[This is a transcript of Day 1 of Bishop John B. McCormack's deposition. It is a reader's copy provided for educational purposes, with links to the exhibits. A list of the exhibits is provided at the beginning of the deposition text. Original page numbers appear at the top of the text to which they pertain and are set within square brackets, as are occasional comments like this one. For ease of use, the line numbers that may be consulted in the official transcript are not displayed here. Every effort has been made to create exhibit links that are correct and to assure the accuracy of the text. Please bring any errors to our attention.]

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT

DEPARTMENT of the TRIAL COURT

MICV2002-822-F (Lead Case)

* * * * * * * * * * * *

GREGORY FORD, et al

v.

BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a.k.a.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW

* * * * * * * * * * * *

PAUL W. BUSA

v.

BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a.k.a.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al

* * * * * * * * * * * *

ANTHONY DRISCOLL

v.

BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a.k.a.
CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, et al

* * * * * * * * * * * *

VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. MCCORMACK





VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF BISHOP JOHN B. McCORMACK

Deposition taken at the law offices of
Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green,
1000 Elm Street, Manchester, New Hampshire,
on Monday, June 3, 2002, commencing at
10:07 a.m.



Videographer: Kevin C. Mielke, CCV
Court Reporter: Sandra Day, CSR, RPR
CSR No. 30 (RSA 331-B)




APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiffs:

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
One International Place
3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
By: Roderick MacLeish, Esq.
Robert A. Sherman, Esq.
Courtney Pillsbury, Esq.
Diane Nealon, Paralegal

-and-

NEWMAN & PONSETTO
One Story Terrace
Marblehead, MA 01945
By: Jeffrey A. Newman, Esq.

-and-

HALL, HESS, STEWART, MURPHY & BROWN, PA
80 Merrimack Street
Manchester, NH 03101
By: Peter E. Hutchins, Esq.

For the Defendants:
THE ROGERS LAW FIRM
One Union Street
Boston, MA 02108
By: Wilson D. Rogers, III, Esq.

For Bis. McCormack:
HANIFY & KING
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA

By: Timothy P. O'Neill, Esq.

-and-

RATH, YOUNG and PIGNATELLI, PA
20 Trafalgar Square
Nashua, NH 03063
By: Michael A. Pignatelli, Esq.

For the Diocese of Manchester:
SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03105
By: W. Michael Dunn, Esq.
Bradford E. Cook, Esq.

Also present: Rodney and Paula Ford
Andrew Magni
Patrick McGee


STIPULATIONS
It is agreed that the videotaped
testimony shall be taken in the first instance in
stenotype and when transcribed may be used for all
purposes for which depositions are competent under
Massachusetts practice.

Notice, filing, caption and all other
formalities are waived. All objections except as to
form are reserved and may be taken in court at time
of trial.

It is further agreed that if the
deposition is not signed within thirty (30) days
after submission to counsel, the signature of the
deponent is waived.


INDEX

WITNESS:
Bishop John B. McCormack

EXAMINATION:
By Mr. MacLeish - page 10
By Mr. Pignatelli - page 272
By Mr. MacLeish - page 272

EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:

[To view an exhibit, click the exhibit number in the following table (links to the exhibits are also provided in the text, where that exhibit is first discussed). To view the discussion of an exhibit, click the page number in the following table.]

[8] MR. MIELKE: We are on the record. Today's date is June 3rd 2002. The time is approximately 10:08 a.m. We're here at Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green in Manchester, New Hampshire. My name is Kevin Mielke. I'm with Avicore Reporting. The court reporter is Sandy Day, also with Avicore Reporting of Manchester, New Hampshire.
The case we're here on today isGregory Ford versus Bernard Cardinal Law; Paul Busa versus Bernard Cardinal Law; Anthony Driscoll versus Bernard Cardinal Law, case No. MICV2002-822-F in the Middlesex County Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We're here to take the deposition of the Bishop John McCormack. The parties will now introduce themselves for the record.
MR. MacLEISH: Good morning. My name is Eric MacLeish, Bishop, and everybody here, and I represent the plaintiffs in this case, and by stipulation with Mr. Rogers, we're also including Mr. Magni's case as well, is that correct, Mr. Rogers?
MR. ROGERS: Thank you, yes. [9]
MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman, also representing the plaintiffs in this matter.
MS. FORD: Dorothy Ford, victim's mother.
MR. FORD: Rodney Ford.
MS. NEALON: Diane Nealon, paralegal, Greenberg Traurig.
MR. HUTCHINS: Peter Hutchins, local counsel for the plaintiffs.
MR. MacLEISH: Andrew.
MR. MAGNI: Andrew Magni.
MR. NEWMAN: Jeffrey Newman for the plaintiffs.
MR. PIGNATELLI: Michael Pignatelli, personal counsel for Bishop McCormack.
MR. O'NEILL: Timothy O'Neill, personal counsel in Massachusetts for Bishop McCormack.
BISHOP McCORMACK: Bishop McCormack.
MR. ROGER: Wilson Rogers, III, on behalf of Bishop McCormack, Cardinal Law, Bishop Daly, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, Corporation Sole.
MR. DUNN: W. Michael Dunn representing [10] the Diocese of New Hampshire along with Bradford Cook who's with me.
MS. PILLSBURY: And Courtney Pillsbury also for the plaintiffs.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Good morning, Bishop. Let's first swear the witness in, if we could, please.
JOHN B. MCCORMACK having been duly sworn by the court reporter, was deposed and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

Q. Good morning, Bishop McCormack.
A. Good morning.

Q. And, again, thank you for coming in for your deposition today. As I think you know from prior encounters, my name is Eric MacLeish, and I'm the counsel for the plaintiffs in this action and we're here today for your deposition.
I just, by way of introduction, if at any time during the deposition you'd like to take a break, please indicate that to me and we'll accommodate you. We may break every hour, every hour [11]and 15 minutes, depending upon how our court reporter is doing and how everybody else is doing. So you just indicate that to me if you'd like to take a break.
If at any point in time you want to go over your testimony again and modify or change it in any way, you indicate that to me, also, and I'll be happy to give you that opportunity.
Just one word of caution, which is a very common situation: Witnesses sometimes have a tendency to answer the question before the court reporter's had the opportunity to record it, so if you could try to wait until the end of the question and provide your answer, that will be very helpful. Do you understand those instructions?
A. I do.

Q. Okay. Could you please state your name for the record.
MR. ROGERS: Mr. MacLeish, just for the record --
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- we will reserve all objections except as to form --[12]
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- and motions to strike --
MR. MacLEISH: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- until the time of trial.
MR. MacLEISH: Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Mr. McCormack, please state your name for the record.
A. John B. McCormack.

Q. And you are the Bishop of Manchester, is that correct?
A. Yes, I am, correct.

Q. And how long have you been the Bishop of Manchester in New Hampshire?
A. About three and a half years.

Q. Okay. And when were you ordained, Bishop?
A. 1995.

Q. And into what diocese were you incardinated?
A. At that time? [13]

Q. Yes, sir.
A. I was incardinated into the Archdiocese of Boston.

Q. Can you explain if -- this tape may be seen by a jury, possibly. Can you explain what incardination means.
A. Incardination means that I belong to the Diocese of Boston, and that my ministry and life is spent within the diocese of -- Archdiocese of Boston.

Q. Okay. And how long were you incardinated into the diocese -- Archdiocese of Boston?
A. About 38 years.

Q. Okay.
A. I was ordained in 1960.

Q. And where did you attend seminary?
A. St. John's Seminary in Brighton, Massachusetts.

Q. Okay. And you came out of seminary in 1960, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And how -- what was the class of 1960? [14] How many seminarians, if you can recall, approximately, Bishop?
A. Probably about 76 seminarians, I think, or 74, one of those numbers.

Q. Okay. And did those seminarians include a priest by the name of Eugene O'Neil -- Eugene O'Sullivan? I'm sorry.
A. Yes.

Q. Did that class also include Bernard Lane?
A. Yes.

Q. Did that class also include Father Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Did it also include a Father Joseph Birmingham?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, as I have read your resume, when you first were ordinated, you were assigned to a parish, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And which parish was that?
A. St. James Parish in Salem, [15] Massachusetts.

Q. Okay. And starting in or about 1964, was Father Birmingham also assigned to that parish?
A. Around that time, '64, '65, yes.

Q. And you served with Father Birmingham from '64 up until approximately 1970, is that correct --
A. No.

Q. -- at St. James?
A. Until 1967.

Q. Until 1967?
A. I left there in the summer of 1967.

Q. Okay. And where did you go after you left St. James Parish?
A. I was assigned to study social work at Boston College School of Social Work, and I lived at Marion Court in Swampscott, Massachusetts.

Q. And you were a full-time student at Boston College in social work, is that correct?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you graduated from Boston College in 19 --
A. 1969. [16]

Q. I'm sorry. Again, it's very common. Try to let me finish the question, if you could, Bishop. I'd appreciate it.
You graduated in 1969 with a master's of social work, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And was there any particular concentration you had in your social work studies at Boston College?
A. Case work.

Q. And when you say "case work," can you explain for the court and the jury what that means.
A. Case work is working with individuals or groups around their psychological and social circumstances, so it's basically -- probably would be known as counseling around those circumstances.

Q. So that was your concentration in counseling, individuals with psychological problems and issues?
A. And social adjustment.

Q. And social adjustment.
A. Right.

Q. And did you -- in your course work at [17] Boston College, did any of the course work focus on sexual abuse of children?
A. I don't recall any special program that would -- that focused on that, no.

Q. Well, is it fair to state that, as you sit here today, you can recall learning at Boston College about some of the problems that were caused by sexual abuse to both, either adults or children?
A. No.

Q. You had no training whatsoever at Boston College on the subject of sexual abuse?
A. I don't recall any.

Q. Okay. All right. And -- but you did receive instruction on how to assist people with psychological problems, is that correct?
A. Correct, right.

Q. And did you then go on to actually do any counseling of individuals after you left Boston College?
A. When I left Boston College, I became the administrator full time of Catholic Charities in the North Shore of Boston, and the office was located first in Salem and then in Peabody. So my basic [18] duties were around administration. I would do some short-term counseling, but basically I would say it would be one or two individuals or a couple or a group.

Q. Okay. You in fact received a license as a social worker from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1981, is that correct.
Go ahead, Bishop. We're going to have a document that may help you with --
A. I received a license, but I'm not too sure what year it was, yes.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Well, let's just mark the document in front of you as Exhibit No. 1, if we could, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, showing you what's been marked as a -- as Exhibit Number 1, this is a document that was taken from the internet which I'm putting in front of you to help refresh your recollection. It says issue date for your license was 3-9-81 and the expiration date was 10-1-1988, and the license type was a licensed independent clinical social worker. [19] Does that help to refresh your recollection as to the dates that you were licensed --
A. Yes.

Q. -- in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A. It does, correct.

Q. Okay. And you'll notice that it says "Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker." What does that mean, Bishop?
A. That I was approved to give individual counseling or couple counseling or group counseling.

Q. Okay. And you'll notice that the actual license that you held was a licensed independent clinical social worker. That is different from other types of licenses that are given to social workers, is it not?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. In fact, to be a licensed independent social worker, you have to have a certain number of hours of clinical supervision and actual practice, is that not correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And do you know how many hours of [20] clinical supervision was required before you could obtain your license --
A. No.

Q. -- in 1981 as a licensed independent clinical social worker?
A. No.

Q. Was it 3,000 hours, do you know, Bishop?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. So at least by 1981 when -- go ahead.
A. My sense was that if you were approved by the American Academy of Social Workers and you had that endorsement, that was part of some kind of grandfathering into the -- independent licensing.

Q. Okay. But by 1981, you would agree with me that you had performed counseling for individuals with psychological troubles, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You had done counseling for couples, you stated?
A. Correct. [21]
Q. You had done counseling for individuals with other types of issues besides marital problems?
A. Yes.

Q. Did those include problems with substance abuse?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You never provided counseling to anyone with substance abuse --
A. Substance abuse --

Q. I'm sorry.
A. -- I don't recall.

Q. I'm sorry, you have to wait, otherwise we're going to be in difficulty here.
You don't recall? Did you provide any counseling whatsoever between the time that you got your MSW and the time that your license expired in 1988 to individuals who had difficulties because of sexual abuse?
A. I can't recall any.

Q. You can't recall any?
A. My sense is that I didn't.

Q. Okay. Approximately how many individuals -- and, again, I'm not asking for a [22] specific number; that would be unfair. Approximately how many individuals did you provide counseling services to between the time that you graduated from Boston College with a master's of social work and the time that your license expired in 1988?
A. It would be a guess. That is very difficult for me to make because, as I said, most of my work was in administration. My sense is that I would carry two or three individuals or couples or a group at any one time.

Q. Okay. And that's over the course of how many years, Bishop?
A. Again, that's difficult for me to estimate because the further I got into administration, the further -- the longer I was in administration, the less I would be into doing counseling.

Q. Would it be fair to state, Bishop --
A. Initially when I began I entered -- I was doing much more counseling initially, but then as I became a member of the community of social work, I was doing more work in the community as well as administration. [23]

Q. Okay. As a licensed social worker, were you a member of the National Association of Social Workers?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And were you familiar with the guidelines and the ethical guidelines for social workers when you were a member of the National Association of Social Workers?
A. Yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Q. All right. Now, I'm showing you a document which is the Code of Ethics as adopted by the National Association of Social Workers Delegate Assembly, effective July 1, 1980. Could you take a look at that, Bishop, and see if that's the type of document that you were familiar with, or it is the document that you were familiar with as a member of the National Association of Social Workers?
A. I'm not sure this is the document, but I do recall at one time receiving a document about what it meant to belong to the NASW. [24]

Q. Well, if you could -- and you adhered to those Code of Ethics, is that right, Bishop, of the NASW?
A. To my knowledge I did, yes.

Q. Well, you were also licensed. Were you not required by your license to adhere to the Code of Ethics for the National Association of Social Workers? Do you remember that at all?
A. I'm not -- I don't understand the question.

Q. Sure. Were you -- you were licensed social worker --
A. Right.

Q. -- from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A. Right.

Q. You actually held a license that was issued by a state agency?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. Do you remember whether, as a requirement of licensure, you were required to adhere to the Code of Ethics that is marked as Exhibit 2?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [25]
THE WITNESS: Do I remember? I don't remember.

Q. Okay. All right. If you could turn, Bishop, on the Code of Ethics to the sixth page, "The social worker's ethical responsibility to society." Do you see that on the sixth page?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it states, "Promoting the general welfare, the social worker should" --
MR. ROGERS: Let me interrupt you.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.

MR. ROGERS: He's on page 6 as numbered in the --
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.
MR. ROGERS: You're talking on page 6 in the document?
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. Yes, yes.

Q. It's number six, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Roman numeral six.

Q. Roman numeral six.
A. Okay. Okay.

Q. Well, I'm not sure that you have -- there's actually a couple of Roman -- [26]
MR. ROGERS: It starts "Social workers ethical responsibility" --

Q. It's "The Social Worker's Ethical Responsibility to Society," and it states, "The social worker should promote the general welfare of society." Do you see that?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. Okay. And was that a -- a ethical guideline that you adhered to when you were a licensed social worker from 1981 to 1988?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If you could turn now to the second to last page of the exhibit, please, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: That is the second to last page.
THE WITNESS: I'm on the second to last page.

Q. Okay. All right. And it's marked at the bottom number 9. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you see in that number six, subparagraph six, "The social worker should advocate changes in policy and legislation to improve social [27] conditions and to promote social justice"? Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And is that an ethical guideline that you adhered to when you were a social worker between 1981 and 1988?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, were you generally familiar with the provisions of Chapter 119, Section 51A during the time that you were a licensed social worker with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
A. I was familiar with Section 51A.

Q. Right. And 51 --
A. Familiar. I -- I knew about it, and I knew that -- I can't say that I was familiar, but I knew about it, right.

Q. Okay. You knew about it, but you weren't familiar with it?
A. I know -- I can't repeat it to you now, so I guess I'm saying how familiar I was.

Q. Were you aware that when there were situations that came before you as a social worker that involved a reasonable cause to believe that [28] children had been abused, there was a requirement that it be reported?
A. Correct, yes.

Q. Okay. And was that something that you adhered to as a licensed social worker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts between 1981 and 1988?
A. I did that as long as I was acting as a social worker.

Q. Well, you were a licensed social worker from 1981 to 1988, is that correct?
A. Right, but I was transferred to a parish in 1980, and I'd been a pastor from -- and then in '85 I was transferred to work for Cardinal Law as a secretary for ministerial personnel so that I was no longer, you know, working as a social worker but as a priest in a parish and then as a priest in the Archdiocese -- the Archdiocesan administration.

Q. So just so I understand it, we've gone through that you were a licensed social worker with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from 1981 to 1988, correct?
A. According to this document, yes.

Q. And you -- you understood that social [29] workers had an obligation to report situations where they had reasonable cause to believe the sexual abuse of children had occurred, right?
A. Correct --

Q. Okay.
A. -- when I was acting as a social worker.

Q. When you -- so you -- you viewed that, just so I understand your testimony, when you were acting as a social worker, you had that obligation?
A. Correct.

Q. When you were acting as a priest and as the secretary for ministerial personnel, which we're going to get to in a minute, you believe you did not have that obligation?
A. Right.

Q. So when you were acting as a priest and as secretary for ministerial personnel, you did not believe that you were under any requirement to report to the Department of Social Services situations where there was reasonable cause to believe that a child had been abused or neglected, is that correct? [30]
A. When I was acting as a priest, correct. And so that during that period I was acting -- my primary responsibility and my total responsibility was to be a priest; I was no longer in the field of social work.

Q. Well, did you inform the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that you were no longer acting as a social worker -- the licensing bureau for social workers?
A. No, I didn't inform the -- I had no responsibility to.

Q. You had no responsibility to them?
A. That I was no longer acting as a social worker.

Q. All right. Well, you continued to be licensed until 1988, is that correct?
A. Correct, yes.

Q. You became the secretary for ministerial personnel in 1984, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And could you explain to the jury and the court what your duties were as secretary of ministerial personnel. [31]
A. As secretary for ministerial personnel, I had administrative oversight over those offices and departments within the Archdiocese that dealt with ministerial personnel. So it was around planning, budgeting, problem solving.

Q. Okay. When you say "problem solving," some of the problems that you were solving had to do with priests who were accused of abusing children, is that correct?
A. That was not part of the overall responsibility. That was something that became part of my responsibility having been in the office, but the problem solving would be with department heads around the administration of the office or institution.

Q. Bishop, is it not true that from the time you started in 1984 and 1985, you started to come across situations where there were allegations that priests had molested children --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Would you repeat that question.

Q. Sure, yeah. Is it not the case that [32] after you became secretary for ministerial affairs in 1984, that starting in 1985 you were confronted with situations where there were allegations that priests had engaged in sexual misconduct with minors --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. I -- you used the word "confronted." Let me say this: That the allegations usually would be reported to the vicar for administration, and then he at times would ask me to intervene in a certain situation.

Q. Right. And that was something that started almost immediately after you commenced your work at the chancery as secretary for ministerial personnel, is that correct?
A. I don't know that. I would need my -- my memory refreshed when it started.

Q. Correct. We'll be -- we'll be going through that --
A. Okay.

Q. -- later on, Bishop. But just so I understand it, you did become aware, after you became secretary for ministerial affairs, from time to time [33] that there were allegations of sexual abuse against minors by priests, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, secretary for ministerial personnel.

Q. Personnel, that's correct.
A. I became aware that adults were coming forward about allegations of sexual abuse in their past, when they were a minor.

Q. Did you also become aware, Bishop, of situations where children were reporting, either themselves or through their parents, that they were being sexually abused by priests?
A. Sometimes, yes, later on, but, again, I'm not sure when, but we can --

Q. Okay. Well, we'll be going through some of those --
A. Yeah.

Q. -- documents in a couple moments. But the question is, Bishop, is that when you were a licensed social worker between 1981 and 1988, did you at all times, when confronted with an allegation of abuse concerning a child, did you at all times report that or instruct someone to report that abuse to the [34] child protective agency here in Massachusetts, the Department of Social Services?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that I was not acting as a licensed social worker, that's first; I was acting as a delegate or as administrator for the Archdiocese in its administration, so that I wasn't acting as a social worker. They came to me as a representative of the church.
Secondly, it was always our -- it became our practice, as we became aware of this, to always inform the people who were making a complaint that they were free to report this to others besides ourselves.

Q. Bishop, my question, I think, is a little more simple than the answer. Did you always report, during the time that you were a licensed social worker, did you always report allegations of sexual abuse to the child protective agency here in Massachusetts, DSS, did you always do that, sir?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: When I knew there was an accusation of a priest having abused a minor or -- as [35] a -- as a priest, I did that once, I recall, when I knew that there was a report to us that had -- it had just occurred.
I think all the other times when reports came to me they came to me as a priest and administrator, even though I was -- I still carried the license of the Commonwealth, but they came to me not as a social worker but as a priest, and at that time we treated these matters confidentially.

Q. Okay. So you --
A. Because sometimes these people came to us oftentimes with, you know, confidentially. Excuse me.

Q. Sure. So, as I understand your testimony, you correct me if I'm wrong, Bishop, even though you were a licensed social worker during some portion of this time, you did not always report allegations of sexual abuse involving children to the Department of Social Services, is that correct, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. O'NEILL: The question assumes that he had an obligation, so I'm going to object to the [36] argumentative assumption in the question.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted, and your speaking objections are noted, Mr. O'Neill. You were spoken about this in court with Judge Brassard.
MR. O'NEILL: You don't lecture me as to what any judge said.
MR. MacLEISH: Now, you're --
MR. O'NEILL: The judge addressed his remarks to all counsel.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, you're again crossing the line. I'm just putting you on notice. During the break we can get Judge Brassard on the line. Your objection is noted.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: You can go ahead and answer, Bishop.
A. Okay. I would say that -- would you want to repeat the question, though, because you were saying --

Q. Certainly, certainly. As I understand it -- as I understand it -- take your time, okay. I want to make sure we get the truth.
As I understand your testimony, Bishop, [37] when you were a licensed social worker -- and we've already been through your knowledge of Chapter 51A, do you remember that?
A. Yes.

Q. -- There were times when you were a licensed social work in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and you encountered situations that if you were a social worker would require a report?
A. Correct.

Q. But did you not report it because you were acting as a priest in all situations --
A. Correct.

Q. -- is that correct, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now -- yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 3 was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: I would want to add to that a correction --
MR. MacLEISH: She -- you have to wait until -- she's marking an exhibit.

Q. Bishop, this is a --
A. Can I make a correction? [38]

Q. I'm sorry, I apologize. Go ahead.
A. Because I no longer was acting as a social worker --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- I think it needs to be clear that I was no longer employed or acting as a social worker.

Q. So even though you were licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and you came across an allegation that would require a report to the Department of Social Services, there was some situations where you didn't report it because you were acting as a priest and not a social worker and the matter was to be kept confidential, is that correct?
A. I would say that when people came to me as a priest that I was no longer acting as a social worker, and, therefore, I responded to them because they came to me as a priest, and I responded to them in that way.

