'm sorry. You're correct. Thank you for 11:30:19 16 correcting me. 11:30:22 17 Was Reverend Weston's letter to Bishop 11:30:23 18 Daily and his first response brought to your 11:30:26 19 attention in any way by Thomas Daily a year 11:30:27 20 later -- actually, less than a year later when 11:30:30 21 you arrived in Boston as Archbishop? 11:30:33 22 A It was not. 11:30:36 23 MR. MacLEISH: All right. Next 11:30:37 24 exhibit, please 11:30:38

110 1 (Law Exhibit No. 36, Handwritten Note, 2 marked for identification.) 3 Q Then we see here -- do you know a Father Rueda 11:31:12 4 at all? Have you ever heard of him before? 11:31:17 5 A No. 11:31:19 6 Q Well, this is, again, something that was 11:31:20 7 contained in the second production from the 11:31:21 8 Archdiocese, and it states: 11:31:24 9 "Dear Father Rueda" -- who I believe was 10 the -- one of the authors of The Homosexual 11:31:29 11 Network, if I'm not mistaken. 11:31:32 12 A I saw his name, yes. 11:31:34 13 Q "Dear Father Rueda: The Archdiocese of Boston 11:31:36 14 has written me saying that Father Shanley did 11:31:38 15 not represent Cardinal Medeiros at NAMBLA." 11:31:40 16 And then it says: 11:31:44 17 "Someone is in error or lying. Reverend 18 Hugh Weston." 11:31:47 19 Do you see that? 11:31:47 20 A I do. 11:31:47 21 Q And this, again -- have you ever seen this 11:31:48 22 document before today? 11:31:50 23 A I have not. 11:31:51 24 MR. MacLEISH: Next document. 11:31:52

111 1 (Law Exhibit No. 37, Handwritten 2 Document, marked for identification.) 3 Q Showing you Exhibit No. 37, this was received 11:32:11 4 July 6 -- I'm sorry -- received at the 11:32:14 5 Cardinal's residence, not acknowledged, July 5, 11:32:18 6 1983. And this letter, if you want to take a 11:32:22 7 look at it, is yet another report concerning 11:32:24 8 Father Shanley and NAMBLA. It's difficult to 11:32:28 9 read. I can help you. It's a poor 11:32:34 10 reproduction. But this was from your files, 11:32:36 11 Cardinal Law. 11:32:38 12 A Excuse me. Who did you say this was from? 11:33:02 13 Q It's from a Joseph Moynihan. Do you see that? 11:33:05 14 A Oh, I see. This is referencing the same -- 11:33:07 15 Q That's correct. 11:33:25 16 A -- book and the quote. 11:33:26 17 Q Right. It's yet another letter to the 11:33:27 18 Archdiocese, in this case, to Bishop Daily. 11:33:31 19 This would have been after he's received the 11:33:35 20 1977 letter. You remember that one from 11:33:37 21 Mrs. Stevens, the 1979 correspondence with 11:33:40 22 Attorney McGeady, the correspondence from 11:33:44 23 Reverend Weston. 11:33:48 24 This is now, I believe, the fourth letter 11:33:49

112 1 that has come in on the subject. Would you 11:33:51 2 agree with me about that? 11:33:53 3 A Yes. I think that's right. 11:33:55 4 Q And you'll see that Mr. Moynihan, who lives in 11:33:57 5 Brockton, Massachusetts, who is a communicant 11:34:01 6 at St. Patrick's in Brockton, as he reports, is 11:34:06 7 making -- raising yet another question about 11:34:08 8 Father Paul Shanley based upon The Homosexual 11:34:11 9 Network book. 11:34:14 10 Do you see that? 11:34:15 11 A I do. 11:34:15 12 MR. MacLEISH: And we then have as 11:34:17 13 our next exhibit, please. 11:34:19 14 (Law Exhibit No. 38, Letter, 7/13/83, 15 marked for identification.) 16 Q Showing you Exhibit No. 38. 11:34:35 17 A This is about two months before the Cardinal's 11:35:31 18 death. 11:35:34 19 Q That's correct. It's from his Chancellor, 11:35:34 20 Father -- Bishop Daily, also someone that 11:35:40 21 you've indicated previously you relied upon 11:35:42 22 when you arrived in Boston; is that correct? 11:35:44 23 MR. TODD: Actually, it's not from 11:35:47 24 Father Daily. 11:35:49

