THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
February 3, 2003, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston
On February 3, 2003, Cardinal Bernard F. Law was deposed by lawyers for alleged victims of clergy abuse in connection with civil lawsuits filed against the Archdiocese of Boston for its handling of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley. The first day of testimony in this deposition took place on January 22.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CA 02-04628-T1
(Consolidated with CA 02-1296)
(Originally entered in
Middlesex County as
No. 02-0822)
PAUL W. BUSA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, et al.,
Defendants.
THE SECOND DAY OF THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
OF CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by
the Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil
Procedure, before Kathleen L. Good, (CSR
#112593), Registered Professional Reporter and
Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg
Traurig, One International Place, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, on Monday, February 3,
2003, commencing at 10:04 a.m.
K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02209
TEL. (781) 598-6405
FAX (781) 598-0815
APPEARANCES:
Greenberg Traurig
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, and
Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
The Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attorneys for Defendants
Todd & Weld
(by J. Owen Todd, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attorneys for Cardinal Law Personally
ALSO PRESENT: George Libbares, Videographer
Rodney Ford
Paula Ford
Father John Connolly
Thomas Maffei (p.m.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now recording and on the record. My name is George Libbares. I'm a certified legal specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. The court
reporter is Kathleen Good with K. L. Good Associates.
Today is February 3, 2003. The time is 10:04 a.m. This is the beginning of Cassette No. 1 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law in the matter of Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, versus Cardinal Bernard Law, et. al., Defendants, in Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action 02-06 -- strike that. Civil Action 02-04628-T1.
Counsel will now state their appearances and the deposition will continue.
MR. MacLEISH: Roderick MacLeish, Jr., for the Plaintiff.
And I believe, actually, it's Day Two, George, of this deposition.
MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman for the Plaintiffs.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., for the Cardinal.
MR. TODD: Owen Todd for the Cardinal.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH, cont.
Q. Good morning, Cardinal.
A. Good morning.
Q. Thank you again for coming back in today for your final day of the deposition in this particular case.
I'd like to first show you what has been marked as Exhibit No. 18, which is a letter from The Rogers Law Firm and ask if you would take a look at that for me, please.
That's the first one on top.
A. 18?
Q. No, it's this one.
A. 17.
Q. 17, I apologize.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. This was a cover letter that we received together with 24 files for these individual priests last Friday.
Do you recognize the names of any of these priests as you read Exhibit No. 17?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know that all of these priests have accusations against them for sexual misconduct with minors?
A. I don't have an active recall on each of these priests.
Q. All right. Do you recall any of them having allegations of sexual misconduct involving minors against them?
A. I recall some of these priests having had allegations against them. I can't, from my memory, recall that all of these priests or even all of those that I recognize had allegations against minors.
Q. Okay.
A. But I --
Q. All right.
A. I would have my memory refreshed perhaps by --
Q. Sure.
A. -- other records that you'll put before me.
Q. Sure.
Father Murphy is the first one. Do you recall Father Murphy?
A. I have a -- I have a blank there.
Q. You have a blank. Okay.
A. Yeah.
Q. He came from Alaska. Does that help you at all?
A. Yes, I believe so, but I'd want to see the records to be sure that --
Q. Sure.
A. Because we have several Murphys.
Q. All right. We're going to be going over today many of the records that you have in front of you on Exhibit 17, but these were all records that were produced to us on Friday by the Archdiocese in response to Judge Sweeney's order concerning the production of records involving allegations of sexual misconduct with minors. And I would just ask if you have any understanding as to why these particular records were not produced to us in October and November when we received the other files pursuant to Judge Sweeney's order?
A. I cannot respond as to why anything was or was not done in terms of the -- of reports.
All I know is that there certainly was never an intent either on the part of the Archdiocese when I was there --
Q. Right.
A. -- in not being forthcoming in reports.
So -- so I can't answer your question.
Q. Okay. Who at the Archdiocese, in October, November, if you recall, was responsible for gathering records that were responsive to Judge Sweeney's order concerning the production of records from priests about allegations of child and sexual misconduct? Who at the Archdiocese, if you know, Cardinal?
A. October and November --
Q. Yes.
A. -- of 2002?
Q. Right.
A. As you very well know, this is a period of time when we were providing a great many records.
Q. Right.
A. And as I had indicated earlier along, one of our problems was the way, the manner in which records were kept in disparate collections. But one of the persons who would have been critical in responding to records of this type would have been Father Higgins at that point.
MR. TODD: When you say "critical," you mean in the meaning of importance?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
A. He would have been assisted by many -- by others --
Q. Right.
A. -- because we were attempting, and it was our desire to be as responsive as possible, and because we had run into problems. For example, the very first time that I spoke on the issue at a public -- at a press conference in early 2002, almost as soon as I finished that and got -- I got word that we found that there were six other persons that should have been -- that should have been mentioned. And so there was a point of frustration there for me.
And but it -- so we would have had people assisting who ordinarily would not be in that work in order to try to be as responsive as we could and as timely as we could.
Q. Cardinal, is it not a fact that the Archdiocese maintains a document that lists the names of all of the priests who have gone before the review board for childhood sexual misconduct?
A. I cannot respond to that.
Q. Okay.
A. I don't know that. That would seem logical, but I can't say that for sure.
Q. Okay. You've never seen such a document?
A. I have not.
Q. Okay. Could you please turn to Exhibit No. 18, which is the records of Father Picardi, certain of the records. There were, I think, well over a thousand records that were produced and we're going to be -- these pages are numbered and we're going to be just going through this file.
The first document, page 1 of Exhibit No. 18, you recognize that as a standard assignment card; is that correct?
A. Yes. These are cards kept by the Personnel Office.
Q. Right. Could you turn to the second page, please. Take a moment and read that if you would, please.
(Pause.)
Q. Do you recognize that letter, Cardinal?
A. I don't -- I don't recognize the letter but I don't doubt that this is a letter that I signed. It's not --.
Q. Okay. Do you have a general recollection of placing Father Picardi on sick leave at some point in 1992?
A. I can't say that I have a recollection of placing him on sick leave, but I have a recollection of this case. Obviously I've gone over it since. I've heard about it.
Q. Right.
A. What my specific recollection is, I'm not sure to what extent I'm projecting back in time in my memory, but I do know that he was removed from his parish assignment.
Q. He was removed from his parish assignment because there had been an allegation that he had raped a 29-year-old man whose first name is J.; is that correct?
A. I would not have the details of a name. I wouldn't have the assurance of the fact, but, as you mention that fact to me, I do recall that there was an allegation of a relationship with an adult.
Q. Well, I'm not talking about a relationship; I'm talking about a rape.
Do you recall --
A. I do not recall.
Q. Let me finish the question if I could.
Do you recall that Father Picardi was removed by you because of an allegation that he had raped a 29-year-old man in Florida?
A. I do not have the recollection of a rape.
Q. Okay. All right. Let's look at pages 3 and 4, Cardinal Law, if you could, please. These are notes of Bishop McCormack, typewritten.
(Pause.)
MR. MacLEISH: And Will and Owen, we have an agreement that in terms of, the standard agreement, that we can redact the names of the victims before the public filing of this?
MR. ROGERS: Fine, fine.
MR. MacLEISH: Thank you.
A. Do I go on to 4?
Q. I'm not going to ask you any questions, but you're welcome to read it if you'd like. That's the full text of the note from Bishop McCormack.
(Pause.)
Q. You see, if you've read No. 4, you see on No. 3 there's an allegation from a MS reported to Bishop Hughes that "John Picardi had acted out sexually with a 29-year-old man named J. blank while on trip to Florida."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see on March 12, 1992, "Bishop Hughes saw Father Picardi. He admitted to the incident and said it was his first time. He is penitent."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Have you seen this document before today, Cardinal Law?
A. I don't recall seeing this document.
Q. Could you please turn to page 5.
A. Yes.
Q. This is not our transcript. This is produced from the Archdiocese on Friday.
Do you see that the allegation as it was in March of 1992 was that Father Picardi had stayed in the same room with JT.; that he awoke JT., removing his pants. Second time he performed oral sex. The third time he had removed pants and attempted anal sex. He ejaculated. And then it says, "JP admitted that he raped JT."
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Does that help to refresh your recollection as to the allegations that were originally made against Father Picardi?
A. I have to say that in my memory, I don't have etched rape. I have etched a homosexual act and --
Q. You see Bishop Hughes reporting a rape allegation?
A. Yes. And I see the priest admitting it.
Q. Yes. And if you look at page 7, these are other notes that are --
A. 7?
Q. Yes. Page 7. You can skip over 6. It's just the handwritten notes that are reflected of the typewritten notes on page 5.
You'll see on No. 7, this is another document provided to us by the Archdiocese, and you'll see on the last line, there's -- this is number page 7.
A. It's the same as No. 5, I believe.
Q. Yeah, it could well be.
A. It's exactly the same.
Q. Could well be.
A. Yeah.
Q. Could you turn to page 8, please, Cardinal Law.
Do you recall that after the allegation was made against Father Picardi that he went to work in the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey?
A. I recall that he went to work in New Jersey, yes.
Q. In Paterson?
A. Yes.
Q. You know Bishop Rodimer. Is he deceased now?
A. No. He's not deceased.
Q. Bishop Rodimer was the bishop in New Jersey in 1992 in Paterson?
A. In '9 --
Q. '95, I mean 1995.
A. He was in '95. I believe he was in '92 as well.
Q. At the time that the allegation was made against Father Picardi, do you know whether there was any assessment that was done of Father Picardi at the time that this rape was alleged?
A. My presumption is that there is. If you go back here to one of these pages where there's reference, on page 4, I guess --
Q. Right.
A. First of all, if you go to my letter to Father Picardi.
Q. Which number is that, Cardinal?
A. Excuse me. It's No. 2.
Q. No. 2? Okay.
A. I indicate:
"It is my understanding that you are working out a program with the assistance of Monsignor Andrew Cusack of Seton Hall University. I would ask that the details of that program be approved by Father McCormack and would likewise ask that you work out details for maintaining contact with Father McCormack."
Then on page 4, No. 4, excuse me --
Q. Right.
A. -- in these notes, which I presume are the notes of McCormack, Father McCormack --
Q. Right.
A. -- at the bottom -- at the top --
Q. Right.
A. -- it indicates that he's entering into psychotherapy --
Q. Right.
A. -- with Dr. Peter Holland. He will see Andy as well. That would be Father Cusack, who would be a spiritual director, and then Father Benedict Groeschel, who is a psychologist and a spiritual director at the retreat house in Larchmont, who is quite good.
Then at the bottom, it says he has agreed to the assessment, the psychotherapy.
And so I don't see here --
Q. Right.
A. -- a copy of an assessment.
Q. Right.
A. But my presumption is that that took place and it would have been, as I indicated in my letter to him -- these things should be worked out, the details of these things should be worked out with Father McCormack.
Q. Do you know whether this case was presented to any type of review board in 1992, 1993?
A. Well, '92 --
Q. Right.
A. -- we didn't have the review board.
Q. Right.
A. That review board was established in '93.
Q. Right. And it went back, as I understand it, to look at files of sexual misconduct; is that correct?
A. Well, sexual misconduct, but with minors. I stand to be corrected on that, but I believe that the -- that the review of files had to do with the review of files where there had been a credible allegation against a priest for misconduct, sexual misconduct with minors.
Q. Okay. The review board did not address, as I understand it, sexual misconduct, including rape, involving priests of the Archdiocese and adults?
A. I believe that the -- I believe that the focus -- and I would stand corrected by the record, obviously -- but I believe that the focus of that review board was the problem of sexual abuse of children. This was the -- yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Cases of adults were handled, but they were not handled with the review board.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether, Cardinal Law, as you sit here today, whether the Diocese of Paterson was informed that there was an allegation that Father Picardi had raped JT?
A. I cannot recall what was communicated to the Diocese of Paterson at this point.
Q. Do you know whether Father Picardi was told that he could not perform priestly functions in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1992 as a result of the alleged rape?
A. Well, I do not -- I cannot recall that.
Q. Do you remember why, Cardinal Law, Father Picardi went down to Paterson, New Jersey?
A. I cannot recall why Paterson, New Jersey, is where Father Picardi went. No, I cannot.
Q. Do you remember anything about a lend-lease decision with respect to Father Picardi and the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey?
A. I believe that I've had put before me a letter from Bishop Rodimer.
Q. Rodimer?
A. Yes. Rodimer. In '95.
Q. Yes.
A. And then earlier you put before me the record of assignment of Father Picardi.
Q. Right.
A. And so that would indicate that he was sent there and he was allowed to go there on lend lease.
Q. Okay. He was allowed to go there on what's referred to as lend lease; is that correct?
A. Yes. You know, in an earlier question put to me about lend lease --
Q. Right.
A. -- I indicated that I would not use that term. And I was -- I'm -- reflecting back on a record such as you've shown me today, I do know that the nomenclature of the Archdiocese in the Personnel Office is evidently to use that term whenever a priest goes from Boston to another diocese for a period of time.
In my own mind, and less technically, I suppose in terms of the policy of the Archdiocese, I have always thought of that term more in -- with regard to a more permanent relationship that characterizes Archdiocese early in her life when we had more seminarians than we needed, and the policy was to allow them to leave the diocese and to go to other dioceses. And so through that lend lease, if you will, we were able -- the Archdiocese of Boston was able to help many missionary dioceses that didn't have sufficient number of priests at a time when we had more priests than we needed.
But the term in our Personnel Office is simply used as a term designating a priest able to function as a priest, but allowed to function somewhere else.
Q. All right. Now, with respect to Father Picardi, was he able, after the allegation of rape, to function in a parish in the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. I would have to look at the records and be refreshed by those who worked directly with this, but you're dealing, as far as I know, with one act here, which was -- which is admitted, and there has been intervention. And if at the end of that, there could be given relative assurance that this -- that there isn't a pathology where this person is of risk to others, and that there is something that can be done in the ongoing spiritual life and therapy of this person would be of assistance and he doesn't present a threat, then I would think that he could function.
Q. But you don't know, Cardinal, as you sit here today -- it's only a presumption that there was an assessment that was made about Father Picardi. You don't have any personal knowledge of what the -- whether there was one done or what the results were?
A. Well, I can tell you what my understanding would have been that would have occurred and I can --
Q. Right.
A. -- refer to the records that you have put before me that would certainly imply that that was in fact done. But I can't point to you the result of that, no.
Q. Again, just to specifically focus, was Father Picardi, after he admitted to raping, according to Bishop Hughes, JT, was he free to serve in the Archdiocese of Boston or was he told that he had to serve in another diocese?
A. He would not have been told that he had to serve in another diocese if he could not have served here.
Q. Suggested? Could it have been suggested to him that he serve in an another diocese, Cardinal?
MR. TODD: Could it have been? Is that the question? Object to the question.
A. That's a hypothetical. Could it have been? Yes. But I don't see anything here that would indicate that a decision was made that he shouldn't serve in Boston and, therefore, should serve somewhere else.
Q. We're going to go through some other documents. Let me ask you this question first, though, Cardinal. Was there an informal practice of any kind that you knew of that existed within the Archdiocese of Boston whereby priests who had accusations of sexual misconduct against them would be encouraged in any way to seek transfer to other dioceses in the United States?
A. No. I don't think that that was -- that that was a policy or a desire.
Q. Was it a practice?
A. First of all, I don't recall dealing with that many, and don't recall priests -- no, no, I don't recall that as a policy at all.
Q. Well, we've already gone through, you recall, Father O'Sullivan. We don't need to go through that again. He went down to New Jersey.
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. We've also been through Father Burns. He was received from Ohio after allegations of abuse; is that correct?
MR. TODD: He was what?
Q. He was received into the Archdiocese and allowed -- excuse me -- after allegations of abuse in Ohio.
Do you recall that?
A. I recall the case of Father Burns. I don't know that it's accurate to say that he was received in order to function as a priest in the Diocese of Boston.
Q. He wasn't incardinated into the Boston Archdiocese?
A. No, he was not incardinated, but I don't believe that he was received in order to function as a priest.
Q. He ended up functioning as a priest?
A. He did, and that was a mistake.
Q. Now, if we can turn next to -- we can skip over Nos. 10 and 11 and we can go to No. 12.
Do you recognize No. 12 of Exhibit 18 as your letter of October 26, 1992?
A. Again, yes, I have no doubt that this would be my record, my letter.
Q. Okay. Do you recognize No. 13 as your letter to Bishop Rodimer? Have I pronounced it correctly? Rodimer?
A. Yes. And if I may --
Q. Sure.
A. -- on No. 12 point out:
"It is my understanding that during this period of time, you will remain in your current program of psychotherapy and spiritual direction and as well remain in contact with Father McCormack" --
Q. Yes.
A. -- "as you have been doing."
Q. Nothing about an assessment result in that letter, Cardinal? You understand the distinction between assessment and psychotherapy?
A. Yes.
Q. There's no reference in your letter of October 26, 1992, to the results of any assessment of Father Picardi in terms of his fitness to serve as a priest?
A. You're speaking of my letter of October 26 --
Q. Yes.
A. -- to Father Picardi?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm speaking not of assessment. I'm speaking about the ongoing care of this person, not -- you know, an assessment is something that's done initially and then it's done.
Ongoing therapy is something that is quite different.
Q. Right. No. 13, do you recognize that as your letter to Bishop Rodimer?
A. I have no doubt that it is. And I would point out to you that, for the record, if I may --
Q. Certainly.
A. -- that the second paragraph is:
"This decision was made in light of conversations which have taken place between Father Thomas Zazzella, your Director of Clergy Personnel, and Father John B. McCormack, our Secretary for Ministerial Personnel."
Q. Okay. You were not a participant in that conversation; is that correct?
A. I was not a participant.
My presumption is, and my desire would have been, that there would have been nothing about this case that would have not been communicated to the bishop.
Q. But you don't know either way, do you, Cardinal, for sure? Of your own personal knowledge?
A. Having not been a participant in that conversation, I cannot confirm that, right.
Q. The next letter is No. 14. We can skip over that.
We can go to No. 15.
