18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:24. 12:24:26 19 This is Cassette 2 in the deposition of 12:24:59 20 Cardinal Law. We're on the record. 12:24:59 21 Q Cardinal Law, just so the record is clear, 12:25:02 22 before you left as vicar general of Jackson, 12:25:06 23 Mississippi, you had had this conversation with 12:25:11 24 Father Broussard; is that correct? 12:25:14

105 1 A That's correct. 12:25:14 2 Q And you took no action to notify the 12:25:15 3 individuals at St. Peter's Parish that you can 12:25:19 4 recall at this time; is that correct? 12:25:21 5 A That's correct. 12:25:25 6 Q And did you also know a Father Thomas Boyce? 12:25:25 7 A I did. 12:25:28 8 Q And was Father Thomas Boyce also an individual 12:25:29 9 who came to your attention as a priest who had 12:25:33 10 molested children in Jackson, Mississippi, when 12:25:36 11 you were serving as vicar general? 12:25:39 12 A I don't have an active recall of that, but if 12:25:43 13 you bring the case before me, I might -- it 12:25:46 14 might come to light. 12:25:49 15 Q I don't have any case to bring in front of you. 12:25:52 16 I'm just asking whether you have -- your memory 12:25:54 17 might be refreshed between now and the time we 12:25:58 18 come back, which is fine. 12:26:00 19 A Yeah. I don't recall something that would 12:26:02 20 have -- I don't recall -- I don't have the 12:26:07 21 impression of Father Thomas Boyce as someone 12:26:11 22 who was responsible for the sexual abuse of 12:26:13 23 minors. 12:26:17 24 Q Well, I'm not asking for responsibility. I'm 12:26:17

106 1 asking whether you're aware -- let me make the 12:26:20 2 question a little bit broader. Are you aware 12:26:22 3 of any inappropriate or boundary violations 12:26:24 4 that were committed by Father Thomas Boyce 12:26:27 5 against children while you were serving as 12:26:30 6 vicar general? 12:26:33 7 A Yes. And I have no active recollection of 12:26:34 8 that. 12:26:36 9 Q Fair enough. 12:26:36 10 Now, did you ever speak with Dr. Morrison 12:26:39 11 about this conversation that you had with 12:26:47 12 Father Broussard where he told you that he had 12:26:51 13 engaged in some inappropriate activity, 12:26:54 14 including boundary violations with the Morrison 12:26:59 15 children? 12:27:03 16 A I don't know that this answer will suffice to 12:27:07 17 your question. 12:27:10 18 Q Sure. 12:27:10 19 A But allow me, if I may, and I must say that I 12:27:11 20 have not thought of this for decades, so that 12:27:17 21 I'm trying now to reconstruct what may have 12:27:22 22 occurred. 12:27:28 23 I recollect, in a very vague way, 12:27:33 24 receiving the knowledge that George Broussard 12:27:37

107 1 had been confronted by -- and perhaps 12:27:44 2 "confronted" is too strong a term in terms of 12:27:53 3 how it occurred -- by Dr. Morrison with regard 12:27:56 4 to inappropriate behavior with one or more of 12:28:00 5 Dr. Morrison's sons; and that Dr. Morrison, and 12:28:09 6 I presume Mrs. Morrison, had satisfied 12:28:22 7 themselves that Father Broussard was adequately 12:28:27 8 dealing with this problem, and that he was 12:28:39 9 not -- and that he did not present a further 12:28:43 10 risk. 12:28:46 11 Now, that's my -- that's my recollection. 12:28:47 12 And I believe that that information came to me 12:28:52 13 through Broussard, but it could have come to me 12:28:58 14 through Dr. Morrison. It's conceivable that 12:29:01 15 Dr. Morrison met with me as well. My 12:29:04 16 recollection is that whatever occurred was 12:29:08 17 dealt with in a way that was satisfying to the 12:29:13 18 Morrisons. 12:29:19 19 Q Yet you also are aware, are you not, Cardinal 12:29:20 20 Law, that there were allegations subsequently 12:29:24 21 brought by other individuals about improper 12:29:28 22 sexual misconduct by Father Broussard? Are you 12:29:31 23 not? 12:29:33 24 A I am not aware of that. 12:29:34

108 1 Q You're not aware of any individuals alleging 12:29:36 2 that their children committed suicide as a 12:29:39 3 result of sexual molestation by Father 12:29:43 4 Broussard? 12:29:46 5 A I am not aware of that. 12:29:46 6 Q So as I understand it, and now -- I think you 12:29:48 7 said before the break that you thought that 12:29:50 8 this came -- that this information came from 12:29:53 9 Father Broussard himself. I take it after 12:29:55 10 reflecting on it, it could have come from 12:29:58 11 either Dr. Morrison or from Father Broussard? 12:30:01 12 A Or it could have come from both. 12:30:03 13 Q It could have come from both? 12:30:06 14 A Yes. 12:30:08 15 Q It's your testimony and belief -- and I want to 12:30:09 16 give you time to think about this between now 10:09:25 17 and the time we reconvene -- but it's your 12:30:13 18 understanding right now that essentially you 12:30:15 19 considered the matter closed because the father 12:30:16 20 of the Morrison children felt that there was no 12:30:18 21 more risk posed by Father Broussard. Is that 12:30:21 22 your testimony? 12:30:23 23 A That's correct. 12:30:24 24 Q And what qualifications did Dr. Morrison have 12:30:24 109 1 to make the assessment that Father Broussard 12:30:32 2 was no longer a threat to children that you 12:30:34 3 know of, Cardinal Law? 12:30:36 4 A Again, in retrospect, his area of medical 12:30:39 5 expertise would not have given him -- would not 12:30:45 6 have given him that kind of authority. But at 12:30:50 7 the time, and we're talking about 1970, 12:30:58 8 possibly -- 12:31:04 9 Q '73, I think. 12:31:06 10 A Well, '73, which is the year that I left, as I 12:31:07 11 think I said. I probably finished in November 12:31:13 12 of '73. So it was sometime before November of 12:31:17 13 '73. We're talking about November of '73, and 12:31:20 14 at that point, in a rather unsophisticated way, 12:31:29 15 I would have relied on the judgment of a parent 12:31:36 16 in this case. 12:31:42 17 Q The parent -- 12:31:43 18 A Who was a doctor. 12:31:45 19 Q The parent in this case -- he was not a 12:31:46 20 psychiatrist, was he? 12:31:48 21 A No. He was -- I can't remember what his 12:31:49 22 specialty was, but I'm quite certain it was not 12:31:57 23 psychiatry. 12:31:57 24 Q And you knew in 1973 that child abuse, I think 12:31:57

110 1 you said earlier, was a sin; is that correct? 12:32:02 2 A Certainly it was a sin, yes. 12:32:05 3 Q And -- 12:32:06 4 A But that wouldn't be dealt with by a 12:32:08 5 psychiatrist. 12:32:11 6 Q I know. It would be dealt with presumably by 12:32:12 7 the individuals in charge of that priest; is 12:32:15 8 that correct? 12:32:16 9 A No, no. Well, no. When I say -- if I may. 12:32:17 10 When I say that sexual abuse is a sin, what I'm 12:32:20 11 referring to is that it is an act against God's 12:32:25 12 law, and God's command, and one deals with that 12:32:31 13 as a Catholic through the sacrament of penance. 12:32:35 14 The scripture says judge not that you be not 12:32:41 15 judged. So that in terms of where a person 12:32:44 16 stands in relationship to God, it's not for me 12:32:47 17 to judge or for you to judge or anyone else to 12:32:51 18 judge. It's for that person to deal with God 12:32:54 19 directly on that. 12:32:56 20 However, the social implications of a sin 12:32:58 21 are something that we have to deal with in the 12:33:01 22 public forum. And it's at that point that -- 12:33:04 23 when -- it's at that point that those 12:33:10 24 responsible have to make certain acts. 12:33:13

111 1 So, for example, if a person is removed 12:33:15 2 from ministry, and if a person may not go back 12:33:21 3 to ministry, that isn't making a judgment as to 12:33:28 4 where that person may stand in terms of his 12:33:30 5 personal relationship with God. He may have 12:33:32 6 repented, have forgiveness, may really be 12:33:34 7 trying his best he can to live a good life, but 12:33:37 8 the fact is that he may not serve, because 12:33:41 9 whatever his relationship with God, there's 12:33:46 10 certain social consequences to his behavior 12:33:50 11 that have to be dealt with. 12:33:53 12 Q Thank you for clarifying that. 12:33:55 13 In terms of the person who had the 12:33:56 14 responsibility as the eyes and ears of the 12:34:02 15 bishop over Father Broussard, who would that 12:34:04 16 person have been at the time you learned of 12:34:08 17 this allegation of inappropriate boundary 12:34:09 18 violation behavior between Father Broussard and 12:34:13 19 the Morrison children? Who would that person 12:34:16 20 have been? 12:34:18 21 A At that point, Father Broussard, I believe, was 12:34:19 22 the chancellor, and so while I had the title of 12:34:23 23 vicar general, we really divided 12:34:32 24 responsibilities, and he handled everything 12:34:37

112 1 that had to do with temporalities. I handled 12:34:40 2 things that had to do more with the pastoral 12:34:45 3 life of the Church, the mission of the Church. 12:34:49 4 And we would have, in a sense, been equals as 12:34:53 5 assistants to the bishop. 12:35:00 6 But I would say that the -- but the 12:35:02 7 bishop, to the extent that he relied on 12:35:07 8 someone, would have relied really on the two of 12:35:09 9 us with regard to personnel placement. 12:35:12 10 Q I'm sorry. When you were talking about 12:35:15 11 personnel issues before, I don't think you 12:35:17 12 mentioned Father Broussard. I think -- as I 12:35:18 13 understood your testimony, you were talking 12:35:21 14 that you were the principal person who had 12:35:23 15 personnel responsibility as vicar general. 12:35:26 16 A I was the vicar general, but what I'm saying to 12:35:28 17 you is that the ultimate personnel 12:35:31 18 responsibility obviously is with the bishop, as 12:35:34 19 it is with me, as we've indicated in these 12:35:36 20 cases, and it was there as well. I had certain 12:35:37 21 responsibilities as vicar general. 12:35:44 22 Father Broussard had certain 12:35:47 23 responsibilities for the diocese in terms of 12:35:48 24 temporalities. And the bishop in a smaller 12:35:55

113 1 diocese would really rely on the counsel that 12:35:58 2 the two of us would bring. What I'm trying to 12:36:02 3 suggest to you is that Father Broussard's 12:36:06 4 relationship to the bishop was a rather direct 12:36:10 5 relationship as well. 12:36:15 6 Q In addition to yours? 12:36:15 7 A In addition to mine. 12:36:15 8 Q Cardinal Law, in 1973, you were out of Harvard 12:36:16 9 University for approximately 20 years? 12:36:19 10 A That's correct. 12:36:21 11 Q You had good judgment and good common sense? 12:36:22 12 A I would -- you know, no one is a judge in his 12:36:28 13 own case. 12:36:33 14 Q Well, you were serving in a supervisory senior 12:36:33 15 capacity? 12:36:36 16 A That's correct. 12:36:36 17 Q And you were there because of your judgment and 12:36:37 18 your abilities as a priest; is that correct? 12:36:41 19 A That's correct. 12:36:43 20 Q And you learned from the chancellor or through 12:36:43 21 Dr. Morrison that there is some -- and let's -- 12:36:48 22 we can call it inappropriate activity or we can 12:36:52 23 call it sexual molestation. Which would you 12:36:54 24 prefer for us -- inappropriate activities, 12:36:57

114 1 boundary violations, sexual misconduct, which 12:37:00 2 would be a better word for you? 12:37:03 3 A I cannot tell you what it is that occurred, but 12:37:05 4 I know it was inappropriate, and it had a 12:37:08 5 sexual connotation, yes. 12:37:11 6 Q With minors? 12:37:12 7 A With minor children of the Morrisseys' -- of 12:37:13 8 the Morrisons'. 12:37:17 9 Q So you learned from Father Broussard or 12:37:18 10 Dr. Morrison that Father Broussard has been 12:37:20 11 involved in this misconduct and you do nothing; 12:37:22 12 is that correct? 12:37:25 13 MR. TODD: Objection. 12:37:26 14 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 12:37:27 15 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. 12:37:29 16 A I cannot tell you that I did nothing. My 12:37:31 17 presumption is that I would have -- that I 12:37:34 18 would have either directly or recommending to 12:37:37 19 Father Broussard that he directly inform the 12:37:41 20 bishop. 12:37:44 21 Q Well, do you have a present recollection, as 12:37:45 22 you sit here today, of doing anything after you 12:37:47 23 learned about the information of Father 12:37:52 24 Broussard? Not speculation of what you think 12:37:55

115 1 you did. But as you sit here today, do you 12:37:57 2 have any recollection of doing anything after 12:37:59 3 these allegations from Father Broussard came to 12:38:01 4 your attention when you were vicar general in 12:38:03 5 Jackson, Mississippi? 12:38:06 6 A Well, as I sit here, I have no specific 12:38:07 7 recollection of doing nothing or doing 12:38:10 8 something, but I can tell you that my 12:38:12 9 presumption is that I would have -- either 12:38:14 10 myself or through Father Broussard, whom I 12:38:19 11 would have suggested do this directly himself, 12:38:25 12 inform the bishop. 12:38:28 13 Q But you just don't know whether you did? You 12:38:28 14 just can't remember? 12:38:31 15 A I cannot remember that I did. 12:38:32 16 Q Okay. 12:38:34 17 MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this as an 12:38:36 18 exhibit, please. 12:38:37 19 (Law Exhibit No. 10, Letter, 6/1/02, 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q Cardinal Law, I'm going to show you a statement 12:38:57 22 that I received from Kenneth Morrison. I'd 12:38:59 23 like for you to read it, if you would, please. 12:39:02 24 This is one of the Morrison children. 12:39:05

116 1 A I certainly don't recall being Uncle Bernie. 12:39:59 2 MR. TODD: Wait for a question. 12:40:04 3 MR. ROGERS: Wait for a question, 12:40:05 4 yeah. 12:40:06 5 Is there a question? 12:40:29 6 MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. Have you 12:40:31 7 finished? I want to make sure the Cardinal has 12:40:32 8 finished reading it. 12:40:36 9 THE WITNESS: I've read it, yes. 12:40:36 10 Q This is a statement of Kenneth Morrison, 12:40:36 11 Cardinal Law. Are there any specific portions 12:40:39 12 of this statement that you are now able to 12:40:42 13 state you remember with certainty are 12:40:45 14 inaccurate? 12:40:48 15 A Well, with certainty are inaccurate, I don't 12:40:52 16 know, but I -- it's not a very essential 12:40:54 17 matter, but I may have been referred to 12:40:59 18 somebody as Uncle Bernie, but I know that they 12:41:02 19 never called me Uncle Bernie, so -- the other 12:41:04 20 matter here is that -- as I indicated earlier, 12:41:13 21 I was not certain whether it was from George 12:41:18 22 Broussard or from Dr. Morrison or both that I 12:41:22 23 got this information. 12:41:26 24 I think what is being said here is 12:41:32

117 1 evidently being said by Kenneth Morrison later 12:41:39 2 in life, 2002, referring to a time when he was 12:41:43 3 quite young, and I believe his father has since 12:41:50 4 deceased. 12:41:54 5 Q Right. How do you know that? 12:41:54 6 A Well, because I have heard that. 12:41:58 7 Q Who told you that? 12:41:59 8 A Oh, I can't tell you who told me that, but, you 12:42:01 9 know, I maintained contact with Mississippi 12:42:03 10 through the years, and I recall that he is 12:42:06 11 dead. 12:42:11 12 Q His wife is alive? 12:42:11 13 A I did not know that. Good. 12:42:14 14 Q I'm asking you, and I think you perhaps 12:42:17 15 answered the question, Cardinal Law, whether 12:42:18 16 you can state with certainty whether there is 12:42:23 17 any portion of Mr. Morrison's statement that 12:42:23 18 you know is inaccurate as you sit here today? 12:42:26 19 MR. TODD: Other than what he's 12:42:29 20 already said? 12:42:30 21 MR. MacLEISH: Well, yeah. I mean, I 12:42:31 22 think his preliminary statement was that he 12:42:32 23 couldn't say with certainty. I just want to 12:42:34 24 give him the opportunity, and you can come back 12:42:36

118 1 on the second day of your deposition -- 12:42:38 2 A That's right, but, of course, I cannot comment 12:42:40 3 on the behavior of Broussard relative to 12:42:43 4 Kenneth after the reporting that I was aware 12:42:46 5 of. 12:42:51 6 Q The reporting to you? 12:42:52 7 A That's right. 12:42:54 8 Q By Mr. Broussard -- Father Broussard, 12:42:54 9 Dr. Morrison or both? 12:42:59 10 A That's correct. But there's nothing here that 12:43:00 11 I would have reason to question. 12:43:04 12 Q And you do have some recollection, as you sit 12:43:05 13 here today, that Father Broussard, after 12:43:08 14 engaging in this sexual misconduct, did end up 12:43:13 15 somehow at another parish before he resigned 12:43:14 16 from active ministry? 12:43:18 17 Do you have a general recollection of 12:43:18 18 that, Cardinal Law? 12:43:20 19 A Yes. Sitting here and hearing the questions 12:43:22 20 you have put to me, I do. 12:43:25 21 Q All right. Now -- and if you remember any more 12:43:28 22 action that you took -- not presumptions, but 12:43:34 23 recollections of actions that you took with 12:43:38 24 respect to Father Broussard and his sexual 12:43:39

119 1 misconduct with the Morrison children or 12:43:45 2 others, if you remember anything like that that 12:43:47 3 you did receiving that report, I want you to 12:43:49 4 interrupt me, and we can go back and we can 12:43:52 5 allow you to supplement your answers. 12:43:53 6 A Thank you. 12:43:56 7 Q Does that sound fair? 12:43:56 8 A Thank you. 12:43:58 9 Q Would it be accurate to state then that as far 12:43:58 10 back as 1973 you became aware, Cardinal Law, of 12:44:02 11 the possibility that clergy would engage in 12:44:07 12 sexual misconduct with minors? Would that be a 12:44:09 13 fair statement? 12:44:12 14 A That's correct. 12:44:14 15 Q And when you went -- you went on after you left 12:44:17 16 Mississippi, you went on to the 12:44:20 17 Springfield-Cape Girardeau Diocese in Southern 12:44:25 18 Missouri; is that correct? 12:44:30 19 A That's correct. 12:44:30 20 Q Let's go back to Mississippi. When you were in 12:44:30 21 Mississippi acting as vicar general, were there 12:44:33 22 any other allegations of sexual misconduct by 12:44:36 23 clergy that came to your attention apart from 12:44:39 24 those involving Father Broussard or the one 12:44:41

