THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
Deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law
January 22, 2003, Offices of Greenberg Traurig, Boston
On January 22, 2003, Cardinal Bernard F. Law was deposed by lawyers for alleged victims of clergy abuse in connection with civil lawsuits filed against the Archdiocese of Boston for its handling of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley. A second day of testimony in this deposition took place on February 3.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CA 02-04628-T1
(Consolidated with CA 02-1296)
(Originally entered in
Middlesex County as
No. 02-0822)
PAUL W. BUSA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, et al.,
Defendants.
THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL
BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the
Plaintiffs, taken pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil
Procedure, before Kathleen L. Good, (CSR
#112593), Registered Professional Reporter and
Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, at the offices of Greenberg
Traurig, One International Place, Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, on Wednesday, January 22,
2003, commencing at 10:08 a.m.
K. L. GOOD & ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 6094
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02209
TEL. (781) 598-6405
FAX (781) 598-0815
APPEARANCES:
Greenberg Traurig
(by Roderick MacLeish, Jr., Attorney, and
Jeffrey A. Newman, Attorney)
One International Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
The Rogers Law Firm, PC
(by Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., Attorney)
One Union Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attorneys for Defendants
Todd & Weld
(by Ian Crawford, Attorney)
28 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Attorneys for Cardinal Law Personally
ALSO PRESENT: George Libbares, Videographer
Rodney Ford
Wendy Champagne
Father John Connolly
Thomas F. Maffei, Attorney
Mr. and Mrs. Doe (p.m.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now recording and on the record. My name is George Libbares. I'm a certified legal video specialist for National Video Reporters, Incorporated. Our business address is 58 Batterymarch Street, Suite 243, Boston, Massachusetts 02110.
Today is January 22, 2003, and the time is 10:08 a.m. This is the deposition of Cardinal Bernard Law in the matter of Paul W. Busa, Plaintiff, versus Bernard Cardinal Law, et. al., Defendants, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior Court, Civil Action 02-04628-T1, consolidated with Civil Action 02-1296, originally entered in Middlesex County as Civil Action 02-0822.
This deposition is being taken at One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, on behalf of the Plaintiff.
The court reporter is Kathleen Good, with K. L. Good and Associates Court Reporting of Post Office Box 6094, Boston, Massachusetts 02209.
Counsel will now state their appearances and the court reporter will administer the oath.
MR. MacLEISH:: Counsel for the Plaintiff, Paul Busa, Roderick MacLeish, Jr.
Good morning, Cardinal.
THE WITNESS: Good morning.
MR. CRAWFORD: Ian Crawford on behalf of Cardinal Law.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson D. Rogers, Jr., on behalf of the Defendants.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, a witness called by the Plaintiff, having been duly sworn, on oath deposes and says as follows:
MR. MacLEISH: We're agreed that all objections except as to form and motions to strike are reserved until the time of trial.
Cardinal can have 30 days after he receives the deposition to review it, produce an errata sheet. And I think those are the stipulations in the other cases that we've had.
MR. CRAWFORD: That's correct.
MR. MacLEISH:: And also, we are --
THE WITNESS: Could I ask a question?
MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. Sure.
THE WITNESS: Do I understand that also to mean that until I reviewed it, there would be no comment about what goes on here?
MR. MacLEISH:: Certainly I will not make any comment about what goes on here. I have not done that.
THE WITNESS: Good. Thank you.
MR. MacLEISH:: There are ethical rules concerning that and that is something I think --
THE WITNESS: I just wanted to be sure.
MR. MacLEISH:: Certainly.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. MacLEISH:: I'm not going to comment about your deposition. There have been press conferences that your attorneys have been at after the depositions. If -- I don't know what their plan is. We're here today to take your deposition, Cardinal.
THE WITNESS: Fine. Thank you.
MR. MacLEISH:: Not in any way to make your life difficult.
Also, as I discussed with your son, certain portions -- the we're going to be proceeding today, Will, is by priests, and Mr. Newman will be doing some of the questioning on some of the priests. They will not be duplicative, but that's the way we proceeded in other cases and we will be doing it. I'll probably stop questioning the Cardinal sometime this afternoon and Mr. Newman will deal with other priests. Okay?
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH:
Q. All right. Cardinal, again, thank you for coming and taking time out of your schedule to be here.
Could you please tell me, first, where you reside at the present time.
A. Well, I, at the present time, can be contacted through the Archbishop of Boston's Office, presently the Office of the Apostolic Administrator, Bishop Lennon.
I have not settled yet and I am presently on retreat.
Q. Where are you on retreat?
A. I would prefer to maintain that privately. I'm at -- in a monastery.
Q. Sure. Can I -- there are several cases that are coming up for trial. Maybe we can deal with it this way because I want to respect your privacy.
MR. MacLEISH:: Do we have an agreement here that if the matter proceeds to trial in this case that the Cardinal will be produced as a witness and then I can just move on to the other issues? Otherwise I really have to know where he is so that we can take whatever steps are necessary to subpoena him.
MR. ROGERS: It is the intention of the Cardinal to participate in the defense of these cases, including testimony at trial if necessary.
MR. MacLEISH:: Well, intention, Will, is different from actually being there.
MR. CRAWFORD: Let me also say, Eric, that if in fact you feel the need to subpoena him, we will corporate with you in that process and make his address available to you for purposes of appearance at a trial.
I'm just concerned about his privacy and the fact that this record obviously is made public.
MR. MacLEISH:: Sure.
MR. CRAWFORD: I certainly would agree to disclose to you his whereabouts in enough time prior to trial if a subpoena process becomes necessary.
MR. MacLEISH:: Well, okay, that's fine, but if he's abroad, then there's a whole different process through the Hague Convention that has to be followed, as you know, that you know that takes sometimes months.
MR. CRAWFORD: I can certainly give you assurances he is not abroad at the present time and nor -- I think I can represent this -- nor is there any intention of his being abroad in the next few months. That's not where his current retreat is.
THE WITNESS: That's correct. Just as I am here today --
MR. MacLEISH:: Sure.
THE WITNESS: -- and as I am scheduled to be here in early February and will be here.
MR. MacLEISH:: Right.
THE WITNESS: Anything that is necessary for me to do in the pursuit of my responsibilities in regard to cases of this type, I will do.
MR. MacLEISH:: I think you've also stated when you left as Archbishop, Cardinal, that you would be available for participation in the ongoing civil litigation process.
Did you make such a statement?
THE WITNESS: That's correct. As I am today.
MR. MacLEISH:: As you are today. That's very true. I just want to make sure then that we're clear that there is no commitment at the present time. There is an intention, if we proceed, if we do not resolve these matters, there's an intention for the Cardinal to be present, but not a commitment, not an unqualified commitment?
MR. CRAWFORD: I think that's a correct statement, and that we will work with you with respect to his whereabouts if your need for a commitment or a location in order to subpoena him -- we will make that available to you.
MR. MacLEISH:: And if -- can we also have an agreement that we will be notified if the Cardinal, prior to the time that the Cardinal goes abroad, so -- if he intends to reside abroad -- so that we will have sufficient time to get a subpoena out to him to secure his presence at trial?
MR. CRAWFORD: So long as it's not -- based on what you've just said, yes, we will give you that commitment as well.
MR. MacLEISH:: Okay. Then I don't --
MR. CRAWFORD: If he's intending to go abroad for anything more than a brief sojourn or brief trip, we will, if he is not going to voluntarily come back for trial, we will let you know where he is.
MR. MacLEISH:: In enough time that I can secure a subpoena?
MR. CRAWFORD: Correct.
MR. MacLEISH:: With that stipulation, then I have no need to inquire as to --
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. MacLEISH:: -- your present whereabouts, Cardinal, and I wish you nothing but the best in what you're doing.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
Q. Cardinal Law, you may recall that in another case, the Ford case, we covered a number of different priests that, in the time period between 1984 and 1989, priests that had been brought to your attention and who had allegations of sexual abuse against them, priests like Father O'Sullivan, for example, that we covered in your last deposition.
Do you recall your testimony on that?
A. I recall that we had testimony on that, yes.
Q. I think that we covered a total of six priests who -- that you were personally involved in where there were allegations of sexual misconduct and received assignments.
Do you recall your testimony in that regard?
MR. CRAWFORD: I object to the form.
You may answer.
MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead.
A. I can't -- I couldn't give you the six names right now if you were to ask me.
Q. Right, okay.
A. But I'm sure that if the record shows that, that's what we did.
Q. Well, Father O'Sullivan was someone who received an assignment after he pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a child.
Do you recall that?
