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
VOLUME III



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 Friday, September 27, 2002, commencing at
10:12 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.
Courtney Pillsbury, Esq.

-and-

NEWMAN & PONSETTO
One Story Terrace
Marblehead, MA 01945

By: Jeffrey A. Newman, Esq.
(Not present.)

-and-

HALL, HESS, STEWART, MURPHY & BROWN, PA
80 Merrimack Street
Manchester, NH 03101

By: Francis G. Murphy, Esq.
(Not present.)

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.
(Not present.)

-and-

RATH, YOUNG and PIGNATELLI, PA
20 Trafalgar Square
Nashua, NH 03063

By: Brian T. Tucker, Esq.

For the Diocese of Manchester:
SHEEHAN, PHINNEY, BASS & GREEN
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03105

By: Bradford E. Cook, Esq.

Also present: Rodney Ford

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.

[Exhibits]

EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION:

BISHOP JOHN B. McCORMACK having been previously sworn, was deposed and testified as follows:

MR. MIELKE: We are on the record. Today's date is September 27th. It is approximately 10:12 a.m. in the morning. We're at the office of Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green for the continued deposition of Bishop John McCormack.

EXAMINATIONBY MR. MacLEISH:

Q. Good morning, Bishop. I'm Eric MacLeish, as I think you know, and thank you again for giving us your time this morning.
MR. ROGERS: We're going to agree we're going to continue objections as before?
MR. MacLEISH: Continue objections.
MR. ROGERS: Reserve all objections except as to form and motions to strike until the time of trial.
MR. MacLEISH: Motions to strike until the time of trial.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, you may [8] recall during the first day of your testimony I asked you questions about a statement, an address that you gave to the people of New Hampshire on or about May 2nd, 2002.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall your testimony on that?
A. I recall that I gave testimony, yeah.

Q. Have you had the opportunity to review the first day of your deposition by any chance?
A. The first videotape?

Q. The first day you were deposed, yes, have you reviewed that at all?
A. I read the deposition, but I did not view the tape.

Q. Right, okay. You saw the transcript?
A. Correct.

Q. So you recall, do you not, the testimony that you gave concerning your statement to the people of New Hampshire?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
MR. MacLEISH: Mr. Rogers, could you please show the Bishop Exhibit Number 7. [9]

Q. And Exhibit 7, Bishop, which you now have in front of you, is a copy that address, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Could you please turn to the third page if you would, please. And the first day of your deposition we went over the third page and specifically the last four paragraphs of the third page where you describe certain actions that you took with respect to Father Shanley. Do you recall that, the first day of your deposition?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And we focused on the first day on your statement in the last sentence -- second to the last sentence, concerning the Higgs' letter, that was the letter in 1985. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.

Q. And the Higgs' letter, as I think we went through it -- I don't want to go over it again, but the Higgs' letter made statements about what Paul Shanley had said in Rochester, New York not only concerning -- allegedly concerning homosexuality but also concerning children having sex with adults. Do [10] you recall --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- the Higgs' letter?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall the Higgs' letter.

Q. Okay. And in the last paragraph of Exhibit 7, page three of Exhibit 7, when you say "As I have reread that letter," you're referring there to the Higgs' letter, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you also stated in your address to the people of New Hampshire, you stated in the last two sentences -- last three sentences, "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." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then previous to that you were describing the Higgs' letter, were you not, when you stated "I believed then and do now that sex between an adult and a minor is wrong and it's also a crime"? [11]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that would have been an interpretation of what Paul Shanley, according to Mrs. Higgs, had said out at that conference in Rochester --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know; I'd have to see the letter.

Q. Okay. Let's take a look.
A. Yeah.

Q. Let's get the letter, which is Exhibit Number -- it's Exhibit Number -- if you could show Exhibit 14 to the Bishop, please, Will.
Showing you Exhibit Number 14, you'll see in the fourth paragraph of the Higgs' letter she attributes or describes some of Paul Shanley's statements, which include in the fourth paragraph an alleged statement attributed to Paul Shanley "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. The children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison knowing that they are the [12] guilty ones," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And if you go back to your statement, Bishop, you, in your statement to the people of New Hampshire, when you stated "Why I did not focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know," you were referring, were you not, to that section of the Higgs' letter that I just read, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And during your deposition, you recall on the first day, you indicated that you had in fact spoken to Paul Shanley and received some sort of satisfactory explanation concerning that particular paragraph "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them," do you recall your testimony on that subject?
A. Yes, I recall that I testified that I did remember something like this.

Q. And you recall me asking you questions on why you did not state that in your address to the people of New Hampshire, that you had in fact spoken to Father Paul Shanley about that, is that correct?
A. Yes, I remember you asking me why I [13] didn't remember that.

Q. All right. In fact, at the time you issued the statement of May 2nd, 2002, you testified that you didn't remember that you had had that conversation with Paul Shanley; you remembered it later on, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So your statement to the people of New Hampshire of May 2nd, 2002, at least with respect to this particular paragraph, is not an accurate statement, would you agree with me about that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It was accurate at the time, but it was inaccurate as I remember.

Q. Right. So my question is have you gone back in any way to the people of New Hampshire since May 2nd or since the first day of your deposition and told them that the statement that you made to them on May 2nd in the final paragraph of page three is no longer accurate? Have you done that, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I have not.