120 1 involving Father Broussard? 12:44:44 2 A During the time that I was there, there is not 12:45:03 3 another case that I can recall at this moment. 12:45:10 4 I believe that there was a case that I heard of 12:45:23 5 after I left that involved -- of a priest there 12:45:30 6 in the diocese. 12:45:37 7 Q Do you remember the name of that priest? 12:45:38 8 A I hate to mention it in the event that my 12:45:44 9 memory may fail me. 12:45:47 10 Q Would you like to -- 12:45:47 11 A I'd like to be able to -- 12:45:48 12 Q Fine. 12:45:50 13 A -- check my memory on that name before bringing 12:45:51 14 that name forward. 12:45:54 15 Q Fine. That's fair. Would you do that before 12:45:55 16 we reconvene on Friday? 12:45:58 17 A Yeah. 12:45:59 18 Q Is that a fair request? 12:46:00 19 A Sure. 12:46:01 20 Q So you learned afterwards about that 12:46:01 21 allegation, after you left as vicar general? 12:46:03 22 A It's not that I learned about the allegation 12:46:06 23 afterwards, but I learned about the case 12:46:08 24 afterwards. You know, that there was a case 12:46:10

121 1 dealt with sometime after I left the diocese 12:46:14 2 with a priest in the diocese, but I don't 12:46:19 3 recall, and my memory doesn't -- I have no 12:46:23 4 active memory of having knowledge of that case 12:46:30 5 prior to my departure. 12:46:33 6 Q Okay. You just used the term "I have no active 12:46:35 7 memory." I think I understand what you're 12:46:39 8 saying, but I just want to make sure that I do, 12:46:41 9 and -- 12:46:45 10 A I don't remember. 12:46:45 11 Q You don't remember. Okay. That's fine. 12:46:46 12 Are you familiar with the doctrine of 12:46:48 13 broad and strict mental reservation? 12:46:52 14 A Yeah. 12:46:58 15 Q Can you describe what that doctrine is, please? 12:46:59 16 A I'm not sure that I can describe it accurately. 12:47:02 17 It feels like I'm in a moral theology exam 12:47:06 18 here. 12:47:11 19 Q Well, I don't want -- 12:47:11 20 A Why don't you ask me what -- if you could put 12:47:12 21 the question in another way and let me respond. 12:47:17 22 Q Fine. Do either of those doctrines, moral or 12:47:17 23 strict mental reservation, justify not telling 12:47:20 24 the truth in certain situations? 12:47:23

122 1 A May I respond, Mr. MacLeish, in this way, and I 12:47:29 2 hope that it gets to what your question is 12:47:33 3 asking: I am making neither broad nor narrow 12:47:36 4 mental reservations in my response to your 12:47:42 5 questions. 12:47:45 6 Q I understand that. 12:47:46 7 A I am trying to respond to your questions as 12:47:46 8 completely and honestly as I possibly can. 12:47:49 9 Q Okay. 12:47:52 10 A And I have no reason to make mental 12:47:53 11 reservations. 12:47:56 12 Q But do you agree with me that the doctrine of 12:47:57 13 broad mental reservation does, under some 12:47:59 14 circumstances -- and I'm not suggesting in any 12:48:01 15 way that it's happening here -- does permit 12:48:03 16 someone who is a priest, an ordinary, a bishop 12:48:05 17 of the Roman Catholic Church, to make 12:48:11 18 statements that are not technically true? 12:48:14 19 A First of all, I would deny that that principle 12:48:16 20 is a principle for priests or for bishops or 12:48:20 21 for cardinals. If it's a principle -- if it's 12:48:26 22 a moral principle, it's applicable to anybody, 12:48:29 23 but what I am saying to you is as I sit here 12:48:34 24 before you under oath, I am making no mental 12:48:37

123 1 reservations about withholding what I know to 12:48:41 2 be the truth when you ask me a forthright 12:48:45 3 question. 12:48:46 4 Q I'm not suggesting otherwise. When you went to 12:48:46 5 Springfield-Cape Giradeau -- have I pronounced 12:48:50 6 that correctly? 12:48:54 7 A Well, it's good enough. Giradeau. 12:48:54 8 Q Did you again confront situations in your 12:48:58 9 capacity as bishop there where there were 12:49:00 10 allegations of misconduct -- sexual misconduct 12:49:03 11 by clergy that you can recall? 12:49:08 12 A Yes. 12:49:11 13 Q How many such situations were there, Cardinal 12:49:12 14 Law? 12:49:14 15 A Certainly there was one. 12:49:26 16 Q Do you remember the name of the priest 12:49:29 17 involved? 12:49:29 18 A Leonard Chambers. 12:49:33 19 Q Okay. Do you remember the name of his victim? 12:49:35 20 I think "victims" would be the better way to 12:49:44 21 put it. Victims. 12:49:46 22 A Well, I didn't know victims. I thought there 12:49:48 23 was one. 12:49:50 24 Q Do you remember his name? 12:49:51

124 1 A And I -- I cannot recall. 12:49:52 2 Q Okay. Do you remember how this came to your 12:49:56 3 attention? 12:49:57 4 A Either directly by the father of the victim or 12:50:02 5 through the chancellor of the diocese, having 12:50:12 6 been approached by the father of the victim. 12:50:15 7 Q And the action that you took was to reassign 12:50:18 8 the priest; is that correct? 12:50:24 9 A The action that I believe we took was to get 12:50:27 10 a -- to send him for an evaluation and to get 12:50:33 11 an assessment as to whether or not an 12:50:38 12 assignment would be appropriate, and he was 12:50:41 13 reassigned. 12:50:48 14 Q He was sent to a different parish? 12:50:48 15 A That's right. 12:50:51 16 Q Where no one knew that he had previously 12:50:51 17 admitted to sexually abusing a minor child? 12:50:54 18 MR. TODD: Objection. 12:50:57 19 A That's correct. 12:50:58 20 Q And in the case of Leonard Chambers, the 12:50:58 21 allegations were not about boundary violations, 12:51:01 22 they were of a more serious nature, is that not 12:51:05 23 true, Cardinal Law? 12:51:08 24 A That is not my recollection. I think they were 12:51:10

125 1 serious, but I don't -- I cannot recall the 12:51:14 2 actual allegation. 12:51:22 3 Q And now, you were the bishop at this time? 12:51:23 4 A I was. 12:51:26 5 Q So when Leonard Chambers returned from the 12:51:26 6 assessment facility, he was sent back to 12:51:30 7 another parish by you? You were the person 12:51:34 8 responsible for making the assignment? 12:51:38 9 A That's correct. 12:51:40 10 Q Do you remember the name of the facility that 12:51:41 11 Leonard Chambers was sent to for this alleged 12:51:42 12 assessment? 12:51:45 13 A He was sent to -- on one occasion I think it 12:51:47 14 was the Servants of the Paraclete in New Mexico 12:51:58 15 and I think another -- it was a facility in, I 12:52:02 16 think, Cincinnati, Ohio, but I'm not certain. 12:52:10 17 Q Did Leonard Chambers go on to have further 12:52:13 18 allegations made against him at his new 12:52:17 19 assignment? 12:52:20 20 A I do not recollect that in my tenure there as 12:52:23 21 bishop. 12:52:26 22 Q But you don't remember in any way alerting the 12:52:26 23 parishioners at the new parish to which Leonard 12:52:31 24 Chambers was sent? 12:52:34

126 1 A I did not do that. 12:52:35 2 Q Did you alert the pastor about the fact that 12:52:36 3 Leonard Chambers had been at a parish -- 12:52:39 4 A I think he was -- 12:52:41 5 Q Excuse me. 12:52:42 6 A Excuse me. Go ahead. 12:52:42 7 Q Did you alert the pastor of the new parish 12:52:43 8 where Leonard Chambers was sent that he had 12:52:46 9 molested -- admitted to molesting a child while 12:52:49 10 at his previous parish? 12:52:52 11 A He went as pastor. 12:52:56 12 Q He went as pastor, so he was in charge, 12:52:56 13 correct? 12:52:59 14 A Correct. 12:52:59 15 Q And he had, as pastor, no limitation or 12:53:00 16 restrictions upon him as pastor with respect to 12:53:02 17 his access to minor children; is that correct? 12:53:05 18 A That's correct. 12:53:07 19 Q And this, again, was another case, the second 12:53:08 20 case of someone who had admitted to the 12:53:11 21 molestation of a child; is that correct? 12:53:14 22 A The second case... 12:53:16 23 Q The second case that you were confronted with 12:53:19 24 since you became vicar general and then moved 12:53:21

127 1 on to bishop, the second case of a priest who 12:53:23 2 admitted to molesting a child? 12:53:27 3 MR. TODD: Objection. 12:53:30 4 Q Is that correct? 12:53:30 5 A That's correct. 12:53:32 6 Q Now, you also became aware in -- from 12:53:33 7 Dr. Morrison and from the victim of Leonard 12:53:39 8 Chambers about how the children who had been 12:53:42 9 molested by these two priests, how they had 12:53:46 10 reacted to the abuse. Is that a fair 12:53:52 11 statement? 12:53:54 12 A No, I don't think that that is a fair 12:53:56 13 statement. 12:53:57 14 Q Well, Dr. Morrison, do you ever recall speaking 12:53:57 15 with him in which he indicated his anger that 12:54:01 16 this priest had molested his son? 12:54:04 17 A I indicated earlier to you my surprise at the 12:54:10 18 reaction, and I, frankly, with regard to the 12:54:16 19 Morrison situation, was surprised at the way in 12:54:23 20 which that situation was handled by the family, 12:54:30 21 by Dr. Morrison, by Father Broussard, and how, 12:54:38 22 after the fact, the friendship and relationship 12:54:41 23 continued. 12:54:46 24 Q How do you know it continued, Cardinal Law? 12:54:50

128 1 You said this was at the tail end of your 12:54:53 2 tenure as vicar general. 12:54:56 3 A Because I do have a recollection of my being 12:54:59 4 surprised that that friendship continued, and 12:55:01 5 the letter that you just showed me certainly 12:55:04 6 confirms that in the fact that there were -- 12:55:08 7 that the visits continued. 12:55:11 8 Q It doesn't say the friendship continued, does 12:55:17 9 it? 12:55:20 10 A Well, the letter does not say the friendship 12:55:20 11 continued, but it would indicate that my memory 12:55:25 12 is correct. 12:55:26 13 Q Well, you, at least, because you're someone who 12:55:27 14 has graduated from Harvard College, you're a 12:55:31 15 person with good judgment and common sense. 12:55:35 16 You certainly knew in 1973 in the Morrison case 12:55:37 17 that the sexual abuse had the potential to harm 12:55:41 18 a child, did you not? 12:55:45 19 A Yes, absolutely. 12:55:46 20 Q And you certainly knew from the victim of 12:55:47 21 Leonard Chambers that sexual abuse in that case 12:55:50 22 had harmed the child who was molested there, 12:55:52 23 did you not? 12:55:55 24 A Well, I -- you know, yes -- you have a 12:55:57

129 1 different kind of a case here. 12:56:02 2 Q Right. Why was it different? 12:56:04 3 A Well, there's an age difference. In the case 12:56:04 4 of the Morrisons, you're dealing with very 12:56:07 5 young children. In the case of Father 12:56:12 6 Chambers, as I recollect, the victim was older. 12:56:17 7 Q Still a child? 12:56:26 8 A Still a child, absolutely. Still a gravely 12:56:27 9 sinful act. But the -- you know, as I 12:56:32 10 recollect my encounter in this case, at the 12:56:39 11 moment that the case was brought forward, there 12:56:47 12 was not brought forward a -- there was not 12:56:50 13 brought forward on the part of the father the 12:56:58 14 terribly negative effect on the person, but, 12:57:03 15 certainly, I am aware of the fact, or was aware 12:57:11 16 then, that such an act has a negative effect on 12:57:15 17 the victim -- 12:57:20 18 Q Did you offer -- 12:57:22 19 A -- which can vary. 12:57:22 20 Q When you were vicar general in Jackson, because 12:57:24 21 you understood about the negative effect that 12:57:26 22 this could have on a young child, did you 12:57:29 23 offer -- do you have a clear recollection of 12:57:33 24 offering psychological help or assistance to 12:57:34

130 1 the Morrison family? 12:57:37 2 A No. The Morrison family, in this case, 12:57:39 3 presented itself as dealing with this 12:57:46 4 situation, and I would have had -- you know, I 12:57:52 5 had confidence in the father. I had confidence 12:57:57 6 in the mother. 12:57:59 7 Q So the answer is you didn't offer -- you don't 12:58:03 8 have any specific recollection of offering 12:58:05 9 counseling -- 12:58:07 10 A That's correct. 12:58:07 11 Q Excuse me. 12:58:08 12 -- of offering counseling assistance to 10:34:51 13 the Morrison family, correct? 12:58:11 14 A Correct. 12:58:15 15 Q As you sit here today, you're not sure whether 12:58:15 16 you learned of the details of this from 12:58:16 17 Dr. Morrison or Father Broussard; is that 12:58:19 18 correct? 12:58:23 19 A That's correct. 12:58:23 20 Q So you certainly, in the case of someone who is 12:58:24 21 admitting an act of sexual misconduct with a 12:58:27 22 child, you, being a person of common sense and 12:58:30 23 good judgment, wouldn't necessarily take the 12:58:33 24 word of the individual who had admitted to 12:58:37

131 1 sexual misconduct in telling you what the 12:58:40 2 family of the victim needed or didn't need, 12:58:44 3 would you? 12:58:51 4 A No, I would not. 12:58:51 5 Q Did you have confidence, Cardinal Law, that 12:58:53 6 Father Broussard would not molest again? 12:58:56 7 A I did. 12:59:01 8 Q Did you seek out any sort of expert opinion in 12:59:03 9 order to provide you with guidance as to 12:59:06 10 whether or not Father Broussard was at risk of 12:59:11 11 molesting other children? 12:59:15 12 A I must say to you, Mr. MacLeish, that the 12:59:15 13 handling of such a case really was a matter 12:59:20 14 that was in the hands of the bishop, and not in 12:59:26 15 my hands. It was my responsibility, the way we 12:59:30 16 operated, to bring information to the bishop, 12:59:37 17 and he would handle the case. 12:59:41 18 Q But you don't even remember whether you brought 12:59:44 19 it to the attention of the bishop. I thought 12:59:48 20 you said that several minutes ago. You can 12:59:50 21 have a recollection of it -- 12:59:54 22 A I have no active recollection of having done so 12:59:55 23 myself or having done so through Father 12:59:57 24 Broussard. 13:00:00

132 1 Q With respect to -- 13:00:01 2 A But -- 13:00:02 3 Q Excuse me. Go ahead. 13:00:03 4 A Excuse me. 13:00:04 5 Q Absolutely. 13:00:05 6 A But the bishop was informed, I have no doubt. 13:00:05 7 Q All right. With respect to the victim of 13:00:08 8 Leonard Chambers, do you have an active memory 13:00:10 9 of offering to provide psychological assistance 13:00:13 10 or mental health counseling to the victim of 13:00:16 11 Leonard Chambers? 13:00:20 12 A I do not recollect what kind of assistance was 13:00:28 13 offered. I know that there was a discussion, 13:00:33 14 in part, through me, in part, I think through 13:00:36 15 my chancellor, Father Reidy, with the father, 13:00:38 16 and it was our desire to be as helpful as we 13:00:44 17 could be and as responsive as was needed. I'm 13:00:49 18 not certain that this kind of help was desired 13:00:54 19 or requested on the part of the father. 13:01:02 20 Q You simply have no memory either way? 13:01:04 21 A No. 13:01:07 22 Q You don't have any memory of offering it 13:01:07 23 either? 13:01:09 24 A I remember the fact that we had very positive 13:01:09

133 1 contact with the father. 13:01:12 2 Q But you do have a clear recollection of getting 13:01:14 3 treatment for Leonard Chambers; is that 13:01:17 4 correct? 13:01:19 5 A That's correct. 13:01:20 6 Q How long did the treatment last, Cardinal Law? 13:01:23 7 A I couldn't say. 13:01:23 8 Q Was it a week? 13:01:24 9 A I believe it was more than that. 13:01:25 10 Q And -- 13:01:27 11 A I cannot -- I have no recall on that. I'd have 13:01:27 12 to check the records. 13:01:30 13 Q Did you consult with any other clinician -- 13:01:33 14 apart from the individuals at the treatment 13:01:35 15 centers that you think you sent Leonard 13:01:38 16 Chambers to -- did you consult with any other 13:01:42 17 professional within the diocese, mental health 13:01:44 18 professional, before you reassigned Leonard 13:01:48 19 Chambers as pastor to a new parish? 13:01:50 20 A I don't recollect that. I would presume that I 13:01:54 21 would have acted on the clinicians where he 13:01:59 22 would have been evaluated. 13:02:03 23 MR. MacLEISH: It's 1:00, Cardinal 13:02:04 24 Law. Is this a good time to take a break or 13:02:07

134 1 would you like to break? 13:02:08 2 MR. ROGERS: There's fine. 13:02:09 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:01. 13:02:11 4 We're off the record. 13:02:12 5 (Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

135 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (Law Exhibit No. 11, Responses of the 3 Defendant, Bernard Cardinal Law, to 4 Plaintiffs' Requests for Admissions, 5 marked for identification.) 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:02 14:00:48 7 p.m. We're on the record. 14:03:07 8 Q Good afternoon, Cardinal, and welcome back. 14:03:09 9 Would it be fair to state then that by the 14:03:14 10 time you came to Boston in 1984 as Archbishop 14:03:17 11 of Boston, you had personally been involved in 14:03:21 12 two cases involving abuse of a minor by a 14:03:24 13 priest? 14:03:28 14 MR. TODD: Objection. 14:03:29 15 Q Would that be a fair statement? 14:03:30 16 MR. TODD: Objection. 14:03:32 17 A Yes. 14:03:35 18 Q And you mentioned earlier that you had heard of 14:03:37 19 another case as well. Did that -- had you 14:03:40 20 heard of that case by the time you arrived in 14:03:42 21 Boston as Archbishop? 14:03:45 22 A Yes. My recollection -- and I did not have an 14:03:48 23 opportunity to do that over lunch -- but I 14:03:53 24 intend to do it to refresh my memory on two 14:03:56