A. I recall that we discussed his case, yes.
Q. Father O'Sullivan actually gave testimony several days ago.
Do you recall actually having a meeting with Father O'Sullivan at your residence after charges had been brought against him by the District Attorney's Office in Middlesex County?
A. When would that have been?
Q. 1984.
A. I don't have specific recollection of a date and of a meeting, but I do have a general recollection of having met with him.
Q. Do you recall in any way the substance of what you discussed with Father O'Sullivan at that meeting?
A. I don't have a recall of the meeting, but I would presume that the issue of his -- of the allegation -- of his situation would have been discussed. I would presume.
MR. CRAWFORD: Let me, before the next question --
MR. MacLEISH:: Sure.
MR. CRAWFORD: It is not useful for Mr. MacLeish for you to presume --
THE WITNESS: Presume.
MR. CRAWFORD: -- answers. So you really should answer what you know.
A. What I should say is I don't have a specific recollection of a conversation in 1984.
MR. MacLEISH:: Well, I object, Ian, to what you just said to the Cardinal because it's clearly, in our view, something that is prohibited by the rules.
So I would ask, Cardinal, if you don't have a specific recollection but you have a general recollection, I may ask you what your best recollection is, and you're free to qualify it in any way that you want.
Q. But you, as I understand your testimony, you don't have a specific recollection. You have some recollection of having a meeting with Father O'Sullivan?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And at that meeting, Cardinal, was the issue of Father O'Sullivan's continued presence in the Archdiocese, as a priest of the Archdiocese discussed in any way, from what you can recall?
A. I cannot -- I have no -- I really have no specific recollection of that conversation so I would find it difficult to sit here and try to reconstruct something, given the state of my memory.
I could be helped in that, perhaps, but I can't be more specific.
Q. Sure. Let me see if I can do that.
You do remember that Father O'Sullivan received an assignment to the Diocese of Metuchen that you approved personally; is that correct?
A. I am aware of that from having had things put before me earlier --
Q. Right.
A. -- in depositions.
Q. Now, is it not the case that Father O'Sullivan was placed outside of the Archdiocese because his continued presence within the Archdiocese had the potential to cause scandal? Is that not the case, Cardinal Law?
A. You know, I would have to -- I would have to review the case. I would need to talk to people. Certainly, scandal would be an issue here, yes.
Q. When you say "scandal," we're talking about scandal to the Church; is that correct?
A. The issue of assignment in these cases, as I think we've gone over before, was an issue of assigning someone when there was reason to suspect that they would not be a threat to others by that assignment, by the nature of the assignment.
Obviously, if someone is going to start out fresh, it would be advantageous for that to be in a new place. But -- and so, you know, scandal is involved in the fact that if a person is known for having acted in a certain way, that knowledge could be detrimental to being effective in performing duties.
Q. Right. Well, so Father O'Sullivan was considered by you fit to serve in a parish in New Jersey, but was not fit to serve in a parish of the Archdiocese of Boston; is that not correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.
You can answer.
A. I don't believe that's what I said. If that's what I implied, it's not what I meant to imply.
Q. Okay.
A. An assignment of a priest, of any priest, and an assignment of a priest against whom credible allegations have been made, was predicated upon some kind of indication from someone in whom authority could be reasonably invested, that this person would not be a threat. Now that would -- to others; that whatever it was that he had done had been dealt with in such a way that he did not constitute now a threat to others.
It wouldn't -- that wouldn't be geographically limited, that he wouldn't be a threat to others here, but he might be a threat to others there. But that determination would be for other reasons. Not because he would be a threat in A and not be a threat in B. Presumably, if he's not a threat, he's not a threat in A, he's not a threat in B.
As I've said before, and I know that it's tiresome to hear me repeat it --
Q. Right.
A. -- but I think it's important to repeat, that I wish to God that I had been able to operate with the benefit of hindsight, which we cannot operate with the benefit of, and that the policy that I introduced in January of 2001, when I was Archbishop of Boston, were the policy in '84, '85, '75, years before I got here, and in the '60s before, in some instances, I was even ordained. I was ordained in '61 as a priest. That's not the case. And in that policy, having acted out in this way would render one incapable of an assignment anywhere. But at that point --
Q. I understand.
A. -- that was not the case.
But to answer your question specifically, I do not recollect that any assignment was made geographically with the understanding that in point A, this person would represent a threat, but in point B would not represent a threat.
Q. All right. So in the case of Father O'Sullivan, we're not talking about credible allegations; we're talking about a man who has a criminal conviction on his record for unlawful sexual intercourse with a child. You recall that, Cardinal? You recall there was a plea of guilty to a felony in this case involving unlawful sexual intercourse with a child?
A. Yes. I think we went over all of this --
Q. We did.
A. -- before in an earlier deposition.
Q. We did indeed, but we now have had the benefit of Father O'Sullivan's direct testimony last week.
Now, the question that I have before you is whether or not you ever discussed with any of your subordinates that because of scandal, Father O'Sullivan, when he was returned to ministry following his evaluation, that he could not serve within the Archdiocese of Boston, but had to go to another state?
Did you ever recall discussing that with any of your subordinates or with Father O'Sullivan?
A. I cannot recall that. I have a vague recollection that Father O'Sullivan had family in New Jersey. I have a vague recollection of that. And that may be incorrect. And that --
Q. That appeared, actually, in one of your notations. I think we went over that in the previous deposition, that he had family.
A. All right.
Q. Father O'Sullivan testified here in this room last week that the reference -- he has no family in New Jersey, and that the family -- the only family that he has is up here in Massachusetts.
So that's new information that I can represent to you. Mr. Rogers' office was there. There was no family that he had in New Jersey.
A. Well, as I said, I was indicating to you a ecollection, which obviously is wrong.
Q. So my question is: Why did Father O'Sullivan get an assignment in New Jersey from you after his plea to unlawful sexual intercourse, in New Jersey, as opposed to an assignment within the Archdiocese?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
MR. CRAWFORD: Note mine also.
You may answer.
A. Yes. First of all, as I've said, I don't have a clear recollection of this, of what occurred in 1984. But I can attempt to -- I don't know whether it's recollecting or reasonably surmise and I know that I shouldn't be doing that.
Q. No. That's fine for you to do that.
A. I don't know what else I can do at this point other than simply not answer, and I would rather reasonably surmise, if I might.
Q. That's fine.
A. But as I've indicated, the appointment of someone -- the -- first of all, I cannot assign someone to another diocese.
Q. Right.
A. But the permission for someone to work in another diocese would be predicated upon the fact that that person is capable of doing something in another diocese, and, presumably, objectively, would be capable of doing it here as well, but there may be extenuating circumstances which would indicate that it would not be in the best interests of the Church, of the individual, a mixture of both, for that to take place here. And for that reason, permission would be given for that person to serve somewhere else.
And I presume that that was the case here; that if there was -- if there had been a court case, a pleading, as you have indicated, but if at the same time there were an indication that this person could still function in a way as a priest, it would be logically and reasonably better for that to happen somewhere else than here.
Q. Was that because of the potential for scandal to the Church?
A. That would --
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.
MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.
A. That would certainly be a part of it. A scandal to the Church. It would be a burden to the individual. His own effectiveness, psychologically, emotionally would be affected by the history of what had occurred.
If he were able to start fresh somewhere else, he could do so more completely, more energetically. It's at the heart -- at the heart of our faith is a belief in the power of the resurrection of new life, of starting again. And this could -- this would be operative in terms of the individual as well.
Q. And you don't recall, Cardinal, do you, any restrictions that you placed on Father O'Sullivan when he went down to Metuchen, an assignment that you had to approve, as I understand it?
A. I really do not have specific recollection about the arrangements, the limitations, if there were any.
Q. I'm talking about restrictions on his access to children.
A. I do not have a recollection of what was involved in that.
Q. So it's fair to state that as you sit here today, that it was considered by you to be appropriate for Father O'Sullivan to minister to the children served by the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, but not appropriate for him to minister to the children of the Archdiocese of Boston?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A. Mr. MacLeish, if you have gotten that answer from what I have just said, then either I am not expressing myself very well or you're not listening very well, because that certainly is not what I said.
Q. You used the word "appropriate."
A. I said that if -- I said that there could be -- that to infer that it -- a person could function in A but not in B geographically would be incorrect. That's not what I'm saying. But there could be extenuating circumstances which would indicate that it would be more appropriate to go here than to stay here. And that's what I said. I'm not saying more than that and I'm certainly not indicating that he could not have functioned as a priest here. I'm saying that it would not -- that it was, under the circumstances, it would have been a better thing.
Q. And the circumstances in the O'Sullivan case were the criminal plea to a felony and the publicity that followed that conviction; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you knew that if Father O'Sullivan were to remain in the Archdiocese of Boston and, for example, go back to Arlington, that he was at St. Mary's at Arlington and also at Arlington Catholic High School, that that had the potential to create a scandal. You knew that; is that correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.