Q. Is there any -- [14]
A. Except --

Q. Go ahead, Bishop.
A. Except in small groups when I --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- when I have been asked about this event.

Q. About the deposition?
A. No, about the Shanley letter and --

Q. Your address that's embodied onExhibit Number 7 was to all the people ofNew Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So as I understand your testimony, you have not corrected the statement in the same public way that you first got it out on May 2nd, 2002, would that be a fair statement?
A. That's a fair statement.

Q. Your address to the church and people of New Hampshire was in fact carried on a local television station here, was it not?
A. Yes, it was.

Q. That was WMUR, is that correct?
A. Correct. [15]

Q. Channel 9?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And have you gone back to anybody at WMUR and say that you now want to correct your statement that you made to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd, 2002?
A. I was interviewed by MUR afterwards. I'm not too sure whether this might have come up in the question and answer period.

Q. That was an interview in the lobby of this office building where we're --
A. No.

Q. -- taking this deposition?
A. No, it was an interview on television.

Q. Do you have a clear recollection --
A. I don't have a clear recollection.

Q. So as you sit here today, you can't state with any degree of certainty that you've corrected this statement that you made to the people of New Hampshire, is that accurate?
A. That is accurate.

Q. Okay. And you haven't taken any action since this was first pointed out to you or since it [16] first came up in the first day of your deposition, you can't recall any action that you specifically have taken, outside of speaking to people in small groups, to correct your statement, is that fair?
A. I corrected it here.

Q. You corrected it here, but you know -- you corrected it here?
A. Right.

Q. I'm talking about to the people of New Hampshire, the people that you told on May 2nd, 2002 in your words "Why I did not focus on that reference in 1985, I don't know," that statement has not been corrected in a public way --
A. Public way.

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

Q. And why has it not been corrected?
A. Because I -- we have not -- I have not thought that -- I have not made another public address to the people of New Hampshire.

Q. Well, you could make a public address, is that correct?
A. I could, right. [17]

Q. You also deliver homilies and addresses periodically as Bishop of New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Uh-huh, correct.

Q. And you've talked about the church sex abuse scandal in some of your homilies, sermons, other remarks since the first day of your deposition?
A. I've talked about it in general not specifics.

Q. Have you ever talked about it in the church where you deliver your homilies, have you ever done it there?
A. I've talked about it in varied places.

Q. Okay. And does that include church?
A. So that -- I've given homilies in churches, yes, right.

Q. And so in any of the homilies that you've given in churches since the first day of your deposition, have you taken it upon yourself to correct the statement that you now say is inaccurate that was given to the people of New Hampshire onMay 2nd, 2002?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and [18] answered.

Q. I'm talking about in homilies, Bishop.
A. I don't deal with specifics in homilies.

Q. Bishop could you turn to the next page of Exhibit Number 7, if you would, please.
A. Yes.

Q. And if I could just focus your attention -- it's the fourth page of Exhibit 7 on the middle of the page it starts "Effective onFebruary 15th of this year, I made public my decision not to assign a priest to pastoral ministry if the Diocese had a credible allegation about him regarding sexual misconduct with a minor." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then it goes on to say "As a Bishop and a Christian, I will continue to try to help priests who have committed abuse. I will pray for them. I will offer them professional assistance to gain control over their lives.
"But, be clear ----- I will not hide them." Do you see that?
A. Yes. [19]

Q. Those were your words to the people of New Hampshire on May 2nd, 2002?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know a Father Roland Cote?
A. Yes.

Q. Father Roland Cote was at one point a priest assigned to a parish in Nashua, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And he was -- has subsequently transferred to Jaffrey, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you were the person who approved his transfer, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And when did you approve his transfer, Bishop?
A. In June of this year.

Q. Okay. And after you -- you approved his transfer, Bishop, as I understand it, after there had been an allegation that Roland Cote had engaged in misconduct with a minor, is that correct? [20]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And in fact that was the reason for the transfer, was it not?
A. No.

Q. Okay. He was transferred in June. When did it first come to your attention, Bishop, that there was an allegation of sexual misconduct involving a minor and Father Cote?
A. This spring.

Q. Okay. When you say "this spring," could you try to be a little more specific.
A. May I correct, the finding was that there was no sexual misconduct with a minor.

Q. Well, there was an allegation initially, was there not?
A. There was an allegation.

Q. Yes. And there was an allegation that it involved a young person, is that correct, between the ages of 15 and 16?
A. No, this is -- the person wasn't a minor.

Q. The person -- when the person came forward, the person wasn't a minor? [21]
A. No, when the misconduct took place, the person was not a minor, that was the finding.

Q. That was the finding, that it was not -- and the finding was, was it not, according -- let me back up.
Did you assign anybody to investigate what had happened with Father Cote and this person?
A. The civil authorities did the investigation and then we followed through on our own investigation.