136 1 points with regard to this type of question. 14:04:00 2 One, is you mentioned the name, I think, of a 14:04:05 3 Father Boyce. 14:04:09 4 Q That's correct. 14:04:09 5 A And I want to check that out. 14:04:11 6 Q Right. 14:04:13 7 A And then there is the name of someone else that 14:04:13 8 I have in my head as someone I heard about as 14:04:17 9 having been a subsequent case after I left 14:04:20 10 Mississippi, and I want to just check that out. 14:04:24 11 Q Okay. 14:04:28 12 A And I'll bring those names forward as I meet 14:04:28 13 with you again. 14:04:31 14 Q Thank you very much. And you also knew, did 14:04:32 15 you not, about the case involving Gilbert Gauth 14:04:35 16 in Louisiana by the time you arrived in Boston 14:04:38 17 in 1984? 14:04:43 18 A Gilbert? 14:04:43 19 Q Gilbert Gauth. He was a priest in Lafayette, 14:04:44 20 Louisiana, accused of sexually molesting boys. 14:04:49 21 It was a case, again, where there was a 14:04:52 22 substantial amount of publicity. 14:04:55 23 A I don't have a memory of that case. 14:04:58 24 Q Have you ever, prior to the time you arrived in 14:04:59 137 1 Boston in 1984, attended meetings of any 14:05:01 2 conferences where the issue of sexual abuse of 14:05:04 3 children had been a topic? 14:05:07 4 A I don't have a recollection of such a meeting. 14:05:17 5 Q Did you attend any such meeting in 1973 that 14:05:20 6 you're aware of? 14:05:23 7 A In 1973? No, I don't recollect that. 14:05:25 8 Q Without going into the substance of it, did you 14:05:33 9 also attend any briefing given by the general 14:05:37 10 counsel of the National Conference of Catholic 14:05:39 11 Bishops on sexual abuse before you arrived in 14:05:42 12 Boston in 1984? 14:05:45 13 A Well, I have a question here as to whether 14:05:51 14 lawyer/client privilege wouldn't pertain here. 14:06:00 15 MR. ROGERS: Maybe we ought to take 14:06:04 16 a -- 14:06:06 17 MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. This is 14:06:06 18 a question about the subject matter which does 14:06:07 19 not fall under the privilege. The answer is a 14:06:10 20 yes or no answer. I'm not asking for the 14:06:12 21 substance of communications, only whether -- 14:06:13 22 A I'd like to -- I'd really like to check that 14:06:16 23 out with my counsel, if you don't mind. 14:06:19 24 MR. ROGERS: Do you want us to take a 14:06:21

138 1 break? 14:06:23 2 MR. MacLEISH: Why don't we do it 10:08:36 3 during the normal break and come back instead 14:06:25 4 of everybody taking their microphones off. 14:06:27 5 Q Cardinal Law, you also knew, did you not, how 14:06:30 6 children that were brought up around the 14:06:34 7 Catholic parish were taught to respect and obey 14:06:37 8 priests, were you not, by the time you arrived 14:06:40 9 in Boston in 1984? 14:06:43 10 A And even before. 14:06:45 11 Q And even before? 14:06:46 12 A Yes. 14:06:47 13 Q So being someone with common sense and good 14:06:47 14 judgment, you knew, when you came to Boston in 14:06:51 15 1984, that a sexual abuse by a priest for 14:06:54 16 someone who was a member of the Catholic laity 14:06:58 17 would have a special impact on the children 14:07:01 18 because of the way children are taught to 14:07:05 19 regard priests. Is that a fair statement? 14:07:08 20 MR. TODD: Objection. 14:07:10 21 MR. ROGERS: Objection. 14:07:11 22 A I've said on many occasions that the particular 14:07:13 23 gravity of this act on the part of a priest is 14:07:19 24 the betrayal of trust that is invested in the 14:07:25

139 1 priest, as analogously, the betrayal of such 14:07:28 2 trust by a parent or the betrayal of such trust 14:07:36 3 by a police officer or the betrayal of such 14:07:39 4 trust by a teacher. 14:07:42 5 Anyone in whom people invest trust, to 14:07:44 6 betray that trust, particularly of a child, has 14:07:47 7 devastating consequences. And I was certainly 14:07:50 8 aware of that with regard to priests and with 14:07:52 9 regard to others as well. 14:07:54 10 Q And you were aware then in 1984 of the 14:07:55 11 devastating consequences that could occur when 14:07:59 12 a child was abused by a priest? 14:08:01 13 A I think all of us have become much more aware 14:08:03 14 since 1984 of the devastating effect of sexual 14:08:08 15 abuse, but I certainly was aware of the fact 14:08:10 16 that it had a very deleterious effect, yes. 14:08:13 17 Q Okay. Now, when you arrived in Boston as 14:08:16 18 Archbishop, this would have been the third or 14:08:22 19 the fourth largest Catholic diocese in the 14:08:24 20 country at the time? 14:08:27 21 A That's correct. 14:08:28 22 Q Was it the third or the fourth? I've seen 14:08:29 23 various -- 14:08:33 24 A Well, it's either the third or the fourth, 14:08:33

140 1 depending on how substantial the numbers are 14:08:35 2 that are given. 14:08:38 3 Q Okay. And you knew when you arrived in Boston 14:08:39 4 that there were over 400 parishes and 14:08:42 5 approximately 215 schools within the 14:08:47 6 Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct? 14:08:50 7 A I did. 14:08:54 8 Q And you knew that tens of thousands of children 14:08:54 9 were served at the CCD classes of those 14:08:56 10 parishes and at those schools; is that correct? 14:09:00 11 A That's correct. 14:09:03 12 Q And you were already familiar with betrayals of 14:09:03 13 trust by priests that had occurred in other 14:09:05 14 places that you had worked; is that correct? 14:09:08 15 A In very isolated instances, yes, I was aware of 14:09:11 16 the fact that this occurs. 14:09:15 17 Q Do you know a Father Thomas Doyle? 14:09:18 18 A I do. 14:09:20 19 Q Did you know him in 1984 and 1985? 14:09:20 20 A I believe that I did. I can't tell you exactly 14:09:24 21 the year when I first met him, but I think by 14:09:26 22 that time I would have met him, yes. 14:09:29 23 Q And you understand that he prepared a document 14:09:31 24 which has been referred to -- I think it's 14:09:34

141 1 called either the handbook or the manual, that 14:09:37 2 was sent to every diocese by St. Luke's 14:09:40 3 Institute in 1985; is that correct? 14:09:43 4 A Well, I don't have an active recall of that 14:09:46 5 document, but I have seen reports of that fact 14:09:50 6 in recent months. 14:09:57 7 Q You don't have any recollection, though, either 14:09:58 8 way, of receiving what is referred to as the 14:10:00 9 manual -- when I say "the manual," I'm 14:10:05 10 referring to The Problem of Sexual Molestation 14:10:08 11 by Roman Catholic Clergy, Meeting the Problem 14:10:11 12 in a Comprehensive and Responsible Way, final 14:10:14 13 draft compiled on June 8, 9, by Mr. Ray Mouton, 14:10:18 14 JD, and Reverend Thomas Doyle, OP, JCD. 14:10:23 15 A I do not have a recollection of having studied 14:10:29 16 it. I cannot, sitting here, tell you that I 14:10:30 17 have a recollection of having received it. The 14:10:34 18 date, again -- would you give me that date 14:10:37 19 again? 14:10:40 20 Q Sure. It was prepared June 8, 9 of 1985, and 14:10:40 21 according to some of the evidence that will be 14:10:44 22 in this case, sent to the Archdiocese of Boston 14:10:46 23 by the St. Luke's Institute in December of 14:10:50 24 1985. 14:10:52

142 1 A Yeah. I don't recall having read it. I 14:10:53 2 would -- had I received such a document, it 14:10:56 3 would have either gone by my direct indication 14:11:00 4 or by those who were helping me handle the 14:11:08 5 mail, it would have gone either to the 14:11:12 6 secretary of ministerial personnel, who would 14:11:15 7 have been Father John McCormack, or it would 14:11:18 8 have gone to the moderator of the Curia. 14:11:21 9 Q And in 198 -- in 199 -- in 1985, rather, did 14:11:24 10 you chair a committee of the National 14:11:30 11 Conference of Catholic Bishops -- the Committee 14:11:32 12 on Research on Pastoral Practices? 14:11:35 13 A I did. 14:11:37 14 Q And do you remember a Cardinal Kroll? Do you 14:11:38 15 know Cardinal Kroll? 14:11:42 16 A I do. 14:11:43 17 Q Is it true that Cardinal Kroll spoke to you and 14:11:45 18 Bishop Quinn about Father Doyle's work on 14:11:48 19 sexual abuse in the clergy? 14:11:52 20 A I don't recollect that. 14:11:54 21 Q Did you ever indicate to anyone that you would 14:11:56 22 set up a project -- this is in 1985 -- with a 14:11:59 23 special subcommittee of your committee 14:12:03 24 concerning clerical abuse by clergy? 14:12:05

143 1 A I don't recollect that. 14:12:08 2 Q Okay. Do you know an Archbishop Levada? 14:12:10 3 A I do. 14:12:13 4 Q Who is Archbishop Levada? 14:12:15 5 A He is the Archbishop of San Francisco. 14:12:16 6 Q Where was he in 1985? 14:12:19 7 A Oh, I can't remember. I'm not even sure he was 14:12:21 8 a bishop in 1985. I'm really not certain where 14:12:25 9 he was in 1985. 14:12:31 10 Q He was the secretary to your committee at the 14:12:31 11 National Conference of Catholic Bishops; is 14:12:33 12 that correct? 14:12:36 13 A Bishop Levada? Archbishop Levada? 14:12:37 14 Q Yes. 14:12:42 15 A I don't recall what he was doing in 1985. I'd 14:12:45 16 have to check the records. 14:12:48 17 Q But you don't know whether he was ever 14:12:49 18 secretary to the committee that you chaired? 14:12:51 19 A Well, as I recall, he would not have been a 14:12:52 20 staff -- he never was a staff person of the 14:12:56 21 conference, and so we wouldn't have had a 14:12:58 22 secretary to the committee. The committee 14:13:03 23 would be a group of bishops. If he was a 14:13:05 24 bishop member of the committee, it's -- he 14:13:09

144 1 would have been a member of the committee. 14:13:14 2 Q Right. 14:13:15 3 A He would not have had the title of secretary. 14:13:16 4 Q But my question is -- 14:13:20 5 A I cannot recollect whether in 1985 he was a 14:13:21 6 bishop or not. 14:13:26 7 Q My question -- I think you may have answered 14:13:27 8 it, but just for the record, so it's clear, you 14:13:30 9 have no recollection whatsoever of having any 14:13:33 10 involvement with setting up an ad hoc committee 14:13:35 11 to deal with the issue of sexual abuse in the 14:13:38 12 clergy. Is that your testimony? 14:13:40 13 A I have no recollection of that. However, it's 14:13:41 14 conceivable that our committee did set up -- 14:13:45 15 that I did set up a subcommittee. I just have 14:13:49 16 no recollection of that. 14:13:52 17 Q And records pertaining to that committee would 14:13:54 18 be within your personal files or the U.S. 14:13:57 19 Conference of Catholic Bishops? 14:13:59 20 A Not in my personal files but in the Conference 14:14:01 21 of Bishops. 14:14:05 22 Q Now, Cardinal Law, you've acknowledged that 14:14:05 23 when you arrived in Boston, you were -- the 14:14:08 24 Archdiocese of Boston was serving children in a 14:14:11

145 1 variety of capacities, CCD classes, schools, 14:14:13 2 and camps as well. Were there camps? 14:14:18 3 A Yes. We have -- we have a camp in Hull within 14:14:27 4 the diocese. We have a camp in Hull. 14:14:34 5 Q Did you have that in 1985? 14:14:36 6 A Yes. 14:14:38 7 Q And given the tens of thousands of children 14:14:39 8 that are being served when you arrive in Boston 14:14:42 9 in 1984, what written policies, if any, did you 14:14:45 10 put in place when you arrived in order to 14:14:49 11 minimize or mitigate the possibility that 14:14:54 12 children would be sexually abused by either 14:14:56 13 employees of the Archdiocese or priests? 14:14:59 14 A Well, Mr. MacLeish, as my earlier answers would 14:15:01 15 clearly imply, our written policy was not put 14:15:04 16 in place until 1993. So from 1984 to 1993, 14:15:07 17 there was not a written policy in place. 14:15:12 18 Q All right. Was there any practice with 14:15:15 19 respect -- 14:15:18 20 A Excuse me. 14:15:19 21 Q Go ahead. Sorry. 14:15:20 22 A There was not a written policy in place with 14:15:20 23 regard to how the Archdiocese dealt with 14:15:23 24 priests, with the institutions where the 14:15:26

146 1 priests were serving. I would need to review 14:15:29 2 the policies of schools to see if there were 14:15:36 3 specific policies for schools during that 14:15:41 4 period. 14:15:43 5 Q I wasn't referring to what you testified to 14:15:43 6 earlier, Cardinal, about policies with respect 14:15:47 7 to priests. I'm now speaking about policies 14:15:49 8 that were designed to prevent children from 14:15:50 9 being molested by either employees of the 14:15:55 10 Archdiocese or priests. 14:15:57 11 Was there any such written policy in place 14:15:58 12 between 1984 and 1993? 14:16:02 13 A No. 14:16:05 14 Q And was there any practice of obtaining a 14:16:05 15 criminal background check for individuals who 14:16:10 16 were involved in unsupervised contact with 14:16:14 17 children to see if they might have been 14:16:16 18 convicted of crimes relating to sexual 14:16:19 19 molestation -- 14:16:22 20 A I would have -- 14:16:22 21 Q Excuse me. 14:16:23 22 -- in Massachusetts or other states? 10:17:59 23 Go ahead. 14:16:25 24 A I would have to check the record to see at what 14:16:26

147 1 point those background checks were required. 14:16:28 2 Q You just don't know either way right now 14:16:30 3 whether those were instituted between 1984 and 14:16:32 4 1993? 14:16:35 5 A I do not. 14:16:36 6 Q Okay. All right. Now, you have issued several 14:16:36 7 statements in connection with the Shanley case, 14:16:43 8 and, in fact, in other cases as well, such as 14:16:46 9 the Geoghan case. 14:16:49 10 Are you generally familiar with those 14:16:49 11 statements? 14:16:52 12 A I believe I am. 14:16:52 13 Q Let me provide you with -- 14:16:53 14 A If I'm not, I think you'll remind me. 14:16:55 15 Q That would be correct. 14:16:58 16 MR. ROGERS: What exhibit is this? 17 MR. MacLEISH: 12. 18 (Law Exhibit No. 12, Statement, 19 5/20/02, marked for identification.) 20 (Law Exhibit No. 13, Document, 21 marked for identification.) 22 THE WITNESS: 11 is here, but we 14:17:24 23 didn't deal with it. 14:17:26 24 MR. MacLEISH: No, we didn't, and the

148 1 reason we didn't deal with it, just so you 14:17:29 2 understand it, Cardinal, is because you 14:17:30 3 answered the question that was in it. 14:17:32 4 Q Showing you Exhibit 12 -- and we tried to 14:17:35 5 obtain this in your website, but it's not 14:17:38 6 there. I apologize. This is the one from the 14:17:41 7 Globe Web page. But if you could take a look 14:17:42 8 at this and see -- 14:17:45 9 A It's not on our Web page? 14:17:45 10 Q No, it's not on your Web page. 14:17:47 11 A Well, it will be. 14:17:49 12 Q If you could take a look at it and see if this 14:17:51 13 is the statement that you issued on May 20, 14:17:53 14 2002. 14:17:56 15 A Always needs to edit here. 14:19:14 16 Q Have you had the chance to examine Exhibit 12? 14:20:22 17 A I have, yeah. 14:20:25 18 Q Is Exhibit 12 a copy of the statement that you 14:20:26 19 issued on May 20, 2002? 14:20:28 20 A Yes. 14:20:35 21 Q I'd like to turn to the second page, if I 14:20:35 22 could, please, Cardinal, and the fourth full 14:20:38 23 paragraph. 14:20:42 24 A Yes. 14:20:43

149 1 Q The last sentence: 14:20:44 2 "Furthermore, we have brought forward the 10:19:38 3 names of all living priests known to us against 14:20:47 4 whom credible allegations of sexual abuse of 14:20:51 5 minors have been made." 14:20:54 6 Do you see that? 14:20:55 7 A I do. 14:20:55 8 Q Have those names been brought forward to the 14:20:56 9 former parishioners of those priests in a 14:20:59 10 public manner? 14:21:02 11 A The answer to that question you already know, 14:21:03 12 Mr. MacLeish, is no, that we have not brought 14:21:06 13 forward the names of all living priests known 14:21:12 14 to us against whom credible allegations, to the 14:21:15 15 parishes, but we have those that have currently 14:21:18 16 come forward. And I have indicated that that 14:21:21 17 is something that we need to do, but it's going 14:21:24 18 to be -- we have to get the personnel in place, 14:21:27 19 and it certainly is our intent to do that. 14:21:32 20 Q Certainly. I understand that. I just wanted 14:21:34 21 to clarify that there had been no public 14:21:36 22 disclosure of the names. In that sentence, 14:21:39 23 you're talking about revealing the names of all 14:21:41 24 living priests to law enforcement and public 14:21:43

150 1 authorities. 14:21:46 2 MR. TODD: Excuse me. When you say 14:21:46 3 "public disclosure," you don't mean through 10:20:52 4 newspapers and through the Attorney General's 14:21:51 5 Office? 14:21:53 6 MR. MacLEISH: No, I don't mean 14:21:53 7 through the Attorney General's Office or 14:21:54 8 newspapers. What I mean is -- 14:21:56 9 MR. TODD: That is a public 14:21:59 10 disclosure, but you're referring to -- 14:22:00 11 MR. MacLEISH: I'm referring to 14:22:02 12 public authorities. Disclosures to -- I'm 14:22:03 13 sorry. Go ahead, Cardinal. You explain it for 14:22:05 14 all the lawyers here. 14:22:08 15 A The last sentence of that paragraph has to be 14:22:09 16 seen in the context of the first sentence of 14:22:12 17 that paragraph, which is the topic sentence. 14:22:14 18 Q Fine. 14:22:17 19 A And it is speaking of mandated -- mandating 14:22:18 20 reporting to public authorities, and so it's 14:22:23 21 public authorities there that is envisaged and 14:22:28 22 it's to the public authorities that those names 14:22:30 23 have come forward. 14:22:33 24 Q And I think Father Higgins testified that there 14:22:34

151 1 were names of 70 living priests and 15 priests 14:22:36 2 that were deceased. 14:22:39 3 A I'm not aware of his testimony in that regard. 14:22:40 4 I think I saw it a moment ago, but I would 14:22:43 5 certainly stand by what he says. 14:22:46 6 Q Right. Okay. Would you turn to the first 14:22:47 7 page, please. 14:22:51 8 A Yes. 14:22:51 9 Q And in the bottom paragraph on the first page, 14:22:52 10 you state "In the process," and this is in the 14:22:58 11 middle of the paragraph: 14:23:01 12 "In the process, my credibility has been 14:23:11 13 publicly questioned and I have become, for 14:23:11 14 some, an object of contempt. I understand how 14:23:11 15 this is so and I am profoundly sorry that the 14:23:11 16 inadequacy of past policies and flaws in past 14:23:14 17 decisions" -- and I think that may be "and past 14:23:18 18 decisions." 14:23:21 19 A "In." 14:23:21 20 MR. ROGERS: "In past." 14:23:22 21 MR. MacLEISH: It says "in," but I'm 14:23:23 22 just trying to make sure it's not -- 14:23:24 23 MR. ROGERS: It says "in." 14:23:26 24 MR. MacLEISH: I know it says "in." 14:23:27