Is this a memo to you from Father McCormack concerning John Picardi, dated February 22, 1993?
A. It is. I presume it is. I mean, that's --
Q. Why don't you take a moment and read it so we can be sure.
(Pause.)
A. It's the same -- it's twice the same, right?
Q. Right. It's the same thing except there's handwritten notes on No. 16.
Do you see on No. 16?
A. I do, yes.
MR. TODD: There's some on 15 too.
Q. Yes, there's some on 15. And then there's -- does any of your handwriting appear on either 15 or 16?
A. On 16.
Q. What does it say, Cardinal?
A. "Okay. Have we been in touch with the bishop in New Jersey?"
Q. Okay.
Then you'll see No. 17 is a transcript.
A. Can I just read this one?
Q. Sure. Absolutely.
(Pause.)
A. I -- I --
MR. TODD: There's no question.
MR. ROGERS: There's no question.
Q. If you could please turn to No. 20. If you could look at 21 as well.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall in 1994 extending permission that you'd given Father Picardi to serve in the Paterson diocese for another year?
A. Yeah. I don't recall the details of this, but I have no doubt that this is what occurred.
Q. Could you turn to No. 24, please. If you'll look at 25 as well.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall learning in 1995, Cardinal, that Father Picardi had been accused of some form of sexual misconduct with a girl at a school?
A. I do recall that, and I recall, as Bishop Rodimer's letter indicates on page -- in document 25, that he was --
Q. 24, I think.
A. 24, yes.
"Fortunately, the finding was that there was no sexual abuse. Unfortunately, Father Picardi was found to be guilty of unjustified and inappropriate actions."
Q. Okay. And that involved sexual misconduct with a minor, the unjustified and inappropriate actions; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. You were aware that Father Picardi, in 1995, was found, as Bishop Rodimer states it, guilty of unjustified and inappropriate actions; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you understood in 1995 that those unjustified and inappropriate actions concerned some form of sexual misconduct that is described on No. 25 with a girl; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. I was -- yes, in a general way, I'm -- I was aware of that.
Q. And No. 25 is the letter from the State of New Jersey Department of Human Services in which it's stated that Father Picardi had placed his hand on a female child's buttocks area over her skirt and then lifted the child's skirt below the level of her buttocks.
Do you see that --
MR. TODD: Objection.
Q. -- Cardinal?
A. I see this letter, yes.
Q. Did you see that, understand that to be the nature of the allegations in 1995?
A. I don't know that I had the details of the allegation at that time.
Q. Do you recall learning that, as stated in No. 25, from the New Jersey Department of Human Services that the actions of Father Picardi, quote, placed the child at some unnecessary and undue risk of harm since they were deemed to be nonaccidental in nature?
Do you recall learning about that in 1995?
A. I do not recall the details of the report of the State of New Jersey.
Q. All right. But in any event, you did know, as is reflected in Exhibit 24, Father Picardi had to leave Paterson, New Jersey.
Do you see that?
A. I did see that, yes.
Q. So Father Picardi, at that point, returns to Boston; is that correct?
A. I'm not certain of that.
Q. So this is a man just, as of 1995, you knew that this man had admitted to being involved in some form of sexual misconduct with an adult in 1992 and some form of sexual misconduct with a minor in 1995?
MR. TODD: Objection.
Q. That was the state of your general understanding in 1995; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection.
That question implies that Father Picardi had admitted that he was involved in some sexual misconduct with a minor.
So I object to the form.
Q. Okay. You understood in 1995 there was an allegation that Father Picardi had engaged in some form of sexual misconduct including rape of an adult in 1992, and some form of sexual misconduct, alleged sexual misconduct, in 1995; is that correct?
A. I'm aware of the fact that there was a charge in 1995, yes.
Q. And you were aware in 1995 of what had happened in 1992; is that correct? Did you have a general awareness of that?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. All right. Let's move on, Cardinal, and if you could look at No. 30, please.
A. Excuse me. Which one, please?
Q. No. 30, please.
MR. TODD: 30.
A. 30?
Q. Yes.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. You can look at, if you want to as well, in the same context, 31, 32 and 33.
(Pause.)
A. I see.
Q. So you recall that there was a letter that was sent to you by Bishop Rodimer in September of 1995 asking whether you wanted there to be an internal investigation conducted by the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey, into this allegation of sexual misconduct with this young girl?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. Well, I don't think it was a question of my wanting it to be done.
Q. Right.
A. It's a question of Father Picardi requesting that it be done.
Q. That's correct.
A. And then the judgment of the diocese, the Archdiocese, was being asked.
Q. Right. And -- but Bishop Rodimer states:
"I am willing to conduct such an investigation."
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. So in 1995, you knew that the Diocese of Paterson was willing to conduct some form of internal investigation into this allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- is that correct?
And you'll see 31, I'd like to read a paragraph and ask you a question. This is a memo from Father Richard Lennon to Father Brian Flatley. Paragraph 2, he states:
"It is my considered opinion that the Cardinal not grant the authorization requested by Bishop Rodimer for him to open the investigation."
And then it goes on to state:
"The reason for this opinion is that I see no benefit to such an investigation for either Father Picardi to work in New Jersey nor for the Church. In fact, opening such an investigation runs the real risk of negative fall-out for both Father Picardi and for the Church."
Do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were you aware that Bishop Lennon had stated this as a reason as to why there should be no internal investigation conducted by the Diocese of Paterson?
A. I don't recall this. I think that document 32 --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- may throw a little bit more light on what the underlying thinking is here, where it says that "If Bishop Rodimer allows the investigation" -- and it is clear that Father Picardi -- "and it clears Father Picardi" -- if that were to happen -- "we may have to allow him to return to ministry. I am more and more convinced that this would be a mistake, and I'm sure that the review board would agree."
Q. That's Father Flatley's memo to you. We're now talking about Bishop Lennon's memo to Father Flatley. Okay. We're going to get to that one. It's an important document.
But let's look at 31 first. Did you know in 1995 that Bishop Lennon had recommended that there be no internal investigation into this matter of sexual misconduct with this girl because Bishop Lennon believed that the opening of such an investigation runs the real risk of negative fall-out for Father Picardi and for the Church?
Did you know of that in 1995, Cardinal?
MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: That's an incorrect characterization of then Father Lennon's recommendation. It was not to allow the investigation by Bishop Rodimer; it was not that there be no investigation.
Q. Okay. Have I read -- you understood --
MR. MacLEISH: Are you finished?
MR. ROGERS: Well --
MR. MacLEISH: You can really just say "objection" is what you're supposed to do but --
MR. ROGERS: Well, I appreciate that, but, quite frankly, if I'm going to get advice on the rules, I don't think I'd come to someone who is --
MR. MacLEISH: Probably not.
MR. ROGERS: -- a Rule 11 violator recidivist. I think what I'd do is I'd choose more carefully.
MR. MacLEISH: We've got a lot of offenders in the room. But that's good point. I appreciate you bringing that up.
Q. Did you understand in 1995, Cardinal Law, that Bishop Lennon had recommended against authorizing this internal investigation of the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey?
A. First of all, I don't recall seeing this memorandum. I don't have any reason to doubt this memorandum.
Q. Right.
A. I do believe, however, that the underlying reason is reflected in 32, and I would say that that comes from Father Flatley's conversation with Father Lennon.
As you --
MR. TODD: Cardinal, the narrow question is whether you remember --
A. No, no. But I do not recall.
Q. Okay.
A. I do not recall seeing this and seeing -- now, was I informed of it? I could have been, but I don't recall that.
Q. Okay. All right. Will you turn to No. 32 then.
A. Yes.
Q. And you see this is a memo to you from Brian Flatley.
Do you see that?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Okay. And you see in this file, in this memo to you, it states:
"Our files indicate that Father Picardi raped" -- do you see that, underlined -- "raped the 27-year-old man and admitted that fact."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. So is it fair to state that in your understanding in 1995, was that Father Picardi had admitted to raping a 27-year-old man?
A. This is a memo to me. I have no reason to suspect that I did not see it so I would have known that, yes.
Q. This is the type of memo, as we've gone through with some other files like the Father Foley case, that stands out, does it not? Remember we discussed some of the Father Foley material as standing out in your mind?
A. Yeah.
Q. When you learned that this priest had admitted to raping a 27-year-old man from Father Flatley --
A. Right.
Q. -- in 1995, did this type of information stand out for you?
A. Yeah. It was a shock.
Q. It was a shock. Okay. And so Father Flatley, as you correctly noted, stated that it would be a mistake, as is reflected in No. 32, for this man to return to ministry.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And he states that he's sure that the review board would agree.
Do you see that?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. All right. And then No. 33 is your letter back to Bishop Rodimer telling him that there's no need -- you do not wish him to conduct any sort of internal investigation?
A. That's right.
Q. Is that correct? All right.
A. I would want to refer you, for the record, on 32 -- I suppose this is in the record, though, is it not?
Q. Yes.
A. This whole thing is in the record. Fine.
Q. Everything is that you state is in the record.
A. Fine. No, no, I mean this whole document?
Q. Absolutely, it's part of the record.
A. Because I think that's very important because this whole document, I think, explains --
Q. Sure.
A. -- better the rationale for not having that investigation.
Q. So as of 1995, with the memo from Father Flatley indicating that this man had admitted to raping another human being, it was certainly your view that Father Picardi should not be allowed to return to ministry; is that correct?
A. Well, the issue -- you're speaking of '95?
Q. Yes.
A. The allegation was that that had occurred earlier. '92, was it?
Q. '92.
A. And in the intervening time, there has been the assessment at the Institute of the Living, there has been ongoing psychotherapy, ongoing spiritual direction.
So with regard to that one act -- and it was the only act involving an adult up to that time that was known to us. It appeared that that was something that had been dealt with in terms of psychological counseling and help; that he had ongoing spiritual direction with the knowledge of what had occurred, and appeared to be doing good work.
So that there was -- the ability for him to serve after that act was not counterindicated.
Q. You don't know what the results of the assessment, any type of assessment were, do you, Cardinal Law, in terms of his fitness to be a priest?
A. No. I don't have that assessment in front of me.
Q. In fact, if you look at No. 32, it states, from Father Flatley, in the memo to you, Cardinal, after it states, "Our files indicated that Father Picardi raped the 27-year-old man and admitted that fact," it states, farther down, it says:
"In light of the new allegation and the results of a subsequent assessment, we may have grounds to keep him out of ministry."
Do you see the reference to the "subsequent assessment"?
A. That's correct, that's correct, yes.
Q. So Father Flatley was stating that the results of the subsequent assessment as well as the new allegation may, may give you grounds to keep him out of ministry.
Do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you concur with that in 1995, Cardinal Law?
A. I cannot recall that.
Q. Okay. Let's move on then, if we can.
You'll see 34 is a review board document, January 4, 1996. You're welcome to read that.
(Pause.)
Q. All right?
A. Yes.
Q. Take a look at No. 36 as well, Cardinal.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's not -- we'll be going through this but you see, you can look at 37 as well. That's fine.
So you'll see, Cardinal, on 34 -- I want to make sure you've had enough time to go through those.
A. 34?
Q. Yes. You'll see 34, it's presented by -- these are at least the review board notes kept, I believe, by, would have been either Bishop McCormack or Bishop, I'm sorry, Father --
A. Father Flatley.
Q. -- or Father Flatley, that both the 1992 incident as well as the 1995 incident are both -- appear in No. 34.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you'll see that the review board meeting on 36 recommends that the priest not be returned to parish ministry or other ministry that involves minors. He should be encouraged to continue in his therapy and to continue to discuss whether he should seek laicization.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. So at least -- then you'll see No. 37, you accepted on May 31, 1996, the recommendations of the review board.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So your position as of May 31, 1996, was that the priest could not be returned -- when I say the priest, I mean Father Picardi -- could not be returned to parish ministry or other ministry that involves minors.
A. That's right.
Q. And that there should be a discussion of laicization.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So at least as of May 1996, you viewed this as a priest who was not able to return to ministry.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If you could turn to No. 38, please.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And this is a memo of June 8, 1996.
Do you recall -- you'll see the first paragraph:
"I talked with Father Picardi this morning and told him you accepted the review board recommendation. Would you please date the enclosed memo May 31, 1996."
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Do you know why Father Flatley would recommend on June 8, 1996, that you pre-date the memo that he sent to you that day to May 31, 1996?
MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
A. I don't know the --
MR. ROGERS: I don't think that's a pre-date.
A. I don't know that it's a pre-date. It may have been that I didn't have the date. I don't know that.
Q. Okay. Fine. No problem.
This memo from Father Flatley is dated June 8, 1996.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. All right.
Exhibit No. 39 is a document from the Congregatio Pro Clericis -- do you see that -- indicating that the congregation had received a petition for hierarchal recourse against your decision concerning Father Picardi.
A. Yes.
Q. Who is that signed by, No. 39?
A. It's signed by Archbishop Sepe.
Q. And then you recognize No. 40 as your letter to --
A. I'd want to look it over.
Q. Sure. Absolutely.
(Pause.)
Q. Do you see No. 40, Cardinal?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a copy of your letter to the Most Reverend Dario Castrillon --
A. Castrillon.
Q. -- Castrillon Hoyos?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he at the -- Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy?
A. Well, he's now the Prefect.
Q. He's the Prefect.
You state in the second paragraph, you describe the allegation of abuse in New Jersey as a serious one, do you not?
A. Yes.
Q. The next paragraph, you go on to state:
"In no way" -- it's in, I think, the third sentence -- "in no way has any final decision been made that would preclude the possibility of Father Picardi seeking a bishop who is willing to incardinate him or even of resuming ministry in the Archdiocese of Boston in an assignment which does not involve working with minors."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Why, Cardinal Law, just as a matter of common sense, would this man, who, as far as you knew, had admitted to raping an adult and then been involved in a serious allegation of sexual misconduct in New Jersey, ever again have the possibility of serving in parish ministry whether in Boston or anywhere else?
A. This letter is involving canonical procedures.
Q. Right.
A. This priest appealed against the decision that I had made.
Q. Right.
A. Part of what this priest was asked to have done is to meet with and discuss this situation with Father Flatley, which he had not done.
Q. Right.
A. And so what this letter does is to indicate that the process that Father is using is -- it's inappropriate to bring charge against the diocese at this point because he has not yet done what we asked him to do, which is sit down with Father Flatley and talk over this whole situation.
Q. So -- I'm sorry. Have you finished?
A. And we were in a canonical forum here.
Q. Right. So is it fair to state that as of the date of this letter, which was August of 1996, you were prepared to consider the possibility of this admitted rapist and alleged molester of a girl to be incardinated into another diocese? You were at least amendable to that as a possibility, Cardinal Law; is that correct?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. First of all, I don't know that that -- that Father Picardi would agree with his acceptance of that designation with regard to -- he's not an admitted rapist because he obviously, he, himself, objects to that.
Our judgment in the document is that that's what took place. He --
Q. That he admitted it?
A. -- however, is not -- he is not admitting to that. At least I thought I read just a moment ago here how furious he was that we are calling it rape.
Q. Well, I'm talking about what you knew, Cardinal. What you knew was expressed to you in a memo of --
A. Excuse me.
Q. -- Father Flatley.
A. Excuse me. I thought you were characterizing what Father Picardi's --
Q. No, no, no, I wasn't. I was referring to what you knew, Cardinal. And we've already been through -- and we'll take a break now -- about what Father Flatley told you about the incident, No. 32. As far as you knew, in 1995, that "Our files indicate that Father Picardi raped the 27-year-old man and admitted that fact."
A. Yes.
Q. That was your understanding of what he had done?
A. Yes.
Q. At least then as of 1996, the time you wrote the letter to the Prefect in Rome, you were prepared to consider the possibility, at least, of having what you knew, what you understood to be an admitted rapist, serve in another diocese in the United States.
MR. TODD: I object to that question.
MR. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. TODD: No basis for it whatsoever.
A. I believe you're reading more into that paragraph than I would read into that paragraph or that I intended.
Q. You at least were acknowledging that possibility, in 1996, that Father Picardi, who, as far as you knew, had admitted to raping a 27-year-old man, could at some point be incardinated into another diocese?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. My canonical position at this point was that Father Picardi had no cause to take issue because he, himself, had not yet sat down and talked with the Delegate to see what the possibilities are.
Q. Fair enough.
MR. MacLEISH: We'll take a break now and be back at five minutes. Thank you.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:03. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:18 a.m. We're back on the record.
Q. All right, Cardinal Law. Could you turn to No. 44, please.
A. 44. Yes.
Q. I'm sorry. Let's move forward. You can look at 44, 45.
A. Excuse me. 45?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay.
Q. And that is a letter sent to you on January 28, 1997, from -- I know the name but I can't -- I know you're going to be able to pronounce it.
A. Cardinal Castrillon.
Q. Cardinal --
A. Then Archbishop Dario Castrillon, who was the Pro-Prefect, and Archbishop Sepe, who was Secretary for the Congregation for Clergy --
Q. Okay.
A. -- which would have been the competent congregation to which a priest would have recourse against his bishop. In this case, at that time, I was the bishop here.
Q. Right. I don't want to get into --
A. So this is a canonical procedure here --
Q. Right.
A. -- which sort of indicates that, you know, that in these cases, as you can see, you -- my actions are bound by canon law as well.
Q. Right. I'm not going to get into canon law. I just want to direct your attention to one paragraph on No. 45, which is:
Were your Eminence to resolve the matter before this time with Cardinal (sic) Picardi, we would be extremely happy to learn of this outcome.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And that's from Cardinal -- is it Cardinal Sepe or --
A. Well, they're both cardinals now.
Q. They're both cardinals now?
A. At that time, they were both archbishops.
Q. All right. So in 1997, early 1997, you received No. 45 from Cardinal Sepe and, now Cardinal Sepe, now Cardinal Castrillon?
A. I might say that it is not an unusual thing for the Holy See to urge that matters, if they can be resolved without going through legal process, it's a better thing to do it, to try to settle things.