You may answer.
A. Obviously, I knew that.
Q. And you knew that if Father O'Sullivan remained and went, after his conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a child, served in any parish in the Archdiocese of Boston, that that had the potential to create scandal. Is that a fair statement?
A. I don't think that's a fair statement. I would not have known that.
Q. All right.
A. You know. But I --
Q. Go ahead.
A. I think what is a fair statement is the statement that I have made, Mr. MacLeish, and I would like to have my statement stand on its own basis and not be embellished.
Q. Can you think of any reason then, given that we now know, contrary to what you believed, surmised -- and it was nothing more than that at your last deposition -- about Father O'Sullivan having family in New Jersey, can you give me any reason why Father O'Sullivan did not receive an assignment within the Archdiocese of Boston following his evaluation, apart from the need to prevent scandal?
A. I believe that the issue of family in New Jersey, which you have established and I accept that, did not exist; that it wasn't because of family in New Jersey that he was going to go there rather than to stay in Massachusetts. I think the question was would he stay in the Archdiocese or not in the Archdiocese. And then the question is where would he go.
And my -- and I was trying to reconstruct why New Jersey was the place. And beyond that, I really can't say why it was New Jersey. But the issue of whether or not he would have been able to function effectively in this parish, that parish or the other parish in the Archdiocese of Boston, I can't say.
In general, I would say that it would have been difficult for him to function within the Archdiocese of Boston given publicity, but I can't be certain of that. But I think both for his sake and for the potential of scandal, it would have been better for him, if it were safe for him to serve as a priest anywhere, to serve elsewhere.
But the question is not resolved as to whether this person is safe to serve as a priest here but not safe to serve as a priest there. If he's safe to serve as a priest, that's in and of itself, and then the question is, all right, now where is going to be the best place.
Q. My question was, Cardinal, can you think of any reason apart from the need to avoid scandal, given your belief that it was now safe to assign Father O'Sullivan, why he was not assigned to a parish of the Archdiocese of Boston? That was my question.
A. And let's presume for the sake of discussion that scandal would not be an issue. Let's presume that.
Q. No. Let's answer the question, please, if you could.
A. Well, I'm trying to answer the question.
MR. ROGERS: Let's him answer the question the way he wants to answer.
MR. MacLEISH:: He's rephrasing the question. Go ahead.
A. No, no, I'm not rephrasing it. I'm saying in my answer, if you would, for a moment, let's presume that scandal is not an issue. Then the question is: Are there other issues that might indicate that a person should serve somewhere else than here? And I'm saying, yes, there are issues in terms of the person's own psychological, emotional and spiritual good.
Q. But there was a scandal issue with Father O'Sullivan, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.
Q. When we talk to the scandal, we're talking about not just scandal to Father O'Sullivan, but scandal to the Church; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So scandal played a role with respect to Father O'Sullivan in terms of where he was assigned after he was evaluated?
A. Could I, could I -- I just want to be certain that I understand what you mean by scandal. Could you define what you mean?
Q. Yeah. I will. Let me get you a document, Cardinal.
MR. MacLEISH:: Could I get that document, Jeff, the one on Father Burns. Let's mark this as an exhibit.
Q. While we're getting that document, Cardinal, you yourself have used the word scandal in relationship to priests who have been accused of sexual misconduct, have you not?
A. You know, since I am here in deposition, I'm very nervous about responding because I never know what is underlying what you're saying here. But I may have used the word scandal, yes. But I can't -- if you were going to then ask me when did you do that, I couldn't tell you.
Q. I'm just asking whether you ever used it and I understand that memories are fallible. I'm just asking you, I'm not trying to trick you, Cardinal.
MR. MacLEISH:: Why don't we mark that as No. 2, please.
(Law Exhibit No. 2, Memo,
marked for identification.)
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to look at this?
MR. MacLEISH:: No. This is No. 1. We're going out of order here
Q. Cardinal, you remember a priest by the name of Robert Burns?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you recall about Father Robert Burns, Cardinal?
A. May I read this, please?
Q. Absolutely.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see the word "scandal" in there, Cardinal?
A. I have not seen it. Is it there?
Q. No. At the end, Cardinal. It's not you specifically.
Do you recognize Exhibit No. 2, first of all?
A. No.
Q. Okay. It says, at the top, "Memorandum regarding Robert Burns, prepared at the Archdiocese of Boston, submitted to the Holy See by Bernard Cardinal Law, May 1999."
A. I see that.
Q. Okay. Do you recall that Father Burns -- learning at some point that Father Burns came to the Archdiocese of Boston through something called the lend-lease program?
A. I was not aware of that.
Q. Have you ever heard the term "lend-lease program," Cardinal?
A. Well, I've heard the term "lend lease."
Q. Right. Involving priests?
A. But I have never heard the term "lend lease" in this context and I wouldn't understand it in this context. Lend lease, for me, is if a diocese -- for example, here in the Archdiocese of Boston, there was a time when we had more -- not in my time, but in the time of Cardinal O'Connell -- where there were more seminarians for Boston than we had a need for priests and, therefore, there was an opportunity for priests, for seminarians to volunteer to go into parts of the country where there were not many priests.
That was lend lease.
MR. MacLEISH:: Okay. Let's mark the next packet of documents, please.
A. As I understand it, at least. It would have no meaning here.
MR. MacLEISH:: Let's mark this, please, Kathy.
(Law Exhibit No. 3, Letter, 6/24/86, marked for identification.)
MR. CRAWFORD: Do you want him to see this one?
MR. MacLEISH:: Yes. We'll deal with the last page first.
Q. You'll see the last page of Exhibit No. 3 is a letter that you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Sodano at the Vatican, concerning Father Burns.
Do you see that, the very last -- you're welcome to look through the whole document.
A. Let me see here, if I may.
Q. Certainly.
(Pause.)
A. Yes.
Q. Now that you've had the opportunity to read Exhibit No. 3, I would like to ask you some questions about the last page, which is your letter to Cardinal Sodano.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. And do you recognize that as your letter to Cardinal Sodano regarding Father Burns?
A. I don't recollect the letter previously but I would certainly recollect this as my signature, and it would be appropriate for me to have sent this letter to give my vote with regard to this petition. And I don't question at all that this is my letter.
Q. All right. And you use the word -- you state in the last page of Exhibit 3:
"The immoral and illegal activities of Father Burns during his stay in the Archdiocese of Boston are the cause, potential and actual, of grave scandal."
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that, Cardinal?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Let's go back to the O'Sullivan case, and now that we've determined that you actually used the word scandal, why don't you give us your definition of scandal as you used it on the last page of Exhibit 3.
A. What is meant here on the last page of Exhibit 3 is that the immoral and illegal activities of Father Burns when he was in the Archdiocese of Boston, are the cause both of actual scandal -- in other words, that his acts caused people to view him and the Church in whose name he served in a negative light. And that would be actual scandal.
And then potential scandal would be that his continued presence and ability to serve as a priest would pose that threat.
Q. Then you'll also see in the third to last paragraph, you state:
"I believe that this action" -- which, in the case of Father Burns was the dispensation from clerical duties, it states -- "I believe that this action would benefit the Church without causing undue harm to the priest."
Do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. So clearly, in the case of Father Burns, you were concerned about the potential of Father Burns' continued status as a priest as potentially causing further scandal to the Church. Is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form also.
You may answer.
Q. Do you understand the question?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Sure. Let me try to rephrase it. It was badly put.
In the case of Father Burns, one of the reasons why you joined with the Bishop of Youngstown, Ohio, in seeking to have Father Burns removed from the --
A. Laicized.
Q. Laicized. Let's put it laicized.
-- was because you believed that the action of laicization had the potential to benefit the Church; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you'll see in Exhibit No. 2, you see all of the allegations against Father Burns --
A. Yes.
Q. -- involving sexual molestation. You see all of the amounts of money paid by the Archdiocese of Boston to settle cases involving Father Burns.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. So you must have some recollection given the magnitude of what this man did, about Father Burns. You must have some recollection, Cardinal, about him; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You in fact met with Father Burns; is that not correct?
A. I believe that I -- the only -- the only recollection that I have of meeting with him was seeing him when I went to, I think it was St. Mary's in Charlestown for the first time.
Q. Okay. But at some point, you learned that there were credible allegations of abuse against Father Burns; is that correct?
A. Well, obviously, because of the letter. You know, I can't tell you at what point, but, yes, at some point, I learned that there were credible allegations against Father Burns.