Q. As a social worker, though, you have already testified that you knew about your obligations to report matters of sexual abuse to DSS regardless of whether or not the victim or the [39] victim's family wanted it reported, you knew about that between 1981 and 1988, is that correct?
A. I knew that for many years, yes.

Q. And you knew that that was the law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is that correct?
A. Correct --

Q. Okay.
A. -- for social workers.

Q. For social workers. Which you were from 1981 to 1988?
A. I was no longer acting as social worker. I was not a social worker.

Q. You were licensed as a social worker.
A. I was licensed, but I wasn't acting. I was not employed.

Q. You didn't surrender your social work license until 1988, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I -- the social work license expired; I didn't surrender it.

Q. Okay. Now, you understood the reasons why allegations of child abuse had to be reported to the Department of Social Services when you were [40] acting as a social worker for Catholic Charities?
A. Right.

Q. And one of those reasons was -- was because the Department of Social Services needed to know so that action could be taken to protect children, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Is that correct, Bishop?
A. Correct, very much so.

Q. And even though one family might not want an allegation reported, the law of the state was that the allegation had to be reported so that other children could potentially be protected and the perpetrator removed, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And the Department of Social Services was that child protective agency charged with protecting children, is that correct?
A. Would you repeat that question.

Q. The Department of Social Services was the agency in Massachusetts --
A. Yes.

Q. -- charged with protecting children, is [41] that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. It continued to be that agency?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. Okay. Now, was there anything, Bishop, when -- that would have prevented you, when a family came to you when you were acting as a priest and informed you that a child had been molested, was there anything in your capacity as a priest that would have prevented you from reporting that to DSS?
A. As a priest the law did not require clergymen or psychologists, if I'm correct, to report anything that was spoken to them confidentially. And so that at this time when people came to me as a priest, I was not obligated to report this matter because it was given to me and people approached us in a confidential way.
And so I was acting in that light and, therefore, I did not see the responsibility -- as a matter of fact, some of my responsibility to treat this confidentially because this is how the church treated matters when people came to us, and yet people were, at the same time, informed that they [42] could, you know, report this themselves or to others, you know.

Q. Was that the policy, Bishop, that they were always told that they could report it to DSS? Was that what you always told them?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It became our practice.

Q. I'm asking you, sir.
A. Was it always? I don't know.

Q. You have to wait until I finish the question, respectfully.
Was it always your practice when you were acting as -- I believe you were acting as the delegate to the Cardinal for sexual misconduct at some period of time, is that correct?
A. In 1993, 1994.

Q. But you were dealing with allegations of abuse by priests against minors --
A. Earlier.

Q. -- before then?
A. Correct.

Q. That started after you became secretary -- [43]
A. Excuse me.

Q. That started after you became secretary for ministerial affairs in 1984, is that correct?
A. It started sometime; I don't know what year.

Q. So was it always your policy to report -- to advise individuals that came to see you as a priest that they could report the matter to the Department of Social Services?
A. It became our policy; I'm not too sure it was always the policy. It's only as we reflected on the issue and the implications of the issue.

Q. Was -- when you were acting as a priest and hearing these complaints about childhood sexual abuse, my question was not whether you were required to but whether there was anything that prevented you -- that would have prevented you in any way from reporting these matters to the Department of Social Services?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that because people came to me in confidence, usually, and because they came to me as a priest and because it was to -- [44] to be -- and because the law respected the confidentiality of people coming to a priest to talk about issues, that there was much in that that would discourage me from taking the steps myself, except when I thought that there was actual abuse occurring at the time.

Q. And in which case what was your practice at that time, Bishop?
A. At that time I recall, when I discovered one abuse had -- was taking place, that we reported it to the district attorney.

Q. And was that your practice consistently?
A. That was my practice when I -- that was the one time that I knew of abuse actually taking place at the time, suspected abuse.
MR. ROGERS: Could I just ask you not to speak to your associate while the Bishop is giving you an answer; it's distracting.

Q. I apologize, Bishop. I don't want to distract you. We're here to get the answer. I was just trying to get the next exhibit.
MR. ROGERS: But you could wait until [45] he finishes the answer before you --
MR. MacLEISH: I'll conduct myself appropriately, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. MacLeish.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Mark this, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 4 was marked for identification.)

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: All right. Bishop, do you know a priest by the name of Father Mahan?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And who is Father Mahan?
A. Father Paul Mahan was a pastor of a parish in Dorchester, St. Matthew's in Dorchester.

Q. And you have a document in front of you that -- let me give you an opportunity to take a look at it, first.
A. Okay.

Q. Now, by 1994 you had received reports of allegations of abuse by Father Paul Mahan, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. In fact, Father Paul Mahan was not in a [46] ministry by 1994, is that not true; he'd been removed?
A. I'm not sure. I would need -- I need some document --

Q. Okay. All right. But you're aware --
A. He was already removed. Okay. Go ahead with what you were saying.

Q. Well, as a matter of fact, he was, but if you don't have a recollection of that, that's fine, Bishop. But at some point you do recall Paul Mahan being removed from ministry --
A. Yes.

Q. -- because of sexual abuse allegations --
A. Right.

Q. -- that he --
MR. ROGERS: Let him finish the question.

Q. -- had molested children, is that correct, Bishop, that he had molested children?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, in 1994 were you in attendance at [47] a meeting with Fathers Flatley, McCormack and Neil Hegarty in which there was a call that was discussed, "indicating that there is the possibility that some inappropriate behavior could have taken place during the summer when Father Mahan was on vacation with two adolescent boys fromDon Bosco High School." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you, having seen that document, recall that there was an issue in or about 1994 with Paul Mahan potentially molesting two children?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And these would have been incidents that would have been required to have been reported to the Department of Social Services if you were functioning as a social worker, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And they would have been required to have been reported so that the Department of Social Services could potentially take some action to stop Father Mahan from molesting others, is that correct?
A. Yes. [48]

Q. And you'll see down here in this document, which is Exhibit Number 4, you'll see down here there's a reference -- it states, "The possibility of a necessary filing with the DSS was discussed. All appropriate actions will be taken as the case goes forward." Do you see that, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Was this a document prepared by you, do you know?
A. No, it wasn't.

Q. It was prepared by somebody else?
A. Yes.

Q. But you can recall in 1994 in the case --
A. Excuse me.

Q. In 1994 you can recall in the case of Paul Mahan that there was a discussion at that point of going to the Department of Social Services, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And the reason for doing that would be that Paul Mahan might be molesting other children as well as these two boys from Don Bosco, is that [49] correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Would that be one of the reasons?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well, I think it was related to these two boys, what -- that he was doing it with these two boys.

Q. Right, we've already established one of the reasons.
A. Excuse me.

Q. Sure. One of the reasons one reports to the Department of Social Services is so they can take some action to prevent the perpetrator of the abuse from doing it again, is that correct?
A. Yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 5 was marked for identification.)

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, we've given you an Exhibit Number 5. Do you want to take a moment and look at that. It's a memorandum to the file from Sister Rita McCarthy. Do you know who Sister Rita McCarthy is?
A. Yes. [50]

Q. Who is she in 1997?
MR. ROGERS: Why don't you let him have a chance to read that.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, absolutely.
MR. ROGERS: Thanks.
THE WITNESS: I've read it, yes.

Q. Now, we have redacted the names of the individuals here, the victims, but I've given -- provided to your counsel documents. These documents were given to us last Friday that have the names of the victims, but we're not going to be using those at this deposition by agreement. Do you understand that?
A. Yes.

Q. But we do have the documents that are available, if you'd like to see them.
Now, you'll see this reference of -- from Sister Rita McCarthy, June 26, 1997, "Report to DSS regarding Father Mahan," is what it says. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And it states, "I called the Beverly Department of Social Services to report a case of [51] sexual abuse of a minor. I spoke with Betty Rodger regarding the abuse of Father Mahan of" blank. "It happened two years ago in the house at Marblehead." Blank "lives with his family" blank. "Ms. Rodger said that she would not investigate because I told her that Father is not functioning as a priest and will be living under supervision." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, going back to Exhibit Number 4, Bishop, isn't it the case that after receiving this report about Paul Mahan in 1994 involving two adolescent boys that Father Mahan was on vacation with that you did not take action to report that matter to the Department of Social Services, is that not the case?
A. I think that this was the report, and it said that Father Flatley and Neil Hegarty would follow up on it.

Q. My question is what you did, Bishop. Did you --
A. I -- I gave it to Father Flatley and to Father -- and to Neil Hegarty to investigate further and to follow up on it. [52]

Q. Well, let's just, so I understand it, you had received an initial call, as Exhibit 4 reflects, indicating that there was some inappropriate behavior taking place between Father Mahan and two adolescent boys. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And -- and that report was made to you personally, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And then your testimony is -- is that it was passed on to Father Flatley and Neil Hegarty, is that correct, to deal with?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you undertake any action yourself to make sure that this allegation of abuse was reported to the Department of Social Services?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: At the time I don't think I knew the two boys' names, and so we tried to find out. When I got the call, I don't think I -- I know -- I'm almost positive I didn't get the names of the two boys, so we had to follow up with Father Brennan to find out more details. And I think at the [53] time, as I recall it, Father Brennan wanted to speak with the parents before any move was made.
So there was a lot of unknowns and so that is why, my memory serves me, that both Father Flatley and Neil Hegarty did the further investigation because at that time I was planning on leaving the office.

Q. All right. My question is, Bishop, did you, when you got this report, and understanding that you don't need names when you call the Department of Social Services under 51A; you knew the name of the person who was alleged to have been molesting these two adolescent boys, did you do anything to make sure that the child protective agency of Massachusetts was informed, apart from telling Father Flatley to follow up?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Did you do anything?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that at the time when I received the call I did not accept it as a -- as a probability that something happened but that there was a possibility that something happened, [54] and there was a real distinction there in that Father Brennan was suspicious that something might have happened, but he wasn't sure.

Q. Bishop McCormack, there were allegations against Paul Mahan --
A. About a possible --

Q. Excuse me, excuse me.
A. Okay.

Q. There were allegations about Father Mahan molesting children well before --
A. Correct.

Q. -- 1994, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And now you receive a report that he's possibly involved with molesting two other kids from Don Bosco High School, and my question is very simple: Did you personally, as the delegate to the Cardinal for sexual misconduct, do anything to report these allegations to the Department of Social Services --
MR. O'NEILL: You're speaking in 1994?
MR. MacLEISH: Excuse me, may I finish my question, Mr. O'Neill? [55]

Q. In 1994 did you do anything, apart from speaking with Father Flatley and passing it on to him, as the delegate to the Archbishop, the Cardinal, for sexual misconduct, did you do anything to report it to the Department of Social Services?
A. I would say I did, not personally, but wanted them to follow through to find out whether something did happen and to speak with the parents.

Q. Well, did you do anything beyond that?
A. No.

Q. So you can't tell me at all, with any degree of certainty, that this matter involving Paul Mahan, who was known by you at that time to have other allegations against him, you can't tell me with certainty that this matter was reported to the Department of Social Services, can you, Bishop McCormack?
A. I can't tell you whether this was reported at the -- to the Department of Social Services initially at this time.

Q. In fact, it wasn't reported until 1997, was it?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [56]
THE WITNESS: I don't know that.

Q. Well, to go back to my previous question, Bishop McCormack, it's -- it's -- just so the jury and the court is clear --
A. Correct.

Q. -- it was not always the case that when you had an allegation involving children who were being allegedly molested by a priest, it was not always the policy to report it to the Department of Social Services, correct?
A. Our policy was to investigate a report; and when we investigated the report and it was established that it was a credible allegation, we then acted on it.

Q. I'm not asking you --
A. That was our policy.

Q. Bishop, with all due respect, I'm not asking about whether you acted on it. I'm being very specific now about the agency that is in charge in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of children. That agency is the Department of Social Services, we agree on that, is that correct? [57]
A. Correct.

Q. So my question, again, is not what you did within the Archdiocese, is whether you always reported allegations of sexual misconduct by priests involving minors -- who were then minors to the Department of Social Services? That's my question, Bishop.
A. Once we determined that it was a credible allegation, we would have, yes.

Q. Always?
A. That -- that would be our practice, yes.

Q. And so it was always reported to the Department of Social Services, is that what you're stating to me?
A. I would say that would be my effort and -- and my goal as a delegate. So that once we established that it was credible, we would have acted on it.

Q. Bishop, my question is whether you had a practice of always reporting it. I understand your answer, you had a goal of reporting it, but you can't state with certainty that it was always reported, can [58] you?
A. To my knowledge, yes, it was always reported while I was delegate.

Q. All right. So you just testified about Exhibit 4, the allegations of Paul Mahan. You testified you didn't -- you couldn't say for certain whether it was reported. That was your testimony several minutes ago.
A. Because -- because I left the office a couple months afterwards, but --

Q. But in every other -- go ahead.
A. But in this instance we were trying to determine how credible the allegation was before we acted on it.

Q. And so you think some investigation was done?
A. It says so.

Q. Okay. And you -- you know that chapter -- Section 51A it doesn't state that you do an investigation; it says, "When you have reasonable cause to believe."
A. Correct, but 51A is not applicable to priests or to other people who receive [59] reports confidentially.

Q. All right. So there was no mandate that you were under to report allegations of sexual abuse to the Department of Social Services, but sometimes it was done, you believe, is that your testimony?
MR. PIGNATELLI: I'm going to object. It's argumentative and it's been asked many times and he's answered it.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay.

Q. Go ahead, you can answer the question. You can answer the question.
A. Would you want to repeat it.

Q. Sure. Just to be -- so I'm clear, as I understand it, you -- you believe, although there was no mandate, that there were certain circumstances under which abuse by a priest against a minor was reported to the child protective agency in Massachusetts, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Once the Archdiocese had determined that the allegations were credible, is that correct?
A. Yes. [60]

Q. And that was consistently your practice from 1984 up through the time that you left in 1994, is that correct?
A. No, I will not say that because in 1984 I was not the delegate. We began receiving complaints in the '80s. I would handle some and other priests would handle some, and then it became a practice once our policy developed and once we became aware of the numbers or the extent that this was occurring, we had to develop a policy on how to deal with this. And so then once the policy was established -- and there was months leading up to it or years leading up to it -- it became our practice.

Q. So early on, as I understand it, then, it was not your practice to report to the Department of Social Services but later on it was, is that your testimony?
A. No, that's not what I said.

Q. All right. Let's be clear about it. You arrive in 1984, as you've testified previously, as the secretary for ministerial personnel, is that correct?
A. Yes. In November I was assigned, and I [61] took over full time in January or February '85.

Q. And almost immediately --
A. Okay. Sure.

Q. -- and almost immediately one of the cases you're dealing with is Father Eugene O'Sullivan, is that correct? Do you remember Father O'Sullivan?
A. Yes. I think that Bishop Banks was dealing with that first and then I assisted him.

Q. Well, did you take -- were you in -- you assisted him in Father Eugene O'Sullivan?
A. Right, but that was after the -- but that was after the court case.

Q. Right. This was a priest who was convicted of rape, is that correct, raping a child?
A. I'm not sure what the conviction was, but I know he was convicted of molesting a minor.

Q. Okay. And then he went down to the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, is that correct?
A. That's where -- I think that's where he had been serving.

Q. Okay. After he was convicted of raping a child here in Massachusetts? [62]
A. That could be right.

Q. And --
A. See, I'm not familiar with what led up to his conviction.

Q. We're going -- we're going to go into Father O'Sullivan. But just so I'm clear, Bishop, at the beginning when you started your work at the chancery, it was not always the case that allegations of sexual abuse were reported to either DSS or law enforcement, is that correct?
A. Oh, I would not say that.

Q. I'm sorry, you disagree? It was always the case then?
A. It was not always the case. I don't know, I wasn't handling them all, and there was no conscious practice, I think, at that time.

Q. Let's just talk about the ones that you were handling --
A. The matters would be handled basically confidentially, I would say --

Q. Without --
A. -- until -- excuse me.

Q. The matters would be handled [63] confidentially, meaning they were not reported, and you were going to say until when?
A. Until we knew that there was a current minor who was being sexually abused by a priest, we felt then that we should report it, and we did.

Q. And you always did, is that your testimony?
A. When I knew that a minor was currently being molested by a priest.

Q. You always did?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Every time, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, yes.

Q. All right. Now, Bishop, was there any written policy that existed within the Archdiocese of Boston that required that when there were allegations, reasonable cause to believe that a minor had been sexually abused, that it would be reported to DSS? Were there any written policies before 1993?
A. No.

Q. Okay. The Archdiocese of Boston, at the time that you arrived at the chancery in 1984, had approximately how many parishes, Bishop? [64]
A. 400.

Q. 400. Did most of those parishes have programs for young people, CCD classes?
A. Yes.

Q. Did all of them have programs for young people?
A. I would -- I don't know, but I would suspect so, yes.

Q. Approximately 400 parishes?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. And the Archdiocese also operates summer camps?
A. No.

Q. Archdiocese operate schools?
A. Yes.

Q. Were there situations that you were aware of where Archdioceses and priests would take children on trips, overnight trips?
A. Yes.

Q. You, in fact, did that yourself, ski trips, is that correct, when you were at St. James Parish?
A. Yes. [65]

Q. You went and took young people on ski trips with Father Joseph Birmingham, is that correct?
A. I don't recall going with him.

Q. Okay. But you were aware generally when you arrived in 1984 as a licensed social worker, you were aware that the Archdiocese had many programs serving children, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you were also aware in 1984, from your training and background and work, you were also aware that -- of the dangers posed in any situation where an entity such as the Archdiocese was serving -- that's a bad question. Let me try that question again, Bishop.
You were aware, were you not, in 1984 that child molesters could be attracted to any program, school or other situation where they would have access to children; you were aware of that, were you not?
A. I don't think I ever gave it a thought.

Q. You never gave it a thought. Okay. So the Archdiocese was serving -- what would you say the [66] average size of a CCD class was back in 1984? Could vary?
A. It varied.

Q. But the Archdiocese, you would agree with me, in 1984, was serving thousands of children through CCD classes in schools?
A. Correct.

Q. More than 10,000, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. More than 20,000, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you were -- you came in as --
A. Excuse me.

Q. More water?
A. That would be nice.

MR. MacLEISH: Could we have some more water, please.
MR. O'NEILL: Are you taking a break every hour or so or...

MR. MacLEISH: Whenever the Bishop is ready.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay. [67]

MR. MacLEISH: Whenever -- you indicate to me --
THE WITNESS: You want to finish --

MR. MacLEISH: -- when you want to -- what?
THE WITNESS: Want to finish the CCD questions?
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, let's finish this line of questioning, that's fine.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: You were aware when you came into the chancery of secretary of ministerial personnel in 1984 that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston was serving tens of thousands of children in various programs, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You knew -- you knew about child molestation -- you knew something about child molestation, is that correct?
A. I don't think so. It was not something that was uppermost in my mind.

Q. I'm not asking -- I'm not asking whether it was uppermost in your mind. You knew that there was a problem in society -- [68]
A. No --

Q. -- of people molesting children?
A. -- I didn't.

Q. You didn't know anything about that?
A. I knew that -- not that there was a problem in society. By then I'm sure I knew that, you know, that it occurred on occasion but not that there was a problem in society.

Q. Okay. Did you know about the case of the priest in Louisiana, Gilbert Gauthe, I think his name was, you knew about that, is that correct?
A. I heard about it, yes.

Q. And that took place in 1984, is that correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, you would have been aware in 19 -- you would have been aware when you heard about Gilbert Gauthe, who allegedly molested -- actually he was convicted of molesting a number of children in Lafayette, Louisiana. That was a subject of discussion, was it not?
A. Yes, it made the press. I remember that. [69]

Q. Okay. You also know about a Father Thomas Doyle, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You never heard of Father Thomas Doyle?
A. (No response.)

Q. No?
A. Can you give me some more information?

Q. He prepared something that's commonly -- now become known as the manual, that described the problem of sexual abuse within the church in 1985. It was sent to every diocese in the United States. Are you familiar with that manual?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I'm not familiar with the manual, but I do recognize the name now.

Q. Okay. Did -- do you know that in 1985 --
A. Was it a manual or was it a study he did?

Q. It was called the manual, but it was, in fact, a study of the problem of child sexual abuse within the Catholic church. [70]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Were you generally familiar with this document, that it existed?
A. No.

Q. And in your -- by 1985, then, do I understand your testimony to be that even though you had been working or -- as graduated from Boston College Social Work some 17 -- 16 years earlier, you didn't really have an understanding of the problems of child molestation in society, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You started to have an understanding, though, when you started your work of the problem of childhood molestation within the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And in the course of all of your therapy that you did -- counseling that you did as a licensed independent social worker, you never came across the issue of social -- of sexual abuse, as you can best remember?
A. No.

Q. Would you like to take a break now, [71] Bishop?
A. Yes.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record. It is 11:07.
(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record. It is 11:27.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, could you take a look at Exhibit Number 3 that we put in front of you but never asked you about, which is the Board of Registration Social Worker's Licensing Requirements. This is the current one, Bishop. We're getting the one that was in existence back when you were licensed, but I'm putting this in front of you, and I'd ask you, if you could, read the first paragraph -- you can read the whole document if you'd like, but particularly I'm going to be asking you about subparagraph four.
A. I've read it.

Q. Okay. Was it not, in fact, a requirement of your licensure, when you were a licensed social worker, that you were required to report allegations of child abuse if the licensee had [72] reasonable grounds to suspect that a child had been abused or neglected?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Do you recall anything like that?
A. I don't.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, after you got out of social work school, was there a period of time in which you were a licensed social worker as opposed to a licensed independent social worker?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. You were required --
A. I --

Q. Go ahead.
A. I think -- I'm not sure when the licensed social worker act came into play because I left school in '69 and belonged to the National Association of Social Workers, and then it was after that, a period of time that in -- that they introduced licensed social work into Massachusetts; I'm not sure when.

Q. Okay. But you were required, were you not, to take continuing education courses in social work, were you not? [73]
A. Yes.

Q. So your study of social work and counseling didn't end at Boston College; you had to take courses in order to maintain your licensing status as a social worker, is that not correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And how often did those courses take place?
A. They would usually occur at conferences, or we would accumulate them through the consultations we would have with psychiatrists.

Q. Okay. And is it your testimony that you were not generally aware, as a social worker, of the problems posed by child abuse in 1984 when you arrived at the chancery, is that your testimony?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. He's testified he arrived in '85.
MR. MacLEISH: No, he arrived in '84; he was appointed in '85.

Q. You arrived in '84 and appointed in '85?
A. Appointed in November of '84 and I arrived in '85, February or March. [74]
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Fine. I'm sorry, I stand corrected.
MR. ROGERS: Thanks.
THE WITNESS: Would you want to repeat that question?

Q. Yes. I'm trying to focus in on your understanding as both a person who's --
A. You --

Q. Let me finish the question. -- as both a person who is the secretary for ministerial personnel --
A. Right.

Q. -- which is a cabinet level position within the Archdiocese --
A. Correct.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You direct -- directly reported to Cardinal Law, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Who did you report to?
A. To the vicar of administration.