Q. Right.
A. That's not only good in canonical matters.
Q. Well, we'd like to see it happen in other areas as well, Cardinal. Unfortunately, we can't do that right now.
But at least as of January 28, 1997 --
A. January 28, 1997?
Q. I'm sorry.
A. You're correct.
Q. Do you see that?
At least as of that date, your decision to accept the recommendations of the review board as is evidenced by what you approved in May 31, 1996, that was still in effect; is that correct?
A. In effect but, obviously, under question.
Q. Well, okay. It was under question by --
A. Canonically under question.
Q. -- by Father Picardi?
A. Yes. Involving the Congregation of Clergy that would be competent.
Q. All right. If we could turn to No. 48, please.
MR. TODD: This reference to a letter is the previous page.
MR. MacLEISH: Right.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me?
MR. MacLEISH: You're welcome to look at it, yes.
MR. TODD: This reference to a letter is to a previous page.
MR. MacLEISH: Right.
(Pause.)
Q. Tell me when you're through.
A. All right.
Q. Okay. So you see Bishop Murphy describes to you, on March 4, 1997, that the evidence concerning the New Jersey school girl was not substantial "but the concerns of the officials in New Jersey and the decision by the bishop there not to reassign him were the basis for our action."
Do you see that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form. You said Bishop Murphy.
MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry. I meant -- it's Father Murphy. I stand corrected.
A. Excuse me. Would you repeat the question again.
Q. Right.
In 1997, in March of 1997, Father Murphy wrote you a memo.
Do you recall receiving a memo that's No. 48?
A. I don't recall it but I don't dispute that I received it.
Q. All right. Okay. Let's move forward.
You'll see No. 55, if we could turn to that, please, Cardinal.
A. Yeah. I just want to look at this.
Q. Sure. Look at whatever you want to look at.
(Pause.)
Q. Look at 55 and 56, are the ones we're going to be focusing on next.
A. 55 and 56?
Q. Yeah. Really 56.
(Pause.)
Q. We're going to take them one by one.
Have you had the opportunity to read 56, Cardinal?
A. I have.
Q. Do you recall in April of 1997 expressing discomfort with the recommendation that the priest be restricted to the extent that he is?
Do you remember?
A. I do not recall that.
Q. All right. It states in this memorandum that we obtained from Attorney Rogers on Friday that:
"Cardinal Law has continued to express discomfort with the recommendation that the priest be restricted to the extent he is. He has asked that the case be reexamined."
Do you recall doing that, Cardinal?
A. I don't recall that. However, I do see the reason for asking that be done in terms of this memo from Mr. Neil Hegarty --
Q. Right.
A. -- who is a counselor.
Q. Right. Then you state -- it states -- the memo states:
"His opinion is reinforced by that of Bishop William Murphy and Father Richard Lennon, Vice Chancellor for Canonical Affairs. This Delegate believes there is not enough evidence to make a sure determination in this matter."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Then you'll see the rest of the memorandum goes on to discuss the incident in New Jersey.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. All right. And then we don't know who wrote this in April 3, 1997, we don't know from the file who wrote it, whether it was Father Higgins, Father Flatley or someone else. But then it states:
"The recommendation of the Delegate: Relying on the findings of the civil authorities, it seems impossible to conclude that the priest engaged in activity which would warrant his being removed from parish ministry."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. As of April 1997, had you received any information that was contrary to the information contained in Exhibit No. 32 that the files of the Archdiocese indicated that Father Picardi raped a 27-year-old man and admitted that fact? Had you received any information on that issue, on that allegation, that suggested that a rape had not taken place?
A. I'm not aware of any information.
Q. Okay. So would it be fair to state that, really, as of this date, the information that you have about the 1992 incident is the information which is reflected in page 32 of Exhibit 18; that there was an admission of a rape?
A. Perhaps I don't have to know the reason for the question.
Q. Sure.
A. But I don't quite understand the reason for the question.
Q. Right.
A. Because, as I think I'd indicated earlier, with regard to the 1992 homosexual encounter, that this priest was --
MR. TODD: Go ahead.
A. This priest was assessed. He was under treatment and psychotherapy. He was also under spiritual direction and he was allowed to serve after that.
Q. You just --
MR. TODD: Excuse me.
MR. MacLEISH: Go ahead, sure.
MR. TODD: There is, of course, material in page 34 that you've submitted to the Cardinal --
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.
MR. TODD: -- indicating that there was some material suggesting it wasn't rape.
MR. MacLEISH: All right. That's fine. If that's the Cardinal's testimony, he can state that.
Q. Had you, Cardinal, as of -- I just want to go back to your last answer. You just described the allegations in 1992 as being one of a homosexual encounter.
There's a difference between a rape of an individual and a homosexual encounter; is that not correct?
A. It was a homosexual encounter which was characterized as a rape, yes.
Q. And there was an admission of a rape, as far as you knew, when you received Father Flatley's memo on October 6, 1995. That was a memo addressed directly to you.
A. Yes.
Q. You can't recall -- Mr. Todd just referred to the denial on No. 34. You don't have a recollection as you sit here today of having reviewed that document, do you?
A. Oh, I don't have a recollection of having reviewed most of these documents. It's a -- the whole thing is being evoked by these documents and I can only see what I see here.
Q. Right. The memos that went to you, it's fair to state, from Father Flatley in 1995, were memos that you would look at. If a memo was sent from Father Flatley, your Delegate --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you would review it?
A. Yes, yes, yes.
Q. So going back to the reason for reexamination back in April of 1997, I want to make sure that I understand that you don't have a present recollection of asking that the case be reexamined; is that correct?
A. I don't have a present recollection of having expressed discomfort, but I don't deny having expressed that, given the matter that is contained in the memorandum of Mr. Hegarty.
Q. Right.
A. I don't recall seeing the memorandum, but I would presume that that kind of information would have been relayed to me since this issue now was an active issue in which I had been communicated with by the Congregation of Clergy.
Q. In which you had previously approved a review board recommendation which is reflected in No. 37, Cardinal Law --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- in which the review board recommended that the priest "not be returned to parish ministry or other ministry that involves minors. He should be encouraged to continue in his therapy and to continue to discuss whether he should seek laicization."
You approved that recommendation on May 31, 1996?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. If you take a look at 57, Cardinal.
A. Yes.
Q. This is a memo to you from Father Murphy in which it's stated:
"Your Eminence, when the review board met on Thursday, it revisited the case of Father Picardi. After careful consideration, they voted to rescind the finding of January 1996."
Just for your reference, that was the finding that you approved on May 31, 1996.
A. Yes.
Q. And then it states:
"Because the review board failed to find adequate evidence for sexual misconduct with a minor, the Archdiocesan policy no longer applies to Father Picardi."
Then it says:
"I spoke to him after the meeting. His initial response is gratitude. Regarding his future, he feels it would be too difficult to consider returning to active priesthood in Boston. He is interested in remaining in Phoenix, Arizona, as a priest."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Now, the review board has rescinded its prior finding so there's no restrictions on Father Picardi's ministry; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you approved, did you not, that recommendation of the review board that its prior ruling, that you had approved less than a year earlier, be rescinded; is that correct?
A. Well, they rescinded it.
Q. Right. They rescinded it?
A. Yeah.
Q. You have to approve the rescission, I assume?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you approve the rescission?
A. I, implicitly, I did. I don't see a written record of that, but, implicitly, I did.
Q. I would give you the record if I had one. I didn't have something similar to No. 34 in which you -- I'm sorry -- 37, in which you indicated your approval. I just don't have that so I'm asking you whether you recall less than a year after you had approved No. 34 -- I'm sorry, No. -- it's in No. 37, your approval of the review board. Review board recommendation is No. 36.
So do you recall approving the rescission of the review board's recommendation that it made to you on January 4, 1996, which you approved on May 31, 1996, that the priest not be returned to parish ministry or other ministry that involves minors?
A. I don't recall that, but I would presume I did.
Q. All right. Cardinal Law, did it ever go through your mind after you received the memo from Father Flatley where there was an admission of a rape in 1992 that law enforcement should be contacted?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Even though there was, going back to 32, an admission, as far as the records showed, of a rape by Father Picardi?
A. No, it did not enter my mind.
Q. Okay. All right. Then, if we could, Cardinal, just moving forward, do you remember Father Picardi seeking to be incardinated into another diocese?
A. I remember, you know, as we talk about this today --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- I can recall that Father Picardi did -- was not pleased and felt that he had not been dealt with fairly by the Archdiocese of Boston in this matter from the very beginning.
Q. Right.
A. And felt that he could not comfortably function as a priest in this Archdiocese because of that. And that was why he was -- he had asked to go to New Jersey, and I presume the same reason why he asked to be a priest in Phoenix, where he was after he left New Jersey, and not functioning as a priest. He was living in Phoenix.
Q. Well, do you know right now whether Father Picardi has been incardinated into the Diocese of Phoenix?
A. I cannot say that.
Q. Okay.
A. I do not know that.
Q. Let's go to 58, if we could.
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Okay. Let's go to 58, which is your letter to Bishop O'Brien from the Diocese of Phoenix.
A. Yes.
Q. And this isn't the same bishop who is the military Archbishop O'Brien; this is a different Bishop O'Brien; is that correct?
A. That's correct. It's different.
Q. Is he still alive, Cardinal?
A. He is.
Q. And you write and you state that you are writing regarding a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston who is interested in serving the Church of Phoenix.
Do you see that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. You then, in the next paragraph, reference his name and state that he has served the Church of Boston well.
A. Yes.
Q. But then you go on to describe the two incidents that we've been talking about this morning.
A. Yes.
Q. And you describe the first incident as follows:
"The first was an incident of homosexual behavior with an adult who had accompanied Father Picardi on a trip to Florida. The behavior was reported by the man and Father Picardi has expressed deep regret over the incident. The Archdiocese of Boston arranged for Father Picardi to spend some time in treatment as a result of this incident and the reports from the facility were positive regarding his ability to return fully to ministry."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. You describe the incident which had been reported to you by Father Flatley as an admitted rape. You describe it to the Bishop of Phoenix as an incident of homosexual behavior with an adult. Is that correct?
A. It is. And I would reference to you, and for the record, through my voice, the last paragraph of that page of the letter to --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- Father O'Brien, Bishop O'Brien, which I think is very important, in which I say:
"I would be willing to provide you with more information than a letter allows. The priest here who is most knowledgeable about Father Picardi is Reverend William F. Murphy. He is my Delegate for matters pertaining to clergy sexual misconduct. You may wish to speak to him."
Q. Right. We're going to get to that paragraph. And you don't know whether any such conversation took place; is that correct?
A. My presumption would be that it did, but I cannot attest to that.
Q. All right. You did not inform Bishop O'Brien that Father Picardi had -- was the recipient of an allegation which you understood to be admitted in October of 1995, that he had raped this man.
Can you explain to me why you did not fully inform Bishop O'Brien of what the allegation was and what was contained in the Archdiocesan records concerning Father Picardi's response to that allegation of rape?
A. I think that what was said here was what needed to be said; that the Archdiocese of Boston arranged for Father Picardi to spend time in treatment as a result of this incident, and the reports from this facility were positive regarding his ability to return fully to ministry. That would be the -- that would be the point of issue here.
Q. Several -- I think before the break, you indicated there was a difference between a homosexual encounter and a rape. There's a difference between those two.
Do you recall your testimony on that subject?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So as far as you knew when you wrote this letter in 1997, there had been no change in what was reflected in the Archdiocesan records concerning Father Picardi's admission to the allegation that he had raped a 27-year-old man as is reflected in No. 32?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. As far as I know, you know, that document is there. I don't know that that was -- that there's any subsequent document which would supersede it.
Q. So my question -- and, you know, I understand your focus on the last part of that paragraph. My question, though, is not on the last part of that paragraph, but the first part, which is why did you not tell Bishop O'Brien that there was an allegation of rape, which, according to Archdiocesan records, had been admitted, as opposed to stating a homosexual encounter?
A. I felt that, that the issue as stated here would have been what he would need to know to make a judgment about Father Picardi. I indicate at the end that further information on this would -- could be obtained through Father Murphy and suggest you may wish to speak with him.
And I felt that I was covering that adequately in that way.
Q. Did you know that rape, when you wrote this letter in 1997, was a felony, crime?
A. I don't know that I was thinking in those categories.
Q. You didn't know that rape of another human being was a crime in 1997?
A. You know, obviously, I know that rape is a crime. And I also know that, as the records show that you have put before me today, that while the record, through Bishop -- through Father Murphy indicates that this was an admitted act of rape --
Q. Father Flatley.
A. From Father Flatley.
That a subsequent word from Father Picardi disputes that.
Q. Right.
A. And you have -- you have two adults with behavior that clearly is unacceptable, judging it differently. And I can't, you know, I can't be a judge of that.
Q. What was the unacceptable behavior of the victim of this rape? What was his unacceptable behavior?
A. You have a homosexual contact that is not acceptable in terms of Church moral teaching.
Q. This man alleged he'd been raped --
A. I understand that.
Q. -- which is not consensual contact, Cardinal Law.
A. I understand that.
Q. That's what your records reflected; that there had been an admission back at the time in the 1992, an admission to the rape.
So how, with respect to the victim, if that were true, that he'd been the victim of rape, was his behavior in any way unacceptable?
A. I'm not able --
MR. TODD: I object -- hold on.
I object to the question, the predicate being that the records show only that it was rape, after it's been pointed out to you a number of times, the records describe it in both ways: The victim -- alleged victim saying he was raped and the alleged perpetrator saying he was the aggressor but it was not rape.
Q. And the alleged perpetrator, in this case, Father Picardi, according to Exhibit No. 32 and the notes of Bishop Hughes, which we've been over, admitting at another time, closer to the incident in 1992, that it was rape.
So we have different stories from the perpetrator, but the story, as you understood it, was at the time he was confronted, he'd admitted to raping this 27-year-old man.
MR. TODD: Objection again.
Q. Well, that's what the notes indicate, Cardinal Law, do they not?
MR. TODD: Refer to 35 and there's, as the has Cardinal described, it was an issue that was disputed whether it was rape or whether it was consensual. Looking at 34 rather, Exhibit 34, although, quotes, although he admits that he was the aggressor, he denies the rape vehemently, close quotes.
So what you're hearing is --
MR. MacLEISH: The records in '92 --
MR. TODD: You'll have to ask him on both assumptions.
Q. The records in '92 indicated that there was an admission by this perpetrator, Father Picardi, of rape.
Is that a fair statement, Cardinal, of what you understood in 1995 and 1997?
A. I, first of all, cannot give you an active recall of what I thought at various times.
Q. Sure.
A. I'm judging from these documents. I've not seen these documents in the intervening years and I'm recollecting some things as we go through here.
Q. Sure.
A. But this letter that is before me now --
Q. Right.
A. -- which is the object of your questions --
Q. Right.
A. -- to Bishop O'Brien is a letter in which I attempt to state, in a forthright manner, the situation. And the critical issue, I would submit, for me, was to let him know, first of all, that there had been two incidents here, to let him know how it is that that first incident was handled and why it is after that that we should be allowing him to serve. And the second incident. And to put that before him. And then to indicate who it would be that could give further information, details on both of these issues.
Was I purposely avoiding the use of the term "rape" in that second paragraph? Or was I influenced by the fact that I have two adults, albeit at different times, the alleged perpetrator having -- being reported as saying one thing --
Q. Admitting.
A. -- and then -- being reported as admitting -- and then later being incensed by the fact that this was called that and denying it? The fact of the matter is something happened and something happened that was inappropriate. And the -- it was alleged to be a rape by the person aggrieved and it was denied as that.
Q. Not initially, Cardinal Law, according to the records that you had before you.
A. According to the report initially, it indicates that he admitted that, that's correct.
Q. And you know, understanding that even putting this in the circumstances where it's an allegation that was denied, did you not consider it important, in light of the contemporaneous admission that was in your records, to point out to the Bishop of Phoenix, who was thinking of accepting this man, incardinating him into the Diocese of Phoenix, that there was an allegation that had been admitted, not of a homosexual encounter, but of the rape of another human being?
A. Yes. Well, you know, I felt at the time that I wrote this letter, obviously, that I was setting forth the situation in an appropriate way and indicating who it was that could fill in the details of both of these situations.
Q. With the benefit of hindsight, Cardinal Law, would it have been better to have mentioned the allegation of the rape?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. Well, the incident was mentioned. Would it have been better to have called it a rape, given the conflicting position of the alleged perpetrator here? I don't know. Perhaps it would have been wise to say he was accused of.
Q. But you just chose the words "homosexual encounter," which --
A. I did not use homosexual encounter. I said this was an incident of homosexual behavior with an adult.
Q. Behavior, I'm sorry. All right. Okay.
Cardinal --
A. And I would say, if I may, that granted, it isn't in the direct form that you perhaps would find more acceptable. I say the first was an incident of homosexual behavior with an adult who had accompanied Father Picardi on a trip to Florida. The behavior was reported by the man. And that, certainly, would imply that there was an aggrieved person here. And Father Picardi has expressed regret over the incident.
Q. Does the term "homosexual behavior," as you include it in your letter of April 24, 1997, to the Bishop of Phoenix, encompass nonconsensual rape of another person?
A. In this instance, it's a generic term which becomes more specific with the second sentence.
Q. All right. So does "homosexual behavior" encompass rape, Cardinal Law, as you understood that term in 1997, used it?
A. You know, that's a question that I've never really thought of before and I don't know that I have a --
Q. Can't answer it?
A. Yeah.
Q. All right.
And you understand, as Mr. Todd pointed out, that even when confronted with the allegation of rape, which was denied, that Father Picardi admitted to being the aggressor. You understood that, is that correct, in 1997?
A. I'd have to go back and see the record there.
Q. All right.
MR. TODD: It's 34.
MR. MacLEISH: 34, right.