113 1 Q It's from -- 11:35:49 2 A It is. Father Little signed it for Bishop 11:35:51 3 Daily. 11:35:55 4 MR. TODD: For? 11:35:55 5 MR. MacLEISH: That's correct. 11:35:56 6 Q And the practice at the Archdiocese is that 11:35:57 7 there are occasions when other people can sign 11:35:59 8 letters, but if the letter has the name of the 11:36:02 9 person on it, it indicates that it is his 11:36:05 10 letter; is that correct? 11:36:07 11 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:36:08 12 A That's correct. 11:36:08 13 Q So this would be a letter from Thomas Daily, as 11:36:09 14 you understood the practice; is that correct? 11:36:11 15 A That's correct. 11:36:13 16 Q And you'll see in this letter it is stated in 11:36:14 17 response to Mr. Moynihan's letter, it is 11:36:16 18 stated -- he provides him with a copy of his 11:36:20 19 pastoral letter on pastoral ministry to the 11:36:30 20 homosexual. 11:36:32 21 Do you see that? 11:36:33 22 A I do. 11:36:33 23 Q Then it says that copy is enclosed. Then it 11:36:33 24 goes on to state, it states His Eminence's 11:36:35

114 1 position and that of the Church in regard to 11:36:39 2 ministry to homosexuals. 11:36:42 3 Do you see that? 11:36:45 4 A I do. 11:36:45 5 Q Mr. Moynihan wasn't just writing about his 11:36:45 6 ministry to homosexuals; he was writing about 11:36:48 7 the same thing that Reverend Weston had written 11:36:51 8 about: Father Shanley's attendance at a NAMBLA 11:36:52 9 conference. 11:36:55 10 Do you see that? 11:36:56 11 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:36:56 12 Q Same subject matter. 11:36:57 13 A Yes. 11:36:59 14 Q Then it goes on to state: 11:36:59 15 "For information concerning Father Paul 10:45:34 16 Shanley or his presence at the conference, His 11:37:03 17 Eminence suggests that you write directly to 11:37:05 18 him at St. John's Church, 253 Watertown Street, 11:37:08 19 Newton, 02158. His Eminence also indicates 11:37:12 20 that in no way is Father Shanley authorized to 11:37:16 21 help him at any conference sponsored by NAMBLA 10:45:53 22 and personally doubts any claim that Father 11:37:21 23 Shanley represented him in this regard." 11:37:23 24 Do you see that? 11:37:25

115 1 A I do. 11:37:25 2 Q Would that letter not suggest to you, Cardinal 11:37:26 3 Law, that as of July 13, 1983, the Reverend 11:37:29 4 Bishop Daily did not, in fact, know whether or 11:37:35 5 not Paul Shanley, then, I believe, a curate or 11:37:37 6 administrator at St. Jean's, had attended the 11:37:43 7 NAMBLA conference; that no investigation had 11:37:46 8 been done into that? 11:37:47 9 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:37:48 10 A No, that would not -- this letter would not 11:37:48 11 indicate that. 11:37:51 12 Q Fine. 11:37:51 13 A This letter would indicate to me what it 11:37:52 14 states. 11:37:54 15 Q Okay. But the letter does not deny that Paul 11:37:55 16 Shanley attended the founding conference of 11:37:59 17 NAMBLA, correct? 11:38:02 18 A It does not deny that. 11:38:03 19 Q Did Bishop Daily ever bring to your attention 11:38:05 20 the fact that correspondence had been received 11:38:09 21 suggesting that Paul Shanley had attended the 11:38:13 22 founding conference of NAMBLA? 11:38:17 23 A I have no recollection of that having been 11:38:19 24 communicated to me. 11:38:22

116 1 Q If you had known that Father Paul Shanley had 11:38:25 2 attended the founding conference of the North 11:38:27 3 American Man/Boy Love Association, would you 11:38:31 4 have appointed him as pastor with unsupervised 11:38:34 5 access to children, as you have admitted in 11:38:37 6 your admissions, in 1984? 11:38:40 7 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 11:38:44 8 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. 11:38:45 9 A I would have inquired what had been done in the 11:38:46 10 investigation of that claim, and what the 11:38:51 11 result of that was, and if there was a 11:38:55 12 reasonable explanation to his presence at that 11:39:05 13 meeting. And I cannot conceive of what it 11:39:08 14 might be, but if there was a reasonable 11:39:10 15 explanation, a misunderstanding of what it 11:39:13 16 means to be in outreach to people who are 11:39:17 17 homosexual or whatever the phrase was that was 11:39:24 18 used, sexual minorities, and he was brought to 11:39:29 19 see that that was incorrect, that would be one 11:39:39 20 thing. 11:39:41 21 But if, on the other hand, the 11:39:42 22 investigation showed that not only was he 11:39:44 23 present but that he was sympathetic with the 11:39:46 24 aims and spoke in favor of those aims, he would 11:39:49