Q. All right. And what you understood [75] about, both as the secretary for ministerial personnel and as a licensed social worker, what you understood about childhood sexual abuse 1985 up through 1994, that's what we're focusing on.
A. Correct.

Q. So you've testified that you heard something about the case in Louisiana, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Isn't it also the case that some part of your education and training as a social worker from 1969 up until 1985, when you were contending -- attending conferences and education courses, that you at least had some understanding of the societal problem of childhood sexual abuse, is that not --
A. No.

Q. Had no understanding of it?
A. No, I knew that there was abuse of children in the home, but oftentimes it was emotional or physical. To my knowledge, I don't recall ever having any -- I don't recall any kind of report or discussion about sexual abuse.

Q. Okay. Now, you remember the case [76] involving Gilbert Gauthe?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, that was not abuse in the home; that was abuse by a priest?
A. Correct.

Q. And that spurred examination of this problem within the Catholic church, did it not, the case of Gilbert Gauthe?
A. I don't know, but -- can you be specific --

Q. Sure.
A. -- by what you mean by spurred examination within the Catholic church?

Q. Let's mark -- we're going to mark an exhibit for you.
A. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 6 was marked for identification.)

Q. This is a document entitled "The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting The Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner." Do you see that, Bishop?
A. Yes. [77]

Q. Then the next page it states "This confidential document had its remote beginnings in January of 1985 as a result of the consequences of the unfortunate incidents in Louisiana. The three major parts of the final draft were prepared in May of 1985 and this draft was compiled on June 8-9, 1985 by Mr. Ray Mouton, J.D. and Reverend Thomas Doyle, O.P. J.C.D." Have you heard of this document which is commonly referred to as The Manual?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was it not the case that after the problem of sexual abuse in Louisiana surfaced in the early 1980s, that there was more attention paid to the problems of sexual molestation within the Roman Catholic church?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. Well, do you know whether this document, this -- again, entitled The Manual, as it's called colloquially, or the handbook, whether that document was sent to the Archdiocese of Boston in December of 1985 by St. Luke's Hospital in Suitland, Maryland?
A. I don't know. [78]

Q. Have you ever seen this document before today?
A. No, I haven't.

Q. Okay. Do you know -- have you heard of whether anybody else, such as Cardinal Law, ever saw this document or read it?
A. No, I haven't.

Q. Okay. Now, would it be fair to state that even though you were not familiar generally with where sexual abuse was taking place in 1985, except as you previously testified, that you were aware of the devastating effects of childhood sexual abuse; you were aware of that, is that correct?
A. In the Gauthe cases --

Q. No, just in general. As a social worker, were you aware that when a child is raped by an individual there can be psychological problems associated with that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Were you aware of that in 1985?
A. I don't think so because --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- because we never dealt -- I don't [79] recall ever reflecting or discussing or talking about child sexual abuse.

Q. As -- just apart from being a social worker, just as a human being, weren't you aware in 1985 that when a child is raped or sexually molested that that is something that is likely to cause harm?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Were you aware in 1985 that some of the harm associated with that could be feelings of guilt, were you aware of that?
A. No.

Q. Were you aware at any time afterwards that children sometimes feel guilt and blame themselves when they're sexually molested, were you aware of that at any time after 1985?
A. Yes.

Q. When did you start to become aware of that?
A. Pretty late on; I'd say in the '90 -- in the '90s or even now even more so.

Q. But in the '90s -- when in the '90s?
A. I'd say as I began to deal with the cases of sexual abuse and -- I'm going to say [80] probably around '92, '93, '94.

Q. You first started to understand that people were -- could feel guilty?
A. The feelings of guilt, right.

Q. And, of course, you began to understand substance abuse, that people who are sexually abused sometimes engage in substance abuse and self-destructive behavior, did you have an understanding of that, Bishop?
A. I knew that -- I'm not going to say it was substance abuse, but I knew that people, as we moved into it who were sexually abused, also had other, you know, emotional issues.

Q. But not substance abuse?
A. I'm -- I'm not going to say not; I'm just saying that I don't -- I don't think of it in terms of substance abuse; I think of it just being a lot people have a lot of emotional problems after being sexually molested.

Q. And were you aware that people have a lot of emotional problems, as you describe it, after they were sexually molested? Were you aware of that in 1985 on some level, Bishop? Just common sense, [81] isn't it?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I thought about it until I began to deal with it. You know, I'm sure that I heard about the Gauthe case and I've heard about other cases, but that I reflected on it about the -- about what impact that had on the individuals, I didn't know about that until I began to deal with it.

Q. When a child is raped, you didn't believe in 1985 that there could be serious psychological consequences from that?
A. Oh, I could believe, but you're saying did I -- did I appreciate it, I think is the word you used.

Q. Yes, did you appreciate it?
A. Now I do; at that time I didn't reflect on it that much. I just -- I was aware of the damage that was being -- that these children were being impacted. I knew that there were people who, in their later age, as I began to work with it, you know, would repress that memory and only later would it come forward in their life. [82]

Q. And you knew that some of these people -- I mean later on in the '90s you knew that some of these people would engage, as a result of the sexual abuse, in self-destructive behavior such as substance abuse, is that correct, Bishop?
A. I'm going to say that I knew that they had emotional problems and I knew that some of them would tend to be suicidal, I had heard that.

Q. Okay.
A. But I don't know about substance abuse, to be quite honest. You heard about drugs --

Q. I'm talking about drugs and alcohol, Bishop --
A. -- alcohol.

Q. You interpret that --
A. I --

Q. Let me finish the question. Did you at any point become aware that individuals who had been molested when they were children, raped, have a higher tendency to engage in taking drugs and becoming alcoholics, prior to today have any awareness of that?
A. No, I didn't know that, [83] that they have a higher tendency. I just know that they have emotional problems and that some of them would eventually become alcoholics or have problems with alcohol.

Q. And drugs?
A. And drugs.

Q. And you also mentioned suicidal behavior as well.
A. Yes.

Q. You, you began to get an understanding that people, when they're sexually molested by anyone, that they can become suicidal and kill themselves, is that correct?
A. Yes, I've learned that about some of them, yes.

Q. And when did you -- did you know that in the 19 -- the early 1990s?
A. I can't put a date on that, I really can't.

Q. Well, did you know about it --
A. I -- you must remember that in the Archdiocese Sister Catherine Mulkerrin and Sister Rita McCarthy dealt most of the time with the [84] victims, and so I think they would be much more aware and have a deeper appreciation of the impact on the victims of sexual abuse than I would directly have. I would hear it from them about the impact on some of these people.

Q. Okay. And Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, was she a licensed social worker?
A. No.

Q. Sister Rita McCarthy, was she a licensed social worker?
A. I don't know.

Q. And these were two women who were reporting to you, when you became the delegate to the Cardinal, on priest sexual misconduct, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you're stating here today that it was only after Sister Rita and Sister Catherine started speaking to you that you became aware of some of the damages that could occur when a child is sexually molested by a priest?
A. I would say that I became much more fully aware, not only -- not only then, but I became [85] more fully aware because that's when the numbers of allegations and reports had increased numerically, and so we were asking them to deal with the victims so the victims could tell their story. And I know that by the victims telling their stories to them, that I had a better appreciation. So as time went on, I learned more.

Q. Okay. But in 1985 when you started at the chancery, Bishop, is it not the case that you were aware, for example, of the Fells Acre case? Did you ever hear about the Fells Acre case?
A. Yes, right.

Q. And the Fells Acre case involved molestation at a day care center, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then you were also aware, were you not, at other times of the McMartin preschool case, another day care case, do you remember that one in California?
A. No.

Q. But you were aware of Fells Acre?
A. Yes.

Q. And that received a lot of attention [86] here in Massachusetts?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. Were you aware, also, during the 1980s of the case involving Buckingham, Brown & Nichols and Ted Washburn, the teacher who was molesting children at Buckingham, Brown & Nichols, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you become aware during the 1980s that the headmaster of Buckingham, Brown & Nichols was prosecuted for not reporting child abuse? Did you ever become aware of that? Peter Gunness was his name.
A. I don't recall that, no.

Q. So would it be fair to state that with your knowledge of Gilbert Gauthier[sic] and what he was doing in Louisiana and your knowledge of Fells Acre and McMartin -- I'm sorry -- Fells Acre and the Buckingham, Brown & Nichols case, that you did have some understanding during the 1980s that sexual abuse could occur in places where children tended to be served --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct? [87]
A. Yes.

Q. And that would include schools --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct, which the Archdiocese ran?
A. Yes.

Q. That would include CCD classes --
A. Yes.

Q. -- where children were being served, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. That would include situations where priests were taking children on overnight trips, for example, abuse could occur then, you understood that during the 1980s, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I never thought a priest, you know, taking kids out as abusing children. I knew that there was the Gauthier[sic] case in Louisiana, but the idea that this was something that was extensive in the church, no, I did not know that.

Q. I'm not asking whether it was extensive, but you knew -- what I'm trying to find -- to establish is that you knew that the opportunity [88] existed in many ways in the Archdiocese of Boston in the schools, in the CCD classes, in almost any situation where a priest could have interaction with a child alone, you knew that there was a potential problem for sexual abuse of those children, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I knew that there was a potential problem for sexual abuse? I don't think I would put it that way. I think that what I would say is that sexual abuse can occur anyplace and anywhere, and did I think that sexual abuse might occur there? It never entered my mind that much that sexual abuse could occur there; not that it couldn't, but that did it or was I concerned about it?

Q. Bishop, when you arrived in 1985 at the chancery, Father Eugene O'Sullivan had been convicted of raping --
A. That's right.

Q. -- young children in the Archdiocese of Boston, do you recall that?
A. Correct.

Q. Do you recall the name -- [89]
A. Well, no, put it this way: I don't recall what the accusation was. I do recall him being tried and convicted --

Q. Well, he pled guilty.
A. But --

Q. He pled guilty.
A. He pled guilty.

Q. He pled guilty to rape, Bishop, okay. So -- and that occurred before you arrived at the chancery, and you knew --
A. Yes.

Q. -- about the O'Sullivan case --
A. Right.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And so you knew that there was the potential for a priest, both because of your knowledge of what had happened in Louisiana --
A. Correct.

Q. -- and the O'Sullivan case, for priests to sexually molest children, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And as part of your administrative [90] responsibilities as the secretary for ministerial personnel, it would have been part of your responsibility administratively to put in systems to insure that that didn't happen, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Well, whose responsibility would it have been?
A. It would have been the priest who was -- would be responsible for the continuing formation of priests.

Q. Who -- well, which individual was that in 1985?
A. I'm not sure. I would -- but at that time we did not -- I would say the conversation about this being something that needs to be addressed among the ministers of the church was not something that was thought of.

Q. You had -- you had Eugene O'Sullivan pled guilty to raping a child, okay, you had Gilbert Gauthier[sic], you knew what was happening in the Fells Acre case --
A. Correct.

Q. -- when you came in. My question is -- [91] you're the secretary for ministerial personnel -- wouldn't it have been your duties, as part of being secretary, to come up with a policy that would prevent the molestation of children by priests or employees of the Archdiocese?
A. In 1985 that would not have been my responsibility.

Q. Whose responsibility would it have been?
A. May I answer the question?

Q. Sure.
A. I think that in 1985, as those incidents became evident, the Fells Acre or Gilbert Gauthier[sic] Or Eugene O'Sullivan, that those were seen as exceptions and that it wasn't seen as something that was extensive. So that it only became part of a conversation later on as we began to realize that this was a much more serious problem than initially it appeared, and I think that that occurred around 1992 with the James Porter case.

Q. That was the case that I handled, is that correct?
A. I don't know. [92]

Q. Well, didn't you -- do you recall meeting with me about that case?
A. (No response.)

Q. No?
A. No, I don't.

Q. All right. Well, we'll get it -- get into that a little bit later. But is it fair to state, then, that prior to the James Porter case, Bishop McCormack, there was no policy in place within the Archdiocese of Boston that was designed to prevent children from being abused in Archdioceses CCD programs and school problems, is that correct?
A. I can't speak for that because -- because those responsibilities would be with the religious education department and the school department, and they might have had policies and practices.

Q. Well, were you aware of any such policy, written policy, to prevent --
A. No.

Q. -- childhood sexual abuse, is that correct? You're not aware of any written policy before '93, are you? [93]
A. I would not say so. I was not aware because it wasn't my responsibility to be aware in regard to CCD or schools; those responsibilities belonged to the superintendent of schools and the director of religious education, and they might have had policies.

Q. You just don't -- you can't identify any as you sit here today before 1993, can you?
A. Excuse me?

Q. You cannot identify any as you sit here today that were in place before 1993?
A. I, as the secretary of ministerial personnel, was not aware of any policy, but there could have been one.

Q. Okay. I'm just asking what you're aware of, Bishop, okay
A. Okay.

Q. Now -- not whether there could have been one, but you weren't aware of any, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You were aware of one that was put in place in 1993, is that correct?
A. Correct. [94]

Q. And were you involved in the formulation of that policy in 1993?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. But you were not involved in the formulation of any policy prior to the Porter case, is that not correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you ever suggest to Cardinal Law at any point before 1993 that "We need to have a policy to prevent children from being sexually abused"?
A. I did.

Q. And -- and when did you suggest that prior to 1993?
A. I don't know, but it came to our -- I thought that we had a policy that was unwritten and -- because we had a practice that had developed over those years and it became clear that not only, you know, should we have a practice, but that it should be a written policy. And so through a -- through a conversation among some of us, and I'm not sure who they were, we decided to have a written policy.

Q. Okay. And prior to the time that there [95] was discussion about the written policy, did you ever recommend to Cardinal Law "We need to have a written policy"?
A. Prior to the time that we developed it?

Q. Yes.
A. No.

Q. Okay. So -- and in fact you were the person who put the policy together, is that not correct?
A. With the help of others.

Q. But you were the person in charge of the policy, is that not correct, you were the person in charge of putting it together?
A. No.

Q. You were the delegate --
A. I was -- no, I was made delegate as a result of the policy. I was the person who convened a group, but the group then developed that policy, took a rough draft that I had put together, and then they were the ones who -- a group of people developed that policy.

Q. So even though the Archdiocese of Boston is serving tens of thousands of children and [96] even though you were aware of the potential for priests to engage in sexual misconduct, there was no written policy until 1993, correct, Bishop?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection, argumentative.
You can answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I think that, you know, the statement is that there could have been a policy regarding the protection of children in both the religious education and the school departments, but I would not be aware of that because my responsibility was in the area of ministerial personnel, and so the ministerial personnel did not include those two departments that dealt directly with children. So they could have had policies, and I'm --

Q. Let me --
A. -- I'm just saying that so that -- so that when you make the statement that there was no policy, I think the possibility was that there were policies.

Q. You don't know either way, Bishop, do you?
A. It wasn't my responsibility to know. [97]

Q. So you don't know either way, do you?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Great. So let's go back to the question. The question is you're the person who's in charge of ministerial personnel, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Ministerial personnel means priests?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you were the one who eventually worked on the policy in 1993?
A. Correct.

Q. There was no policy before then that you were aware of, written policy that you were aware of?
A. For priests.

Q. Okay. And -- well, this was also -- this policy developed in 1993 was designed to prevent children from being sexually abused, was that not the case?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You weren't aware of any policy before 1993 that was designed to prevent children, a written policy -- you were not aware of, before 1993, [98] of any written policy that was designed to protect children from being sexually abused, correct?
A. By priests?

Q. By priests.
A. Correct.

Q. Even though you knew about the O'Sullivan case, you knew about the Gauthe case and you knew about the Fells Acre case, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you knew that the Archdiocese of Boston was serving tens of thousands of children in various programs, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now --
A. May I add --

Q. Certainly.
A. -- something? That -- but there was a practice that had developed over those years as we began handling cases of sexual misconduct by priests in the Archdiocese.

Q. We're going to get into that.
MR. O'NEILL: Have you finished your answer?
[99] THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Go ahead. I mean it's not really a question that I have before you, but I'm happy to give you the opportunity if you'd like to say something. Go ahead.
A. Well, the implication was -- when you say there was no policy, there was an unwritten, so to speak, policy. There was a practice that had developed over the years --

Q. Okay. We're going to get into that practice.
A. -- in regard to priests.

Q. We're going to get into that, Bishop, okay, and I'll give you ample opportunity to explain the policy.
Now, with respect to -- you've issued a statement, Bishop, that I'd like to look at right now that concerns, at least in part, Paul Shanley. You're familiar with that statement --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that was issued on May 2nd, 2002?
A. Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: Let's mark that as an [100] exhibit.

(McCormack Exhibit 7 was marked for identification.)

Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit Number 7 and ask if that's a true and accurate copy of the statement that you made on May 2nd, 2002?
A. Do I have time to read it?

Q. Certainly.
A. Okay.

Q. It was retrieved by your website -- from your website, if that's of any help to you. Bishop, you can read the whole thing. I'm going to be focusing on the first three pages --
A. Okay. Let me --

Q. -- but feel free to read whatever you want.
A. When I finish page three, I'll let you know.

Q. Actually, to the top paragraph on page four.
A. Okay. Okay.

Q. All right. Now, Bishop, you issued this statement on May 2nd, 2002, Exhibit Number 7, is [101] that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And on the first page of the statement, you stated that you knew who the victims are. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you state to the victims and your family "I am deeply sorry that you have been harmed by those you trusted. I beg your forgiveness." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So -- and you admit that you made mistakes, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That harmed people, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this was when you were serving in the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you acknowledge the mistakes that you made, is that correct?
A. Yes. [102]

Q. All right. And you go on to state in the last paragraph, that last sentence on the last paragraph, last two sentences, "Our church is an institution inspired by God but run by people, and people make mistakes." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Does that include you, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. "But people can also learn from their mistakes and repair the institution they have harmed." You made that statement, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, then you go on to recount some of the issues that arose during your service of the Archdiocese of Boston on page two, do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you state that that service has been the subject of many questions. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right. And you state, about two-thirds of the way down, starting with the paragraph "It was late" -- "It was in late 1984 that [103] Cardinal Law appointed me secretary for ministerial personnel. In that position I had responsibility for planning, budgeting and administrative problem solving for departments within the Archdiocese." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Well, your positions were not purely administrative. You did deal with priests and you did deal with victims, and you did, for some period of time, be the delegate to the Archbishop for sexual abuse matters, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. "My role as cabinet secretary was to provide administrative support." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. "While in this position I did not assign or reassign priests." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Who did the assignment and reassignment of priests?
A. Cardinal Law.

Q. Those decisions were always made by Cardinal Law from your experience? [104]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. But you did make recommendations concerning the assignment or --
A. The assignment, yes.

Q. I have to finish the question. You did make recommendations to Cardinal Law concerning the assignment or reassignment of priests, is that correct?
A. Some priests.

Q. Well, that's correct. In fact, you state on the next page that you did on some cases make recommendations.
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right. But it was Cardinal Law, from your experience, who always made the final decision on where to assign a priest --
A. Yes.

Q. -- or reassign a priest, is that correct?
A. That's my understanding, yes.

Q. Okay. And there were sometimes recommendations from a personnel board, is that correct, for Cardinal Law? [105]
A. Yes.

Q. But it would be Cardinal Law that would make the final decision, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And would -- was it the practice at the time that the personnel board made recommendations on assignments of priests there would be a review of a priest's file?
A. I missed that part -- last part.

Q. Was there a practice that before a priest was assigned that the personnel board or someone else would make a review of the priest's file?
A. His personnel file, yes.

Q. Okay. Would his personnel file include the confidential file?
A. No.

Q. We're going to get to the confidential file in a moment.
Now, you go on to state that in the late '80s -- you say "In the late '80s and early '90s, reports involving sexual misconduct by priests became more frequent." Is that correct? [106]
A. Yes.

Q. Started in the late '80s, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. There's still no policy that you know about similar to the '93 policy in the late '80s, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that a practice was developing that would be reflected in the '93 policy.

Q. There's no written policy in the '80s is that correct?
A. No written policy, correct.

Q. Then began my work in the area of sexual abuse by priests, do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. You were involved with sexual abuse or allegations of sexual abuse against priests right when you started your work as secretary for ministerial personnel --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- in 1985?[107]
A. No.

Q. Okay. All right. We'll get to that.
A. Okay.

Q. "In 1992 I took responsibility for the management of all sexual misconduct complaints and helped to develop and then implement our first written policy." Do you see that?
A. Correct.

Q. And that was the policy that developed in 1993, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that policy came about because of the Porter case, as you testified earlier?
A. And the Cardinal's desire that we have a written policy.

Q. Well, I think you -- the Porter case was one that received a large amount --
A. A lot of attention.

Q. -- of attention, is that correct?
A. Correct, yes.

Q. And that's what drove the Archdiocese to come up with a written policy, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [108]
MR. O'NEILL: I believe that's not the answer as much as you might like to take credit for that.

MR. MacLEISH: Well, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, you're not testifying here.
MR. O'NEILL: Well, neither are you, and we're not going to have your question reflect some credit that you're assuming for yourself.

MR. MacLEISH: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill.
MR. O'NEILL: I realize you like to release videotapes and everything, but let's get the record straight.

MR. MacLEISH: Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. O'Neill, you are making improper objections, but we'll take it up with Judge Brassard at the break.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish --

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Sure. Would you like to answer the question.
MR. ROGERS: Wait for a question.
THE WITNESS: He asked me the question. [109]
Q. I asked you the question, that's right.
A. And I would say that it was more than just the Porter case because I think at that time, also, there was some general guidelines developed by at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops --

Q. Right.
A. -- and they also urged diocese to develop policies.

Q. That's correct, but that was in 1992.
A. '92, okay.

Q. That was after the Porter case had started --
A. Okay.

Q. -- Bishop, okay, and there were five principles to those guidelines, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: Do we have them, Courtney?

Q. I'm glad you brought that up, Bishop.

(McCormack Exhibit 8 was marked for identification.)

Q. Is this the policy, Bishop, that you were just referring to, Exhibit Number 8 -- [110]
A. Yes.

Q. -- that was developed in 1992 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Porter case started in May of 1992, is that correct, Bishop?
A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know, okay. And let me read you the -- and ask you questions about this. The first one is "Respond promptly to all allegations of abuse where there is reasonable belief that abuse has occurred." Is that a policy that was adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. We're looking now at Exhibit 8 at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Recommendations for an Abuse Policy, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So number one was adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston, "Respond promptly to all allegations of abuse when there's reasonable" --
A. Correct.

Q. -- "belief that abuse has occurred." [111] Two, "If such an allegation is supported by sufficient evidence, relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties and refer him for appropriate medical evaluation and intervention." Do you see that, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Number three, "Comply with the obligations of civil law as regards reporting of the incident and cooperating with the investigation," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Was that a policy that was adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So is it your testimony that after 1992 there was some sort of mandatory reporting to the Department of Social Services that was put in place?
MR. ROGERS: I'm sorry, could you repeat that, sorry.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.