Q. Okay. And the civil authorities, that means the police, is that correct?
A. The district attorney's office.

Q. District attorneys. Did you speak with any of the district attorneys?
A. I didn't but my delegate did.

Q. Did you receive any report from your own internal investigation into this matter?
A. Yes.

Q. And you understand that Father Cote admitted to having a sexual relationship with this person, is that correct?
A. Correct. [22]

Q. Okay. And you also understood that this person was under the age of 20, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You understood that there was some question about whether the sexual conduct had occurred when the person was either 15 or 16 years of age, is that correct?
A. I did not hear that age when I was told. I was told that the question was was he a minor and --

Q. Was he a minor?
A. -- and it was determined that he was not a minor --

Q. And did you ever --
A. -- when this occurred.

Q. Okay. You knew that he was a young individual, however, did you not, when this occurred?
A. I learned that, yes.

Q. And did you ever make any inquiry as to how young this person was when he had a sexual relationship with Father Cote?
A. We did, yes.

Q. Okay. And how old, as you sit here [23] today, how old do you believe this young person was when he had a sexual relationship with Father Cote?
A. My understanding was that it was past the age of majority -- the age of minority.

Q. Which is 16 in New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. I'm not sure of that; I thought it was 17.

Q. All right. So --
A. So that he was older than the age of minority when it took place.

Q. Well, let's -- I think the way to describe it is the age of consent, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Is that the way you described it in your internal report, the age of consent?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It wasn't my report so I can't --

Q. Your internal -- the internal investigation done by the diocese of New Hampshire.
A. The internal investigation was it was demonstrated that this person was not a minor when [24] the act occurred.

Q. All right. Well, my question is how old did you think this young person was?
A. Beyond the age of minor, probably a year or two more.

Q. Okay. So somewhere in the area of --
A. 17, 18.

Q. 17, 18.
A. Right.

Q. And this was a sexual relationship that Father Cote admitted to having with a young man that he met through his parish in Nashua, is that correct?
A. No, that's incorrect.

Q. How did he meet this young man?
A. I'm told that he picked him up as a hiker.

Q. Picked him up as a hiker, okay, in the mountains while hiking?
A. No, hiking -- thumbing in the road.

Q. Thumbing in the road. And then what is your understanding about the nature of the allegedly consensual sexual relationship that he had with this person that he picked up on the road? [25]
A. My understanding was is that at some time he approached him and made some advances --

Q. Father Cote or the young man?
A. I don't know.

Q. Did you consider this to be a serious matter, Bishop, when you were investigating?
A. Sure did, very serious.

Q. And there was some --
A. My delegate is the one who investigates it, so I want to be clear about that.

Q. Who's the delegate?
A. And the delegate makes a report to me.

Q. Who's the delegate?
A. The delegate is Father Edward Arsenault.

Q. Okay. And was there a recommendation from the delegate?
A. Yes.

Q. What was the recommendation?
A. The recommendation from the delegate was that there was no actual sexual misconduct with a minor.

Q. Because of the age of the person? [26]
A. Because of the finding by both the civil authorities and our own investigation due to his age.

Q. Which was 17 or 18, as you best understand it here today?
A. I'm going to say 17, 18 or 19, I don't know what it was. I really don't know the actual age that it was finally concluded he was because that was where the discussion was.

Q. Okay. How old is Father Cote?
A. Father Cote is, I'd say, his early 50s, late 40s, early 50s.

Q. And this was an event that occurred when, Bishop, this sexual relationship between this young person and Father Cote?
A. My memory is that it related to between 15 -- around 15 years ago, I'd say.

Q. Okay. And there was subsequently a lawsuit brought against the diocese of Manchester as a result of this incident by the young man who was picked up by Father Cote, is that correct?
A. I don't know that there was a lawsuit. He reported it to the civil authorities. [27]

Q. Well, did he make a claim against the diocese of New Hampshire?
A. And he made a claim against the --

Q. For monetary damages.
A. He didn't -- I don't know whether he made a claim, you know, whether there was a formal claim, but he did seek a settlement.

Q. He did seek a settlement. He was paid a settlement, is that correct?
A. Yes, for counseling purposes.

Q. Well, Bishop, did you see the settlement agreement?
A. No.

Q. Do you know that every money, every bit of money in that settlement agreement was for counseling purposes?
A. I'm told that that was the purpose for it --

Q. Well --
A. -- was to resolve it to help this person for counseling.

Q. He was paid money by the diocese of New Hampshire, is that correct -- [28]
MR. TUCKER: Objection.

Q. -- diocese of Manchester?
MR. TUCKER: Objection. Could I have a moment to speak with the Bishop?
MR. MacLEISH: Sure, absolutely.

MR. MIELKE: Go off the record.

(Recess.)
MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record.

MR. MacLEISH: There was a pending question. I assume you were consulting on an issue of privilege?
MR. TUCKER: Well, it's a little broader than that. Typically in these cases, if there's a settlement, there's a confidentiality agreement, and I'm led to believe in this case there was a confidentiality agreement. I don't want the Bishop to violate that agreement --
MR. MacLEISH: Okay.
MR. TUCKER: -- answering questions.
MR. MacLEISH: Fine.

MR. ROGERS: And I'd just note for the record it was a confidentiality agreement that was not requested by the diocese of Manchester; it was [29] requested by the claimant.
MR. MacLEISH: Well, let's have the Bishop's testimony on that, Will. I mean --
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. MacLEISH: I don't think we're noting that for the record.
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. MacLEISH: He doesn't have any knowledge --

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: You don't have any knowledge of what this settlement -- you didn't actually see the settlement document, Bishop, did you?
A. No, I didn't, but I am told, because a policy of ours is not to have confidentiality agreements, that's our goal and --

Q. Sure.
A. -- but when the person requested it for a serious reason, we will consent to it, and I was informed that it was for this reason that it was made confidential.