152 1 I acknowledge that. 2 Q Is it supposed to say "in" or is it supposed to 14:23:29 3 say "and"? 14:23:30 4 A I think "inadequacy of past policies and flaws 14:23:30 5 in past decisions." 14:23:36 6 Q I'm sorry. "And flaws in past decisions." Let 14:23:37 7 me read it again. 8 "In the process, my credibility has been 10:22:53 9 publicly questioned and I have become, for 14:23:40 10 some, an object of contempt. I understand how 14:23:44 11 this is so and I am profoundly sorry that the 14:23:45 12 inadequacy of past policies and flaws in past 14:23:49 13 decisions have contributed to this situation. 14:23:52 14 I wish I could undo the hurt and the harm." 14:23:54 15 Do you see those words? 14:23:57 16 A I do indeed. 14:23:57 17 Q Those words were written by you; is that 14:24:00 18 correct? 14:24:00 19 A Those words were written by me and they express 14:24:01 20 what is in my heart. 14:24:04 21 Q And we've made some distinctions, or you've 14:24:05 22 made some distinctions in your testimony here 14:24:07 23 today, between mistakes that were made with the 14:24:09 24 benefit of hindsight and mistakes that were 14:24:12

153 1 made at the time. 14:24:15 2 Do you acknowledge, Cardinal Law, now, 14:24:17 3 that in the period from 1984 to 1993, that you 14:24:19 4 made mistakes which you now consider to be 14:24:24 5 errors of judgment at the time as opposed to 14:24:28 6 errors of judgment in hindsight? 14:24:30 7 MR. ROGERS: I object to the form, 14:24:37 8 but go ahead. 14:24:40 9 Q Do you understand what I'm asking you, 14:24:40 10 Cardinal? 14:24:40 11 A I think I understand what you're asking, 14:24:40 12 Mr. MacLeish. And it's not an easy question to 14:24:43 13 answer adequately. And it's certainly not an 14:24:51 14 easy question to answer with a yes or with a 14:24:53 15 no. We a -- I attempted, and those who 14:24:55 16 assisted me attempted to do our level best in 14:25:02 17 handling these kinds of cases in a way that 14:25:07 18 would avoid risk to potential victims, and we 14:25:11 19 see -- I see that some of the things that we 14:25:18 20 did were not adequate to that task. 14:25:23 21 Now, should I have known better on the 14:25:26 22 basis of information available at that time? 14:25:30 23 Should I have known better? Well, you know, 14:25:38 24 the fact of the matter is I didn't know better, 14:25:45

154 1 and I acted as best I knew how with the advice 14:25:49 2 that was -- upon which I was relying and which 14:25:56 3 I had reason -- and which I had reason to have 14:26:01 4 confidence. 14:26:06 5 So to my mind, this is hindsight, 14:26:10 6 hindsight. I have an accumulated insight in 14:26:16 7 this problem now which I didn't have in 1984. 14:26:20 8 The number of cases that I had dealt with 14:26:24 9 myself personally before that date was rather 14:26:27 10 limited, and the general understanding of this 14:26:31 11 case -- of this problem at that time was quite 14:26:38 12 distinct than where it is today. 14:26:41 13 Q Have you completed your answer, Cardinal? 14:26:50 14 A I believe I have. 14:26:53 15 Q Just so I'm clear, the mistakes that you think 14:26:54 16 you made are only mistakes that you believe 14:26:58 17 were mistakes when looked at with benefit of 14:27:00 18 hindsight; is that correct? 14:27:04 19 A That's correct. 14:27:05 20 Q Now, Cardinal, could you turn to the second 14:27:05 21 page of this exhibit. 14:27:11 22 A Yes. 14:27:13 23 Q And you state that when you arrived in Boston 14:27:13 24 in 1984, "I assumed that priests in place had 14:27:18

155 1 been appointed appropriately -- had been 14:27:23 2 appropriately appointed. It did not enter into 14:27:24 3 my mind to second-guess my predecessors, and it 14:27:28 4 simply was not in the culture of the day to 14:27:31 5 function otherwise." 14:27:34 6 Do you see that? 14:27:35 7 A I remember the words. What paragraph is that? 14:27:36 8 Q It's the bottom paragraph. 14:27:40 9 A Yes, I see that. Yes. I'm sorry. 14:27:42 10 Q Now, you had, as you previously testified, 14:27:44 11 moved -- reassigned, after his assessment, 14:27:47 12 Leonard Chambers as pastor to another parish in 14:27:53 13 the diocese of Springfield when he returned 14:27:55 14 from his assessment, correct? 14:27:59 15 A Correct. On the basis of that assessment. 14:27:59 16 Q On the basis of that assessment and after an 14:28:03 17 admission by Mr. Chambers that he had engaged 14:28:06 18 in deviant acts towards a minor, correct? 14:28:09 19 A Correct. 14:28:13 20 Q So in light of that, what basis did you have to 14:28:13 21 believe that all of the priests that were 14:28:18 22 within the Archdiocese of Boston at the time 14:28:20 23 had been properly assigned? 14:28:23 24 A I don't believe, Mr. MacLeish, that the example 14:28:29

156 1 you cite disproves what is written here, but I 14:28:32 2 think, rather, it proves my point. 14:28:34 3 In the action of Father Chambers, his 14:28:37 4 reassignment was based upon evidence that -- 14:28:42 5 rather, recommendation that I received from an 14:28:48 6 institution in which I had reason to have 14:28:51 7 confidence, and that was the basis upon which 14:28:56 8 that change had been made. 14:28:59 9 Q Okay. Going to the next page, Cardinal, you 14:29:04 10 state -- and this is in the second full 14:29:09 11 paragraph -- you state, towards the bottom of 14:29:13 12 that paragraph, about when you first became 14:29:15 13 aware of the allegations against Father 14:29:17 14 Shanley. You state: 14:29:20 15 "The 1993 allegation was my first 14:29:21 16 knowledge. I wish I had known in 1984 and I 14:29:24 17 wish I had been aware of the 1966 report. It 14:29:29 18 is only possible to act based on what is known, 14:29:33 19 however." 14:29:36 20 Do you see that language? 14:29:36 21 A Yes. 14:29:39 22 Q And do you understand what the 1966 report was 14:29:39 23 when you wrote that language? 14:29:40 24 A I do now. 14:29:41

157 1 Q When you wrote this statement, did you 14:29:42 2 understand what the 1966 report was? 14:29:46 3 A Well, I certainly was aware of it because I 14:29:51 4 referenced it. 14:29:54 5 Q That's exactly right. And that was a report of 14:29:55 6 sexual abuse about -- concerning a minor that 14:29:57 7 was sent to the Archdiocese of Boston by a 14:30:02 8 priest from the LaSalette Center. 14:30:05 9 Do you know that to be the case now? 14:30:08 10 A That's correct. I know that to be the case 14:30:10 11 now. 14:30:11 12 Q So if you had been aware of that 1966 report, 14:30:12 13 you would have taken some action; is that 14:30:17 14 correct? 14:30:18 15 A That's correct. 14:30:18 16 Q And the action that you would have taken would 14:30:20 17 have been the removal of -- 14:30:24 18 A I would have -- 14:30:26 19 Q Excuse me. Let me finish the question. 14:30:27 20 -- the removal of Paul Shanley from 14:30:28 21 ministry? 14:30:31 22 A I would have examined the case, and I would 14:30:34 23 have sent the man away for -- in 1984, we're 14:30:37 24 talking about 1984, what would have happened in 14:30:43

158 1 1984 had I known that, what would have happened 14:30:47 2 is he would have been sent away for an 14:30:50 3 evaluation. He would have been sent away, in 14:30:53 4 all likelihood, for treatment, and I would have 14:30:55 5 been dependent upon the recommendation of that 14:31:01 6 institution as to whether or not he was someone 14:31:05 7 who would place others at risk. 14:31:08 8 Q Now -- 14:31:12 9 A We're talking about 1984, not 2002. 14:31:12 10 Q I understand that. Between 1984 and 1993, 14:31:16 11 there were a number of Archdiocesan priests 14:31:19 12 that were sent away for evaluations; is that 14:31:23 13 correct? 14:31:25 14 A That's correct. 14:31:26 15 Q And, for example, Father O'Sullivan was sent 14:31:26 16 away for an evaluation; is that correct? 14:31:30 17 A That's correct. 14:31:32 18 Q You remember Father O'Sullivan, do you not? 14:31:33 19 A I remember the case, yes. 14:31:35 20 Q Father O'Sullivan had been -- pled guilty to 14:31:37 21 raping a child; is that correct? 14:31:40 22 A I understand that that's the case, yes. 14:31:42 23 Q And you understood it in 1985 -- 14:31:44 24 A Yes. 14:31:47

159 1 Q -- shortly after you arrived in Boston; is that 14:31:48 2 correct? 14:31:51 3 A That's correct. 14:31:51 4 Q And Father O'Sullivan was sent away for an 14:31:51 5 evaluation; is that correct? 14:31:53 6 A That's correct. 14:31:54 7 Q And in sending individuals away for these 14:31:55 8 evaluations, it was the Archdiocese of Boston 14:31:59 9 that chose the places to which these 14:32:01 10 individuals were evaluated. Is that not also 14:32:05 11 correct? 14:32:07 12 A That's correct, because we wanted to be able to 14:32:07 13 have confidence in the institution. 14:32:09 14 Q All right. Well, was there any clinician that 14:32:13 15 was retained in 1984 or 1985 or 1986 that 14:32:14 16 advised you on where it might be appropriate to 14:32:20 17 send a cleric accused of sexual misconduct to 14:32:24 18 be evaluated? 14:32:28 19 MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. 14:32:30 20 MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead. 14:32:31 21 Q Do you understand the question? 14:32:31 22 A Yes, I can -- I think I understand your 14:32:32 23 question. Your question is, was there a local 14:32:35 24 professional or a professional somewhere else 14:32:39

160 1 in the psychiatric field or the medical field 14:32:42 2 whom we asked to help us in assessing the 14:32:46 3 institutions to which people were sent or the 14:32:50 4 appropriate institution for a specific 14:32:53 5 individual. 14:32:56 6 Q You put it better than I did. 14:32:56 7 A I myself did not do that. The person assisting 14:33:01 8 me in the handling of these cases would have 14:33:07 9 been the lead agent, if you will, in choosing 14:33:11 10 the institution. I know that they were 14:33:14 11 regularly in contact with psychiatrists 14:33:17 12 locally, but to what extent, and whether as a 14:33:22 13 matter of policy each placement was 14:33:27 14 individually reviewed by a clinician locally, I 14:33:31 15 am not aware of that having occurred on a 14:33:38 16 regular basis. 14:33:40 17 Q All right. Well, the principal facilities to 14:33:42 18 which these individuals accused, sometimes 14:33:44 19 admitted, sometimes convicted -- in one case 14:33:47 20 convicted -- of abuse were, as I have read the 14:33:50 21 records of the twelve priests we have so far, 14:33:54 22 St. Luke's Institute was one of them; is that 14:33:57 23 correct? 14:33:59 24 A That's correct. 14:33:59

161 1 Q Southdown in Toronto? 14:34:00 2 A That's correct. 14:34:03 3 Q And the Institute for Living? 14:34:03 4 A That's correct. Those were the principal ones, 14:34:05 5 yes. 14:34:07 6 Q You would agree with me that it would be 14:34:07 7 important, just as there are differences 14:34:09 8 between what one lawyer might tell you or what 14:34:11 9 one doctor might tell you, it was important 14:34:13 10 that all these assessments be done in a way 14:34:15 11 that would ensure that you received an 14:34:18 12 independent opinion about the suitability of 14:34:21 13 the priest to return to ministry; is that 14:34:24 14 correct? 14:34:27 15 A Absolutely. 14:34:27 16 Q But you're aware that psychiatric facilities 14:34:29 17 don't give recommendations on whether or not a 14:34:33 18 priest is suitable to return to ministry. That 14:34:36 19 would always be a decision for you to make; is 14:34:41 20 that correct? 14:34:43 21 A Certainly they are not going to make the 14:34:46 22 decision, put this man in ministry or don't put 14:34:48 23 this man in ministry, but there certainly are 14:34:52 24 indications given as to whether or not this 14:34:54

162 1 would be appropriate. 14:34:56 2 Q But the final decision was yours, was it not, 14:34:56 3 Cardinal Law? 14:35:01 4 A That's correct. 14:35:01 5 Q Psychiatric facilities are there to make 14:35:02 6 assessments of individuals to determine whether 14:35:04 7 they suffer from some form of mental illness or 14:35:05 8 psychiatric condition; is that correct? 14:35:08 9 A I would say that these particular institutions, 14:35:12 10 which have a very particular clientele, in 14:35:14 11 responding to someone sent by a diocese for 14:35:19 12 this very specific purpose, do, in their 14:35:22 13 evaluations, give clear indication as to 14:35:31 14 whether or not it's appropriate to place this 14:35:31 15 person in ministry. So I think that your 14:35:33 16 description is more limiting than what I would 14:35:37 17 have understood -- than I understand those 14:35:38 18 recommendations or evaluations to be. 14:35:42 19 Q Cardinal Law, you understood, when these 14:35:44 20 individuals were sent away to institutions, 14:35:46 21 that there could be no prediction given by any 14:35:49 22 of these institutions with a degree of 14:35:54 23 certainty that the individual who'd engaged in 14:35:57 24 sexual misconduct in the past would not do it 14:36:01

163 1 again in the future? 14:36:03 2 A Mr. MacLeish, I simply don't have the 14:36:05 3 professional competence in this area. I am not 14:36:08 4 a psychiatrist, I'm not a psychologist, and in 14:36:11 5 order to make a decision as to whether or not 14:36:17 6 someone can appropriately be assigned, I have 14:36:22 7 to depend on those who have that competence. 14:36:25 8 Q And who is that? 14:36:28 9 A Well, that's why -- obviously the people who 14:36:29 10 evaluate at a place like St. Luke's, like 14:36:34 11 Southdown, like the Institute for Living, I was 14:36:38 12 dependent upon those persons to indicate to me 14:36:41 13 whether or not it would be responsible to place 14:36:44 14 such a person in ministry. 14:36:47 15 Q Well, was there any evaluation that you ever 14:36:49 16 saw or that anyone ever told you about that 14:36:52 17 stated with certainty that individuals sent for 14:36:55 18 assessments were not at risk to reoffend? With 14:37:00 19 certainty, Cardinal Law, with certainty? 14:37:08 20 Do you understand the question or do you 14:37:11 21 want me to rephrase it? 14:37:13 22 A No. I understand the question. Your question 14:37:13 23 is did any evaluation ever come with 100 14:37:14 24 percent guarantee that nothing else would ever 14:37:21

164 1 happen, and, obviously, the answer to that is 14:37:25 2 no. No one would make that kind of a pledge or 14:37:27 3 a promise. 14:37:33 4 Q And you knew, when you were receiving these 14:37:33 5 assessments, that since we were talking about 14:37:36 6 the likelihood of engaging in future aberrant 14:37:38 7 deviant behavior toward children, there 14:37:43 8 couldn't be any 100 percent guarantee. You 14:37:46 9 knew that in 1984 and you knew it up through 14:37:48 10 1993; is that not correct? 14:37:53 11 A Through 1993, and the policy which you yourself 14:37:54 12 have praised, it was possible to reassign 14:37:57 13 people, and that reassignment was on the basis 14:38:01 14 of these kinds of evaluations and 14:38:03 15 recommendation of the delegate and review and 14:38:08 16 recommendations by the review board. And that 14:38:12 17 was our policy. 14:38:15 18 Q Go ahead. 14:38:16 19 A In 2002, that is not our policy. And it's 14:38:17 20 precisely for the reason that you bring 14:38:21 21 forward. There are those -- and there are 14:38:25 22 those in the field who would dispute the 14:38:28 23 position that I think you and I both hold at 14:38:32 24 this point, and that is that someone having 14:38:35 165 1 been guilty of this kind of deviant behavior 14:38:38 2 should not be reassigned under any 14:38:42 3 circumstances. That is our current policy, and 14:38:44 4 I think that's a position you hold. There are 14:38:47 5 professionals who would disagree with that. 14:38:49 6 But I believe that that's right and that's 14:38:52 7 appropriate. 14:38:56 8 Q Cardinal Law, I'm not really referring to the 14:38:58 9 present policy. My question was from 1984 14:39:00 10 through 1993 you were aware that there was no 14:39:03 11 guarantee that the individuals you were sending 14:39:06 12 out for assessments and returning to ministry 14:39:09 13 would not reoffend again, didn't you? 14:39:11 14 A I was aware that there was no 100 percent 14:39:14 15 assurance that anyone could or would give. 14:39:20 16 However, I am also -- I was also aware that 14:39:22 17 there could be a very reasonable probability 14:39:28 18 that this person would not be at risk. And as 14:39:32 19 a matter of fact, as I've tried to indicate, 14:39:36 20 there are professionals today who would hold 14:39:39 21 that position, and there are others in 14:39:42 22 decision-making positions who would say because 14:39:46 23 of that, so-called zero toleration policy is 14:39:48 24 incorrect. 14:39:53

166 1 I have come -- and I know you don't like 14:39:54 2 me to reference another time frame -- but I 14:39:56 3 have come in 2002 to see that as -- that zero 14:39:58 4 toleration policy is the only adequate way to 14:40:04 5 protect children. 14:40:08 6 Q All right. Well, let's, if we can, if it's 14:40:08 7 possible, Cardinal, focus on 1984 to 1993 for 14:40:11 8 the time being. 14:40:16 9 Can we agree upon that? 14:40:16 10 A Yes. 14:40:19 11 Q I understand your present position, and you're 14:40:19 12 absolutely right, I think it's the correct 14:40:19 13 position. You've articulated my views well. 14:40:22 14 But can we just focus on 1984 to 1993? You 14:40:24 15 testified that in these cases, you received 14:40:29 16 assurances that there was a reasonable 14:40:33 17 probability that a reoffense would not occur; 14:40:35 18 is that correct? 14:40:39 19 A I think that's an accurate way to phrase it, 14:40:40 20 absent seeing the evaluations themselves. 14:40:45 21 Q Yet, in making the decision on whether to put 14:40:48 22 the interests of reassignment ahead of the 14:40:53 23 potential for reoffense against children, that 14:40:56 24 was your decision; that was not the decision of 14:40:59

167 1 St. Luke's, Southdown or the Institute for 14:41:02 2 Living. Is that correct? 14:41:04 3 MR. TODD: Objection to the form. 14:41:05 4 Q Do you understand the question, Cardinal? 14:41:07 5 A I do the assignments; St. Luke's does not. 14:41:08 6 That's correct. 14:41:12 7 Q So in looking at whether or not to reassign a 14:41:12 8 priest -- let's start with Father O'Sullivan, 14:41:15 9 if we could. Father O'Sullivan was convicted 14:41:19 10 of rape, sent for an evaluation and then he was 14:41:23 11 reassigned, I believe, as an Archdiocesan 14:41:26 12 priest to the Diocese of Matuchen, New Jersey; 14:41:29 13 is that correct? 14:41:34 14 A The finding was that he could be assigned 14:41:35 15 without risk; that he had responded well to 14:41:41 16 treatment; and the decision was that it would 14:41:44 17 not be good for him to remain locally because 14:41:49 18 of the publicity attendant to the case and the 14:41:53 19 possible scandal that that can cause. 14:41:57 20 So he had family in New Jersey, which is 14:42:01 21 important in terms of support to the priest 14:42:04 22 himself, and with the concurrence of the bishop 14:42:07 23 there, he received an assignment in that 14:42:11 24 diocese. 14:42:13