117 1 not be qualified to hold any position in the 11:39:52 2 church. 11:39:56 3 Q At minimum, based upon the materials you've 11:39:57 4 seen here today, you would agree with me that 11:40:00 5 some investigation would have been in order; is 11:40:01 6 that correct? 11:40:03 7 A Absolutely. 11:40:05 8 Q But none of these facts were brought to your 11:40:05 9 attention by Bishop Daily; is that correct? 11:40:06 10 A None of which facts? 11:40:10 11 Q None of the allegations about Paul Shanley not 11:40:12 12 only attending the NAMBLA conference, but 11:40:15 13 speaking in support of man/boy love, speaking 11:40:18 14 at the 1977 conference in Rochester about 11:40:24 15 bestiality, incest, pedophilia, none of those 11:40:29 16 allegations were brought to your attention by 11:40:35 17 Bishop Daily before you appointed him pastor; 11:40:37 18 is that correct? 11:40:40 19 A That's correct. Nor was there brought to my 11:40:40 20 attention whatever intervening action was 11:40:43 21 taken, which I would presume undergirded the 11:40:45 22 appointment that he received from Cardinal 11:40:51 23 Medeiros. 11:40:53 24 Q You're making that as an assumption; is that 11:40:54

118 1 correct? 11:40:56 2 A That's correct. 11:40:57 3 Q You don't know what happened? 11:40:57 4 A I do not know. 11:40:59 5 Q And there were complaints? 11:41:00 6 A As you do not know. 11:41:01 7 Q Thank you. 11:41:02 8 I'm only looking at what was in your file 11:41:03 9 at the time you appointed him to be pastor. 11:41:06 10 There's a great deal of other information, 11:41:09 11 you're correct, we do need to explore. 11:41:11 12 But what was in your file at the time you 11:41:14 13 appointed -- I want to be clear -- the 11:41:18 14 Archdiocese's file, not your file. 11:41:21 15 What was in the Archdiocese's file at the 11:41:23 16 time you appointed Paul Shanley pastor in 1984? 11:41:24 17 Why don't we mark that letter too, your 11:41:28 18 appointment. 11:41:31 19 (Law Exhibit No. 39, Letter, 12/11/84, 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q This is Exhibit 39, Cardinal Law. Do you 11:41:53 22 recognize that as your appointment? 11:41:56 23 A I do. 11:41:57 24 Q You state in your appointment letter: 11:41:58

119 1 "It is a pleasure for me to give you this 10:49:56 2 appointment as Pastor in the Archdiocese." 11:42:03 3 Do you see that in the second to last 11:42:05 4 paragraph? 11:42:07 5 A It is. I do see that. 11:42:08 6 Q Would you agree with me, based upon the 11:42:09 7 materials that we've reviewed, that you 11:42:11 8 appointed him pastor despite the fact that the 11:42:13 9 records of the Archdiocese contained the last 11:42:17 10 letter of 1966 accusing Shanley of masturbating 11:42:23 11 a boy and bringing other boys to his cabin in 11:42:26 12 the woods; Father Shanley -- the Stevens letter 11:42:29 13 from 1977 reporting that Shanley believed that 11:42:33 14 sex between men and boys was appropriate, and 11:42:35 15 that bestiality and incest and other sexual 11:42:37 16 acts cause no psychic can harm; the four -- I'm 11:42:49 17 sorry -- the McGeady letter and the man/boy 11:42:50 18 love article from 1979, which contended that 11:42:50 19 Paul Shanley attended the NAMBLA conference and 11:42:53 20 spoke in favor of man/boy love relationships; 11:42:57 21 the two Weston letters that we've reviewed in 11:43:00 22 1983 regarding Paul Shanley's attendance at the 11:43:04 23 organizational meetings of NAMBLA as reflected 11:43:07 24 in the book, the Homosexual Network; the 11:43:11

120 1 Moynihan letter in 1983; you appointed him 11:43:14 2 pastor, as we now see, with all of those 11:43:18 3 records in the files of the Archdiocese of 11:43:22 4 Boston. Is that correct? 11:43:24 5 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:43:25 6 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:43:25 7 A I appointed him as pastor upon the 11:43:29 8 recommendation of the personnel board, and 11:43:32 9 having moved him from being administrator, 11:43:34 10 which was the appointment made by the -- or 11:43:38 11 diocesan administrator between the two bishops, 11:43:43 12 and my being appointed in March of '85. 11:43:47 13 His appointment was not made in view of 11:43:53 14 those reports that you have brought before me 11:43:56 15 today, as I've cited in response to each one in 11:44:00 16 particular as it has been brought before me, 11:44:05 17 and in general, as I've indicated, that I did 11:44:07 18 not go back to the previous file in making 11:44:10 19 these appointments. I was not aware of those 11:44:13 20 materials and they were -- and had I been aware 11:44:17 21 of them, I would have certainly wanted to have 11:44:22 22 had some knowledge of how those reports had 11:44:24 23 been dealt with, and what it was that resulted 11:44:29 24 in the ability of his being appointed, first, 11:44:32