Q. Okay. I'm not going to ask you anything about the amount or the name of the person [30] involved in any way. I would ask you what the date was, approximate date was when a settlement was reached with this young person?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: And I can't remember.

Q. This spring?
A. This spring, early summer.

Q. Prior to the transfer of Father Cote to Jaffrey?
A. I don't remember.

Q. Okay. But certainly you do recall that the allegations first surfaced about Father Cote while he was a priest in Nashua, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He was pastor in Nashua?
A. Yes.

Q. Which parish was he at?
A. St. Louie Gonzaga.

Q. St. Louie Gonzaga. And then after the allegations surfaced in the spring, he then is transferred by you to a parish in Jaffrey,New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Correct. [31]

Q. Where he's serving as pastor?
A. Yes.

Q. And have you taken any steps to inform the individuals, the parishioners at Jaffrey, about the circumstances of Mr. Cote's -- Father Cote's, admitted sexual involvement with a young person 15 years ago?
A. Yes, we have.

Q. What have you done?
A. My delegate and he worked out a statement that he would make to his parishioners that following Sunday.

Q. A statement at Jaffrey --
A. About the -- yes, at Jaffrey about the accusation.

Q. And what was the substance of that statement, Bishop?
A. That there was no finding of sexual misconduct with a minor and that he -- that he was sorry that this has been raised in this parish, that it's a matter of concern for people, that anybody has some questions about this matter that they could speak with him. [32]

Q. Did he admit that he had had a sexual relationship in this statement with this young person, who you believe may be -- I think we've gone from 16 or 17 to 18 or 19, whatever that range is, did he --
A. No, I never said 16.

Q. Okay.
A. I said 17, 18 or 19.

Q. 17, 18 or 19, fair enough, Bishop.
Did this priest, who was transferred by you after these allegations surfaced to Jaffrey, New Hampshire, did he tell his parishioners in this public statement that he had engaged 15 years ago in a sexual relationship with someone who was between the ages of 17 or 19 or words to that effect, Bishop?
A. I don't know whether he has said to that effect, but I know that he was willing, if asked, to talk about it with people --

Q. The question is --
A. -- to admit that he did. Did he make it publicly to his people? To my knowledge he didn't make it that specific.

Q. He didn't make it known that he had [33] engaged in sexual conduct with someone who was at the time 17, 18 or 19 years of age, is that correct?
A. Would you ask that question again.

Q. Sure. He didn't, to your knowledge, tell his parishioners that he'd actually engaged in sexual conduct with a 17, 18 or 19 year old young man, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You did not instruct him to tell his parishioners to admit that he had engaged in sexual conduct with a 17, 18 or 19 year old man, correct, Bishop?
A. Incorrect.

Q. You did tell him to admit to his parishioners that he had engaged in the sexual act?
A. If asked.

Q. If asked.
A. Right.

Q. But I'm talking about whether you instructed him in any way to affirmatively disclose in his --
A. Public statements.

Q. -- remarks -- well, affirmatively [34] disclose in his remarks to his parishioners that he had in fact engaged in sexual conduct with a 17, 18 or 19 year old young man?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, we did not instruct him to be that explicit.

Q. Well, did you consider it important, Bishop, that parishioners have, at the Jaffrey parish, have a full understanding and complete understanding of what had happened between Father Cote and this young person, did you consider it important?
A. I thought it was important that the parishioners know that there was an allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor, that he was investigated and that the investigations ended up that he had not had that. And so any parishioner who heard that knew that he was investigated for it and that the finding was that there was not sexual misconduct with a minor.

Q. Go ahead, Bishop.
A. And then we said to him, "However, you must be ready to talk about this if people ask you [35] about 'Well, what did happen?'"

Q. To your knowledge, did anybody ask?
A. He said he was ready and willing; whether -- to my knowledge -- I don't know whether anybody asked.

Q. Bishop, you would agree with me that Father Cote violated his priestly vows when he engaged in sexual relations with a 17, 18 or 19 year old man, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever instruct Father Cote or anyone else to disclose to the parishioners in Jaffrey that Father Cote had engaged in a violation of his priestly vows by having sex with a young person?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I think you're asking the same question only in a different way, and it was basically is that we did not instruct him to reveal specifically but told him that if ever asked he should be very upfront about what the -- what actually did happen.

Q. Okay. Bishop, you understand that [36] there was a significant age difference at the time these acts occurred between Father Cote and this -- let's call him young person, this young person who you believe was aged 17 to 19, there was a significant age difference, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider a priest --
A. I'd like to --

Q. Go ahead.
A. -- be clear, I'm not sure how significant it was. By that I mean is that this person was young and Father Cote was an adult; how significant I'm not clear.

Q. Whether this person was above or beyond the age of consent -- I guess he was -- he wasn't far beyond the age of consent, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. He wasn't far beyond the age of consent; he was a young person?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't -- you know, I don't refer to it as the age of consent; I refer to it as a minor. [37]

Q. Okay. He was a young person --
A. Correct.

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

Q. Did it trouble you at all that Father Cote had admitted in engaging in a sexual act with this young person?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you discipline Father Cote in any way?
A. We have asked him to seek help and he is seeking help.