Q. And by 1999, you learned that after he had been released from the Archdiocese of Boston, he had gone to New Hampshire and committed yet another act of sexual molestation and had become incarcerated.
Do you see that in Exhibit No. 2, Cardinal?
A. That's correct.
Q. When Father Burns left the Archdiocese of Boston, what actions did you personally take to ensure that the parishes where he had served were notified that Father Burns had credible allegations of sexual molestation against him?
A. As I think I've indicated to you before, matters with regard to the handling of these cases were delegated and I did not personally deal with the details of what was done.
Q. Did you create any policy between the time that Father Burns left his ministry in 1991, and 1999 when the sixth complaint came to the attention of you and the Archdiocese of Boston? Did you put into effect any policy whereby former parishioners at the two parishes where Father Burns served were notified of the fact that this man had now six credible allegations of child molestation against him?
Did you put any policy like that into effect, Cardinal?
A. I think it should be a matter of record. If it is not, the written policy handling these cases is the policy of 19 -- I think 1983.
Q. 1993?
A. I mean 1993. Yes. I wasn't here in '83, thank God. 1993. And so the policy is stated there.
Q. Well -- and there is no policy about --
A. And I think --
Q. -- going back, correct, Cardinal?
A. That's right. I do not --
MR. CRAWFORD: Let him finish his answer, please, before you jump in with another question.
A. The policy --
MR. CRAWFORD: Would you complete your answer, please.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
A. The policy of the Archdiocese of Boston was put in written form in 1993. I even think at that time, I may be wrong, but I think that you had something positive to say about that policy when it was put in place, didn't you?
Q. You know, the thing about the deposition is that I get to ask the questions and you have to give the answers. I'm happy to talk about that with you privately.
A. I think you did.
Q. Well --
A. But at any rate, it was 1993 when we put the policy in place. And at that time, the policy did not deal with going to parishes where people had served previously.
Q. Was that because of the need to prevent scandal to the Church, Cardinal Law?
A. The effort in putting that policy in place, Mr. MacLeish, was to handle these cases in the most effective way we knew how at that time.
When that policy was written, it was generally praised as being forward looking. As we look at it now, it had deficiencies. And as you know, I corrected some of those deficiencies in January 1, 2000. January 1, 2001. But -- and as you know also, at the present time and while I was still Archbishop of Boston, we were attempting now to reach out in an effective way to parishes.
But at that time, we didn't do that.
Q. Cardinal, this man had six allegations of child molestation against him, according to the memorandum that you sent to the Holy See. You see that in Exhibit 2?
A. Yes.
Q. He had a criminal conviction he was serving in New Hampshire; is that correct?
A. In 1999 after he had left this archdiocese, yes.
Q. What precautions did you personally put in place, including notification to the Department of Social Services or law enforcement, about the threat posed by Father Burns to children? Because you'll see after, as you correctly noted, he left the Archdiocese, he went up to New Hampshire and was convicted of sexually abusing a minor and incarcerated.
So my question is: While he was still a priest, what did you personally do, either by way of policy or communication to law enforcement or DSS, to ensure that Father Burns, when he left the Archdiocese, would not commit abuse again? Did you do anything?
A. Mr. MacLeish, the policy is the written policy of 1993. What I did with regard to Father Burns is what I was able to do and that was to be sure that he did not serve in this Archdiocese. I did not have the responsibility, the authority over Father Burns beyond saying that he could not serve in this Archdiocese because I was not his bishop.
Q. He went up to New Hampshire, correct?
A. I did not know where he went, but I knew that he went to New Hampshire when I heard about the fact that he had run afoul and had acted out and had been in prison.
Q. And the question is: You knew before he went to --
A. He was a priest of Youngstown, Ohio; not a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston.
Q. Right. Yet he served in the Archdiocese for ten years?
A. While he was here.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And did he come to the Archdiocese of Boston, from what you're able to gather, because there was some shortage of priests within the Archdiocese or did he come and serve as a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston because Youngstown did not want to have him there, given the acts of child molestation he committed there?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
Q. That's very bad question. Let me break it down.
From what you have been able to gather and what you submitted to the Holy See, was there any shortage of priests that caused Father Burns to come and serve in Boston?
A. This is a very tragic case, Mr. MacLeish. And among the many, many cases that I've had anything to do with, to my mind, this is one of the most frustrating.
Clearly, he did not come here in lend lease. The decision for him to come here was made by my predecessor, the allowance for him to come, an arrangement made between my predecessor and Bishop Malone. However, it happened. The full record of Father Burns was obscured and he should never have received -- he should never have received an appointment.
Q. I'm sorry. Finish your answer.
A. He should never have received an appointment.
Q. You say "the full record of Father Burns was obscured."
What do you mean by that, Cardinal?
A. Well, given the record -- I think you read it here.
Q. Right.
A. Well, "Through a misjudgment of the severity of his past behavior and the likelihood of its reoccurrence, Father Burns received the full faculties of the Archdiocese."
That should not have happened.
Q. I'm asking you about obscurity now. Read the previous sentence, Cardinal.
"On October 27, 1982" -- "The October 27, 1982, report from the House of Affirmation to Reverend Gilbert Finn, Director of the Office of Clergy Personnel, copy attached, clearly stated that Father Burns ought not to receive an assignment that placed him in a position to minister to minors."
A. That's what I mean by obscured. It seems to me -- and I don't -- you know, I can't say this with any kind of certainty, but it would seem to me that that record was somehow obscured; that it was either lost sight of, it wasn't where it should have been, but if there were such -- and I have no reason to doubt because the copy is there -- if there were such a record, that on the basis of that record, he should never have received an assignment. He should never have received an assignment.
Now, I can't imagine that it would have been recommended to me that he be given an assignment in the face of that kind of a record unless there were an intervening kind of judgment that it would be appropriate, and I don't know of any, and there was none listed here in this memorandum.
Q. Well, we know from your own writings, Cardinal Law, that the recommendation of the House of Affirmation clearly stated that Father Burns ought not to receive an assignment that placed him in a position with minors.
You see that in your memorandum to the Holy See; is that correct?
A. Yes. This is a memorandum stating that in October 27, 1982 -- which is two years before I came here as Archbishop.
Q. I understand that, yes.
A. -- that there is this report from the House of Affirmation. And what I'm saying to you, Mr. MacLeish, as I sit here now with these documents in front of me, with my own memory of this very tragic, sad case, that this priest should never have received an assignment on the basis of that and that -- and I can't imagine that an assignment would have been made with active knowledge of that before someone.
Q. Could you please turn to Burns 274 in Exhibit No. 3. This is the affidavit of the Bishop of Youngstown.
A. Yes.
Q. You know the bishop, Bishop Malone; is that correct?
A. Yes. He's deceased now.
Q. Right.
A. But I did know him, yes.
Q. Why don't you take a moment and look at that affidavit.
A. Surely.
Q. I'm going to be asking you about No. -- well, ask you about No. Paragraph 10, if you could focus on that, Paragraph 11.
MR. ROGERS: It's now 11. Would this be an appropriate time for a break or do you want to --
MR. MacLEISH:: Sure. Could we stick to five minutes?
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Time is 11 a.m. We're off the record.
(Recess.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 11:10 a.m. We're on the record.
Q. Have you had the opportunity to look at Bishop Malone's affidavit, Cardinal?
A. I did, yes.
Q. You'll see there are allegations of child abuse when Father Burns was serving in the Diocese of Youngstown.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. He then was sent to -- you'll see in Paragraph 5, he went -- in -- sorry, Paragraph 8, Paragraph 9, Paragraph 7, he went to the House of Affirmation here in Massachusetts; is that correct?
A. I see that, yes.
Q. You'll see in Paragraph 10, it says:
"Prior to Father Burn's discharge from the House of Affirmation, I had determined that he would not be reassigned within the diocese of Youngstown."
Do you see that?
A. I saw that.
Q. "Father Burns decided to remain in the Boston area and he approached the most Reverend Alfred C. Hughes, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Boston, and Gilbert S. Finn, Director of Personnel of the Archdiocese of Boston, about his desire for a part-time assignment within the Archdiocese while he pursued post-graduate studies at Boston University."
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Then it states in Paragraph 11:
"I had various discussions by telephone with Bishop Hughes and Father Finn regarding Father Burns in which I clearly identified the problems which led to Father Burns' treatment at St. Luke Institute and House of Affirmation. Bishop Hughes and Father Finn both assured me that they were fully aware of Father Burns' history; that he had been and was receiving treatment; and that any assignment he would be given would be subject to the recommendation of his counselors and would not allow him to be in a position where he would have contact with young boys."
Do you see that?
