THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily
Day 1
On August 21, 2002, Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., a former top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston, was deposed by lawyers for three men who claim they were sexually abused by the Rev. Paul Shanley at St. Jean's parish in Newton.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX
)
GREGORY FORD, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Superior Court
vs. ) Civil Action
) No. 02-0626
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a )
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, )
)
Defendant. )
---------------------------------)
PAUL W. BUSA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action
vs. ) No. 02-0822
)
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a )
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
---------------------------------)
ANTHONY DRISCOLL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action
vs. ) No. 02-1737
)
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a )
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et at., )
)
Defendants. )
---------------------------------)
VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP THOMAS DAILY
Brooklyn, New York
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
Reported by:
PENNY ECONOMAKOS
Job No. 138507
August 21, 2002
10:18 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
GREENBERG TRAURIG
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
BY: RODERICK McLEISH, ESQ.
THE ROGERS LAW FIRM P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
BY: WILSON D. ROGERS, JR., ESQ.
- and -
MARK C. ROGERS, ESQ.
HANITY & KING, P.C.
Attorney for Bishop Daily personally
One Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
BY: TIMOTHY P. O'NEILL, ESQ.
WINGATE, KEARNEY & CULLEN
Local counsel for Bishop Daily
20 Court Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
BY: KEVIN M. KEARNEY, ESQ.
ALSO PRESENT:
GRIESINGER, TRIGHE & MAFFEI, LLP
155 Federal Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
BY: THOMAS F. MAFFEI, P.C.
PAUL JANSEN, Legal Video Specialist
Esquire Video Services
RODNEY FORD
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. This is tape number one of the video deposition of Bishop Daily taken by Eric Roderick in the matter Gregory Ford, et al., plaintiffs, versus Bernard Cardinal Law a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, defendant, Superior Court Civil Action Number 02-0626. Paul W. Busa, plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., Civil Action Number 02-0288. Anthony Driscoll, plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law a/k/a Cardinal Bernard F. Law, et al., Civil Action Number 02-1737, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex.
This deposition is being held at the Brooklyn Marriott Hotel, 333 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on August the 21st, 2002, at approximately 10:18 a.m. My name is Paul Jansen from the firm of Esquire Video Services and I am the legal video specialist. The court reporter is Penny Economakos, in association with Esquire Reporting Services. Will counsel please introduce themselves.
MR. McLEISH: Yes. For the plaintiffs . it's actually Roderick McLeish, Junior.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Oh, sorry.
MR. W. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr. appearing for the defendants.
THE WITNESS: Bishop Thomas Daily.
MR. O'NEILL: Timothy O'Neill appearing for Bishop Daily as personal counsel.
MR. C. ROGERS: Mark Rogers, appearing for all defendants.
MR. KEARNEY: Kevin Kearney, appearing for Bishop Daily as local counsel.
MR. MAFFEI: Thomas Maffei, here as an observer.
MR. McLEISH: Usual stipulations?
MR. W. ROGERS: Yes. I raise this every time. I should know the answer, but haven't we not agreed that this deposition will apply to all of the Paul Shanley cases?
MR. McLEISH: Yes.
...
MR. W. ROGERS: And we will reserve all . objections except as to form to the time of trial?
MR. McLEISH: And motions to strike.
MR. D. ROGERS: And reserve motions to strike to the time of trial?
MR. McLEISH: Correct. Thirty days to sign the deposition?
MR. W. ROGERS: From the conclusion of the deposition.
MR. McLEISH: Right.
MR. W. ROGERS: Yes.
MR. McLEISH: Waive the notary?
MR. W. ROGERS: Fine.
MR. McLEISH: All right. Ready for the oath?
BISHOP THOMAS DAILY , called as a witness, having been first duly sworn by a Notary Public of the State of New York, was examined and testified, as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. McLEISH:
Q: Good morning, Bishop Daily. A Good morning.
Q: My name is Roderick McLeish and I . represent Mr. Gregory Ford, who is seated to my right. It's Rodney Ford. I represent Gregory Ford, father -- whose father, Rodney Ford, is seated to my right, as well as his wife and various other individuals who allege that they were molested by Paul Shanley.
Thank you for come in for your deposition here this morning. Before we start, I would like to go over a few ground rules if we could. First of all, if at any point in time you would like to take a break, please indicate that to me and I will be happy to accommodate you.
A: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Q: Second, if at any point in time you want to go over anything that we have covered previously, change, modify your testimony in any way, you indicate that to me and I will give you the opportunity to do that. Okay?
A: Thank you.
Q: Final point is that sometimes there is an understandable tendency before I finish the question for you to anticipate what I am going to ask and answer the question before I finish asking. If you could try to avoid doing that. It's very common but . if you could try to avoid doing that, I would appreciate it.
A: I will do my best.
Q: Now, Bishop Daily, you are the bishop of Brooklyn Diocese?
A: I am.
Q: And for how long have you been the bishop of the Brooklyn Diocese?
A: Since April of 1990.
Q: And you were in Palm Beach before then; is that right?
A: I was.
Q: And you were bishop in Palm Beach?
A: I was.
Q: And for how long were you the bishop in Palm Beach?
A: From -- let's see. From 19 -- 1984 to 990.
Q: And before then you were auxiliary bishop in the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: How long did you serve as auxiliary bishop at the Archdiocese of Boston?
A: From 1975 to 1984.
Q: And did you hold some position in the Archdiocese of Boston before you became auxiliary bishop?
A: Yes. I was chancellor from 1973 on.
Q: And any other positions?
A: And then I became the vicar general, I believe in 1977 or 8, one of those two.
Q: I thought you were named auxiliary bishop in 1975?
A: I was.
Q: But you also became --
A: Vicar general.
Q: Vicar general?
A: Yes.
Q: You were chancellor for some period of time; is that correct?
A: Yes. But I held both titles from '77 until, until I went to -- until '84.
Q: So you were vicar general, you were chancellor and you were auxiliary bishop, is that correct, from '77 to '84?
A: Correct.
Q: Now prior to 1973 did you hold any position in the Archdiocese of Boston?
A: In the Archdiocese of Boston I was secretary of assistant master of ceremonies, to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros.
Q: How long did you hold that position?
A: January -- January of -- my dates are getting mixed up.
Q: That's okay.
A: It was January of 1971, okay, until 1973 when I became chancellor.
Q: And prior to the time that you were secretary to the late Cardinal Medeiros, what was your position in the Archdiocese of Boston?
A: I was assistant to the parish of Saint Anselm (phonetic) in Wollaston, Massachusetts.
Q: How long did you hold that position?
A: Immediately from '65, '66. But I was there before, too. When I was a Dean in 1952 I went there for '52 to 19 -- 19 -- until 1960. From 1960 I was in South America.
Q: You were in South America in 1960?
A: From '60 to '65, '66.
Q: Where in South America?
A: Peru. For the Saint James Society.
Q: And were you still under the ambit of the Archdiocese of Boston when you were in Peru?
A: Yes. Although it was kind of a lend lease type of thing. The society began in Boston and we lent that society and returned back to the diocese when we finished.
Q: So it's fair to state that from the time of your ordination up until 1952, up until the time that you that you left in 1984, you were assigned to the Archdiocese of Boston?
A: Yes.
Q: And, Bishop Daily, where did you attend seminary?
A: St. John's Seminary of Brighton.
Q: You have before you Deposition Exhibit number 1. Do you see that?
A: This is news release?
Q: Yes, it is.
MR. W. ROGERS: That's not the marked exhibit.
MR. McLEISH: Can we get the exhibit to the witness, please?
Q: Document marked news release, do you recognize --
A: It's the same as that.
Q: Right, they are all the same. I am just providing copies to you.
A: Oh, I beg your pardon. I am sorry.
Q: No problem. This was a news release that was issued by you, is it not, on March 19, 2002; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And these are your words that's in this exhibit; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: I would like you to turn to the second page and I want to read you a sentence. You are familiar with this document; is that correct?
A: Yes, yes, yes.
Q: I would like to turn to the second page and, if you could, bishop, I would like to read a sentence, ask you a question about it. It's in the first paragraph, second sentence from the bottom of the first paragraph. "Such activity on the part of any priest is totally unacceptable and even one instance is one too many." Do you see that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And you are referring in that, are you not, to sexual abuse by a priest; is that correct?
A: Yes. Yes, it does.
Q: And for how long have you believed that sexual abuse on the part of any priest is totally unacceptable and even one instance is one too many? How long have you believed that, Bishop Daily?
A: I believed it since the first time I came in contact with the sin itself.
Q: And you were ordained in 1952?
A: I was.
Q: And you knew that sexual -- when you were ordained in 1952, you knew that from time to time individuals were sexually abused, did you not?
A: I did, but very rarely from 1952 to -- to the time you are referring to.
Q: Right. My question is, would it be accurate to state that since your ordination in 1952 you believed that sexual abuse had the capacity to harm a young person, would that be a fair statement, since 1952?
A: To harm a person in what way do you mean?
Q: When someone is sexually abused --
A: Yes.
Q: -- did you believe that the sexual abuse had the capacity to harm that young person?
MR. W. ROGERS: You mean in 1952?
MR. McLEISH: In 1952, yes, I do. A 952?
Q: Yes.
A: Only through -- 1952 through the seminary training that we had.
Q: So you had some seminary training on this issue?
A: Yes.
Q: And part of the seminary training taught you that sexual abuse, regardless of who it's committed by, can cause harm to young people; is that correct?
A: Was it taught to me that way or did I -- I can't imagine. I don't remember that it was taught to me that way, that it would harm. Because I think that the aftermath, the abuse of the victims, was better known because of psychology and the development of social science during that time.
Q: Well you testified that there was some training in seminary that you had on the subject?
A: It was abnormal psychology and it was in with a lot of other things.
Q: Wasn't it just common sense that if a young person is sexually abused --
A: Well --
Q: Let me finish the question, if I could, please. Isn't it just common sense that if some person is sexually abused, young person is sexually abused by someone else in a position of authority that there would be harm from that? Didn't you know that in 1952?
A: Well if you are saying that I had an experience of sexual abuse or knowing that and did I experience the aftermath of that with individual cases, no.
Q: I am not asking --
A: Does that mean -- is that a general statement meaning -- does that mean everybody?
Q: No. I am talking in a more general sense. Did you, just as a matter of common sense and the training you received at seminary, bishop, in 1952 understand that when a young person is sexually abused by an adult there is the capability that that will cause harm to the young person?
A: You are asking a question and making a sweeping statement at the same time, it seems to me. But you don't say what the harm is. There is a psychological harm you are talking about?
Q: Let's try any harm.
A: Physical harm?
Q: Physical harm.
A: I think those possibilities certainly do exist.
Q: And in 195 -- we are all talking about 952 when you graduated seminary.
A: Okay, in 1952 --
Q: You have to wait until I finish the question. I am sorry.
A: I beg your pardon.
Q: In 1952 did you believe that sexual abuse perpetrated by an adult on a young person could cause physical harm on occasion to the young person?
A: If it was brought to my attention at that time, I would have to say yes. But we -- but let me just say this, then, that those cases or cases like that were very rare to me in my experience.
Q: Okay. What about --
A: The possibility of harm? I would say very much so.
Q: What about in 1952, wasn't it just common sense that if a young person was molested, sexually abused, that that would also have the capacity to cause psychological injury to that young person? Did you know that?
A: Well let me just --
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of that question.
Q: Go ahead.
A: Well let me just say that sexual abuse certainly has the potential of lasting effects with the victim. I would think that would be possible. Whether -- and I think it would happen in certain degrees. Some would be bothered more than others perhaps. But they would all be classified as victims and that potential of being affected over a long period of time certainly could exist.
Q: Did you understand that in 1952, bishop?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: Did you know that sexual assaults on children were crimes when you graduated from seminary in 1952?
A: In civil law?
Q: Yes, in civil law.
A: And even in the canon law they would be very seriously taken under consideration. But the civil law, I was not familiar with the details of the civil law, but I would have to assume that at that time, at that time, that it was serious enough to be considered by the civil law and the civil law covered those things.
Q: As civil law as a crime, this is your understanding in 1952?
A: Yeah.
Q: And then certainly sexual molestation by a priest would be treated as a serious matter in 1952 by cannon law; is that not correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now in the next paragraph you will see, bishop, you state, "I recognize the life long impact such abuse may have on a young person." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And those are your words in 2002. I would like to again go back to 1952 when you graduated from seminary. Did you believe in 1952 that sexual abuse could have a life long impact on a young person?
A: That thought didn't occur to me in 1952. I have no recollection of that thought actually occurring to me at that time. If that's what you are saying, from the point of view of 1952.
Q: Right.
A: And as a young priest coming into the diocese and all, the lasting effect? If someone asked me at that time, I would say certainly the possibility would have to be there but, you know, definitely at that time, I would say no.
Q: You did not know?
A: I didn't read that in the books. That is as I recall.
Q: Now you became auxiliary bishop, I think you testified, in 1973; is that correct?
A: 1973 I became auxiliary bishop. That's -- no. Check that.75.
Q: '75?
A: Yeah.
Q: When you became auxiliary bishop, you were in the third or the fourth largest diocese in the United States; is that correct?
A: The third or the fourth --
Q: Third or the fourth largest Catholic diocese.
A: Well, you could say that. I don't recall what it was, but it was up in those numbers, yes.
Q: And you were in a position of supervision when you became auxiliary bishop; is that correct?
A: Not necessarily, no.
Q: Well you were a bishop; is that right?
A: That's right.
Q: And you would speak regularly with then Cardinal Medeiros; is that correct?
A: Yes, who was, in fact, the supervisor.
Q: The ultimate supervisor; is that correct?
A: That's true.
Q: Were you the second in command in terms of the organizational structure of the church?
A: Because of what? Because of being --
Q: Because you were auxiliary bishop in 1975.
A: At that time vicar general.
Q: Vicar general?
A: Was more of an honorary type of a position. And that the vicar general would substitute for the cardinal or the ordinary at times he would designate. That might well be a funeral or a civic celebration or some assignment that he might give. But it was more honorary than anything else, all except for those occasions.
Q: What were your responsibilities as auxiliary bishop in 1975? A 975 I continued as chancellor and I continued -- and then in 1977 I got the title of vicar general. But I was chancellor.
Q: What were your responsibilities in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1975 in any of the various -- in all the various position that you held? What were your responsibilities, if you could just tell us?
A: Well the chancellor basically was in charge of the records. You know, basically in that kind of thing. And archives. And he had that ultimate responsibility. Even though that position evolved later on to archivist and other subsidiary functions. What, in fact, the chancellor at that time was, was -- was an administrator.
Q: Right.
A: And ultimately he reported to the ordinary on administration in the Diocese. That's really it.
Q: And when you say the ordinary, you are referring to the cardinal; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: We can use those terms interchangeably, that's fine. So you were the administrator and you would report to Cardinal Medeiros; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And that went on from 1975 up until the time that you left for Palm Beach in 1984?
A: No. It began in 1973.
Q: 1973?
A: Until I left -- until he died.
Q: Until he died?
A: Which was in 1983.
Q: And then you stayed on as auxiliary bishop when Archbishop Law arrived in Boston; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: And you, in fact, were close advisor to Archbishop Law until you left for Palm Beach; is that not correct?
A: Not necessarily, no.
Q: How much interaction did you have with Cardinal --
A: Not that much.
Q: Hold on a second. How much interaction did you have with Cardinal Law when Cardinal Law arrived in Massachusetts in March of 1984 as archbishop at the time you left?
A: Let me just say -- oh, 1984?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: I had some, very little.
Q: Very little contact?
A: Let's put it this way. I'd rather put it this way. Some. Because we did have some contact.
Q: Were you his closest advisor when he --
A: Yes, at that time. I was -- I had that title. It came with the position.
Q: But you had very little contact as you can best recall?
A: Well I just said -- let's put it this way. The contact was not that extensive.
Q: Would you speak --
A: Not in comparison -- I am sorry.
Q: Sure.
A: Not in comparison with previously in the previous administration.
Q: Well would you speak to him about priests?
A: I think -- you are asking did I initiate the conversation or would he be asking me?
Q: Either one. Did you ever talk with Cardinal Law about the subject of priests between the time that Cardinal Law arrived in Boston and the time that you left for Palm Beach?
A: I would have to say off -- just off the record and --
Q: No, we are on the record.
A: -- and generally speaking, I was open to that kind of conversation and presumably had those kinds of conversations about some priests.
Q: Did you ever have discussions with Cardinal Law before you left for Palm Beach, discussions about particular problems involving priests?
A: Not extensively. And even -- and I can't remember when or how.
Q: Did Cardinal Law ever ask you, Bishop Daily, if you could provide him with reports about any problems that particular priests were having?
A: I do not remember him asking.
Q: Do you remember a priest by the name of Paul Shanley?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Would it be accurate to state that you had a number of contacts with Paul -- about Paul Shanley and with Paul Shanley between the time that you became auxiliary bishop in 1975 --
A: Five.
Q: -- and the time that you left in 1984?
A: That's a difficult one. I just have to refer -- I would say let's refer to the documentation on the subject.
Q: Well --
A: If at that time I had contact with Father Shanley, there would have been documentation about those contacts. I can't -- on a regular basis, no. I am sure I had contact with him and I am sure the documentation would show whatever it shows.
Q: It does. We are going to go through documentation. I would just like if you could describe generally your level of contact with Paul Shanley from 19 -- let's take it from 1973 up until the time you left for Palm Beach.
A: Only -- okay.
MR. W. ROGERS: What's the question?
Q: The question is could you please describe the frequency in a general way of your contact with Paul Shanley or issues about Paul Shanley from 1973 until the time you left?
A: With the Cardinal Medeiros and --
Q: Cardinal Law.
A: Cardinal Law. More with Cardinal Medeiros.
Q: Right.
A: Very little with Cardinal Law. That's the way I describe it.
Q: Well what do you remember about your contacts with Cardinal Law about Paul Shanley?
A: Cardinal Law? Frankly I can't recall specifically.
Q: Well Cardinal Law comes in as archbishop at the beginning of 1984 -- is that correct?
A: That's right.
Q: That's correct?
A: He came I think in March, was it?
Q: March.
A: Yeah.
Q: You leave for Palm Beach later on in the year; is that correct?
A: I leave for Palm Beach -- I was appointed in June. I left the following October.
Q: You left in October of 1984?
A: That's right.
Q: And you were in Boston up until October of 984; is that correct?
A: I think I went the end of September.
Q: End of September?
A: I think the record might show that I left probably the last week of September. Third or fourth week of September.
Q: Now from that period from March until September of 1984, you were Cardinal Law's closest advisor in Boston; is that correct?
A: I would not say so.
Q: Well who was? I thought you did say that.
A: No. I think what happened was, if you let me explain it --
Q: Absolutely. Sure.
A: When cardinal came, the cardinal immediately wanted to establish what came to be a cabinet.
Q: Right.
A: A level of administration that had been provided for by, it seems to me, the canon law, the revision of the canon law in 1983, which would be an advisory board, which is an advisory board, to the cardinal on various major postulates or works in the archdiocese which would include things like education.
Q: Personnel?
A: Yes, personnel. Or other aspects of the -- you know, schools.
Q: Religious education?
A: Precisely.
Q: Now in that reorganization, would it be accurate to state that you were, after Cardinal Law, the number two administrator until you left for Palm Beach?
A: No. In fact or in title?
Q: Let's start in fact.
A: In fact, no. In title, yes.