Q. And do you feel comfortable, as you sit here today, Bishop, with having Father Cote serving in a family parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire without the parishioners knowing that he'd admitted engaging in a sexual act with a young person? Do you feel comfortable with that?
A. I feel comfortable with the fact that he acknowledged that there was an investigation. So that to that point people in the parish know that someone has accused him of it. I feel comfortable with the fact that having gotten up in public and [38] spoken to his people about it, that they know that, again, he has said that he's sorry for whatever he has brought to the parish in terms of this.
And I know that if anybody wants to speak with him about this, that he is ready to admit that he did it. Do I feel comfortable with that? I feel comfortable with that with the fact that knowing his history since then that there have been no reports; and secondly, knowing that he has been required by us to seek help, that I feel comfortable about that.

Q. Sorry, I thought you said you asked him to seek help?
A. Well, we require him to.

Q. You require?
A. Yeah.

Q. My question is the parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire has adolescents and young people that are served there, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. In fact, I recall it's a parish that is a fairly active parish, the one in Jaffrey, with over -- I think it's over 100 parishioners, is that [39] correct --
A. There's more.

Q. -- that attend mass regularly? More?
A. Oh, more, yeah.

Q. 200 parishioners?
A. In the parish? Yes, several hundred.

Q. Several hundred. And have you had -- did you ever instruct that Father Cote be sent for evaluation to determine what caused him to engage in sexual conduct against his priestly vows with a young person?
A. Yes.

Q. Where was he sent?
A. The evaluation has not been completed yet.

Q. So the evaluation hasn't been completed, but you don't have any difficulty in having him serve as the pastor in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. I wouldn't say that I don't have any difficulty, but I -- one is that he did not do it with a parishioner; this was outside of parish work. Secondly, he -- it happened many, many years ago. [40]
And thirdly, the person was not a minor, and so at this point we are treating it as that he needs to be -- have an evaluation completed and determine just what his orientation is. I have this sense that Father Cote is in charge of his sexual impulses and that he lives a chaste, celibate life, and I think that he told his parishioners that.

Q. Yeah, he told his parishioners that, but what would have been the downside of giving the parishioners the full story, Bishop, that he had in fact engaged in sex, separate and apart from whether it was a minor under the law or not a minor? What would have been the downside in fully informing and you instructing either Father Cote or someone else to fully inform the parish that he'd admitted engaging in this act, this sexual act, with a young person, what would have been the downside?
A. I know that there would be a downside of a person getting up publicly before his people and being that specific, I think it would be difficult for him. But having said that, to do it in public in a parish from a pulpit, would be difficult; I think to do it in person or with groups of people, outside [41] of the church setting, would be less difficult.

Q. Well, but you never instructed him to do that; you only told him if asked he has to tell?
A. If asked, correct.

Q. But you never instructed him to meet with small groups of parishioners to tell them that he'd engaged in a sexual act with a young person, you never told him that, did you, Bishop?
A. I didn't speak with him; the delegate did so I can't say because there was a question whether he should reveal it to the pastoral counsel.

Q. Did you ever instruct that it be revealed to the pastoral counsel, the fact that he'd had admitted to having sex?
A. We discussed it; whether he has done that, I don't know because he wasn't instructed to do it.

Q. One of the downsides also would have been, if he were to admit that he was now a pastor in Jaffrey and had engaged in sexual conduct with a young person, that it could have brought scandal to the church, is that correct?
A. I don't consider that, no. [42]

Q. So just, Bishop, putting yourself in --
A. I think people are aware that this has happened.

Q. Put yourself in -- well, you think that people are aware that he admitted into engaging in a sexual act? You're not saying that, are you?
A. I think, you know, people are aware that priests have, you know, broken their vows of chastity.

Q. I'm not talking about --
A. So that it wouldn't, in terms of scandal --

Q. We're talking about a young person here; we're not talking -- we're talking about whether that person is over the age of 16 or not; we're talking about a young person, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And that makes it particularly troubling, does it not, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. And it was troubling to you when you first heard about this, correct?
A. Correct. [43]

Q. And it was troubling to you when Father Cote admitted it to you, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. It was inconsistent with his priestly vows, correct?
A. To be specific, Father Cote admitted that to the delegate first before he spoke with me.

Q. And it was troubling when you heard that, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You sent him out for an evaluation, is that correct?
A. Yes. He's still under that, he's still under that evaluation and he --

Q. Go ahead.
A. That's it.

Q. Do you have any facts that would support the notion that the parishioners of the parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, where he serves as pastor, know that he's currently in the process of receiving an evaluation, as you said earlier, to determine his, quote, orientation?
A. Well, to determine not only his [44] orientation but to determine how he handles his sexual impulses.

Q. And to determine whether he's a threat to children --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't consider him to be a threat to children.

Q. Well, put yourself, Bishop, in the position of someone in that parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire that has heard Father Cote say what you said he was instructed to say but does not hear that he admitted engaging in a sexual act with a young person, and let's assume that that person is the mother of a 14 or 15 or 16 year old child.
Can you understand that knowing that he admitted engaging in a sexual act with a 17 to 19 year old young person would be important for that parishioner to hear, as a mother of an adolescent boy, can you understand that, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [45]
THE WITNESS: I think that I want to bring home again that the incident was not with a parishioner.