A. I do that.
Q. And those are the words of --
A. Of Bishop Malone.
Q. -- Bishop Malone.
A. Recording his conversations with Bishop Hughes and Father Finn.
Q. You'll see in Paragraph 14, he also states:
"At all times in my discussions with Bishop Hughes and Father Finn, I was open and frank about Father Burns' problems and I never made any attempt to withhold any information that was within my knowledge."
Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you knew Bishop Malone to be an honest and credible person; is that correct?
A. Certainly.
Q. So in the case of Father Burns, when you referred earlier there was some obscurity, you've now had the benefit of reading the sworn statement of Bishop Malone.
Does that in any way modify or change your earlier answers about what was obscure to the Archdiocese of Boston about Father Burns?
A. May I, rather than saying yes, no, may I be a little bit more --
Q. You can answer the question as you want to.
A. Yes, I want to answer the question.
This document before me is 1999, this sworn affidavit of Bishop Malone. At this point, he is not in this Archdiocese, as you understand. So it's after the fact --
Q. Right.
A. -- in a sense. Where my indication of obscurity may be better understood is in Paragraph 10 --
Q. Yes.
A. -- where Bishop Malone says that Father Burns approached Bishop Hughes and Father Finn. And I presume that this is in 1982. When I came into this Archdiocese, it was '84. And --
Q. Right.
A. -- and Father Finn was not in the personnel office.
Q. He had been assigned as a pastor, I believe?
A. Yes. He was a pastor. I think at that point he was pastor of Gate of Heaven in South Boston. I did not make that assignment. That was made when I came here. That's where he was. I subsequently assigned him to St. Elizabeth of Hungary in Milton, where he is very effectively the pastor now.
So he was not in the Office of Personnel at that point. Bishop Hughes was -- and I presume in '82 also was -- the rector of the seminary, would not ordinarily have been a person who would be handling personnel at that point.
How it happened that Father Burns spoke to Bishop Hughes, I don't know. But Bishop Hughes would not have been in a line to follow-up on personnel assignments. When I came into the diocese, it would have been Bishop Daily who would have had that role with the people who were in the personnel office at the time, would have been Father Oates and Father Jim McCarthy, I believe, both of them in that personnel office.
Bishop Hughes would not have been in that loop. And Bishop -- and Father Finn was not in the office.
So what the knowledge of Father McCarthy and Father Oates was --
Q. And Bishop Daily.
A. -- at that point, I do not know.
What the active knowledge of Bishop Daily was at that point, I do not know.
Q. No.
A. Nor can I speak -- it says here that Bishop Hughes and Father Finn assured me that, in 11, that they were -- and this is '99 and he's thinking back to '82 -- that they were fully aware of Father Burns' history; that he had been and was receiving treatment; and that any assignment he would be given would be subject to the recommendation of his counselors and would not allow him to be in a position where he would have contact with young boys.
I have no idea what the records show with regard to any of that either. But all I can say as I sit here is to say that certainly, given an indication that he should not be assigned, then to have been assigned, was a mistake. And it had to be a mistake based on the fact that information that should have been before one and should have been operative in a decision wasn't.
Q. Well, Cardinal, why don't we just look again at Exhibit 2 and let me read you the last paragraph and see if you want to modify the answer you just gave.
"During his eight-year presence within the Archdiocese of Boston, Reverend Robert Burns is alleged to have sexually molested six young men. This propensity was known to officials within the Archdiocese of Boston but overlooked in favor of Father Burns' solemn assurance of his ability to control his impulses."
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. So you wrote that Father Burns, that his propensity to become sexually involved with young men was known to officials within the Archdiocese of Boston. That's what you said to the Holy See, correct?
A. Well --
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.
You may answer.
A. I did not prepare this memorandum; I submitted this memorandum.
Q. Did you read it?
A. I can't say whether I read it or not.
Q. A memorandum to the Holy See submitted by you as an attachment, I believe, of your letter of April 29, 1999, wouldn't it have been your practice to read communications that were as serious as these, Cardinal Law?
A. I would have asked that a memorandum be prepared from the record and I would have trusted the persons responsible for making the memorandum. I cannot state, as I sit here under oath, that I read that memorandum at the time. I would have asked that it be prepared. I would have been -- had confidence that it would have been accurate, but I cannot attest to the fact under oath that I read it.
Q. Nor can you attest to the fact under oath that there was some obscurity about Father Burns' past record? Nor can you testify with certainty about that, can you, Cardinal?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.
You may answer.
A. I can repeat again, that I find it very difficult to see how someone would have been appointed, assigned, recommended for assignment, as a recommendation would come from the Personnel Office, with a firm indication from an institution like the St. Luke's Institute or the House of Affirmation, that this person might not function effectively where they are going to be ministering to boys.
Q. Yet it's the same St. Luke's Institute that reached precisely that same conclusion about Father John Geoghan that you subsequently assigned to ministry, correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.
You may answer.
Q. Do you remember the recommendation that we covered in your last deposition of St. Luke's concerning Father Geoghan, Cardinal Law?
A. I'd want to look at the --
Q. Okay.
A. I know that there were several institutes involved there.
Q. Right. The first one was St. Luke's and he was initially sent to St. Luke's and then he went to the Institute for Living.
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And the recommendation of St. Luke's was that he not be returned to parish ministry.
Do you have a recollection of that, Cardinal Law?
A. I would want to look at the document.
Q. All right. Okay. Let's move on, Cardinal Law.
All I'm pointing out to you is that in the last paragraph, you state that the propensity of Father Burns -- this is on Exhibit No. 2 -- you state the propensity was known to officials within the Archdiocese of Boston.
Do you see that?
A. You're -- this is document 2.
Q. Right.
A. You're referring again to the memorandum --
Q. Yes.
A. -- which I indicated I may not have seen, I cannot attest under oath that I have seen, that accompanied my letter, yes.
Q. Fine. But the point is you really don't know -- and I could show you a whole group of documents about Bishop Daily and his knowledge of this, about Father Oates, about Father McCarthy. I really don't want to spend the time doing that because it's not germane.
The point is that you really don't know who in the Archdiocese knew about the recommendations of the House of Affirmation and St. Luke's concerning Father Burns, do you?
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.
Q. Because you weren't here.
A. First of all, I was not here.
Secondly, I have not discussed this with anyone else.
Q. So you don't know?
A. Thirdly, you have put before me the affidavit of Bishop Malone and I don't know what is reasonable to assume from that or not. He states that he discussed this with two individuals. I have not discussed it with either of those individuals, so that beyond this document, I have no basis upon which to stand.
Q. Okay. That's fine.
Let's turn to Burns 57, if we could, please, in Exhibit No. 3. Take a moment and read that.
A. Exhibit 3?
Q. Yes, Exhibit 3.
A. 57.
Q. You recognize your letter of April 16, 1991, to Father Burns?
A. I do not recall writing the letter, but I recognize this as a letter bearing my signature and I have no reason to dispute the fact that it is my letter.
Q. You were aware of the time that you wrote this letter that there was a credible allegation that Father Burns had anally raped an 8-year-old boy?
A. I cannot tell you what specific knowledge I had at that time, but I think that the substance of the letter is very clear. The letter is to end this person's assignment.
Q. Right. And you knew that there was an allegation, a credible allegation of sexual molestation at that time, did you not?
A. Well, I presume that I had reason to end the assignment.
Q. You'll see in Exhibit No. 2, you'll see:
"3/91. First complaint received against Father Burns of sexual molestation of a boy within the Archdiocese of Boston. In response, the assignment to St. Mary's Parish in Charlestown is ended immediately."
Do you see that?
A. Yeah. I see that. I see the record.
What I also would need to say, Mr. MacLeish, is that I was not aware of the specifics of these acts of molestation. I was aware that there was -- and so when I qualified my response --
Q. Sure.
A. -- it was to the specificity of the act that you were giving. But in a general way, I was aware of the fact that there had been credible allegations.
Q. Why did you not consider it important, Cardinal, for you to know the specifics of the acts involved?
A. Again, as I have tried to explain, it isn't a question that I didn't think it was important for me to know that, but I had -- I had delegated the handling of these cases to others, and what I needed to know, I needed to know.
The fact that there was an allegation, the fact that there was an act of sexual abuse in and of itself was enough. I didn't need to know the details of that to know that something needed to be done.
Q. Right. And in this letter to Father Burns, that is on Exhibit No. 3, Bates Stamp 57, you state to Father Burns:
"Life is never just one moment or one event and it would have been unrealistic to have too narrow a focus."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you mean by that, Cardinal Law?
A. Well, I appreciate your asking this question because a bishop is a pastor, and a bishop is a pastor to everyone within his Archdiocese.