Q: So was -- who was the number two person if it was not you? Even though you had the title, who was the number two person?
A: The organization that was being formed as a cabinet was chaired by Bishop Banks who, in fact, inherited the title the day I left. So but in the meantime the arc of the cardinal was occupied very much with the candidates or people that he was inviting to be part of this, this cabinet, which had obviously meant that he had to interview them and share his idea of what this cabinet should do and the various aspects.
Q: Had you known Cardinal Law when he was a bishop of Springfield, Cape Giradeau?
A: I met him once.
Q: And was that at a bishop's conference?
A: No. It was an invitation. He came to the archdiocese for a presentation to Lutheran conference or a reunion or whatever.
Q: Right.
A: Conference, let's put it that way. An actual conference. Made a presentation as the chairman or the office head, if you will, of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in the area of the Cubanism (phonetic).
Q: Would it be accurate to state, then, Bishop Daily, that it was really Bishop Banks who was the closest advisor to Cardinal Law, as you perceived it, when Cardinal Law arrived in Boston as archbishop --
A: It was my --
Q: Let me finish. In March of '84.
A: It was my perception that that was and was to be the development in that period as he was organizing this cabinet.
Q: But you would certainly have contact with Cardinal Law from time to time?
A: Oh, sure.
Q: Including on personnel matters; is that correct?
A: Let's put it this way. I could have. Did I specifically? Again I'd have to refer to the documentation but, yes. Not exclusively, but I could have.
Q: Now Cardinal Law, when he came to Boston, he did not know a great number of the bishops, priests or other individuals working for the archdiocese; is that a fair statement?
A: I think that's a fair statement.
Q: But he immediately, when he started as archbishop, he was called upon from time to time to make appointments of individuals as pastors or other positions; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: At the time, Bishop Daily, when Cardinal Law arrived, as I understand it, there were approximately 400 parishes and more than 200 schools that fell within the ambit of the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: Correct. Correct.
Q: And there were actually, I think, a couple of camps, as well; is that correct?
A: Camps? You mean --
Q: Archdiocesan camps. The Camp in Hope, do you know about that camp?
A: Well that's a charity, Catholic Charities.
Q: Catholic Charities?
A: That's right. I think there was another one. Was there another one?
Q: I think there was another one. I could be wrong. In any event, you would agree with me, would you not, that in 1984 when you were auxiliary bishop and Cardinal Law arrives in Boston, there are tens of thousands of children that are served in archdiocesan sponsored programs, whether CCD classes or schools; is that correct?
A: I would have to say that, yeah.
Q: And was there any written policy that you were aware of at the time that was designed to protect children from sexual abuse or other forms of harm? Any written policy.
A: Specifically sexual abuse you are asking?
Q: Let's start with sexual abuse.
A: That's what you are asking?
Q: That's what I am asking.
A: I was not aware. I was not aware it, written policy. We had no written policy as such for sexual abuse that I am aware of, just the general law of the church.
Q: Which is, as I understand it, that sexual abuse by priests is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?
A: Well I think that's -- would you have to ask? I would think so, yeah.
Q: I have to ask.
A: I would have to say so. For the record.
Q: But let me ask you this. In view of the fact that there were tens of thousands of children that were being served by archdiocesan sponsored programs, it's accurate to state that there was no written policy specifically on the subject of protecting those young people from sexual abuse by priests or other individuals associated with the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: Let me just say this, that there were two, there are two areas of laws giving directions for the whole diocese and for the universal church. For the universal church, the diocese obviously came into the canon law of the church. And it did include -- it did include -- canon law does, and I am not a canonist, does include the crimes, you know, church crimes. It would be, for example, the whole area of penance, the sacrament of penance. You know, and divulging what went on in a confessional, that kind of thin. That would be a crime, considered a crime, in canon law. There is also another body of instructions and rules, ordinances there are called, namely the ordinances that came forth from the sittered (phonetic), the archdiocesan sittered, which was a meeting that takes place to specify universal law of the church and its application to the local diocese. And that took place in the spring of 1952. In that body of instructions, the area of criminality, I don't remember specifically that area or what it did say about, if it did, about sexual crime.
Q: I am not referring to penance and I am not referring to canon law. What I am referring to is -- and let me be specific about this.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: If it came to the attention of the archdiocese that one of its priests or one of its workers was sexually abusing one of these tens of thousands of young people served in the programs, was there a written protocol of what would have to be done in 1984? Do you understand my question?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Was there one?
A: Only to add, in comparison to what exists now?
Q: No, I am just talking -- we are going to come up to what exists now. I am just talking about in 1984. Say that there is a young, young man who was molested, claims he was molested in an archdiocesan sponsored program. Was there a written program of what should happen under those circumstances?
A: No, I was not aware of that.
Q: And you were actually, as auxiliary bishop under Cardinal Medeiros, one of your responsibilities was personnel; is that correct?
A: No.
Q: Personnel was not as the number two man?
A: Only -- no. Only when, only when the cardinal would assign me to a specific case. But, no, I was not responsible for personnel as such.
Q: All right. Okay, so -- all right. Now when Cardinal Law came in and before you left, since there was no written policy on what would happen when a priest was alleged to have molested a young person, was there any unwritten practice of what would occur that you were aware of?
A: At that time?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: Only by assignment by his eminence to me, if that occurred.
Q: What was the policy as you understood it?
A: The policy was for me to investigate and to bring it to his attention.
Q: And then his eminence would take action; is that correct?
A: That was my understanding.
Q: Do you remember a priest by the name of Eugene O'Sullivan?
A: Only by name and from what I've read -- what I read in, you know, documentation. I did not know Eugene O'Sullivan. I have no recollection of Eugene O'Sullivan.
Q: You know that at some point in 1984 he pled guilty to rape of a child. He was a priest; is that correct?
A: I don't recall that.
Q: You were not involved in that in any way?
A: I don't recall being involved. I would refer to that there is documentation that exists to that effect. That's something else. But I'm not --
Q: Can you tell me, Bishop Daily, as the number two man up until 1984 when Cardinal Law arrives in the Archdiocese of Boston what would, as a practical matter, occur to a priest if that priest had molested a child?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.
Q: As you recall.
MR. D. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.
A: As I recall? I don't recall. I don't recall.
Q: Would the priest be transferred?
A: Let me just say it's possible. But I don't recall. I do not recall. It was not automatic. But I would think. Let me just say that. You are asking me to question now and I am thinking, you know, by today's standards and somewhat --
Q: Sure.
A: But at that time -- but you are emphasizing 1984.
Q: I am.
A: Is there a possibility that -- are you saying is there a possibility he might be transferred?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes, there is a possibility he might have been transferred. But not that simply. I would assume that there would have to be some, some circumstances that would be surrounding that transfer that would, you know, mitigate the possibility of him doing it again.
Q: And what would those circumstances as of 984 be that you are aware of in any case? What circumstances would there be?
A: Might have been -- I am not aware of specifics now. I can't recall specific situations. But you are asking the question. And if you are asking the question what might have happened, it might have been circumstances that would diminish the possibility of him becoming involved or less likely to become involved in that activity in the future.
Q: So even if the priest was transferred after there were credible allegations that he molested a child, if he was transferred to another parish, was the policy in 1984 to alert the parishioners at the new parish that they were receiving a priest who had credible allegations of molestation against him?
A: No, I know of no policy of that.
Q: Why would it be -- why would the parents of these children who would be attending these CCD classes and religious classes not get the information about the priest that they were receiving so that they could make their own decisions about whether or not they wish to attend the parish?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. You are asking a hypothetical question, am I right?
MR. McLEISH: I think it's a -- he has described what the policy was. It was not automatic.
A: But, no --
Q: Do you understand my question?
A: I think the direction would have been given to the pastor and the priest -- the pastor to whom the individual was assigned.
Q: I am not asking about the pastor. I am asking --
A: Well he is in charge.
Q: I understand the pastor is in charge. I am asking whether there was any circumstances that you were aware of when a priest had molested a child and it was credible and the priest was transferred, whether there were any situations that you were aware of where the parents of the children at the new church were notified that the priest had admitted to molesting a child.
MR. W. ROGERS: In 1984?
MR. McLEISH: In 1984.
MR. O'NEILL: You are asking about a specific case or --
MR. McLEISH: Any case.
MR. O'NEILL: Or does he have a memory of a specific case?
MR. McLEISH: Any case.
MR. W. ROGERS: A memory of any case.
MR. McLEISH: Any case where that occurred.
MR. W. ROGERS: Okay.
Q: Was there any practice, unwritten practice, that when a priest prior to 1984 in the Archdiocese of Boston had molested a child or where there were credible allegations to that effect, that the police would be notified?
A: No. And, as a matter of fact, I was kind of under the misapprehension that we did not have to notify the police. Let's put it this way. It was not automatic that we had to notify the police.
Q: Were you aware that there were some restriction that prevented you from notifying the police?
A: No. No.
Q: But the police were not notified?
A: That's right. We were to take care of it ourselves. As a matter of fact, we were told that in some instances, by the police themselves, that they treated us that way. If it came back to us, we were presumably to take care of it.
Q: Let's just take a situation of rape. When a priest had --
A: Oh, my God.
Q: When a priest had allegedly raped a child, was there a policy of notifying -- I am talking about rape now. Not fondling, rape.
A: Right, yeah.
Q: Was there a policy within the archdiocese prior to 1984 that the police would be notified?
MR. W. ROGERS: Written policy or --
MR. McLEISH: Written, unwritten, any kind of policy.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
Q: You can answer.
A: I was not aware, but I would assume there would have to be something. That's very serious.
Q: But you can't identify any unwritten or written policies as you sit here today?
A: No.
Q: Now, Bishop Daily, you do as you sit here today -- and you are right, there are some documents. But you do have some recollection of Paul Shanley as you sit here today, do you not?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: And Paul Shanley was a priest that generally came to your attention on a variety of issues during the time that you were auxiliary bishop; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And was there any priest that came to your attention -- as you sit here right now, was there any priest that came to your attention more as auxiliary bishop than Paul Shanley, you can recall right now?
A: That's -- in what time frame are you talking about? Q 973 to 1984. Any other priest that you had to deal with more than Paul Shanley. I am talking about priest. I am not talking about -- I am not talking about a bishop. I am talking about a priest. Do you understand what I am talking about?
A: No, I am not aware of anybody.
Q: So would it be fair to say that Paul Shanley was someone that you had -- let me ask you another question. And I didn't really put it to you as accurately as I wanted to previously. When you were working in the archdiocese from 1973 to 1984, is it accurate to state that there were a number of complaints that were made about Paul Shanley from various individuals? Would that be accurate to state?
A: I would refer to the documentation. The number -- what are you referring --
Q: I am not referring to any number.
A: Am I aware of complaints?
Q: Yes.
A: I am now, more now than then, I think, as I recall only because of the documentation. At that time the complaints against Paul Shanley, I'm not -- no.
Q: You weren't aware of any complaints?
A: No, not necessarily. And I think this, that if there was a complaint centered around his activity with dignity and day-to-day, the kids, but more with dignity and homosexuality.
Q: Okay. There were a number of complaints that you can recall about his views on homosexuality; is that correct?
A: I'd have to say yes.
Q: And at that time homosexuality, this is not me speaking, but as I understand it between 1973 and 1984 and, in fact, up until the present, homosexuality was considered to be a sin; is that correct?
A: No. Homosexual activity is a sin.
Q: Homosexual activity was a sin?
A: Homosexuality is a condition.
Q: Right.
A: So that's not a sin.
Q: That's not a sin, but homosexual activity was considered to be a sin; is that correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And there were a number of complaints, just as you are sitting here today, that you can recall about people complaining that Paul Shanley had crossed the line in expressing his views that homosexual activity was not a sin; is that correct?
A: Crossed the line? At that time?
Q: Yes.
A: I didn't keep a log on it but, yes, I would assume that I would have to be aware because I was opposed to the whole question of his involvement in his ministry.
Q: You were opposed to it and there were, in fact, a number of meetings that you had with Paul Shanley on the subject of his views departing from established church doctrine; is that not correct, Bishop Daily?
A: I'd have to say yes. A number of meetings? How many, that's another question.
Q: Well can you think of any priest of the Archdiocese of Boston in the period when you were auxiliary bishop that had made as many alleged statements that were inconsistent with church doctrine than Paul Shanley?
A: On?
Q: On any issue.
A: No, I wouldn't say that. I think his statements centered around homosexuality.
Q: But for the most part --
A: Or, you know -- I am sorry.
Q: For the most part, Bishop Daily, you were not dealing, when you were auxiliary bishop in Boston, with priests who consistently made statements that were inconsistent with church doctrine? That wasn't something you were typically dealing with, was it?
A: Not directly.
Q: All right. But with Paul Shanley you were dealing with it regularly throughout your tenure as auxiliary bishop, correct?
A: Not exclusively. And not extensively.
Q: Not extensively?
A: No.
Q: Well we are going to look at some records. But you were dealing with it from time to time?
A: Yeah.
Q: And can you think of any other priest in the Archdiocese of Boston that was as brazen about stating things that were contrary to church doctrine than Paul Shanley?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
Q: Do you understand the question, Bishop Daily?
A: I can't think of any.
Q: You can't think of anyone? So Paul Shanley, would it be fair to state, in your mind stands out as a brazen priest; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
Q: Would you use those words?
A: I wouldn't say -- I don't know about brazen, but he stands out.
Q: He stands out?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And was he defiant?
A: He was not -- I didn't read him as a defiant person, but he was -- he was defiant in the sense that he was very public about his presentations.
Q: And there were public disputes from time to time, were there not?
A: With him?
Q: Yes.
A: Well you must know better than I do. But I can't recall public? What are the nature of public disputes?
Q: Well when there was an article in the newspaper, for example, about him making some statement and it would be brought to your attention and the statement was contrary to the teaching of the church.
A: Yes.
Q: That would happen from time to time, would it not?
A: It would happen in the sense that we would get a letter. And you have the documentation, I guess.
Q: You would get a letter and you would deal with it yourself?
A: That's right. Immediately. Immediately.
Q: You would deal with it immediately?
A: Yeah.
Q: And then it would happen again?
A: Not because of -- not because of the time do I say immediately. Immediately because the letter had to be -- what was written complaining had to be responded to and I did respond to it. The information was always given to his eminence, the cardinal, who directed, who directed the association with the cardinal -- with Father Shanley.
Q: So when there were complaints about Paul Shanley, it was always presented to the cardinal; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now when Cardinal Law came in, did he establish a policy that you were aware of whereby there were complaints, if there were complaints about priests, he would want to know about it?
A: No, I just assumed so.
Q: You assumed that he would want to know about it?
A: I assume that he would want to know.
Q: So you are not aware of any -- I understand you weren't there for a long time period, but when you were in there when Archbishop Law was there, would it be fair to state that you assumed if there was problems with a priest, complaints about a priest, that the cardinal would end up knowing about the issue; is that a fair statement?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.
Q: You do you understand my question?
A: I understand the question. I would -- let's put it this way. I would hope so. And I would think so.
Q: Why would you hope so and why would you think so?
A: I would hope so because he is the ordinary, the top man.
Q: Right.
A: Had the responsibility, all of it. Not exclusively. We shared it. But he had the ultimate responsibility. He was the one as the bishop, as I do now, give direction to other people.
Q: Right.
A: To support the policy and to fulfill the law of the church.
Q: Right.
A: And his ministry.
Q: So you would hope that if there were problems or allegations about a priest, that it would come to the attention of Cardinal Law; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And as it had with Cardinal Medeiros?
A: Yes. But keep in mind, getting back to your earlier questions --
Q: Right.
A: If I may say so.
Q: Sure.
A: That my contacts with Cardinal Medeiros were much more frequent than they were with Cardinal Law in that period.
Q: Right.
A: Because -- and I just think it start with the time that I was in Boston, as a matter of fact. It was before I left for Florida.
Q: But you said that you were number two on the organizational chart but you were not number two in terms of the person who was the closest advisor to the cardinal; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Cardinal Law.
MR. McLEISH: Cardinal Law.
A: I would say so.
Q: What I said is correct?
A: I think that's correct. The most recent statement, yes.
Q: Could you turn to Exhibit number 1 on the fourth page, please, bishop?
A: Page four?
Q: Yes, second paragraph. It starts with the case of a former priest of the Archdiocese of Boston accused of multiple acts of pedophilia has stirred the conscious of the public throughout the country.
A: Okay.
Q: Do you see that paragraph?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: You are referring to Father John Geoghan; is that correct?
A: Yes. What paragraph is this again?
Q: It's the first full paragraph.
A: Oh, okay, okay.
Q: If you take a moment to read that, if you'd like. It says, does it not, "Because of my responsibilities in that archdiocese in the early 980s I was named a defendant in a number of civil cases recently settled." Do you see that, recently settled?
A: I see that.
Q: And so as of March 19, 19 -- 2002, you believed that the so-called Father Geoghan cases had been settled; is that correct?
A: Not completely. I just assumed that that settlement was in process. And it was a good sign, from my point of view. And that's why it was said here.
Q: Well you said the case is settled.
A: Yes, I did, yes.
Q: Okay. You certainly weren't going to issue a statement to the people of the Diocese of Brooklyn that was misleading in any way, were you?
A: No. I don't think that the statement actually pertains particularly to the Diocese of Brooklyn.
Q: No, it doesn't.
A: It's just, it's part of the general, it's part of the general theme of the letter itself.
Q: Well this is entitled, Exhibit 1, Pastoral Statement to the People of God and the Diocese of Brooklyn.
A: Correct.
Q: Do you see that on page one?
A: Yes.
Q: So you were going to give them, in this statement that you wrote, you were going to make sure that everything you told them was accurate and correct; is that correct?
A: I would certainly hope so.
Q: And then you go on to say, "In that situation I acted in good conscience with the knowledge gained from consultations but in hindsight I profoundly regret certain decisions." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And then you go on to -- so would it be accurate to state in the case of Father Shanley that you also regret some of the decisions that you made in the case of Father Shanley?
A: Not necessarily, no.
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form. Go ahead.
Q: Do you regret any?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form. I am not sure there is testimony there has been any decisions made. So I object to the form of that.
Q: Well you received complaints about Father Shanley consistently, is that correct, Bishop Daily?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of that question.
Q: Go ahead. Answer the question.
A: No, I think I had trouble with the word consistently.
Q: Well let me ask you a question.
A: Like every day or every other day or every week?
Q: We are going to go through a few of them.
A: All right.
Q: But with respect to the way that you handled any of those complaints, do you have any regrets as you sit here today?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
Q: Go ahead.
A: Let me just say this. I was in two different positions. Essentially different. When in Brooklyn I am the ordinary, I am the boss.
Q: Right.
A: And that's -- and because I am the boss, the regret concerns perhaps more aggressive investigation, more aggressive participation in that whole area of the -- so that's Brooklyn -- excuse me, that's Boston. In Brooklyn there is a different story all together. But in Boston, thinking back, yes, I think --
Q: And Paul Shanley.
A: I've said this. But no, no. I mean in Brooklyn. In Boston, excuse me.
Q: Yeah.
A: I am thinking specifically.
Q: I am talking about Paul Shanley.
A: All right, no. This here refers to --
Q: I know.
A: To John Geoghan.
Q: I am asking a separate question now, bishop. I am asking you whether thinking back on it, having dealt with complaints about Paul Shanley, whether you regret any decisions that you made with respect to the investigation of those complaints.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the question. I don't think there has been any testimony that there was an investigation into those complaints. And it's not a fair question so I object to the form.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q: When you got complaints, they had to be investigated, bishop, right?