Q. In 1992 -- you said number three was adopted, "Comply with the" -- [112]
A. Correct.

Q. -- "obligations of civil law." And, as I think you testified earlier, there were no obligations of civil law for priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And in fact you're aware, are you not, that the Archdiocese of Boston opposed efforts to include priests as mandated reporters, are you not aware of that --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- legislative initiatives?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of that at this time, no.

Q. Now, I'm talking about not at this time. During the 1990s were you not aware of efforts by the Archdiocese of Boston to oppose legislation that would have included priests as mandated reporters?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't think I was aware, no. [113]

Q. Did you hear about it?
A. No.

Q. Okay. All right. Was it supported?
A. Pardon?

Q. Were you aware --
A. I wasn't aware.

Q. You weren't aware of any efforts to change the law to make priests mandated reporters during the 1990s?
A. No.

Q. I see. Okay. Number four, "Reach out to the victims and their families and communicate sincere commitment to their spiritual and emotional well-being." Was that a policy adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Number five, "Within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the community." Was that adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. I would say yes and no, yes in that you would, respecting the privacy of the individuals, you [114] would limit the number of people who would know about this. And so, for example, if it was a priest being taken out of ministry, you would usually inform the pastoral staff, but it was not as extensive as the wider community.

Q. And when a priest was taken out, even though -- so let me just be clear: Number five, "Within the confines of respect for privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the community," that was something that was adopted in terms of communicating to pastoral staff but not communicating to the church where the alleged --
A. The wider community.

Q. Let me finish the question.
A. I didn't know you were not finished.

Q. -- not communicating to the parishioners of the church where the alleged molester had been, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now, while Ms. Pillsbury is looking for these documents, isn't it true that Sister Catherine Mulkerrin was urging you personally [115] to adopt number five and to let parishioners know that when a priest had been accused of molestation that there should be something published in either the bulletin or disseminated to the parishioners of that church, she was urging you to do that, is that correct?
A. Sister Catherine encouraged it and sometimes victims encouraged it and we even discussed it, you know, as to the advisability of doing it, yes, that's correct.

Q. But you decided not to do it?
A. Correct.

Q. So when you had -- let's take Father Paul Shanley, for example. You were aware by 1993 that Paul Shanley, who was your classmate at St. John's, had been accused of sexual abuse, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You were aware that he was in a parish in San Bernardino, California, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You removed him from that -- you took action to remove him from that parish, is that [116] correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You also knew that Paul Shanley had been serving in a parish in Newton, Massachusetts for approximately 10 years, you knew that, did you not?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You knew that that parish included children, did you not?
A. Yes.

Q. You knew that Paul Shanley had no restrictions on his access to children while he was at that parish, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You knew by 1993 that there were allegations about Paul Shanley going back to the 1960s, is that correct?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You knew that there were allegations going back years against Paul Shanley of child molestation?
A. No.

Q. You didn't know that?
A. The first knowledge was in 1993 -- [117] Q. Right.
A. -- but -- and didn't know that there were previous allegation.

Q. No, I understand that. You knew in 1993 that there were allegations of molestation by Paul Shanley?
A. Right.

Q. But by now, as you've testified earlier, your whole understanding of childhood sexual abuse is much greater than it was in 1985 --
A. Correct.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. You knew that people tended to blame themselves, feel guilty, you knew that in 1993, is that correct?
A. I'm not going to say yes or no. I think that I became aware of it; when I became aware of it, I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Well, Sister Mulkerrin was -- let's mark these two documents.

(McCormack Exhibits 9 and 10 were marked for identification.) [118]

Q. Let me give you Exhibit Number 9 and Exhibit Number 10, Bishop McCormack, and you're free to read, of course, the whole document. On Exhibit Number 9 I'm going to be focusing on the last paragraph, which you're free to read your own -- the entire document. This is the -- Number 9, I believe, is about Father Matt, Number 10 is Father Hanlon.

(McCormack Exhibit 11 was marked for identification.)

MR. ROGERS: A couple of the redactions here are not complete of the victims' names, and I just suggest on the original exhibits --
MR. MacLEISH: They will be done, yeah, I see what you're talking about. There's one right here.
MR. ROGERS: There's a couple I see.
MR. MacLEISH: There's a couple right here where we didn't completely redact it. We're going through it again. You know, we're not going to file it today.
MR. ROGERS: No, I understand you're not going to file it today.
MR. O'NEILL: You can't file it today. [119]
MR. MacLEISH: No, we can file this, we can file the documents that we got, we can file them today if we wanted to.

MR. ROGERS: All right. Well, we'll talk about that after the deposition, but for the purposes of the redactions --
MS. PILLSBURY: I'll make sure.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah, that's all, for the purpose of the redactions.
MR. MacLEISH: Nothing is going to be filed in court until they're fully redacted with victims' names, and you have access to the originals in the files that I gave you.
MR. ROGERS: Just your exhibit, that's all.
MR. MacLEISH: All right. I understand. You're right, nothing's going to be filed -- the filing of the exhibits, absolutely not, I'm talking about the filing of the documents. We'll talk about this during the break, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: Right.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop McCormack, this is a memo to you from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin [120] dated May 18th, 1984 pertaining to allegations of Father Matt, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Father Matt was someone against whom there were multiple allegations of childhood sexual abuse, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: At this time --

Q. Yes.
A. -- in May?

Q. Yes.
A. I can't tell when the time, but I do know that eventually there was several other boys in the parish where he was that we have reports about.

Q. There were reports from different parishes about Father Matt molesting boys, is that correct, not just one parish?
A. My recollection is -- I'm not familiar with all these materials. I would have to know the context --

Q. Okay.
A. -- but having said that, what I'm saying is that I do remember us learning -- my [121] learning that there were -- that he was engaged with a lot of boys at one parish.

Q. All right. Now, if you look at the bottom of the first page of Exhibit 9, you'll see a report about the actual abuse that was reported by the mother. Do you see that?
A. I missed -- on page --

Q. Bottom of page -- Exhibit 9, bottom of the page, that paragraph --
A. Yes.

Q. -- reflects a conversation. That's CEM, that's Catherine Mulkerrin --
A. Correct.

Q. -- had with the mother. Do you see that?
A. Yes, right.

Q. Turn over to the next page and it says "He says that he knows of two other boys abused by Father Matt who also come from dysfunctional homes." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then we go down to the last paragraph, Bishop McCormack, and it states there, [122] "CEM" -- this is a note from CEM to you. It states, "this may be 'by the books', but it feels like a second victimization. The burden is put on a minor all over again and now on his family." Then it appears to be in quotes, "'Broken record' by CEM: It has come to our attention that a priest stationed here between 19 blank and 19 blank may have molested children. Please contact...(Parish bulletin)." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Sister Catherine was telling you in this memorandum, as she had told you before, that in light of everything that was happening with the priests being reported for sexual abuse that there was a need to put something in the various parish bulletins where these priests had been, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And it was not done, was it?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And the National U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had as its fifth principle, its fifth principle, that was not adopted completely by the Archdiocese of Boston "Within the confines of [123] respect for privacy of the individuals involved, deal as openly as possible with the members of the community."
A. Correct.

Q. That was not adopted, was it, Bishop McCormack, with respect to parishioners?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Correct.

Q. Okay. And --
A. But there was a reason for it.

Q. Well, Bishop, if you'd like to provide a reason for the judge and the jury, you're free to do so. I don't have a question on that right now, but if you'd like to provide an explanation, I'm going to give you that opportunity, or it can be done on cross-examination, whatever you prefer.
MR. O'NEILL: Well, this isn't testimonial; this is a deposition.
MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Then there's no question pending before the witness.

Q. Let's take a look at Exhibit Number 10, if you would, please, "CEM" -- this is from Father Hanlon's records. Father Hanlon went to jail, is [124] that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. This was another situation where you were aware that Father Hanlon had molested children and had been sent to jail by this time?
A. Yes.

Q. You remember the Wood brothers were the ones who testified against him? Do you remember the Wood brothers, Bishop McCormack?
A. No, but I remember the testimony.

Q. All right. And this is a note from Catherine Mulkerrin, it says "CEM - Some suggestions shared for reaching out - Bulletin - orally - through other families." So this was another example where Sister Catherine was urging you and the Archdiocese to put something in the parish bulletins about all of these priests that you were dealing with that had credible allegations of sexual abuse, agreed?
A. I'm not sure that this came to my attention.

Q. All right. But this is consistent with what she was saying --
A. What she was saying, yes. [125]
Q. -- as a broken record to you?
A. Correct.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: But I don't know whether she said this to me.

Q. Fine. Okay. But she uses the term broken record in that last note involving Father Matt, Exhibit Number 9, correct, you saw that broken record?
A. Correct.

Q. And to you and me the way that I would interpret that, and maybe you'd agree with me, she says she's sounding like a broken record, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. In other words, this isn't the first time she's spoken to you about it, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. She was urging you to conform with the full part of Exhibit Number 5 of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and deal as openly with the community as possible, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [126]
THE WITNESS: Correct.

Q. And put notices in church bulletins, correct?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. Now, you could understand, Bishop McCormack, given your background in social work and what you now knew by 1993 and 1994, that it would be important for people -- and we could just use the Fords, for example -- that might not know that their son had been exposed to a priest that had multiple allegations against them, you could understand why Sister Catherine would be interested in putting this information into a bulletin, is that correct?
A. Would you repeat that, please.

Q. Sure. Sister Catherine wanted to let the parishioners know --
A. Yes.

Q. -- about these various priests?
A. Correct.

Q. Number of priests, more than 20 priests at the time, would you agree with that, more than 20 priests in 1994 had credible allegations of sexual abuse against them? [127]
A. Approximately, yes.

Q. And Sister Catherine, because of all of this, wanted to let the parishioners know, the parishioners who had been in these parishes that had been served by these priests with credible allegations against them, she wanted to let the parishioners know?
A. Correct.

Q. And you would agree with me that one of the reasons it would be important to let the parishioners know was because they might be able to get help for their children, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. That's what Sister Catherine told you, is that not correct?
A. Right, correct.

Q. And you decided that that was not an appropriate policy, is that correct?
A. Not myself; it was a matter of discussion among some of us, whether a matter that came to us -- people came to us speaking confidentially about a matter, whether -- you know, that we would handle this matter as a church [128] confidentially and that at that time our practice was to handle matters as much as this confidentially and not to raise it to the point where it would become so public that -- at that time we saw this as a scandal and that it would raise it to the level of a scandal.
And so I think for both of those reasons, as a church, we had the policy to encourage people that they could, you know, make it public in some way if they wanted to; they could go to DSS, they could go to the district attorney's office, they could do what -- however way they would make it public, but we as church, felt that as church we wanted to project the atmosphere that we would handle things confidentially so that people would feel free to come to us.

Q. Well, Bishop, you wanted to keep matters confidential for the priests, is that not correct?
A. Confidential for everyone involved.

Q. Well, Bishop, the suggestion of Sister Mulkerrin was not to mention the name of the victim; it was to mention the fact that there were allegations about the priest, is that correct? [129]
A. Right.

Q. Sister Catherine wasn't making the suggestion that you publish names of victims, just to go back to the parishes where these individuals had served and let the congregation know about it, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. She wasn't advocating that victims' names be used?
A. Correct, our mind at the time was that in doing that we would give the image that whenever something like that might come to us we were going to make it public, and so we felt that we would tell the people that they could reveal this, they could make it public. This was our mindset at the time.

Q. Looking back on it, it was not the correct mindset, was it, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that I would, in hindsight, in retrospect, I think that from what I know today, it was not the best way of handling it; it was inadequate.

Q. It was not the way that was recommended [130] by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, was it?
A. Oh, no, the Bishops as openly as possible, and that's what we -- that's how we saw it.

Q. It says "as openly as possible with members of the community." You've already testified that that part of the policy was not adopted by the Archdiocese of Boston, you testified to that previously?
A. Correct, but it was -- I gave you the explanation, though, for it --

Q. I understand the explanation.
A. -- which is what we thought at that point that is what was possible and what was best.

Q. But, Bishop, you're aware -- you just testified several minutes ago that you did not follow the full policy in paragraph five recommended by the U.S. Conference, you testified to that several minutes ago.
A. Correct, but I said that, you know, in looking at it today, not looking at it then.

Q. There was too much secrecy involved, was there not, Bishop McCormack, that's what you've [131] said in your public statement?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you can understand why Mr. and Mrs. Ford, who have alleged that they never knew what had happened to their son, that if they had had that information in 1993 that they could have made significantly more progress with their son, you could understand --
A. Why they feel that way --

Q. -- that sentiment?
A. -- I do.

Q. And you can understand and you did understand that the earlier you provide treatment to someone who's a victim of sexual abuse the better the prognosis, you understand that, Bishop McCormack?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you understood that in 1993, did you not?
A. I understand it much better now; how much I understood it then, I'm not going -- I don't think I can --

Q. Well, as a social worker, Bishop [132] McCormack --
A. As a social worker.

Q. -- you understood that the earlier you provide psychological treatment to anyone the better your prognosis, you knew that from your training as social worker?
A. That's right.

Q. So you knew back in 1993 that the earlier you provide meaningful treatment to individuals who are victims of any type of emotional trauma, the better the prognosis, correct?
A. Correct, but my experience also was at that time that most individuals did not even own up to it or admit it until later in their age.

Q. That's true --
A. So that oftentimes, you know, they did not report it to their parents or they would not admit to it their parents.

Q. But if it had been reported as Sister Catherine says in the church bulletin, it would have given people like Paula Ford, Rodney Ford, Mr. Magni's parents that have reported about Paul Shanley, it would have given them the [133] opportunity to talk to their children and potentially get treatment for their children, is that correct, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. And you knew in 1993, as a social worker, the earlier the treatment the better the prognosis on all types psychological problems?
A. Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: All right. We have to change the tape.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record. It is 12:26.

(Luncheon recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record. It is 1:23 p.m.

Q. Good afternoon, Bishop McCormack. Before the break we were talking about the decision not to notify parishes through church bulletin or otherwise about the allegations involving priests who served in those parishes. Do you recall your testimony on that subject?
A. Well, I've said it, so.

Q. Okay. All right. Good, you recall it. [134] And you mentioned during your testimony that there were a number of people who were part of making the decision not to notify the parishes, including the parish where Mr. Magni and Mrs. Ford and Mr. Ford had their son. You said there was group that made that decision. Who was part of that group?
A. Usually we met weekly to discuss issues, and that would be Sister Catherine Mulkerrin and myself, Attorney Wilson Rogers and at times Father Kevin Deeley, when he was working with us, and sometimes Father O'Flaherty would also sit in with us and we would discuss all the matters -- not all the matters but the general matters pertaining to the allegations and the cases and how we were managing them.

Q. Did the decision not to notify the parishes about the priests who had been accused of molestation and had served in those parishes, did that topic of conversation ever come up between you in a meeting where Cardinal Law was present?
A. I don't recall; I don't think so. I think that it might have been reported to the moderator of the curia because our policy was -- I [135] think it was a policy as much as a decision -- that as a church our way of dealing with people was confidential. People came to us because -- they approached us because we dealt with matters confidentially, and so the concern was, and we thought that this -- at that time we thought that that was a good posture because this encouraged people to come to us because other people were afraid of making things public and how things are handled publicly.
Having said that, what then happened was we felt that, as I said, that if we bring these things out in the public, that this is going to create -- it could create the posture or the atmosphere that people would not come to us.

Q. Well, you also mentioned that it could create a scandal in your testimony?
A. And we also saw that at times -- you know, we saw that the idea of a priest, you know, abusing a minor was a scandalous -- you know, to all of us it was shocking and that at that point -- at that time I don't think -- my sense was that it wasn't as extensive as we have come to know later, [136] and the idea of multiple victims, as we have come to know later, and also the impact that it had on the individual.
You know, as I have said, you know, much of my understanding of sexual abuse was almost like a layman; it was only as we began to -- as I began to deal with this, that it developed. So all of that played into why we decided to keep things confidential.

Q. If we could just could try to stick to the question, if that's possible.
A. I thought that was the question.

Q. Well, it may well have been, but let's -- let me just ask you this, Bishop: You knew, as you've testified earlier, that the public policy in Massachusetts, as expressed in 51A, was that these types of abuse allegations should go to public authorities and be investigated by public authorities, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: For mandated reporters.

Q. For mandated reporters. But that was the public policy for mandated reporters, correct? [137]
A. Yes.

Q. All right. So you mentioned that there was a need for confidentiality. How would -- and you didn't want to discourage people from coming forward.
A. Correct.

Q. How would putting a notification in a church bulletin where a child-molesting priest had served, how would that discourage other victims from coming forward?
A. Well, I think it's probably why the law gave priests and psychologists, psychiatrists confidentiality, was that the image we wanted to have was that people would feel free to come and talk to us. If we said that we were going to report everything in a public way, that this could change the atmosphere that we handle things confidentially.

Q. Father you're aware that even with 51 --
MR. ROGERS: It's Bishop.

Q. I'm sorry, Bishop, I apologize.
A. That's okay.

Q. Bishop, you're aware that even in situations involving psychotherapists, that there is [138] a -- if there is a statement made during psychotherapy of a future intent to harm a child, that's not protected by the psychotherapist/patient privilege, you're aware of that, are you not?
A. Yes.

Q. So my question is Sister Mulkerrin's simple suggestion let the parishes where these priests serve, let the parishes know through a church bulletin that there are credible allegations of molestation, that was her suggestion. How would that in any way, in any reasonable way, have impacted or discouraged other victims from coming forward?
A. We made the judgment that it would -- we made the judgment that the confidentiality that the church offered people was an important value and that we wanted to -- and we made the judgment at that time that it would be important to keep that atmosphere and that value. And so we thought at that time that that's -- that it would change the impact if we began to lift it up in a public way.

Q. But you also wanted to avoid scandal for the church, is that not true?
A. And we also wanted to avoid [139] scandalizing people about the sexual abuse committed by clergy, yes.

Q. Even though you were receiving report after report after report about these priests?
A. I wouldn't say it that way, no. I knew that we had reports, but I didn't know -- I wouldn't say that we received -- that it was extensive enough to make us change the policy.

Q. This has been marked as Exhibit Number 11. This is a letter from me, Bishop. I don't want you to read every paragraph of it, but do you recall in September of 1993 seeing a letter written by me notifying the Archdiocese about a whole group of priests that were alleged to have been involved in sexual misconduct with minors? Did you become familiar with such a letter?
A. I have to read this, here.

Q. Set it aside. You can read it during the break. My question is did you generally become aware of a letter that was sent from our office about a number of priests in September of 1993?
MR. O'NEILL: No, I want him to read the letter. If you're asking a question about the [140] letter, I want him to be able to read it.
MR. MacLEISH: Now, Mr. O'Neill, that's not the question. Your objection is improper.

Q. Put the letter aside for a second, Father.
A. Okay.

Q. I'm asking you whether you generally were aware --
MR. ROGERS: It's Bishop.

Q. I'm sorry, I apologize, Bishop.
A. That's okay.

Q. At some point did you become aware that there was notification that there were a large number of clergy, more than 20, involved in sexual misconduct with minors? Did you become aware of that in 1993?
A. I know over a period of years that the number of priests that were molesting minors began to increase and so that became very clear in '92 -- or '93 and '94.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, Bishop McCormack, are you aware of other diocese that did elect to follow the policy of the U.S. Conference of [141] Catholic Bishops, the principles that we just went over before the break, and who notified parishes in their own dioceses that there had been priests in those parishes who had molested children? You're aware that some diocese did embark upon that program, were you not?
A. At that time I didn't.

Q. You're aware now?
A. I am aware now, and most of those dioceses, if not all, the priests were mandated reporters.

Q. I'm not talking about whether they were mandated reporters; I'm talking about the policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which you've stated was not followed with respect to notification to the community. You've already given testimony on that subject. My question is --
A. Excuse --

Q. You can correct me if I'm wrong. My question is -- I think when you were first asked about it you followed part of number five but not all of number five.
My question to you -- the record will [142] speak for itself, Bishop. My question to you is are you aware of diocese that followed all of number five in 1992 and 1993 and went to the parishioners in the various parishes where child-molesting priests had served and told them that there had been a child molester there, are you aware of that, sir?
A. I am aware now of dioceses that reported to the parish that the priest who was removed from their parish was accused or alleged to have committed child molestation. My awareness is that these dioceses are the ones where there were mandated reporters.
I'd like to go back to number five when you say that --

Q. Right.
A. -- that I said that we didn't do it. I said that we did it to a limited degree. We didn't go to the wider community, and then I gave the reason was that because of the confidentiality.

Q. Right, you've said that. I understand that.
A. Okay.

Q. I understand that you did part of it, [143] you did it on a pastoral level, but not at the parish level at the parishioners?
A. At the diocese, right.

Q. Okay. And other diocese did, though, is that not correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And mandated reporting has nothing to do with mandating a report to the parish, Bishop; it has to do with mandating a report to the child protective agency?
A. Right, that's right.

Q. So even though you were not a mandated reporter, the policy of the Archdiocese of Boston differed from other diocese that did go to the parishes and tell them why the priest had been removed, you're aware of that?
A. Now I am, yes.

Q. And they did that in 1992 and 1993 as a result of the five principles that were enunciated at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is that correct?
A. I don't know that.

Q. All right. Okay. But Boston didn't? [144]
A. Boston didn't because of the reasons I have given.

Q. Let's go back to your statement, if we could Father -- Bishop, the statement that you gave on May 2nd, 2002. Do you have that in your pile in front of you, a few more questions on that.
A. What page are you on?

Q. I'm looking at page three, Bishop. Let's start on, actually, the bottom of page two. You state again, Bishop, on the bottom of page two in the last full paragraph, "I know we made mistakes." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you know that you made mistakes --
A. Yes.

Q. -- when you were serving -- well, you have to wait -- when you were serving as both the delegate to the Cardinal for sexual misconduct and as the secretary for ministerial personnel, you made mistakes on dealing with sexual abuse and priests, correct, you made mistakes?
A. I missed that last part of it. [145]

Q. Sure, no problem.
A. I made mistakes about what?

Q. Sure. You made mistakes in the way that you handled allegations of sexual misconduct when you were working at the chancery in Boston from 1984 to 1994?
A. Yes.

Q. You made mistakes?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. Now, let's go to the next page if we could, Bishop, page three. You state on page three "Did our process cloak itself in confidentiality to such a point that secrecy" became -- "become counterproductive?" I think did you mean became? Is that a typographical error in the one that I have, "Did our process cloak itself in confidentiality to such a point that secrecy become counterproductive," I think the word is became.
A. Is became, correct.

Q. It's just a typographical error, became counterproductive. "Yes. And did that secrecy foster a sense that we were protecting our own and not caring enough for the victim? Yes. I understand [146] that the price of this confidentiality has been the loss of trust," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You made that statement?
A. I made that statement.

Q. And you made that statement about your conduct when you were in Boston between 1984 and 1994, is that correct?
A. I made that statement in light of, you know, my hindsight, my retrospect of all that I have learned since taking over that position.

Q. Right, including the differences between how Boston handled the situation and how other diocese handled the situation, correct? When I say "the situation," I'm referring to clerical abuse.
A. I learned that Boston handled it in this way and that other dioceses handled it similarly and other dioceses handled it differently.