Q. Okay. The next sentence:
"Father Picardi did not return immediately to Boston having sought" --
A. Excuse me. Where is this?
Q. Sure. The third paragraph on 58.
A. All right. Fine.
Q. You describe the second allegation and you state:
"While he was there, a 12-year-old girl reported that Father Picardi had touched her inappropriately at the parish school. Father Picardi maintains his hand brushed up against the girl while they were both part of a moving crowd which had stopped abruptly. The matter was investigated by civil authorities. They concluded that the girl had been touched but said it was impossible to say if the event constituted sexual abuse. Our own Archdiocesan review board has come to the same conclusion."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Now, you know that originally the Archdiocesan review board, looking at the evidence, came to the conclusion that the priest should be removed from parish ministry and not be permitted to minister to minors; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. You did not point that out in your letter to the Bishop of Phoenix; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You only pointed out the later decision of the review rescinding its earlier determination.
A. I pointed out the final decision of the review board after having had the benefit of a further investigation of this specific allegation by people competent to do so, much more competent than I.
Q. More competent than the New Jersey Division of Human Services?
A. Competent to -- it was an investigation of what the New Jersey authorities had done and it was -- and it was on the basis of a review of that decision of the New Jersey authorities in which they themselves participated. They were -- inquiry was made of them.
Q. Right. Go back, if you would, Cardinal Law, to 24 and 25, if you would, please.
And just before we do that, Cardinal Law, just going back again to that second paragraph, do you see any difference between homosexual behavior and nonconsensual sex?
MR. TODD: I object. Asked and answered.
A. Well, nonconsensual sex can be either homosexual or heterosexual.
Q. I'm talking about nonconsensual sex. Do you see any difference between that and homosexual behavior?
A. I don't understand the question.
Q. We'll withdraw the question.
Go back to No. 24, if you would, please, Cardinal Law. You'll see that in the letter that you received from Bishop Rodimer on May 16, 1995, it was stated by Bishop Rodimer down in New Jersey that Father Picardi was found to be guilty of unjustified and inappropriate actions.
Do you see that?
A. That's right.
Q. And that he could not be assigned to parishes in the Diocese of Paterson now or in the future.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you did not relay that information to the Bishop of Phoenix in No. 58; is that correct?
A. No, I did not.
Q. All right.
A. I was relating our judgment.
Q. And you stated in No. 58, referring to the New Jersey Department of Human Services, okay, the civil authorities that you described, they concluded that the girl had been touched but that it was impossible to say if the event constituted sexual abuse.
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you see that?
Would you look at No. 25 for me.
A. What is the date of that letter? 1995, I believe.
Q. Yes, that's right. No. 25.
A. And this is 1997.
Q. Right.
A. And in the intervening period, there is an investigation in which someone from the Office of the Delegate contacted the New Jersey authorities to discuss this matter, and it was on the basis of that and the report of that to the review board that the review board changed its decision.
Q. All right. Now, where in No. 25 does the New Jersey Department of Human Services state that it was impossible to say if the event constituted sexual abuse?
A. I believe --
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. I believe that, as I've tried to indicate to you, that you're looking at a letter of 1995.
Q. Right.
A. There is a subsequent investigation of this matter on the part of the Office of Delegate --
Q. Right.
A. -- through Mr. Hegarty.
Q. Right.
A. And it was on the basis of that, that judgment was made. Not on the '95 letter, but on subsequent conversation with the New Jersey people as to what this letter meant.
Q. Okay. Cardinal Law, you were describing what had been concluded in this letter in 1995, is that correct, by the New Jersey Department of Human Services?
A. Where was I doing that?
Q. In the third paragraph, you state:
"The matter was investigated by civil authorities. They concluded that the girl had been touched, but that it was impossible to say if the event constituted sexual abuse."
Do you see that?
A. Yes. That's what that sentence says.
Q. So you're reporting on what they concluded in 1995; is that correct?
A. Well, you know, I'm concluding what -- I am reporting what they concluded, but I am not reporting it in terms of the 1995 letter. I'm concluding it on the basis of subsequent discussion with those authorities and of subsequent review of that matter which brought the Delegate's Office, Mr. Hegarty and others, to a different opinion than they had originally when they just looked at this letter.
Q. Right. The New Jersey Department of Human Services was able to interview the victim in this case, who was a girl. Do you understand that to be the case?
A. I do not understand that to be the case. I don't doubt it; I just don't know that.
Q. You know that your office asked to interview the victim of this abuse, but was denied that access by the parents of the victim. You know that.
A. I see that from the record that is here.
Q. Right. And in your third paragraph on No. 58, Cardinal Law, when you say the matter was reported by the civil authorities and then you go on to say they concluded that the girl had been touched, but that it was impossible to say if the event constituted sexual abuse, you were referring to what had happened back in 1995, that investigation; is that correct?
A. As I have tried to explain, and will try to do again --
Q. I'll withdraw the question, Cardinal Law.
A. -- this letter --
MR. TODD: He's withdrawing the question.
Q. I'll withdraw the question, Cardinal Law.
A. Okay.
Q. Cardinal Law, do you believe rape can be defined in any way as homosexual behavior?
A. Well, it certainly would fall under the genus of homo -- a rape of a person of the same sex would be homosexual behavior. So in that sense, that's a generic term that would cover both consensual and nonconsensual sexual relations.
Q. Okay. You understand that rape is not defined by gender? Rape of a man of a woman, rape of a man of a man, rape of a woman of another woman. You understand that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A. You know --
MR. ROGERS: Defined by whom?
Q. You. You understand --
A. I think you can have different kinds, you know. I mean, there can be the rape of someone of the same gender, which would be a homosexual behavior; and there could be rape of someone of an opposite gender that would not be homosexual behavior.
Q. All right. Homosexual behavior is sexual behavior; is that correct? It's a form of sexual behavior, is that correct, as you used it?
A. As I used it here, that's how it was used. Whether it's -- whether it's the accurate term in terms of contemporary psychology or social science, I don't know.
Q. Rape is an act of violence; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You understood rape to be an act of violence in 1997 when you wrote this letter; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. All right. Hold on for a second, please.
(Pause.)
MR. ROGERS: It's twelve o'clock. Would this be an appropriate time for a break?
MR. MacLEISH: Sure. Absolutely.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12 p.m. This is the end of Cassette 1 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:07 p.m. This is Cassette No. 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're on the record.
Q. Just one more question on page 58, Cardinal Law. It states, in the fifth paragraph, sorry, fourth paragraph, that "Father Picardi is free to minister within the Archdiocese without restriction." That was your position as of April 24, 1997; is that correct?
A. Yes, in view of the more recent recommendation of the review board.
Q. A recommendation that you asked them to revisit, is that correct, as the documents reflect?
A. Not a recommendation that I asked them to revisit. I asked them to revisit the case.
Q. You asked them to revisit the case?
A. Yes.
Q. You indicated on No. 56 that you had discomfort, or at least it indicates in this document that you had discomfort with the previous recommendation that you had approved on May 31.
A. It indicates that.
Q. All right. Now, Cardinal, I'd like to look at some other files to move on to, if you could. Turn to No. 66.
You recognize that as your letter to Father Picardi?
A. Let me read it.
(Pause.)
Q. Sorry. There's some --
A. Excuse me?
Q. I'm just looking at the 1998, 7/1. I don't know how that got on there. It's not ours.
(Pause.)
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. And you say in this letter, you grant Father Picardi permission to serve in the Diocese of Phoenix, Arizona, on a lend-lease basis for a period of one year.
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Do you recall your testimony on the first day of this deposition on January 22, concerning the term "lend lease" as it applied to the assignment of priests?
A. I do, and I also recall what I said at the beginning of this deposition --
Q. Right.
A. -- today, saying that I did not -- that in my -- in my memory, when you first asked me about someone on lend lease, I was referring, in my memory, to how I had generally understood lend lease. And the policy of this Archdiocese of Boston clearly is to -- of the Archdiocese of Boston is to use lend lease in a more general way for cases like this. So that I was -- I misspoke on that first day.
Q. Fine. I understand.
And this particular priest had been on lend lease to the Diocese of Paterson, New Jersey, after an initial allegation of sexual misconduct and then after another allegation of sexual misconduct and your subsequent findings had been -- was placed on lend lease with the Diocese of Phoenix; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there other priests, apart from Father Picardi, that were placed on lend lease following allegations of sexual misconduct?
A. I'd have to review the records on that.
Q. Right. You indicated that you did not know the current status of Father Picardi; is that correct?
A. I do not know that at the moment. I don't know whether he incardinated or not.
Q. Why don't you look at the last page of this Exhibit, No. 77.
(Pause.)
A. I see that.
Q. You see it says:
"Father John Picardi called to say that his incardination process in the Diocese of Phoenix is due to be completed around October of 2002," and then there's initials underneath that, RWF.
Do you know who RWF is?
A. It doesn't come to -- is it Flatley? No.
Q. No, not Flatley.
A. No, no. I think it would be Richard Fitzgerald.
Q. Richard Fitzgerald, who works in the Delegate's Office?
A. No, no. He works in personnel.
Q. Ministerial?
Personnel?
A. I think. I'm not sure the W -- I'm looking at Father -- I'm not sure W would be Richard Fitzgerald or not.
Q. We'll have him under oath at another time.
A. It could be Father Fitzgerald. He would be -- or, let's see. Could it be --
Q. In fact, the previous letter says Father Richard Fitzgerald. If you look at 76, from Father Murphy:
"I am going to forward your letters over to the Office for Clergy Personnel. Father Richard Fitzgerald is the point man for in/excardinations."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. In order for him to be -- when I say "him," Father Picardi -- to be incardinated into the Diocese of Phoenix, would he have to have been excardinated from Boston?
A. Well, yeah. But it's -- the critical decision for an incardination/excardination is the incardinating bishop.
Q. Right.
A. And when he makes his decision, he simply informs the other ordinary to the fact that has happened. And it's a simultaneous thing.
Q. Do you have any evidence, Cardinal Law, that this man, who, according to your records, was going to be incardinated into the Diocese of Phoenix in October of 2002, do you have any facts or evidence that would suggest that the Diocese of Phoenix or the parishioners where this priest serves are aware of the fact that he had admitted in 1992 to raping a man while on a trip to Florida?
A. I have no indication one way or the other about that, no.
Q. Okay. Let's, Cardinal Law, move on to Father Doherty, Mark Doherty -- it's Exhibit No. 19 -- if we could, please.
MR. MacLEISH: I have some extra copies here.
THE WITNESS: Do I give these back to you all
MR. MacLEISH: No. Just leave them right there.
Q. Do you remember Father Mark Doherty who was a deacon who was about to be ordained when there were allegations of sexual misconduct against him?
MR. ROGERS: Well, I'm not sure he's Father Doherty.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, he is today.
A. Well, he was not ordained by me, I don't think.
Q. We're going to get -- he was ordained in the Diocese of Charlotte.
A. Yeah, yeah.
Do I have a recollection of him?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have a recollection that there were allegations of sexual abuse when he was at the seminary, about to be ordained, as I understand it?
A. I recollect in a general way that there were allegations against him that had occurred earlier. I'm not sure that the allegations were for something that occurred while he was in the seminary, but the allegations came while he was in the seminary, yes.
Q. That's correct. They were -- does it make a difference, Cardinal, in your opinion?
A. No.
Q. I'll withdraw that question.
A. Well, it makes a difference simply as a matter of fact.
Q. Right.
A. I think that's important.
Q. Okay. You're aware that, if we take a look at the review board, No. 2, that there was an allegation against Deacon, then Deacon Doherty that while applying Vaseline to ward off mosquitoes on a camping trip, the person applied it to the tip of the penis of two boys age thirteen and fifteen one evening and on one boy the second evening; that he stroked their penises; that he required that they take a bath in the river in the nude and he showed them pornographic magazines.
Were you generally aware of that?
A. I was not aware of all those details. I was aware of the fact that there had been allegations of sexual misconduct.
Q. Right. And then you also recall, look at No. 4, please, you recall making a determination -- there are actually two sets of allegations in this case. The first from these two boys that we're going to get to, another episode of allegations in 1994.
Do you remember concluding that while there was no conclusive resolve to the allegations, that his priesthood would be in a cloud.
Do you see that in No. 2 on page 4?
A. I do.
Q. And that it would become more difficult if they are raised publicly.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Was that one of your concerns that --
A. I don't recall.
Q. Excuse me. Let me finish the question.
Was that one of your concerns, that the allegations might be raised publicly?
A. I don't recall having written these points out here, and this does not -- this does not reflect my thought. My thought is in terms of the ultimate decision.
Q. Well, this is Bishop McCormack. You see the initials down there?
A. Yes.
Q. And was it your practice to read the review board reports and recommendations?
A. Well, certainly the recommendation that would have been brought before me.
Q. This is -- states at the top:
"Following is the recommendation of Cardinal Law for Reverend Mr. Mark Doherty."
And it states, in Subparagraph 2:
"We realize there will be a cloud on his priesthood due to the allegations. It would become more difficult if they are raised publicly."
Was that your recommendation, part of your recommendation on how to handle the Doherty case?
A. I don't -- you know, you'd have to check with now Bishop McCormack on this --
Q. Sure.
A. -- but I don't see that this is the recommendation -- this is my recommendation. I think this is a recommendation for what -- how I should deal with this.
Q. All right. Okay.
A. And I think it's poorly phrased. This doesn't -- this doesn't represent my four points of thought on this case, but it's four points that are being brought to me.
Q. Well, it's described as your recommendation. I don't want to belabor this because it's really, in the grand scheme, it's not that important.
A. Yes.
Q. But do you remember in No. 4 recommending that Mark Doherty consider laicization?
A. I remember feeling that he should seek laicization, yes.
Q. And laicization would remove him from the priestly state; is that correct?
A. Well, well, he wasn't a priest. He was a deacon.
Q. Deacon. That's correct.
A. But it would return him to the lay stage. He could no longer function as a deacon.
Q. As a deacon.
A. And obviously he would not be able to be ordained to the priesthood.
Q. Right. Now, if you turn to page 7, do you remember -- this is a memo from Sister Catherine to Bishop, then Father McCormack, May 13, 1994, that there was another incident somewhat similar to the first incident that was reported by the mother of two boys concerning Father Doherty?
A. I don't -- let me read this.
Q. Sure. Absolutely.
A. I don't recall this but, I mean, I do recall the incident that precipitated the concern, but I don't recall a second incident. But let me read this.
Q. Take a moment and see if that refreshes your recollection.
(Pause.)
A. I don't have a recollection of that, of knowing that.
Q. All right. You'll see the victims are older than the previous victims, but that they're -- the abuse allegedly took place while they were camping and it was the applying of an ointment to the boys for jock itch.
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. So a second allegation from another source similar to the first one about the same deacon would add credibility to the first allegation.
Would you agree with that?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. So it's fair to state that by 1994, the Archdiocese had credible reports of child abuse involving Deacon Doherty; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Turn to page 10.
A. 10?
Q. If you would, please, yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And you'll see this is a memo to you from Father Flatley indicating that "Monsignor Deeley, Father Lennon and Wilson Rogers, Jr., have advised me in this matter."
A. Yes.
Q. And then goes on to state:
"The material I propose sending to Bishop Curlin is enclosed. If he is willing to accept Deacon Doherty, my recommendation is that you excardinate him. There seems to be general agreement about that."
Then it says:
"This has implications for our New Jersey case."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. All right. Now, the next document is dated October -- August 16, 1996, and I don't have the July 15 letter, unfortunately, that you refer to here.
But in your letter of August 16, 1996, to the Bishop of Charlotte -- I'm sorry. This is to Mark Doherty, Deacon Doherty, where you respond to him and you state that the "Vicar General of the Diocese of Charlotte has asked for a statement that I'm aware that you have requested to begin the process that would lead to your incardination into the Diocese of Charlotte."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you state in -- you can feel free to read the whole letter, but you state:
"In May of 1994 Father McCormack told you I would not endorse your seeking to be ordained elsewhere."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall actually making that statement to deacon -- I'm sorry -- to Bishop McCormack?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would have been at or about the same time, if you look at No. 7, where the second report came forward about Deacon Doherty which is in No. 7 and which we've previously discussed.
A. I think I would have made that decision even absent that second one.
Q. Okay. But a second one would only reinforce --
A. That's right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. But then you go on to state in the next paragraph, on No. 11:
"However, I have informed Bishop Curlin that I will not oppose your excardination if he decides to accept you for incardination."
Do you see that?
A. That's right.
Q. Then you say:
"With your release, I have forwarded Bishop Curlin copies of relevant data including the report from the Institute of Living dated June 1993."
Do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you know whether Bishop Curlin received the second report that is reflected in No. 7?
A. I would not have -- I would not have a way of knowing that. I would hope and presume he did.
Q. All right.
MR. TODD: For the record, Eric, how do we know these are different instances?
MR. MacLEISH: Well, because if you take a look at it, the names are different, for one thing.
MR. TODD: Mine's all blotted out for names.
MR. MacLEISH: No. 7 is blotted out?
MR. TODD: No. 2 is. How do we know that 7 and 2 are different?
MR. MacLEISH: If you take a look at 2, okay --
MR. TODD: Yeah.
MRS. FORD: Complainants.
MR. MacLEISH: -- the complainants are actually the victims. If you take a look at No. 7, it's an anonymous report coming from the mother.
I have the names. I can show you the rest -- it's in the documents.
MR. TODD: Are you sure they're different --
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, I'm positive.
MR. TODD: -- because it's an Italian family in both.
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, yeah. No. They're different allegations.
MR. TODD: Same camping experience.
MR. MacLEISH: Same type of experience. It's different -- you'll see -- yeah, the second report came from the mother. This report, which I'll give you more documents on and which is in your files, came from, directly from the victims.
MR. TODD: Right. My concern is they may be the same incident. There are two boys --
MR. MacLEISH: No, no. It's not.
MR. TODD: -- camping trip.
MR. MacLEISH: Can we go off the record here. Can we go off the record here.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:25. We're off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12:25. We're on the record.
Q. Cardinal, you see on No. 10, Father Flatley says:
"This has implications for our New Jersey case."
A. Yes.
Q. Was he referring, do you know, to the Picardi case?
A. Excuse me. You're at 10?
Q. No. 10, yeah. Take a look at that.
(Pause.)
A. I don't know. I presume he probably -- he could be referring to that because that's an incardination/excardination possibility.
Q. Right, right. You'll see, if you go to No. 12, do you remember receiving this letter from Bishop Curlin of the Diocese of Charlotte?