168 1 Q He was still an Archdiocesan priest? 14:42:13 2 A He was still a priest of the Archdiocese of 14:42:16 3 Boston. 14:42:19 4 Q And you said -- 14:42:19 5 A With the concurrence -- 14:42:21 6 Q With the concurrence? 14:42:23 7 A The assignment was not made by me. I couldn't 14:42:24 8 assign him to work in that diocese. That would 14:42:28 9 have to be done by the bishop there. 14:42:29 10 Q And the concurrence, that would be Bishop 14:42:31 11 McCarrick; is that correct? 14:42:34 12 A I believe it was Bishop McCarrick at the time. 14:42:36 13 Q He had full disclosures about the facts 14:42:38 14 concerning Eugene O'Sullivan concerning the 14:42:41 15 conditions of his probation, Cardinal Law? 14:42:43 16 A My understanding is he had full knowledge. 14:42:46 17 Q What is that understanding based on? 14:42:48 18 A Well, it would be based on the way that cases 14:42:50 19 like this should be handled, and I would have 14:42:57 20 wanted them to have been handled. I wouldn't 14:43:00 21 send someone like this to another diocese 14:43:07 22 without letting the bishop know what the 14:43:09 23 situation was. 14:43:15 24 Q Could you point to any piece of paper in Father 14:43:17

169 1 O'Sullivan's file in which it is stated that 14:43:22 2 Bishop McCarrick was informed that Eugene 14:43:25 3 O'Sullivan had been convicted of rape, and as a 14:43:29 4 condition of his probation could not be in any 14:43:31 5 parish assignment where he would have access to 14:43:35 6 minors? Is there a piece of paper that says 14:43:38 7 that, Cardinal Law? 14:43:40 8 A First of all, I have not reviewed his file. So 14:43:41 9 I don't know what is or is not in his file. It 14:43:44 10 may very well be that such explicit reference 14:43:50 11 to what was communicated isn't there, but there 14:43:54 12 may be a reference to a communication of the 14:43:56 13 situation or of the case to the bishop, and 14:44:01 14 that would imply that. 14:44:03 15 Q But this is simply at this point conjecture on 14:44:05 16 your part; you don't know what was said to 14:44:08 17 Bishop McCarrick? 14:44:10 18 A I don't have the file before me. I have not 14:44:10 19 reviewed the file prior to our meeting here, so 14:44:12 20 I can't say what's in there or not in there, 14:44:17 21 but I can tell you that it would be, in this 14:44:18 22 kind of a case, my intent that the bishop would 14:44:21 23 be informed of all pertinent information. 14:44:25 24 Q I'm asking you specifically at this point 14:44:28

170 1 whether you can state with certainty that 14:44:30 2 Bishop McCarrick was informed about Father 14:44:34 3 O'Sullivan's conviction of rape in 1984. He 14:44:36 4 was sent to the Diocese of Matuchen in 1985. 14:44:41 5 Can you state with certainty that Bishop 14:44:45 6 McCarrick was informed that Eugene O'Neill -- 14:44:48 7 Eugene O'Sullivan -- I'm sorry -- was a 14:44:50 8 convicted rapist and had certain terms of 14:44:53 9 probation which prohibited him from having 14:44:55 10 access to minors? 14:44:58 11 A I cannot confirm what was communicated in its 14:44:59 12 detail to Bishop McCarrick in 1985. 14:45:03 13 Q Did you ever instruct anyone to look through 14:45:05 14 the file on Eugene O'Sullivan in order that you 14:45:07 15 might provide the Diocese of Matuchen with full 14:45:13 16 disclosure concerning all details of his 14:45:17 17 background? Did you ever do that, Cardinal 14:45:18 18 Law? 14:45:21 19 A I don't know if I did that or not. I had 14:45:23 20 people helping me in carrying out these cases, 14:45:24 21 and -- if I say, you know, we need to 14:45:32 22 communicate with a diocese, I don't say we need 14:45:34 23 to say A, B, C, D and F to the diocese. I 14:45:37 24 would expect them to be forthcoming to the 14:45:40

171 1 authorities in the other dioceses. 14:45:44 2 MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this 14:45:46 3 exhibit, please 14:45:48 4 (Law Exhibit No. 14, Report to 5 Cardinal Cushing of 1964 Re: Eugene 6 O'Sullivan, marked for 7 identification.) 8 Q Cardinal Law, I'd like to show you Exhibit 14, 14:45:59 9 which is a document that was produced by the 14:46:02 10 Archdiocese on this past Friday concerning 14:46:06 11 Eugene O'Sullivan, and it's a report to 14:46:10 12 Cardinal Cushing of 1964. You can read, if you 14:46:15 13 like -- the salient paragraph that I'm going to 14:46:19 14 point you to is the third from the bottom in 14:46:21 15 which it states: 14:46:23 16 "Several days after the August 15 date, 14:46:24 17 one of the other altar boys, aged 12, was 14:46:27 18 asked if Father O'Sullivan had been touching 14:46:30 19 you down there and admitted he had done so with 14:46:33 20 him, his 13-year-old brother and several other 14:46:35 21 boys." 14:46:40 22 Have you ever seen this document before? 14:46:41 23 A I have not. 14:46:42 24 Q Do you know whether this was the -- information 14:46:50

172 1 was in any way transmitted to Bishop McCarrick 14:46:55 2 down in New Jersey? 14:46:59 3 A I do not know that. 14:47:01 4 Q In 1984, if you had been in Bishop McCarrick's 14:47:03 5 position -- and let's assume he knew that 14:47:09 6 Eugene O'Sullivan had been convicted of rape -- 14:47:11 7 is this also, what is reflected on this letter 14:47:14 8 of 1964, some 20 years prior to his conviction, 14:47:17 9 would that be the type of information you would 14:47:20 10 also want to see before receiving a priest from 14:47:23 11 another diocese? 10:50:12 12 A Mr. MacLeish, in a very effective way, you are 14:47:33 13 building a case, and I understand that. This 14:47:36 14 is 1964 that this letter was written. It's a 14:47:37 15 letter to Cardinal Cushing. 14:47:43 16 Q Right. 14:47:47 17 A His successor, Cardinal Medeiros -- 14:47:49 18 Q Right. 14:47:51 19 A -- died in 1983. I succeeded Cardinal 14:47:52 20 Medieros. It was not in the ordinary means 14:47:56 21 of -- it was not ordinary procedure in those 14:48:03 22 days to go back to prior episcopates to check 14:48:08 23 the files of people in place. 14:48:18 24 I would have assumed that my 14:48:22

173 1 responsibility in the '80s was to communicate 14:48:25 2 to Bishop McCarrick all that I knew about this 14:48:30 3 case, and that's what I did, I'm sure, through 14:48:35 4 either -- either through my own personal 14:48:40 5 contact with him or through others, 14:48:43 6 communicated what I knew. I did not know this. 14:48:45 7 Q Well, this was in your records, Cardinal Law. 14:48:49 8 This was in your records that were produced to 14:48:51 9 us last Friday, that the allegations of Eugene 14:48:53 10 O'Sullivan started in 1964, continued, and at 14:48:57 11 the time Bishop McCarrick would have received 14:49:04 12 Father O'Sullivan, there was a 20-year span 14:49:08 13 between the first allegation and his conviction 14:49:11 14 of rape in 1984. 14:49:16 15 And I'm not trying to build a case, 14:49:16 16 Cardinal Law. What I'm asking you is whether 14:49:18 17 or not this is the type of information that if 14:49:21 18 you were receiving someone such as Father 14:49:23 19 O'Sullivan, a convicted rapist, you would have 14:49:25 20 liked to have had in front of you? 14:49:29 21 MR. TODD: I'm going to object to the 14:49:31 22 prologue there, which is all your testimony, 23 and you're referring to this record here as the 24 Cardinal's records. I assume you mean the 14:49:39

174 1 Archdiocese's records. 14:49:42 2 MR. MacLEISH: I stand corrected. 14:49:42 3 These records were produced by Archdiocese. 14:49:44 4 MR. TODD: What I'm objecting to is 14:49:47 5 your prologue that precedes questions. 14:49:49 6 Q Do you understand the question, Cardinal Law? 14:49:51 7 A I do. 14:49:53 8 MR. TODD: Was there a question? 14:49:53 9 A I do. 14:49:55 10 Q Is this the type of information you would have 14:49:56 11 wanted to have seen if you were in Bishop 14:49:58 12 McCarrick's position receiving a convicted 14:50:00 13 rapist? 14:50:05 14 A This is the type of information, myself, I 14:50:05 15 would have liked to have seen. Hopefully it's 14:50:07 16 the kind of information that will be kept in a 14:50:10 17 much more adequate way moving forward through 14:50:15 18 the experience that we're presently having, 14:50:20 19 yes. 14:50:22 20 Q With respect to Exhibit 14, Cardinal Law, do 14:50:22 21 you know where that particular document was 14:50:25 22 removed from when it was produced to our office 14:50:28 23 on Friday by the Archdiocese of Boston? 14:50:31 24 A No, I don't. 14:50:33

175 1 Q You know that records relating to sexual 14:50:33 2 molestation and scandal are sometimes kept in a 14:50:36 3 file that might be referred to as the 14:50:39 4 confidential file or the secret archive? 14:50:41 5 A Yes. 14:50:45 6 Q And you had access to the secret archive in 14:50:45 7 1984; is that correct? 14:50:48 8 A That's correct. 14:50:50 9 Q Did you look in the secret archive in 1984 or 14:50:50 10 tell anyone to look in the secret archive in 14:50:53 11 1984 to see if there were other allegations 14:50:58 12 about Father O'Sullivan before you sent this 14:50:59 13 man convicted of rape in 1984 to the Diocese of 14:51:03 14 Matuchen in 1985? 14:51:08 15 A No. 14:51:12 16 Q So you don't know with any degree of certainty, 14:51:12 17 do you, Cardinal Law, whether Exhibit 14 was 14:51:14 18 something that you might have been easily able 14:51:17 19 to retrieve in 1985, do you? 14:51:19 20 A No. 14:51:22 21 Q All right. Let's go to -- 14:51:23 22 MR. TODD: May I ask you, was this 14:51:25 23 marked -- 14:51:27 24 MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, we're going to 14:51:29

176 1 get back to that. 14:51:31 2 Q Cardinal Law, do you know whether the 14:51:49 3 assessment that was done of Eugene O'Sullivan 14:51:51 4 was actually provided to Bishop McCarrick? Do 14:51:55 5 you know whether it was provided? 14:52:00 6 A I do not know that. 14:52:01 7 Q Was there any policy in place at the time that 14:52:01 8 when a priest involved in sexual misconduct was 14:52:05 9 going to another diocese, that the actual 14:52:08 10 evaluation would accompany that priest before 14:52:12 11 he was sent to the diocese? 14:52:13 12 A First of all, I think that they were -- and you 14:52:20 13 would perhaps have better knowledge of this 14:52:23 14 than I, but I think that there may be only two 14:52:25 15 such priests, and I don't believe that in 14:52:29 16 either case the evaluation was sent. I don't 14:52:35 17 believe so. 14:52:39 18 Q Do you know whether or not -- 14:52:41 19 A However -- 14:52:43 20 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead. 14:52:45 21 A However, I feel confident that the substance of 14:52:45 22 the evaluation would have been communicated. 14:52:48 23 Q Do you know -- you would agree with me, would 14:52:50 24 you not, that in evaluating Father O'Sullivan, 14:52:53

177 1 it would be important for the evaluation team 14:52:57 2 to have access to all relevant information 14:52:58 3 existing within the files of the Archdiocese 14:53:01 4 concerning prior instances of sexual 14:53:04 5 misconduct. 14:53:07 6 Would you agree with me about that? 14:53:07 7 A I would agree with you that all relevant 14:53:08 8 information should be communicated in some 14:53:11 9 form, yes. 14:53:13 10 Q Well, if you're sending someone to a treatment 14:53:13 11 facility to be evaluated as to whether or not 14:53:16 12 that person, after an instance of sexual 14:53:18 13 misconduct, can be returned to ministry, you 14:53:21 14 realized in 1984 and 1985 that records 14:53:25 15 pertaining to other misconduct of a sexual 14:53:27 16 nature by that priest would be relevant to the 14:53:30 17 assessment; is that correct? 14:53:33 18 A I think so. I think that's a logical 14:53:38 19 conclusion. 14:53:40 20 Q Well, did you take any steps in the case of 14:53:41 21 Father O'Sullivan or any of the other priests 14:53:43 22 that were sent for assessments between 1984 and 14:53:45 23 1993, did you take any steps to ensure that 14:53:49 24 there was a search done of the confidential 14:53:53

178 1 file which would have contained such 14:53:55 2 information that could be sent to the 14:53:59 3 assessment facilities? 14:53:59 4 A First of all, Mr. MacLeish, as I indicated, if 14:54:05 5 a priest was in place when I got here in '84, 14:54:09 6 my presumption was that that priest was 14:54:16 7 appropriately in place. If an allegation came 14:54:19 8 of -- that this priest had been guilty of the 14:54:27 9 sexual abuse of a minor, we examined that case 14:54:32 10 and we dealt with that case. 14:54:35 11 My presumption is also that files on that 14:54:42 12 person would have been -- would have been 14:54:49 13 reviewed, but, clearly, as events have shown, 14:54:50 14 particularly in the Shanley case, and now in 14:54:58 15 the O'Sullivan case, there were matters that 14:55:02 16 went back many years that were not readily and 14:55:06 17 immediately available, and that's a shortcoming 14:55:12 18 in the way in which, at least in those two 14:55:20 19 instances, these cases -- these allegations 14:55:25 20 were tracked. 14:55:28 21 Q Cardinal Law, I think you just testified 14:55:30 22 earlier that Exhibit 14, you don't know whether 14:55:32 23 you had access to that particular letter, the 14:55:37 24 1964 allegations of sexual misconduct, at the 14:55:41

179 1 time Eugene O'Sullivan was sent for his 14:55:44 2 evaluation. Didn't you just indicate that -- 14:55:47 3 A I said I did not recall seeing that letter, 14:55:49 4 that's correct. 14:55:52 5 Q So my question was -- and you agree with me 14:55:52 6 that the allegations of sexual misconduct would 14:55:55 7 most likely be contained in what was referred 14:55:58 8 to as the secret archive or the confidential 14:56:01 9 file; is that not correct? 14:56:05 10 A Possibly, yes. 14:56:06 11 Q And the secret archive, in fact, I believe 14:56:06 12 there's internal church guidelines of what goes 14:56:10 13 into the secret file; and matters that relate 14:56:13 14 to scandal, matters that relate to criminal 14:56:17 15 activity go into that secret archive; is that 14:56:20 16 not correct? 14:56:22 17 A That's correct. 14:56:24 18 Q Wouldn't, in 1985, a logical place to look for 14:56:25 19 information about prior sexual misconduct be 14:56:29 20 the confidential file or the secret archive of 14:56:32 21 the priest? 14:56:35 22 A If one suspected prior conduct that was 14:56:35 23 irregular, yes. 14:56:39 24 Q Well, so my question is in the case of Eugene 14:56:40

180 1 O'Sullivan, who was convicted for rape, was it 14:56:44 2 not -- was there any policy that you put in 14:56:46 3 place as Archbishop and later Cardinal that 14:56:49 4 required that before a priest went to an 14:56:54 5 assessment facility or was sent, as in the case 14:56:56 6 of Eugene O'Sullivan, to another diocese, the 14:57:00 7 confidential file was examined? 14:57:02 8 A I do not recall putting in place such a 14:57:10 9 policy -- 14:57:12 10 Q Now -- 14:57:16 11 A -- but -- 10:59:06 12 Q I'm sorry. 14:57:17 13 A But it would be very logical that the persons 14:57:17 14 immediately responsible for reviewing and 14:57:20 15 helping me in these cases would look for all 14:57:21 16 pertinent material. 14:57:24 17 Q My question is did you ever instruct them, 14:57:25 18 understanding -- 14:57:28 19 A I did not specifically instruct them. 14:57:29 20 Q -- that you knew that matters relating to 14:57:31 21 sexual misconduct might be found in the 14:57:33 22 confidential file, secret archive, whatever the 14:57:36 23 correct term is? 14:57:40 24 A I knew that that's where such material would be 14:57:40

181 1 filed. 14:57:44 2 Q And are you in any way blaming any of the 14:57:44 3 individuals that work for you for not doing an 14:57:45 4 adequate enough job -- 14:57:48 5 A I am not. 14:57:49 6 Q -- in any of these cases? 14:57:50 7 A I am not. 14:57:51 8 Q We'll go through a few of them in a moment. 14:57:53 9 Let's mark this. 14:57:57 10 (Law Exhibit No. 15, Handwritten 11 Document, marked for identification.) 12 Q Cardinal Law, I'd like to show you Exhibit 15 14:58:08 13 and ask if you've ever seen that document 14:58:10 14 before? 14:58:12 15 A I have. 14:58:19 16 Q When did you last see it? 14:58:19 17 A I last saw this document this morning, and it 14:58:20 18 was the first time I've seen it since I 14:58:24 19 probably wrote it. 14:58:27 20 Q This is your handwriting on -- 14:58:28 21 A It is. 14:58:30 22 Q Excuse me. 14:58:31 23 -- on some portion of this document, 11:00:33 24 although not all of it; is that correct? 14:58:33

182 1 A That's correct. 14:58:35 2 Q This was a handwritten note that you sent to 14:58:36 3 Bishop Al Hughes regarding your thoughts on the 14:58:38 4 O'Sullivan case as the Boston Globe was about 14:58:42 5 to write a story on Father O'Sullivan's 14:58:46 6 transfer to New Jersey? 14:58:49 7 A That's correct. 14:58:50 8 Q And the notes on the left-hand side indicate -- 14:58:51 9 are the handwriting -- personal handwriting of 14:58:57 10 Bishop Hughes; is that correct? 14:59:01 11 A I believe that's his handwriting, yes. 14:59:01 12 Q And Bishop Hughes was the auxiliary bishop at 14:59:03 13 the time or an auxiliary bishop? 14:59:06 14 A He was an auxiliary bishop and he was assisting 14:59:09 15 me as moderator of the Curia. 14:59:12 16 Q And you knew at the time you wrote this letter 14:59:14 17 that the Boston Globe was about to write an 14:59:17 18 article about how Eugene O'Sullivan, convicted 14:59:20 19 rapist, had been sent down to the Diocese of 14:59:23 20 Matuchen? 14:59:26 21 A I don't -- I don't recall what immediately 14:59:27 22 precipitated this memo, but it does reference 14:59:33 23 the possibility of a story being in print, and 14:59:45 24 it is suggesting that -- I'm indicating what I 14:59:50