A: They had to be investigated in terms of direction from the ordinary. In other words, I -- that's the archbishop. The difference in Brooklyn I, you know, I was the one in charge. Am in charge. This had to do with my being assistant to the archbishop, to whom I had an open relationship and to whom I referred materials.
Q: And he would refer them back to you, would he not?
A: If he gave me direction.
Q: Well when you would bring something to his attention, it would be the ordinary course if it had to be investigated, he wouldn't do the investigation, he would ask you to be in charge of the investigation; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection. Are we talking Cardinal Medeiros?
MR. McLEISH: Cardinal Medeiros.
A: Cardinal Medeiros?
Q: Yes.
A: Did he ask me to do some investigations specifically about --
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Never did?
A: No. Well, never? I mean no, I can't recall. He did his own investigation.
Q: Well he has many responsibilities as cardinal?
A: He does but this is a serious matter, as you indicated.
Q: Bishop Daily, did you understand that in -- from 1977 to 1984 that sexual relations between adults and children was contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: Did I realize it?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: Well I think so, yes. I mean not think so. I know so. Sure, of course.
Q: So if a complaint had been brought to you that a pastor was openly espousing views on the propriety of sexual relations between children and adults, would that be something that you would take seriously?
MR. W. ROGERS: Well object to the form. I don't think there is anything before any of us that a pastor was openly espousing that.
Q: Well go ahead. If that had occurred.
A: Well --
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
A: You are giving me a hypothetical situation.
MR. W. ROGERS: Hypothetical situation.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q: Go Ahead. If that had come to your attention that someone was espousing views on the propriety of sex between children and adults, would you have taken that seriously?
MR. W. ROGERS: That's a different question. I object to the form but go ahead.
Q: Go ahead. You can answer that question.
A: Would I have taken it seriously? Yes, I would.
Q: Why?
A: Because we had indicated it's a very serious sin and has social effects.
Q: Social effects on whom?
A: Well sin, sin by the very nature has social effects.
Q: Well --
A: This is a serious sin. And it has to do with people, young people especially that, you know, that are innocent and that kind of thing and all the other elements and the circumstances that surround that kind of a situation. So if you ask the question is it serious, would I consider it serious, yes, I do. I consider it very serious.
MR. W. ROGERS: It's ten past 11:00. Can I suggest a five-minute break?
MR. McLEISH: Sure. Well I think we didn't start until 20 after, but that's fine. I don't care. Whenever you want to take a break.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 11:07 a.m.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 11:18 a.m. BY
MR. McLEISH:
Q: All right, bishop, we have quite a stack of documents here but we are not going to be spending an enormous amount of the time on most of them because they are of a similar nature. So I don't want you to think that we are going to be here for five days.
A: I've got two now.
Q: Okay, you've got two of them, that's right. The first document, Exhibit number 2, do you have that in front of you? It's a memo from Father Helmick. He was Cardinal Medeiros' personal secretary.
A: Yes.
Q: To you?
A: Yes.
Q: And this is -- attached to this memorandum is a copy of a memorandum which I gave the cardinal about Father Paul Shanley's quotation to Mr. Charles Lorego about his eminence; do you see that?
A: I see that, yes.
Q: Exhibit number 3, do you have that in front of?
A: I do.
Q: If you take a look at that. And that was a call -- references a call on May 19th, the same date as Exhibit number 2, from Mr. Charles Lorego of the Boston Phoenix. Mr. Lorego advises me that Father Paul Shanley told him that the cardinal has no objection to ceremonies of commitment or gay unions as long as the rights are not called marriages. Is that -- do you see what that says?
A: I do.
Q: Okay. And that memorandum was produced by the archdiocese with Exhibit number 2 in -- actually it was the next document produced. It was production two of documents 309 and 310. So would it be accurate to state that in 1973 you had received from Father Helmick a memorandum where at least a reporter from the Boston Phoenix was making, advising the archdiocese that Paul Shanley had been telling the reporter that the cardinal had no objection to ceremonies of commitment or gay unions as long as rights are not called marriages? You would have known about that in 1973; is that correct?
A: Not necessarily, no.
Q: Well did you read the memorandum? Were you in the habit of reading memorandum sent to you from Father Helmick?
A: Oh, I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. I was looking at the cardinal. Father Helmick --
Q: You see it's attached?
A: I do, yes.
Q: Okay, so and --
A: They were together.
Q: They were together, right. We just marked them separately. Certainly in 1973 you were aware that Paul Shanley was making statement about ceremonies of commitment or gay unions that were contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?
A: Let me just say this. I was aware of this. I was on the job of April of 1973 so I was on -- I was on a -- I had a -- what's this, May 19th? I was on the job like a month. So let me say this. I was aware of this. I had to be.
Q: My question was what Mr. Lorego reports Paul Shanley is saying about gay unions and the cardinal's position is, in fact, inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?
A: Absolutely. I think Father Helmick says it very nicely.
Q: He does. And do you know whether Paul Shanley was brought in to be asked about whether he had made such a statement to the reporter of the Boston Phoenix?
A: I do not know that.
Q: Now, Bishop Daily, what would happen in the '73 to '84 period if a priest was making statements that were contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? What was the general policy?
A: Publicly, you mean? Public statements?
Q: Public statements.
A: Or just statements? Sometimes Fathers get into arguments and that kind of thing, but public statements?
Q: Public statements, statements at homily, statements in the church. What would happen?
A: Public statements. He might well get called in at the time and be questioned about it.
Q: Okay. What if it kept happening?
A: It kept happening?
Q: Yes, what was the policy then?
A: I am quite sure it would reach the cardinal.
Q: And then what would happen?
A: The cardinal would talk to him and make some decisions about it.
Q: But there were remedies available, were there not, if the priest was acting in an insubordinate fashion? There were remedies?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
Q: Go ahead. You can answer.
A: There are remedies in the law, sure. If the cardinal felt that it was serious enough to suspend the man, which means that he would not have faculties to preach or faculties to administer of sacraments of the church, that would be a suspension. That's a serious matter.
Q: He could also be assigned to a place where he would have no contact with the public; is that correct? Like Our Lady --
A: Give me an example.
Q: Well you know Our Ladies in Milton? Are you familiar with that facility?
A: Our Ladies in Milton?
Q: Yes.
A: Tell me about it.
Q: The campion (phonetic) center that's run by the Jesuits. You know the campion center in Weston?
A: The campion center in Weston? What's that got to do with Milton?
Q: You asked me for examples. I am trying to give you examples.
A: Oh, that's just another example?
Q: Another example. I can give you some.
A: So a priest might be assigned to --
Q: Might be assigned -- if the priest is making statements and they are inconsistent with the teachings of the church and refuses to stop doing it, you said that one of things that could be done is to suspend him and prevent him from administering the sacraments; is that correct?
A: I would think that's possible. But what I'm saying, you are asking the question if he refuses to stop doing it.
Q: That's right.
A: I would hope that he would be a priest, and if he were a good priest that he would stop doing it.
Q: What if he doesn't? What are the remedies?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
A: I could get a little crude and say send him to the back room but, I mean, he would certainly be talked to and talked to severely, I would think.
Q: And if he continued to do it?
A: He might reach the stage where he would have to be suspended.
Q: In which case he would not be assigned to a parish; is that correct?
A: That's correct. Can we ask you a question? No, I can't, huh?
Q: If you'd like to. I'm perfectly happy --
A: You mentioned these places, Milton and --
Q: Yeah.
A: I don't know what you are talking about.
Q: Okay. Well we can get to that later.
A: In relation to what you are saying.
Q: Well you were aware that there were, for example, if priests engaged in criminal behavior there was a place in New Mexico where they could be sent called the paraclete? Are you aware of the paraclete?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I don't think those two things necessarily relate, criminal activity and New Mexico.
Q: But you know about the paraclete?
A: I know they had a place there, yes.
Q: And that was a place for troubled priests; is this correct?
A: Troubled priests? Yes. I don't know what you define by troubled, but troubled priests who what, like, for example, an alcoholism or something of that nature?
Q: Yeah, if there was an alcoholic priest.
A: Yes, that could be possible, yes.
MR. McLEISH: You have to -- we are really going to have a very tired court reporter if we don't --
THE WITNESS: Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm sorry. Can you tell me what I am supposed to do?
MR. McLEISH: Just listen to the question and take a pause. Okay? Otherwise she is going to --
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon.
Q: So this is -- Mr. Ford is going to count them for us, but this is the first issue that we have in the records of you having an issue with Paul Shanley; is this a fair way to describe it?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form. He didn't say the bishop has an issue.
A: Precisely. That's what I was going to say.
Q: If there was an issue with Paul Shanley that came to your attention. The first time that there was an issue.
A: Okay. All right.
Q: Is that a fair statement?
A: I think it's a fair statement. I was only on the job a month.
Q: I understand that. But this certainly, this was not a gray area, what Paul Shanley was alleged to have said, correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: At that time -- my opinion at that time you mean?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I don't know that it was gray or black or whatever it was. I don't know.
Q: It was contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
MR. W. ROGERS: I am not sure the bishop had finished his answer.
Q: Go ahead.
A: No, no, I was -- I didn't -- at that time, you have to understood, too, I was in Latin America for five years. I came back. I was in a parish up until 19 -- Paul Shanley did not come to my attention in a really strong way except as one -- as a story. It's a -- from my point of view it was upsetting, but I wasn't involved until I get into the chancellor's office.
Q: What was the story?
A: The story that he was making speeches and things like that and he was kind of an independent person.
Q: Independent person?
A: Yeah.
Q: I am not talk about before 1973. I am talking about when you come in in 1973 into the chancery. All I am doing -- I am not trying to trap you, bishop. I am just saying --
A: No, that's all right.
Q: This is a statement that he is alleged to have made that is clearly contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. That's all that I'm saying.
A: Yes, that's okay. And I agree.
Q: Next one is number 4. Do you see that, another memo to you from Father Helmick?
A: Okay, 4. Okay.
Q: And this is -- attached to this memo are copies of an exchange of correspondence I had with Mr. Charles Lorego of the Boston Phoenix. Do you see that? Did that come to your attention in 1973?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Okay, next document, please.
A: Can I make a -- okay.
Q: Sure, you can say anything you want to say.
MR. W. ROGERS: Wait for a question.
THE WITNESS: All right. I will wait for the question. I will wait for the question. You might bring this up again. Okay.
Q: All right. The next document is a letter, January 1, 1974, to Father Finn. Do you know Father Finn?
A: What's his first name?
Q: Don't know.
A: There are two.
Q: Joseph?
A: Gilbert and Paul.
Q: Gilbert and Paul?
A: Must be Gilbert. Great priest.
Q: Great priest. And it says, "Enclosed is the newspaper article from the Patriot Leger." Do you see that?
A: Oh, jee, wait a second. I don't have it.
Q: Right here. Right here.
A: I beg your pardon. I am sorry.
Q: He is from Sharon at the time.
A: Let me just --
Q: Absolutely. Take a look at it.
MR. O'NEILL: Tell us when you finish.
A: Okay. What's the question?
MR. W. ROGERS: No question.
Q: No question. Are you finished reading it yet?
A: Yeah.
Q: Do you remember this complaint about Paul Shanley speaking in Sharon where it's stated right here that -- it's stated right here, "I feel Father's talk has done irreparable harm to maintaining a voluntary course." Do you see that in that --
A: What paragraph is that?
Q: It's in the --
A: Oh, yeah. Okay, right. I got you.
Q: Do you remember if that came to your attention or not?
A: No, it did not come to my attention that I remember it.
Q: And the next exhibit, if we could, please, Mr. Ford. That's Exhibit number 6. Why don't you take a moment and read that, see if you remember that coming to your attention.
A: Check, okay.
Q: Have you ever saw that document before? That's Father Finn's response.
A: No.
Q: Was Father Finn someone that you were supervising back in 1973 and '74?
A: Well the dates I am not sure of. But Father Finn --
Q: '73.
A: Father Finn was -- yeah, he was supervisor.
Q: You were a supervisor over him?
A: Over him?
Q: Yes.
A: No, not necessarily.
Q: Okay. All right, next document, please. It's Exhibit number 7.
A: Which one? Okay.
Q: If you take a moment to read that for me, bishop.
A: Okay.
Q: Do you recall this as a memorandum that you wrote to his eminence, the cardinal, in January of 1974 about a call you had received from Reverend Patrick Shields of the chancery office in the Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio?
A: No, I do not recall.
Q: We obtained these files from documents from the files of the archdiocese. Do you see your name is on here?
A: That's right. And my secretary's initials. Yeah, okay.
Q: And your secretary's initials were J.D.?
A: Yeah.
Q: Would it be fair to state then that back in 1974 that you had received a call from Father Shields in which Father Shields indicated that pastors, if you see the last sentence, in the area were very apprehensive about Paul Shanley's presentation? Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: So that would have been the second, I think this is the second issues that you would have dealt with with Paul Shanley, that we have in the documents; is that a fair statement?
A: Not necessarily. Keep in mind that this -- if I may say so.
Q: Sure.
A: This memorandum is directed to the cardinal. And I am reporting to the cardinal what happened in Cleveland.
Q: Well I understand that. I am just saying -- I am talking about you.
A: All right.
Q: That this was the second issues. We went through one. I think that was the Boston Phoenix report. This is now the second matter involving Paul Shanley where the issue was brought to your attention; is that a fair statement?
MR. W. ROGERS: The issue of Paul Shanley?
Q: Some problem with Paul Shanley. A problem with Paul Shanley was brought to your attention.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. I object to the form.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
MR. W. ROGERS: This is not a problem. I don't see where this is reference to a problem.
Q: Is it a problem, Bishop Daily, when a priest calls in from another Diocese and says that pastors are concerned about a presentation?
MR. W. ROGERS: This was a presentation to be made.
MR. McLEISH: I understand that.
MR. W. ROGERS: So I object -- I think it's an argumentative question and I object to the form.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q: This is the second -- let me put it to you this way. This is the second occasion where something about Paul Shanley was brought to your attention; is that correct?
A: It would seem so, yes, it is. In other words, the first one was in May and the second one was the following January.
Q: That's correct.
A: Thank you.
Q: May '73 and January '74.
A: Right.
Q: Let's do the next one. Do you want to take a moment and look at this? This is Exhibit number 8 which is a letter of May 20, 1974, to Cardinal Medeiros from Raymond Kashmin.
A: You mean January 20th?
Q: January 20, 1974, from Raymond Kashmin.
A: Yes.
Q: Do you see the stamp at the top?
A: Actually, just a second.
Q: Go ahead.
A: Okay.
Q: On Exhibit number 8, do you see the stamp at the top that says, "Cardinal's residence received January 28, 1974, Office of the Secretary"? Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was the cardinal's secretary in January of 1974? A 974. I was one of them.
Q: You were one of them?
A: '74? No, check that. No, I beg your pardon. Check that, no.
Q: You were not the secretary?
A: No. I was chancellor. The secretary was Father Helmick.
Q: Father Helmick. Okay.
A: And I think there was another one, but he didn't come until later, I guess.
Q: Do you recall any complaints being brought to your attention in January of 1974 again about a speech that Paul Shanley had made to a group of students in the town of Sharon concerning homosexuality? Do you recall anything like that?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Okay. Next exhibit, please.
A: Could I -- is this the same one as the one before?
Q: It may well be. All right, this is -- you can take a look at this. I am just going to ask if you would ever draft letters for the Archbishop of Boston in February of 1974, and whether you drafted this document, Exhibit number 9.
A: I did in the past draft some letters. Most of them were, I think, general -- they were drafted by the secretary. But in any case, I do not recall drafting this. I am just looking at it. I haven't read it but --
Q: Fine.
A: Do you want me to read it?
Q: No. If you don't recall drafting it, that's fine. We will move on. Unless you would like the chance to look at it.
A: I would like to read it.
Q: Fine, go ahead.
A: It's signed by the cardinal.
Q: Fine.
A: Thank you for letting me read that.
Q: Sure, certainly. Go back to Exhibit 8 for me, will you, please?
A: Exhibit 8?
Q: Eight. Number 8. That was the previous one.
A: Okay.
Q: Do you see the stamp at the top, it says, "Cardinal's residence received January 28, 1974, Office of the Secretary"?
A: Yes.
Q: At some point was there a stamp that was developed that would say, "Not acknowledged at cardinal's residence"?
A: I am not aware of that, but I guess it's possible.
Q: Well I am not asking whether it's possible. Are you aware of any particular stamp as the number two man in the Archdiocese of Boston starting in 1975, I think, of a stamp that was developed that would say not for correspondence? It would be stamped on not acknowledged at cardinal's residence. Do you remember such a stamp?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.85 you said?
MR. McLEISH: '75.
A: I would just say, no, I am not aware right at the moment whether there was one. Is there something here that says not acknowledged?
Q: Not yet. Not up until this point in time.
A: Okay.
Q: But you are about to see one.
A: Oh, all right.
Q: But I am asking you apart from --
A: What's the --
Q: I am asking you whether you were aware that at some point there was a stamp that was attached to particular types of correspondence that would indicate that the correspondence was not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence.
A: No. When you ask the question right now and you are asking me now in these circumstances, my memory says no, I'm not.
Q: You are not?
A: No.
Q: And you were the number two man in the Archdiocese of Boston starting when?
A: Number two man I guess starting 1977.
Q: '77?
A: Yeah.
Q: And you are not aware of any stamp that was used then?
A: No. But that's not to say that it didn't exist.
Q: Do you use such a stamp when correspondence is sent to you right now as bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn that certain correspondence would be stamped not acknowledged at your residence?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection.
Q: Do you use that now?
A: It depends upon the contents and so forth. If I -- if I want to file it and for whatever reason not acknowledge it. It might be just a thank you note or something of that nature.
Q: I am talking about a stamp.
A: Oh, no, no.
Q: There is no stamp that you use?
A: Let's put it this way. I never have used it, okay?
Q: Are you aware of any other bishops that have used a stamp, "Not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence" on particular types of correspondence?
A: I am not aware of it, but you are going to show me something, you said.
Q: I am talking about outside of Boston.
A: Outside of Boston? No, no. Okay, I am not aware.
Q: Let's go to Exhibit number 10, which is our first example of that. Do you see that? This is a --
A: Oh, yeah. Okay.
Q: See that? And I wasn't trying to trap you in any way. I was just trying to see --
A: No, no. No problem. No problem.
Q: You see this is a letter from Tom Flatley? You know who Tom Flatley is, don't you?
A: I do indeed.
Q: And Tom Flatley was a major benefactor of the Archdiocese of Boston in 1974; is that correct?
A: Yes. And Tom Flatley was very kind to me, too.
Q: And very kind to you?
A: I'm not saying -- yeah.
Q: Someone that you trusted?
A: He was a great gentleman. I've known him for 50 years.
Q: Very generous with the archdiocese?
A: That's my understanding.
Q: Devout Catholic?
A: Yes.
Q: Credible human being?
A: Yes.
Q: Integrity?
A: Yes.
Q: No reason --
A: But that's my observation. I have been out of Boston for 20 years. But that's my observation.
Q: Well I am talking about in '74.
A: Oh, yeah. Okay. I got great respect for him.
Q: Take a look at Exhibit 10 for me, bishop.
A: Okay. Well, read it? Okay.
Q: Yes, read it, please.
A: Okay. I read it.