A. I don't recall receiving it, but I don't doubt that I received it.
Q. Why don't you take a look at it.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. You'll see he states:
"I have carefully reviewed the documents provided. In view of the information contained therein, I would not consider a request from him for incardination or priestly ordination. Wherever there are questions regarding the suitability of a man for ordination, I always vote for the Church! I know that you understand my concern."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So at least as of 1996, Deacon Doherty, there's no thought of him being incardinated into another diocese, and you, in fact, would oppose such an incardination?
A. First of all, the fact -- the decision in this Archdiocese was that he would not be ordained to the priesthood.
Q. Right.
A. It was our judgment that that should not occur.
Q. Right.
A. And it certainly was not my hope and desire that he be ordained somewhere else. It was my hope and desire that he would not be ordained somewhere else.
Q. Right.
A. And I would hope and trust that the records being reviewed as they were in this case would judge -- would lead to this kind of a judgment.
Q. Right. But in order for him -- he was a deacon, so in order for him to be incardinated into another diocese, he would have to be, generally, excardinated, is that true, from Boston?
A. You're coming into a canonical question.
Q. Let's leave it, get away from it.
A. And I'm not saying that because I think it's inappropriate for that question to be raised, but I'm just saying it in the sense of my own lack of expertise as a canonist but --
Q. Okay.
A. -- but there is -- the burden is on the incardinating diocese to make the decision.
Q. But -- I don't want to get into canon law extensively, Cardinal, really at all.
Is it fair to state that as part of the incardination process into another diocese, even for a deacon, that there's some approval that has to take place --
A. There has --
Q. Excuse me.
-- that is referred to, I think, as an excardination proceeding. There's some approval that you would have to give in Boston.
Is that a fair statement?
A. The approval would be to seek incardination somewhere else.
Q. Right.
A. As I think you can see from the -- my initial letter --
Q. Right.
A. -- to Deacon Doherty when he was asking for this --
Q. Right.
A. -- I point out to him that I would not endorse your seeking to be ordained elsewhere.
Q. Right.
A. I told him -- and that would represent the position that I took, and I presume the position that was communicated in those documents to the appropriate person in the Diocese of Charlotte.
Q. Right, right. And that sentence, as you correctly point out in No. 11, points out that you would not endorse your seeking to be ordained elsewhere. It suggests that there might be, as part of the process for having Deacon Doherty ordained elsewhere, some approval that you might have to give. Is that correct?
A. No. Yeah, I would not endorse -- again, we'd have to refer to the canons of the '83 code on incardination/excardination, and they're different than the 1917 code --
Q. I don't want to get into that, Cardinal Law. I really don't.
A. -- which would be the code that I studied and know.
Q. I don't want to get into that.
A. Yeah.
Q. Let's move forward, if we could.
If you could turn to No. 18, please, Cardinal Law.
A. 18?
Q. Yes.
You'll see, if you want to take a moment looking at this, this is a letter of July 22 from Bishop Curlin to you about Deacon Doherty.
A. Yes.
Q. And you'll see in the first paragraph of that letter, it states that Deacon Doherty had
requested that Bishop Curlin consider the possibility of incardinating him into the Diocese of Charlotte.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it says:
"In the interim, he has resided in Charlotte and has taught at Charlotte Catholic High School."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. When you got that letter, given the fact that they now had -- I don't know how much you knew about this -- but credible allegations of child abuse against this deacon, did that give you any concern that the deacon was teaching at Charlotte Catholic High School?
A. I was concerned that there was even the possibility of this man being advanced to priesthood. I just feel that he shouldn't be ordained.
Q. Did you feel as though -- you felt in 1999 the same way you felt in 1994, which is that he should not be ordained as a priest.
Is that a fair statement?
A. That's correct. That's correct.
Q. My question is:
And you felt that way because of the allegations of sexual misconduct against him; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so did it give you any concern when you got this letter from Bishop Curlin that this man, Deacon Doherty, who you did not want to see ordained because of his alleged sexual misconduct, was teaching at a Catholic high school in Charlotte?
A. Well, obviously that would have concerned me.
Q. Did you do anything about it that you recall?
A. No, this -- you know, I did not put him in that situation. He was not functioning as a deacon under me.
Q. He's in another diocese. Did you remember, like, picking up the phone and calling Bishop Curlin and saying I think this is a bad idea for this man to be teaching at a Catholicly high school? Did you do something like that?
A. I don't recall having done that. I do recall having had communicated to Bishop Curlin the reasons why underlying our decision not to ordain him, and those, it seemed to me, were clear and evident.
Q. But now you see a change --
A. I have no -- I've had no contact with this deacon in the intervening years.
Q. Right. But now you see there's a change of position from the previous position that was expressed by Bishop Curlin to you; that now there is a decision to incardinate Mark Doherty into the diocese. Is that correct?
A. I do.
Q. And initially -- and, again, we've got a number of files to cover so I want to make sure that we move forward -- you'll see your letter of August 23, 1999, which I believe is in response to the July 22, 1999, letter, and it states, to Bishop Curlin:
"Dear Bishop Curlin: Thank you for your letter of July 22, 1999, in which you inform me that you are considering the possibility of encardinating Deacon Mark Doherty into the Diocese of Charlotte."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a typo there?
A. That's a misspelling.
Q. I thought so. Should be an I instead of E?
A. It should be.
Q. "I note you have made your decision with the full knowledge and understanding of what I had communicated to you earlier."
A. That's correct.
Q. And you state:
"After consultation with my canonical advisors, I write to suggest that the easiest way for this to go forward would simply to wait out the necessary five years and then proceed if you so decide in that way. Thus you would not have to reference to Rome and you would make the acceptance in accordance with canon 268 if you so choose."
A. And I'd have to see canon 268, but I think what that refers to -- and I stand corrected -- but I think the fact is I'm not giving approval.
Q. Right. But you're still aware that this man that you did not want to see ordained is starting some process in which he could be ordained as a priest in another diocese; is that correct?
A. And I have done what I could do canonically to avoid this from occurring.
Q. Do you know Bishop Curlin? I mean, you see him at bishop conferences?
A. I know him, yes.
Q. In your letter that you sent on -- which is No. 20 of this composite exhibit -- you didn't say, again, I think this is a really bad idea and this man is a potential threat to children.
Was there some -- could you have simply picked up the phone and called him and told him that you think this is a very bad idea?
A. The history, I think that you have seen here --
Q. Right.
A. -- the written history would show that there was an effort to do that.
Q. But in this letter -- go ahead.
A. And this letter, too, certainly implies that.
Q. But in this letter, you actually suggest another way to go that would not involve actual excardination. You suggest a way that this process of ordination in Charlotte can take place; is that correct?
A. I do, because I do not want to give permission for him to be incardinated.
Q. So you suggest another possibility that would not involve your express approval; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. All right. Now, if we could go forward to No. 22, Cardinal. This is another letter from Bishop Curlin in which he states in the beginning:
"It was good to be with you during Malta's annual pilgrimage to Lourdes in May."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Do you remember discussing this issue of Deacon Doherty and his potential threat to children during that pilgrimage?
A. I'm certain that I did not. To have been with me would have been to have been with me with hundreds of other people and there was not a time for us to be together like that.
Q. Right. And you'll see it says:
"I write" -- in the second paragraph -- "I write today on behalf of Deacon Mark Doherty who has requested incardination into the Diocese of Charlotte."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And he again requests, he states that, in the last paragraph:
After review -- "After having reviewed once again the pertinent documentation in relation to Mark's history, together with my personal knowledge of Mark since 1996, I am writing to respectfully share with Your Eminence that I look forward to Mark's incardination into the Diocese of Charlotte upon his having been excardinated from the Diocese of Boston."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And excardination, which you would have to approve, was something that you were unwilling to do; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the next document, No. 24, is from -- which you're free to look at, and also with No. 25 -- is from Father Michael, or I guess it's Monsignor Michael Foster. If you could read those two documents, please.
A. It's to, from Father Higgins.
Q. Right. Exactly. And then I think it's Monsignor Foster's response.
(Pause.)
Q. You can look at, if you want to as well, at No. 26 and 27. I'm sorry 26, 26-A and B and 27.
A. I think you have a duplicate here.
Q. I probably do.
A. Yeah.
Q. We just got these on Friday and have been busy photocopying.
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, we do have a duplicate.
Q. Okay. You see in Monsignor Foster's memo on No. 26, it states, No. 4:
"Both Bishop Curlin and Cardinal Law have a four-month time frame to oppose his request for incardination. This time frame begins at the end of his five-year period of residence, August 16, 2001. The opposition of either must be done in writing."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Then No. 5:
"Therefore, if neither bishop states his opposition by December 15, 2001, then the incardination takes effect ipso iure on December 16, 2001."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Monsignor Foster, who was -- I gather he's a
canonist?
A. He is.
Q. -- states in this memorandum to Father Higgins that in the event there was simply no opposition from you to the incardination in Charlotte, the incardination would simply go forward.
A. That's correct.
Q. That suggests, does it not, that you still had the chance to oppose the incardination of this man who now had allegations of sexual misconduct in your files involving four children, correct?
A. That certainly is what is written here in this memorandum, which I'm sure appropriately reflects canon 268.
Q. Right.
A. I have to say that I have no recollection of seeing this memorandum.
Q. And you're not copied on it?
A. Excuse me?
Q. You're not copied on it?
A. No, I'm not copied on it. I must also say and admit, plead my ignorance at this point, that I was not conscious of the ability within a four-month period to object. I was conscious of the fact that there was an automatic incardination that took place after a five-year period if there had been no action ahead of that.
Q. Right.
A. I should have been aware of that, but I don't -- I don't recall that. I do recall knowing that there, with this new code -- and I think that you could -- you will see that that's a difference from the old code, that that automatic incardination takes place.
Q. Right. But --
A. And I was --
Q. Go ahead.
A. And I was aware of the automatic. I wasn't aware of the ability to intervene.
Q. Right.
A. At least I'm not conscious of that.
Q. But Monsignor Foster was; is that correct?
A. He was, yes.
Q. And he never brought that to your attention; is that correct?
A. Well, he brought it, obviously, to the attention of Father Higgins. I don't recall Father Higgins bringing that to my attention.
Q. If you had had notice of your right to oppose the incardination of this man to be a priest in another diocese, would you have opposed it?
A. Well, I certainly would have wanted to do whatever I could do to keep him from being a priest because of my conviction that he shouldn't be. If I didn't think he should be a priest here, I obviously didn't think he should be a priest anywhere else.
Q. That's right. But people who are working directly under you, including Monsignor Foster and Father Higgins, according to this memorandum, were aware that there was an opportunity for you to oppose this man becoming a priest; is that correct?
A. Monsignor Foster --
Q. Monsignor Foster.
A. -- indicated this in a memorandum to Father Higgins, which you have shown to me.
Q. Right.
A. I -- you know. And I am saying to you that as a matter of my own ignorance, and I should probably have, I should have known that, that that possibility was there.
Now, on the other hand, knowing that that possibility is there, then the other question is, well, how effective is that? You know, what does that opposition have -- how strong does that opposition have to be? What is the effect of that opposition? I don't know that. This is a canonical process here.
Q. I'm not interested in the canonical process.
A. But --
Q. I'm just saying there was a chance for you to oppose, according to Monsignor Foster, the incardination making this man a priest in the Diocese of Charlotte.
Is that a fair statement?
A. I think the history shows that I opposed this consistently. I opposed it in terms of refusing to give the incardination before the five-year period because of that reason.
Q. Cardinal, you were sent a letter on June 12, 2001 -- which, I think you're correct, has been marked, appears twice, but let's just focus on 26-A and 26-B.
On June 12, 2001, you get another letter from Bishop Curlin -- do you see that -- again expressing his view that Mark -- he wants to incardinate -- I'm sorry. It's the previous two pages. You can look at all of them, but he wants to incardinate Mark Doherty to be a priest of the Diocese of Charlotte.
Do you see that?
A. Yes, uh-huh.
Q. And your advisors conclude that rather than excardination, there's simply a vehicle to accomplish this by not opposing his incardination. That's reflected in Monsignor Foster's memorandum to Father Higgins; is that correct?
A. No. I think what Monsignor -- I think what Monsignor Foster is trying to do here is to indicate absent, absent an agreement immediately to allow this to go forward, the law, the law allows for an incardination after a five-year period.
I mean, that's a matter of canon law.
Q. Wouldn't you have wanted the opportunity, if you had it, to oppose this man becoming a priest? Wouldn't you have wanted to know about that opportunity to oppose it?
A. Well, first of all, I did oppose it, and Bishop Curlin was aware of my opinion, and I think that's clear from the record --
Q. Right.
A. -- the fact and the very nature of his letter.
Q. But you had not set out -- when this issue of incardination in the Diocese of Charlotte came up again in 2001, there's nothing in the files that indicated that you oppose it. In fact, what is in the files is No. 27, which states, is a memo from Father Higgins to Father Connolly, stating that it would not be appropriate -- "it would be appropriate not to respond to Bishop Curlin's letter in regard to Deacon Doherty. Thus, keeping the Cardinal out of the loop concerning the excardination process because of Deacon Doherty's past."
Do you see that memorandum?
A. That's correct.
Q. So this reflects some intention from Father Higgins to keep you out of the loop concerning the excardination process because of Deacon Doherty's past.
Do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. Why would Father Higgins, in your view, want to keep you out of the loop concerning the excardination process of Deacon Doherty?
MR. TODD: Objection.
A. I could not, in good conscious, agree to the incardination of Deacon Doherty. I think that the record shows that.
Q. Well --
A. And I think that that's why I did not respond to his letter to give my approval.
Q. Well, you could have given your opposition, correct? We know that you could have given your opposition.
This memorandum, No. 27, indicates some desire to keep you out of the loop.
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Those words?
A. I see that. I have not seen this before.
Q. Was there ever a policy that you approved of in the Archdiocese of Boston to keep you out of the loop with respect to individuals who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them being incardinated into other diocese. Was that ever a policy, formal or informal?
A. No, no, no, no.
MR. TODD: Objection.
Q. Then why, Cardinal Law, do we have this memorandum from Father Higgins indicating some intention to keep you out of the loop concerning the excardination process because of Deacon Doherty's past?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A. I'm sorry that I cannot answer why it is that Father Higgins wrote this memorandum to Father Connolly.
Q. When he wrote this memorandum, was he following a practice that you approved of in any way within the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. I think I just answered that, that there was no practice established with regard to incardination/excardination loop, my being in it or out of it.
Q. In fact, you would want to be in the loop; is that correct --
A. Absolutely.
Q. -- with respect to Deacon Doherty?
A. Well, I was in the loop. I was in the loop with, from the very beginning, with the way we communicated with the Diocese of Charlotte, for heaven's sake.
Q. Were you in the loop in 2001 when the actual incardination occurred? Were you in the loop then, Cardinal Law?
A. I think at the end, that was at the end of the game.
Q. Well, you know, did you ever state in any memorandum to Bishop Curlin or anywhere that you opposed this man becoming a priest in Charlotte? I understand what you said about him being in Boston. But did you ever state to Bishop Curlin at any time that you opposed him becoming a priest in the Diocese of Charlotte?
A. I think -- look, I was opposed to his being ordained a priest, period. Not just being ordained a priest here. I could not recommend him to be ordained a priest. I could not recommend him to being ordained a priest in Charlotte, and I did not recommend him to be ordained a priest in Charlotte. And I think that's very clear.
Q. Look at No. 20, please, Cardinal Law.
A. Twenty what?
Q. No. 20, which is your last communication, 20, with Bishop Curlin.
A. Yes.
Q. You don't state your opposition to this man becoming a priest in Charlotte. What you state is:
"I note that you have made your decision with the full knowledge and understanding of what I had communicated to you earlier."
Is that correct?
A. That is correct, Mr. MacLeish. This bishop has written to me informing me what he intends to do. I have previously sent to him my misgivings about, and reasons for not ordaining this man to the priesthood. And notwithstanding that, on the basis of his personal contact with him, he comes to a different decision. And I simply say here:
"I note that you have made your decision with the full knowledge and understanding of what I had communicated to you earlier."
Q. Right.
A. And what I had communicated to him earlier was my decision not to ordain him to the priesthood and my feeling that he should not be ordained to the priesthood because of the allegations that had been made against him.
I know what this means. Bishop Curlin knows what this means. And I think anyone cognizant of the background knows what this means.
Q. But yet in the next -- the very next paragraph, you suggest an easier way to accomplish -- that's what you said -- "After consultation with my canonical advisors, I write to suggest" -- the word "suggest" appears there, Cardinal -- "that the easiest way for this to go forward would be simply to wait out the necessary five years and then proceed if you so decide in that way."
Why would you make a suggestion about an easier way to proceed with respect to this man who was the subject of four allegations of childhood sexual misconduct?
A. What I am saying to him is that I am not going to give permission for him to be excardinated, and that for this to proceed, if you're intent on making it proceed, it will have to go the other way that the code allows.
Q. Cardinal Law, could you turn to be Exhibit 20, please.
A. I'm there.
Q. I'm sorry. I meant the next full exhibit that we have. Father O'Leary.
Do you remember Father O'Leary?
A. Right now I don't but maybe I will if you --
Q. Let me ask you before we start on Father O'Leary, Cardinal.
Was there ever a relationship that you know of that existed between the Archdiocese and law enforcement as to what would occur when a priest was suspected of engaging in criminal activity?
MR. TODD: Up to the present time?
Q. Let's go from 1983 up through the present time. 1984. I apologize. During your tenure as Archbishop.
A. Would you state that question again.
Q. Sure. Was there ever any protocol or practice that you were aware of concerning notification of the Archdiocese by law enforcement in the event that a priest was suspected to have engaged in criminal activity?
Let me be more specific if I could.
Was there ever a practice that you became aware of, or incidents -- let's start with incidents.
Were there ever incidents that you became aware of where the Archdiocese would be tipped off by the State Police if a priest was about to be arrested?
Do you understand the question?
A. I understand the question.
I don't recall ever being tipped off, and I don't have any active recall of that. I think, you know, there have been times when we've been made aware that there was a problem and we have dealt with it.