121 1 as an assistant and then as an administrator. 11:44:35 2 I did not do that. That's correct. 11:44:38 3 Q My question, Cardinal Law, was he was appointed 11:44:42 4 pastor even though all these records were 11:44:46 5 contained in files of the Archdiocese at the 11:44:47 6 time? When I say "these records," I mean the 11:44:49 7 1977 allegation about incest, bestiality, and 11:44:51 8 sex between adults and children, the 1979 11:44:57 9 letter from Attorney McGeady about his views 11:45:01 10 expressed at the session of the North American 11:45:04 11 Man/Boy Love Association, the 1983 letters from 11:45:08 12 Reverend Weston, and the 1983 letter from 11:45:14 13 Mr. Moynihan. All those records were in 11:45:18 14 existence within the files of the Archdiocese 11:45:21 15 at the time you appointed Paul Shanley pastor 11:45:23 16 in December of 1984, correct? 11:45:26 17 MR. TODD: Objection. Asked and 11:45:30 18 answered. And argumentative. 11:45:30 19 You may answer. 11:45:32 20 Q Go ahead. 11:45:33 21 A I think I've answered that question before, and 11:45:33 22 I -- and I remember the enumeration from the 11:45:37 23 way you gave it just in the previous question, 11:45:42 24 and my point that I want to be sure is also 11:45:43

122 1 recorded is that I want it to be very clear 11:45:47 2 that those records were not before me -- 11:45:58 3 Q I understand that. 11:46:01 4 A -- when I made that appointment. 11:46:01 5 Q I understand that. 11:46:03 6 A That's what I want to establish very clearly. 11:46:04 7 Q I understand that. 11:46:06 8 But those records were in the files of the 11:46:07 9 Archdiocese of Boston at the time you made the 11:46:11 10 appointment; is that correct? 11:46:12 11 A I presume they were. 11:46:14 12 Q And that many of the contents of these 11:46:15 13 records -- in fact, I believe all of them were 11:46:19 14 known to Bishop Daily? 11:46:22 15 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:46:24 16 A My presumption is that the material that we 11:46:25 17 have been just looking at was known by him, 11:46:30 18 because he seems to have responded to them, 11:46:33 19 yes. 11:46:36 20 Q He responded to the 1977 -- 11:46:36 21 A All of them, yes. 11:46:38 22 Q -- the 1977 incest, bestiality letter, the 1979 11:46:40 23 NAMBLA article from Attorney McGeady, the 1983 11:46:45 24 letter from Reverend Weston, and the 1983 11:46:50

123 1 letter from Mr. Moynihan. He responded to all 11:46:54 2 of them, correct? 11:46:57 3 A Correct. 11:46:58 4 Q And he never once discussed the subject with 11:46:59 5 you, correct? 11:47:01 6 A That's correct. 11:47:02 7 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:47:03 8 Q Looking back on it now, Cardinal Law, as you 11:47:03 9 sit here today, as you sit here today, do you 11:47:06 10 believe that you at least, regardless of what 11:47:09 11 other events had occurred, should have had the 11:47:13 12 benefit of all of this information in a report 11:47:17 13 from Bishop Daily, your personnel board or 11:47:20 14 anybody else that you were relying on? 11:47:22 15 A Earlier today you put before me Exhibit 13. 11:47:24 16 Q Right. 11:47:28 17 A And Exhibit 13, I think, addresses that issue. 11:47:29 18 Q Okay. 11:47:32 19 A And I would agree that the recordkeeping and 11:47:36 20 the institutional memory has to be improved. 11:47:38 21 That was insufficient. 11:47:43 22 Q Now, Cardinal Law, I'd like to focus on the 11:47:45 23 period from 1984 to 1990 when Greg Ford, Paul 11:47:47 24 Busa and Anthony Driscoll allege that they were 11:47:53

124 1 being sexually molested, and in certain cases, 11:47:57 2 raped by Paul Shanley at St. Jean's. 11:47:59 3 Can we agree to focus on that time period? 11:48:03 4 A Wherever you want to go. 11:48:05 5 Q During that time period, there were a number of 11:48:07 6 reports -- and I think we went over several of 11:48:09 7 them yesterday -- involving individuals such as 11:48:11 8 Eugene Sullivan and Daniel Graham, individuals 11:48:13 9 who had either been convicted or admitted to 11:48:17 10 acts of sexual misconduct involving minors. 11:48:22 11 Do you recall your testimony on that on 11:48:25 12 Wednesday? 11:48:26 13 A Whatever I said, I said. I don't recall -- I 11:48:29 14 don't have everything in my mind right now that 11:48:32 15 we were talking about on Wednesday. 11:48:35 16 Q Well, you knew in 1984, shortly after you 11:48:39 17 arrived, that there had been a conviction of a 11:48:44 18 Roman Catholic priest for rape of a child, 11:48:44 19 Eugene O'Sullivan? 11:48:47 20 A Yes. 11:48:47 21 Q I'm sorry. Pled guilty to rape. 11:48:47 22 MR. TODD: Let me interject. You 11:48:49 23 keep on saying "rape." Actually, that was not 11:48:50 24 the crime. 11:48:52