Q: All right. Now you see the initials up at the top where is says, "Not acknowledged at cardinal's residence?" Do you know whose those initials are?
A: No. Well I am saying Monsignor Helmick.
Q: Helmick?
A: Yeah, that's what I -- that's my, that's my observation at the moment.
Q: Those aren't -- I mean, I understand he might have done the writing --
A: Writing? You do you mean?
Q: The initials.
A: The initials, yes.
Q: Are the initials your initials or Father Helmick's initials?
A: No, they are my initials but I think he put them there.
Q: That was my point, they are your initials, do you see that? But he put -- it's his handwriting; is that a fair state?
A: Yeah, but he rights T or TVD kind of in an interesting way. But I have to say that that's what's stated.
Q: And you will see down below, you see, "Archdiocese of Boston Received Office of the Chancellor," do you see that? Do you see that stamped down at the bottom?
A: Yes.
Q: And who is the chancellor in March of 974?
A: I am.
Q: So would it be fair to state that this would have been the type -- this communication would have been one that you would have seen from Tom Flatley?
A: I would -- it's fair to assume. May I ask -- okay. Who is T.J.F. at the bottom?
Q: T.J.F., that's Tom Flatley.
A: Okay, okay. Fine.
Q: This is a document that you would have seen back in March of 1974; is that a fair statement?
A: It's a fair statement.
Q: And you had a personal relationship with Tom Flatley; is that correct? I mean when I say personal --
A: It was not personal but I knew him as friend and I knew his background and his wife and family, yeah.
Q: So a letter like this is going to be taken very seriously by the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?
A: Coming from Tom Flatley, yes.
Q: And it says, let me just read you a question -- a couple of paragraphs and I will ask you a question about it. It's starts off, "Your eminence, on February 28th, Father Shanley spoke before the legislator's committee and, I quote, homosexuality is not a sickness. What is sick is to discriminate against the homosexual." Then he goes on to say, "After reading this statement, I have been very disturbed primarily because it was made by a man who proposes to represent you and, secondly, I don't believe I can tell me 15 year old son that such unnatural acts are not sinful." Do you see that?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: So we have here a clear complaint about Paul Shanley coming from a very important person to the Archdiocese of Boston; would you agree with me about that?
A: Oh, I think it's a complaint. It's a very serious complaints and he is very serious about it.
Q: He is a very important person?
A: Well, he's a -- yeah, sure. Every person is important.
Q: Everybody is important, exactly right. But he is someone well-known to the archdiocese?
A: Sure, sure. He was someone this year because that was recession time.
Q: Bringing a complaint to his eminence's attention about Paul Shanley which you end up looking at; do you see that?
A: I am seeing it.
Q: And then it says, it goes on to say, "I am and had been disillusioned over the past few years with Father Shanley. Five years ago he stated emphatically before the Board of Catholic Charities that two out of every three kids five years hence would be on drugs and one of every three on hard heroin unless parents and others catered totally to their whims and problems." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Now with respect to the first two paragraphs, if, in fact, Father Shanley made the statements attributed to him by Thomas Flatley, those would be statements that would be contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. You are talking the statements in the second and third line in this letter?
MR. McLEISH: Yes.
A: Is it two paragraphs? You are referring to two --
Q: It's only the first paragraph.
A: Right.
Q: Thomas Flatley states, attributing to Father Shanley, quote, Homosexuality is not a sickness. What is sick is to discriminate against the homosexual. Is that the position of the Archdiocese of Boston in 1974?
A: No. No. Homosexuality is a condition. What is sick is to discriminate against the homosexual. It is -- that kind of discrimination is wrong.
Q: And so part of this was -- is this consistent, the statement that is alleged, Paul Shanley is alleged to have made, is it consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as you understood them in 1974?
A: Let me just say this. I think I could, I could, I could not understand at that time why he made such a statement. I would refer however to second paragraph. Is that all right?
Q: Second paragraph, yeah.
A: "After reading the statement I am very disturbed primarily because it was said by a man who proposed to represent you and, secondly, I don't believe I can tell my 15 years old son that such unnatural acts are not sinful."
Q: Right.
A: That's a true statement. But that's different from the condition.
Q: I understand it's different from the condition.
A: Okay. He is making the -- and it's true. He is making the distinction.
Q: Let's move on to the third paragraph, bishop. Was it the position of the Roman Catholic Church in 1974 that -- I am sorry. You see the statement in the third paragraph that Mr. Flatley makes about what Paul Shanley is alleged to have said five years earlier about three kids, two out of three kids being on drugs and one out of every three on hard heroin?
A: Yeah.
Q: Is that the type of statement that would be of concern to you in 1974?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you know whether there was --
A: It is now, sure.
Q: It is now. And if a priest had made those statements, would that be the type of statement that would have been of concern to you in 1974?
A: It would provoke a question from me. It would be a concern. It would provoke the question is it a gratuitous statement or does he have some basis of fact.
Q: And do you know whether there was anything done to follow up on what Tom Flatley --
A: Says here?
Q: -- says here about what Father Shanley was staying?
A: I do not know that.
Q: You can't think of any as you sit here today; is that correct?
A: As I sit here today, I do not know that. The documents today, it depends on the document.
Q: So this, you would agree, is the second -- sorry, the third issue that you have been -- that you have seen involving Father Paul Shanley that we know from the documents so far; is that correct? That's number three?
A: Say that again.
Q: This is the third issue involving Paul Shanley from the documents that has come to your attention today; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Let's have the next document.
A: In the period of a year.
Q: That's right, in the period of a year, third issue. Showing you Exhibit number 11, I would just ask you very briefly -- and this refers to the same legislative hearing -- if the handwriting in the upper left-hand side is your handwriting. I just don't know the answer to the question.
A: I -- no. That's not -- that's not my handwriting.
Q: All right, we can put that aside then. Next Exhibit number 12.
A: I can't read it. Okay.
Q: I couldn't either. That's why I asked.
A: But that's all right. Go ahead. Sorry.
Q: Okay?
A: Yeah.
Q: Now I would like you to spend a little bit of time on this and feel free to read Exhibit number 2. It's a memorandum to you from Father Helmick dated March 18, 1974, which concerns a discussion on the gay community at Massasoit Community College. Do you see that?
A: I see it, yes.
Q: Could you take a look at the article in the -- that Father Helmick attaches in his memorandum to you?
A: Okay, I have it, yeah. By Joe Percell, is that the one?
Q: Joe Percell, right.
A: That's interesting.
Q: Do you see the article?
A: I haven't finished it.
Q: Okay.
A: I am reading it because it's very interesting.
Q: It is.
A: Okay.
Q: Now you will see the statement in Mr. Percell's article on the first column about two-thirds of the way down where it says Father Shanley said that homosexuality is a controversy raging in theological circles and that the National Federation of Priest's Council is seeking to deal responsibly with the subject matter he said homosexuality is not sinful. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Now I am not bringing this to your attention because I disagree with any of these comments. In fact, I probably would agree with most of them. But is it accurate to state that the statements attributed to Paul Shanley in this article were contrary, at the time, to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? The alleged statements.
MR. W. ROGERS: Which statements?
MR. McLEISH: The one I just read.
MR. W. ROGERS: The one you just read? Okay.
A: Oh, yeah, I think that's important. Which statements are you talking about?
Q: The one I just read.
A: Father Shanley said that homosexuality is a controversy raging in theological circles.
Q: Yeah.
A: And the National Federation of Priest's Council is seeking to deal with the subject matter. Number one, there is a controversy raging in theological circles.
Q: Is that accurate?
A: I don't know that. I think it's -- if I were to say so, it may well be gratuitous.
Q: Okay. All right, the next statement. He said that homosexuality is, quote unquote, is not sinful, closed quote.
A: That's right.
Q: If he, in fact, said that, would that be contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: Yes. Its actions are sinful. It's a condition.
Q: I understand that. But he didn't make that distinction, did he, in this article?
A: He didn't here.
Q: All right. Next up -- let's go back to Exhibit number 10 which is the Flatley letter, bishop, for a moment. Flatley letter.
MR. O'NEILL: Can we have the answer to that question read back? The answer to that question, last question, read back.
MR. McLEISH: Sure.
MR. O'NEILL: Listen to the answer.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 11:57 a.m.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 11:58 a.m.
Q: Go back to number 10, if you could, please, Bishop Daily. Exhibit 10, Tom Flatley's letter.
A: I beg your pardon. Okay.
Q: Number 10. Not acknowledged at the cardinal's -- at cardinal's residence, that stamp, do you know how that stamp developed?
A: No, I have no idea.
Q: To your knowledge, you have not seen that stamp before today that you can recall?
A: Okay, that's right, that I can remember.
Q: Can you think of any reason why such a stamp would be affixed to a letter such as this?
A: It would be an indication that someone else would respond to it. I would think. You know, that's my --
Q: All right, let's go to the next exhibit which is a letter from a Diane Adams to you.
MR. W. ROGERS: We don't have that.
MR. McLEISH: You are going to get it.
Q: May 30, 1974, Exhibit number 7 -- number 3. Same article.
A: Oh, I beg your pardon. Okay.
Q: Same article that she attaches. If you want to read it again, you can.
A: That's all right.
Q: So would it be accurate to state that on March of 1974 you received this would be I think the fourth issue involving Father Shanley that we have from the documents we have discussed today, which is a letter from Diane Adams to you about Father Shanley's alleged statements at Massasoit Junior College.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: That was a letter sent directly to you; is that correct? Is that correct, bishop?
A: Yes.
Q: And you responded to that letter which is an Exhibit number 14 which we have right here. See that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And you state in this letter back to Ms. Adams, you state, "I can assure you that the archdiocese is aware of Father Shanley's mission to you and particularly the homosexuals of the Boston community. If Father Shanley should teach apart from the teachings of the Catholic church, he must be held responsible and accountable, as any other priest in the same circumstances." Do you see that?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: That's a letter signed by you? It's not signed, but it's a copy of a letter that you sent back to Ms. Adams. Do you see that?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: And how if Father Shanley was teaching apart from the teachings of the Catholic church, how could he be held responsible and accountable? What did you have in mind when you said that?
A: He had to be held responsible. He had to respond and say why he was teaching this way to give some rational.
Q: Well were priests during 1974 -- and again I am not in any way indicating that Mr. Ford or any of us are unsympathetic to Father Shanley's views, but if a priest was making public statements that were contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, was he just free to keep doing that without repercussion?
A: No.
Q: Well do you know of anything that happened after Ms. Adams wrote in?
A: I do not. Which is -- to which is she referring?
Q: To which is she referring?
A: Yeah, that's about teachings against the Catholic church?
Q: These are your words. These are your words, bishop.
A: Okay.
Q: You said, "If Father Shanley should teach apart from the teachings of the Catholic church, he must be held responsible and accountable, as any other priests in the same circumstances." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And we have already -- in your last testimony you said that while the condition of being homosexual or gay is not sinful by itself, the acts of homosexuality are and you acknowledge that Father Shanley, at least according to the article, did not make any such distinction; do you recall that testimony?
A: Yes.
Q: So I am asking you when Ms. Adams writes in to you personally, do you remember whether you did anything to sit down and talk with Father Shanley or investigate her upsetment and her allegations?
A: To clarify what needs to be clarified?
Q: Yes, yes.
A: No, I did not speak to her.
Q: No, you did write to her. Did you speak with Father Shanley?
A: Oh, no. I don't recall speaking to Father Shanley.
Q: Well do you have any -- this is not the first time that there has been an issue that has come up with Father Shanley that we have seen from the documents. Do you have any explanation as to why you didn't speak with Father Shanley at that time?
A: No.
MR. W. ROGERS: I will object to the form of the question.
Q: You can answer the question. No?
A: No, no, excuse me. Do I have any reason for --
Q: Any explanation as to why you didn't speak to Father Shanley.
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.
A: On this, no, I don't have any.
Q: On the Flatley letter?
A: On the Flatley letter, I think I referred it to the cardinal. Because the letter was written to the cardinal. The cardinal had it. The cardinal gave me no instructions about talking with Mr. Flatley.
Q: I see.
MR. W. ROGERS: I don't think there is any testimony that it's against the teachings of the church in the Flatley letter.
MR. McLEISH: Well I think the testimony speaks for itself.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 12:05 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 12:06 p.m.
Q: All right, this is exhibit -- the next exhibit, 15.
A: I got it.
Q: I don't think you have the right one. Here are the ones we are looking at.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I am sorry.
MR. W. ROGERS: You are doing 16 first.
MR. McLEISH: Yes, it's right over there. If you could just look to your left.
THE WITNESS: This is 15. This is 16.
MR. McLEISH: Yeah, read 15 first, please.
THE WITNESS: Silently or out loud?
MR. McLEISH: You can read it to yourself. It's a memo to you from Father McQuinn (phonetic).
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I got it. I read it. Okay?
Q: It says, "Attached to this memorandum please find an exchange of correspondence between Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Melia (phonetic) of 31 Kenwood Road and myself in the absence of the cardinal, his eminence, relative to Father Paul Shanley." Do you see that? "Received Office of the Chancellor, May 6, 1974."
A: I see it.
Q: You are the chancellor on May 6, 1974?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you will see on Exhibit number 16 --
A: Yes.
Q: It's a letter to Cardinal Medeiros and it says -- it's hard to read, but it says, I believe, "We strongly protest the viscous attack on the church and the horrible, disgusting remarks about the holy father. Bishops, priests, nuns and brothers by this erring" -- I think it's erring -- "priest in his remarks at Marymount College. We think he should be silenced immediately." It's signed Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Melia. And then I can't --
A: PS, it has something to do with we will still be continuing to be sending money to the bishops.
Q: Right, okay. And this was another complaint. This is clearly a complaint about Paul Shanley; is that correct? No question about that?
A: Oh, yeah.
Q: Brought to your attention; is that right?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Okay. We are going to be out of order here for a second. I am going to show you number --
MR. W. ROGERS: Would this be a good time to take the break?
MR. McLEISH: Sure, whatever you want to do.
MR. W. ROGERS: Yeah. Just five minutes and then we will come back and then go until :00.
MR. McLEISH: That's fine. Good idea.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 12:09 p.m.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 12:22 p.m.
(Discussion off the record.)
Q: All right. Next document is Exhibit number 19, which is a letter to you from Arthur Reardon. Do you see that?
A: Yeah, he is my -- yeah.
Q: Do you know who Arthur Reardon is?
A: He is my classmate. He is dead now.
Q: He is dead. He was the pastor of Saint Patrick's, is that correct, in Lawrence?
A: I am not sure whether he was the pastor. Maybe he was the assistant. I am not sure.
Q: Well he wrote to you on the 25th of April 974; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you see the article that he attaches; is that correct?
A: Yes, I see the article, yeah.
Q: I am not going to really ask you about the article, but you are free to read it, if you'd like. I am interested in your response, which is Exhibit number 20.
A: Exhibit number 20, my response?
Q: Yes, I will give that to you right now.
A: Yeah.
Q: Exhibit number 20, if you want to take a look at that, that's your letter back to Father Reardon.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay, I would like you to read the articles before you respond to any question.
THE WITNESS: I would like to do that, too.
MR. McLEISH: You are free to do whatever you'd like.
MR. O'NEILL: The newspaper articles attached.
Q: Okay, you see your letter to Father Reardon?
A: I do.
Q: And you state in the second paragraph, "I can assure you that his eminence is aware of the situation and equally upset. I know that he recently" -- he is upset with Paul Shanley; is that correct?
A: Yeah.
Q: "I know that he spent some time with the priests in Havro (phonetic) recently and surely the matter was discussed." Then there is a new paragraph, which you wrote. "Father Shanley has been to this office at least on two occasions recently. All of us are concerned and are trying to do our best to insure that the faithful have proper knowledge of the church's attitude and teaching relative to this whole question of homosexuality. I shall advise his eminence of your letter and enclosures. With best regard I am" -- and then your name appears; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And that's how you responded to Mr. Reardon?
A: Yeah. He is a priest, too.
Q: I am sorry. Father Reardon. And you were concerned about Father Shanley at this point; is that correct?
A: Yes. Yes.
Q: And you were concerned about Father Shanley because he was making statements that were inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form. What statements are you talking about?
MR. McLEISH: The statements that are -- okay, your objection is noted.
Q: Do you understand my question?
A: I understand you are asking me -- repeat the question.
Q: Certainly. You were concerned about Father Paul Shanley; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you concerned about Father Paul Shanley because he was making statements that were inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: I might well have been.
Q: Were you concerned about him personally?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you concerned about him being insubordinate?
A: What do you mean by insubordinate?
Q: Well you have had two meetings with him that you refer to. You say to Father Reardon, "Father Shanley has been to this office at least on two occasions recently."
A: I am raising my hand here. That doesn't necessarily -- the office is the chancery office. That doesn't necessarily mean his meetings were with me. They might have been, they may not have been. Beg your pardon?
Q: You mean they may have been, they may not have been?
A: They may have been. And they may have been with the cardinal.
Q: All I'm asking you is it say, "All of us are concerned." Do You see that?
A: Uh-huh. Yes.
Q: That is a reference to concern about Father Paul Shanley?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. This is April of 1974?
A: Yes.
Q: And I am asking you what, if you recall, was the basis for your concern about Father Paul Shanley.
A: Let me just say that it would be in reference to what Father Reardon wrote. The general tenor of the subject of his concern. His concern.
Q: Were you concerned that Father Shanley was being insubordinate at that time?
A: The word not so much insubordinate. He's -- he is being very independent and incorrect.
Q: Had you ever been confronted, as of April of 1974, with a priest that was being as this independent and as this -- what was the other word you used, incorrect?
A: Yeah.
Q: Had you ever been confronted with a situation like that as of April of 1974?
A: I had not been.
Q: Had you ever been confronted with a situation like that from 1974 up through 1984 with another priest that was as independent and as incorrect as Paul Shanley?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I can't -- I can't recall. That's not to say it didn't happen, but I can't recall. Yeah, okay.
Q: You can't identify anyone here today?
A: Not immediately, no.
Q: Since you have been in the Diocese of Brooklyn, have you been confronted with any situation where you had a priest as independent and incorrect as Paul Shanley?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. I don't think it's appropriate to inquire as to what has transpired in Brooklyn in a different role, a different Diocese.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q: Go ahead, father.
A: I think I would agree. It's a different situation. I am just thinking back to Boston.
Q: Let's take it forward through Brooklyn. I am trying to put this in some context. Have you ever in any of the places where you have been as auxiliary bishop or bishop been confronted with a priest that was as independent and incorrect as Paul Shanley? That's the question.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. But go ahead.
Q: Go ahead.
A: Let me just say no one -- I am not saying that there have been priests who have been what you call insubordinate. Independent and incorrect. To the extent how do you measure that? The influence they have on people? Or whatever. But, yes, there have been times when I have been in a position where I had to speak to priests and to -- and to correct them at some time. And at the same time refer -- refer them to the cardinal.
Q: So my question is you have been involved with priests in your capacity as bishop?
A: Sure.
Q: That were as independent and as incorrect, those were your words, as Paul Shanley?
A: It depends on how you measure that but, yes. People who independent and incorrect that caused me to call them in and speak to them.
Q: At the same level as Paul Shanley?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I don't know when you are talking about levels. What's levels?
Q: Can you name one of the priests that you are referring to?
A: Off the hand, no, I can't. But I could --
Q: Just one.
A: No. Name any priest?
Q: Name a priest that was as independent and incorrect as Paul Shanley.