Q. I understand that. Why does that make a difference?
A. It makes a big difference, I think, that a -- you know, that a person uses his office to take advantage of a parishioner is very different from a person who, on his day off, involved in sexual misconduct with a person that he picked up in an automobile is very --

Q. A 17 to 19 year old?
A. 17 to --

Q. You think there's a big difference?
A. There's a big difference in the type of activity.

Q. Okay.
A. You know, one is an activity where you have a trusted relationship with a parishioner; the other is an activity where you're away from the parish and you're off on your own and whatever was going on that day he picked up this person and engaged in a sexual activity, and I'm very concerned [46] about that, he was a young person and that he did it in that instance, but it's quite different from being with a parishioner, so.

Q. Bishop, you're a former social worker, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. There may be a difference, but you condemn both situations?
A. Correct.

Q. When someone who's a priest has a sexual relationship --
A. Both of them --

Q. Excuse me, when someone who's a priest has a sexual relationship with a 17 to 19 year old young person, regardless of whether that person is a parishioner, you condemn both types of acts, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So my question is if you -- going back to my question, Bishop, and I understand that you make this distinction, but you're not saying it's okay when it happens with someone who's not a parishioner?
A. Not at all; I'm just saying that he's [47] not a threat to parishioners.

Q. Well, Bishop, how do you know that? You don't have the clinical expertise to know that, do you? All you know is that he's --
A. Well, I'm a social worker.

Q. Well, you're not a licensed social worker, correct?
A. I'm a social worker.

Q. So you're telling me that there is some clinical literature that supports the notion that if a priest has a sexual relationship with nonparishioner that's inappropriate and wrong, he's not likely to do it with the parishioners, is that correct?
A. No, I'm not saying that.

Q. All right. So you --
A. Excuse me.

Q. Sure, go ahead.
A. What I am saying is is that a person who does it with a parishioner will do it most likely out of a trusted relationship with that parishioner.

Q. And can you cite any --
A. And -- [48]

Q. Go ahead.
A. And that's my experience, and that most people who have done it with young people have developed a trusting relationship with them and sometimes their families. This is a very different type of activity; same act, sexual act, but a very different context.

Q. Okay. But going back to my question, Bishop, and I understand the distinction that you're making --
A. Thank you.

Q. -- I'm not adopting it, but I understand you're making a distinction.
I want to go back to that mother in the parish in Jaffrey, New Hampshire who has young boys aged 14 to 16. Do you think it would be important for that young mother to know that Father Cote not only had an allegation made against him that was not proven because of the age limit but that Father Cote admitted to having sexual relations with a 17 to 19 year old young person, can you see why that might be important for her to have that information?
A. And I think if she was that -- if she's [49] concerned about her children and she thinks that Father Cote, from listening to what he said about the allegation and the investigation, if she was concerned that -- he's the kind of person that you can approach and ask. I think he said -- he told them "If you have any questions about this, you may ask me."

Q. But he said --
A. So this person could go to him and she could speak to him about it, you know. So that what I'm saying is that I think he made himself quite vulnerable. You're saying he should have made himself more vulnerable.

Q. I'm not saying he should have made himself more vulnerable; I'm just asking you whether because you don't have any facts to show that he told anybody that he'd actually engaged in a sexual act, as I understand, is that correct?
A. At this point I have no facts, no.

Q. He was not instructed to --
A. But he could have.

Q. But you don't know. We only can go on what you know, Bishop. So if we just go on what you [50] know, you don't have any facts to support that, correct?
A. But I would not be surprised that he has been asked.

Q. You don't have any facts to support it, do you?
A. No.

Q. Okay. And so my question is he was under no requirement to affirmatively state that he had engaged in the sexual act, no requirement to do that, correct?
A. Yes, he agreed that if he was asked that he would admit to what happened.

Q. But not that he affirmatively disclosed it. Do you understand the distinction I'm making between --
A. You mean proactively?

Q. Yes.
A. Okay.

Q. Affirmatively, he was not told --
A. He was not told --

Q. -- affirmatively --
A. -- to be that specific. [51]

Q. Well, he was not told that he had to affirmatively disclose that he had engaged in a sexual act, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He was not instructed that he had to disclose -- go ahead.
A. Publicly.

Q. Publicly, affirmatively disclose. Do you understand what I'm saying, affirmatively disclose? It means making, as you said, a proactive statement.
A. Public statement.

Q. Public statement. Well, he wasn't told he had to -- he wasn't told he had to proactively make any affirmative disclosures even in private, only when asked, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So he wasn't told that he had to disclose to this parish that the sexual act was with someone who was between the ages of 17 and 19, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He wasn't instructed by you -- [52]
A. Publicly.

Q. Publicly. He wasn't instructed by you that he had to affirmatively disclose that the reason why this investigation did not result in a prosecution was because of the age of the victim at the time, he was not required to do that, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. So, again, coming back to my question --
A. Well, no, excuse me, he was required to say that he was -- there was a criminal investigation about sexual misconduct with a minor and that it was unproven -- it was proved not to have taken place.