125 1 MR. MacLEISH: Okay. All right. 11:48:52 2 Q Well, some conviction involving -- can we agree 11:48:54 3 some conviction involving sexual misconduct 11:48:57 4 with a minor? 11:49:01 5 A Yes. 11:49:01 6 Q And then we went over Father Graham, who 11:49:01 7 admitted -- I think we had documents that 11:49:04 8 admitted in 1988 that he had been involved in 11:49:06 9 an act of molestation. 11:49:09 10 Do you recall that? 11:49:11 11 A Yes. In the late '60s or '70s. 11:49:11 12 Q That's correct. When he was a seminarian. But 11:49:16 13 he admitted to molesting a child. 11:49:18 14 A Yes. 11:49:19 15 Q But these weren't the only two in this period 11:49:20 16 from '84 to 1990 that were coming across your 11:49:23 17 desk. When I say "coming across your desk," 11:49:25 18 individuals who had been accused of molesting 11:49:27 19 children. Those were not the only ones, were 11:49:31 20 they, Cardinal Law? 11:49:32 21 A They were not. 11:49:33 22 Q They also included Father Joseph Birmingham; is 11:49:34 23 that correct? 11:49:37 24 A That's correct. 11:49:38 126 1 Q They also included John Geoghan; is that 11:49:38 2 correct? 11:49:40 3 A That's correct. 11:49:41 4 Q And you knew in 1984 that John Geoghan had 11:49:41 5 admitted to being engaged in acts of sexual 11:49:47 6 misconduct with children; is that correct? 11:49:52 7 A That's correct. 11:49:53 8 Q And he was sent for an assessment; is that 11:49:54 9 correct? 11:49:56 10 A That's correct. 11:49:57 11 Q And you knew in 1989 that John Geoghan again 11:49:58 12 was accused of molestation of children and he 11:50:03 13 was sent for another assessment; is that not 11:50:06 14 correct? 11:50:10 15 A Assessment and a treatment, yes. 11:50:10 16 Q And then he returned to St. Julia's Parish; is 11:50:11 17 that correct? 11:50:15 18 A He did. 11:50:15 19 Q And then he went on to molest other children at 11:50:15 20 St. Julia's Parish? 11:50:18 21 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 11:50:20 22 MR. TODD: Objection. 11:50:20 23 Q There's allegations to that effect; is that 11:50:21 24 correct? 11:50:23

127 1 A I'm not certain about -- there are a lot of 11:50:25 2 allegations that have come forward and I'm not 11:50:28 3 certain at what point I knew of those 11:50:32 4 allegations. 11:50:32 5 Q And Father -- well, you know that John Geoghan 11:50:33 6 in 1989, I think you testified to this in other 11:50:37 7 matters, in 1989 he was sent to the Institute 11:50:39 8 for Living for some assessment? 11:50:42 9 A That's correct. 11:50:45 10 Q And then returned to St. Julia's Parish? 11:50:45 11 A That's correct. 11:50:48 12 Q With no restrictions put on him; is that 11:50:48 13 correct? 11:50:50 14 A I'm not certain. He was returned to his 11:50:56 15 assignment. 11:51:01 16 Q With no restrictions? 11:51:01 17 A I think that's probably correct. 11:51:03 18 Q No limitations on his access to minors; is that 11:51:04 19 correct? 11:51:06 20 A He was a parochial vicar. 11:51:07 21 Q And then -- as a parochial vicar, there were no 11:51:10 22 restrictions on his access to children; is that 11:51:14 23 correct? 11:51:15 24 A There would have been no -- he would have been 11:51:15

128 1 involved with children, that's correct, 11:51:18 2 teaching. 11:51:21 3 Q Then you also remember the case of Father 11:51:22 4 Ernest Tourigney, who in 1988 was confronted 11:51:25 5 and admitted that he was involved in sexual 11:51:29 6 misconduct with children; is that correct? 11:51:32 7 A I'd have to review the case of Tourigney. 11:51:35 8 Q Right. 11:51:37 9 A I'd have to review that case. 11:51:38 10 Q But you're aware at some point, and -- 11:51:39 11 A I'm aware he was taken out. 11:51:42 12 Q He was taken out? 11:51:44 13 A And we just have to review the case to see. 11:51:46 14 Q Right. He was taken out, he was assessed, and 11:51:51 15 then he was returned to ministry, is that 11:51:53 16 correct, after an evaluation? 11:51:55 17 A I would have to review the case. 11:51:57 18 Q Cardinal Law, I've only received the files of 11:51:58 19 ten individuals -- ten priests, and I've got 11:52:02 20 the files, obviously, of Father Shanley and 11:52:06 21 Father Geoghan. There are, I believe, a total 11:52:09 22 of 70 priests who are alive today -- I think we 11:52:11 23 went over this. 11:52:14 24 A It's approximately that. 11:52:17