A: No, I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that anyway. He would be apart from this case.
Q: Well, okay. You can't name one; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to form.
A: Can't or wouldn't.
Q: Can't and you wouldn't?
A: That's correct.
Q: All right, next exhibit. Did you consider, by the way, in 1974 Paul Shanley to be a troubled individual?
A: Well how do you define troubled?
Q: Well we are going to actually get to those words later on. Okay? I will reserve that question.
A: I would like to know what the definition of troubled is.
Q: It doesn't have a -- a troubled priest, you have never come across that?
A: Across --
Q: Have you ever come across a priest that you yourself, in your own words, considered to be troubled?
A: Sure.
Q: So you have an understanding of what the word troubled means; is that correct?
A: Yeah.
MR. O'NEILL: As he uses it?
A: Yeah. Well, excuse me. I am sorry.
Q: Let's use your definition. What's your definition?
A: Somebody who is disturbed in one sort or another. Might have a concern. Might be a legitimate concern, an illegitimate concern. Person who had a physical condition, a psychological condition. A person who had responsibilities that put weight upon him causing him all kinds of stress. Relationships. That kind of stuff, sure.
Q: Bishop Daily, did you consider Paul Shanley as of April 1974 to be a troubled priest using the definition that you just provided to us?
A: Yes. I would say he was a troubled priest that needed help.
Q: Well was he sent in for any type of mental health assistance or evaluation at that time?
A: At that time I am not aware of that.
Q: Did you ever --
A: And maybe that -- okay, go ahead.
Q: Did you ever send --
MR. W. ROGERS: Did you finish?
Q: Go ahead.
A: No, no, I am not aware of sending him to a psychiatrist.
Q: But you felt he needed help?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And other priests had been sent to psychiatrists; is that correct?
A: Other priest had been?
Q: Had been in 1970 -- between 1974 and 1984?
A: Any other priests?
Q: In the Archdiocese of Boston.
A: I don't recall. But the records would show yes or no.
Q: But and you could order -- could have ordered Paul Shanley to be evaluated, is that correct, by a psychiatrist? You could have done that?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
Q: Go ahead.
A: I would -- I could -- that's not something I would order. I would put a lot of pressure on him to go to see a psychiatrist. If he refused, then I would refer him to the cardinal.
Q: And if he refused to be evaluated, then his faculties could be removed; is that correct?
A: Only the cardinal would do that.
Q: Well did you suggest to the Cardinal Medeiros, to start with Cardinal Medeiros, at any time that in light of the fact that you felt that Paul Shanley needed help that he should be evaluated by a psychiatrist?
A: I don't recall. That's not to say I didn't. I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell Cardinal Law that you felt that Paul Shanley was a troubled priest and needed to be evaluated by a psychiatrist?
A: I don't recall doing that. Okay? Less -- no, I do not recall. Answer to the question, no.
Q: Well since you considered him to be a troubled priest who needed help, could you provide us with an explanation as to why you didn't make that recommendation?
A: Sure. Sure. I think it's a question of the help that he did receive from his eminence and also from other priests. And at the same time it could be very well in his case good spiritual direction and good forceful spiritual direction.
Q: Well did that happen with Paul Shanley?
A: I am not sure.
Q: So you really --
A: I am not saying it didn't happen because that's a private matter. But I didn't -- I -- I can't say for sure.
Q: Were you aware of him receiving any sort of spiritual help or guidance from his eminence? Are you aware of that happening?
A: Well I think I will refer back to the documents.
Q: Well apart from the documents --
A: Well that's where it took place. I mean, they show it.
Q: But just so we are clear, by 1974 you considered him a troubled priest who is in need of help, right?
A: Uh-huh.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes?
A: Even my own.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes or no for the record.
Q: But you can't recall doing anything about it?
A: Specifically, no.
Q: Generally?
A: Well to tell you the truth, I didn't see him that often. I wasn't in that much contact with him. What direction he received, advice, counsel, what have you, was given to him by his contacts, through his contacts with his eminence.
Q: But you don't know what those were?
A: No. That's a private matter. I am not privy to that.
Q: So you even in a general way, you don't have any explanation as to why you didn't approach his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, and suggest that Paul Shanley be referred to a psychiatrist?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. McLEISH: Let me finish the question, please.
MR. W. ROGERS: I am sorry. I thought you had. He hasn't finished the question.
Q: Be referred to a psychiatrist to get some mental health assistance.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the argumentative form of the question.
Q: Go ahead.
A: No. I asked -- I sought preliminary advice from others who -- and asked their advice as to how best to treat the situation.
Q: Who?
A: One particularly was Father Alfred Hughes.
Q: What did you talk to Father Hughes about with respect to father -- wait a second -- with respect to Father Shanley?
A: I asked him what would be a good way to deal with -- what he felt would be a good way to deal with Father Shanley.
Q: You felt he was troubled and in need of help and you went to see Bishop Hughes; is that correct?
A: No. Did I go to see him?
Q: Did you go to see him?
A: No, no. You are saying who went to see him, Shanley?
Q: No, I thought you went to see Al Hughes.
A: No. I either called him or wrote to him or even talked to him. He wrote back to me. I think we have documentation of that, I think.
Q: I think we do.
A: Yeah.
Q: And that's what you did; is that correct?
A: Yeah. And he gave me a plan.
Q: He gave you a plan?
A: And we kind of followed it. That's all documented.
Q: You saw in some of the previous correspondence like from Mr. Flatley that he was concerned about the effect that Father Shanley was having on his son; do you remember that?
A: Yeah.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. I don't think that's what he said. I object to the form of the question. It's an argumentative question.
Q: He was concerned about his 15 year old son; do you remember that?
A: I guess, yes. If you get the letter out and find out exactly what he said.
Q: Did you believe at some point in 1974 and 975 or even thereafter that Paul Shanley had potential to be harmful to children?
A: Not -- not specifically. It's the harm -- the harm that he was doing, as I read it, was not so much -- not overt acts. I didn't see him doing overt acts. What I did experience as harm was the way he was talking and the way he was teaching.
Q: And we know, do we not --
A: And encouraging.
Q: We know, do we not, that sometimes when people say let's call them deviant things that they can act on those deviant expressions?
A: They can, but not always.
Q: But then since you had the ability to request that Paul Shanley, through the cardinal, submit to an evaluation, medical, psychiatric evaluation, in light of the fact that you considered him to be a troubled man, why didn't you do that?
A: I went to Father Hughes first because he was of that time the spiritual director of Saint John's Seminary. And he had some assistance and I asked him at that time what would be a good plan to deal with and to deal with Father Shanley, given his condition and what he was saying. He did give me a plan. He did give me some suggestions.
Q: Do you have access to the records at the Archdiocese of Boston in 1975 and beyond up to 1984?
A: What records do you refer to?
Q: Well let's start with the personnel files. Do you have access to the personnel files?
A: No. All the personnel files?
Q: Yes.
A: No. They were kept in the personnel department. Priest's personnel.
Q: When you became the number two man in 977, did you have access to those files?
A: Let me just say this. I could have had access if I wanted to have access. I did not go to those files. I went through the directors themselves. Even as they did with me in the private spotlight.
Q: When you say the directors, who do you mean?
A: The personnel directors at that time, they had changed. I couldn't tell you exactly who was --
Q: Father Oats?
A: You referred earlier to Gilbert Finn.
Q: Right.
A: And that -- and this year of '74, that may be -- he may have been in charge. It's a question of just checking the record, that's all.
Q: Then it was Father Oats; is that correct?
A: Father Oats succeeded -- yeah, okay. That's my understanding. That's my remembrance.
Q: Did you ever go to the personnel records to take a look at the files of this man that you considered to be a troubled priest and in need of help?
A: No. But I had a draw, as I remembered before, about special cases in my own office. And I had referred that -- I referred to that almost every week.
Q: Was that -- did that include Paul Shanley?
A: No, I don't remember exact -- specifically any kind of a significant file on Paul Shanley. But if he had been involved in any kind of what you -- what his deviant activity.
Q: Right.
A: I would have had some knowledge of that and some record of that in that file.
Q: So this was a special file for particular priests that was in your office; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you can't say either way whether Paul Shanley had a file with one of the special file subjects?
A: No, no, no.
Q: You have to wait until I finish.
A: I am sorry.
Q: You can't, looking back on it, you don't know whether Paul Shanley was one of those special cases or special files that were in your office; is that correct?
A: I can't remember now, but that's not to say he wasn't there. But in my file I can't recall.
Q: And is this the same thing as the so-called confidential file that was maintained under canon law, the files that were in your office?
A: You know, with all due respect, I thought it was. But, you know, there were other personnel files, as we already mentioned from the personnel department, the cardinal's own personal file on personal things that didn't necessarily mean priests and that kind of thing. I think you have most of them. I think they gave them, whatever. And what else? And we had a file in a secret safe that only I -- which I had a combination or a key, I forget now which one, and the cardinal, that had to deal with priests who were troubled priests who were, most of whom, if not all of whom, were dead. And they were kept in this file in a special safe.
Q: But you had access -- you and the cardinal were the people from 1977 on that had access to all the files; is that not correct?
A: Oh, yeah, sure. Well let's put it this way. Excuse me, check that. The cardinal certainly had access to all the files, if he wanted to. I think that if I had pressed for information in the file, I would also have been given that. But I -- but I assume because the cardinal had access that he would have told me if he wanted me to move in on the file and get access to specific information on any particular priest.
Q: Well let's just be clear here. There is, under canon law, you are aware that there are files called confidential files that relate to matters that would bring scandal to the church; is that correct?
A: Uh-huh. Yes.
Q: And those have to be maintained separately and only certain people get access to them; is that correct?
A: That's true.
Q: And you were one of those people in the archdiocese that had access to the confidential files for these priests; is that correct?
A: The principal is correct. The fact is that I -- I had access into the file, locked file, in my own office which contained these records. Now and I thought and it was my impression -- may well be. I don't -- because I don't -- well I guess anyway. That I -- that it was, the cases, the difficult cases. And that's it.
Q: So those -- the difficult cases were in, you felt were in the locked file cabinet in your office, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And the locked file cabinet in your office would contain matters relating to scandal in the church including allegations that priests had sexually molested children; is that correct?
A: Yes. If they were there, yeah.
Q: And I want to show you a document that we are going to mark. We are jumping out of order again. Exhibit number 27.
A: It this it?
Q: It's an extra copy. Exhibit number 27. Why don't you take a moment and look at that for me? If you need any help with the handwriting, I might be able to help you.
A: I can't read the name of it.
Q: Let me try to help you, if I could.
A: What's the last sentence of the first paragraph?
Q: The last -- the priest actually manipulates the boy.
A: All right. Okay. The second page, the paragraph --
Q: Yeah.
A: William stopped seeing Father Shanley immediately --
Q: Immediately after something incident.
A: Then mother noticed --
Q: Mother noticed.
A: What's that?
Q: Remark. I don't know. I can't read it.
A: Remarks of boy making of priest.
Q: Yeah.
A: And what's the next one? Two plus two is two and two. Boy's father does not know when Father Shanley might --
Q: I can't truthfully read that last paragraph in an accurate fashion.
A: Mixed up family. Father Shanley might something. Family is a mixed up family. That's the last line.
Q: That's William's family.
A: Then the next -- you want me to keep going?
Q: Yeah, the next page I think are some notes that were --
A: Father Arthur Shevel (phonetic).
Q: Do you know him?
A: No. He obviously is a Lasolet (phonetic) priest. So I assume he is a religious order priest.
Q: Right.
A: Father Paul Shanley, Saint Patrick's.
Q: Don't read the next name because it relates to a victim. Just don't read it out loud.
A: That's all right. Of Saint Patrick's.
Q: I can't read the --
A: Something about treatment.
Q: Burglar, burglar something of treatment. 00, 200 --
A: Today's treatment $2,000. Something like that.
Q: I can't fully read that last.
A: Okay.
Q: You will see on the first page of Exhibit number 27, you will see that this is -- purports to be a report from a priest of the Lasolet, of Our Lady of Lasolet, reported that during the summer of 1966 said priest, and he is referring -- above you will see Reverend Paul Shanley. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Masturbated the boy.
A: Yes.
Q: "This was suggested after hearing the boy's confession in the rectory as the conversation centered on the boy's problems. It was presented to the boy as the lessor of two evils. The boy was asked to think it over. The boy left, thought it over and asked his parent's permission to go with said priest to a log cabin that the priest owns. The suggestion was that the boy masturbated the priest." Do you see that?
A: Yeah.
Q: Then it reports where the cabin is. It lists the name of the boy, which we are not going to read into the record here, and then it says on the following page, "Said priest brings teenager to said cabin over weekends every third or fourth week, more often in the summer. There is no set pattern. The boy mentioned above knows of two other boys who go with said priest without knowing if this is going on or not with them." And then there is two others that are listed. Do you see that?
A: Yeah.
Q: Now would this be the type of information that would be maintained in those confidential files that you just referred to? This --
A: Yes, yes. That's right.
Q: So as we sit here today, and again I would represent to you, and I think attorney Rogers would correct me if I am wrong, but I am not, that this record was produced to us in the first set of production by Father Higgins after approximately three hours of search. You can't say right now, Bishop Daily, sitting here today whether this record was actually in the locked files in your office, can you?
A: No. Father Higgins? Who is Father Higgins?
Q: Father Higgins is the current delegate on sexual abuse.
A: Oh, in the chancery office.
Q: But the confidential file was in your office?
A: A confidential file was in my office.
Q: A confidential file that related to matters such as these was in your office and you don't know whether Paul Shanley was included either way, correct?
A: I have to say I never saw this before.
Q: Well my question is when you started to believe that Paul Shanley was a troubled priest who needed help, did you look at the confidential file for Paul Shanley?
A: No, no, because I didn't read his trouble as being involved in this kind of activity.
Q: Well that's not -- my question is when you considered him to the troubled and in need of help, you did not go back and look at the confidential file?
A: My confidential file?
Q: Your confidential file.
A: No.
Q: Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: And your confidential file was the confidential file maintained under canon law for the Archdiocese of Boston?
A: No. There was a confidential file that was -- that I found that I came to know as subsidiary to other files that I mentioned before, namely in the personnel department. Maybe the cardinal's own personal file and mine. You know, I came to know that it was a supplementary type thing that -- kind of like a double-check. And to explain, the personnel board met every Friday afternoon usually, normally. And when appointments were discussed and made and that kind of thing. And also appointments to pastors, especially to any kind of position. After -- excuse me. After the meeting was over, it would be around 5 o'clock, this priest's director or directors, most of the time two, would come to my office. Having been through the meeting, even as I would, come to the meeting and would check my file to see if there was anything in it that would preclude the appointment of any of the priests suggested in the personnel department meeting, personnel board meeting, for the position of pastor, et cetera. And that was kind of a -- that was the kind of a normal activity. It was kind of a safety valve. And from my point of view it was a supplementary. Now was there any other, was there any other place where there were files that would indicate such kind of material? I don't know. Unless, unless it was with the personnel department or in the cardinal's file or some other source. But I don't have knowledge.
Q: Bishop Daily, just to be clear, you don't know whether this particular complaint letter going back to 1966 was or was not in your files; is that correct?
A: I suspect that it wasn't. I mean reading it today I want to throw up. But I think that -- I suspect it wasn't.
Q: But you don't know?
A: I am not saying -- you are saying definitely? If you are asking me definitely, I would say no.
Q: You don't know either way? Now so I am trying -- just if you could help me, but matters like this about priest's abusing, masturbating boys, that's the type of material that would be in your files, though, I thought I heard you say.
A: Would be, but not exclusively now, you know.
Q: Where else would those files be?
A: I don't know. Unless they would be in the personnel department itself. The way this letter was referred.
Q: The personnel department might have its own set of files; is that correct?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: There is no indication that this particular document was in the personnel file. And I think Father Higgins' testimony was that it was in the confidential file.
A: Do you have -- okay. Do you have -- and where did you say this confidential file existed?
MR. W. ROGERS: No, no. He's produced files from 2002. And I think any inferences drawn, I that's inappropriate. The bishop has responded to your question. He suspects it wasn't there. He can't say whether it was or it wasn't.
MR. McLEISH: Maybe we can have a discussion afterwards. We have asked to see the actual folders in which these files were located, the originals, and to come to the chancery. I just want to put on the record that we have asked. I am sure you will accommodate us. But to actually physically inspect what files they came out of.
Q: But this was in the files of the archdiocese and Father Higgins testified that it was took three hours to locate this in 2002. My question to you is whether there were records such as this one about priests engaging -- allegations that priests engaged in deviant behavior in the files maintained in your office. I just want to be clear about that.
A: Yes. But not all of them.
Q: Not all of them?
A: And with all due respect, I would like to know where he got this one.
Q: Well it was produced to us.
A: Okay.
Q: And my question to you is you also said something about the personnel board, that the personnel board before they would sign off as someone as pastor, they would come to you for a kind of final check to see if there was anything bad in the files. Is that the way the process worked?
A: Correct. In my file.
Q: In your file?
A: Yeah.
Q: And they would come to you because they wanted to know that before they put someone in a position of authority such as pastor that there was no report of improper behavior by the priest; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: In the bishop's file.
Q: In your file?
A: That's right. And I would -- and I had -- and I assumed if I didn't have it specifically, the authority, and I think I did have it, to veto any nomination of someone that I thought because of activity like this from the point of view of being a pastor.
Q: When you say activity like this, you are referring to --
A: Well any kind of deviant activity.
Q: When you say activity like this, you are referring to activity like what is reported about Paul Shanley in this letter from the Lasolet father; is that correct?
A: Uh-huh.
MR. W. ROGERS: You need to say yes.
A: Oh, yes. I am sorry.
Q: Because appointing someone as pastor puts them in a position of great responsibility; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
MR. W. ROGERS: You are not talking about Paul Shanley? You are talking generally?
Q: I am talking about generally putting someone in a position as pastor puts them in a position of great responsibility?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: They have access to children; is that correct?
A: Yes, as a priest or any priest has that. But pastor is something else now.
Q: You would not want --
A: It's not the same.
Q: You would not want someone that had allegations such as is contained in Exhibit 27, you would not want someone like that put into the position of pastor until you were able to determine whether those allegations were true?
A: Precisely.
Q: And the fact that this was coming from an order priest, that would indicate to you, would it not, that at least the order priest felt that this could be a credible allegation?
A: Yes.
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form. But go ahead.
A: Yes.
Q: And you would put more credence on a complaint that was coming in from an order priest than you might from someone that you didn't know; is that correct?
A: Not necessarily, no. No.
MR. W. ROGERS: Should we -- it's five past 1:00. I suggest we break for lunch from :00 to 2:00 unless you have something that follows right into this.
MR. McLEISH: No, that's fine.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 1:01 p.m.
(Luncheon recess.)
A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:15 p.m. BY
MR. McLEISH:
Q: Good afternoon, Bishop Daily.
A: Good afternoon.
Q: Thank you for coming back this afternoon. Bishop Daily, would I be accurate in stating that this process that you described before the break of having you review the file in your office before someone was appointed pastor, that that policy continued up until the time that you left Boston for Palm Beach?
A: I would say it had to be in vogue because I was there. But whether we used it that often when Cardinal Law came, I can't say that. But I would say it was in vogue, yeah.
Q: So after Cardinal Law arrived, there was still a protocol of checking the files before someone was appointed pastor; is that correct?
A: I would have to assume so, yeah.
Q: And that's the way you have done it?