183 1 think it is that -- how we should address this 14:59:54 2 issue. 14:59:58 3 Q Okay. And this was approximately a year after 14:59:59 4 the article I showed you earlier in the Boston 15:00:04 5 Globe where you felt that the coverage on the 15:00:07 6 priest abuse cases was not balanced enough? 11:01:50 7 A That's correct. 15:00:12 8 Q So these notes reflect some of the points that 15:00:14 9 you thought ought to be made; and you talk, do 15:00:19 10 you see, about two-thirds of the way down, 15:00:24 11 about a news conference -- do you see that -- 15:00:24 12 which would make the following points? 15:00:28 13 A That's correct. 15:00:31 14 Q And then there's handwritten notes on the 15:00:31 15 left-hand side from Bishop Hughes in response 15:00:34 16 to the points that you were making. Is that a 15:00:35 17 fair statement? 15:00:37 18 A That's correct. 15:00:38 19 Q Let's go to the first one. You said: 15:00:39 20 "In 1985, Father O'Sullivan came to me to 11:02:22 21 report allegations and to acknowledge" -- I 15:00:43 22 can't read -- "the substance of them." 15:00:48 23 A To them, yes. 15:00:48 24 Q And you're aware that in 1984, Father 15:00:49

184 1 O'Sullivan had been convicted of rape -- I'm 15:00:53 2 sorry -- had pled guilty to rape and received a 11:02:36 3 sentence that had certain conditions, no prison 15:01:00 4 sentence, but conditions of probation. Is that 15:01:03 5 correct? 15:01:05 6 A I cannot recollect that detail at this point, 15:01:06 7 but... 15:01:11 8 Q You do acknowledge that at some point it came 15:01:16 9 to your attention that a priest of the 15:01:17 10 Archdiocese -- 15:01:19 11 A I'm certain it did. 15:01:19 12 Q -- was convicted of rape and pled -- 15:01:21 13 A What was the month of that? 15:01:24 14 Q It was October of '84. 15:01:26 15 A October of '84. Thank you. 15:01:28 16 (Law Exhibit No. 16, Globe Article, 17 marked for identification.) 18 Q Here is, just for your reference, the Globe 15:01:46 19 article that appeared the day after your notes 15:01:48 20 of July 16, 1993. If you could just go to 15:01:51 21 Paragraph 2, marked Paragraph 2 of your notes, 15:01:59 22 you state as one of your following points to be 15:02:02 23 made: 15:02:06 24 "This was my first knowledge of this. No 11:03:26

185 1 previous reports had been received." 15:02:08 2 Did I read that correctly? 15:02:10 3 A Had been received. 15:02:11 4 Q And then there's Bishop Hughes' notes on the 15:02:12 5 left-hand side which says: 15:02:15 6 "Certain? There were previous reports." 7 Do you see that? 15:02:19 8 A I do. 15:02:19 9 Q And so you don't know whether Bishop Hughes was 15:02:20 10 referring to Exhibit 14, the reports that went 15:02:24 11 back to 1964, do you, Cardinal Law? 15:02:26 12 A I don't. Or the '84 -- 15:02:29 13 Q Right. 15:02:32 14 A -- matter. 15:02:33 15 Q All right. And then you state in Paragraph 4: 15:02:35 16 "He was sent for assessment and 11:03:52 17 treatment." 15:02:41 18 And then on No. 5: 15:02:42 19 "On the strength of the results, it was 11:03:55 20 decided he could function without risk with the 15:02:46 21 support of" -- and these are your copies, 15:02:50 22 unfortunately, not mine. Maybe you can help me 15:02:54 23 with the rest of that sentence? 15:02:56 24 A I think it's "counselors and spiritual 15:02:57

186 1 direction." 15:03:03 2 Q And this was something that could be done, as 15:03:03 3 you put it at the time, without risk. 15:03:05 4 Do you see that? 15:03:08 5 A That's what I said. 15:03:09 6 Q And that wasn't based upon any statement that 15:03:10 7 was made by a clinician concerning Father 15:03:15 8 O'Sullivan, was it, Cardinal Law? That was 15:03:19 9 your assessment that he could function without 15:03:22 10 risk? 15:03:28 11 A I'd have to see what the assessment says, which 15:03:31 12 you may have there. 15:03:34 13 Q I don't. 15:03:35 14 A But the previous line, No. 4, it says: 15:03:36 15 "He was sent for assessment and 11:04:37 16 treatment." 15:03:40 17 And then 5 says: 15:03:41 18 "On the strength of results, it was 11:04:40 19 decided he could function without risk." 15:03:45 20 Now, whether or not the assessment 15:03:47 21 specifically said he may function without risk, 15:03:51 22 I don't know, but -- 15:03:54 23 Q Do you see Bishop -- I'm sorry. 15:03:57 24 A But the idea that I had, as I wrote this memo, 15:03:59

187 1 was that the idea was there in the assessment. 15:04:05 2 Q Well, didn't we just go over this earlier, and 15:04:13 3 it was your recollection that you never had a 15:04:16 4 guarantee from any of the assessment facilities 15:04:18 5 that the priest would not reoffend? Didn't we 15:04:21 6 just go over that several minutes ago, Cardinal 15:04:25 7 Law? 15:04:27 8 A Yes. That they would not give you an assurance 15:04:29 9 that never, a hundred percent foolproof. But 15:04:33 10 on -- at the same time, as the policy in our 15:04:39 11 diocese, and in many other dioceses was at that 15:04:43 12 time, there was the possibility of 15:04:47 13 reassignment, and a prudent judgment was made 15:04:50 14 that this could be done prudently without risk, 15:04:58 15 without likely risk, and this perhaps is not as 15:05:08 16 accurate and full as a statement as it might 15:05:14 17 be. And, again, that's to the point of the 15:05:18 18 change in our policy. 15:05:22 19 Q I understand. 15:05:23 20 A And the reason that we've changed it -- 15:05:25 21 Q I really understand the reasons why you've 15:05:26 22 changed it, and I'm talking now about what you 15:05:28 23 were thinking in 1993. 15:05:31 24 You see Bishop Hughes' notes, "Can't find 15:05:33

188 1 report." 15:05:35 2 Do you see that? 15:05:36 3 A I do. 15:05:36 4 Q And you agreed with me earlier that psychiatric 15:05:37 5 facilities such as Southdown, St. Luke's or the 15:05:41 6 Institute for Living don't make the ultimate 15:05:45 7 decision on assignment of a priest. 15:05:47 8 A That's correct. 15:05:49 9 Q It's you who makes that decision? 15:05:50 10 A That's correct. 15:05:52 11 Q And so it was you who decided that Father 15:05:53 12 O'Sullivan could function without risk, 15:05:56 13 correct? 15:05:58 14 A That's correct. 15:05:59 15 Q It was not any psychiatric facility? 15:06:00 16 A That's correct. 15:06:03 17 Q And in making that decision, you had to balance 15:06:03 18 the interest of returning the priest to 15:06:05 19 ministry against the risk that he might 15:06:07 20 reoffend and victimize another child, correct? 15:06:10 21 A That's correct. 15:06:13 22 Q And in this case, you were dealing with someone 15:06:13 23 who had been convicted of rape, correct? 15:06:15 24 A That's correct. 15:06:18

189 1 Q Now, you then go on, and if we could turn to 15:06:20 2 the next page, please, Cardinal Law, these are 15:06:24 3 the continuation of the points that you thought 15:06:30 4 should be made, possibly at a news conference, 15:06:33 5 as you have said on the other page. You say in 15:06:37 6 Point No. 9: 15:06:40 7 "Bishop Banks held a more extensive" -- 11:06:47 8 I'm sorry. Let's go to No. 8. "I contacted 15:06:45 9 the Bishop of Matuchen, reviewed the case and 15:06:48 10 asked if he would consider allowing him to 15:06:51 11 serve." Is that correct? 15:06:54 12 A That's correct. 15:06:57 13 Q Did you look at the case file before you had 15:07:00 14 this conversation with the Bishop of Matuchen? 15:07:05 15 A I did not look at the case file. I would have 15:07:11 16 had the substance of it reviewed with me by 15:07:14 17 Bishop Hughes or by Bishop Banks. 15:07:18 18 Q Would that have included, can you state with 15:07:21 19 certainty, the confidential file which might 15:07:24 20 contain allegations of prior sexual abuse? 15:07:27 21 A The 1966 -- no. 15:07:29 22 Q 1964. No. I'm talking about the confidential 15:07:32 23 file. When you reviewed the file, reviewed 15:07:35 24 the -- reviewed the case, as you put it, with 15:07:37

190 1 the Bishop of Matuchen, Theodore McCarrick, did 15:07:40 2 you know for certain whether Bishop Hughes or 15:07:45 3 the person who was briefing you had obtained 15:07:48 4 the confidential file which would contain the 15:07:50 5 information about sexual misconduct in the 15:07:52 6 past? 15:07:54 7 A No. The only thing that I could absolutely 15:07:55 8 assume is that what had occurred since 1984 had 15:07:59 9 been totally communicated. 15:08:07 10 Q But you don't know that for a certainty, do 15:08:07 11 you? I think we've established you just don't 15:08:09 12 know either way whether the information that 15:08:12 13 was contained in the confidential file, 15:08:14 14 portions of which were given to our office on 15:08:17 15 Friday, was something that you had in front of 15:08:20 16 you and that you gave to Bishop McCarrick in 15:08:22 17 1985 before Eugene O'Sullivan went to New 15:08:26 18 Jersey? 15:08:30 19 A First of all -- 15:08:32 20 MR. TODD: Hold on. There's no 15:08:32 21 question here. You started: "I think we have 15:08:33 22 established" -- 15:08:36 23 Q Have we established that, Cardinal Law? 15:08:37 24 MR. TODD: Objection. 15:08:38

191 1 A You know, I'm very confused as to what you're 15:08:39 2 asking me at this point. 15:08:41 3 Q Cardinal Law, I thought I heard you testify 15:08:43 4 earlier -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- 15:08:46 5 stating that you could not state with certainty 15:08:47 6 that when Eugene O'Sullivan went to New Jersey 15:08:48 7 in 1985 anyone at the Archdiocese had inspected 15:08:53 8 the confidential file which would contain 15:08:56 9 information about prior sexual misconduct. 15:08:59 10 Did we establish that already? 15:09:02 11 MR. TODD: Objection. 15:09:04 12 A I'm not sure we did. 15:09:04 13 Q I'm sorry then. Let's try to establish that. 15:09:05 14 The confidential file, as you've said earlier, 15:09:10 15 contains information that could include 15:09:13 16 allegations regarding scandal and sexual 15:09:15 17 misconduct by priests, among other things; is 15:09:19 18 that correct? 15:09:21 19 A That's correct. 15:09:21 20 Q Did you tell anyone, between 1984 and 1985, 15:09:22 21 that before Eugene O'Sullivan or any other 15:09:29 22 priest could be sent to another diocese, there 15:09:34 23 had to be an inspection of the confidential 15:09:37 24 file, that you can recall here today? 15:09:40

192 1 A Mr. MacLeish, I assign people to specific 15:09:41 2 tasks, and I have confidence that they're going 15:09:45 3 to fulfill those tasks appropriately and 15:09:50 4 well, and I assigned the moderator of the Curia 15:09:54 5 and later Father McCormack to assist me in such 15:09:59 6 cases. 15:10:03 7 I had confidence in them when I asked them 15:10:04 8 to do that. I have confidence in them now. 15:10:05 9 Did I specifically tell them all of the 15:10:08 10 things that they were to do? No, I did not. 15:10:10 11 Did I specifically say to them: You are to go 15:10:13 12 back into the confidential files, back through 15:10:16 13 the days of Cardinal Medeiros, back through the 15:10:20 14 days of Cardinal Cushing? No, I did not. And 15:10:23 15 whether they did or whether they didn't, I 15:10:27 16 cannot say. 15:10:31 17 Q Okay. Who had access to the confidential file, 15:10:31 18 Cardinal Law, in 1984, 1985 who had access to 15:10:35 19 them? 15:10:39 20 A The moderator of the Curia would have had 15:10:39 21 access. I would have had access. 15:10:41 22 Q The confidential file has limited access; is 15:10:42 23 that correct? 15:10:45 24 A That's correct. 15:10:47 193 1 Q And the moderator of the Curia was Bishop 15:10:47 2 Hughes at the time? 15:10:49 3 A In 1984 it would have been Bishop Banks. 15:10:50 4 Q And then -- 15:10:54 5 A I think Father Banks at that time. 15:10:54 6 Q All right. So in Point No. 9, it states, you 15:10:56 7 see, Cardinal, it states -- 15:11:01 8 MR. TODD: Can you hold on? 15:11:03 9 MR. MacLEISH: Yes, absolutely. 15:11:05 10 MR. TODD: Do you want to break? 15:11:06 11 MR. MacLEISH: Break. 15:11:07 12 MR. ROGERS: Take a five-minute 15:11:08 13 break. 15:11:09 14 MR. MacLEISH: Sure. Absolutely. 15:11:09 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:10. 15:11:10 16 This is the end of Tape 2 in the deposition of 15:11:12 17 Cardinal Law. We're off the record. 15:11:16 18 (Recess.) 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:22. 15:22:10 20 This is Cassette No. 3 in the deposition of 15:23:03 21 Cardinal Law. We're on the record. 15:23:05 22 Q You wanted to make some addition, modification, 15:23:07 23 and I'm pleased to give you that opportunity. 15:23:10 24 A Thank you, Mr. MacLeish. Simply to state that 15:23:13

194 1 while that -- that '64 allegation letter that 15:23:14 2 you showed me addressed to Cardinal Cushing, 15:23:21 3 while it should be in the secret file, I 15:23:24 4 cannot, with assurance, say to you that that's 15:23:27 5 the place where it was retrieved. And part of 15:23:31 6 the difficulty we have found through this whole 15:23:35 7 process is that files on these cases are in a 15:23:38 8 variety of places, and one of the things that, 15:23:44 9 please, God, will occur as a result of this 15:23:50 10 process is that our files will be in a much 15:23:52 11 more appropriate state than they were as we 15:23:56 12 went into it. 15:24:01 13 And the other point that I just wanted to 15:24:02 14 make is that when I enumerated -- when I wrote 15:24:05 15 this memo to -- 15:24:08 16 MR. TODD: Exhibit 15. 15:24:10 17 A -- Archbishop Hughes, which is Document 15, I 15:24:13 18 was setting down on July 16, '93 my 15:24:17 19 recollections in elaborating these points, and 15:24:23 20 Bishop Hughes very appropriately was helping my 15:24:29 21 memory with the facts in his own comments. 15:24:32 22 Q Was this a subject matter you just talked about 15:24:37 23 with your counsel during the break? 15:24:39 24 A No, not -- what I did is I said I wanted to 15:24:41

195 1 make those points. 15:24:45 2 Q Okay, fine. 15:24:45 3 A And I asked them if it would be appropriate for 15:24:46 4 me to do that. 15:24:49 5 Q It certainly is. And I appreciate that. In 15:24:50 6 this case, again, Cardinal Law, I just want to 15:24:53 7 make it clear my understanding of the 15:25:00 8 confidential secret archive file is that there 15:25:02 9 are matters in those files, much of which has 15:25:04 10 been produced on Friday and in the Shanley 15:25:07 11 matter, that is of a scandalous nature, and 15:25:10 12 that is where the scandalous material, as I 15:25:13 13 understand the guidelines of the Archdiocese 15:25:16 14 and other dioceses, scandalous material is 15:25:19 15 supposed to be kept separately in what is 15:25:22 16 referred to as a confidential file. 15:25:25 17 MR. TODD: Objection. 15:25:27 18 A That's correct, but what I pointed out just a 15:25:28 19 moment ago, Mr. MacLeish, is that we have found 15:25:30 20 in recovering documents in response to requests 15:25:32 21 from courts and in this whole process, we have 15:25:36 22 found that documents were not always where they 15:25:39 23 should have been. So that whether or not, in 15:25:41 24 fact, this document came from that file or some 15:25:44

196 1 other file, I cannot say. 15:25:48 2 Q You just don't know either way? 15:25:49 3 A It was appropriate for it to have been in that 15:25:50 4 file, but I cannot say that that's where it 15:25:53 5 was. 15:25:56 6 Q We just don't know either way? 15:25:56 7 A I do not know. 15:25:57 8 Q Okay. And so in Point No. 9 it says Bishop 15:25:59 9 Banks held a more extensive interview with 15:26:02 10 Bishop -- I would take it that would mean the 15:26:05 11 Bishop of Matuchen? 15:26:08 12 A That's correct. 15:26:10 13 Q And that was your memory at the time? 15:26:10 14 A That's correct, and it was correct at -- 15:26:11 15 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was going to ask you 15:26:15 16 the question. And then Bishop Hughes corrects 15:26:17 17 you and says Bishop Banks says that he never 15:26:20 18 talked with Archbishop McCarrick. You did the 15:26:24 19 conversation with Archbishop McCarrick, is that 15:26:27 20 what Bishop Hughes told you? 15:26:29 21 A That's correct. And that's what I presume 15:26:31 22 occurred. 15:26:33 23 Q But that was not your initial memory? 15:26:34 24 A That was not my initial memory. 15:26:36

197 1 Q So you would concede that your memory on these 15:26:38 2 matters has not always been infallible; is that 15:26:40 3 correct? 15:26:43 4 A I've never claimed an infallible memory. 15:26:43 5 Q Okay. I understand. Going down to right 15:26:47 6 underneath Point No. 10, Cardinal Law, it 15:26:49 7 states: 15:26:52 8 "Absent a written record of my having 10:09:11 9 stated that I would" -- well, it's cut off on 15:26:56 10 the copies we were provided. 15:27:00 11 "Absent a written record of my having 10:09:18 12 stated that, I would be loathe to state 15:27:05 13 categorically that I explicitly referred to 15:27:10 14 this in my conversation with the Bishop." 15:27:12 15 Do you see that? 15:27:14 16 A Yes. 15:27:14 17 Q And you were referring to your conversation 15:27:15 18 with the Bishop of Matuchen in No. 8 when you 15:27:19 19 made that remark? 15:27:22 20 A No -- yes. I think what is absent, if I may 15:27:24 21 try to -- I think it's, "Absent a written 15:27:35 22 record of my having stated that" -- 15:27:35 23 Q That -- 15:27:37 24 A -- "I would be loathe to state categorically 15:27:38