In this instance, what I am attempting to do for this individual, as I would attempt to do for any individual, is to indicate that however reprehensible your conduct may have been in this instance, in this instance or that instance, you need also to understand that this bad act of stealing, or this murder, doesn't necessarily -- doesn't define your life; that your life -- that it doesn't say that, therefore, everything you have ever done is bad. And that it's important to know that, even as you deal with what is bad, even as you deal with what is reprehensible, what is immoral, what is a sin from our perspective, as you deal with that, you also have to recognize that there have been other things that you have done as well. You have comforted the dying, you have counseled people in an encouraging way so that you have -- you can't see your life simply from the focus of the terrible things you have done. You have to see that. You have to acknowledge that, and, obviously, in this instance, you have to bear the consequences of that.
But life is more than just our bad acts.
Q. And it was important for you that Father Burns know that; is that correct?
A. I think it's important, yes. I think it's important for anyone you're dealing with to know that.
Q. And that's why you wrote that to Father Burns, because you wanted him to know that he couldn't just define his life by this one act of sexual molestation?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Father, I mean, Cardinal, would it have made any difference if you had known that the specific allegation involving Father Burns at the time was that he anally raped an 8-year-old boy?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
Q. Would that have made any difference in what you would have said to Father Burns?
A. Would it have made any difference in my saying --
Q. Life is --
A. -- that his life shouldn't be viewed simply in terms of this terrible act of rape, but that there were other acts in his life and there were good acts in his life, and as he tries to put his life together now, he needs to remember that. Because if people don't do that, Mr. MacLeish, they can be driven to nothing but suicide.
Q. I understand.
A. And one doesn't want to encourage that.
Q. Cardinal, was it important -- so it's important for you to provide some sort of comfort to Father Burns, then?
A. Not comfort, but perspective as the person moves on with his life. I think that's what a pastor should try to do. I think that's what a bishop should try to do, particularly with a priest in a situation like this.
Q. What did you try to do to the family of the young boy who had come forward, what did you do, if anything, you personally, specifically, to help that family? Can you recall anything, Cardinal, anything at all?
A. I did not deal with that family. And I see that one of the ways in which what is in place in the Archdiocese now -- and I'm grateful to God that I was a part of that -- was to have a method of reaching out to families and to victims, which is much more effective and significant.
Q. Let's talk about the time period in question, Cardinal.
A. I can't do --
Q. You didn't do anything?
A. I can't go back, Mr. MacLeish, and redo things and you know that I didn't do anything.
Q. I have to ask you the questions, Cardinal.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Did you do anything for that family of the young boy, you personally --
A. I did not personally, but, personally, the way in which families are dealt with is through parishes. That's why we constitute parishes. We have two and a half million people in the Archdiocese. It is the bishop who is the pastor of the priests in a very special way. They don't belong to parishes to be ministered to. It is the bishop that bears that responsibility. Yes.
Q. I'm just really asking about what was going through your mind at the time. You dealt personally with this man that had been accused, as you understood it, at the time, of some sexual molestation of a boy. You dealt with him personally. My question is just a simple one.
Did it ever cross your mind to deal personally or instruct someone to deal personally with the family of and the victim in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that ever cross your mind?
A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. Did you do anything?
A. My presumption was -- again, as I indicated, I had people who were delegated by me in these areas, and my presumption always is that in a pastoral situation, it is the pastor and the pastoral staff that deals with the families that are aggrieved.
Q. I'm talking about you personally, Cardinal. I understand --
A. That is the way -- I attempted --
MR. CRAWFORD: Please. You've answered and --
A. I've attempted to answer the question.
MR. CRAWFORD: I believe you have answered the question.
Q. So you don't recall doing anything personally with this family; is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: It's been asked three times.
MR. MacLEISH:: It hasn't been answered, though.
MR. ROGERS: He has answered.
MR. CRAWFORD: It has been answered.
MR. MacLEISH:: He has to answer the question.
MR. ROGERS: He has answered it.
MR. MacLEISH:: He's answered but not responded to the question. The question was very simple.
Q. Did you, Cardinal --
A. Do you understand what a bishop is, Mr. MacLeish>?
Q. Yes. I --
A. A bishop -- a bishop is a pastor of a diocese and --
Q. Yeah. Cardinal --
A. Let me explain to you.
MR. MacLEISH:: He's not answering --
MR. ROGERS: Let him answer the question.
MR. MacLEISH:: I did not ask a question. There's no question --
MR. ROGERS: We reserved motions to strike until the time of trial.
MR. MacLEISH:: This does not allow him -- let's get Judge Sweeney on the line. This does not allow him to come forward and start lecturing me. Okay?
MR. ROGERS: Look, look --
MR. CRAWFORD: Let's get her on the line because he's already answered this question --
MR. ROGERS: Three times.
MR. CRAWFORD: -- specifically in one of his earlier answers. You continue to ask the same question.
THE WITNESS: Would you ask the question again.
Q. Yes. Did you, Cardinal Law -- if you could answer it yes or no -- do anything personally to contact the family of the young boy that had been sexually molested by Father Burns?
MR. ROGERS: I object to the question. It's been asked and answered.
A. The way in which I interacted with families of abused persons was through the pastors, through the parishes. I did not personally involve myself at that level.
Q. Okay. Cardinal, were you concerned that, in 1991, that Father Burns might molest another child as he had done in Youngstown, Ohio, and at least as of 1991, to your knowledge, with one individual in the Archdiocese? Were you concerned it might happen again?
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.
You may answer if you can.
A. I cannot tell you what my knowledge was in '91, what the potential was in '91. I really cannot do that. I don't know that.
Q. Okay. Does it concern you as you sit here today, going through the chronology of what happened to Father Burns, that after he left the Archdiocese of Boston, that he was in New Hampshire and was convicted and incarcerated for molesting another boy? Does that concern you at all, Cardinal?
A. What do you mean by does that concern me?
Q. I think --
A. I am concerned if any child anywhere is molested by anybody. I think it's a terrible crime and I think it's immoral.
In this instance, he was not able to function in this Archdiocese because of concern.
Q. Right. But there was nothing to prevent you or your subordinates, nothing to prevent you from contacting the Department of Social Services or the police about what had occurred when Father Burns was in Boston, correct?
A. What year are you talking about?
Q. 1991. There was nothing that would have prevented you, apart from what your policies were, there was nothing that would have prevented you or your subordinates, given the history of this man in Youngstown, Ohio, his history in Boston, from picking up the phone and calling the child protection agency in Massachusetts, the Department of Social Services. Nothing that would have prevented that from happening?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
Q. You were free to do that, correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Which question do you want him to answer? There was a whole series.
MR. MacLEISH:: Let's break it down. Let's break it down.
Q. We know that in 1991 you were aware that there was an allegation of sexual molestation involving Father Burns; is that correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, there was nothing at that time that would have prevented you or your subordinates from contacting the state child protective agency, the Department of Social Services, correct?
A. I don't think that there was anything that would have prevented that from occurring.
Q. But it didn't happen, did it?
A. It did not happen.
Q. Right. Do you know whether --
A. As you very well know -- and by the way, I would like to correct something that I misstated twice earlier.
Q. Sure.
A. I indicated that in January of 2001, it should have been January 2002 --
Q. Right.
A. -- I had put in place a new policy. And as you know, part of that policy is the reporting to public officials when such an allegation occurs. And as I have said previously and will say again, I wish to God that that had been the case much earlier, but it wasn't.
Q. I'm not going to be asking you any questions --
A. So it was not the case.
Q. Cardinal, I'm not going to be asking you any questions at all today concerning the policy that you instituted in January of 2000, not going to ask you any questions about that, though.
Was the pastor of the parish of the victim of Father Burns told by you or by one of your subordinates, to your knowledge, about the abuse and told to go out and comfort the family?
A. He was not told by me.
Q. Now, was he told, to your knowledge, by any of the subordinates?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Now, you go on in this letter, Cardinal Law, of April 16, 1991, you go on to state:
"It would have been better were things to have ended differently, but such was not the case."
Do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. "Nevertheless, I still feel that it is important to express my gratitude to you for the care you have given to the people of the Archdiocese of Boston while you were pursuing your graduate degree at Boston University."
Do you see that?
A. That's correct.
Q. What understanding did you have of the care that had been given by Father Burns to the people of the Archdiocese? Did you have any specific understanding?
A. Would you -- would you mind if I entered into the record the next, the last sentence of that paragraph?
Q. Let's just take it one at a time. I'm going to read that sentence too.
A. I think that sentence is very important --
Q. We're going to get to that.
A. -- even to answering the question that you put before me.
Q. If you would be comfortable doing it, that's fine.
A. Fine.
Q. Let me read it. I will read it, Cardinal.
A. Thank you.
Q. "I am certain during this time you have been a generous instrument of the Lord's love in the lives of most people you served."