A: Yeah. Yeah, that's right, because it was from September to -- what was he?
Q: March until September.
A: September to March.
Q: '84. He arrived in March. He left in September.
A: Oh, I beg your pardon.
Q: He arrived in March. You left in September.
A: I left in September. Yeah. I can't recall frankly.
Q: Well do you recall --
A: Whether we were so assiduous. I can't recall whether I was that faithful to meetings of the personnel board even because I was anticipating leaving and getting ready to leave. And I got the appointment in June. I was gone in October. So for efficiency sake -- I am just sort of speculating.
Q: Sure. But you said -- I think you said you were assiduous and you meant that with respect to checking the file before someone was promoted to pastor?
A: I think that's a good word. It was part of the -- it was very much a part of the process.
Q: And that would include the confidential files; is that correct?
A: The one in my office.
Q: Yes. And the one where scandalous information such as we saw on that Lasolet letter?
A: That contained that information.
Q: All right. We are going to give you something that's been marked as Exhibit 21. We are out of order but there is a reason for it. This Exhibit 21 references an article I believe you have already read, but I would just ask whether you received this letter from Joseph Riley of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
A: Well I would have to say yes because my name is there and his signature is on there and I recognize the signature.
Q: So Father Daily writes to you attaching an article about Paul Shanley stating, "I know we all have plenty of problems already, but this kind of mindless destructiveness doesn't help." Do you see that?
MR. W. ROGERS: Joe Riley wrote the letter, not Father Daily.
Q: Joe Riley wrote the record. But it was sent to you; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you consider what Paul Shanley was doing in April of 1974 as being -- as involving mindless destructiveness?
A: It terms of Joe Riley, not necessarily. I shouldn't say -- mindless destructiveness? Joe Riley is a very good, wholesome Catholic and very sensitive to the issues of the time and was bothered tremendously by what he had read in the paper. That was my -- that was my -- that was my reaction to that.
Q: Bothered about Paul Shanley?
A: And the article and what it said about him.
Q: How he was quoted?
A: He refers to it, you know.
Q: How Paul Shanley was being quoted in the article?
A: Not so much quoted, but his activities as described.
Q: And did you share those opinions in 1974?
A: Not to the -- well I should put it this way. I guess I didn't -- I don't get as emotional as Joe Riley does, but I believe this is a very emotional statement. Not off the mark but very, very, you know, emotional.
Q: And Tom Flatley, is he an emotional person?
A: Well it's hard to describe people's, you know, people's, you know, I don't know because I know -- I don't see him every day. I think he gets mad once in a while. I think he gets excited once in a while, like we all do. But, yeah, I suppose he could be emotional. Overly emotional?
Q: Overly emotional?
A: How do you make those judgements? No.
Q: You were the one that used the words that Riley was emotional about this subject. My question is --
A: Yeah.
Q: My question is was he usually an emotional person?
A: Who, Joe Riley?
Q: Yes.
A: Yeah, I believe so.
Q: How about Tom Flatley?
A: I didn't see him often enough. I didn't see him that often. Joe Riley at the time was Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
Q: I show you Exhibit 28, please. Take a moment to look at that and the attachments.
A: Okay.
Q: All right. And it says -- go ahead, read the whole document.
A: Yeah. Okay.
Q: All right? Okay. So you see Tom Flatley again -- this is a complaint about Paul Shanley, right?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And you received that complaint from Tom Flatley? Second one from him?
A: Yes, May 7th.
Q: And he states in the letter that "I have known Father Shanley for years and during the days of his so-called drug rehabilitation I believe he introduced more kids to a permissive wrong way of life than a constructive and rehabilitative way." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And at the final sentence, he says, "I am writing to you" -- this is to Cardinal Medeiros. "I am writing to you in the hope that you could talk to this man before he introduces young people to a way of life that could be very sad to them." And then there is a response from the cardinal.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Did you draft the response for the cardinal?
A: I believe I did. Okay.
Q: Now by this time, you've testified earlier, that you considered Paul Shanley to be a troubled man who needed help. When you received this letter from Mr. Flatley, did you undertake any specific action to speak with Paul Shanley? There is some handwriting on the front of this exhibit that I can't quite read.
A: Okay.
Q: Is that your handwriting?
A: It is, yeah. Let me see what it -- okay.
Q: Might be --
A: Acknowledged. Acknowledged. Acknowledged. In touch -- that's a W with a sign over it. "In touch with Father Shanley. Trying to bring him to the teaching of the church with apparent little success."
Q: So you weren't having much success with Father Shanley?
A: That's what that says.
Q: That's your handwriting, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And so did you think in 1975 after reading Mr. Flatley's letter, did you believe that Paul Shanley had introduced kids to a -- more kids to a permissive wrong way of life than a constructive and rehabilitative way? Did you agree with him on that?
A: Did I agree with him? No. But I don't know whether he did or did not. We had a reference to small groups going to -- don't we here? Small groups without --
Q: Well you see --
A: Without much impact.
Q: You know, I don't see that reference, but my question is you have a respected member of the Catholic community, Tom Flatley, correct?
A: Yeah.
Q: He is writing to you stating that he believes in 1975 that Paul Shanley has introduced more kids to a permissive wrong way of life than a constructive and rehabilitative way. And he says at the last sentence he is writing to the cardinal in the hope that you could talk to this man before he introduces young people to a way of life that could be very sad for them. I am just asking whether you shared that view of Mr. Flatley's.
A: Yes, in the sense that the response to Mr. Flatley says as much in the sense that there is these continued efforts to reach Father Shanley with his advisors and personally and to the full -- and bring him to the fullness of the model teachings of the Catholic church regarding homosexuality.
Q: And the front page of the letter talks about not having much success; is that correct?
A: What front page is that?
Q: Your notes.
A: That's my note. That's my note.
Q: Yes.
A: And I don't mention that in the letter, do I?
Q: No, you don't.
A: No, I think it's a letter that I wanted to keep in mind for myself presumably. Or even to tell the cardinal when I went to him for advice in relation to father -- to Tom Flatley.
Q: So it would be fair to state that by 1975 you had at least a concern that Paul Shanley might have a negative effect on young people? Is that a fair statement?
A: Given the information that I had at the time, yes.
Q: Did you send Paul Shanley out at that -- when you started to have that concern for any sort of medical evaluation or assessment in 1975, bishop?
A: No, because I was dealing with it personally and with the cardinal. Following the cardinal's directions and his own activity with Paul Shanley.
Q: Well what specifically do you remember doing after you got Mr. Flatley's letter?
A: I certainly either contacted or was in touch with the cardinal about the response. About what, you know, the proper response to Mr. Flatley in light of this matter.
Q: All right, let's go to the next exhibit, please. This is going to be marked as Exhibit 30. Again it's out of sequence. I apologize for that. Oh, could I just go back, bishop, to the Flatley letter, if I could?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Just go back for a second. The cover note, it says, "The attached letter from Thomas J. Flatley concerning Father Paul Shanley has not been acknowledged here at the residence." Why would there be a reason for not acknowledging Mr. Flatley's letter here at the residence? Why would that be said when --
A: I don't know. Well McQuinn, Father McQuinn sent it to me presumably for a response of the cardinal.
Q: But why --
A: The contact with the cardinal and consultation with the cardinal.
Q: Was there any effort to protect the cardinal from these types of writings that was in effect in 1975?
A: You mean what kind of writings?
Q: Writings complaining about Paul Shanley.
A: You mean letters?
Q: Yes, letters.
A: No, no. We had -- we didn't protect the cardinal from anything in that sense. We had an open relationship and I was -- and I couldn't because I couldn't function any other way and I know he couldn't. But I couldn't function in any other way. So we had an absolutely open relationship. As a matter of fact, we laid that down at the beginning.
Q: Was there ever a policy that any letter that was sent about Paul Shanley was not to be acknowledged as being received at the cardinal's residence?
A: No, there was no policy like that.
Q: Next document if we could, please, was the one I showed you.
A: Okay.
Q: Yeah, September 14, 1976. And you ask Paul Shanley to come in for a meeting at the chancery; do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: On September 27, 1976?
A: Yes.
Q: And the next document, please. It's Exhibit number 31.
A: Oh, excuse me. I am sorry. Thank you.
Q: All right. This is a letter, is it not, that you received, I think you might have been referring to earlier, where you got Al Hughes', Father Al Hughes' advice?
A: Yes, I think this is it.
Q: Is it Bishop Hughes at this point or is it Father Hughes?
A: No, he is strictly Father Hughes at this point. I am quite sure. Well I don't know. I think that's -- well I don't know.
Q: Might have changed right around then?
A: Could have been, yeah.
Q: So this was the letter that you were referring to earlier where you sought out some advice from Bishop Hughes about Paul Shanley?
A: Yeah.
Q: Is that correct?
A: Yes. At least where I received advice from him.
Q: Do you want to take a look at that letter?
A: I am, yeah. Thank you.
Q: Do you know a Dr. Quinn, by the way? Dr. Quinn, does that ring a bell to you?
A: Yeah, there is a Dr. Quinn. He was a psychiatrist, as I recall. You are going back 20 years, yeah.
Q: He is a consultant to the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: At that time he was at Saint Elizabeth's Hospital and he was functioning as a psychiatrist there. I don't know about consulting to the Diocese.
Q: Do you know whether archdiocesan priests have been sent to him, such as Father Birmingham and --
A: I don't know about --
Q: Excuse me. Such as Father Birmingham and other priests for evaluations?
A: I have to assume so, yes. I don't know about Father Birmingham as such, but father -- Dr. Quinn did administer to priests.
Q: Was there some reason why you could not have contacted Dr. Quinn about Paul Shanley?
A: No, there was no -- there is nothing permitting that, that I know of.
Q: So you had access to psychiatrists in the mid-1970s that could be brought in to consult on priests; is that correct?
A: They wouldn't be brought in. We would send the priest to them.
Q: Send the priest to them?
A: Yes.
Q: Now let's look at the next exhibit, if we could, please?
A: Which is?
Q: Thirty-one, I believe. Is it 31? Yeah.
A: That's Father Hughes.
Q: Yes, that's the letter that you were referring to -- I don't know whether it was. Was that the advice that you were referring to earlier that you got --
A: I think so, yes.
Q: And did you in this letter in any way tell Bishop Hughes that you felt that Paul Shanley was a troubled individual who needed help?
A: No, I can't recall doing that. He is take -- he is -- apparently.
Q: Okay, next exhibit.
A: No, apparently he's --
MR. O'NEILL: The court reporter needs to hear the word you said. Apparently.
THE WITNESS: Apparently.
Q: Here is 33. We jumped 32 for a second.
A: We are at 33 now?
Q: Yes.
A: Okay.
Q: We will switch that to this. This is October 22, 1976, okay? And do you want to take a look at that? In this letter you ask Father Paul Shanley to stop down, drop by the chancery to discuss literature which is being sent out by him to the priests of the archdiocese. Do you see that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Your letter of September 14th which -- 976, which we just had several exhibits earlier invited him to come down on September 27, 1976, for a discussion. Do you know whether this was a separate visit?
A: Where is that letter, in here?
Q: Yeah, it's two exhibits back.
A: Let me just read further.
Q: Here. Let me show it to you.
A: Was it in relation to --
Q: Yeah, here it is.
A: Oh, yes. Okay.
Q: Was this a separate visit then?
A: Yes, separate visit, separate purpose.
Q: And this is to discuss literature that is being circulated; is that correct?
A: Well, no. This was Father Shanley, September 14, 1976.
Q: No, the October '76 one.
A: Oh, I beg your pardon. Yes.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 2:34 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:34 p.m.
Q: Do you recall, Bishop Daily, Paul Shanley at some point going to a place called The Exodus Center?
A: The Exodus Center?
Q: Yes.
A: No. That's -- okay, no, I do not. (Discussion off the record.)
Q: Okay, showing you what's been marked as Exhibit number 40 -- is that correct? I am sorry.
A: Where am I now?
Q: Okay, this is Exhibit number 41, which is a memorandum from Jean Sweeney dated November 2, 977. Then there is a letter of October 4, 1977, which is a letter to Jean Sweeney from Delores Stevens.
MR. W. ROGERS: Do we have copies of those?
MR. McLEISH: Yeah, we do. We do.
A: Are we through with these others, by the way? That is 30, 31 and all that?
Q: Yes. Then there is a letter from Jean Sweeney.
A: I have that. This's number 41, right? Oh, I'm sorry.
Q: Letter from Jean Sweeney, 44. I think the one you have is a letter from Delores Stevens. And we have copies.
A: I beg your pardon. I don't have anything from Delores.
MR. McLEISH: Here you go. Hand that out.
THE WITNESS: Jean and Jean.
MR. W. ROGERS: You got 41 and 44.
MR. McLEISH: 43 was a duplicate.
THE WITNESS: This is Delores, okay. I have 42, 41, 44.
MR. McLEISH: That's exactly right.
MR. MAFFEI: Eric, you didn't tell us which numbers go with which dates.
MR. McLEISH: Let's go off the record until we get this straightened out.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 2:41 p.m.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:46 p.m.
Q: All right, bishop, if you could take a moment and look first at Exhibit number 44, which is a letter from Jean Sweeney. I ask if you recognize that.
A: I see that -- I see the name and I recognize the, you know, the cardinal's name. I have the paper.
Q: You have seen that record before today; is that correct?
A: This one here?
Q: Yes.
A: I can't recall seeing this before.
Q: Have you seen it in preparation for your deposition?
A: Help me somebody because I don't recall seeing it, you know.
Q: Why don't you talk a moment and read it, if you would, bishop.
A: Sure. I read the one letter.
Q: And you will see that that refers to a report that Mrs. Sweeney has received from a woman who attended a speech at St. Luke's Episcopal Church on September 23rd; do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: And it also makes reference to a Reverend Shanley in the last paragraph; do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Then I would like you to look at Exhibit number 42, which is the letter to Jean Sweeney from Delores Stevens reporting on what was talked about at that meeting.
A: Okay.
Q: And you will notice on Exhibit 42, you see the handwriting on the top?
A: I do.
Q: And you will notice the similarity with the handwriting on the top of Exhibit 44?
A: I am not so sure I do see the similarity.
Q: All right, that's fine. That's no problem. If you could read Exhibit 42 for me, please, bishop.
A: I will read 42.
Q: You read that, bishop?
A: Yes.
Q: Take a look at Exhibit number 41 and read that for me, which is a memo from Jean Sweeney to Fathers Dolan and Sundhome about Paul Shanley's talk.
A: Okay. All right.
Q: All right. Let's look at Exhibit 42, if we could, which is the Sweeney report of -- I am sorry. The Delores Stevens letter to Jean Sweeney that was contained in the files of the archdiocese. Now I would like to direct your attention towards the bottom, about two-thirds of the way down the page. And according to Mrs. Stevens, she states as follows.
A: Two-thirds down?
Q: Two-thirds down. Starts, "He stated --
A: Okay.
Q: Starts, "He stated celibacy is impossible, therefore the only alternative is for gays to have sex with different persons whenever they want to." If such a statement were made, is that contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church?
A: Oh sure.
Q: Would that give you concern, Bishop Daily, if he made such a statement?
A: Yes.
Q: The next paragraph. "He spoke of pedophilia, which is a non-coerced sexual manipulation of sex organs, including oral genital sex between an adult and child. He stated that the adult is not the seducer. The kid is the seducer. And further, the kid is not traumatized by the act, per say. The kid is traumatized when the police and the authorities drag the kid in for questioning." Okay? Would you agree with me that that is a deviant statement?
A: That's a wrong statement. It's objectively wrong.
Q: Okay, well is it -- it's an expression of an opinion when he states, according to Mrs. Stevens, he stated that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer. And, further, the kid is not traumatized by the act, per se. The kid is traumatized when the police and the authorities drag the kid in for questioning. Is that, in your opinion, not only a wrong statement but a perverted statement?
A: Well it's perverse the truth.
Q: Would you be concerned about a priest making such a statement back in 1977 if he, in fact, made it?
A: I would be concerned.
Q: How concerned would you be?
A: Concerned enough to report it to the bishop to get his direction as to what we should do with him or what I should do with him, if the archbishop or the ordinary wanted me to intervene and act or to do it himself. You know, to intervene.
Q: And then it says afterwards, it says in the next paragraph, "He," meaning Shanley, "stated that he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And is that a statement that is contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: Well incest or bestiality certainly are contrary to the -- but I am not a doctor from the point of view of psychic damage. But I would say that, you know, absolutely it's contrary to the--
Q: Well isn't is just -- he says here no sexual act -- he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality.
A: Oh, I see. Oh, yeah. I was concentrating on incest and bestiality.
Q: Well he says he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality. Does that statement concern you?
A: It does because there are, I would think -- that I would avert that there are sexual acts that do cause psychic damage.
Q: Including bestiality?
A: Yes.
Q: And incest?
A: Yes.
Q: And --
A: I would say that. That's just my observation. I am not a clinician, but that's what my observation --
Q: Just common sense, isn't it?
A: Yeah. Well I think that's -- that's my opinion, okay?
Q: Well it's in quotes. Do you see that in quotes about what Paul Shanley is alleged to have said?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: And do you -- if, in fact, Paul Shanley had said these things, would Paul Shanley in your view be in a position to be the pastor of a family parish at any Archdiocese church?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection. At this time?
Q: At this time, sir, yes. At any time.
A: Well certainly not at this time.
Q: At any time?
A: And unless he changed radically, he shouldn't be.
Q: You would agree with me that allegations such as these are extremely serious?
A: I would agree so.
Q: Have you ever received an allegation about a priest that's as serious as this one?
A: Well I can't recall. It's certainly possible.
Q: Can you think of anyone as you sit here right now?
A: You mean name? You want a name?
Q: Just one in your mind. Can you think of a situation where a priest is alleged to have said -- let's start with saying something. A priest is alleged to have said something as perverted as this woman from Rochester, New York, says Paul Shanley said at this presentation?
A: I can't think specifically of one, but I know they exist. You are asking me something very specific and I want to put it into a certain condition, make a concrete application. But having said that, I know that such things have existed.
Q: By priests?
A: By priests.
Q: Priests say things like this?
A: Well I hope they wouldn't. Maybe when they are drunk or something like that. But they would have to be out of their mind to say something like this.
Q: And if they weren't drunk or out of their minds -- even if they were drunk or out of their minds, you would want to investigate the matter further, would you not?
A: Yes, no question.
Q: Because you would not want someone like this to be in a parish ministry; is that correct?
A: Not in a priestly ministry to anybody.
Q: Priestly ministry to anybody?
A: To anybody, yeah. If you believe this and it --
Q: If he said it?
A: Teaching it or said it or whatever.
Q: Whether he believed it, he said it. Would that be enough to remove his priestly faculties, if he said such things?
A: Just the mere fact that he said it?
Q: Yes.
A: Under any conditions?
Q: Yes.
A: I would investigate the conditions, how he said it, when he said it, to whom he said it. I would get the information and if, in fact, it represented what it represents in him and in his future, yes.
Q: I asked you if he said these things.
A: The words? Yeah, I would withdraw him. If I was the ordinary I would withdraw him and investigate the matter.
Q: Would you consider him to be someone who might be a threat to children having said these things about --
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I have to stop for a second. (Discussion off the record.)
MR. W. ROGERS: Why don't we take a 3:00 break now.
MR. McLEISH: Sure, sure.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 3:00. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the video record at 3:17 p.m.