Q. And other dioceses handled it in a more open way and went back to the parishes, is that correct, you know that now?
A. I know other dioceses did review it to the parish above that and the parish where the priest [147] was.

Q. Okay. Now, here's what you have state in the next paragraph, you state, "While my concerns were always to protect children, I am saddened the Church's process extended the hurt and created mistrust." Do you see that statement?
A. Yes.

Q. So we're going to come back to that statement in this deposition. Your statement to the people of New Hampshire in -- on May 2nd was that your concerns were always to protect children, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that was true throughout the time that you were working in Boston at the Archdiocese from 1984 to 1994, is that your testimony?
A. If it's my testimony, I've already said it.

Q. Well, you say it right here, you say it right here, Bishop, "While my concerns were always to protect children, I am saddened the Church's process extended the hurt and created mistrust." My question to you is were your concerns when you were in Boston [148] always to protect children?
A. Yes.

Q. So you stand by that statement?
A. Yes, I would -- to the best of my knowledge, whatever I did was always in light of trying to prevent sexual misconduct and to protect children from it.

Q. Okay. And if you had a situation where there was a conflict between protecting children and protecting priests, you always protected the children first, is that correct?
A. I didn't say that.

Q. Well, I'm asking you the question now, Bishop. There could be a conflict at times between protecting a child or protecting a priest. Do you understand the potential for conflict?
A. Correct.

Q. And did you --
A. No, I don't see a conflict there.

Q. Well, let me give you an example, okay. Protecting a child might in some situations involve reporting either to the police or to DSS a situation involving a particular priest and sexual misconduct. [149] Do you understand that scenario that could come up?
A. Correct, right.

Q. And it might be necessary to protect the child by going to the police or the Department of Social Services.
A. I did that.

Q. We're going to get to that in a moment, okay, we're going to have some very specific examples of what happened. My question right now is if there was a conflict between protecting the child and protecting the priest, you always put the child first, is that your testimony?
A. No, that's not my testimony.

Q. Okay.
A. I would try to protect both.

Q. But what if you couldn't, Bishop?
A. I would try to care for both.

Q. Did you ever come across a situation where --
A. That's a speculative question. I mean I'm just saying that my concern would be to try to protect both.

Q. But you never had that situation where [150] there was a conflict between protecting the child and protecting the priest, is that your testimony?
A. My memory would have to be refreshed.

Q. All right.

(McCormack Exhibit 12 was marked for identification.)

Q. I'm going to give you another exhibit here. I'm showing you, Bishop, Exhibit Number 12, and it's a series of documents starting with Bates stamped 394 and then various other Bates stamps of the Paquin documents. I'm going to be asking you some questions about these documents. Do you want to take a look at the first one. Do you remember meeting with parishioners of St. John's in Haverhill on August 23rd, 1990 concerning complaints about Father Paquin?
A. I remember that, yes.

Q. If you look down on the first page, do you remember that, as is reflected -- this is your memorandum, I believe. It's got your initials on the other -- on the second page, do you see that? JBM, that's you, on the second page, this is your memorandum? Bishop, do you see on the second -- [151]
A. Oh, right here, okay.

Q. -- JBM on the bottom left-hand corner?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember being told at that time on the third to last line "During the night Father Paquin grabbed him in his private parts"? Do you remember that being one of the allegations against Father Paquin?
A. Yes.

Q. You met with two boys, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And could you turn to the third page of this exhibit, which is Bates stamped 821. And this is another --
A. Excuse me?

Q. It's hard to see, Bishop. It's the third page. It's 821. It's a report --
A. Oh, here, okay, I see it.

Q. September 7th, 1990 we had the -- you met with the boys on August 23rd, 1990 and then about two weeks later you met with Father Paquin, and this is your memorandum on Father Paquin. Do you see that? Take a moment if you'd like. [152]
A. Yes.

Q. All right. You state in this document, you state in subparagraph three, "My own opinion: I think there is a serious concern how he has expressed his care and concern for young boys. It seems to be from mixed motives. It seems that he does have a true concern for them, but also he has his own needs of affection which get expressed in unhealthy ways. I think he opened himself up for justified criticism in that he allowed certain personal behavior and legally restricted activities as being okay with boys: sleeping with an adult, touching a boy on his abdomen and near his pubic hair, letting young boys drive his car when they are below age, giving or providing beer to boys at a young age." That's what you wrote, is it not, correct, Father?
A. Yes.

Q. And yet in fact what the report that you'd received on August 23rd, 1990 from one of the boys was that he'd been grabbed by Father Paquin in his private parts, not that he was touching the boy on his abdomen near his pubic hair but that he'd been grabbed in his private parts? [153]
A. Uh-huh.

Q. That's correct, that's what you heard?
A. Yes, right.

Q. So you didn't correctly describe the nature of the abuse in paragraph three on the third page of this exhibit, did you, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I described it and that it was all encompassing. From what you point out, it wasn't all encompassing, but it pointed out that his behavior was totally inappropriate.

Q. Well, you heard from the boys that he was grabbed in his private parts and you describe that in your memorandum when you meet with Father Paquin, you report on what had occurred as touching a boy on his abdomen and near his pubic hair. There's a difference between that and grabbing a private part of a boy, would you agree with me about that, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. So you didn't correctly describe it or completely describe it on September 7th, 1990, did you? [154]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that the reason I put it in this way is because that's probably how Father Paquin described it.

Q. Well, this was your own opinion, "My own opinion."
A. Correct, but I'm telling you --

Q. So you believed Father Paquin rather than the boys?
A. No, no, no, I accepted the boy's testimony; I'm just telling you that in my own opinion what had happened. To have excluded that, it wasn't intentional.

Q. I'm not saying it was intentional; I'm just saying that you would agree with me there's a difference between touching --
A. There is a difference, I just said so.

Q. There is a difference between grabbing someone in their private parts and touching their abdomen, there's a difference, would you not agree with that, Bishop?
A. There is a difference.

Q. Thank you. Okay. So turning on to the [155] next page, we don't really need to focus on that. The fourth page is another confidential memorandum. It's Bates stamped 392 and it's dated 9-30-1991. This would have been a year or more after these boys had first made their report to you and afterFather Paquin had been removed from active ministry. If you want to take a moment and look at that, I'm going to be asking you really only about -- well, read the whole document.
A. (Witness complies.)

Q. Okay. Just that memo for now, Bishop. I think you've finished reading the memo I'm going to ask you about, which is the one dated 9-30-91. You'll see "conf file" in the top right-hand corner. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. That's the confidential file of the priest?
A. Yes.

Q. You had access to the confidential file at this time, is that not correct?
A. No, I would have asked permission to use it to -- [156]

Q. You'd have to ask permission, but you were getting access to the --
A. Yes.

Q. -- confidential file, is that not correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And when you first started handling priest sexual misconduct cases, you started to get access to the confidential file, is that not correct?
A. I would have access only to the file that I asked for.

Q. That's correct, but you did have access when you first started working at the chancery and became involved in sexual misconduct cases, is that not correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would access to cases that I asked for --

Q. Correct.
A. -- as opposed to the whole file.

Q. Right, you would have access to particular files? [157]
A. Okay.

Q. Now, you'll notice that in this situation -- this is now a year after these two boys had come to you -- and also Father Sweeney had complained previously about Father Paquin to you, is that not correct, before the two boys came forward?
A. Yes --

Q. He complained --
A. -- he's the one who revealed the two boys to me.

Q. He'd seen you before -- the two boys, he saw you in 1989, did he not?
A. I don't know when; I just know that he reported to me about the possibility.

Q. All right. So the two boys come forward -- I'm sorry.
A. See, I need my memory refreshed --

Q. Sure, okay. All right, fine.
A. -- when Sweeney first spoke to me about that.

Q. All right. But it's clear by August of 1990 you met with the two boys who were talking about Father Paquin molesting them and grabbing them in [158] their private parts, correct?
A. I mentioned -- I missed part of that. Would you say that again.

Q. Sure. In 1990, August of 1990, you met with two young men from Haverhill, one of whom mentioned that he was being grabbed in the private parts by Father Paquin, the other one reported that he was being molested, do you remember that?
A. I met with the two boys in Haverhill and, as mentioned in that memo, yes, they reported to me that Father Paquin had in some way molested, yes.

Q. And Father Paquin was removed from Haverhill, is that correct?
A. At that time?

Q. In 19 -- by 1991.
A. See, I'm not familiar with this whole record --

Q. Okay.
A. -- so it's hard for me to say.

Q. Well, let's look at the first paragraph.
MR. ROGERS: Let him finish his answer, please. [159]
THE WITNESS: Mr. MacLeish, I'm just trying to say that you're asking me about papers that I've not seen for 12 years, 15 years, and so I'm just not as familiar with it as I would like to be.

Q. Bishop, I just -- which is why I provided you with the opportunity to read the document. Maybe we could come back to the document. The one I refer to you on 9-30-91, "Currently, Father" -- this is a memo from you, I believe, Bishop?
A. Yes, okay.

Q. Bishop, it says "Currently, Father Paquin is living at St. Joseph's Parish in Lincoln."
A. Right.

Q. So he's no longer in Haverhill, right, "and enrolled in the clinical/pastoral education program at Holy Name Hospital in Methuen" --
A. Right.

Q. -- "under the supervision of Reverend Gerald Wyras."
A. Right.

Q. Do you see that? [160]
A. Correct.

Q. So he's living in a rectory in Lincoln, Massachusetts, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He's out of Haverhill?
A. Right.

Q. This is more than a year after the boys have come forward --
A. Right.

Q. -- is that correct?
And you receive a report, okay, on September 23rd of 1991 from Father Sweeney, he calls you and informs you that one victim is nervous about Father Paquin being at St. Joseph's parish in Lincoln. He also reported that he had heard some youth from Methuen wanted to call a lawyer about Father Paquin being at Holy Name Hospital, that was the report that was given to you in September of 1991, is that correct?
A. Yes, that report was given to me, yes.

Q. And Father Sweeney informed you that "Father Paquin has been visiting a young man named" -- we won't use his name -- "He is age fifteen or [161] sixteen. He was 'romancing him' when he left" -- the word -- that shouldn't have been omitted -- is Haverhill. "He comes from a broken home. His father is violent. Father Paquin has brought the boy to visit his mother in" blank. "He has been sighted visiting the boy's home on" blank "four times." That's an address that's in there.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. So now it's a year after you received your first reports on Father Paquin, he's been pulled out of Haverhill, he's in Lincoln at a rectory and you're receiving reports that he's being seen around young boys, in the words of Father Sweeney, romancing them, and Father Sweeney makes a report to you, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what you did about this is -- if you turn to the next page -- is you spoke with Father Sweeney "on April 27th and told him about the efforts to help Father Paquin find a ministry in which he would not be in contact with youth," okay. Do you see that?
A. Yes. [162]

Q. And then you spoke with Father Paquin on Saturday, September 28th and reported him the conversations that you had with Father Sweeney and Father Carroll about him romancing this boy --
A. Yes.

Q. -- and being involved with this boy, remember that?
A. Yes.

Q. That's what's reflected in this document.
When you found out that Father Paquin, who had previously, a year before, been accused by two people that you met with of sexual molestation and you hear a year later that he's romancing, in the words of Father Sweeney, another boy, visiting his home, and the boy comes from a broken home, what did you do to alert any child protective agency or to stop this from occurring, apart from talking to Father Paquin about it?
A. I was very upset with him and I spoke with him about what he was doing and I was hoping that by my speaking with him that he, you know, would stop what he was doing because he had promised me [163] that he wouldn't be up in Haverhill, that he wouldn't -- and then he said that the only problem was that he had -- he was supposed to, as a result of his treatment, have a support group and most of the people he knew who were in his support group were from Haverhill, so he was going up there.
And so at this time I began trying to work out in my own mind and with him how to restrict him more, and so that's what I did. And I spoke with him about it, and -- as it's all noted there. And then later on it was -- I don't know how soon later on -- we took him out completely because we knew that he could not be managed well on his own.

Q. Bishop, when you got this report from Father Sweeney about Father Paquin accused a year earlier of molesting two boys, he's now romancing a 15 year old, did you do -- what my question was was did you do anything at that time, not later on, at that time about protecting those boys, such as going to DSS, anything that you did at all --
A. I did --

Q. No, excuse me.
A. -- I spoke with him and tried to [164] restrict him.

Q. -- apart from speaking with Father Paquin?
A. I spoke with the pastor of the parish where the -- where Father Carroll lived and I spoke with Father Sweeney and I -- so I spoke with people whom I thought could help me understand what was going on, and that's all I did at that time.

Q. But you didn't go to DSS, did you?
A. No, because I didn't think there was any activity going on.

Q. Well, you were told --
A. Father Paquin assured me there wasn't.

Q. Well, Father Paquin assured you there wasn't. This is the same Father Paquin that you had had a credible report about him molesting two boys a year earlier, correct?
A. Correct --

Q. Father Sweeney --
A. -- but he also had now been in treatment and he was also under supervision and he was in counseling.

Q. How did you know he had been in [165] treatment, Bishop, at this time?
A. Because he had been sent away.

Q. To the Institute for Living?
A. No, I'm not sure where he was sent, but we sent him for treatment.

Q. You're sure he was sent away by 1991?
A. Oh, I don't know about that.

Q. Then don't -- please don't speculate. If you're not sure, then state that.
What we do know is that he was living in St. Joseph's Parish in Lincoln working at a hospital, that's what you say in your first paragraph?
A. May I say I'm not familiar with these papers, so that I can't speak with knowledge about whether he was in treatment, but I --

Q. Okay.
A. -- but I know that we had sent him for treatment so that's why it's difficult to respond to these questions as you talk about them right now because I'm not as familiar with all these papers.

Q. All that I'm asking is these are your -- [166]
A. My memory needs to be refreshed.

Q. Well, this is the best that I can do. These are your very own memorandum at the time.
A. Correct.

Q. And what we see -- what we see from looking at these memorandums is that you got the report about him molesting two boys and a year later he's romancing another 15 or 16 year old boy, Father Sweeney tells you that, and your only response from these documents is to go and speak with Father Paquin about it, correct?
A. And tell him --

Q. And tell him to cut it out?
A. Right.

Q. But you said earlier that when you had a report that you believed where a child under the age of 18, where there was reasonable cause to believe that that child might be being abused, it was your practice to contact DSS?
A. That wasn't my assumption here, that he was being abused.

Q. All right. So you've got a known child molester in Father Paquin, correct? [167]
A. Yes.

Q. You've got a report from another priest that he's romancing a 15 or 16 year old boy, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. That this is a kid who comes from a broken home and he's been sighted visiting the boy's home, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you don't believe that there's reasonable cause at that time --
A. At that time, I didn't --

Q. Wait a second, let me finish the question.
Bishop, you don't believe there's reasonable cause to notify DSS or to do something other than contact Father Paquin to tell him to stop it?
A. At that time I did not --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: -- because I spoke with Father Paquin, he assured me there was no sexual contact, that this was a boy he had known that he was trying to be helpful to, and so I took him at his [168] word, I did, and I set limits on him.

Q. All right. And he was also sent later to Our Ladies of Milton, is that correct, Father Paquin?
A. Correct.

Q. And do you know -- have you heard reports, Bishop McCormack, that when he was at Our Ladies in Milton Father Paquin molested at Our Ladies another young man?
A. No, I don't know that.

Q. Well, in 1991 at the parish where he was in Lincoln was there any structure or supervision over Father Paquin that would prevent him going back to Haverhill where he had been and molested these two other boys, any restrictions on him going back to Haverhill that you put in place?
A. I put -- yes, I told him that he couldn't go back to Haverhill. His supervisor at Holy Family Hospital was aware of his situation, and he was his supervisor.

Q. When he was sent --
A. Excuse me, I'm not finished yet.

Q. Okay. Go ahead. [169]
A. So that -- and the pastor in Lincoln knew about his situation. So the pastor in Lincoln knew about his past, Jerry Wyras, the father -- Reverend Wyras knew about his past, and then he had his support group. And I'm not too sure at that time whether there was another priest he was also reporting to, but we tried to place a structure that would restrict him, and it was in view that the structure wasn't working that he ended up at St. Mary's Hall in Milton where there was a more structured supervision we thought.

Q. Well, your notes don't reflect that you did that in 1991 after hearing that Father Paquin was back up in Haverhill romancing a 15 or 16 year old?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I'm not sure when he went there, but I know he went there.

Q. All right. Well --
A. As a result of the romancing, I thought that the structures that I had put in place were sufficient. I had spoken to him, I had spoken, as I in my notes -- I'm just repeating myself.

Q. Bishop, the question is: This young [170] man, 15 or 16, that Father Sweeney reports as being romanced a year after these allegations are made, did you follow up to investigate in any way whether that young man had been molested, needed to be protected or needed services? Did you do that, Bishop McCormack?
A. I did follow up, yes, but I --

Q. All right. What did you do with the young man?
A. Not with the young man.
MR. PIGNATELLI: Excuse me, Bishop, I have to object for you. Throughout this deposition Attorney MacLeish inadvertently, I think, on your part --
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.
MR. PIGNATELLI: -- you've been interrupting him repeatedly and you're not letting him finish his answers. Excuse me, let me finish.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, absolutely.
MR. PIGNATELLI: And you're breaking his train of thought by your repeated interruptions. I'm not saying you're doing anything intentional --
MR. MacLEISH: Sure. [171]
MR. PIGNATELLI: -- but we would ask that you slow down and not interrupt his answer.
MR. MacLEISH: Fair request if we could get the Bishop to respond to the question, I think that would help to speed things up.

Q. But I don't want to interrupt you; I just would like you to try to respond to the question that I ask, Bishop, but I certainly will slow down if you could also just try to respond to the question.
MR. O'NEILL: Could we have the question back, please.
MR. MacLEISH: Yes. I'll withdraw the question and we can go over it again, okay, I'll withdraw the question.

Q. Bishop, specifically the question is with respect to this young man who is, according to Father Sweeney, being romanced by Father Paquin, do you have a present recollection of anything that you did to find out whether that young man was safe or whether he needed services? Do you have a present recollection of doing anything like that?
A. I did not make an approach to the young man himself, no. I'm not sure that I knew where the [172] young man lived. Is his name in here?

Q. His name is there and his --
A. It is.

Q. -- where he lives is there.
MR. O'NEILL: It's not in the copy that Father --
MR. MacLEISH: No, it's --
MR. O'NEILL: -- Bishop McCormack has.
MR. MacLEISH: That's correct, you can take my representation -- you can choose not to, but it's --

Q. You'll see, Bishop, it said Father informed me -- "Father Sweeney informed me also that Father Paquin had been visiting a young man named," and then it's redacted. Do you see that?
MR. O'NEILL: But I think he's saying that to refresh his memory he'd need to know at least the name.

Q. All right. Well, during the break we'll get you a copy of the name.
MR. O'NEILL: Well, okay.

Q. All right. Now, Bishop, back to your statement, if we could. Do you have your statement? [173]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You go on to state that during your service in Boston "It was my intent" -- this is on page three, Bishop.
A. Yes.

Q. -- "to never recommend a priest be placed in an assignment where he could be in contact with children if he had an allegation of sexual abuse." Do you see that?
A. Yes, yes.

Q. And you say that was your intent. Did you always do that?
A. To the best of my ability, yes.

Q. Okay. Well, when Father Paquin was living at St. Joseph's Parish in Lincoln, were there restrictions placed on him leaving Lincoln and going back to Haverhill when he was in Lincoln?
A. Yes.

Q. Apparently he did go back to Haverhill, however --
A. Correct.

Q. -- and romance a 15 year old?
A. Yes. [174]

Q. But you remember restrictions that were placed?
A. Yes.

Q. I see. All right. Now, it goes on to state "In certain instances, following expert medical advice, I did recommend that a priest with this history be placed in a restricted assignment, such as a nursing home, a facility for retired priests or other situations in which he would serve only adults," you said that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Then you go on to talk about Paul Shanley in the next section of your message to the people of New Hampshire of May 2nd, and you state "Regretfully, I didn't know of these abuses," meaning abuses by Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you're now aware that there were reports of abuses by Paul Shanley going back to the 1960s?
A. Yes.

Q. And I think that I saw in a newspaper article -- and I'm happy to give you a copy of it [175] somewhere -- that you had stated that the -- and this is just in a newspaper article, so it may be incorrect, but stated that you blamed the missing documents on "an 'unintegrated filing system,'" that word is in quotes, at the Boston Archdiocese. Do you remember using those words?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So your position with respect to Shanley's -- Father Shanley's confidential files was that they were in an unintegrated filing system, is that correct? We'll get you the newspaper article, Bishop.
A. Right. No, I guess the way I would say it is -- is that due to an unintegrated filing system, the file that, as you put it, have been -- you know, all of Father Paul Shanley's file was in different places. That is a speculation on my part as to why I didn't see some of the documents that we're talking about.

Q. Okay. You did request Father Shanley's confidential file at some point, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You requested that from Bishop [176] Banks, who was then vicar for administration, is that correct?
A. Probably -- do you know what year this is?

Q. I'm going to show you --
A. 1993, it would have been probably Bishop Hughes was when I received the first report. That's when I would have asked for his confidential file at that time, and so at that time I would have received what was ever in the confidential file, but --

Q. From whom?
A. Pardon?

Q. From whom?
A. From Bishop Hughes in '93.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Let's mark it.

(McCormack Exhibit 13 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, I'm showing you what's Exhibit Number 13, and, again, this is just a newspaper article and your quotes may or may not be accurate -- I often see quotes that are inaccurate in newspaper articles, but I'd just like to turn your attention to [177] page two, and it states at the top second paragraph, it states "While McCormack said he requested Shanley's confidential file from Bishop Robert Banks, then vicar for administration, he said the file he received did not include past sexual misconduct allegations." Do you see that?
A. Right.

Q. And it says -- it goes on to state "Nor did it contain a 1979 article in which Shanley endorsed man-boy" love "at a Boston conference that led to the formation of the North American Man Boy Love Association, he said."
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you state that to the reporter from the Union Leader?
A. You know, I know that I would have only asked for the confidential file in 1993 when there was an allegation made about him. Up to that point there had been no allegations so I would not have had access to his confidential file.
So I think there's a mistake here, [178] either I might have said that or she, through the conversation, put his name in. But in '93 Bishop Banks was gone and Bishop Hughes was the moderator of the curia, C U R I A, or vicar for administration, they both are used for the same person.

Q. And then there's a reference to a missing letter in 1977, do you see that, in the fourth paragraph? I think you may be familiar with that letter where Father Shanley is quoted as saying that he could "think of no sexual act that causes psychic damage - 'not even incest or bestiality.'"?
A. I'm not familiar with that.

Q. Not familiar with that. And then you're quoted as saying in the next paragraph "It was a shock to everybody...Why these files weren't there doesn't make sense." Did you say that?
A. Right, I think so, yes, very much so. It was a shock to me when I heard about all those papers.