A. And the operative word there is "most," "of most people you served."
And again, it's an effort to put in context the fact that his reprehensible acts, his immoral acts, his acts for which he is not able to have a position of ministerial service in this Archdiocese would nonetheless have to be seen in the light of the fact that there were other things that he did for which I could thank him.
Q. What did you know specifically about those other things, Cardinal, or was that just a presumption?
A. It's a presumption.
Q. You didn't have any personal knowledge?
A. It's --
Q. Excuse me. You did not have any personal knowledge of anything that Father Burns did that constituted care to the people of the Boston Archdiocese? You didn't have specific knowledge of that?
A. It's a presumption. I would --
Q. Right.
A. I would have little specific knowledge of what any priest does.
Q. Well, you did have some specific knowledge of what this priest did do.
A. And it was because of that that I took the action that I did.
Q. Right. Now, Cardinal Law, you have previously stated that you know a nun whose name is Sister Catherine Mulkerrin; is that correct?
A. I do know her, yes.
Q. Are you aware that she has testified, given testimony in this case?
A. I'm not aware of that. At least I don't recall that. If I have seen it before, I've forgotten it.
MR. MacLEISH:: Let's mark this, please.
(Law Exhibit No. 4, Excerpt of
Mulkerrin Deposition, marked for
identification.)
A. Do you want me to look at this?
Q. I'm going to read you a section and ask you a question about it.
A. All right.
Q. Let me start on page 26.
A. 26. All right.
Q. This is Exhibit No. 4, second page.
And I'm going to read you a section and then ask you an answer -- ask you a question. This is starting on line 7 of Exhibit 26.
"QUESTION: You were dealing with approximately 40 priests?
"MR. ROGERS: Again, talking '92 to '94?
"MR. MacLEISH:: You got it, '92 to '94.
"ANSWER: I know that at some point I reached over a hundred names, both with active priests and deceased priests.
"QUESTION: That was just between 1992 and 1994?
"ANSWER: Yes, it was.
"And that was after the Porter case; is that correct?
"Yes, it was.
"QUESTION: Did people indicate to you, some of them, that they were coming forward as a result of the Porter case?
"ANSWER: I have no exact memory of anyone using Porter's name --
"QUESTION. Right.
"ANSWER: -- but I think the climate was opened by that for people to come forth.
"QUESTION: So you had allegations, so we're clear, against more than 100 living and deceased Roman Catholic priests; is that correct?
"ANSWER: Yes, I did.
"QUESTION: And did this surprise you?
"ANSWER: Yes, it did.
"Yes. Did it sadden you?
"ANSWER: I'm still sad about it.
"QUESTION: We all are. Approximately how many of these priests were still alive? Approximately of those more than a hundred that you dealt with in 1992 to 1994?
"ANSWER: I hesitate to say a number. I'm not really sure.
"QUESTION: But the fair majority, the majority of them were still alive; is that correct?
"ANSWER: I think it would certainly be 60 to 75 percent.
"QUESTION: That were still alive?
"ANSWER: That were still alive.
"QUESTION: Do you remember undertaking any type of calculation, Sister, for these priests to determine in the aggregate how many different parishes of the Archdiocese they had served in?
"ANSWER: No, I did not.
"QUESTION: But you knew that many of these priests had had multiple assignments throughout the Archdiocese; is that correct?
"ANSWER: I would know what assignments they had from the index card.
"QUESTION: But you knew generally with respect to these priests that there were typically more than one assignment for each priest that you were dealing with between 1992 and 1994, priests who were accused of sexual misconduct?
"Yes." It would even -- It would be even consistent -- "It would be even consistent with the assignment processes."
Cardinal Law, were you aware through Sister Catherine Mulkerrin or your Delegate, Bishop John McCormack, that there were allegations of sexual misconduct against more than 100 priests of the Archdiocese by 1994?
A. I'm not sure. I don't know.
Q. Well, as you sit here, and as I read to you Sister Catherine's deposition, does it come as any sort of surprise to you that there were allegations of sexual misconduct involving more than a hundred priests by the time Sister Catherine left her job in 1994?
A. Yeah. What's difficult for me to respond to, Mr. MacLeish, is to put in a time frame --
Q. Right.
A. -- when I became conscious of the numbers. And I think you can appreciate the fact that over the past 12 months I've dealt before you and before other attorneys, I've looked at -- had documents put before me. We've tried to deal with the new cases that are coming forward and I just can't say what it was that I knew in terms of numbers at that time.
Q. All right. Let's turn to page 96 of Sister Catherine's deposition, please.
A. 90 -- excuse me?
MR. CRAWFORD: 96.
THE WITNESS: Okay. I see. The little pages.
A. Yes.
Q. I would like to just read you another section starting on page 96 of Exhibit 4. This is line 16.
"QUESTION: And so my question is who, apart from you and Bishop McCormack, were aware that there were more than" -- more than -- "by the time you left in August of 1994, there were allegations against more than 100 priests of the Archdiocese of Boston?
"ANSWER: Besides the review board anonymously?
"QUESTION: The review board would just deal with case by case. Was the review board ever told the number of a hundred, more than a hundred?
"ANSWER: I don't know.
"Okay.
"ANSWER: I'm sure whoever the Moderator of the Curia while I was there, okay, that would be -- his name is gone from me.
"QUESTION: I know. Me too. Who took Bishop Banks's place?
"ANSWER: Bishop Hughes.
"QUESTION: Bishop Hughes, right? Bishop Murphy?
"Came in -- I think overlapped two months.
"QUESTION: You assume that the Moderator of the Curia would have known?
"ANSWER: I assume the Cardinal knew because the men would have to be withdrawn."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Cardinal Law, did you ever -- when Sister Catherine resigned her position in August of 1994, do you recall having a meeting with her?
A. I don't recall that. I don't -- I could have very well but I don't recall that.
Q. Do you recall the reason why Sister Catherine left her position working for Bishop McCormack in the Office of Delegate?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you ever remember discussing that with her on any occasion?
A. I can't recall. You know, I had a very good relationship with Sister Catherine. She was doing superb work and I was very grateful for that work. I didn't want to see her go. But I really don't know. I can't recall that.
Q. Okay.
A. Maybe if you had something to refresh my memory, it might come back, but I don't recall.
Q. We can bring in other parts of her deposition, Cardinal, for you to look at. But here we have Sister Catherine talking about -- was working for Bishop McCormack and reporting the numbers to Bishop McCormack.
Would it be fair to state that during the 1994 time period, Bishop McCormack was reporting to you as your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct?
A. Yes, he was reporting to me. Sister Catherine was working with him. Sister Catherine's work, as I understand and recollect, Sister Catherine's work with him would have been in dealing with persons who had been abused or who were bringing allegations.
Q. And then there were hundreds of them, according to Sister Catherine, of people who came forward in that two-year time period?
A. That's what --
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question.
You may answer.
Q. It's not before you, Cardinal. We're talking about the number of priests here. You understand that? The number of priests. This is the number of priests that there were allegations against.
A. That's what I understood in the reading of the deposition.
Q. And we can refer you to other portions of her deposition where she talks about the numbers of victims which were in the hundreds.
So my question to you is: Did you ever learn from Bishop McCormack in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, up until the time Bishop McCormack left, that there was more than a hundred priests who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them?
A. I don't have a recollection of being informed of that.
Q. How many priests, active priests were there in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1994, approximately?
A. 1994?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, I can't be certain, but let's say perhaps 860.
Q. Would that include the retired priests?
A. No, no. That wouldn't include -- that's active, not retired.
Q. So if someone had come to you and told you --
A. Roughly, you might say, a thousand.
Q. Okay. Including the senior priests?
A. Retired, yeah.
Q. If someone had come to you, Cardinal Law, and told you there are allegations against 100 priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, is it fair to state that that's the type of information that would have attracted your attention?
A. It would have been a shock.
Q. So your best recollection --
A. And it is a shock.
Q. As you read it right now?
A. It's a shock now. Certainly it's been a shock these last months.
Q. But back in 1994 -- okay, let's go back to that time period -- it would have been a shock to you then; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. But you have no recollection of Bishop McCormack ever telling you about the magnitude of this problem, that there were more than a hundred priests that had allegations against them. Is that fair to state?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
You may answer.
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, was it Bishop McCormack's job to keep you updated about the number of allegations and the general -- withdraw the question.
Was it Bishop McCormack's job as your Delegate to keep you updated about the scope of this problem?
A. It was Bishop McCormack's responsibility with regard to this problem to deal with cases that came before us in as effective and appropriate way as possible. That was his responsibility. I don't think that it was ever said to him that I want a periodic report on numbers.