Q. It was proven not to have taken --
A. However --

Q. That wasn't my question.
A. But the phrasing was he -- I don't know the phrasing -- is that he was asked to say to his people that there was an allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor and that --

Q. It was not proven --
A. That's not the word, it was not proven, but -- that might be; it was not found to have [53] taken -- to be true.

Q. Not found to have take place --
MR. ROGERS: Are you going to --
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.
MR. ROGERS: -- let him finish?
MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely.

Q. I apologize, Bishop.
A. And I don't have the exact words, but the idea was that he was to admit that there was a criminal investigation about this.

Q. But my question, Bishop, was whether he was told that he had to --
A. I know your question, Mr. MacLeish.

Q. Let me finish my question.
My question, Bishop, is whether he was told by you, your delegate or anyone else to state that the reason why the criminal case did not proceed forward was because while the act had occurred there was no proof that it was below the age of consent, was he told to say that, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: He was not to say that.

Q. All right. So if you're sitting when [54] he makes this disclosure, one could have come to the conclusion that Father Cote had been exonerated in this investigation, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. One could have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons he might have been exonerated was because the victim's complaint about having sex, that specifically was found not to be credible, one could have concluded that, correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, it's possible, Bishop, is it not?
A. Possible.

Q. Bishop --
A. I think there was more said, though, to intimate that something did take place and that he was -- that he was sorry that he brought embarrassment to the parish.

Q. I'm talking about the sexual act itself, do you have any facts to indicate --
A. I have no facts; I'm telling you that it was said in such a way that it was -- it was said in such a way that he was not to give the intimation that something didn't take place. [55]

Q. But he was not told to state that the reason why the criminal prosecution didn't take place was because, even though he admitted the act, the act wasn't with someone who was a minor below the age of consent, correct --
A. Correct.

Q. -- never told to do that?
Can you understand that this sounds, Bishop, like Father Cote, when he was instructed to make this statement, disclosed some of the facts but not all of the facts that would be relevant to those parishioners, can you understand that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I understand that.

Q. And can you understand how some people might have come away believing that he did nothing wrong at all, can you understand that, Bishop?
A. It's possible, but I would be surprised.

Q. So you think everybody up in Jaffrey, New Hampshire knows that Father Cote had admitted into engaging this -- into a sexual act with a 17 to [56] 19 year old, you don't think that would be a surprise to anybody?
A. I would be surprised that -- that many people there have an idea something happened.

Q. All of them?
A. I can't say all of them, no, I can't.

Q. Bishop, how -- up here in New Hampshire, on what basis are priests transferred between parish to parish? There was a period, I think, in Boston. Is there a similar period?
A. No.

Q. There's no strict limitation on when someone has to be a pastor?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Were there plans to transferFather Cote as pastor from Nashua to Jaffrey before this young man made an allegation of sexual misconduct by Father Cote?
A. The discussions about transfers begin around February and March, so it could have been, I don't know.

Q. And your sworn testimony is the decision to transfer Father Cote had absolutely [57] nothing to do with this allegation that had surfaced?
A. No, nothing.

Q. Didn't have anything to do with it?
A. Nothing.

Q. Okay. It was -- okay. Why was Father Cote transferred?
A. Because we were merging parishes in Nashua and in Father Cote's parish we needed a priest assigned there who spoke both Spanish and French and Father Cote doesn't speak Spanish.

Q. All right. Now, as a result of our discussion here today, do you intend to do anything affirmatively to disclose to the parishioners in Jaffrey that there was an admission of sexual misconduct between a -- Father Cote and someone who was 17 or 18?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I will take it into serious consideration.

Q. Okay. Now, you talk about --
MR. ROGERS: Eric, it's 11:00.
MR. MacLEISH: Want to take a break? Sure. [58]
MR. ROGERS: Yes.
MR. MacLEISH: Absolutely, yeah.

MR. MIELKE: We're going off the record.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, do you know a Father Robert Gorski?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know a Monsignor Paul Bouchard?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And they share a house, do they not, with Father Cote up in Newport, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. It's a summer camp type house, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you understand the nature of the allegations that were made against Father Cote was not just a single incident of having sex with this young man, you understand that, don't you?
A. Yes. [59]

Q. You understand that the allegations were that this young man came up to this camp that is owned by Father Cote, Father Gorski and Father Bouchard and had a series of sexual acts up there with Father Cote, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that there was in fact money paid to this young man for sexual acts by Father Cote, is that correct?
A. I don't know that.

Q. Okay. And the young man was brought up to the camp by Father Cote initially on the pretense of doing some painting work at the camp, do you understand that to be the allegation?
A. Nor do I know that.

Q. Okay. Well, have you undertaken any action to have -- to investigate whether Father Gorski or Father Bouchard were physically present when some of these sexual acts occurred in New Hampshire that were admitted to by Father Cote?
A. Yes, the delegate has spoken to them.

Q. And did they remember this young man being at the camp? [60]
A. My knowledge was -- is that they were not present when any such physical act was taking place; whether they ever met him, I don't know.

Q. But we're not just talking about one sexual act; we're talking about a series of sexual acts that Father Cote admitted to in engaging with this young man, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That occurred up at this camp that is owned by Father Cote and two other priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And do you know whether any of that information has been shared in an affirmative, public way with the parishioners at the parish in Jaffrey?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
A. No, it has not.