Q. Sure.
A. But I don't have any -- I don't have any active recall.
Q. Let's take a look at that document No. -- let's go right to Document No. 4, if we could, please.
MR. TODD: Of Exhibit 20?
MR. MacLEISH: Of Exhibit 20, yes.
Q. No. 4. This is March 25, 1986. Again, these were files we got just last Friday.
Who was the Dean of St. John's Seminary at that time?
A. Father, now Monsignor Murphy.
Q. Monsignor Murphy.
A. Monsignor Murphy.
Q. And the signatory on page 5, is that somebody called Fred. Who would that be?
A. Excuse me?
Q. The signatory on No. --
A. I don't know that. I don't know his handwriting. But the Office of the Dean, the Dean of the college, would have been Fred Murphy.
Q. Was Bishop Lennon working at the seminary in 1986?
A. I don't believe so, no. No, he was not.
Q. So Fred -- there was a Fred Murphy. Is that what you said?
A. That's correct.
Q. Why don't you take a look and read No. 4 and 5.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. And you'll see from -- I just want to read the second paragraph.
"He revealed" -- this would be the student. I'm sorry. Let me read the first paragraph.
"Last night one of the students came to me with a report from his father, who is a close friend with a State Police captain. The captain said that he was going against his own regulations revealing the story, but he wanted very much to try his luck.
"He revealed the name of a priest that the police are soon" -- that's in quotes -- "to move in on for involvement with boys. He wanted to avoid this if at all possible, for all the reasons you can imagine. He hoped that somehow the Diocese could intervene before that drastic action happened, by getting the man to counseling and warning him of the seriousness of the situation before the law."
Do you see that?
A. I do see that.
Q. Right. Now, would you have expected this type of communication about the police investigating a priest of the Archdiocese for possible involvement with boys and criminal activity to immediately be brought to your attention?
A. Well, first of all, this was being brought to the proper person for handling these cases. And I, on the basis of this, I don't -- I don't -- on the basis of this, I don't know the name of the priest nor the activity that has been alleged. It sounds very bad. But --
Q. Father -- it's in Father O'Leary's file, and there's actually a --
A. Fine. But I'm basing myself on this note, which I have not seen before.
Q. Right. But is this -- given that Father McCormack would be reporting directly to you and meeting with you on a regular basis, if the police were about to move in on a priest for his involvement with boys, is that a type of matter that Bishop McCormack would have brought, under your unwritten policy, to your attention?
A. He would have investigated this, and at some point this would have needed to have been brought to my attention because some action would need to have been taken.
Q. If you look at page 6, you'll see the next paragraph, is "Father" -- it says, I don't know what this is. It may have been the note. "Father Arthur O'Leary of Marshfield Class of 1975 is the person involved."
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. If you take a look, we have actually two page 8s, but if you take a look at page 8, that's the signature of Bishop Banks down at the bottom?
A. I'm not sure of that. Is it?
Q. It is.
A. Yeah, okay.
Q. But that's okay. Why don't you take a moment and read that.
(Pause.)
Q. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. On Paragraph 8, Bishop Banks becomes involves in this matter in 1986.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And the allegation or the letter was February of 1986.
A. Yes.
Q. And then Bishop Banks interviews Father O'Leary.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's noted there that Father O'Leary had been a Boy Scout leader.
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. And that was in 1986. And if you take a look at the assignment card, Cardinal Law, you'll see --
A. Where?
Q. Page 1. I'm sorry. I apologize.
-- that this priest wasn't placed on administrative leave until October 28, 1994.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So there was an allegation, some involvement with the police, and yet this particular priest remained as parochial vicar at St. Mary's of Sacred Heart in Hanover until 1994?
A. I am not certain of this, but I would recall to your mind that after we passed the '93 policy --
Q. Right.
A. -- that I asked that files be reviewed --
Q. Right.
A. -- of cases before that time, and that they be put through the rigor of the '93 policy --
Q. Right.
A. -- and that -- and if -- and that action be taken which was appropriate.
I don't know that, but my presumption would be that this would be one of those cases, one of those earlier cases that had the value of hindsight some years later and then was acted upon.
Q. So this -- again, we're focusing on the period where Mr. Ford and Mr. Busa were molested, that '84 to '89 period. There were priests such as Father O'Leary, as I think we've established, who were allowed to remain in ministry despite allegations; is that correct?
A. That's -- well, he remained in place. I, again, would want to look at that memo --
Q. Sure.
A. -- of Bishop Banks, as you indicated to me --
Q. Right.
A. -- that's his signature, and I'm sure it is.
Q. Right.
MR. ROGERS: It's after one o'clock.
MR. MacLEISH: I just have -- yeah, just give me one more question.
A. You know, he would -- his judgment, on the basis of this --
Q. Right.
A. -- on the basis of this summary --
Q. Right.
A. -- it would seem that he refers here to homosexual act.
"I think we have an active homosexual who restricts his activities to times and places away from his parish."
Q. Right.
We see -- you saw page 4 --
A. "I told him that I still had my suspicions but would could not prove anything at this stage."
Q. Right.
A. So -- but, obviously, with the -- I don't know whether there were other reports later, but at any rate --
Q. There were.
A. Was his one of those cases that got reviewed because we went back?
Q. There were some allegations.
MR. TODD: Ten.
THE WITNESS: Ten?
Q. There were some allegations in the '90s as well.
MR. ROGERS: Is this an appropriate time?
MR. MacLEISH: Just one more question. As soon as we get through --
MR. ROGERS: You said one and you've had two more.
MR. MacLEISH: I really haven't. I just wanted to ask one more thing.
MR. ROGERS: Sure.
Q. As you sit here today, Cardinal Law, putting aside issues of canonical law and procedure, do you have any concerns right now that Father Picardi and Father Doherty, now Father Doherty, are currently priests in other dioceses in the United States; and if you do have those concerns, is there anything you intend to do about it?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Objection to form.
MR. TODD: How is that calculated to lead to admissible evidence? It's just grandstanding.
Q. Do you have any concerns, Cardinal Law?
MR. ROGERS: Wait a second. I object, also.
How do you put aside concerns of canon law? I don't understand.
MR. MacLEISH: I'll withdraw the question.
We can take our lunch break now.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 1:04. We're off the record.
(Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Law Exhibit No. 22, Covenant Agreement Between Archdiocese of Boston and Priest Recovery Program and Reverend Frank Murphy, marked for identification.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:03 p.m. We're on the record. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NEWMAN, cont.
Q. Cardinal Law, I place before you some documents regarding a priest named Reverend Frank Murphy.
Do you remember Reverend Murphy, Francis A. Murphy?
A. You know, I don't.
Q. Before we get into the documents, this may help you. This was a priest who was transferred here from the Archdiocese of Anchorage, Alaska.
A. Did he serve as a chaplain in a hospital?
Q. He did.
A. Yes, I remember him in that setting.
Q. Okay. All right.
Sometime in 1986, there was an agreement between the Archdiocese of Boston and Reverend Murphy, who had already been sent here from Anchorage, Alaska, and that relates to the first document that I show you which has been marked. The entire exhibit comprises a number of pages.
A. This whole thing is the same thing?
Q. Yes. Well, what I've done is to put all the documents into one exhibit and I'll refer to them in order.
A. All right.
Q. So I'd just like to ask you, now that you have a general recollection of Reverend Murphy, do you remember -- is it correct to say that he came here in the mid '80s at some point?
A. I couldn't -- you know, I'd have to be guided by the documentation here. I wouldn't have a -- I don't have a memory of the -- of his point of entering.
Q. Do you remember having any discussions during any point in time with the Archbishop of Anchorage, Alaska, relative to Reverend Murphy?
A. I don't recall them in terms of initiating his presence, but I would -- I think there may have been a reference, references to his presence here when we would meet at meetings.
Q. Okay. Take a look at the first document and the exhibit entitled, "Covenant Between Archdiocese of Boston, Priest Recovery Program."
Now, in the second page of that document, that's executed by Reverend Frank Murphy --
MR. ROGERS: There is no second page.
A. I don't have a second page. I'm sorry. Maybe it's out of order.
Q. Sorry about that.
MR. ROGERS: My set too. Just goes right through page something entitled --
Q. You can just insert that.
A. Thank you.
Q. Do you see where it's executed by Reverend John McCormack for the Boston Archdiocese?
A. I do.
Q. Can you tell us what was the -- was there a protocol whereby there was a covenant agreement between the Archdiocese of Boston and its priest recovery program and priests generally?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. NEWMAN: Let me rephrase it.
Q. Do you know what this document is?
A. I really don't. I've not -- I have not seen this document before and I would not necessarily have been aware of this type of document.
Q. Okay. Is it accurate to say you have no memory of Father Murphy staying in Our Lady's Hall in Milton?
A. I have to say I do not. My memory of Father Murphy relates to his role as chaplain at a hospital.
Q. Did you appoint him as chaplain at the hospital in Methuen?
A. I'm not sure that I appointed him or -- because he's not a priest of this, of this Archdiocese, but he certainly would have -- there needed to have been some reference to our Personnel Office for him to serve as chaplain.
Q. Okay. So as part of your duties and functions, are you saying that it was not a requirement for you to approve someone becoming a priest in the Boston Archdiocese, I'm sorry, a chaplain in the Boston Archdiocese?
A. No. I'm saying that I don't -- I don't know what the process was of his being there. He could not have been there without faculties of the Archdiocese, and there would have been some point of contact.
Q. Let me ask it this way.
A. It would have been handled through our Personnel Office.
Q. Okay. Would it have been a requirement for you ultimately to approve his obtaining faculties to perform priestly duties as a chaplain at this particular hospital?
A. Well, we had -- this was '86. Again, I'd have to refer to the '83 code in terms of faculties. But the process is when a priest comes in here from outside the diocese, we receive some notification. There's a form, as it was when I left, there's a form that has to be filled out by, if it's a religious order priest, by his major superior. If it's a diocesan priest, by the diocesan priest, for whatever purpose that the priest is here, to do anything, whether it be any kind of work. And that document attests to the fact that there is no reason -- and the document, I believe, has become -- is quite explicit in its present form to handle any kind of misconduct cases or any charges of this kind, that document has to be in hand.
If that document is in hand, then the process of rendering faculties would be routine. There wouldn't be a reason to deny the faculty.
Q. Do you know, were you involved in that process in any way in 1986?
A. Well, the handling of faculties would be -- would routinely go through the Personnel Office working with the Canonical Affairs Office to be sure that the documentation was in hand.
And I was not involved when a request came in. I didn't say, well, now, let's get the document here.
There were other people who had the responsibility of seeing to it that that was done.
Q. Were you involved in any way? Did you review anything?
MR. TODD: With respect to judge -- judge -- Father Murphy?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes.
A. Well, as I say, there would have been some interaction with his assignment as chaplain and --.
Q. Okay. What would that interaction have been in 1986?
A. I'm trying to reconstruct cold turkey here, and chaplains for hospitals would come through, there would need to be a concurrence of the president of the hospital, of the institution, and the dioceses in appointing someone as chaplain. And I would -- and I would make that appointment as chaplain.
Q. I'm going to, just to make things a little easier, I'm going to show you the document that I'm referring to and then avoid having to have you pull it out.
A. All right.
Q. I'm referring now to a letter signed by you to Monsignor Francis Murphy, dated July 17, 1995. It should be in the pile. I'll just show that to you to save time.
A. 17, '95. I've got it.
Q. Okay. Great.
Do you see where on that date you ended his assignment as chaplain at the Holy Family Hospital and Medical Center in Methuen?
A. I do.
Q. Do you have from your memory a reason why you ended his assignment?
A. I don't have a clear memory. I'd want to see some more documentation. But it appears to me that it was because of something that had occurred previously, but given our state of knowledge and our policy at the time, it was impossible for him to continue with that history in service in the Archdiocese.
Q. Cardinal Law, do you have a memory that before Reverend Murphy came to the Boston Archdiocese, that he had had problems in Anchorage, Alaska, relative to child pornography and sexual abuse of adolescents?
A. I don't have a clear knowledge of that.
Q. Do you have any memory of that whatsoever?
A. I don't, but at the same time, I would find it unusual that that would not have been communicated to us.
Q. Okay.
Take a look, if you would, at the letter dated May 30, 1986. Should be one of the second -- I think the second document.
A. From the Archbishop?
MR. TODD: Yes.
A. Yes. May 30.
Q. Now, let's just make sure we're reading from the same document because I think there are two dated May 30.
A. Yeah. This is -- all right.
MR. NEWMAN: Were you able to find that, Will?
MR. ROGERS: No, not yet.
A. Yes.
Q. I want to make sure your counsel have an opportunity to see that. We were only provided with the first page of that document.
Relative to the content -- well, why don't you show it to your counsel first.
(Pause.)
MR. TODD: It's second to last page, I think, Will.
MR. NEWMAN: Second to last page of your packet?
MR. TODD: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: Oh, is it?
No, not in my packet.
Q. Let me just read from it, if I can.
This is a letter to John McCormack from someone, because we haven't -- we don't have the second page -- relating to a meeting with the Archbishop on Thursday. And it says:
"The Archbishop is grateful for all you have been doing to assist Frank helping to obtain an appropriate placement in this situation. There's another big time demand on your crowded schedule."
Now, did you know, in 1986, did you know the Archbishop of Anchorage, Alaska, Bishop Hurley?
A. I did, yes.
Q. Do you remember having a meeting with him at some point or discussing with him at some point in the mid '80s, allowing Reverend Murphy to come to the Boston Archdiocese?
A. You mean initially? His initial coming to the diocese?
Q. Yes.
A. No, I don't.
Q. After that, did you have a conversation --
A. And he refers to an upcoming meeting in Collegeville, which I attended, but I don't recall meeting him on this issue.
Q. Okay.
Did you become aware at some point that -- to your memory, did you become aware at some point that Reverend Murphy had been sent here and was living here before he was appointed as chaplain of the hospital in Methuen?
A. Well, you know, I don't have, as I say, an active recall. Where I place Father Murphy is in the hospital in Methuen as chaplain. I don't have a memory of him before that time.
Q. All right.
Do you know what the charges were or the allegations were against Reverend Murphy in Anchorage, Alaska, sitting here today?
A. I do not.
Q. Have you ever had an opportunity to review his file, his personnel file or his confidential file?
A. I have not reviewed his personnel file. I know that those assisting me in this recommended the action that was taken at a later date.
Q. Take a look, if you would, at the review board document, dated April 3, 1995. It's probably a third of the way into the packet. Right at the top of it.
MR. TODD: There you go.
MR. NEWMAN: Thank you.
A. Here it is.
Q. Cardinal Law, this summarizes --
A. 58?
Q. It says No. 58, yes.
Cardinal Law, this summarizes the background of Reverend Murphy. I just want to ask you some questions on it.
It says at the top:
"A young man alleged that the priest abused him sexually when the priest was working in another part of the country in the early '80s. The allegation consists of nudity and massage when the boy was freshman in high school and full sexual contact on camping trip when the boy was a junior. The boy's older brother had previously accused the priest of making a sexual pass at him in the same period."
And then down No. 3, it says:
"Response: The priest acknowledged the situation which occurred at a time when he was drinking heavily. He agreed that another assessment was in order."
And then it reviews No. 4, it says:
"He was ordained for Boston. He left the Archdiocese early on to go on lend lease and was eventually incardinated into another diocese. In 1985 there were allegations of sexual abuse with minors. The accuser brought to the police large selection of pornographic material which he had removed from the priest's residence. The priest went to the Servants of Paraclete in Missouri for five months where he was treated for alcoholism."
Then it says:
"Since he was not welcome back in his home state, he came to live with his parents in this Archdiocese. With the permission of his bishop in our office, he enrolled CPE courses and was very successful chaplain since then."
So according to this document, in approximately 1985, he came here, and then at some point after that -- and we'll -- I think it was about a year after that, he was allowed to become the chaplain of a hospital in Methuen.
Now my question is this:
Do you know what, if any, review or investigation of his background was obtained or conducted before he was allowed to become chaplain in the Boston Archdiocese?
A. I could not respond with specifics on that or even generalities. I would have relied on the assistance of others in this.
Q. So you were not, to your best memory, directly involved in any way in evaluating his background in order to determine whether he was appropriate to have faculties in the Boston Archdiocese?
A. I do not recall that, no.
Q. Okay. Then this document goes on to say:
"Priest went to St. Luke's Institute in Maryland in February of 1995 for an evaluation. His bishop attended the feedback session, along with Father Flatley. The diagnosis included ephebophilia, alcoholism and sustained full remission. The Institute felt the priest was not able to be totally open about his sexual history. It is highly likely there were more victims than the priest remembers."
Based on the protocols that existed and practices that existed back in 1986, would it have been part of the practice in the Boston Archdiocese to have a priest coming into the Archdiocese who had allegations against him assessed to determine whether or not he would be a risk to children here if he was put into service?
A. Well, as you know, the policy evolved, and the policy of not receiving people with problems is -- I mean, the challenge of that review of a person coming from outside is initially handled, and has been for some years -- I can't -- by the form that we asked to be filled out.
And as the policy evolved, we simply -- we would not accept someone in with a problem.
Early along, where there was, as in this case, under the time when I was Archbishop, earlier cases that have come before us in these depositions, with one of my predecessors, if there were a case of someone from another diocese where there had been some intervention and some indication that it would be possible to let this person operate under certain restrictions, as is evidenced in that covenant, then there was an effort to try to be helpful in, if one might say, in rehabilitation.
As we move forward, our policies became more clearly defined, the process became more clearly defined, until ultimately, in 2002, the policy was that anyone who had acted out would simply not be able to have any position in this diocese.
I wish to God that that had been the case earlier. It wasn't. At this point, I'm sure that those who looked at this case felt that what had been done at the Servants of the Paraclete, with the kind of a covenant arrangement that had been set up, would be an appropriate way to proceed.
In retrospect, I would wish that we had acted in another way.