198 1 that I explicitly referred to this in my 15:27:41 2 conversation with the Bishop." 15:27:44 3 Q And that would be Point No. 8? 15:27:46 4 A That would be point -- I think that would be 15:27:49 5 Point No. 10, that -- I think that still refers 15:27:52 6 to Paragraph 10, the first paragraph of 10. 15:28:00 7 Q I should state that my presumption was that any 15:28:03 8 pastor he would assist would be apprised of the 15:28:06 9 situation. 15:28:09 10 A That's correct. 15:28:09 11 Q You would not be the person to have the 15:28:09 12 conversation with the pastor; that would be 15:28:12 13 someone -- 15:28:14 14 A I would not. 15:28:15 15 Q Are you certain when you say, "Absent a written 15:28:16 16 record of my having stated that, I would be 15:28:19 17 loathe to state categorically that I explicitly 15:28:22 18 referred to this in my conversation with the 15:28:25 19 Bishop" -- 15:28:27 20 A Well, what I'm saying there is that my 15:28:29 21 presumption was that any pastor that would be 10:10:33 22 assisted by this priest, by O'Sullivan, would 15:28:39 23 be apprised of the situation, but that I was 15:28:44 24 not prepared to state that I communicated that 15:28:46

199 1 presumption to Bishop McCarrick, unless there 15:28:50 2 was a written letter from me in which I stated 15:28:55 3 that, because I just wouldn't rely on -- I 15:28:58 4 wouldn't rely on my memory for having done 15:29:01 5 that. 15:29:03 6 Q So back in 1993, you were not certain that when 15:29:04 7 you spoke to Bishop McCarrick, you had given 15:29:07 8 him the terms of Father O'Sullivan's probation, 15:29:10 9 namely that he not have access to children in a 15:29:14 10 parish ministry. You weren't sure whether you 15:29:17 11 told Bishop McCarrick that, isn't that true? 15:29:19 12 MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of 15:29:22 13 the question. 15:29:24 14 Q Do you understand the question, Cardinal? 15:29:24 15 A I understand the question, but I am not 15:29:32 16 certain -- that's correct. I am not certain 15:29:41 17 what I communicated absent a written record, 15:29:44 18 and there doesn't seem to be one. 15:29:47 19 MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark this, 15:29:49 20 please. 15:29:51 21 (Law Exhibit No. 17, Note, 22 marked for identification.) 23 Q Cardinal, showing you Exhibit 17, do you 15:30:05 24 recognize this as the handwriting of Bishop 15:30:08

200 1 McCormack? 15:30:11 2 A I don't recognize it as his writing, but I 15:30:21 3 would have no reason to dispute it if you tell 15:30:23 4 me it came from him. 15:30:26 5 Q I believe it did. It came from your files, but 15:30:27 6 I believe this to be his handwriting, but I 15:30:29 7 could be wrong. In any event, it references 15:30:32 8 "Gene, 7/17/1993." That would be one day after 10:11:55 9 your notes, Cardinal? 15:30:40 10 A Yes. 15:30:42 11 Q And you'll see No. 3, it says, "Never had a 15:30:43 12 youth group. Taught children occasionally in 15:30:47 13 the classroom." 15:30:50 14 Do you see that? 15:30:52 15 A Yes. 15:30:52 16 Q In fact, you learned, did you not, on July 17, 15:30:52 17 1993, that despite the conditions of probation, 15:30:58 18 Eugene O'Sullivan did not have any restrictions 15:31:01 19 placed on his ministry, correct? 15:31:04 20 A I'm not sure that this was given to me on June 15:31:14 21 17 -- July 17, '93. 15:31:20 22 Q Okay. You subsequently learned, when the 15:31:22 23 Globe -- strike that. 15:31:25 24 When the Globe was writing its story, you 15:31:27

201 1 prepared a memorandum on talking points or 15:31:28 2 points to be made in response to the Globe 15:31:31 3 article that a convicted rapist, Gene 15:31:33 4 O'Sullivan, had been sent down to New Jersey, 15:31:37 5 and the terms of the probation had not been 15:31:39 6 fully communicated to the people in Matuchen; 15:31:41 7 is that correct? 15:31:44 8 MR. TODD: Objection. 15:31:44 9 MR. ROGERS: Object to the form. 15:31:46 10 A I'm not sure that the article had been written. 15:31:47 11 Q No. It was about to come out? 15:31:49 12 A Yeah. And I wouldn't have known what was going 15:31:51 13 to come out in the article at that point when I 15:31:53 14 wrote this. 15:31:55 15 Q You know that sometimes reporters, before they 15:31:56 16 do the story, they try to get both sides of it 15:31:58 17 and contact individuals that they're reporting 15:32:01 18 about, correct? 15:32:03 19 A I know that that sometimes happens, but I do 15:32:04 20 not know that that happened in this case. 15:32:07 21 Q Would you go back to the previous exhibit, 15:32:09 22 Cardinal, which is the Globe story that 15:32:13 23 appeared one day after your notes. Do you want 15:32:16 24 to take a moment and read that to see if that 15:32:17

202 1 helps refresh your memory? 15:32:21 2 A Yes. 15:33:41 3 Q Now, Cardinal Law, you knew on July 16 that 15:33:41 4 there had been some contact with a 15:33:45 5 representative of the media who was doing a 15:33:46 6 story on a convicted rapist, Eugene O'Sullivan, 15:33:48 7 an archdiocesan priest who had gone down to New 15:33:51 8 Jersey, and despite the conditions of his 15:33:55 9 probation, he was not in a situation where he 15:33:57 10 had -- strike that. 15:34:00 11 He was in a situation where he continued 15:34:01 12 to have access to children, correct? 15:34:03 13 MR. TODD: I'm going to object and 15:34:05 14 ask you, Mr. MacLeish, where does it appear 15:34:06 15 that any such thing was a condition of his 15:34:09 16 probation? 15:34:14 17 Q Cardinal Law, do you understand the question? 15:34:14 18 MR. TODD: Do you understand what 15:34:19 19 conditions of probation are legally? 15:34:22 20 THE WITNESS: I -- 15:34:23 21 MR. MacLEISH: No. You'll have an 15:34:24 22 opportunity to cross-examine, Mr. Todd. 15:34:25 23 MR. TODD: No. It's a very unfair 15:34:27 24 question to suggest as a predicate that there 15:34:28

203 1 are conditions of probation. 15:34:30 2 MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is 15:34:32 3 noted. 15:34:33 4 MR. TODD: No. This is more than an 15:34:33 5 objection. 15:34:35 6 MR. MacLEISH: Are you instructing 15:34:35 7 him not to answer the question? 15:34:36 8 MR. TODD: No. I'm instructing you. 15:34:38 9 MR. MacLEISH: No, you're not 15:34:38 10 instructing me anymore, Mr. Todd. 15:34:39 11 MR. TODD: Are we both going to talk 15:34:41 12 at the same time or are you going to allow me 15:34:43 13 to talk? I had something to say, if you'll 15:34:45 14 allow me to say it. 15:34:47 15 MR. MacLEISH: You can say objection, 15:34:48 16 which is what -- 15:34:50 17 MR. TODD: No, I can say more than 15:34:50 18 objection. 15:34:52 19 MR. MacLEISH: You can? Continue, 15:34:52 20 Mr. Todd, and we'll take it up with the Court. 15:34:53 21 MR. TODD: Thank you. 15:34:56 22 Now, it's unfair for you to suggest in the 15:34:56 23 question that there are conditions of probation 15:34:59 24 where you haven't presented him with anything 15:35:03

204 1 that suggests that there were conditions of 15:35:04 2 probation. 15:35:07 3 MR. MacLEISH: Let me ask the 15:35:07 4 question. 15:35:08 5 MR. TODD: Thank you. 15:35:08 6 Q Cardinal Law, were you aware there were 15:35:09 7 conditions of probation for Father O'Sullivan 15:35:11 8 when he pled guilty to raping a child? 15:35:13 9 MR. TODD: I'm going to object to 15:35:16 10 that question. 15:35:17 11 A You know, I don't know that I can say that I 15:35:27 12 was aware of that. 15:35:31 13 Q Were there any restrictions on his -- I'm 15:35:33 14 sorry. 15:35:35 15 A I, again, I depended upon others to handle 15:35:36 16 these cases for me and to review them. I 15:35:48 17 didn't second guess them. Perhaps I should 15:35:51 18 have. And I know that in agreeing to his 15:35:54 19 serving in New Jersey, it was certainly my 15:36:07 20 understanding that what we were doing was 15:36:10 21 appropriate, was legal, was not in violation of 15:36:13 22 parole restrictions. 15:36:19 23 Q So you didn't -- 15:36:24 24 A I could have been wrong. 15:36:25

205 1 Q So you didn't understand -- this was a man who 15:36:26 2 had been one of your priests who was convicted 15:36:29 3 -- pled guilty to raping a child. You knew 15:36:32 4 that in 1984 when you arrived? 15:36:34 5 MR. TODD: I'm going to object. You 15:36:38 6 have said that about 23 different times. 15:36:39 7 MR. MacLEISH: Now we're going back 15:36:42 8 over -- you know -- 15:36:43 9 MR. TODD: You keep on saying this. 15:36:44 10 You keep on repeating over and over. 15:36:45 11 MR. MacLEISH: It happens to be true. 15:36:47 12 MR. TODD: Yes, but it doesn't become 15:36:50 13 any more true the twenty-third time you say it. 15:36:52 14 MR. MacLEISH: The objection is 15:36:54 15 noted. 15:36:54 16 MR. TODD: My objection is to your 15:36:55 17 harassing and badgering and in the forms of 15:36:57 18 your questions suggesting as predicate things 15:36:58 19 that are not true. 15:37:00 20 MR. MacLEISH: All right. Let's go 15:37:01 21 back over that. 15:37:02 22 Q Was Eugene O'Neil convicted of rape? Was he 15:37:03 23 convicted? 15:37:09 24 MR. TODD: What I'm alluding to, 15:37:09

206 1 Mr. MacLeish, is that you continue to say that 15:37:12 2 there are conditions of his probation. Now all 15:37:15 3 I'm reading from the material you put before me 15:37:18 4 is that the Court asked or suggested things, 15:37:20 5 but when you say "conditions of probation," 15:37:25 6 that has a legal meaning, I assume you know. 15:37:28 7 MR. MacLEISH: Then there are 15:37:31 8 other -- Mr. Todd, are you concluded now? Can 15:37:32 9 I ask the witness a question? 15:37:35 10 MR. TODD: Yes. 15:37:36 11 Q So I take it, just so we're clear on the 15:37:36 12 record, you're not aware of any restrictions, 15:37:39 13 conditions of probation or other limitations 15:37:41 14 that were placed on Eugene O'Sullivan after he 15:37:42 15 pled guilty to raping a boy? 15:37:47 16 A I had depended, Mr. MacLeish, on others to 15:37:49 17 assist me in these cases, and I would have 15:37:52 18 presumed, and do presume, that anything we did 15:37:55 19 in relationship to placement would have been 15:37:59 20 not in violation of legal requirements. 15:38:03 21 Q Okay. Do you know whether that was followed in 15:38:07 22 the case of Eugene O'Sullivan? 15:38:10 23 A I can only say what I have just finished 15:38:14 24 saying, that I presume it would have followed. 15:38:18

207 1 Q You can't state that with certainty, though, 15:38:21 2 can you? 15:38:24 3 A No, I cannot. 15:38:24 4 MR. MacLEISH: Can we have the next 15:38:30 5 exhibit for the Cardinal, please. 15:38:30 6 (Law Exhibit No. 18, Letter, Received 7 5/2/85, marked for identification.) 8 Q Cardinal Law, I'm showing you Exhibit 18. If 15:38:43 9 you want to take a moment to take a look at 15:38:45 10 that. 15:38:47 11 Have you read the letter, Cardinal Law? 15:40:25 12 A I have. 15:40:26 13 Q You'll see at the top it says "Archbishop's 15:40:27 14 residence, Received May 2, 1985," and then it 10:19:17 15 says "Not acknowledged at residence." 15:40:34 16 Do you see those two stamps? 15:40:36 17 A I do. 15:40:38 18 Q Those were stamps that were utilized in 1985 15:40:39 19 and in the years thereafter; is that correct? 15:40:41 20 A That's correct. 15:40:43 21 Q And in this particular document, do you have an 15:40:43 22 explanation as to why the stamp "Not 15:40:48 23 acknowledged at residence" appears? 10:19:48 24 A No. I don't have a particular reason for that, 15:40:54

208 1 but I can give you why it is that that stamp 15:40:59 2 would ordinarily have been placed on some mail. 15:41:02 3 Q Please do so. 15:41:06 4 A There's a great volume of mail that comes into 15:41:07 5 the house. I'm assisted in the mail by others. 15:41:10 6 And if a matter belongs -- if a matter, for 15:41:13 7 example, having to do with schools comes in and 15:41:18 8 demands some specificity, some follow-through, 15:41:22 9 it would be not acknowledged at residence, sent 15:41:25 10 to the secretary for education, they would be 15:41:29 11 asked to deal with this either in their own 15:41:30 12 name or to prepare a letter for me, if that was 15:41:33 13 going to be the appropriate response. 15:41:35 14 And in this case, it would have been sent, 15:41:39 15 appropriately, to Father McCormack because of 15:41:43 16 the nature of the letter. 15:41:44 17 Q Was there -- because of the nature of the 15:41:46 18 letter. Was there an unwritten policy at the 15:41:48 19 Archdiocese of Boston when you arrived that 15:41:53 20 matters that related to accusations against 15:41:56 21 priests, including accusations of a sexual 15:42:01 22 nature, were not to be acknowledged as being 15:42:03 23 received at your residence even if they were 15:42:05 24 sent to you directly? 15:42:08

209 1 A No. The policy didn't specify the area, but it 15:42:08 2 was general that if the matter was such that I 15:42:15 3 needed someone else to help with that matter, 15:42:20 4 it was their responsibility primarily to deal 15:42:23 5 with it. The letter would go to them. They 15:42:26 6 would review it. They would reflect upon it. 15:42:29 7 They would in some instances be able to act on 15:42:32 8 it immediately in their own name. In some 15:42:35 9 instances my involvement would need to be 15:42:39 10 present, and it would come back to me in an 15:42:41 11 appropriate form. 15:42:44 12 Q And it would come back to you for you to make 15:42:44 13 some decision, if, for example, it involved a 15:42:48 14 serious accusation against a priest? Would 15:42:53 15 that be something in 1985 that would come back 15:42:55 16 to you for further action? 15:42:57 17 A If there were a serious accusation against a 15:43:00 18 priest that was a credible allegation, yes, 15:43:04 19 that would come back to me. 15:43:11 20 Q In December of 1984, do you recall promoting 15:43:14 21 Father Shanley to pastor at St. Jean's Parish 15:43:16 22 in Newton, Massachusetts? 15:43:19 23 A I've had that recalled to me in these past 15:43:20 24 weeks as I prepared for my deposition. 15:43:25

210 1 Q And you knew then, in April of 1985, that 15:43:28 2 Father Shanley was the pastor at St. Jean's 15:43:32 3 Parish with unsupervised access to children; is 15:43:34 4 that correct? 15:43:40 5 A I knew he was pastor, and I had no knowledge in 15:43:40 6 1985 of his having had an allegation brought 15:43:41 7 against him of having sexually abused a child, 15:43:47 8 and I did not have such an allegation until 15:43:51 9 1993. 15:43:53 10 Q That wasn't my question, Cardinal. 15:43:54 11 A I know, but I think it's very pertinent. 15:43:56 12 Q I appreciate that, and your counsel has the 15:43:58 13 opportunity to cross-examine you. At the 15:44:00 14 present time -- the answer was non-responsive. 15:44:02 15 MR. ROGERS: Wait. All motions to 15:44:05 16 strike have been reserved until time of trial. 15:44:11 17 If you feel an answer is non-responsive, we've 15:44:13 18 waived raising it now. 15:44:16 19 MR. MacLEISH: No, no. We are 15:44:17 20 perfectly free -- this is cross-examination, 15:44:19 21 Mr. Rogers -- to direct the witness's attention 15:44:21 22 to answer the question. 15:44:23 23 Q My question, Cardinal, was whether or not you 15:44:24 24 were aware in 1985 that Paul Shanley had 15:44:26

211 1 unsupervised access to children as pastor of 15:44:30 2 St. Jean's Parish in Newton, Massachusetts. 15:44:35 3 Were you aware of that? 15:44:36 4 A I don't quite understand the question. 15:44:36 5 Q Let's hold on for a second. Just hold on for 15:44:40 6 one moment, please. If you'd go back to 15:44:52 7 Exhibit No. 11 for me. Could you turn to page 15:44:54 8 7, Cardinal Law. These are your admissions. 15:45:31 9 Do you see your signature on the last page 15:45:39 10 of Exhibit No. 11? 15:45:41 11 A Yes, I do. 15:45:46 12 Q You reviewed these admissions before you signed 15:45:48 13 this document; is that correct? 15:45:50 14 A Yes, I did. 15:45:51 15 Q Could you please read -- I'll read Request 29, 15:45:52 16 and you can read the response. Okay? Request 15:45:54 17 No. 29: 15:45:57 18 "Cardinal Law knew that Father Shanley 10:24:27 19 would have unsupervised access to children when 15:46:00 20 he promoted him to pastor." 15:46:03 21 What was your response? 15:46:05 22 A My response is that I did know. 15:46:09 23 Q Could you just read your response, please. 15:46:11 24 A Well, it says: 15:46:12

212 1 "The defendant admits that he knew that 10:24:41 2 Father Shanley would have unsupervised access 15:46:15 3 to children when he appointed him as pastor." 15:46:18 4 Q Were you aware of any limitations placed on 15:46:21 5 Father Shanley's access to children between the 15:46:24 6 time you appointed him as pastor and April 29, 15:46:27 7 1985? 15:46:30 8 A I was not aware of any limitation, because 15:46:33 9 there was no need in the knowledge that was 15:46:35 10 available to me to have any limitation. 15:46:37 11 Q Okay. Cardinal, would you please take a look 15:46:39 12 at the Higgs letter again, Exhibit No. 18, and 15:46:43 13 you can't state with certainty whether you ever 15:46:49 14 reviewed this letter in 1985 with any other 15:46:52 15 person? 15:46:58 16 A I cannot. 15:46:58 17 Q Either way? You can't state either way? 15:46:59 18 A I cannot. 15:47:01 19 Q And you would -- would you rely upon the 15:47:02 20 memories and writings of Bishop McCormack in 15:47:04 21 that regard? 15:47:07 22 A I would. 15:47:07 23 Q All right. And you'll see in the first 15:47:08 24 paragraph, this is a complaint about Paul 15:47:11

213 1 Shanley. 15:47:13 2 Can we agree on that? 15:47:13 3 A Yes, and I've read the letter. 15:47:14 4 Q And Mrs. Higgs -- this woman in Rochester, New 15:47:16 5 York, writes to you stating about a talk that 15:47:20 6 Father Shanley gave in Rochester, New York, and 15:47:23 7 it states in the first paragraph: 15:47:26 8 "He made some outlandish statements 9 regarding the people involved in a homosexual 15:47:30 10 lifestyle, not merely in orientation. Here are 15:47:33 11 some of the statements; some are on tape." 15:47:36 12 Do you see that? 15:47:39 13 A I do. 15:47:39 14 Q So Mrs. Higgs, you would agree with me, has 15:47:41 15 some sort of a tape of some portion of the 15:47:43 16 talk. Is that a fair characterization of 15:47:45 17 what -- 15:47:47 18 A She says, "Here some of the statements; some 15:47:47 19 are on tape," so I have no way of knowing which 15:47:53 20 statement is on tape and which statement is her 15:47:53 21 memory of what she heard. 15:47:56 22 Q And no inquiry, to your knowledge, was ever 15:47:57 23 made of Mrs. Higgs to find out what she had on 15:48:00 24 tape, is that correct, Cardinal? 15:48:03