129 1 Q Approximately 70 priests accused of sexual 11:52:20 2 misconduct who are alive today; is that 11:52:24 3 correct? 11:52:25 4 A That's correct. 11:52:25 5 Q And Cardinal Law, between 1984 and 1990, that 11:52:26 6 period -- I'm not talking about the subsequent 11:52:32 7 period -- before the first policy, can you 11:52:34 8 recall any situation where a priest accused of 11:52:40 9 sexual misconduct and went for an assessment 11:52:43 10 was not returned to ministry with full access 11:52:47 11 to children? 11:52:52 12 A No. I'd have to -- I really would have to look 11:52:54 13 at the records myself, and I'd have to have 11:52:57 14 help in giving you a full response as to how 11:53:01 15 many allegations we had received during that 11:53:04 16 period, and what action was taken with those 11:53:07 17 priests. And I would prefer to be able to do 11:53:09 18 that and get back to you with that answer. I'd 11:53:13 19 rather not just sit here -- 11:53:17 20 Q I don't want you to speculate. I want you to 11:53:18 21 just -- if you could -- we have been through 11:53:21 22 O'Sullivan, Father O'Sullivan, who went to New 11:53:24 23 Jersey; we've been through Graham, we've been 11:53:26 24 through Father Graham. Is that correct? 11:53:29

130 1 A Yes, you've been through Graham. 11:53:31 2 Q Father Joseph Birmingham, he died in the '80s; 11:53:32 3 is that correct? 11:53:36 4 A I believe it was the '80s, yes. 11:53:37 5 Q He was sent for an assessment at some point 11:53:40 6 because of allegations of molestation; is that 11:53:42 7 correct? 11:53:46 8 A That's correct. 11:53:46 9 Q Then he was returned to St. Brigid's in 11:53:46 10 Lexington; is that correct? 11:53:52 11 A That's correct. 11:53:52 12 Q And he was returned to St. Brigid's in 11:53:52 13 Lexington with no restrictions on his ministry; 11:53:54 14 is that correct? 11:53:56 15 A I will say that's correct, but I would really 11:53:57 16 prefer the opportunity to review that time 11:54:01 17 frame and give you a more accurate response. 11:54:04 18 (Law Exhibit No. 40, Memorandum, 19 7/11/96, marked for identification.) 20 Q Cardinal Law, this is a composite of some of 11:54:44 21 the record reviews that were done at various 11:54:48 22 periods of time regarding priests of the 11:54:52 23 Archdiocese of Boston. Let's start with Father 11:54:53 24 Joseph Birmingham, if we could. You'll -- if 11:54:58

131 1 you could turn -- it's page BL -- I'm sorry. 11:55:03 2 JB019. It's the -- let me go from the back. 11:55:07 3 It's probably easier from the back, Cardinal Law. 11:55:16 4 It's the sixth page. 11:55:19 5 A JB19? 11:55:31 6 Q Yes. That's correct. That's the handwriting 11:55:33 7 you recognize as Sister Mulkerrin? 11:55:35 8 A Well, I wouldn't have recognized it as her 11:55:37 9 handwriting, but I have no reason to dispute 11:55:39 10 it. 11:55:41 11 Q Well, this is a record that was produced by the 11:55:41 12 Archdiocese of Boston. Do you see where it says 11:55:44 13 Fatima -- '63, '64 incidents? 11:55:47 14 Do you see that? 11:55:50 15 A I do. 11:55:51 16 Q And do you see it's sort of cut off at the 11:55:51 17 top -- and I apologize for that; it's the way 11:55:55 18 it's arrived -- but I believe the word up at 11:55:57 19 the top left-hand corner underlined is 11:55:59 20 "Records, Birmingham." 11:56:02 21 Do you see that? 11:56:03 22 A I see Birmingham. 11:56:06 23 Q Do you see to the left of that, it's cut off, 11:56:09 24 but it's "Records"? 11:56:10

132 1 A Okay. I'll take your word for it. 11:56:12 2 Q And it says Fatima, Incidents 1963, '64. 11:56:14 3 Do you see that? 11:56:20 4 A Yes, I do. 11:56:20 5 Q Then it says "Admitted" underneath that in 11:56:21 6 Sister Mulkerrin's handwriting? 11:56:24 7 A Yes. 11:56:25 8 Q Then -- 11:56:26 9 A And it says over there -- I don't know what 11:56:27 10 that means. Dr. Philip Quinn. 11:56:28 11 Q Yes. Dr. Quinn. We have a record on that, 11:56:31 12 Cardinal Law, where -- this was the same 11:56:34 13 Dr. Quinn that saw Eugene O'Sullivan, do you 11:56:37 14 remember that, and he sat with Eugene 11:56:40 15 O'Sullivan eight times. 11:56:43 16 Do you remember that from Wednesday's 11:56:44 17 testimony? 11:56:47 18 A I don't remember that. 11:56:47 19 Q That's fine. 11:56:47 20 Do you see down at the bottom, it says 11:56:48 21 "1987, Institute for Living"? Do you see that? 11:56:51 22 March 25, 1987? 11:56:54 23 A I do. 11:56:55 24 Q And then it also -- there's a reference to you 11:56:56