Q. Cardinal Law, you came in as Archbishop of Boston in 1984; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Approximately a couple of years later, if a priest had been sent to you from outside the parish, and that priest had admitted --
A. Diocese.
Q. -- having sexual contact with adolescents, would he have been allowed to obtain faculties as a chaplain in the Boston Archdiocese around that period of time?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A. Again, you know, it's a hypothetical question. I think the record will show what I did and didn't do. And I know that in this case, obviously, it was allowed for him to come in.
What I'm saying is that that decision would not have been made absent some kind of indication that it would be appropriate to give this person this opportunity, extenuating circumstances of his family and all of that.
But that would not be something that would have been allowed at the time that I left this Archdiocese as Archbishop.
Q. Did you understand the term ephebophilia?
A. I believe that has to do with adolescents, yes.
Q. Sexual attraction to adolescents?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Would a priest who had an admitted sexual attraction to adolescents have been allowed to be appointed as a chaplain at a hospital in the Boston Archdiocese around 1986, if you remember?
A. Well, this analysis is, as I see it -- and I may be missing something -- stems from the St. Luke assessment. Is that correct?
Q. That is correct, Cardinal Law.
A. And that was in '95.
Q. That is correct. When the records will show -- and I'll go through it with you -- but in 1986, this man had admitted to his superiors that he had had contact sexually with adolescents and that issue was never explored here.
My question to you is: Should it have been, based on the practice that existed in 1986?
A. Well, I think what we did in fulfilling and following through on the guidelines that I established in '93 was the appropriate way to go.
I wish not only that those guidelines had been in place and implemented from the time I came here, but I also wish that there had been in place and implemented policies that I put in place after 2000 -- January of 2002.
So to answer your question, I wish that -- I do not think so, no. I don't think it would have -- is appropriate.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. I don't think it's appropriate to appoint someone with that condition as a chaplain, and I think it was appropriate to remove him and I think it would have been appropriate for him not to be appointed.
Having said that, I would also have to say that, simply say for the record, that we have to deal with these kind of analyses and I think we have to act on them. And it becomes a painful thing to do when there is a subsequent record of no apparent acting out adversely and the doing of good work. But nonetheless, I think that's the only -- that we have to act on that.
Q. Did you have an arrangement in 1986 with Father McCormack as to when he should discuss with you issues with priests who had had credible allegations against them of child sexual abuse?
A. I don't -- I wouldn't say there was an arrangement, like a formal arrangement. We didn't have a formal arrangement. We didn't have a written protocol. We didn't have a written policy. We came to that, as you know. But we were learning and I was learning as we went along.
Q. Take a look, if you would, at the document, should be at the very end, dated February 24, 1986. It's a memorandum from Father McCormack to Bishop Banks regarding Frank Murphy. Should be at the very end. Take a moment to read that, if you would, Cardinal Law.
(Pause.)
Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at that?
A. I have.
Q. Do you recognize the handwriting at the bottom of the memorandum?
A. I believe it's Bishop Banks's.
Q. Bishop Banks's handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this document suggests that Reverend Murphy could not return to his diocese in Anchorage because of police interest in him. "He is alleged to have sexual involvement with one or more youths. One youth denies it. Allegation by other youths would probably not stand up in court according to the diocese but it is necessary to avoid any court situation. He has acted out sexually when drinking. Archbishop Hurley would like for him to stay here for one year and enroll in a clinical pastoral education course for hospital work. He will provide financial support for Frank." Then it says, "Archbishop Hurley may contact Cardinal Law concerning this matter."
Cardinal Law, would you have expected, given the circumstances of this priest described here, who had had police interest in him, that you would have been apprised of this situation before he was allowed to come here, meaning Reverend Frank Murphy.
A. I think that I would certainly have been given some information concerning this, yes.
Q. Okay. And would you expect, given the fact that this information that he acted out sexually when drinking, that some type of communication or discussion would have been had with Reverend Murphy directly before allowing him to come to the Boston Archdiocese?
A. Well, as I understand this, he was in the diocese. He was not functioning as a priest but he was -- he was at the point of this memorandum, at least, he's living with an aunt, with his elderly parents --
Q. Right.
A. -- where this business begins to be talked about.
And what is your question in relation to that?
Q. Before appointing him as a chaplain, would you or someone in the Boston Archdiocese have direct discussion with him?
A. Yeah. The issue, of course, here is not appointing him as a chaplain. The issue here is allowing him to enroll in clinical pastoral education course. And not function -- this memorandum doesn't relate to functioning as a priest in this diocese. It relates to his being here in residence as he continues some study.
And I think that is -- correlates with this first document that you showed me, which is this covenant agreement, which would seem to be quite restrictive in that regard.
Q. That is correct. And would it have been inappropriate for him to engage in any type of parish ministry without the permission of the Boston Archdiocese at that time?
A. Yes. He would not be able to engage -- that's right.
Q. Take a look, if you would, at the memorandum dated May 30, 1986. It's, I believe, the third document in if the package is accurate.
MR. TODD: Memorandum from whom to whom?
MR. NEWMAN: It is a memorandum from Reverend Stephen Moore to Archbishop Hurley, regarding a meeting with Father McCormack and Monsignor Murphy.
MR. TODD: Is it the one to Reverend Richard Brown, CC?
MR. NEWMAN: No. It's to -- it's from Stephen Moore to Archbishop Hurley.
MR. TODD: Oh, Got it. Thanks. Fourth page in.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at that, Cardinal Law?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Do you see No. 2, under Section I, "Meeting with Father McCormack," where it says:
"John stated Frank was involved in part-time parish ministry" --
A. Yes, yes.
Q. -- "without the permission of the Archdiocese."
A. Yes.
Q. Were you ever made aware of the fact that a priest from outside the Boston Archdiocese was here and engaging in part-time parish ministry without your permission?
A. Well, again, on a day-to-day basis, I don't get a list of who is and who is not engaging in parish ministry. But given this unique situation, I would be surprised that there had been part-time ministry --
Q. Okay. Would you also have been --
A. -- at this point.
Q. -- concerned given the allegations, at least back in Anchorage about him, if he was performing ministry here without your permission?
A. Well, I would be more concerned that his own Archdiocese had this concern. I mean, obviously, if they don't think he should be doing it, then he shouldn't be doing it.
Q. This says:
"At no time had Frank checked with John or even mentioned to John that he was doing this. John found out second hand."
That relates to John McCormack?
A. Yeah. So that he was not doing this with permission.
Q. Okay. Do you have a memory one way or the other, Cardinal Law, if, today, sitting here today, if you were ever notified that this priest who had had allegations against him was here in the Boston Archdiocese performing parish ministry without permission? Only if you remember.
A. I do not have a memory of that situation.
Q. Based on what you know of the training of priests, and certainly priests ordained in Boston, are they taught that before they engage in parish ministry in a diocese, that they have to seek permission from the diocese first?
A. Well, I would assume that -- you can assume a lot of things about what people ought to know and find out that they don't know it.
A lot of people sometimes act in ways other than they should and against not only protocol, but against canon law.
But I would have expected that a priest would understand -- and he particularly should understand if his own Archdiocese had indicated that he cannot engage in parish ministry -- that that would be something that would not be -- not be limited to his own diocese.
Q. And what is -- what was the requisite response to a priest who engaged in such ministry without permission, when you were the Archbishop of Boston?
A. As I have indicated with regard to this case, Mr. Newman, I don't recall these particulars. So that --
Q. I'm sorry. My question wasn't properly framed.
A. But if you mean in general --
Q. Yes.
A. -- what would be -- well, I would ask that, you know, that he cease doing that and would want to review the whole question of his presence in the diocese, if it's someone that we couldn't trust to do what was expected.
Q. Okay. Who would it have been who would have done that back in 1986? Would that have been Father McCormack?
A. Yes. I think it's clear from the correspondence that it was Father McCormack who was actively engaged here and who signed the covenant agreement.
Q. Now, Cardinal Law, in the documents that we were given on Friday from Reverend Murphy's file in the Archdiocese, there was a grouping of documents in there which were police records from the -- from Anchorage, Alaska, and also from the Belmont Police Department. And those documents were in the file and given to us on Friday and marked confidential file.
If I could just ask you to turn to the first one, which is dated June 6, 1988, and I just have a few questions on it for you.
My question relates to the process and procedure within the Archdiocese, as best you can remember it, around 1988. Around that time, if the Boston Archdiocese received documentation from police authorities relative to allegations against a priest within its control, even if it wasn't necessarily an Archdiocesan priest, was there a procedure by which that information would be discussed either with you or someone on your staff in order to evaluate whether or not that priest was a danger to others in the Boston Archdiocese?
A. Well, I can't point to a written protocol and procedure, but the expectation would be, obviously, that such a report would be looked at, would be reviewed; and the expectation would be that if there was substance to this, it's not simply someone has, you know, made a random accusation, but that the police have reason to believe that there is substance here, then decisive action would have to be taken.
Q. Now, in that particular document, which is part of the records, it suggests, in the second paragraph from this letter from Inspector William Mahoney, a juvenile officer in Belmont, it says:
"Monsignor Francis A. Murphy resides at 72 Drew Road, Belmont. He is presently assigned as a hospital administrator at the Bon Secours Hospital, Methuen, which is a general medical facility. I have made inquiries through the Methuen Police Department to determine whether Monsignor Murphy would have any contact with youths or if he would have any living quarters on the hospital grounds. I will keep you informed. I read in your report that the Church agreed to notify local authorities whenever he is reassigned. This obviously was not done. Chief Robert Shea and I extend our gratitude to you for alerting to us the possible situation and so forth."
My question is: Is it accurate to say you have no knowledge one way or the other as to whether or not anyone from the Boston Archdiocese agreed to notify the local authorities if Reverend Murphy was transferred?
A. I do not.
Q. Would you assume from what you know from reading this, that he is referring to the diocese in Anchorage, Alaska, or in Boston, or if you know?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Now --
A. I would be guessing here, but it's -- let me read it again more carefully.
"He is presently assigned as a hospital administrator at the Bon Secours" -- which would not be true. He would have been a chaplain.
Q. Right.
A. -- "which is a general medical facility. I read in your report that the Church agreed to notify local authorities whenever he's reassigned. This obviously was not done."
I don't know whether that -- I would presume that if it's the police in Anchorage, it would be the authorities in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, but I'm not sure.
Q. Now, up in the right-hand corner, it says, "Conf File."
Do you recognize the handwriting, by any chance?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know, was there someone in the Boston Archdiocese in 1988 whose function and role it was to review records like this when they came in and bring them to the attention of someone in authority in the Boston Archdiocese?
A. Well, I would think that this kind of a document would come within the purview, at that point, of the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, who would have been Father John McCormack.
Q. Now, I'm not asking you to read the entire police report --
A. All right.
Q. -- but there are a number of issues that arise based on suggestions of pornography and illicit sexual activity. My question is:
Assuming that to be accurate, would you have expected this to be brought to your attention with regard to this particular priest?
A. Well, I would certainly have expected this to have been seriously factored into by any recommendation concerning his presence and his work in this Archdiocese. And I presume that it was. I can't presume otherwise. I would submit that the ultimate decision that was made in this case, I think, was the appropriate decision.
Q. To let him stay?
A. No. To let him go.
Q. Oh, to let him go?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That's later in 1995?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were involved in that decision ultimately; is that correct?
A. I was involved in that decision by writing off on the recommendation of the review board, I believe.
Q. Based on the information that you've seen that existed in the file dated 1988 and also the memo that we reviewed by Father McCormack, would you have expected that Father McCormack, before making recommendation to you about Reverend Murphy, to have asked Reverend Murphy whether he had engaged in illicit sexual activity with adolescents?
A. I expected, and have every reason to believe, that Father McCormack reviewed these cases conscientiously, with concern for the welfare of the Church, read, children, possible victims, and also with an appropriate concern for the person himself, and would have done so in a competent and a professional way.
I didn't -- I had at that point no calculus of or no process in mind that should be followed, but I relied on someone of good sound judgment to do that. And I would have no reason now to doubt that he did not do that well.
Q. Well, on a base line, would you expect, Cardinal Law, that Bishop McCormack would have asked Reverend Murphy whether or not he had engaged in inappropriate sexual activity with children before allowing him to be appointed as chaplain at a hospital in this diocese?
A. I would have presumed -- and I presume this did happen -- that he would have received all pertinent information concerning the allegations against this person to be able to make some judgment about those and to also have some assurance from the facility where Father Murphy went for treatment.
Q. And if Bishop McCormack had asked Reverend Murphy the question as to whether or not he had engaged in any inappropriate sexual behavior with adolescents and he had responded affirmatively, were there circumstances in 1988 in which he would still be appointed as a chaplain, based on your recollection?
A. We would appoint -- it would -- it was our policy to appoint no one who would pose, who knowingly would pose a risk to anyone else of whatever kind.
And our ability to rely on that kind of a judgment evolved, and -- as you know. In 1986 -- so I don't know what went on between Father McCormack and Monsignor Murphy at that time. So I can't -- it's sort of vain speculation as to what that discussion -- what discussion took place.
But both in terms of the degree of intensity of assessment and then finally even the results of those recommendations that would come at the end of assessment and treatment, we evolved.
And you see in the case of Monsignor Murphy, you see the effects of that evolution in the fact that a decision was made in '95 which was quite different, I mean, in, yes, in '95, which was quite different than the decision that was made earlier.
Q. Okay.
A. I wish that we had done earlier what we did later, but we didn't.
Q. Cardinal Law, I'm going to ask you some questions about another priest named Robert Meffan, if I'm pronouncing that correctly.
Do you recall Reverend Robert Meffan?
A. I have a recollection of Father Meffan.
(Law Exhibit No. 23, Letter, 7/10/96, marked for identification.)
Q. Cardinal Law, take a moment to read what's been marked as Exhibit No. 23, please.
(Pause.)
Q. Do you have a memory of writing this letter, Cardinal Law?
A. No, I don't have a memory of writing the letter.
Q. Okay. That is your signature, correct?
A. It is my signature and it is my letter.
Q. Now, in this letter -- and you believe this to be your letter?
A. Yes. I have no reason to doubt that.
Q. It says in it, in the center:
"It is important that all of us be reminded of the pain endured by those who have been accused. At the same time, your embrace of God's will without bitterness is a lesson all of us need to learn and relearn to some degree every day."
Now, I know you've already stated you don't have a memory writing this, but can you tell me what you meant when you said "your embrace of God's will without bitterness"?
A. I, first of all, I don't see -- I don't have an active recall of this priest's situation. But what is apparent to me here -- and if I can reconstruct it and try to explain this letter -- this is a letter of the bishop to a priest for whom the bishop, in this instance, is to be a pastor, as he is to be a pastor to two and a half million people.
And in this instance, this priest has been removed from ministry. He finds that difficult. I understand that he finds it difficult not to be in ministry.
As I point out in that third paragraph, "As you know and state so well, the heart of priesthood is found in the Eucharist. It is a particular consolation to me to know that I am included each day in your celebration of the Eucharist" -- which he was able to do privately.
"I urge you to adopt as a specific prayer intention those who have been abused, those who have abused others and those who have been accused of abusing others."
I'm trying in this instance to meet this man where he is and to be a pastor to him. His situation is that he is removed from ministry and is not able to do that for which he was ordained, and, nonetheless, he wants to link himself to the Eucharist, which he is able to celebrate each day.
The Eucharist, as you know, is, for us, the making present of the saving sacrifice of Christ upon the cross under the appearance of bread and wine. It's the defining event for our life. We bring to that our sorrows, our pains, our mistakes, our sins, our shortcomings. We even bring to that our death. And we believe by entering into that Eucharist, totally and completely in seeking to do God's will, then that can begin to take good effect on our lives.
Q. Cardinal --
A. In no way does this letter imply, nor is it meant to imply or condone bad behavior. It is meant to help a person deal with the situation in which he finds himself in grace and I think that's what a bishop should do.
Q. But you're saying to him that his not being bitter is a lesson we all need to learn.
Were you aware when you wrote this what allegations existed against Father Meffan from a number of young women who eventually went on to become nuns in the Church, where they allege that he had committed venal acts upon them, including digital rape? Were you aware of that?
A. I was not aware of the details of those allegations. I have seen them in recent weeks and have been shocked by them.
But I would underscore, again, Mr. Newman, that I'm writing this letter to someone who, in his own mind, is being falsely accused, as you understand. That's the way he felt. And he was not expressing, evidently, in his letter to me -- and I don't have that letter before me -- but it must have been that in that letter, he was saying that he was not bitter, and I was saying to him that that's good. That's good that he not be.
MR. NEWMAN: Probably just to make the record complete, if we could mark this one next.
(Law Exhibit No. 24, Typewritten Letter, marked for identification.)
Q. I just put this on for the record because this is Father Meffan's letter to you, which I think evoked the response that you gave on July 10.
A. Is this the total letter here?
Q. That's all we have.
A. Yeah, okay.
Q. But my question is, just specifically, you weren't suggesting in your letter to him that his lack of bitterness was appropriate?
A. On the contrary. I'm saying that that is appropriate not to have -- he shouldn't have bitterness.
Q. Is it accurate to say that to this day you have never reviewed the memoranda of the evaluations of Sister Catherine Mulkerrin of the victims who came forward and made allegations against Robert Meffan. Is that correct?
A. I think I said that until these past weeks, I had not seen the detail of the accusations against him. I have in these past weeks probably seen some of that. So -- and it may be that they are Sister Catherine Mulkerrin's summary that I saw.
(Law Exhibit No. 25, Confidential Report to McCormack from Mulkerrin, 2/19/93, marked for identification.)
Q. Cardinal Law, I place before you another document and it's dated February 19, 1993. It appears to be a memorandum from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin to Reverend John McCormack regarding an interview with a person I will deem ST, regarding Father Robert Meffan.
Would you just take a moment to read that document, sir.
MR. TODD: While he's reading that, do you have copies of 24?
MR. NEWMAN: Just tell me what it is.
(Pause.)
MR. NEWMAN: I'll have my secretary make copies of it.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you tell me, Sister Catherine Mulkerrin is someone you have known for quite a bit of time; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You know her to be an honest person and a capable person; is that accurate?