Q. And then you went on to say -- that's where my question came earlier, "McCormack," that would be you, Bishop McCormack, I believe --
A. Uh-huh. [179]

Q. -- "blamed the missing documents on an 'unintegrated filing system' at the Boston Archdiocese where various church officials dealt with Shanley during his 36 years in ministry." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, Bishop McCormack, as I understand it, there's certain files which according to church policy have to be placed in a confidential file, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And those include documents that would bring scandal to the church, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know, but I'm not familiar with all the details of what goes in them, but there is such a term as secret archives and documents or reports are put in there.

Q. Okay. And this is the confidential file that you referred to in your memorandum of 9-30-1991 which we marked in the Paquin documents as Exhibit Number 12, do you see confidential file?
A. Right. [180]

Q. That's the same secret archive that you're referring to?
A. The secret archive would be broader than that confidential file. The archives would be -- was a safe and it was a room that you'd walk into that I never was in; the confidential file I'm referring to is a four-drawer file where we had reports on priests who were serving in the Archdiocese.

Q. So you have a confidential file where issues relating to misconduct by priests would be found, is that --
A. That would -- including misconduct by priests.

Q. And what goes in the secret archive?
A. I was never in it, but it could be other documents and other reports; it could be old files.

Q. Old files, okay. Now --
A. May I say --

Q. Absolutely.
A. -- that that's speculation because I was never part of the secret archives. [181]

Q. All right. But you did at some point request a confidential file -- you believe it was from Bishop Hughes -- and it did not contain the allegations of abuse in the 1960s, is that correct?
A. Oh, correct, I never saw that.

Q. Okay. Now, you state, going back to your statement, if we could, Bishop --
MR. O'NEILL: Which statement?
THE WITNESS: On television?

Q. No, not the one in -- your statement, not the Union Leader.
A. Okay. Yes.

Q. It states, again on page three "When I received the complaint that began our investigation" -- this is, I believe, into Father Shanley --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. -- "I placed Father Shanley on administrative leave and eventually recommended Father Shanley never return to ministry." Do you see that? [182]
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now, Father Shanley at this point was in San Bernardino, California?
MR. O'NEILL: Which point? What date are you talking about?

Q. Do you know when he was placed on administrative leave?
A. Yes, he was in San Bernardino, yes.

Q. Okay. And you recommended that he never return to ministry, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You're aware, are you not, that Father Shanley goes in 1995 to a place called Leo House in New York?
A. No, I wasn't aware of that until recently.

Q. You've heard it now, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Would going to Leo House be consistent with the recommendations that you made in putting Father Shanley on administrative leave?
A. What I know about Leo House is that it's a hotel -- [183]

Q. Uh-huh.
A. -- owned by the Archdiocese ofNew York.

Q. Uh-huh.
A. I wasn't part of that decision so I don't know what information they had when they made that decision, whether that would be considered ministry.

Q. You go on to state in your statement "I did see a letter in 1985 from a woman who complained about a talk Father Shanley gave that she found offensive because he seemed to advocate" homosexuality. You did acknowledge receiving --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that document, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And let's just provide you with a copy of that, if we could, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 14 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop McCormack, showing you Exhibit Number 14, do you recognize -- and there's some underlining on this, but do you recognize that as a [184] copy of the letter that you received in April of 1985 that was addressed to his Excellency Bernard Law from a Wilma H. Higgs of Rochester, New York?
A. I recognize this, yes.

Q. And you'll see that it says at the top, it says -- I think that's a reference to you in the top right-hand corner -- Father McCormack. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And it says "Archbishop's Residence Received May 2, 1985," that's a stamp. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then it says "Not Acknowledged at Residence." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Why would something be received at the residence and then not acknowledged at the residence, Bishop?
A. I think this was an in-house way of identifying that the Cardinal had not responded to this so that the person who was asked to respond to this would be responding in the name of the Cardinal. [185]

Q. Was there a policy that the Cardinal, during this period of time, would not be given for a response documents that concerned scandalous allegations about priests?
A. I never heard of that policy, no, I don't think that existed.

Q. Well, were all documents that were sent to Cardinal Law not acknowledged at the residence --
A. No.

Q. -- or only certain categories of documents?
A. I wasn't part of the decision who got what, but all I know is at times I would have a copy of his response and then he would ask me to follow through; other times I would receive a copy of a letter like this that said "Not Acknowledged at the Residence," which made me aware that he had decided not to respond to this himself but that he's asking me to respond as well as handle it.

Q. Was there any effort to protect Cardinal Law from scandalous allegations that he could then be deemed to have known about that you're aware of, Bishop McCormack? [186]
A. I'm not aware of that at all.

Q. Well, you see here that it's a letter from Mrs. Higgs and it talks about a talk that was -- a presentation that was given by Paul Shanley at Corpus Christi Church in Rochester, New York, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And Mrs. Higgs reports that he, Father Shanley, "made some outlandish statements regarding the people involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not merely an orientation."
A. Yes.

Q. Did you see that at the time?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. You read this entire letter, is that correct?
A. Yes, right.

Q. At the time in 1985 you read the whole letter, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And it says "Here are some of the statements," and, she says, "some are on tape."
A. Yes. [187]

Q. Okay. So did you take, when she said "some are on tape," that she had a tape that might be available of some of these remarks that could be provided to authenticate what Paul Shanley said, did you attach any significance to that?
A. I know that obviously someone had a tape; I don't think I went any further, that I knew that some of his remarks were on tape.

Q. Okay. All right. And it says, as part of this letter, "When adults have sex with children, the children seduced them. Children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, you're secretary of ministerial personnel at this period of time, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. You would have the authority to make a recommendation to remove a priest from a parish assignment, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
A. Not as secretary of ministerial [188] personnel, no, I would not have authority to recommend he be removed; I did that as the delegate here. I would handle this and then I would speak with the vicar for administration, the moderator of the curia.

Q. Okay. And that would be who?
A. Well, at this time it would be Bishop Banks.

Q. Okay. And Bishop Banks was the person, I think you testified in another deposition, that helped to bring you into this position at the chancery, is that correct?
A. Yes, he did. Excuse me.

Q. A position you, I take it, you're laughing because you kind of regret the fact that you ended up in this position, is that why you were laughing?
A. It was difficult work, yes.

Q. It was difficult work particularly when there were allegations about sexual abuse of small children, is that correct, made it very difficult for you, is that correct?
A. That and plus many other dimensions of [189] the work, working with the priests, working with victims, working with staffs.

Q. Making some mistakes?
A. Making some mistakes.

Q. Mistakes that hurt people, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And it states here, Bishop, it states "When adults have sex with children, the children seduced them. Children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones." You read that in 1985, is that correct?
A. Yes, right.

Q. Now, that statement in no way reflected any position of the Roman Catholic Church, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. That statement is in fact antithetical to all doctrines that know of on this subject of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. Well, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that, you know, I think this is more -- rather than a teaching, it's much more -- any kind of [190] sex outside of marriage is wrong. This is heinously wrong, it's considered a crime, but I don't -- but, as I say -- I guess what I want to say is that what this is is not advocating, you know, sex between men and -- or adults and children as much as blaming the children, which is a terrible thing.

Q. Which is a terrible thing for a priest to be saying?
A. Yes.

Q. And would indicate to you at the time that there are concerns that you would have about a priest who would say such things, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And in fact as secretary of ministerial personnel, you could have done something --
A. I did.

Q. Well, I'm --
A. Sorry.

Q. -- I'm going to get to that in a second.
You could have had the power to bring this statement of Paul Shanley's to the attention of someone who could have removed him from the family [191] parish that he was serving in Newton, Massachusetts, correct? You had the power to at least talk to someone about removing him, correct?
A. I had the power to talk to somebody about removing a priest, yes.

Q. And you also had the power to call Mrs. Higgs or write to her -- she gives her address right on the bottom -- and ask her for the tape?
A. I did write to Mrs. Higgs. Do you have that letter?

Q. Yes, I do. We're going to get to that, but you had the power to ask her for the tape, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. All right. Now, you did in fact -- so I understand it, Bishop McCormack, you get this letter and you hear a priest talking about something that you concede is heinous, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Blaming the child when a child has sex with an adult, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And certainly those kinds of remarks [192] are inconsistent with someone having the stability to be the pastor of a family parish in the Archdiocese of Boston, do you agree with me on that?
A. Well, all I can say another way that Paul Shanley was a man who reached out to street people, to drug addicts, to gays. He reached out to people on the margins of society and he was always encouraging the church to be more aware and supportive and helpful to these people. And so at that time he made a lot of statements and a lot of actions in reaching out to people.

Q. Including pedophiles?
A. Let me finish.

Q. I'm sorry.
A. So at one time, you know, when I reviewed this with him, and I know I made some notes about this --

Q. We're going to get to those.
A. Could I have that now?

Q. Well, I'm really -- I was asking a different question.
MR. ROGERS: Why don't you let the Bishop answer his question. [193]
THE WITNESS: I would like to answer the question, but I think my notes would be helpful because I spoke with Father Shanley about this letter.

Q. We're going to get to that. My question --
MR. O'NEILL: Let him answer his --
MR. MacLEISH: No, his answer is not responsive.
MR. O'NEILL: Well, listen --
MR. MacLEISH: He can talk for as long as he wants, he --
MR. ROGERS: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
MR. MacLEISH: Excuse me, Mr. O'Neill.
MR. ROGERS: No, I'm speaking now. We've reserved motions to strike until the time of trial, all right, that's what we did at the beginning of this deposition.
MR. MacLEISH: Fine, let's finish his answer.
MR. ROGERS: He's got the right to answer it. [194]

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Do you want to finish your answer?
A. I would like to, you know, finish it by reflecting on what I wrote.

Q. Sure.
A. So, but my answer is that as a pastor of a parish he was very concerned -- and before he became the pastor, he was very concerned about a lot of people who have reached out in the margins of society, and I know that when I talked with him about this or on some other occasion he explained to me that he was working with street kids who would prostitute themselves and sell themselves to adults.
And so I think that he -- when I reviewed this with him, it was my understanding that he was pointing out that there are some children who -- as I recall, this is how he explained this to me -- that it is the child who is seducing the adult by selling his body and by prostituting himself. At that time Paul Shanley was working with people like that, and so I took that -- I took that as an interpretation of what Paul was referring to.

Q. All right. So as I understand it, [195] Bishop, you remember focusing on this particular statement right here in the letter, focused on it?
A. I focused on the whole letter.

Q. Including this particular statement, you focused on it?
A. To the best of my memory, yes.

Q. Okay. All right. You focused on it and Paul Shanley provided you with an explanation?
A. That's the explanation I recall.

Q. Now, you want to go back to your statement, Bishop. At the bottom of the third page, Bishop, you state as follows -- and this is referring to the same letter that you've just given testimony about --
A. Right.

Q. -- "As I have reread that letter, I see a reference to sexual relations between an adult and a minor. I believed then and do now that sex between an adult and a minor is wrong and is also a crime. Sex between an adult and a child is never the fault of the child. It is always the adult who bears full responsibility for that horrible act. Why I did not focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know. I'm [196] sorry I didn't. I wish I had."
Bishop, you just said a minute ago that you did focus, yet on May 2nd you told the people of New Hampshire in your statement that you didn't focus on that reference, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Those are inconsistent statements, would you agree with me?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I think it's inconsistent because when I made this statement I wasn't as aware of what he had said about this because I couldn't -- because I feel the way I feel about the adults with sex with minors. But I came to recall, and I truly recall it, that this is how he explained his work with street kids, and so I recall that this was part of the conversation in some way because Paul explained that to me. And so when I looked for the occasion of why he would explained that to me, I go back to this letter.

Q. Bishop, I'm trying to reconcile this on May 2nd --
A. I don't think you can reconcile it. [197]

Q. Can I finish, please?
A. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. On May 2nd you made an address to the church and people of New Hampshire, and it's an address that I'm sure you looked at carefully before it went out, is that not correct?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. It was an address that was madealmost a month after this letter that was sent to Cardinal Law from Wilma Higgs had come out. You chose, in your address to the people of New Hampshire, to speak about what you were thinking at the time about the reference to the situation -- to when adults have sex with children that was reported by Mrs. Higgs. At that time you said "Why I did not focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know. I'm sorry I didn't. I wish I had."
A. I must tell you --

Q. Excuse me, let me finish the question, please.
A. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. You're now giving directly contrary testimony when you said several minutes ago that you [198] did focus on it, you concede that, do you not?
MR. PIGNATELLI: Objection --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. PIGNATELLI: -- excuse me, Bishop, to the form of the question. It's obviously very argumentative and conclusory.
You may answer it.

Q. Go ahead, Bishop. It's inconsistent, would you agree with me?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I wouldn't say it that way; I would say that when I was trying to understand what happened that when I looked at my notes I had no -- nothing written in my -- there was no notes written -- that's why I said I think there's a document that has something written on it.

Q. Sure.
A. And as I recall, there was nothing written on it and so I said, you know, I probably didn't focus on it. But I do recall having that conversation with him about his work with street kids and that the street kids were prostituting themselves, and I think that is how he explained [199] what this statement is because that's what he told me.

Q. Could you answer my question now. My question was -- my question was, Bishop, several minutes ago you said you did focus on this reference about adults having sex with children; in your letter to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd you said you didn't focus on it. Would you agree with me there is an inconsistency between those two statements?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection, that's asked and answered several times.
MR. ROGERS: Note my objection.
MR. MacLEISH: No, it has not been asked and answered. He's answered the question, but he hasn't responded.

Q. Would you agree with me, Bishop, there's an inconsistency between what you told the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd and what you said in your deposition several minutes ago with respect to focusing on this part of the Wilma Higgs' letter?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Is there an inconsistency? [200]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I guess the inconsistency is when I spoke with the people I was looking at the notes that I had written one time and I saw nothing in it so I said that I mustn't have focused, but since then I thought about it and thought about it because I couldn't understand why, when I went through the whole letter with them, and then this is what I recall. And so what I recall and what is -- and what I said to the people is not as consistent as I would like to have been.

Q. Well, have you gone back to the people and corrected your statement of May 2nd? As of right now, have you corrected your statement that you made to the people of New Hampshire?
A. I've not made another statement to the people of New Hampshire.

Q. My question is have you corrected what you now say is a misstatement that was contained in your letter of May 2nd? Have you corrected it, Bishop?
MR. PIGNATELLI: I'm going to object to the form of the question. It's argumentative and [201] it's your characterization.

Q. Go ahead, Bishop, you can answer.
A. Up to this point I have not tried to correct that statement.

Q. Now, you stated just a second ago you were looking at some notes that you had?
A. Yes.

Q. Which notes are these, Bishop?
A. This is a note that I had about my conversation with Paul Shanley.

Q. And that note brought back this recollection that you now have?
A. Well, no, no.

Q. Can I finish the question, please, Bishop.
A. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. Thank you. That note brought back this recollection you now have about talking to Paul Shanley in 1985 about street kids?
A. No.

Q. Okay. All right. Let's move on, Bishop, and look at your letter to Mrs. Higgs.

(McCormack Exhibit 15 was marked for [202] identification.)

Q. Do you want to take a break, Bishop?
A. No, I think we can continue.

Q. We can continue with the Mrs. Higgs --
A. Yes.

Q. And then we'll take a break. Does that suit you?
A. Sure.

Q. Okay. That sounds reasonable. Fine.
Showing you Exhibit Number 15, is this your letter to Mrs. Higgs that you sent on May 15th, 1985 when you said "Archbishop Law received your letter of April 29th, 1985. He is sorry to hear that you were disturbed about the talk given by Father Paul Shanley last November regarding homosexuals and asked that I respond on his behalf.
"I, too, regret that his talk was a source of such disturbance and appreciate the interest you show in helping to avoid such situations in the future. I have been in contact with Father Shanley and will be speaking with him about this matter soon.
"Wishing you God's blessings, I [203] remain." Do you recognize that letter as the one you sent to Mrs. Higgs?
A. My name's on it, yes.

Q. Okay. And it's dated May 15th, 1985?
A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember speaking with Cardinal Law -- I don't know whether he was Archbishop at that time, but Cardinal Law aboutMrs. Higgs' letter of April 29th, 1985?
A. I didn't speak with him; I received this in the in-house mail.

Q. Okay. Could we have the next document, which is 57, please.
Before we get to 57, so everything you said in this letter to Mrs. Higgs was correct? You said here that you've been in contact with Father Shanley, do you see that, you'd already been in contact --
A. Yes.

Q. -- with Father Shanley?
A. No, I said that I -- oh, I've been in contact with him --

Q. Father Shanley? [204]
A. -- "and will be speaking with him."

Q. Right. But you've been in contact with him by May 15th, 1985, is that correct?
A. Yes --

Q. Okay.
A. -- that's what I said.

Q. Well, is that -- you wouldn't say anything that wasn't true, would you?
A. No, but I'm not sure -- you know, when I wrote that, I'm not sure when I wrote to him. Could you tell me when I wrote to him?

Q. Well, I'm just asking you, would you say something to Mrs. Higgs, when you said "I've been in contact with Father Shanley" --
A. It could have been -- I've been in contact with Father Shanley.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection, that you'd already spoken to -- been in contact with Father Shanley about this?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. He has --
THE WITNESS: I don't have a memory of it.

Q. It's a just very simple question. [205]
A. I don't have a memory.

Q. But you wouldn't say anything that wasn't true to Mrs. Higgs, when you said "I've been in contact with Father Shanley," you wouldn't have said something to her that wasn't correct, would you?
A. Well, sometimes I could be in contact with a person and not reach them. And so I guess all I'm saying here is that I may have been in contact with him but not yet have been able to speak with him about it.

Q. Well, this is a woman from Rochester, New York who's writing to you because she's got some concerns about Paul Shanley. You wouldn't tell her something that wasn't true, would you?
A. I think I've answer answered your question, Mr. MacLeish.

Q. Okay. You understand this woman was trying to be bring a serious matter to your attention?
A. Very serious matter, yes.

Q. And in fact what she said, some of what she had on tape, about his remarks about adults having sex with children is a serious matter, isn't [206] it, Bishop?
A. Very much so.

Q. All right. So this is a woman who was trying to alert -- excuse me, this is a woman who was trying to alert Cardinal Law that there may be a priest here who is at least speaking things that I think your words were heinous, saying something about adults having sex with children, that's heinous to you, correct?
A. I was shocked to read it.

Q. Okay. Fine.
MR. MacLEISH: The next one, please, 57.

(McCormack Exhibit 16 was marked for identification.)

Q. Showing you Exhibit Number 16, Bishop, this is your memorandum dated May 24th -- that would have been after your memorandum of May 15th -- which was your letter to Mrs. Higgs saying you'd been in contact with Father Shanley, you wrote to Father Banks in a memorandum attaching the letter from Wilma Higgs and your response to her. Do you see that? Do you see that, Bishop? [207]
A. Yes.

Q. And then it says "As of yet, I have not contacted Father Shanley." So you told --
A. I think that explains why I said -- sometimes you would try to contact a man and you would leave a message and so -- which is what -- I've been in contact with him but I've not spoken with him yet, and so this is 24th even verifies that.

Q. So in Exhibit 15 you told Mrs. Higgs you had been -- "I have been in contact with Father Shanley," and then -- I'm sorry, nine days after that you write to Bishop Banks over the same letter and you state "I have not contacted Father Shanley" about the letter, correct?
A. Right.
MR. PIGNATELLI: I object and ask you for the record to read the whole sentence there in Exhibit 15.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, I'd be happy to. Which one would you like?
MR. PIGNATELLI: The one you took the fragment from so you put the full perspective on it.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, absolutely, I'd be [208] happy to do that.
"I have been in contact with Father Shanley and will be speaking with him about this matter soon," okay. And the full sentence on what he said nine days later, the Bishop said nine days later to Father Banks, "As of yet, I have not contacted Father Shanley and wonder whether it should be me or his local Vicar."

Q. Those were the two statements that you made, correct, Bishop?
A. Yes, they are.

Q. Thank you. Now, Bishop Banks, he also, then, would have gotten the letter from Wilma Higgs, is that correct? You say "Attached to this Memo is a letter from Mrs. Wilma Higgs" --
A. Okay, yes, okay.

Q. -- "and my response to her." Okay. So this was another senior person within the Archdiocese who saw the Mrs. Higgs' letter where she states "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them," correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And Bishop Banks, this is his [209] handwriting underneath your handwriting on Exhibit Number 16, and he writes a note to you saying "I just sent Paul the letter with name and address removed and ask his comments." That's what Bishop Banks, wrote back to you --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then the next communication --

(McCormack Exhibit 17 was marked for identification.)

Q. I'm sorry, let's go in sequence here. Let's do the letter of Paul Shanley. Hold on a second. Let's go in sequence, if we would, make more sense.

(McCormack Exhibit 18 was marked for identification.)

Q. Let's go in sequence, if we could, Bishop. I'm going to show you first Exhibit Number 18. It's addressed to Paul Shanley from you. Do you want to take a look at that letter.
A. (Witness complies.) Yes. [210]

Q. Okay. And you state to Paul Shanley onJune 4th, 1985 -- again, your memo to Bishop Banks is dated May 24th, 1985 and your letter to Mrs. Higgs is May 15, 1985. So this was June 4th, 1985 you write to Paul Shanley and you state "Recently I received a note from the Cardinal about a letter he had received from Mrs. Wilma M. Higgs of Rochester, New York. It pertained to a talk you gave in the Rochester area last November," okay. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. So you've got a note from the Cardinal about the letter from Mrs. Higgs, is that correct, some sort of note?
A. Well, no, it wasn't a note. Again, I was just referring to the fact that he sent the letter over to me.

Q. Well, did you ever -- you don't know whether -- do you know clearly now you did not get a note from the Cardinal, do you know either way?
A. I don't know, but my sense is is that I didn't or I think it would have been in the file.

Q. Well, how do you know it's not in the file? [211]
A. Well, maybe it is.

Q. Well --
A. You're asking me to remember something that goes back, you know, 17 years.

Q. That's right. I just want to make sure that we get, you know, answers that are -- that I can understand and are not based on speculation. I take it your answer is you don't know either way whether you got a note, an actual note, from the Cardinal --
A. Correct.

Q. -- you may have, you may not have?
A. Right.

Q. And I know it goes back a long time, 15 -- more than 15 years --
A. 17 years.

Q. -- 17 years. So you don't know whether you got a note from the Cardinal, but you do refer at least on the June 4, 1985 in your letter to Paul Shanley as having received a letter from the Cardinal?
A. Right.

Q. And we don't know whether that note exists or it doesn't exist. And it goes on to state [212] again that it pertained to a talk that Paul Shanley gave in the Rochester area, and it states "Apparently, she was disturbed by some of the statements you made. I note that she sent you a copy of the letter she sent to Cardinal Law.
"Would you care to comment on the remarks she made. You can either put them in writing or we could get together some day about it.
"I look forward to hearing from you. Things also seem to be moving well for Jack White. If I can be of further help in" -- I think that should be this matter; it's misspelled his matter -- or maybe no, it's not, "If I can be of any further help in his matter, please do not hesitate to" contact -- "please do not hesitate to let me know.
Fraternally in Christ, Reverend John McCormack." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And this was sent to Reverend Paul Shanley at St. John's Rectory in Newton, Massachusetts where he is the pastor?
A. Right.