Q. But you met with him weekly, Cardinal. Your appointment calendar, you met with him weekly. Sometimes not every week, but you had regular scheduled meetings with Father McCormack; is that correct?
A. I had regular meetings and I think you have access to my calendar.
Q. Right.
A. So you would have an indication better than I as to how often I met with him. I think it was in '93 or after that, that the responsibility of Delegate was isolated as a specific responsibility.
Up until that time, the role that Father McCormack, and later he was Bishop McCormack, had was Secretary for --
Q. Ministerial?
A. -- Ministerial Personnel.
Q. Right.
A. And that responsibility was broader than simply this issue.
Q. But it included, it included --
A. It included this issue.
Q. Excuse me. Let me finish the question.
It included the job of dealing with priests who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them?
A. It included that but it was not exclusively that.
Q. I understand.
A. So that it would be incorrect to infer that every time that I met with him, we met concerning the issue of sexual misconduct.
Q. We're going -- let's go back to page 96 of this deposition, Cardinal Law.
A. All right.
Q. And you'll see again, lines 16 through 24, you'll see Sister Catherine acknowledging that Bishop McCormack was aware of the magnitude, in terms of the number of priests, that had allegations of sexual misconduct against them.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So my question is: Wasn't it part -- by 1994, Cardinal Law, Bishop McCormack was your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct; is that correct?
A. By '94, yes.
Q. And you had regular meetings with Bishop McCormack in his capacity as Delegate for -- your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct in 1994; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And so wouldn't it have been the normal part of your protocol with Bishop McCormack for him to give you reports about what was occurring with respect to clergy sexual abuse?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
You can answer if you can.
MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead.
A. You know, first of all, there wasn't a written protocol as to what he should deal with me on, on these matters. The written protocol was the policy which he was to implement. And his report to me would be on those matters that I needed to -- that my action was necessary, that I needed to act, to seek advice. But there wasn't
A. protocol that indicated that a report needed to be made.
Q. You'd just have meetings with him? These were informal meetings then, is that fair to state, your meetings in 1994, 1995, with Bishop McCormack, your Delegate for clergy sexual misconduct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.
You may answer if you can.
A. If you recall, we were in the process of implementing a new policy. There could be any number of issues that would arise that he would bring before me, but I, you know, I can sit here for a month of Sundays and I'm not going to be able to say to you that it was part of his responsibility to give me a card indicating how many cases there were because that wasn't there.
Q. I'm not suggesting that at all, Cardinal.
A. And I cannot recall the substance of those meetings.
Q. I understand you can't recall the substance of those meetings. But what I'm asking you is, when you saw -- when you read Sister Catherine Mulkerrin's deposition, I think you indicated that it was a shock for you to see the number of priests involved.
A. I said that I was shocked when I came, became aware of those numbers over the past twelve months, when I have seen the number of new cases that have emerged over the past six months. Certainly that's a shock.
If I'm shocked in 2003 and 2002, I would have been shocked in 1994.
Q. All right. But isn't it fair to state that if Bishop McCormack had in fact told you that there were more than 100 priests by August of 1994 that had allegations of sexual misconduct against them, that that is something that would stand out in your memory?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
You can answer if you can.
Q. We're talking about more than 10 percent, potentially 10 percent of actual priests of the Archdiocese of Boston.
MR. ROGERS: Is that a question?
MR. CRAWFORD: Is that a question?
MR. MacLEISH:: I'm trying to --
MR. ROGERS: What's the question?
MR. MacLEISH:: I withdraw that.
Q. Cardinal, if you had known -- is it fair to state that using your best recollection, that if someone had come in 1994 and told you that there were more than, there were allegations against more than 100 priests of the Boston Archdiocese, that that is the type of information, of sexual misconduct, that that's the type of information that would have stood out in your mind?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
You may answer.
MR. ROGERS: I object to the form to the extent you indicate he was not using his best recollection in every question. I believe he has been. So I think --
MR. MacLEISH:: I believe that to be true too.
MR. ROGERS: All right.
A. Mr. MacLeish, my response to sexual misconduct against minors on the part of clergy is not predicated upon numbers. There's not a threshold where you have to have a response, and a hundred calls for a response, 99 doesn't, one doesn't at all. I think one is one too many.
And our effort to deal with this issue as responsibly as we could is present in the '93 policy, imperfect though it be. And it was an effort to implement that policy as effectively as we could as we received cases of misconduct. That was a responsibility of the Delegate.
Q. When did you -- Cardinal, could you answer my question, please?
My question was: Is it fair to state that if someone had come to you in 1994 and told you there were a hundred priests that were involved in alleged sexual misconduct, that that is the type of information that you would now remember having received in '94? Do you understand my question?
A. I was --
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form of the question.
You may answer.
MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.
A. I cannot tell you how many priests I knew in '94 were involved. I can't tell you that. But I can tell you that I was very concerned by the fact that there were any involved, and we were attempting to deal with that issue as effectively as we could.
Q. And you were also, in 1993 and 1994, making statements about the coverage in the news media concerning the Father Porter case, denouncing it as besmirching the good names of many priests; is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form of the question.
A. Did I ever say anything like that? Yes.
Q. But you never described in any of those
statements that you made the scope of and magnitude of the problem that existed within the Boston Archdiocese.
Is that a fair statement?
MR. CRAWFORD: Object to the form.
You can answer.
A. Well, as I've indicated to you, I'm not certain what knowledge I had of that scope at the time that that statement was made.
Q. But we see Sister Catherine stating in August of 1994, it's more than a hundred priests.
A. Yes, we do.
Q. And we also know that you would have to know something about the magnitude of this problem because you would have to remove the priest when there were credible allegations; is that correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to form.
MR. ROGERS: Objection to form.
Q. That would have to be a decision made by you?
MR. ROGERS: Objection to form of the question.
A. That's correct. A priest that would be removed would need to be removed by me, that's correct.
Q. So with respect to the priests --
MR. ROGERS: It's twelve o'clock. May I suggest a five-minute --
MR. MacLEISH:: One more question.
MR. ROGERS: Sorry?
MR. MacLEISH:: One more question.
Q. So with respect to the priests that by August of 1994 that were alive, some of this number includes priests that were deceased, with respect to the number that were alive, you would have had to have known about all of those priests because you had to approve their removal. Is that correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection to the form.
MR. ROGERS: Object to the form.
MR. MacLEISH:: Go ahead. You can answer.
A. Yeah. All I can say is that if a priest was removed, I would have known that --
Q. Fine.
A. -- yes.
Any priest that was removed from '84 on, I would be aware of that.
Q. Including the priests removed in '92 to '94, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. MacLEISH:: Okay. Let's take a five-minute break here.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 12 p.m. This is --
MR. ROGERS: When do we -- we break for lunch at one?
MR. MacLEISH:: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Good.
MR. MacLEISH:: We're happy to break early. Any time you'd like to.
MR. ROGERS: No, no.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of Cassette 1.
(Recess.)
(Law Exhibit No. 5, Letter to Sexton,
5/19/66, marked for identification.)
MR. MacLEISH:: You wanted to say something?
THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish, I just wanted to, for the record, point out, Father McCormack, Bishop McCormack, but at that time, I think Father McCormack, was serving as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, and in that role, also had the role that ultimately became the role of the Delegate. At a certain point, those two positions were separated out --
MR. MacLEISH:: Right.
THE WITNESS: -- and someone new was brought in, and I don't recollect the date when that occurred. But I just -- it was in this period sometime after the '93 policy and I'm not sure exactly when that was.
Q. Well, it was several years before Bishop McCormack -- he had that position for several years before he left for New Hampshire, is that correct, as Delegate? The Delegate position?
A. Well, secretary, no. Before he left for New Hampshire --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- he was the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel.
Q. Okay.
A. And I think someone else had the position of Secretary.
Q. Of Delegate. Brian Flatley, Father Flatley?
A. I believe that's the case.
Q. In any event, is it your best recollection that by 1994, Bishop McCormack had some responsibility with respect to clergy who had allegations of sexual misconduct against them?
A. I don't dispute that, but I would want to check the record to see at what point did we make a division in that responsibility.
Q. Fine.
A. And the only reason that I do that is that his name occurring in the calendar would not have the burden, if you will, of these cases if in fact it were after the time when someone else had that specific responsibility.
Q. You saw Sister Catherine's testimony about who she reported to --
A. I did.
Q. -- and who was aware of this number?
A. I did.
Q. It was Bishop McCormack, right?
A. So I would presume at that point that it was he.
Q. Okay. Let's move on to the next exhibit, please.