A. Very much so.
Q. And were you involved in appointing her to the position that she held in 1993, Cardinal Law?
A. My work with Sister Catherine began when I asked her to serve as a member of the committee to help reorganize the structure of the Archdiocese and I did that in 1984.
Q. Okay.
A. I don't know to what -- I don't think that -- I don't know whether I raised the possibility of Sister Catherine or whether that suggestion came from somebody else, but it was an appointment that I was very pleased with.
MR. ROGERS: Would now be a good time for a five-minute break?
MR. NEWMAN: Sure. Take a break.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 3:03. This is end of Cassette 2 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
(Law Exhibit No. 26, Letter from Manning to Deeley, 5/25/93, marked for identification.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:15 p.m. This is Cassette No. 3 in today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law. We're on the record.
Q. Cardinal Law, I've given you a document which has been marked as an exhibit. It's dated May 25, 1993, and it appears to be a letter from Reverend Deeley to Delia Manning at St. Luke's Institute, along with what is stated to be a summary, personal and confidential summary of Reverend Robert Meffan.
These are Bates stamped Meffan-2 256, 257 and 258. Would you just take a moment to look at them before I ask you some questions.
A. Yes, thank you.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. Cardinal Law, have you had an opportunity to read this -- these documents?
A. I have.
Q. Cardinal Law, before I ask you the questions about the document specifically, I just want to ask you generally, between 1984 and 1993, was there a process or protocol within the Boston Archdiocese for priests to be reviewed for their fitness to serve as priests in the diocese?
I can rephrase.
A. Yes.
Q. In the normal employment setting, which I understand this is not, employees generally undergo a review process to see if they're performing their job and whether there are any problems. You understand that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. In the Boston Archdiocese, between that time frame, '84 to '93, was there a similar process to assure the diocese that the priests were fit to serve and that there were no significant problems that were going on with the particular priest?
A. Well, the way you'd know that a problem existed was when that problem gets reported and then you would deal with that problem. It wasn't a question of, you know, every three years putting a questionnaire out to people to find out, is there a problem here. We -- I instituted a formalized process of parish visitation which specifically was not an assessment of priests, but which provided information as to how priests were interacting with the people whom they were serving.
The bishops assisted me in these parish visitations and they would go on every five to every six years in a parish and would involve interviews with the priests themselves, with all the staff members, and availability for parishioners who may want to come and speak to the bishop making the visitation or myself, if I made the visitation.
There were -- if complaints were received about a bishop, the policy was to follow-up on those complaints.
Q. And also a priest, because you said bishop?
A. Excuse me. I meant to say priest.
If a complaint was received about a priest, to follow-up on those. And if, for example, I received a complaint and it came personal and confidential, I would write to the person and say I'd like to pursue this, I'd like to have this looked into. I would want the regional bishop to do that or whomever. May I have your permission to share your letter with that party? And that would be done.
But if your question is did we have in place, a formal process of periodic evaluation, no. If a priest was to be assigned or reassigned as a pastor, we would check with the regional bishop, we would check with the chancellor, we would check with the Personnel Office to see if there were any -- is there anything here that needs to be looked at in terms of this person's suitability for the either reappointment or assignment to this particular parish.
But if it were a question of this magnitude, of this kind, it wouldn't be a periodic evaluation that would bring that to the fore, but it was my hope and intent that these kinds of issues were dealt with as they arose.
Q. Okay. Now, you've mentioned two things. The first is the parish visitations system that you created.
Do you remember when you did that?
A. No.
Q. Was it shortly after you came to be Archbishop of Boston?
A. I can't really put a date on it. It's -- parish visitations are part of a bishop's responsibility. The way in which our parish visitations evolve might have been unique. And the focus very clearly was to try to focus on the mission of the Church and to what extent was this parish doing that and celebrating it and very often to help the parish see the good that was there, because so often when you're in the midst of something, you tend to only see the problems and not the accomplishments.
Q. So the primary design of the parish visitations was not necessarily to evaluate a particular priest or pastor?
A. That's correct. It was not primarily an evaluative instrument.
Q. And then the other way in which issues came up would be if a complaint was received, say, at the Chancery, and that would be followed up. Is that accurate?
A. Or a complaint would come to me. Sometimes people would write to me in a personal and confidential way and then I would write back to them routinely. Not always a complaint, thank God, of this kind. But maybe the way in which a priest dealt with a family at the time of the death or a failure to do something that they thought the priest should have done. And in order, you know, to deal with that in a positive and a helpful way for all concerned, I would ask the individual if I might share that with someone who would assist me in looking into this and following up.
Q. But if there were a problem in which individuals did not complain to you, there was no systematic periodic evaluation of the priests in the Boston Archdiocese, '84 to '93 time frame; is that correct?
A. Well, you're right. There was no systematic follow-up, but the nature of our work, and increasingly so, is interactional. And when frictions occur, people are quick to let you know about it.
Q. Cardinal Law, you can understand -- is it accurate to say that many parishioners revere their priests and their pastors?
A. I think that's accurate to say.
Q. Could you understand how an individual might have some occurrence with a priest where they would be afraid to complain to the Chancery about that occurrence?
MR. TODD: I object. Afraid? Of whom?
A. You know, I have no idea where you're going on this line of questioning, but the presumption is that priests are acting responsibly and well, and I think that's a correct presumption, and I think that the overwhelming preponderance of examples would point to that.
I think that priests should be held to a very high standard. And I think that's generally what laity have expected of priests. I think that's what makes acts of the sexual abuse of children or sexual abuse of an adult or acting out with an adult sexually, where there wasn't technically abuse, is totally inconsistent with what all of us expect of our priests.
And people would naturally shun away from focusing on that.
On the other hand, I think there's ample evidence of people who do come forward. I think what -- but all I can say, I mean, you've asked me about how did we handle the assessment of priests. We didn't have an instrument of periodic assessment. I'm not sure that such an instrument would have been able to have surfaced this kind of a problem if people were not willing to come forward. I think that has been a problem.
I think that one of the benefits of this past year and some months has been that it has encouraged people to come forward who lived with this burden and this secret for many, many years. And I think it's a very good and positive thing that that has occurred and we've learned the importance of making it possible for people to be encouraged to do that.
Q. When you say the events of the past few months, what do you mean?
A. The events of these past -- this past year. The focus on this issue, the awareness that I think all of us have about the enormity of it.
Q. And is the litigation included in that?
A. I would say so, yes.
Q. If I could just draw your attention to the document itself. On page 2 of --
A. Excuse me. Which document?
Q. I'm sorry. What's been marked as Meffan-2 258.
A. 258. All right.
Q. Now, this relates to an assertion, allegation being made by EH., and she recalls that -- it says:
"At night, she recalls that each of the girls would individually go into a room upstairs with Father Meffan and there would be hugging, kissing, touching everywhere and kissing of genitals. Also, she recalls Father Meffan telling them that he had learned through a mystic that he was going to be Christ of the Second Coming."
You had read that earlier; is that correct?
A. Well, I have read it -- I have not read this earlier, but I believe that I saw within the last several weeks, either reference to or this earlier document which you put before me.
Q. I'm sorry. When I said "earlier" --
A. Exhibit 25.
Q. -- I meant just a couple of minutes ago.
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Had you been aware at any time before this deposition that there was an assertion by a woman that Father Meffan had told her that he said he learned through a mystic that he was going to be Christ of the Second Coming?
A. I do not recall that at all.
Q. Okay. Now, as Archbishop of the Boston Archdiocese in May of 1993, if you had learned that one of the priests in the diocese thought he was going to be Christ of the Second Coming, would that concern you?
A. Well, if I -- you know, I believe that what was done here was exactly what should have been done here; that this priest should have been sent to St. Luke's for an assessment.
Q. How then, Cardinal Law, before 1993, would the Boston Archdiocese become aware if a priest such as Father Meffan had become mentally ill and thought he was Christ of the Second Coming if there was no periodic evaluation of its priests?
A. Are you suggesting by periodic evaluation, psychiatric work-ups or psychological work-ups on a periodic way?
Do they do that with lawyers?
Q. They probably should.
A. Yeah.
Q. I'm suggesting that --
A. I don't know how, you know, given the way the Church lives her life, how this would occur other than in the way it occurred here. Someone comes and someone says something and alleges not only totally unacceptable moral behavior, but also bizarre thought patterns, not to mention some heretical ideas.
These are allegations, but you -- obviously, they were allegations which were taken seriously enough to have this person assessed.
But I don't know how you could come to that without information coming forward from people who spotted something strange. And the way that happens is if you're living in a house with somebody, if you're working -- alcoholism. How does that emerge? How do we find out about that?
We've had, I believe, a rather good record of dealing with the problem of alcoholism.
Q. But -- go ahead.
A. And we do that by people around the person spotting the signs of a problem and then we do an intervention and we send the person away for treatment and we follow that up with a program and with monitoring and they go back for treatment again. And it's a very, very good way of dealing with it.
MR. NEWMAN: Next exhibit.
THE WITNESS: Can I put these away?
MR. NEWMAN: Yes.
Q. Just to go back to that for one moment, Cardinal Law, then I'll ask you --
MR. NEWMAN: You can mark that first, if you will.
(Law Exhibit No. 27, Rynne Documents, marked for identification.)
Q. Cardinal Law, just to go back to that issue that you just raised, is it accurate to say that once a priest is in a parish, they are essentially able to come to you and others, if you were Archbishop, but in terms of an evaluation of that priest or that pastor, they are on their own? They are not evaluated in accordance with your prior testimony?
A. You asked me, I think, at least I understood the question to relate to a -- to relate to a process of evaluation of priests. And I said that there was not such a process involved. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from that to say that the people aren't evaluated. I think that -- and you know there are a lot of interactions that take place.
The diocese is divided into six regions. Each region has a regional bishop. The regions are divided into vicarates. Each vicarate has a vicar. And one of the purposes of those
appointments by me is to attend to the ministry of the priests, to get to know them, to see -- to bring them together. And you see things, you observe things that way.
There is -- the Church is a bit of a paradox in that the impression is that we're so tightly organized and hierarchical, and yet there is a great deal of trust and delegation that is predicated upon good will and honesty and integrity and acceptance of a responsibility.
For example, there are certain ways in which the liturgy is to be celebrated.
Q. I don't mean to cut you off, but I'll get to the question and probably was --
A. I guess what I want to say, though, is while there isn't a formal means of evaluation, there are many ways in which people are being evaluated simply in the way they go about their business of being a priest.
Q. How then, Cardinal Law, was, for example, Father Paquin able to molest in excess of 40 young boys, by his own admission, most of them by his own admission, during a period of late 1970s through 1980, up until 1992? I mean, what was it in the system that would catch someone like Father Paquin who was not an honest and trustful person?
A. I hope that we might come to learn that. I would hope we will come to learn that. I think it will not only benefit the Church, but I think it will benefit society as a whole.
How do you more adequately assess this problem? I've asked myself the question in terms of the enormity of cases that have emerged, how could this have happened? How could it have been -- escaped the view of persons?
Q. Do you believe that the Archdiocese did everything it could do from the time that you were Archbishop up until 1993 when the new protocols were put in, to try to set in motion protocols which would have brought this problem forward --
MR. TODD: Objection.
Q. -- and prevented the sexual abuse that occurred?
MR. TODD: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.
A. Certainly it has always been my desire and my intent when I was Archbishop -- and I know that it would have been the intent of others -- to deal with this problem in as effective a way as possible to ensure that people who are a risk are not able to be a risk to others. We didn't do this adequately. I've said this again and again and again. I recognize that.
I have not only apologized for that but I've also asked forgiveness, particularly of those who have suffered most because of this, not the least of which are parents of those who have been victimized.
Where we are now, I believe, as an Archdiocese, is in a very good position in trying to deal with this issue in an effective way. I think one of the new elements that we have, that -- I keep saying "we" -- they have in place in the Archdiocese now, although I'm happy to have had a part of putting it in place, is the whole process of educating, not simply clergy and staffs, but parents and children themselves, to make everyone more aware of how the signs of this can be detected and also how we can work to overcome this.
And I think that, you know, we didn't have any of that in place. Perhaps had that been in place in '83, '84, '85, '86, many of these tragedies would not have occurred. They are in place now, thank God.
Q. Okay. I draw your attention to the next exhibit, which is No. 27, and the first document which is dated April 14, 1986.
Now, this is apparently a letter from Reverend John Corcoran to Reverend Banks, Chancellor at the Archdiocese at that time in 1986.
And it talks about a copy of a report, interview which took place in 1986 at the home of (redacted) in Plymouth. Now --
A. I would just want to correct the fact that it says Chancellor, but he wasn't the Chancellor. He was Vicar for Administration.
Q. Thank you.
Now, this relates to Father Paul Rynne, R-y-n-n-e.
Do you remember Paul Rynne?
A. I know the name, yes.
Q. Now, in the report which is -- strike that.
Do you remember information being brought to your attention about allegations of childhood sexual abuse committed by Paul Rynne shortly after you became --
A. I don't -- I don't --
Q. -- Archbishop?
A. Thank you.
I don't recall -- I don't recall -- I don't have a memory of receiving allegations against Father Paul Rynne shortly after I came here, which isn't to say that I didn't receive them, but I don't have the memory of that.
I do have a later memory of knowing that there was some involvement, something in the past here.
Q. Now, just go forward in the packet, if you would --
A. Yes.
Q. -- to May 16, 1986, in which you wrote a letter to Reverend Rynne, in which you accept his resignation as the pastor of St. Bonaventure Parish in Manomet, effective June 10, 1986.
Do you remember accepting Reverend Rynne's resignation at that time?
A. I don't have a recollection of that, but obviously I did it.
Q. Now, I draw your attention to the last document, dated June 13, 1987, where you write Father Rynne again and you say:
"I am most pleased to hear that you're feeling well enough to once again assume full-time assignment. It will be good to have the assistance and support of your ministry among God's people," and you advise him you're appointing him as parochial vicar of St. Margaret Parish in Brockton.
Do you see where I've read that? Do you find that document?
A. Yes.
Q. July 13.
So in 1987, you appoint him as parochial vicar at St. Margaret Parish in Brockton, a year after you accept his resignation after discussion with Reverend Banks; is that correct?
A. That's correct. And I presume you're going to cite what happened in the intervening year.
Q. Let me ask you this in a succinct way, if I can get at it.
Before that, would you say it's accurate to say that your acceptance of Reverend Rynne's resignation was based upon discussions with Reverend, I mean, Bishop Banks and upon his evaluation of the allegations against Reverend Rynne?
A. Well, as I indicated earlier, I don't have a recollection of the resignation of Father Rynne. I simply don't recollect that situation in '86. But my presumption would be that it would have been on the recommendation of Bishop Banks, and Bishop Banks certainly seems to be the one who at that point handled this directly, by the other letters that are here.
Q. Now, after his resignation, Reverend Rynne was sent to Southdown in Ontario, Canada, and we don't have all the documents based on that.
But is it accurate to say that your allowance of his return into the diocese was based on recommendation to you made by Bishop Banks or someone in his position?
A. As a result -- based upon the Southdown assessment and treatment, yes.
Q. And again, this was based on your understanding of the problem at the time and your reliance upon psychiatric or psychological evaluations in order to make your determination as to whether a priest should come back into priestly duties after allegations are made against them?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is it accurate to say also that you yourself did not involve yourself in reading or reviewing the details of the allegations of abuse themselves? That was not a function and role that you performed at that time?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you have a memory of ever speaking with Father Rynne about this issue, the issue --
A. About this particular issue?
Q. Yes, yes.
A. I don't have a memory of that.
Q. Would that have been something you would have done before placing him back in ministry?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Cardinal Law, I just want to ask you a few more questions about the review board and I think we're done.
(Law Exhibit No. 28, Review Board Meeting, 11/3/94, marked for identification.)
Q. There's been a document marked as Exhibit No. 28; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. This is a document which I found in one of the files relating to Reverend Richard Butler. The only reason I raise it now is it names the members at this time of the review board. I just want to ask you a couple of questions.
Who is Deacon Martin Breinlinger, if you know?
A. He's a permanent deacon of the Archdiocese.
Q. Why was he put in the position of being a member of the review board at this time?
A. He's a -- he's a minister. He's -- he works -- he's a parent, works closely with families in his parish and would have a good background in that sense.
Q. And Reverend David Cavanaugh, who is he?
A. He's a canonist who was here at the time.
Q. And was there a particular reason why you had a canonist on the review board?
A. A canonist? Yes. These issues -- he was also in hospital ministry. He was a chaplain at MGH at that time. There are obviously canonical -- there's an overlay of canonical considerations as well as civil law considerations, which is why we usually had a lawyer on here as well. And it would just be good to have that perspective represented in the discussion to be sure that what was being decided was not going to have ramifications which would be unforeseen without that point of view present at the table.
Q. Okay. Was there in fact a lawyer separate and apart from Judge Edward Hennessey?
A. Well, Mrs. Mercedes Evans. Mercedes Evans is an attorney.
MRS. FORD: Absent.
A. She was absent at that meeting.
Q. Mercedes Evans was appointed as member of the board and she's an attorney, is she?
A. She is.
Q. Did you make these appointments?
A. I made the appointments, yes. As I recall, I signed the letter of appointment.
Q. Were you involved in choosing the individuals who would be on the review board?
A. I was -- I was involved in talking conceptually about areas that needed to be represented.
Q. Who was Patricia Moran?
A. I can't -- I'm not going to be able to be very specific about responding to all of these questions.
Q. No problem.
Do you know who Mrs. E. Patricia Harrington is?
A. Yes. A very articulate, knowledgeable woman, an active parishioner at, as I recall, St. Paul's in Cambridge.
Q. Did you yourself ever attend any review board meetings?
A. No, no, I did not. I would have thought it inappropriate to because they were having an open and free discussion and then making a recommendation to me.
MR. NEWMAN: Okay, Cardinal Law. That's all I have. Thank you for your time.
THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:51. Today's volume in the deposition of Cardinal Law is concluded. We're off the record. (Whereupon, the deposition ended at 3:51 p.m.)
For complete coverage of the priest abuse scandal, go to http://www.boston.com/globe/abuse