Q: I think there was a pending question. Let me withdraw it, though. If you look at Exhibit 50, bishop, you will see this is again something from Mrs. Sweeney. You will recall she was the woman who had sent in Mrs. Delores Stevens' report. And you will see in Exhibit 50, you will see the statement in the last paragraph, "Mr. Dash, I feel, confirmed the accuracy of Mrs. Stevens' report to me." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And you see up above in the first paragraph that Mr. Dash was apparently a reporter for the Courier Journal; do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: And again these were obtained from the files of the archdiocese. So again I think the pending question at the time that you left, which I will come back to now, if these reports were true, would you have a concern that Paul Shanley could be involved in deviant behavior with children himself?
A: It's hard to say. First of all, I didn't investigate any of the reports.
Q: Right. You'd want to talk to Mrs. Stevens; is that correct?
A: Perhaps. Or more particularly the priests that are involved or the Diocese.
Q: The priests at the Diocese?
A: Or even -- maybe the bishop or his representative. Probably his chancellor or one of those people who would want to investigate, it seems to me.
Q: If they were, in fact, present?
A: Well, yeah. Well you can get their advice as to how legitimate it is.
Q: But certainly you would also want to talk to individuals who had -- who were present, physically present, when these alleged statements were made; is that correct?
A: That I would talk to them? No.
Q: Or someone.
A: Not necessarily.
Q: Someone?
A: I would ask somebody presumably. I would work through officials at the Diocese.
Q: The Diocese out in Rochester?
A: Yes.
Q: Now and you are aware at this time that Father Shanley is the, I think he was called the minister to alienated youth was one of his titles. Do you recall that?
A: Only yesterday and today, yes.
Q: Okay.
A: I had forgotten what his titles were.
Q: But you knew he was dealing with young people; is that correct?
A: Yes, yes. Street, what do they call them? Street, street children. Something like that.
Q: And you knew -- you still continued to believe by 1977 that he was a troubled priest; is that correct?
A: Well, yes. Trouble. You keep using that term. For me it's -- well how do you define trouble?
Q: I think you defined it earlier and I am going to go with your definition.
A: All right.
Q: I would like to show you Exhibit number 1. I know we are going a little out of order. We will be back on track soon.
A: Okay.
Q: Do you recognize this as a letter that you sent to Mrs. Jean Sweeney, this woman from Rochester, New York, who had taken the time to write to the cardinal?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: And this is your letter, is it not?
A: Yes, I -- yes.
Q: And you see handwriting at the top, it says file?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that your handwriting?
A: Yes. It may -- well I don't know. Could be Judy Devas (phonetic). She wrote big like that.
Q: Was she your secretary?
A: Yes.
Q: So this might have gone in Paul Shanley's file, is that what that word suggests, file?
A: Or a copy of it, yes.
Q: And it says at the bottom, return to TVD for -- for what?
A: For his eminence.
Q: For his eminence?
A: Yeah.
Q: Would you say that Mrs. Sweeney is -- you say your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office. That would mean your office, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: It concerns, as you know, a presentation made by Father Paul Shanley, a priest with the Archdiocese of Boston, September 23, 1997, at St. Luke's Episcopal Church, Rochester, New York.
A: Yes.
Q: It continues, "I am grateful to you for your letter and for the information which is enclosed. The position of the Archdiocese of Boston is that while Father Shanley enjoys the faculties of the Archdiocese of Boston, he alone must be held responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality. With the sincere hope that the above is helpful to you, I am in Christ, Most Reverend Thomas B. Daily, Auxiliary Bishop of Boston, Chancellor." Do you see?
A: I do.
Q: You did not undertake any type of inquiry in response to the allegations of Mrs. Sweeney that, and Ms. Stevens, that Paul Shanley had spoken of pedophilia stating that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer, and that he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest of bestiality. You didn't do anything to investigate the accuracy of that, Bishop Daily, did you?
A: Oh, I beg your pardon. I sent the material and consulted with the cardinal. You have it right here.
Q: Well it says right here, it says in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney, it says, "Your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office." Do you see that? It was referred to you. There is no indication in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney that you had spoken to Cardinal Medeiros about this.
A: But the thing is, if I may say so, again the note at the bottom says return to me for his eminence. In other words, the letter came to the cardinal in his house. It was referred to me. I responded and told the secretary to give it back to me so that I could tell the cardinal what had been done.
Q: Do you have a clear recollection of your conversation with the cardinal about this letter, Bishop Daily?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Is there any indication that you have from any of the documents or anything else that you have that you undertook any investigation to see whether Paul Shanley's remarks about pedophilia, kids being at fault when they are seduced by adults and no sexual act causing psychic injury, did you do anything that you can recall as you sit here today to investigate the accuracy of those remarks?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
MR. McLEISH: It's noted.
A: No, the question is, I think, to get back to the process, I told the cardinal. That doesn't preclude my conversation with the cardinal, nor his action that he might have taken with other people in investigating the process. Or even with Paul Shanley, or even with the bishop of Rochester. I don't know that. But that' -- that's private information and that's -- and that would not be in the -- very well might not be in writing.
Q: Well, Bishop Daily, it's true that you can't identify as you sit here today one thing that you, Cardinal Medeiros or anyone did in the Archdiocese of Boston to investigate the allegations that were being made by Mrs. Stevens? You can't identify one thing that was done to investigate whether Paul Shanley said these things?
A: Let me just say this. I did -- I identified the note on the bottom to give it to his eminence, the Cardinal Medeiros.
Q: That's fine.
A: To take that -- to do that investigation.
Q: You don't know whether that was done, do you?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Now you had been assigned --
A: Even if I did, I am not sure I would say so. But I do not know.
Q: Well, okay, since you don't know, we don't have to get into that issue.
A: Okay.
Q: But on other issues such as some of the earlier ones we saw when you were meeting with Paul Shanley in the chancery, you were having discussions with Paul Shanley about certain issues? Do you recall some of the letters that we went over?
A: Generally speaking, yes.
Q: So you can't even state whether you invited Paul Shanley into the chancery to discuss this letter, can you?
A: This -- which letter, this letter?
Q: The allegation that's set forth in Mrs. Stevens' letter that Paul Shanley was making remarks about children having sex with adults, pedophilia, incest and bestiality.
A: But I also say that doesn't preclude the possibility that the cardinal invited Shanley.
Q: I am not asking about possibilities. I am asking only what you know.
A: Okay.
Q: You had been assigned on previous occasions to deal with Paul Shanley; is that correct?
A: On specific occasions.
Q: In fact, I think, and we are going to get to it tomorrow, that there was a delegation to you in certain areas to deal with Paul Shanley so that the cardinal would be protected in the event that there was an appeal or arbitration. Do you recall anything like that?
A: That was today. There was something in that letter today.
Q: Yes. So you were the person who was dealing with Paul Shanley on many of these issues to protect the cardinal in the event --
A: Oh, no.
Q: I am sorry. To protect the cardinal in the event of appeal or arbitration?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.
A: That was advise given to me by Father Hughes, as I recall. That doesn't necessarily mean that I actually followed through on it. That was advice that, you know --
Q: I remember that.
A: Because -- excuse me. Let me just finish. That because of our open relationship -- the open relationship that I had with the cardinal, I was -- I was not of a mind, generally speaking, as policy, to hide anything from the cardinal.
Q: Bishop Daily --
A: Or to protect him in that sense.
Q: By the time Mrs. Stevens writes in this letter about bestiality, incest and pedophilia, you had met with Paul Shanley about some of the issues that we've discussed here today in your deposition? You met with him personally; is that correct?
A: Well I would like to hear you cite them.
Q: I don't want to go over it all again. There has been several letters. We went through them about an hour ago.
A: Well just give me a few of them. Just give me a couple of numbers.
Q: I would be happy to do that when we -- we can do that, if it's acceptable to you, tomorrow morning. We have already been through that, that you had met with -- there are letters at least indicating that you met with Paul Shanley. So what I am asking you is, is looking back on it now, do you think when you had an allegation that a priest was saying these heinous, deviant, perverted things that you did enough personally, second in command of the Archdiocese of Boston, to investigation whether these allegations were true or untrue?
MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object to the form of the question. And you are doing more and more of this and making a small speech, then coming in at the end with a question. And your reference to the fact that this correspondence regarding meetings, if the bishop asked you to put something in front of him, my recollection is there were letters scheduling meetings.
MR. McLEISH: Right.
MR. W. ROGERS: I don't recall we've gone through, and subject to correction, any correspondence that documents there was a meeting.
MR. McLEISH: All right, fine.
MR. W. ROGERS: And I think it's unfair to make a speech and then put a question.
MR. McLEISH: I am not making any -- I am asking a question.
MR. W. ROGERS: Well --
Q: Bishop Daily, you have Mrs. Stevens, you know, Delores Stevens, the woman out in Rochester, New York, writing in saying that Paul Shanley is talking about pedophilia, that it's the child's fault when a sex act occurs, that no sexual act causes -- he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality, and that celibacy is impossible. And my simple question to you is looking at this letter, and again we only have the records of the archdiocese that don't reflect anything about Paul Shanley being removed from any ministry. I am just asking you whether you believe that you personally did enough in response to Mrs. Stevens' allegation. That's my question.
MR. W. ROGERS: All right. Well I object to the form of that question. You indicate that Delores Stevens wrote in. She didn't write in. She wrote to Jean Sweeney. And so I think it is misleading and doesn't accurately reflect the documents you put in front of the bishop.
Q: Do you understand the question? Mrs. Stevens' letter was enclosed with Mrs. Sweeney's letter. It makes reference to it. You had a letter in your files that came to your attention from Mrs. Stevens that made all these allegations about Paul Shanley, about pedophilia, children being at fault when they have sex relation -- sexual relations with adults, the kid is the seducer and then Paul Shanley stating he can allegedly think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality. Do you see that? Do you see that, bishop?
A: Yes.
Q: You are already dealing with a priest that you considered to be troubled and in need of help and now this letter comes.
A: That was my opinion. But I think -- it seems to me, with all due respect, sir, that you refuse to accept the fact that this information was handed directly to his eminence.
Q: I accept the fact that it was handed to his eminence, but you were the second in command. And all that I am doing is asking you questions about what you did.
MR. W. ROGERS: All right. Ask a question, please.
MR. McLEISH: I am asking a question.
MR. W. ROGERS: What's the question?
Q: Looking back on it as the person who dealt with Paul Shanley before, do you think that you personally did enough to investigate the allegations set forth in Mrs. Sweeney's letter that include -- included Mrs. Stevens' allegations on pedophilia, incest, bestiality and all these other things? Did you do enough looking back on it right now to investigate?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form.
A: The one who would make that judgment because -- I am sorry.
MR. W. ROGERS: Go ahead.
A: The one who would make that judgement would be his eminence. And he is not around. In other words, he had the information. He would have told me what to do. He would have told me to make the investigation or he would investigate himself. So the question as to whether who did what enough refers to all of us, refers to his eminence all the way down.
Q: Well it says --
A: And you can make that judgment.
Q: It says right here in Exhibit number, I think it's number 51, it says that Mrs. Sweeney's letter to his eminence has been referred to this office. That would mean you, Bishop Daily.
A: Would refer to this office. Okay.
Q: So it had been referred back from Cardinal Medeiros to your office. And you write to Mrs. Sweeney and you talk to homosexuality. You see that? He alone must be responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: But that's not what Mrs. Sweeney was exclusively writing about. She is writing about things other than homosexuality. Do you agree with me?
A: She is writing --
MR. W. ROGERS: Insofar as what, that entire time or --
Q: Let's go through it again.
A: Could I refer to the letter of November the 17th?
Q: Let's just get through my questions and then you can go back to that. Okay?
A: Okay.
Q: Your counsel brought up a question of whether it was just homosexuality. Let me read it again. It's Exhibit number 42. "He stated celibacy is impossible, therefore the only alternative is for gays to have sex with different persons whenever they want to." Does that concern homosexuality? I guess it does, right?
MR. W. ROGERS: Well I --
Q: Does it?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.
Q: Well okay. Let's go on to the next --
MR. W. ROGERS: You asked and answered it and then asked if he agreed.
MR. McLEISH: Well I agreed with you, Mr. Rogers.
MR. W. ROGERS: All right.
Q: "He spoke of pedophilia, which is a non-coerced sexual manipulation of sex organs including oral genital sex between an adult and child. He stated that the adult is not the seducer, the kid is the seducer. And, further, the kid is not traumatized by the act, per se. The kid is traumatized when the police and authorities drag the kid in for questioning." Does that concern homosexuality, Bishop Daily?
A: It concerns an activity that I certainly wouldn't approve of.
Q: That's not my question. Does it concern homosexual behavior?
A: It concerns pedophilia.
Q: Does it concern homosexual behavior?
A: Pedophilia is different than homosexuality.
Q: So it does not concern homosexuality, correct?
A: Technically speaking, no. Pedophilia is an abuse by itself. Now she uses it, she uses in 977 when the old question of pedophilia in definition was being developed.
Q: My question was -- my question was, you just said it, pedophilia was not -- is not different from homosexuality; is that correct?
A: No, no, no, no. It's in the same family.
Q: It's in the same family?
A: It is different. It is different. I think that -- I am saying that subject to correction. But, but pedophilia is something very specific.
Q: But it's in the homosexual family?
A: But you might say it's in the general family, that's true. That's my understanding, though. I am not an expert. Okay?
Q: Then he says, "He stated that he can think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality." What's incest?
A: Well you know what incest is.
Q: Well I am asking, do you know what incest is?
A: Sure.
Q: It's sex between members of the same family, first degree of kinship?
A: Sure, yeah. Fathers, children and so forth.
Q: That doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality, does it?
A: True, okay.
Q: Now bestiality?
A: This is a different sex.
Q: Different section?
A: I beg your pardon?
Q: I am talking about --
A: It has a definition of its own. Definition of its own.
Q: Bestiality is sex between men and animals?
A: Yes.
Q: Not in the homosexual family?
A: No.
Q: So you write back and you said in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney, you said, "He alone must be held responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality," yet you acknowledge that Mrs. Sweeney, containing Mrs. Stevens' letter, was making allegations separate and apart from homosexuality; is that correct?
A: Yes, that's true. And obviously I was mistaken.
Q: You were mistaken?
A: Because I wasn't perhaps up on to the whole question of pedophilia and the development had taken place in pedophilia and the treatment thereof. So I saw it, mistakingly so, as in the -- not only the family but something -- well in the family of homosexuality.
Q: And what about incest and bestiality, is that in the family of homosexuality?
A: No, it isn't.
Q: Was it ever in your mind?
A: No, of course not.
Q: So my question is is that you say, "He alone must be held responsible for any statements regarding homosexuality." And the truth is, is that that wasn't what Mrs. Stevens had written about exclusively in her letter, correct?
A: I refer you to the sentence. It stated that he could think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage, not even incest or bestiality. That doesn't mean that incest and bestiality is included in the family of homosexuality.
Q: I understand that.
A: But notice he is saying that. He is talking about psychic damage.
Q: Bishop, a letter had come in containing perverted, allegedly perverted statements.
A: Yes.
Q: My question is you just write back and say Father Shanley has to be held accountable for his statements about homosexuality, okay?
A: Sure.
Q: And it was referred, as your letter references, it was referred by Cardinal Medeiros to your office, meaning you; do you see that?
A: For a response.
Q: Well it doesn't say that. It just says --
A: Well it's --
Q: Referred to this office.
A: And I sent it back to him to let him know what I had said.
Q: Okay. And so my question is, looking back on it now, if it had been referred to your office, did you do enough to verify the allegations perverted -- of perverted, deviant statements made by Paul Shanley? Did you do enough, Bishop Daily?
A: Well --
MR. W. ROGERS: Wait a minute. I want to object. That's an argumentative question. And enough for what purpose? I don't understand.
A: Is it a question -- are you making a statement with the question?
Q: I am asking you, in your opinion, did you do enough to investigate the accuracy of the statements that were allegedly made by Paul Shanley.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. O'NEILL: You don't have to form -- let me instruct you, bishop. You don't have to form opinions for Mr. McLeish's benefit. He is asking you now to form an opinion as to what you were doing and what you did, whether in your opinion now in 2002 what you did in terms of these letters was enough back in whatever the year was. You don't have to form such opinions. You can if you want.
MR. McLEISH: He is not being asked as an expert.
Q: You were in charge --
MR. W. ROGERS: Did you strike that question?
MR. McLEISH: I don't know whether he is instructing him not to answer or not.
Q: Go ahead and answer the question, bishop. Go ahead and answer the question. Did you do enough?
A: No, I will follow the counsel's advice.
MR. McLEISH: Well are you instructing him not to answer that question, Mr. O'Neill?
MR. O'NEILL: No, I am not.
Q: You can answer that question, bishop.
MR. W. ROGERS: If you don't have an opinion, you don't have an opinion.
A: I don't have an opinion.
Q: You don't have an opinion whether you did enough or not?
A: No.
Q: And again how many children are being served by the Diocese in 1977, bishop?
A: How many children?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: What -- figures are figures. All you have to do is look at them directly. I don't know exactly, no
Q: Tens of thousands?
A: Well there are plenty of them.
Q: Can you think of any one thing that you did to put any restrictions on Paul Shanley's ministry after you got this letter from Mrs. Sweeney?
A: Only to inform his eminence.
MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object to the form of the question.
MR. McLEISH: Objection noted.
MR. W. ROGERS: There is no testimony that he had the ability to put a restriction on it.
MR. McLEISH: That's not an objection to form.
MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object to the form of the question.
Q: Let me ask that question. You could have made recommendations to put restrictions on Paul Shanley's ministry; is that correct?
A: What I did was I gave the information to the cardinal so he could put the restrictions. Or do what he wanted to do and make decisions, make conclusions and judgements about what he should do with Shanley. He could have inquired with me, also.
Q: Bishop Daily, as the number two person in the Archdiocese of Boston, you would have occasion to speak with Cardinal Medeiros who had a lot on his plate about clergy personnel problems from time to time; is that correct?
A: Well not necessarily, but from time to time we had things to talk about about personnel. I think he spoke more with the personnel directors than he spoke with me.
Q: This matter came back to you for response to Mrs. Sweeney and you responded; is that correct?
A: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Q: You see that?
A: Yes.
Q: So my question is, is there anything that would have prevented you from speaking with Cardinal Medeiros, the clergy personnel board, the director of ministry of personnel about the possibility of putting some restrictions on Paul Shanley in light of the allegations that were made in Exhibit number 42?
A: There would be no restriction on me in saying anything to Cardinal Medeiros or really saying anything to anybody as advice or counsel.
Q: But you can't recall doing anything, can you?
A: I could not do anything without the authority of the archbishop.
Q: You could talk to the archbishop?
A: I could certainly talk to the archbishop.
Q: But you can't recall --
A: That's not to say I didn't talk to the archbishop.
Q: Or that you did, correct?
A: Right.
Q: You just don't remember?
A: Okay.
Q: Okay, this is number 46. Again I apologize for being out of order. Take a look at that if you would, please.
MR. W. ROGERS: This is new? We have not had this?
THE WITNESS: Do you want this?
MR. W. ROGERS: Do you have copies of this?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, you are getting copies.
A: Okay, question?
Q: So this is a letter from a Joseph Eltidge, as you see, to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, in which he says in the first paragraph -- last paragraph on the first page, "Needless to say, his talk was the occasion of scandal." Do you see that?
A: Okay.
Q: First page, last paragraph.
A: Oh, yes.