133 1 in here above that "April 7, 1987, resigned for 11:57:01 2 reasons of health, Cardinal - colleague - 11:57:05 3 molested. Summons on AIDS." 11:57:10 4 That was in a letter -- 11:57:12 5 MR. ROGERS: "Sermons." 11:57:15 6 Q "Sermons on AIDS." 11:57:15 7 That was in a letter when he was at St. 11:57:16 8 Ann's Parish in Gloucester. Do you have some 11:57:19 9 recollection of that? 11:57:22 10 A I really don't. 11:57:22 11 Q So at least as of 1992, with respect to Father 11:57:23 12 Birmingham, there were records that were 11:57:29 13 available -- I understand he's deceased -- but 11:57:31 14 there were records that were available to the 11:57:33 15 Archdiocese, it appears from JB0019; is that 11:57:35 16 correct? 11:57:39 17 A That's correct. 11:57:39 18 Q And why don't you look, just since we covered 11:57:40 19 it yesterday, at the second to last page of 11:57:44 20 Exhibit No. -- what number is it? 11:57:48 21 MR. ROGERS III: 40. 11:57:56 22 Q Exhibit No. 40, the second to last page. And 11:57:58 23 this is the handwriting, I believe, Cardinal 11:58:01 24 Law, is it not, of Father McCormack? Do you 11:58:01

134 1 recognize that? Bishop McCormack? 11:58:05 2 A It looks like his. 11:58:08 3 Q You'll see in the case of Eugene O'Sullivan 11:58:09 4 what appears to be a review of certain 11:58:11 5 information, early allegations. 11:58:13 6 Do you see that? 11:58:14 7 A I do. 11:58:14 8 Q 1963 complaint. This is not dated. I don't 11:58:15 9 have the date for this record. I'll ask Bishop 11:58:18 10 McCormack about it. 11:58:22 11 But, again, here's another situation where 11:58:23 12 there are records available to the Archdiocese 11:58:26 13 of allegations going back to the 1960s. 11:58:28 14 A Yes. 11:58:32 15 Q Now, Cardinal Law, with all the records that 11:58:33 16 have been reviewed by the Archdiocese and 11:58:36 17 turned over to the Attorney General's Office 11:58:38 18 and the District Attorney's Offices, has the 11:58:42 19 Archdiocese of Boston, from the records, made 11:58:43 20 any calculations as to the number of victims of 11:58:46 21 sexual abuse that there are since you became 11:58:49 22 Archbishop in 1984? 11:58:57 23 A I don't know whether that has been done or not. 11:59:01 24 Q Do you know whether that figure is in the 11:59:03

135 1 thousands? 11:59:05 2 A I don't know what that figure is. 11:59:07 3 Q Well, have you ever thought that it would be 11:59:09 4 important to find out how many there are and 11:59:11 5 what should be done? 11:59:14 6 A Absolutely. And we are in the process of 11:59:14 7 trying to be as complete as we can in knowing 11:59:17 8 who the victims are and how best we can respond 11:59:23 9 to them. 11:59:27 10 Q Cardinal Law, I'd like to show you -- 11:59:29 11 (Law Exhibit No. 41, Photograph, 12 marked for identification.) 13 Q Can you find your answer, please? 11:59:45 14 A Can I find my answer? 11:59:46 15 Q Yes. Your answer to the complaint. 11:59:48 16 MR. TODD: It's Exhibit 1. 11:59:50 17 Q It's Exhibit 1, Cardinal Law. 11:59:52 18 MR. TODD: It's Exhibit 2. 11:59:53 19 THE WITNESS: My answer to the 11:59:55 20 complaint. 11:59:57 21 Q Could you turn to the section that we talked 12:00:01 22 about yesterday concerning negligence, the 12:00:02 23 defense of negligence that is on Exhibit 2, 12:00:09 24 page 5, where it says: 12:00:17

136 1 "And further answering, the defendant says 2 the plaintiffs were not in the exercise of due 12:00:24 3 care, but, rather, the negligence of the 12:00:28 4 plaintiffs contributed to cause the injury or 12:00:28 5 damage complained of; wherefore, the recovery 12:00:29 6 of the plaintiffs is barred in whole or in part 12:00:32 7 or is subject to diminution." 12:00:34 8 Do you see that? We covered that 12:00:37 9 yesterday? 12:00:38 10 A Yes. 12:00:38 11 Q And you also see that -- we went over this 12:00:38 12 yesterday, that the allegations in the 12:00:42 13 complaint about Paul Shanley abusing Greg Ford 12:00:44 14 started when Greg Ford was six years old. This 12:00:48 15 is a picture of Greg Ford, Exhibit 41. I would 12:00:51 16 ask you -- you've already, at least on 12:00:57 17 Wednesday, you indicated that you wanted to 12:00:59 18 change some of your answers. 12:01:02 19 Looking at Exhibit 41, that picture of 12:01:03 20 Greg Ford as a six-year-old child, do you now 12:01:06 21 believe that your answer in which you allege 12:01:09 22 that Greg Ford was somehow negligent for the 12:01:11 23 acts of abuse, that that answer that was filed 12:01:14 24 on your behalf should be changed? 12:01:17