214 1 A My presumption is that Father McCormack would 15:48:05 2 have made appropriate inquiry concerning the 15:48:08 3 allegations contained here and would have come 15:48:11 4 to some satisfactory resolution. 15:48:14 5 Q All right. It states here, attributed again to 15:48:16 6 Paul Shanley: 15:48:20 7 "When adults have sex with children, the 15:48:21 8 children seduce them. Children may later 15:48:24 9 regret having caused someone to go to prison, 15:48:27 10 knowing that they are the guilty ones." 15:48:29 11 Do you see that? 15:48:33 12 A I do see that. 15:48:33 13 Q Would you agree with me that if Father Shanley 15:48:35 14 had made that statement, he was making a 15:48:37 15 statement that was contrary to the teaching of 15:48:39 16 the Roman Catholic Church? 15:48:43 17 A Clearly it would be contrary to the teaching of 15:48:47 18 the Roman Catholic Church. I think the issue 15:48:50 19 here is whether or not he said that. 15:48:53 20 Q We're going to get to that. That's not before 15:48:55 21 you right now. My question is, is this the 15:48:58 22 type of statement that if, in fact, he did say 15:49:00 23 it, would have been something that would have 15:49:03 24 caused you concern? 15:49:06

215 1 A Absolutely. 15:49:08 2 Q Would it have been the type of statement that 15:49:15 3 would have caused you concern as to whether 15:49:18 4 Father Paul Shanley could remain in a parish in 15:49:18 5 Newton, Massachusetts, with unsupervised access 15:49:20 6 to children? 15:49:23 7 A Absolutely. 15:49:23 8 Q So you would have expected those acting under 15:49:24 9 your authority, namely, Bishop McCormack, then 15:49:28 10 Father McCormack, to investigate this 15:49:33 11 allegation; is that correct? 15:49:35 12 A To adequately investigate this letter, yes. 15:49:36 13 Q And that could include, for example, asking 15:49:38 14 Mrs. Higgs for the tape? 15:49:43 15 A It could. 15:49:44 16 Q You agree with me that this is a serious 15:49:49 17 allegation being made by Mrs. Higgs? Would you 15:49:52 18 agree with that? 15:49:54 19 A Yes. 15:49:54 20 Q And you would agree with me that she is 15:49:55 21 speaking not just about Paul Shanley being 15:49:57 22 involved in a homosexual lifestyle -- in fact, 15:49:59 23 she states "not merely in orientation." 15:50:03 24 Do you see that? 15:50:06

216 1 A Yes. 15:50:08 2 Q She's talking about Paul Shanley stating about 15:50:08 3 who's at fault when adults have sex with 15:50:12 4 children. That's a fair reading of her letter, 15:50:15 5 correct? 15:50:18 6 A I think with regard -- what she's saying here 15:50:18 7 is he made some outlandish statement regarding 15:50:21 8 people involved in homosexual lifestyle, not 15:50:23 9 merely in orientation. So she is saying that 15:50:28 10 she's criticizing him because of his -- of 15:50:30 11 that. 15:50:34 12 Q "Here are some of the statements; some are on 15:50:34 13 tape." 15:50:36 14 MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry. Mr. Todd, 10:30:57 15 if we could just have -- I see you're showing, 15:50:41 16 for the record, the witness something that 15:50:43 17 you've written down. Could we try to avoid 15:50:45 18 that? 15:50:47 19 MR. TODD: Certainly. 15:50:48 20 MR. MacLEISH: If we could just have 15:50:49 21 the Cardinal's testimony. 15:50:50 22 MR. TODD: I don't think we've had 15:50:51 23 anything but the Cardinal's testimony. 15:50:52 24 MR. MacLEISH: I note you're writing 15:50:54

217 1 something down and showing the Cardinal 15:50:56 2 something. 15:50:58 3 MR. TODD: You noted that. 15:50:58 4 MR. MacLEISH: I did see the fact 15:50:59 5 that you wrote something done. If we could 15:51:00 6 have the Cardinal's testimony. 15:51:02 7 MR. TODD: I've been noting things 15:51:04 8 you wrote down and made no comment on it. 15:51:05 9 MR. MacLEISH: That's fine. Thank 15:51:08 10 you, Mr. Todd. 15:51:09 11 MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. MacLeish. 15:51:10 12 Q Cardinal Law, do you know what happened after 15:51:11 13 this letter was given to Father McCormack? 15:51:14 14 A I do not know -- I do not know what steps 15:51:22 15 Father McCormack took in resolving this matter. 15:51:26 16 Q Okay. 15:51:29 17 MR. MacLEISH: Let's get the next 15:51:32 18 exhibit. 15:51:34 19 (Law Exhibit No. 19, Letter, 5/15/85, 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q I'm showing you now Exhibit 19, Cardinal, and 15:51:56 22 it states: 15:52:01 23 "Dear Ms. Higgs: Archbishop Law received 15:52:01 24 a letter April 29, 1985. He is sorry to hear 15:52:05

218 1 you were disturbed about the talk given by 15:52:08 2 Father Paul Shanley last November regarding 15:52:11 3 homosexuals and asked that I respond on his 15:52:14 4 behalf." 15:52:17 5 Do you see that? 15:52:17 6 A I do. 15:52:18 7 Q And that references a discussion that Father 15:52:18 8 McCormack had with you about Mrs. Higgs' letter 15:52:22 9 of April 29, 1995? 15:52:25 10 MR. ROGERS: I object. Is that a 15:52:27 11 question? 15:52:28 12 MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is 15:52:30 13 noted. 15:52:30 14 Go ahead. 15:52:31 15 MR. ROGERS: Is that a question, I 15:52:31 16 said? 15:52:32 17 MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Your objection 15:52:32 18 is noted. 15:52:33 19 MR. ROGERS: Then I object to the 15:52:34 20 form of the question. 15:52:35 21 A The question is, does this refer to a 15:52:36 22 discussion I had with Father McCormack? 15:52:37 23 Q Let me go over it again, Cardinal, so we can be 15:52:39 24 clear. 15:52:42

219 1 A Go ahead. 15:52:42 2 Q This is a letter produced from your files sent 15:52:42 3 to Mrs. Higgs by Father McCormack in which it 15:52:45 4 is stated Archbishop Law received your letter 15:52:49 5 of April 29, 1985. This was written May 15, 15:52:51 6 1985. 15:52:55 7 Do you see that? 15:52:55 8 A Yes. 15:52:56 9 Q So you would agree with me that Father 15:52:56 10 McCormack, at least in May of 1985, was stating 15:52:58 11 that you had received that letter of Mrs. Higgs 15:53:02 12 of April 29, 1985. Is that correct? 15:53:06 13 A That's what the letter says in that sentence. 15:53:10 14 Q And then in the next sentence it states: 15:53:13 15 "He" -- meaning you -- "is sorry to hear" 10:33:46 16 that -- "hear you were disturbed about the talk 15:53:19 17 given by Father Paul Shanley last November 15:53:22 18 regarding homosexuals and asked that I respond 15:53:26 19 on his behalf." 15:53:29 20 Do you see that sentence? 15:53:30 21 A I do. 15:53:31 22 Q Would you agree with me that a fair reading of 15:53:31 23 that sentence is that you and Father McCormack 15:53:34 24 had some discussion about the letter that was 15:53:37

220 1 sent by Mrs. Higgs? 15:53:39 2 MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of 15:53:40 3 the question. 15:53:41 4 MR. MacLEISH: Objection is noted. 15:53:42 5 A I would agree that that is a possible reading 15:53:43 6 of the meaning here, but another meaning is 15:53:45 7 that Father McCormack is acting in my name, 15:53:47 8 and -- the letter went to him, and in the 15:53:54 9 ordinary course of handling the letter, he 15:53:57 10 would have responded in this way. 15:53:59 11 Q Well, you don't know either way; is that 15:54:01 12 correct? 15:54:03 13 A That's correct. 15:54:03 14 Q All right. What we do know is that Father 15:54:04 15 McCormack in this letter wrote to Mrs. Higgs 15:54:07 16 and expressed your sentiments -- 15:54:11 17 A Which he would have -- 15:54:14 18 Q Excuse me. Let me just finish. 15:54:15 19 -- expressed your sentiments about the 15:54:17 20 letter that had been received from Mrs. Higgs, 15:54:20 21 correct? 15:54:22 22 A Father McCormack adequately reflected here what 15:54:22 23 he knew my sentiments would be in this kind of 15:54:27 24 a situation, yes. 15:54:28 221 1 Q Well, he didn't say that he knew what your 15:54:29 2 sentiments would be; he stated he is sorry to 15:54:32 3 hear you were disturbed about the talk. 15:54:35 4 A I understand what the letter says. 15:54:39 5 Q That would have to involve some communication 15:54:41 6 between you necessarily and Father McCormack on 15:54:44 7 the subject of Mrs. Higgs' letter; is that 15:54:50 8 correct? 15:54:54 9 A Not necessarily. 15:54:54 10 Q But possibly? 15:54:54 11 A Possibly. 15:54:57 12 MR. MacLEISH: Let's have the next 15:54:57 13 exhibit, please. 15:54:57 14 (Law Exhibit No. 20, Letter, 6/4/85, 15 marked for identification.) 16 Q I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 20, Cardinal 15:55:08 17 Law. It's a letter from Father McCormack to 15:55:11 18 Paul Shanley, dated June 4, 1985, and in this 15:55:18 19 letter it is stated: 15:55:23 20 "Dear Paul: Recently I received a note 15:55:24 21 from the Cardinal about a letter he had 15:55:29 22 received from Ms. Wilma Higgs of Rochester, New 15:55:30 23 York." 15:55:34 24 Do you see that? 15:55:34

222 1 A Yes. 15:55:35 2 Q So at this time, back some 17 years ago, almost 15:55:35 3 to the date 17 years ago -- 15:55:42 4 A Yes. 15:55:45 5 Q -- Father McCormack is reporting that he had 15:55:45 6 received some note from you about a letter you 15:55:49 7 had received from Wilma Higgs; is that correct? 15:55:52 8 A That's correct. 15:55:53 9 Q And you would agree that Father McCormack's 15:55:54 10 memories of 17 years ago are a good deal more 15:55:58 11 fresh than yours, mine or Father McCormack's 15:56:01 12 are today? 15:56:05 13 A Absolutely. 15:56:05 14 Q And you see in this letter a reference to a 15:56:06 15 note from you. 15:56:10 16 A That's correct. 15:56:11 17 Q Is that correct? 15:56:11 18 A That's correct. 15:56:11 19 Q Do you know where that note is? 15:56:12 20 A I do not know. 15:56:14 21 Q Would it be a fair reading of this letter that 15:56:15 22 there was at times, at one point in time, a 15:56:17 23 note that you had sent to Father McCormack 15:56:21 24 about the Higgs letter? 15:56:23

223 1 A That's conceivable. You know, it's 15:56:25 2 conceivable. If -- and seeing this letter, if 15:56:29 3 I may reconstruct what I think may have 15:56:35 4 happened, I would have seen the letter, perhaps 15:56:37 5 written a memo saying, "Please follow up on 15:56:41 6 this. Please look into this," and it could 15:56:45 7 have gone that way. 15:56:50 8 Q Okay. And so is that the way you think it's 15:56:51 9 more probable than not that it went, having 15:56:55 10 seen this letter to Father Shanley, that there 15:56:59 11 was some writings or note? 15:57:02 12 A Having seen this letter? 15:57:03 13 Q Yes. 15:57:04 14 A I would presume that that's the way it went. 15:57:04 15 Without having seen this letter, it would have 15:57:08 16 been an equally valid presumption that it would 15:57:09 17 have gone without my having seen the original 15:57:18 18 letter. 15:57:19 19 Q But now that we have this Exhibit No. 20 in 15:57:19 20 front of us, this letter suggests that, in 15:57:23 21 fact, you did read the letter of April 29, 15:57:25 22 1985, from Mrs. Higgs and wrote something, 15:57:29 23 perhaps just on the letter, to Father 15:57:33 24 McCormack, which prompted him to bring this to 15:57:35

224 1 the attention of Father Shanley. Is that a 15:57:38 2 fair statement? 15:57:40 3 A Probably not on the letter, because I think it 15:57:40 4 would be shown on the copy. So it probably was 15:57:44 5 a separate note, but I would presume that 15:57:45 6 that's a reasonable assumption. 15:57:47 7 Q And so now that you have that, can we agree 15:57:50 8 that it's more probable than not that you did, 15:57:57 9 in fact, read the Higgs letter? 15:58:00 10 A Yes. 15:58:02 11 Q Cardinal Law, could you go back to Exhibit No. 15:58:03 12 11, please, which is the admissions. 15:58:07 13 When did you first see that letter that I 15:58:15 14 just showed you from Father McCormack to Paul 15:58:17 15 Shanley? 15:58:20 16 A This letter? 15:58:21 17 Q Yes. 15:58:21 18 A Just now. 15:58:22 19 Q Just now. I'm going to read Request No. 1, and 15:58:23 20 I'd like you to read Response No. 1, and then 15:58:25 21 I'm going to ask you a question about it. 15:58:27 22 Request No. 1: 15:58:30 23 "Cardinal Law read the letter addressed to 10:39:19 24 him from Wilma H. Higgs, Mrs. Higgs, dated 15:58:33

225 1 April 29, 1985 ("Higgs letter"). A true and 15:58:36 2 accurate copy of the Higgs letter is attached 15:58:45 3 hereto as Exhibit 'A.'" 15:58:46 4 Could you please read the response. 15:58:49 5 A "The defendant does not believe he read the 15:58:50 6 Higgs letter in '85. The defendant admits that 15:58:53 7 he has since read this correspondence." 15:58:55 8 Q With respect to the first sentence, would you 15:58:57 9 now like the opportunity to amend the first 15:58:59 10 sentence? 15:59:01 11 A I would. 15:59:01 12 Q How would you like to amend it? 15:59:02 13 A That the defendant believes that he did read 15:59:06 14 the Higgs letter in 1985. 15:59:08 15 Q Now, Cardinal Law, since you've agreed that 15:59:10 16 this was an allegation of a serious nature, 15:59:15 17 what follow-up do you know was provided to you, 15:59:19 18 if any, by Father McCormack to investigate this 15:59:22 19 allegation that Paul Shanley was making remarks 15:59:27 20 about children having sex with adults, and when 15:59:30 21 it occurs, it's the fault of the child? 15:59:33 22 A Mr. MacLeish, specifically to answer your 15:59:37 23 question, I have no knowledge of the specifics 15:59:41 24 of what was done at this point, but I would say 15:59:45

226 1 that in general, bishops, at least this bishop, 15:59:50 2 get many, many letters from people about things 15:59:56 3 that priests have said, and very often, very 15:59:59 4 often these are things that have been 16:00:06 5 misunderstood. And the presumption in getting 16:00:09 6 such a letter without a previous record, which 16:00:15 7 I did not have, the presumption that this 16:00:22 8 person would have accurately heard and 16:00:31 9 accurately reported what was said can't be 16:00:35 10 immediately made. 16:00:39 11 And so what I would expect would happen, 16:00:42 12 when something like this occurs, is that the 16:00:45 13 person who is alleged to have said this would 16:00:49 14 be confronted with this and said: How do you 16:00:52 15 explain this? How can you -- how do you 16:00:56 16 account for this? What did you say? What were 16:01:01 17 you saying? How is it that this person could 16:01:04 18 have heard this? 16:01:06 19 And my presumption is that that's the way 16:01:07 20 in which this would have been dealt with. I 16:01:10 21 don't know -- I guess that she did not send the 16:01:16 22 tape and only sent the letter. 16:01:22 23 Q Do you know whether she was ever requested to 16:01:22 24 send the tape? 16:01:24

227 1 A I don't know that. 16:01:24 2 Q So, Cardinal Law, in the time that you served 16:01:27 3 as Archbishop of Boston from 1985 up until the 16:01:28 4 present, have you ever received a letter -- 16:01:31 5 understanding you've received letters 16:01:34 6 complaining about priests -- ever received a 16:01:36 7 piece of correspondence stating that a priest 16:01:38 8 was expressing deviant views about sexual 16:01:42 9 relationships between men, or, rather, adults 16:01:46 10 and children, apart from this communication? 16:01:49 11 A Not that I know of, no. 16:01:50 12 MR. MacLEISH: We have 4:00, and I 16:01:52 13 think that's what we agreed. I'm happy to keep 16:01:54 14 going, but I think that was the agreement. 16:01:56 15 MR. ROGERS: No, no. Fine. And we 16:01:59 16 will resume at 9:00 on Friday. Okay. 16:02:00 17 MR. MacLEISH: I'm going to ask -- 16:02:02 18 MR. ROGERS: And I will try to have 16:02:04 19 some dates to suggest to you tomorrow. 16:02:06 20 MR. MacLEISH: Again, I want to 16:02:08 21 consult with my colleagues before we agree 16:02:08 22 that -- because I had understood from your son, 16:02:10 23 Will, that we were going to be able to go again 16:02:13 24 in the afternoon. 16:02:15

228 1 MR. ROGERS: That's what we thought. 16:02:15 2 MR. MacLEISH: And I think I want -- 16:02:16 3 let's not discuss it here. I just can't say I 16:02:18 4 agree to it. 16:02:21 5 MR. ROGERS: I understand, but I will 16:02:22 6 talk to you tomorrow. 16:02:23 7 MR. MacLEISH: If you can talk to me 16:02:24 8 tomorrow about dates, then I think it makes 16:02:25 9 things a lot easier. 16:02:27 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 4:01. 16:02:29 11 We are concluded and off the record. 16:02:31 12 (Whereupon, the deposition suspended at 4:01 p.m.) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

229 1 Excerpt from Rule 30(e): 2 3 Submission to Witness; Changes; Signing. When the testimony is fully transcribed, the 4 deposition shall be submitted to the witness for examination and shall be read to or by him, 5 unless such examination and reading are waived by the witness and by the parties. Any changes 6 in form or entered upon the deposition by the officer with a statement of the reasons given 7 by the witness for making them. * * * * * * * * * * * 8 I, Bernard F. Law, have examined the above 9 transcript of my testimony and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 10 information and belief. 11 Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this _____ day of ______, 12 2002. 13 14 ______15 16 17 Sworn and subscribed to before me this ____ day of ______, 2002. 18 19 ______20 Notary Public 21 22 My Commission Expires: 23 ______24

230 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 5th 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 5th day 15 of June, 2002. 16 ______Notary Public 17 18 My Commission Expires: 19 20 May 2, 2008 21