Q. Where he has unsupervised access to [213] children, correct?
A. Correct, but at this time there had been no reports that I knew of of sexual abuse.

Q. So the only report you had received from Mrs. Higgs was about what he had said --
A. About what he had said.

Q. -- and her statement that some of the remarks were on tape?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And so you sent this letter to Paul Shanley and you also knew Bishop -- now Bishop Daly, did you not, when you were working at the chancery?
A. He wasn't in the chancery when I was there.

Q. Had he left for Brooklyn at that time or another assignment?
A. Palm Beach, I think.

Q. Palm Beach. You knew --
A. He could have been in Brooklyn, though.

Q. Could have been in Brooklyn. You knew the Cardinal's secretary, Father Helmick, though, you knew him? [214]
A. Yes, right.

Q. And you knew that Father Helmick was someone who had been the secretary both to Cardinal Medeiros and now to Cardinal Law, you were aware of that in 1985?
A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware that Father Helmick was someone that might have knowledge about various priests of Archdiocese because he had been at the chancery for a significant period of time, is that correct?
A. He wasn't in the chancery; he was secretary to the Cardinal.

Q. I'm sorry, secretary to the Cardinal.
A. So that would be like a personal secretary.

Q. Right. And you had gotten this letter from Mrs. Higgs from the Archbishop's residence where Father Helmick worked?
A. Correct, right.

Q. So one of the things that you might have done is to go to see Father Helmick to see if whether there had been any allegations about [215] Paul Shanley in the past, correct?
A. No.

Q. Couldn't have done that, okay.
A. It wouldn't enter my mind to do that because would I don't think Father Helmick would have known about it.

Q. So you sent Paul Shanley this letter of June 4th, 1985 and then there's another record which reflects -- which we have in front of you right now, which is Exhibit Number 17, if you want to take a moment and look at that.
A. I just read this, didn't I? Oh, these are my notes.

Q. Right, exactly, your notes are at the bottom. It's the same -- it's the same --
A. Same letter.

Q. -- same letter only it reflects your follow-up with Paul Shanley?
A. Right.

Q. And if you could just help me with your handwriting. Could you read that for your handwriting -- this was a meeting, I take it, of July 25th, 1985? [216]
A. Correct. "Saw Paul - he feels she basically misunderstood him - He talked to a large audience on homosexual orientation not behavior since he was forbidden by Medeiros," Cardinal Medeiros, "to talk on homosexual activity. He went through" --

Q. Yeah, that was my --
A. "He went through this whole letter. I have no reason to believe Paul was supporting efforts to approve homosexual activity. He does promote compassion and understanding for the homosexually oriented," and that's my -- are initials.

Q. And so you went through the whole letter, including the part where it said that "He made some outlandish statements regarding the people involved in a homosexual lifestyle," and it goes on to say, Bishop, "not merely in orientation," do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you went through with him the section where it says "When adults have sex with children, the children seduced them. Children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison, knowing that they are the guilty ones," you went [217] through that with him in your meeting with him on the 25th?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. And your notes reflect a conversation where she basically misunderstood him and you say "He talked to a large audience on homosexual orientation not behavior." Do you see that?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. You have to say yes.
A. Yes.

Q. But the remarks that were attributed to him by Mrs. Higgs, "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them," those were not remarks about homosexual orientation; those were remarks about individuals who molest children, have sex with children, do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you would have understood that at the time, is that not correct, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. But your note doesn't reflect anything about Mrs. Higgs' statement that Paul Shanley was speaking about adults having sex with children, your [218] note doesn't say anything about that?
A. But most of her letter is about the homosexual lifestyle and about homosexual activity and his statements around that, and the statement about adults having sex with children is one among them.

Q. What was the most shocking part to you of the letter that Mrs. Higgs had written to you? Didn't you just previously testify --
A. I was shocked --

Q. Excuse me. -- that you were most shocked by this statement about adults having sex with children, and when that happened Paul Shanley is attributed to have said the children seduced them --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- wasn't that the most shocking part of the letter?
A. Yes.

Q. So wouldn't the most shocking part of the letter be the one that you wanted to reference in your notes, Bishop?
A. I wish I had.

Q. Do you also wish that you had asked [219] Mrs. Higgs for the tape, do you wish you'd done that?
A. At this time I did, but at that time I saw Paul as a person who was an honest guy, who was always trying to help the church reach out to the alienated, the marginalized. Paul was a rather charismatic person. He was always trying to understand the truth. He would in some ways kind of push the envelope, and so when he was talking about this, I had no reason to think that he was -- when he reported to me -- that he was being dishonest; in hindsight I do, but then I didn't. And the notes I made reflect probably not only my conversation but that much of her letter was about homosexuality. And it was only of later that I've come to remember what he said about children seducing adults, children who are prostitutes, and as I recall I don't know when else I would have talked to him about this except at this time.

Q. Well, the remarks about children being prostitutes and explaining that, as you described, shocking remark, that's not reflected in your handwritten notes --
A. That's right. [220]

Q. I have to finish, Bishop.
A. Oh, excuse me.

Q. -- those are not reflected in your handwritten notes of July 25th, correct?
A. Right.

Q. All right. So, again, my question is did it ever occur to you that in this sentence that shocked you Paul Shanley was talking about his own personal views, as Mrs. Higgs believed them to be --
A. No.

Q. -- about adults having sex with children as being a situation where the children were the seducers?
A. No, that never entered my mind. I never knew Paul to -- there was never a complaint about homosexual -- I mean about either homosexual or sexual activity with minors, so I never suspected Paul of that.

Q. Well, did you ask to see Paul's file at this time, Paul Shanley's file in 1985 when Mrs. Higgs sent this letter?
A. No, because this was about his speech; this wasn't about any activity. [221]

Q. Well, after he denied -- so he denied stating that it was his personal view, you now remember because --
A. Yes.

Q. -- you now remember that he denied stating, he denied stating, that it was his own personal view that when adults have sex with children the children seduced them; he was talking about his work with child prostitutes, is that what you're saying?
A. Yes.

Q. But, again, going back to your statement, that's not what you remembered on May 2nd --
A. Right.

Q. -- because on May 2nd you said you didn't focus on it. So what happened between May 2nd and the date of this deposition, which you --
A. I kept thinking about --

Q. Excuse me. -- June 3rd, which has caused you to change your recollection about a conversation that took place 17 years ago?
A. Because this bothered me that I [222] couldn't remember what the conversation was about this.

Q. Did you look at any documents, apart from what you have before you, to try to help refresh your memory, or did you just search back in your memory?
A. I just searched back in my memory.

Q. Wouldn't there have been an easy way to find out whether Paul Shanley was telling the truth over this shocking statement by getting the tape?
A. I didn't think he was being dishonest. As I said, at that time Paul was seen as a person who was well received in the community and who was -- even received accolades for all the work he did with street people and drug people and gay people. So that I had no reason to -- you know, at that time I had no reason to --

Q. But you were --
A. -- to think other of that of Paul other than that he was being honest. It was part of his character, the whole way he approached things, he would always try to understand and try to push you to understand things. [223]

Q. Bishop, I'm going to let you take a break in a second, but you had just started working in your position at the chancery in 1985?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you know -- you knew Paul Shanley from seminary, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. Did you know him -- was he a friend during seminary -- at seminary with you?
A. No, as a classmate.

Q. Right. Have you stayed in touch with him after 1960?
A. We'd get together with classmates once in a while. When classmates would get together, Paul would be part of the group.

Q. Would Father Birmingham be part of the group?
A. Sure.

Q. Father Lane?
A. They're all classmates; when you get together once in a while.

Q. Right. And so but you hadn't seen much of Paul Shanley since 1960, apart from these social [224] gatherings from time to time, is that correct?
A. I would say so.

Q. So you're just starting off at the chancery in your new position by April of 1985 when the Higgs' letter comes in. Why didn't you go back and try to talk to people who might be better acquainted with Paul Shanley's history than you were, Bishop?
A. I talked with Bishop Banks about it.

Q. Okay.
A. And I think there was no reason for us to think that Paul -- that there were any complaints about Paul. And so that I think, as I said, the image I had of Paul is different than the understanding I have of him today. So there was no reason for me -- to prompt me to say, you know, do you know Paul to be different than what I understand him to be.

Q. But you now know that there were people such as Bishop Daly, Father Helmick who had been personally involved in prior similar complaints about Paul Shanley, you now know that, do you not, Bishop McCormack? [225]
A. (Witness shakes head.)

Q. You haven't seen any of those documents?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Okay. Well, we'll show them to you after the break, okay.
A. Okay.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record at 2:51.

(Recess.)

(McCormack Exhibits 19 through 30 were marked for identification.)

[See Exhibits 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. Some of these documents were discussed during this day's testimony. Click one of the following links to go directly to the discussion of exhibit 19 , 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, and 30.]

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record. It is 3:09 p.m.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop McCormack, again, thank you for being here today.
I'm showing you or I've shown you Exhibit Number 19, which is a letter from Attorney Paul McGeady referencing an article by the name of Gay -- or a magazine by the name of Gayweek concerning men and boys. Is that a document that you've ever seen before today? [226]
A. No.

Q. You've never looked at it before today?
A. (Witness shakes head.)

Q. Okay. Well, I'm not going to have you read it. Suffice it to say that it contains other remarks of Paul Shanley that were of a similar nature to the one that you received in 1985, but we're not going to spend any time going through it.
You understand that if you had pursued Mrs. Higgs' letter in 1985 that Mr. and Mrs. Ford's son, Greg Ford, would not have endured the sexual molestation that he suffered at the hands of Paul Shanley between 1985 and 1989, do you understand that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well, no, I wouldn't say it that way. I would say that if I had pursued it that I would have known about what his speech was or what his words were, but, you know, at that time I didn't suspect Paul Shanley of any kind of sexual activity. So that I mean if I heard the tape, would that have said that he was practicing that? I [227] wouldn't take it that way.

Q. Well, you wouldn't know until you heard the tape, right, you wouldn't know -- if Paul Shanley had said, had been on tape as stating what Mrs. Higgs attributed to him, then you would have taken some action given --
A. Well --

Q. Excuse me. -- given those views to remove him from a place where he could have access to children unsupervised, would you have not?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I think that I would have also listened to what Paul's explanation was, which was that, you know, he wasn't endorsing homosexual activity and that his comment there was made more about what was happening to young boys on the streets who were prostituting themselves. And so --

Q. If Paul --
A. And so in view of that, you know, my sense is -- is that, you know, I would have seen him as -- I would have wondered why he said it further, but I wouldn't have suspected him of activity, I guess that that's what I want to say. [228] And with the Fords, and which I'm sorry to hear, I am, it's terrible about what he did, but what he said and what he did are two different things, and I only discovered that, you know, what he did much later, eight or nine years.

Q. Well, Bishop, we're going to get to some other things that came across your desk in 1988 about Paul Shanley later on in your deposition, but for right now what I want to ask you is if that tape had been received by you and Paul Shanley is quoted as endorsing in any way sexual relations between men and boys, would you have done something to remove Paul Shanley from ministry or have him supervised in some way?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I was going to say it's a speculative question and I think that, you know, based on the information I have now, I would have handled it differently. I don't know what that tape said. What she wrote in the letter was about what he said about young children seducing men as opposed to being -- young children being responsible, I think is the word he used. [229]

Q. Do you --
A. It wasn't that --

Q. Do you remember the statement that you gave to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd and what you said about the nature of those statements before you had this new memory of yourconversation --
A. That's in hindsight.

Q. Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I thought you were finished with your question.

Q. Excuse me, excuse me.
You said to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd, you said this: "As I have reread that letter, I see a reference to sexual relations between an adult and a minor. I believed then and do now that sex between an adult and minor is wrong and is also a crime. Sex between an adult and a child is never the fault of the child. It is the" adult -- "it is always the adult who bears full responsibility for that horrible act. Why I didn't focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know. I'm sorry I didn't. [230] I wish I had." That's what you said to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd?
A. Correct.

Q. So when you first read the letter of Mrs. Higgs, you took it to mean that Paul Shanley was stating his personal beliefs about sex between children and adults, is that not correct?
A. When I first read that letter, I thought Paul was saying that children weren't to -- I mean that adults weren't to blame, that children seduced them, yes, and I think that's wrong, I think that kind of activity is wrong, it's a crime.

Q. And that if you had known a priest was saying those things in 1985, you would have taken some action against that priest, is that not correct?
A. I wouldn't say that.

Q. Okay. Fine.
A. I wouldn't say that I -- that he, because when he explained to me why he said that, you know, as I recall it, he was explaining it in terms of his work with youth on the streets in Boston. So that I didn't see it as something that he was promoting as a way of life or as -- I saw it within [231] that context. I was --

Q. And that's a recollection you've had since May 2nd?
A. Yes, it is because I kept saying to myself why, you know, why don't I have some notes? Why can't I remember why I spoke to him about this? And I do.

Q. Weren't you remembering that beforeMay 2nd, trying to remember why you didn't speak to him about that before May 2nd, Bishop?
A. I was.

Q. But you didn't when you told the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd, you didn't focus on that --
A. It wasn't, no.

Q. Excuse me, Bishop, you'd been focusing on why you hadn't pursued that with Paul Shanley both before and after May 2nd?
A. Yes, I kept --

Q. So this was something that came to you after May 2nd?
A. I kept going over in my mind why I didn't, you know. [232]

Q. All right. Could you look at your statement again, please, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Could he finish his answers.
MR. MacLEISH: I'm sorry, I'm trying to let him finish.

Q. I do apologize, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Well, try a little harder.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Rogers.

Q. And, Bishop, I'm sorry, sometimes you tail off a little bit. I think the court reporter has asked you to speak up and maybe it's my hearing, so if I interrupt you, I would like you to tell me and I'm happy to let you complete your answer. Is there anything else you'd like to say?
A. I forget, really, now how I ended. Can you go back.
(Answer read.)
THE WITNESS: I kept going over in my mind, you know, what did we say about this? And eventually I remembered that and it's very clear to me he talked about his street work with youth and how [233] they were prostituting themselves, and he was very concerned about that.

Q. So you went over that in your mind before May 2nd when you said you didn't remember why you didn't focus it and you couldn't remember anything then, but then you went over it after you made your address to the people of New Hampshire and it came to you?
A. That's right.

Q. Okay. Now, go back to your statement if we could, Bishop.
A. Okay.

Q. Turn to the next page, page four of six, "This week I met with the sister of a victim of abuse by a priest from the Archdiocese of Boston. She is still hurting over the abuse of her brother, who has since passed away. She wanted to know whether I saw or suspected anything about this priest - a priest who lived in the same rectory with me and two other priests during the late 1960s. I told her no, I never knew of any abuse, nor did I ever suspect it." Do you see that?
A. Yes. [234]

Q. And is that -- I don't need to know the name of the victim, but is that a reference to Father Joseph Birmingham?
A. Yes.

Q. So you told this woman and you told the people of New Hampshire that you never knew of any abuse and you never suspected any abuse, is that correct?
A. Yes, while living with him.

Q. While liv -- well --
A. While living in the rectory.

Q. Well, your statement says "She wanted to know whether I saw or suspected anything about this priest - a priest who lived in the same rectory with me and two other priests during the late 1960s. I told her no, I never knew of any abuse, nor did I ever suspect it." You didn't qualify that in the same way you just qualified it in your answer.
A. Well, it's in reference to what I said to the previous sentences.

Q. I see. So you didn't suspect any abuse when you were living with Father Birmingham in the rectory, but you did suspect abuse afterwards, is [235] that your testimony?
A. I came to -- no, not that I suspected, but I came to learn that he abused, but that was after I lived in the rectory.

Q. Okay. So when it's stated here -- fine. All right.
Okay. I'm showing you two documents, Exhibits Number 20 and 21. It's probably easier if you turn to Exhibit Number 21 because Exhibit Number 21 is simply the typewritten notes of the Reverend John Mulcahy, which is Exhibit Number 20.
MR. ROGERS: This is one you've redacted, Exhibit 20?
MR. MacLEISH: (Nods head.)
MR. ROGERS: Yes? Could you answer that verbally for me.

Q. Okay. Bishop, if you take a look --
MR. ROGERS: Let the record reflect that Mr. MacLeish has acknowledged that Exhibit 20 was redacted by his office.

Q. Okay. If you could take a look at Exhibit Number 21, if you could read that. This was -- and you're welcome to go back to the [236] handwritten notes. You'll see on Exhibit 20 the handwritten notes of Bishop Mulcahy and Bishop Banks; the typewritten version came from the files of the Archdiocese.
A. I read 21, you said.

Q. Right, it's the Archdiocese' typewritten notes of Exhibit 20. And in Exhibit 21 -- again, these are the typewritten notes of John Mulcahy about a report involving a claim of abuse concerning Paul -- Father Joseph Birmingham and the recollection of a victim and his mother who came in to Bishop -- I'm sorry, I think he was Vicar Most Reverend John Mulcahy --
A. Bishop Mulcahy.

Q. Mulcahy was a Bishop?
A. Yes, Mulcahy.

Q. -- Bishop Mulcahy on February 12th, 1987. And you'll see in these notes that it was reported to Bishop Mulcahy that Father Birmingham had massaged the victim on the shoulder and the kidney, then down into his private parts, do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And, again, Father Birmingham, [237] Joseph Birmingham, was a classmate of yours at seminary, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then you'll see Bishop Banks' note below, on the bottom of Exhibit 21 -- this is dated February 14th, 1987 -- "I spoke to Joe Birmingham. He admitted there had been some difficulty. He agreed it would be helpful to resign from the parish and to seek assessment and therapy. He has shown himself cooperative in every way," and then it says "I gave name of counselor to Bishop Mulcahy so boy could receive help, Robert J. Banks." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you and Bishop Banks were working together at this time concerning allegations of clerical misconduct, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So this might have been the type of information that would have been shared with you, is that not correct, Bishop McCormack?
A. It might have been.

Q. And could we have, please, JB011. [238] Okay. Now, do you remember this is another letter that we have "Not Acknowledged at Residence," do you see that, but Archbishop of Boston received, do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And this would have come approximately seven weeks after Father Birmingham had met with, according to these records, with Bishop Banks and admitted that there had been some difficulty involving this young man who alleged that he had been touched in the private parts by Father Birmingham?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. And now this letter about, as I said, approximately seven weeks later comes in to Cardinal Law. And in this letter, as you can see, can you not, Bishop McCormack, the man states that he's a member of St. Ann's Parish in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and you knew that was where Father Birmingham was stationed in 1987, is that not correct, or he'd just been removed from sick leave at that time?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. He had been promoted to pastor at that [239] parish in 1985, is that correct?
A. I'm not sure, but I know he was made pastor.

Q. Well, did you recommend him to be pastor?
A. No, I don't think -- I don't recall.

Q. Were you aware that he was being promoted -- I'm sorry, excuse me.
A. No, I don't recall.

Q. Do you remember that -- do you remember when he was made pastor you were working as secretary of ministerial personnel at the Archdiocese?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you recommend against him becoming pastor?
A. I recall speaking to someone about him and wondering, you know, whether he ought to be a pastor.

Q. Who was that person?
A. That's what I can't remember. I don't remember that. All I remember is saying I wonder whether he ought to be a pastor.

Q. Was it Cardinal Law that you had that [240] conversation with?
A. I don't think so, no.

Q. Okay. And you wondered why he should be a pastor because you were aware of sexual abuse allegations --
A. In the past.

Q. Excuse me. You were aware of sexual abuse allegations, Bishop, against Father Birmingham dating back to the 1960s --
A. Correct.

Q. -- which you learned about in the '70s?
A. Right, sometime there, yeah.

Q. And so when Father Birmingham comes up for pastor you can remember speaking to someone you don't remember at the time -- you don't remember right now -- indicating you had questions about whether this man, who was alleged to have engaged in the molestation of children back in the 1960s, should become pastor, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. But he went on to become pastor?
A. Yes.

Q. And then in 1987 this man from [241] Gloucester, who's a parishioner at the parish where Father Birmingham was now pastor in Gloucester, Massachusetts, writes a letter to Cardinal Law in which he states that "A colleague of mine in passing mentioned a Father Joe Birmingham who was taken" off -- "out of St. James Parish in Salem during the late" '60s to early '70s.
He goes on to state "This man said that Father Birmingham had been removed because he had molested boys in the parish. As a matter of fact, this man's brother was one of the boys who were molested.
"I now request that you inform me if this is the same Joe Birmingham." Do you see that right in the letter?
A. Yes, I would think it is.

Q. And you were actually serving with Father Birmingham at that parish for some period of time?
A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware by 1987 that it was the same Joe Birmingham who was pastor at St. Ann's in Gloucester that had been pastor -- I'm sorry, that [242] had been a priest at St. James that had been removed because of sexual abuse allegations?
A. Correct.

Q. You knew that in 1987, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then the man goes on to say in the last paragraph of this exhibit, "I have a son who is an alter boy in the church and have a rightful concern" for "him if this is, in fact, the same person," meaning Joseph Birmingham.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. You can understand why the man would have a concern, is that correct?
A. Very much so.

Q. And then it says "Twice within 6 months our Reverend Joe Birmingham gave sermons on AIDS, which I found rather odd."
Then he goes on to say "If it is the same person, how do I bring up the subject of molestation with my son who just turned 13 years old." Do you see that?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. And based on everything you know, you [243] would agree, knowing what you knew about Father Birmingham, that it might be a good idea for this man to speak with his son, is that correct?
A. I think, yes, if I was familiar with this and this man asked me, I would encourage him to approach his son to learn, yes.

Q. Okay. And certainly the sermons about AIDS, while not being something that would be special by themselves, in light of Father Birmingham's history that you were aware of, that the AIDS issue would understandably alarm this father? Can you understand how that would alarm a parent?
A. Yes.

Q. And then it says "Please respond to me" and have a "real and rightful, concern about this whole matter. I am concerned about the AIDS situation, and about a priest possibly molesting my son.
"Thank you for a prompt reply," and then it's signed by the parent. Do you see that?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. You have to say yes.
A. Oh, yes, yes. [244]

Q. So this man is raising a legitimate concern in your view about a man that even you had hesitations about being named pastor in 1985. He wants to know about whether it's the same Father Joseph Birmingham, he wants to know whether he should bring this up with his son about molestation, to which you indicated you would believe that he should, and he wants to know about the AIDS situation, as he describes it. Do you see that? Do you see all those things?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. Do you remember responding to this letter on behalf of Cardinal Law?
A. I didn't.

Q. You did not respond or you don't remember?
A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. This is Exhibit 23. Have you read your letter back --
A. Yes.

Q. -- to this same man who wrote in this letter of April 4th, 1987 about his son who was a 13 year alter boy at St. Ann's in Gloucester. Have you [245] read your response to this man, Father -- Bishop McCormack? What you say in this letter back to him is that "His Eminence, Cardinal Law, received your letter and asked me to look into the matter for him." Would that have been a personal request from the Cardinal?
A. It had to come either through him or Bishop Banks, yes.