Q: "Needless to say, his talk was the occasion of scandal." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Then on the third page there is a memorandum to you from Father Helmick. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: And is that your handwriting on the bottom right-hand corner?
A: Yes.
Q: And what does it say?
A: "Have a talk with Father Paul Shanley."
Q: "Cardinal, have a talk with Father Paul Shanley"?
A: Yes.
Q: And then it says in this memorandum that's sent to you from Father Helmick, middle paragraph, "Attached, also, is a letter the cardinal received from Mr. Eltidge dated December 22nd. This most recent letter has not been acknowledged at the cardinal's residence because of its mention of Father Shanley." Do you see that?
A: Yeah.
Q: So is it not the case, Bishop Daily, that there was, in fact, a policy that when letters came in to the cardinal's residence that mentioned Paul Shanley, they were not to be acknowledged?
A: No, they were to be handed on to me. That's why he sent it over to me.
Q: Okay.
A: And I made a note to have a talk with Cardinal Medeiros.
Q: Well the letter is coming in -- it makes specific reference to Father Shanley. Was there a standing policy with respect, in 1977, of letters that were coming in with respect to Father Shanley that those were not to be acknowledged at the cardinal's residence?
A: No way.
Q: Why does it say because of --
A: Not that I know of. I don't know that. The letter was sent to me.
Q: From Father Helmick, correct?
A: Yes, but as chancellor and vicar general, sure.
Q: So we would have to rely on why Father Helmick put that statement in there; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to form.
A: Because Father Helmick obviously felt that I would be the one to be talking to the cardinal about it.
Q: Well it says --
A: He is the secretary.
Q: I don't want to belabor the point but it says --
A: No, but I think it's good to listen. Excuse me.
Q: That's fine. All right, next --
A: Can I say something else?
Q: Yes, sure. Absolutely.
A: If you turn to the next page and there is a note at the top that I wrote that says reported to the cardinal January 31 --
Q: Yes.
A: So the talk did take place.
Q: Well that was the talk about Mr. Eltidge's letter; is that correct?
A: Certainly.
Q: The letter that we just reviewed where you wrote back to Mrs. Sweeney didn't make any mention of the fact that you had spoken to the cardinal, correct?
A: No, this all has to do -- this all has in the same package and the same clipping has to do with Mr. Eltidge's letter.
Q: No, Mr. Eltidge makes different allegations. He doesn't talk about incest, bestiality or pedophilia.
A: Okay, be that as it may, I had a talk with Cardinal Medeiros.
Q: Yes, I understand that.
A: Concerning the contents of Mr. Eltidge's letter.
Q: And you say that, correct?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: But if you take a look at your letter back to Mrs. Sweeney, okay, you didn't say that you had spoken to the cardinal about it. What you said was that the matter had been referred to you, correct?
A: Give me that again. Well how does it say that it was referred to me?
Q: Let's read it. Do you have the letter that you sent back to Mrs. Sweeney? Why don't you just read? Here, I have it for you. Why don't you just read --
A: I have it here. September '72?
Q: Read the first paragraph.
A: Your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office. It concerns, as you know, a presentation --
Q: You have to slow down, bishop.
A: Okay, I am sorry. I beg your pardon. So go back to the beginning?
Q: Yes.
A: Okay. "Dear Mrs. Sweeney: Your letter to his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, has been referred to this office. It concerns, as you know, a presentation made by Father Paul Shanley, a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, September 23, 1977, at St. Luke's Episcopal Church of Rochester, New York.
Q: That's fine. Or you can read the whole thing, if you want to, but my question --
A: That's okay.
Q: My question is in your letter to Mr. Eltidge, you indicate that his eminence is deeply grateful to you, meaning Mr. Eltidge, for your continued interest and candid expression. Do you see that?
A: I have to read that again. I am sorry.
Q: My only point, Bishop Daily, is that there is nowhere in your letter to Mrs. Sweeney to indicate that you'd even spoken personally to Cardinal Medeiros about the allegations that she was making, correct?
A: That's -- there is nowhere in this letter. That's not necessarily that that conversation didn't take place. Because I point out to you, if I may, that from December there was a gap between Mrs. -- her letter of October 25 and December 2. And there is no -- and I used to see the cardinal three times a week at least.
Q: Bishop Daily --
A: There is no reason why -- there is no reason why that wasn't brought up.
Q: We are not talking about conjecture or speculation. We are talking about facts. You don't know whether you ever talked to Cardinal Medeiros about Mrs. Sweeney's letter?
A: Let me just say this.
Q: No. You don't know either way?
A: There is no letter, there is nothing to prove that.
Q: Either way?
A: That's my conjecture. The possibility exists that I did because I was -- given the track record, given the fact that I was open with his eminence on all things, the real possibility that I did speak to him about Mrs. Sweeney's letter certainly exists.
Q: The possibility is that you did not?
A: Yes. Well let me just say this. I go back to December the 2nd on the bottom of the page, it says return to TVD for his eminence.
Q: The letter is returned TVD?
A: Yes.
Q: The letter is returned. I am asking --
A: For his eminence.
Q: The question is can you state outside of conjecture whether you ever spoke with Cardinal Medeiros about Mrs. Sweeney's letter?
A: I have no tape of the conversation. I have no notes that I did. No, it's true. But I point to the evidence again that the real possibility that had taken place, the foundation for a conjecture that it had taken place is right at the bottom of the page.
Q: The letter was to be returned to TVD for HK, correct?
A: For HE, yeah.
Q: For his eminence. The letter. Not to suggest that you had a talk?
A: Okay, all right.
Q: Next document --
A: But the second paragraph says, "I am grateful to you for your letter and for the information which is enclosed."
Q: My question is whether your statement that you think it's a real possibility you spoke with Cardinal Medeiros --
A: Yeah.
Q: The plain fact is that you just don't know?
A: Let me just say this. Let me say this. Based on my relationship with him, based on my -- okay, my relationship with him and the openness we had, it would have been very, very possible, more possible than other circumstances, that I did mention it to him because nothing was held back.
Q: And nothing was done to Father Shanley?
A: At that time --
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection. By who?
Q: By anyone in the Archdiocese of Boston except that he was allowed to remain as a priest in good standing with the full faculties of the Archdiocese.
A: If that was the case -- you know, I have no record of the cardinal removed his faculties.
Q: Ever?
A: He removed him from his positions but he didn't remove him --
Q: That's right. And we are going to get to that right now.
A: All right.
Q: Father Shanley's -- this is Exhibit 47. This is Exhibit 47.
A: Yes.
Q: Which is a letter from the Sacra Congregatio Pro Doctrina Treaty (phonetic)? Do you see that? Am I pronouncing that?
A: No. Sacra Congregatio Pro Doctrina Treaty. It's the sacred congregation for the doctrine of faith.
Q: It's in the Vatican; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Doctrine of the faith?
A: Yes.
Q: You don't often get letters in the doctrine of the faith about priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, do you?
MR. W. ROGERS: This wasn't to Bishop Daily.
MR. McLEISH: No, it was not.
MR. W. ROGERS: You say you do not often.
Q: As someone who had an open relationship with the cardinal, I am just asking whether letters such as this one were typical in your experience about individual priests.
A: They would be the kind of letter we would send if a priest was not acting properly or teaching doctrine that wasn't appropriate.
Q: So by 1978 Father Paul Shanley is a priest that is not acting properly in the sense that he is not following church doctrine?
A: Yes.
Q: He is troubled. Does he still need help in your opinion?
A: He --
Q: Did he still need help in 1978?
A: He certainly -- he needs a lot of help.
Q: Okay. Did he get that help?
A: Yes, I think he did.
Q: By being transferred over to a family parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
A: No, I --
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question. That's an argumentative question.
Q: How did he get help?
A: He saw the cardinal.
Q: Did he ever see a doctor, psychiatrist?
A: No, I think he saw the cardinal. He saw the cardinal.
Q: I see.
A: Okay?
Q: All right. Did you assist in responding to the response of this, of this -- to this letter from the -- do we call it doctrine of the faith? Is that the best way?
A: Did I assist in the what, the response to the doctrine of the faith?
Q: Yes. Did you assist in the response to that?
A: No. That's the one this the cardinal wrote to the doctrine of the faith?
Q: Yes.
A: Long letter?
Q: Yes.
A: No, I did not.
Q: Have you ever seen that letter?
A: I have seen it but I haven't had a chance to study it recently. That is within the last couple of days.
Q: Let's circulate it.
A: I am surprised you have that, by the way. But that's beside the point.
Q: Why are you surprised that I have that?
A: Because that's very privileged communication.
Q: Well I got it.
A: You got it.
Q: Exhibit 41.
MR. W. ROGERS: No, it's not Exhibit 41. What, we got two 41s?
MR. McLEISH: Let's put another number. Let's stick another number on it. That's my fault.
Q: It's Exhibit number 52 now, okay? You have seen this before today, have you not?
MR. W. ROGERS: He just said he has but he hasn't reviewed it.
A: It's on the record.
Q: When did you last see it?
A: I think it was yesterday, day before.
Q: I would like to refer you to page seven, if I could, please.
A: Okay.
Q: It says at the bottom of page seven, "I believe that Father Shanley is a troubled priest and I have tried to be understanding and patient with him while continually affirming both privately to him and publicly to my people that church teachings on sexual ethics." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: So would it be fair to state that Cardinal Medeiros, as of February of 1979, shared your view that Father Shanley remained a troubled priest?
A: This is the date of February 12, 1979?
Q: Yes.
A: It's a statement of the cardinal and it's -- he says I believe that Father Shanley is a troubled priest. So, yeah.
Q: And you believed that, too, as of February 979, correct?
A: I would have to say yes. I agree with the cardinal.
Q: The next exhibit, please, which is going to be number 48. Have you ever seen this letter before today?
A: No. I can't recall ever having seen this letter. This was written by the cardinal?
Q: I don't know. We don't know who it was written by.
A: It says at the end, "The Cardinal to put an appropriate" -- no, I don't know.
Q: Did you write this letter?
A: No.
Q: It says, "Cardinal to put an appropriate ending."
A: Yeah, someone else wrote it. But who, I do not know. It says in the front, "Confidential rough."
Q: Right.
A: I don't know what that is.
Q: Well I would like to refer you to one section of it, if I could, please.
A: Sure.
Q: This is on page five of this draft letter. We don't have -- I can tell you, we don't have a final version. We don't even know whether one was given. We don't have a final copy.
A: Excuse me, a final version of?
Q: Of this letter.
A: This letter here?
Q: Yeah, we don't have a final version. It was not produced to us at least.
A: Okay.
Q: Paragraph five. "I reject completely your accusation" -- paragraph six. "I reject completely your accusation that I am inflicting punishment on homosexuals and their families. In fact, as I continue to lead us in this work, that is the worst damage I could inflict on them in the long run."
A: I think he said, "As I continue to lead you."
Q: Yes, exactly.
A: In this work. Okay.
Q: Next sentence that I wanted to key on. "I shall pass over an amazed but laughable silence the threat you invoke against me concerning further public pronouncements, this time about our seminary. I urge and direct you to take a parish assignment, as many of our priests do in this time of such great need, where you will be out of the limelight and involved in the ordinary, everyday work of a priest, work seen only by a few, unnoticed by the media, but dear to the heart of Christ." Do you see that?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Do you think that it was appropriate, given the troubles of Paul Shanley, that he would be assigned to a parish without any types of restrictions imposed upon him?
MR. W. ROGERS: At what point?
MR. McLEISH: Right now, February of '79.
A: Well are you sure there weren't any restrictions?
Q: I am asking you whether there -- are restrictions a possibility that -- a priest can be assigned to a parish with restrictions; is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether any restrictions were placed on Paul Shanley in terms of his access to minors when he was sent to St. James parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
A: Well now you are specifying something.
Q: I am just asking if you are aware of any.
A: Well in the beginning you asked about restrictions in general, general restrictions. I would submit that it is -- it's a matter of assignment there were restrictions. But not regarding, you know, the --
Q: Access to minors?
A: Access to minors. I don't -- I have to review the letters, but I don't recall seeing anything like that.
Q: Well you will see here about his -- concerning further public pronouncements, this time about our seminary. Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether Paul Shanley was blackmailing anyone in the archdiocese?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Did you ever hear anyone say that?
A: No.
Q: Do you have any idea what this reference is to about public pronouncement Paul Shanley was making about our seminary?
A: No, I do not.
Q: Did you consider this troubled priest in need of help as someone who could be properly sent, in 1979, to a parish in Newton, Massachusetts?
A: Let me say this. The -- well, that was a decision that was made by the cardinal.
Q: I am asking you your opinion.
A: You are asking my opinion? I am not going to give my opinion.
Q: Did you consider him to be appropriate to be sent?
MR. W. ROGERS: At what point?
MR. McLEISH: Okay, let's change the tape. Let me just finish this up and maybe we'll -- since we took a twenty-minute break, we will be done by ten after. I just want to finish this line.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 3:58 p.m.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 4:04 p.m.
MR. O'NEILL: What are we looking at?
Q: We are looking at the rough draft letter, bishop. Bishop, by February of 1979 you, I take it, had not changed your opinion that Paul Shanley was a troubled priest and in need of help; is that correct?
A: I would have to say yes.
Q: You had changed your opinion?
A: No, no, no, no. I just have a problem with troubled. What does it mean by troubled? I think he needed some help.
Q: He needed some help?
A: Yeah.
Q: Possibly mental health treatment?
A: Psychological help perhaps more.
Q: And you don't have any evidence sitting here today that he got it, do you?
A: No, I have no evidence.
Q: And given that he needed some psychological help and given the fact that you had seen the Delores Stevens' letter, did you consider it that Paul Shanley was in proper psychological condition to be assigned to St. James church in Newton, Massachusetts?
A: That would be a determination made by the cardinal. He obviously made it and assigned him. If I could get back to the other question, that's not to say because I didn't have any involvement in the psychological assistance for him, that doesn't mean necessarily he didn't get it or didn't seek it. Also, his -- let's leave it that way.
Q: You don't have any evidence that he sought it and or got it, do you?
A: No.
Q: You don't have any evidence that the Archdiocese required him to get it as a condition of going to St. James parish, do you?
A: No, no. As far as his assistance in getting psychological help, if he did get it, he could have received it privately. Or if he billed -- if he got bills for it, he could have billed the archdiocese and there would be records of that.
Q: But you don't have any evidence of that occurring?
A: I have no evidence of that.
Q: And you are also aware that the archdiocese, I think you testified earlier, could have insisted that he get psychological help, correct?
A: Yes, that's a possibility. I think that the archdiocese would have followed through and helped him get it.
Q: But that could have been required by the archdiocese as a condition for him retaining his priestly faculties; is that correct?
A: Well -- oh, I see, it's a condition for keeping his -- the Archdiocese could have done that. Not necessarily would have done it, but it could have done it.
Q: But you don't have any evidence that that occurred?
A: I have no evidence in front of me now or available to me right at the moment.
Q: And you certainly had been someone, as a close advisor, the number two man in the archdiocese, that would make recommendations to Cardinal Medeiros about the assignment of priests, is that correct, from time to time?
A: Let me just say this. That who was not exclusive? There were other sources of advice that he received. He had four, five bishops. He had episcopal vicars. He had 13 of those. He had obviously the priest's council. He had other sources. Even his private mail and private contact with people all could have and surely did advise him on various subjects.
Q: My question, bishop, respectfully, is not whether there were other people, but just that by 979, you had from time to time given recommendations to the cardinal with respect to the assignment of priests; is that correct?
A: No, not necessarily.
Q: You never gave a recommendation?
A: I can't recall off -- I can't recall immediately, no.
Q: As the number two man you can't recall ever giving a recommendation about the assignment of a priest?
A: If I was asked, I gave it. That would happen -- that would not have happened regularly.
Q: But -- okay.
A: It would happen rarely. Maybe -- infrequently. Infrequently certainly.
Q: I think, as we have established today, by 979 you had some involvement with Paul Shanley; is that correct?
A: You mean paper --
Q: The papers make it pretty clear.
A: The letters say so, yeah.
Q: And you certainly would know what would make a good parish priest; is that correct? When I say parish priest, I am not referring to pastor but someone --
A: I understand that. A priest of the parish. Yeah, sure. Oh, I would hope so, yeah, from my own experience.
Q: And did you believe or in light of what you had in front of you at the time, the letter from Mrs. Sweeney, your views that you have expressed here today as Father Shanley as someone in need of psychological help, did you believe that he was someone who was appropriate for a parish assignment in 1979?
MR. W. ROGERS: Well I object. You are asking for an opinion. If he has one. You know, did you have an opinion? Are you asking whether he has an opinion today?
Q: Did have you an opinion back then with all of your involvement with Paul Shanley as to whether or not he was appropriate for a parish assignment?
A: Did I have an opinion?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: If I did, I didn't voice it. And I can't recall having an opinion. If I voiced it, it would have been to the cardinal but I can't recall voicing it to him because the cardinal made the -- made the appointment.
Q: So even --
A: Obviously he felt.
Q: Even though you have stated that you got -- that you recall the Stevens' letter, you considered Paul Shanley in need of psychological help, you stated earlier you considered him to be troubled, you voiced, you, Bishop Daily, as the number two man, voiced no objection to Paul Shanley's assignment to St. James parish; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. I think that's already been asked and answered. And I think --
MR. McLEISH: I don't think so.
MR. W. ROGERS: You asked him. He offered an opinion and he said he has no memory of doing it. So that's the same question.
Q: You voiced no objection, correct, Bishop Daily?
A: I agree with Paul. I will voice an objection.
Q: And was there any person at chancery who from the document -- that you recall and from the documents we have see here today in 1979 who knew more about Paul Shanley than you did?
MR. W. ROGERS: Was there?
MR. McLEISH: Yes.
MR. W. ROGERS: Okay.
A: From the documents?
Q: Yes.
A: Personality? Character?
Q: Yes, psychological problems.
A: That could be -- that could be discussed because -- especially among the bishops who would have known Paul Shanley because in seminary training formation, background.
Q: Okay.
A: And even in -- and even in his assignments. I don't know how long he was installed with Pat Sexton (phonetic), the monsignor there. So there were a lot of people who observed Father Paul Shanley much more than I did.
Q: From --
A: Well over the years. Over the years.
Q: Well I am talking about from 1975 on, was there anyone --
A: Oh, well that's a different story.
Q: From 1975 on, was there anyone at the chancery who had more involvement with Paul Shanley than you did as you can best recall?
A: No, I can't recall anybody who would have in the chancery building itself.
Q: Yes.
A: That's apart from now the personnel office and --
Q: Right, chancery.
A: Specifically chancery?
Q: Where you were.
A: Nobody had more than I, I would say.
Q: But you can't recall any objection?
A: Objection?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection meaning?
Q: Any objection when he was sent over to the parish attended by Mr. Ford and his wife.
MR. W. ROGERS: You mean an objection voiced by Bishop Daily?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, by Bishop Daily. No objection.
A: No, because once the cardinal had made his decision, I assumed and I felt that that was his right. He did it and I didn't object.
Q: But you --
A: He already made a decision and put it in writing.
Q: But you had an open relationship with the cardinal, you could talk to him about anything, right?
A: Sure.
MR. McLEISH: That concludes it for today, Bishop Daily. Thank you again for coming in today. We look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 4:11 p.m.
(Time noted: 4:11 p.m.)
For complete coverage of the priest abuse scandal, go to http://www.boston.com/globe/abuse