137 1 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 12:01:20 2 MR. TODD: Objection. 12:01:20 3 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. You can 12:01:20 4 answer. 12:01:21 5 A I find it difficult to answer -- 12:01:24 6 Q Okay. 12:01:28 7 A -- because I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know 12:01:29 8 what that phrase means in terms of the civil 12:01:38 9 suit that has been filed. It is certainly not 12:01:42 10 my belief that a child is responsible for abuse 12:01:50 11 that is done to him. 12:01:57 12 Q Okay. 12:02:01 13 A I don't believe that any child is responsible 12:02:03 14 for the abuse done to him. 12:02:05 15 Q Okay. Is it now -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. 12:02:10 16 A What legal ramifications and what legal meaning 12:02:10 17 is attached to what was represented by counsel, 12:02:15 18 I'm not -- I'm not conversant in that. But I 12:02:21 19 do know that my own conviction is that a child 12:02:26 20 is not responsible for the abuse that he 12:02:30 21 suffers or she suffers. 12:02:33 22 Q At your deposition on Wednesday, you indicated 12:02:36 23 some familiarity with the term of negligence. 12:02:39 24 In fact, you said at one point "contributory 12:02:41

138 1 negligence" on your own, without me describing 2 that term. 12:02:46 3 You have an understanding of what 12:02:47 4 negligence is, do you not? 12:02:48 5 A I do. I think I do. I have certainly a 12:02:49 6 layman's knowledge. 12:02:52 7 Q So is it now your intention to withdraw the 12:02:55 8 assertion made in your answer that Greg Ford, 12:02:57 9 as a six-year-old child, was somehow negligent 12:03:00 10 in what happened to him at the hands of Paul 12:03:03 11 Shanley? 12:03:06 12 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 12:03:07 13 MR. TODD: Objection. 12:03:07 14 MR. ROGERS: That's not what the 12:03:08 15 answer says, so I think it's a misstatement and 12:03:09 16 an inappropriate question. 12:03:13 17 MR. MacLEISH: You may answer the 12:03:13 18 question. 12:03:16 19 A I do not at this point wish to address what it 12:03:16 20 is that counsel entered until I have an 12:03:20 21 opportunity to discuss it with them, but I can 12:03:24 22 tell you what I believe and what my conviction 12:03:25 23 is with regard to the tragedy of sexual abuse, 12:03:30 24 and that is that no child is responsible in any 12:03:35

139 1 way for the abuse that he or she suffers. 12:03:40 2 Q No child? 12:03:44 3 A That that is the responsibility of the adult 12:03:46 4 who does the abusing. It could be the 12:03:48 5 responsibility of others responsible, but 12:03:53 6 certainly not the child. 12:03:55 7 MR. ROGERS: We are past 12:00. So 12:03:57 8 we agreed we'd stop. 12:03:59 9 MR. MacLEISH: You had a question you 12:04:00 10 wanted to ask me. 12:04:02 11 THE WITNESS: We can go off the 11:20:35 12 record. 12:04:04 13 MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely. We can go 12:04:04 14 off the record. 12:04:05 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:03. 12:04:07 16 We're off the record. 12:04:08 17 (Whereupon, the deposition was suspended at 12:04 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

140 1 Excerpt from Rule 30(e): 2 Submission to Witness; Changes; Signing. When the testimony is fully transcribed, the 3 deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him, 4 unless such examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties. Any changes 5 in form or entered upon the deposition by the officer with a statement of the reasons given 6 by the witness for making them. * * * * * * * * * * * 7 I, Bernard F. Law, have examined the above 8 transcript of my testimony and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 9 information and belief. 10 Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this _____ day of ______, 11 2002. 12 13 ______14 15 16 Sworn and subscribed to before me this ____ day of ______, 2002. 17 18 ______19 Notary Public 20 21 My Commission Expires: 22 ______23 24

141 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 2 COUNTY OF ESSEX 3 4 I, Kathleen Mullen Silva, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and 5 for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby certify that there came before me on the 6 7th day of June, 2002, the person hereinbefore named, who was by me duly sworn to testify to 7 the truth and nothing but the truth of his knowledge touching and concerning the matters 8 in controversy in this cause; that he was thereupon examined upon his oath, and his 9 examination reduced to typewriting under my direction; and that the deposition is a true 10 record of the testimony given by the witness. I further certify that I am neither 11 attorney or counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in 12 which this deposition is taken; and further that I am not a relative or employee of any 13 attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in the action. 14 In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 7th day of 15 June, 2002. 16 ______Notary Public 17 18 My Commission Expires: 19 20 May 2, 2008 21 22 23