Q. And then you state in the next paragraph "I contacted Father Birmingham and asked him specifically about the matter you expressed in your letter. He assured me there is absolutely no factual basis to your concern regarding your son and him. From my knowledge of Father Birmingham and my relationship with him, I feel he would tell me the truth and I believe he is speaking the truth in this matter." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Then it goes on to state "From my perspective, therefore, I see no need of your raising this question with your son." Do you see that?
A. Uh-huh, yes.

Q. "But if you feel drawn to do so, for [246] whatever reason, I suggest you contact Mrs. Mary Byrne at North Shore Catholic Charities in Peabody," and you give the telephone number. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, this man had asked you whether -- or asked Cardinal Law whether it was the same Father Joseph Birmingham who had been removed from a parish in Salem for molesting children, we just went through that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you now -- looking at your letter, do you now believe that this man, who was writing about his 13 year old son, could have been led by your letter to believe that it was not the same person?
A. Oh, no.

Q. Okay. Why didn't you respond to that question, Bishop McCormack? Why didn't you say "Yes, it is the same Father Birmingham"? Why didn't you say that?
A. I can't explain it.

Q. Okay. And then you state then, as we went through right before, the man wants to know in [247] the letter if it is the same person, "how do I bring up the subject of molestation with my son who just turned 13 years old?" And you state "From my perspective, therefore, I see no need of your raising this question with your son." Several --
A. At that time --

Q. If I could just finish the question.
A. Oh, excuse me.

Q. You just indicated before I showed you your response that you would understand why this man would need to bring up this issue given everything you knew in 1987 about Father Birmingham, but you said in the letter "I see no need of your raising this question with your son."
A. Okay. I think that my response is that what I knew what I know now, I would encourage a father to speak to his son; back then I was thinking that the man should talk to a social worker so that he could get help, you know, about his concern so he could raise it in a proper way.

Q. Well, that's not what you said, with all due respect, Bishop McCormack; you said --
A. That's why -- you asked me, why -- [248]

Q. Sure, go ahead.
A. You asked me why I said this, and this is why I said it, as opposed to what I would say to a man now.

Q. Well, okay, I understand. You said in the letter "I see no need of your raising this question with your son."
Now, when you said that --
A. "But if you feel drawn to do so."

Q. Okay. I'm going to get to that sentence.
A. Okay.

Q. "But if you feel drawn to do so."
A. Yes.

Q. You didn't advise him to seek out a social worker, did you, Bishop McCormack?
A. I did, "if you feel drawn to do so."

Q. "If you feel drawn to do so."
A. And he did, so that if he wanted to seek help, I suggested he seek help.

Q. How do you know he did?
A. I don't mean that he did seek help; I'm just saying that he expressed a desire to help his [249] son.

Q. Bishop McCormack, you knew that Father Birmingham was someone who had molested a number of children when he was at the same parish you were in Salem?
A. Right.

Q. This man wanted to know whether he was the same Father Birmingham --
A. Right.

Q. -- so he could make his own decision about what to do with his son. You didn't respond to his question. You said that you had contacted Father Birmingham and "asked him specifically about the matter you expressed in your letter."
You did not, in this letter in any way, suggest to the man who had written in to you that this was the same Father Birmingham who had molested children at the very parish you worked in Salem, Massachusetts, did you, you didn't tell him?
A. I didn't tell him, but my sense is, from my letter, I acknowledged that I spoke with Father Birmingham and that I didn't address -- I didn't answer that question directly. [250]

Q. And, again, were you protecting children since you've said in your statement --
A. I want to protect children --

Q. Excuse me. -- since you said in your statement to New Hampshire parishioners that your goal always when you were in Boston, as you reaffirmed today, was to protect children? Were you protecting children when you didn't answer this man's questions about whether this was the same Joseph Birmingham?
A. I don't think -- I can't think back 15 years ago to what my intention was when I didn't answer that question.

Q. You wanted to keep it quiet, Bishop?
MR. PIGNATELLI: I'm going to object to the --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That was not my intention.
MR. PIGNATELLI: -- to the argumentative form of the question about calling on him to speculate about his state of mind 15 years ago, having just sprung a couple of documents cold on [251] the Bishop.
MR. MacLEISH: These are documents produced their -- I'm not going to get into speaking objections.

Q. Bishop, I'm asking you, I'm asking you if you can provide any explanation understanding what you knew personally about Father Joseph Birmingham, both from the 1970s when you were told about his molestation of children, to the letter that had been received several weeks earlier by Bishop Banks in where Father Birmingham -- let me finish the question, okay -- where Father Birmingham had again admitted to some difficulties, your own expressed reservation about making Father Birmingham pastor, why did you not tell the full story to the father of this 13-year old child who had been serving with Father Birmingham as an alter boy up in Gloucester, why didn't you tell the full story?
A. And I can't explain why I didn't tell the full story. There's one thing I can tell you, though, that some time between 19 -- the time I found out about it and Father Birmingham was in Gloucester -- went to Gloucester, I spoke to [252] Father Birmingham. I told him that I knew about the reports about sexual abuse and I was wondering whether, you know, he had stopped this, and he had told me he's been clean.
Now, I can't tell you when he spoke that to me, but I do know that one time I felt that I should tell him I knew and I wanted to know whether he had stopped, had he stopped this activity, and he said he was clean. With the reference to the letter of Bishop Banks, I'm not sure that I was even aware of that, when I had this letter.

Q. So even though you were aware of the multiple allegations against Father Birmingham and even though you had your own reservations about making him pastor, you were content to take Father Birmingham's word of the fact that he was quote/unquote clean, is that your testimony?
A. Yes.

Q. Well, it turns out that seven weeks earlier there had been a report made by another parishioner of St. Ann's where Father Birmingham was working to show that he wasn't clean, correct?
A. Correct. [252]

Q. So you were mistaken in taking Father Birmingham's word for it, were you not, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. And when you found out that Father Birmingham was in fact not clean and was sent to the Institute for Living, which happened in 1987 according to these records, did you go back to the father of this 13-year old alter boy, did you go back and tell him "By the way, I have more information for you"?
A. Go back to how we handled things confidentially, so we didn't do it in those days and so that in this instance I don't recall going back to the father and say that we have sent Father Birmingham to the Institute for Living, no.

Q. I'm not talking about whether you sent him to the Institute for Living; I'm talking about whether when you learned that he had gone back to the -- he had been sent to the Institute for Living that there were allegations from St. Ann's against him, did you go back to this father who had written in about his 13-year old alter boy asking about AIDS, asking about whether this was the same Father Joe [254] Birmingham, did you go back to him and say "I have some new information for you so that you might be able to get some help for your son"? Did you do that, Bishop?
A. I did not, assuming -- I can't think back to 15 years ago. My sense was that, in reading the documents you're showing me, that if the father -- and I assume the father was very concerned about his son -- that he would have gone to Catholic Charities to seek some help about how to break that open to his son.
Did I, once I learned that there was this allegation -- that he was sent away to the Institute for help for an assessment, did you say -- see, it's kind of hard to talk about this without all the papers, but I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know whether I went back to the man, but my memory is I don't think I did.

Q. Do you think that was a mistake looking back on it, Bishop?
A. Oh, like I said in my address, you know, what I see as mistakes in the past I see now, but when I was doing them, I didn't see them as [255] mistakes.

Q. This was a man who wanted to talk to his son?
A. Yeah.

Q. This was a man who wanted to talk to his son?
A. And I see that, but what I'm saying is that --

Q. Go ahead, sorry.
A. -- at that time I didn't see it as a mistake. Now I see it very clearly as a mistake, something that I should -- I feel very bad about it, particularly if anything had happened.

Q. Did -- Father Birmingham died in 1989, about then?
A. About then.

Q. Do you know whether he had a diagnosis of AIDS?
A. No, I thought it was lung cancer.

Q. Well, not the death, but do you know whether he had a diagnosis --
A. No, I didn't.

Q. Excuse me, do you know whether at any [256] point he was diagnosed with HIV or AIDS?
A. No.

Q. Never heard anyone say that?
A. No.

Q. If I gave you the name and the address of the person that you wrote that letter to back in 1987, would you now like the opportunity to write back to him?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. If I provided that to you, the man who had written to you about his 13-year old son --
MR. O'NEILL: Don't answer that question.
MR. MacLEISH: I'm pressing that question.
MR. O'NEILL: No, that's not a question designed to produce any evidence that's relevant to any issue in this case so I'm instructing him not to answer that question.

Q. Okay. Fine. Bishop, here's Exhibit Number 28, I think that is. That, Bishop, is a -- the first report that we got from the files that were produced last Friday of Father Birmingham, and [257] there's typewritten notes that are at the end of that on what's Bates stamped JB004.
A. Yes.

Q. And this is the -- I'm not really going to ask you any questions, but do you remember whether you at any point were able to find out that Father Birmingham's allegations of abuse date back to 1964? Did you at some point do a search of the records?
A. I think my -- in my memory, not having all the papers, my memory of it was that it became evident to us from a report made to us that I think Sister Catherine Mulkerrin received from some boy in Sudbury, I think that's when I was aware -- when I became aware of it.

Q. Okay. Bob Sherman has written down the name of an individual. I'll give you that card. We're not going to use her name for the record so that we can avoid, as we've agreed, talking about victims. All right. I'm giving you a card with her name now and her name as you would have known her with her maiden name.
MR. MacLEISH: Would you hand that to the witness, please, Mr. Rogers. [258]

Q. Do you know that woman who we'll call Mary McGee, Bishop?
A. I'm not sure; I have an idea I might know her and I'm not sure, though, really.

Q. Do you remember that woman or a woman coming to see you in 1970 to tell you about what had happened to her son at the hands of Father Birmingham? This would have been when you were at Catholic Charities.
A. I have a faint memory that a woman spoke to me, but I really don't have a clear memory about this one.

Q. All right. I have her statement, which is Exhibit 30. Between now and the time that we reconvene, that's her statement, if you would take a look at it and see if that helps to refresh your recollection.
MR. ROGERS: We don't have 29 yet. All right. You're skipping around.

Q. I'm going to give you the name -- Mr. Sherman is going to write out the name of another individual as well, can't use this name on the record. Exhibit Number 29. Without using the name [259] of the person there, Bishop, I think his name is actually on that -- we'll have it redacted by agreement with Mr. Rogers, but do you remember this man also speaking to you --
A. Yes.

Q. -- about Father Birmingham?
A. Yes.

Q. So that would have been now this sort of recollection you had in the 1970s from a woman and then this man also you remember speaking to you about Father Birmingham --
A. He was the first one to speak to me.

Q. He was the first one and then there was another one that spoke to you, you have a recollection of a woman also speaking to you?
A. This is -- yeah, my recollection is very faint about the woman, but it is very clear the first time I heard this.

Q. Okay. But you have some recollection of a woman who has given us a statement that you can look at between now and the time that we reconvene, maybe that will help to refresh your recollection.
Isn't it the truth, Bishop McCormack, [260] that you remember seeing Father Birmingham atSt. James taking boys into his room in the rectory?
A. No, that's not true.

Q. All right. Let me show you Exhibit Number 27. Do you want to take a look at Exhibit Number 27. It says "Father McCormack now Bishop McCormack" -- we don't have to worry about this person because he's agreed to be public -- "Father McCormack now Bishop McCormack was a curate at St. James Parish in the '60s," is that true?
A. Yes.

Q. "As an altar boy and a 5th grade student I was abused by Father Joseph Birmingham starting the fall of 1964 until the fall of 1969 over a period of five years. This abuse consisted of oral sex, kissing, masturbation and attempted rape on several occasions. The oral sex and masturbation and kissing happened over a hundred times during those years. This happened in the school guidance rooms, the church Sacristy, the rectory, in his car, on ski trips, trips out west, trips to Nantaskit beach, Hampton Beach, at the boys camp I attended, in my own home. I could not escape this man. [261] "While in the St. James Rectory on the second floor in Father Birmingham's room where I was abused several times I remember distinctly seeing Father Birmingham carrying ice cream to his room for me talking to Father McCormack and both of them looking at me in the room on the bed. This happened several times. Father McCormack would see me in the Rectory on the second floor with Birmingham. There is" -- I think it's meant to say no denying this; it says "on denying this."
Have you seen that statement from Mr. Hogan?
A. No -- I see it now, yes.

Q. But you deny it, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you know a Father Coughlin, do you know of a Father Coughlin?
MR. ROGERS: Can I interrupt one second?
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, yeah.
MR. ROGERS: I want to make sure I'm clear.
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah. [262]
MR. ROGERS: You premarked Exhibits 24, 25. We don't have those yet?
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, we haven't gotten to them yet. We will get to them. We're skipping around a little bit.
MR. ROGERS: You're skipping around a little bit.

(McCormack Exhibit 31 was marked for identification.)

Q. Do you remember a David Coleman meeting with you about Father Coughlin?
A. Yes.

Q. And he met with you, he says, on November 15th, 1985 at the chancery?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that occurring?
A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember that actually it was -- Father Coughlin was at St. Patrick's in Stoneham and Father Shanley took his place after Father Coughlin was moved to Lynn, do you recall Mr. Coleman telling you that?
A. No, I don't. [263]

Q. Well, you remember Mr. Coleman reporting to you the assaults that he endured --
MR. ROGERS: Could I ask the Bishop have an opportunity to read the memo before you start asking questions.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, absolutely.

Q. Do you remember Mr. Coleman going to meet with you about Father Coughlin --
A. Yes.

Q. -- complaining that he had been molested?
A. Yes.

Q. And he reported to you that Father Coughlin was in California, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And he requested that you notify the people in California about what had happened when Father Coughlin was in Massachusetts, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you did not notify the individuals -- anybody out in California at the Diocese of Orange, California about the allegations [264] of Mr. Coleman concerning Father Coughlin, did you?
A. That's incorrect, we did.

Q. You did. You did that by letter?
A. No, it was a telephone call that Bishop Banks made.

Q. Oh, you didn't do it; Bishop Banksmade --
A. I brought the report of David Coleman to Bishop Banks and he contacted the diocese.

Q. And were you there when he contacted the diocese, were you physically present?
A. No.

Q. So you don't know what happened, do you, firsthand knowledge?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you -- so you didn't contact the Diocese of Orange, California; it was Bishop Banks, you believe --
A. Bishop Banks, again, because he was the one who was responsible for handling complaints about priests usually.

Q. And you're aware that the Diocese of Orange County has denied receiving any report from [265] the Archdiocese of Boston concerning Father Coughlin, you're aware of that, are you not?
A. I think that the Diocese of Orange County has changed its position and they, again, took time to investigate whether they were contacted, and I think the Bishop, Bishop Straline (phon.), admits that he was contacted at the time.

Q. Okay. And you're certain of that?
A. Yes.

Q. You've spoken with him?
A. No, but the Archdiocese of Boston and my own delegate followed through on the report.

Q. Why, if there was a report of a priest molesting boys in Massachusetts and the priest was now assigned to California, why would there not be anything in writing to the diocese in California indicating what had occurred?
A. I can't explain that because it wasn't -- you know, I didn't take the initiative; it was Bishop Banks who took the initiative.

Q. Okay. Do you know a Peter Pollard?
A. Yes.

Q. And Peter Pollard spoke to you in the [266] 1980s about a Father George Rosenkranz, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. He in fact wrote a letter -- okay, stop for a second.

(McCormack Exhibit 32 was marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Thank you. Do you want me to read the whole thing?

Q. Yeah, you don't need to, Bishop, unless you would like to because I'm going to be really asking not about his letter but about his meeting with you. This is a statement -- the first page of Exhibit Number 32 is a statement from Peter Pollard about his conversations with you concerning Father Rosenkranz. Does this memo from Mr. Pollard reflect the substance of your communications with him over sexual molestation by Father George Rosenkranz?
A. I would say that, you know, this calls to mind a lot of things that happened at the time; whether this is all of it or -- I'm not sure, really. I'd have to see the record, but it --

Q. Go ahead. [267]
A. -- but it does resonate with me, yes.

Q. Okay. So in short, you do remember at some point in the 1980s Mr. Pollard --
A. Yes, very well.

Q. Excuse me. -- coming to meet with you claiming that he'd been molested by a parish priest, George Rosenkranz, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then you spoke with Father Rosenkranz and he denied the allegations, is that correct?
A. No, Father Rosenkranz, I think, admitted that he had expressed -- you know, and I'm not sure, but my sense was that he had wrestled with him and my memory is is that Father Rosenkranz thought that this Peter Pollard might have misinterpreted some of his -- he had some kind of a word he -- horsing around.

Q. Horsing around. I'm sorry, what did you say?
A. Horsing around.

Q. Horsing around. Well, you'll see just on, if you go to the next page, and you're free to [268] read the whole thing, but you'll see that -- how Mr. Pollard had described in his letter to Cardinal Law, was his -- if I could direct your attention to the first page, the sixth paragraph, it says, "In the guise of teaching me about sexuality, he kissed me; had me lie on top of him and kissed me; had me expose myself and discuss sex with him; and on at least one occasion, while on an overnight trip, tried to coerce me into sleeping in his bed with him in a hotel where we stayed in Conway, New Hampshire." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And after you spoke with Father Rosenkranz and he admitted to some horsing around, did you have another meeting with Mr. Pollard?
A. Yes.

Q. And you told Mr. Pollard that you were not going to remove Mr. Rosenkranz from active ministry, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And Father Rosenkranz remained in active ministry for several more years, is that correct? [269]
A. I'm not clear for how long, but I knew that we didn't take him out at that time, correct.

Q. And then you became aware later on of other allegations of sexual abuse against Father Rosenkranz --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you make a mistake in not removing Father Rosenkranz in 1987 when his sexual molestation of Mr. Pollard was reported to you, did you make a mistake?
A. What I want to say is that I don't recall these allegations --

Q. This was the letter --
A. -- but I could be -- my memory probably isn't working well and -- but I do remember Pollard coming to me and I do remember him being angry because I had come to the -- you know, I couldn't -- I didn't know who was saying -- who was telling the truth and I was very logical about the whole thing.
And so that he says that "I wonder whether you believed me," and I feel very badly now [270] that I didn't believe him more, but I was taking one person's word against another and it was very difficult. And so having gone through the assessment and then the assessment not showing up anything that was deviant, I then had to decide, you know, which was the -- how do you handle Father Rosenkranz and how do you handle Mr. Pollard? So I told him that. As I look back at that, I regret that terribly.

Q. Well, you see actually the attachment is the actual letter -- a copy of the letter that he sent to Cardinal Law in which he reports this is not horsing around. I think I read you the paragraph earlier.
A. Right.

Q. And if you take a look at the next page -- and, again, you're welcome to read this; we're going to be getting together again, but it says "But be on notice," at the bottom of the second page, last full paragraph, "If you take no significant action to find appropriate and effective treatment for him and to locate his other victims, I will make every effort to make this information public, even at my own expense." Do you see that? [271]
A. Yes.

Q. And so you know, also, do you not, Father McCormack, that after you decided to keep Father Rosenkranz in active ministry in the '90s there surfaced more allegations against Father Rosenkranz, at which point he was removed, is that correct?
A. At some time after this he was removed. I notice that the Department of Social Services and the Essex D.A. was also informed by Mr. Pollard.

Q. Right. Not by you, but by the --
A. No, by Mr. Pollard. We would encourage them to do that.

Q. I'm not asking about the DSS; I'm asking about what you did, and what you did after Mr. Pollard came and complained to you after writing to Cardinal Law you decided that Mr. Rosenkranz should go into active ministry and then there were further complaints later on about Father Rosenkranz and he was removed?
A. That's right.

Q. And you said you feel terribly about that right now, is that correct? [272]
A. Yes, correct.

Q. So do you feel terribly about Father Birmingham as well, about what you told that man?
A. About --

Q. Yes, about --
A. I feel terribly what I know about Father Birmingham now, particularly -- yes, I do.

Q. Okay. And you feel terribly about what happened with Father Paquin, you feel terribly about that?
A. I feel terrible about -- you know, I feel terrible now what I know was going on then, but I didn't know what was going on then -- I didn't know as much then as I know now.

Q. Well, you knew in 1991 -- I'm sorry, we've gone past our 4:00 time. I'm perfectly prepared to keep this going, but I did agree to 4:00. It's been a long day.
MR. PIGNATELLI: I'd like to ask a question, Bishop, one quick question.

EXAMINATION BY MR. PIGNATELLI:

Q. You've been shown many documents today, [273] some by my quick review go back to 1964. Have you seen those documents in recent years to review --
A. No.

Q. -- before you've answers these questions?
A. No, that's why it's difficult to respond as convincingly, I think, or as clearly as I'd like.

EXAMINATION BY MR. MacLEISH:

Q. Well, just to follow up on that, Bishop -- and, again, we don't usually have cross examination after we finish and we're going to have to spend some more time here together, but I'm happy to allow Mike to intervene. We got these documents, the majority of the documents that you've been presented with today, on Friday, and what we've tried to do is to present you with documents, many of which you wrote yourself, and certainly by the time -- between now and the time that we next reconvene, if you want to supplement your testimony in any way, Bishop, I'd be happy to give you that opportunity.
A. Okay. [274]

Q. And thank you for coming in.
A. But I must say, though, that most of the documents you gave me regarding what we talked about for the past hour are not from me, but they're from, you know, people who have sent stuff to you.

Q. Well, there are quite a bit -- we don't need to debate this, Bishop.
A. I just want to say that for the record.

Q. Well, I appreciate that and there's a lot of letters from you, too. So if they're -- we got these documents on Friday from the Archdiocese. We spent the whole weekend looking at them. There's literally thousands of documents. I suspect we'll get more documents and we'll give you the opportunity to come back and respond as you want to.
A. Okay.

Q. In fact, I think we're going to be not, as I understand it, we cannot do this before the 18th would be the earliest date, is that right, Wil, because of your --
MR. ROGERS: 17th. The Bishop would be available the 10th, but I've got a conflict the 10th. I'll need to confirm with you tomorrow. I'll confer [275] with you guys tomorrow.

MR. MacLEISH: 17th. Okay. Fine. Thank you very much for coming in, Bishop.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Deposition suspended at 4:07 p.m.)

[276] CERTIFICATE OF WITNESS

I, Bishop John B. McCormack, do hereby swear/affirm that I have read the foregoing transcript of my testimony, and further certify that it is a true and accurate record of my testimony (with the exception of the corrections listed below):
Page Line Correction
Bishop John B. McCormack

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of _____________, 20____.


Notary Public/Justice of the Peace
My Commission Expires:

[277]

CERTIFICATE

I, Sandra Day, a Certified ShorthandReporter and Commissioner of Deeds of the State of New Hampshire, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of my stenographic notes of the deposition of Bishop John B. McCormack who was first duly sworn, taken at the place and on the date hereinbefore set forth.

I further certify that I am neither attorney nor counsel for, nor related to or employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken, and further that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed in this case, nor am I financially interested in this action. THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY REPRODUCTION OF THE SAME BY ANY MEANS UNLESS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL AND/OR DIRECTION OF THE CERTIFYING REPORTER.

SANDRA DAY, CSR, RPR
N.H. Certified Shorthand Reporter

No. 30 (RSA 331-B)