Q. Now, do you know the name of that parish in Jaffrey where Father Cote serves as pastor?
A. Yes.

Q. What's the name of that --
A. St. Patrick.

Q. Okay. Could we go back, Bishop, to [61] Exhibit Number 7, your statement which I think is in front of you, where -- we went over this language previously -- you said "Effective on February 15th of this year, I made public my decision not to assign a priest to pastoral ministry if the Diocese had a credible allegation about him regarding sexual misconduct with a minor." Do you see those words?
A. Correct.

Q. What did you mean when you used the word "minor," when you used those words on May 2nd?
A. That the person was, you know, under age by the civil authority or the canonical authority under 18.

Q. Under age 18?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. You just testified, Bishop, that this young man was the subject of these allegations, made these allegations against Father Cote which he admitted to, may have been as young as 17, do you recall your testimony?
A. I said that there was a possibility, but I learned that he was over 18.

Q. You've now established that he was over [62] 18 at the time --
A. That he was -- yes.

Q. -- at the time these acts occurred?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you certain of that, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So he was not 17 or 18; he was 18 or 19, is that your testimony?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's my understanding, yes.

Q. I'm sorry, I thought I heard your testimony earlier to be that he could have been as young as 17?
A. Because I thought that that -- as I said, I don't -- I don't know all the specifics of the age of the minority. You said it was age 16. I'm saying no, I think it's higher than that. So then I said it must be 17 or 18, and I checked to see; it's age 18.

Q. Okay. Bishop, between now and the time that we next convene, can you discuss with your attorneys any information that you have within your [63] files that would help us identify the age of this young man. I'm not asking for you to respond; I'm just asking if you would discuss it so you would have more specific information.
A. Yes.

Q. You're not required to answer that question. Take it up with your attorneys.
But just so now your testimony is, as I understand it, that you believe this young man was 18 or 19 at the time these acts occurred, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you have no knowledge of whether any of these sexual acts were paid for by Father Cote?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You have no knowledge on that either way?
A. Correct.

Q. Now, Bishop, you own property inCape Neddick, Maine, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you own that property with two or [64] three other fellow priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And one of them is Father MacInnis, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And he's someone from the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. How long have you knownFather MacInnis?
A. 22, 23 years.

Q. Okay. Was he a classmate of yourself in seminary or --
A. No.

Q. Okay. You met him subsequent to seminary?
A. Yes.

Q. And did Father Paul Shanley ever meet Father MacInnis?
A. Not with me.

Q. But do you know whether they ever had occasion to meet each other, Paul Shanley andFather MacInnis? [65]
A. No.

Q. Did you ever discuss Father MacInnis with Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. Did Paul Shanley ever discussFather MacInnis with you?
A. No -- excuse me, to my knowledge. Father MacInnis was the director of continuing education for priests, so he might have had some conversation with Paul Shanley in that role, and he was also a seminary professor.

Q. Okay.
A. He was also a spiritual director, but now whether -- but to my knowledge, I don't know.

Q. Is he presently a priest with the Archdiocese?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know where he serves?
A. St. John's Parish, Peabody.

Q. Okay. And the other individuals that you own that parish with include George Moran,Father George Moran?
A. Correct. [66]

Q. Is there anybody else?
A. No.

Q. Bishop, you spent time up there in the summer, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And were you there in June of this year, Bishop?
A. I assume I was on a day off.

Q. On a day off. I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary. Did you have a -- did you have a -- burn any papers in June of this year up at your house in Cape Neddick, Maine?
A. No.

Q. Have you ever burned any papers since January of 2002 of any kind, apart from starting a fire, obviously, but documents of any kind?
A. No.

Q. Do you have a computer up in -- that you use when you're up in Cape Neddick at all?
A. No.

Q. All right. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 43 was marked for identification.) [67]

Q. Bishop, here, let me provide you with the original.
Bishop, when someone like Paul Shanley is placed on sick leave in 1990, is it fair to state that there was a customary sick leave allowance monthly stipend that was given to someone?
A. Yes.

Q. And that monthly stipend, as I understand it as a general practice, was $400 a month?
A. No.

Q. How much was it?
A. Well, it varied over the years, but I think it might have been around eight or $900 initially and became up to $1,100, I think, by the time -- eight or 900 seems very familiar to me and 400 -- if that was 400, it was not -- it didn't last long.

Q. Bishop, would you agree with me that Father Jack McCarthy, who was director of Clergy Personnel in 1990, would be in a better position to answer that question than you would be?
A. Jim McCarthy? [68]

Q. Yes, Jim McCarthy.
A. Yes, he would be.

Q. Jim, I'm sorry.
A. He would be, yeah.

Q. Now, was it typical, Bishop, for you in May of 1990, as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, to get involved with the details of priests who were going to be sent on sick leave, was that typically part of your responsibilities?
A. It would have been shared with the Vicar for Administration and with the Cardinal and Father McCarthy. No, I think all -- any one of us might have been involved in that.

Q. Okay. With respect to assignments, new assignments for priests, was it not the case that in 1990 assignments of priests was typically, absent any special circumstances, dealt with by the Clergy Personnel Board?
A. No, the Clergy Personnel Board generally dealt with the assignments of pastors, priests as pastors, but a lot of other assignments would have been dealt directly by the Clergy Personnel director and the priest himself. [69]

Q. Okay. Was that something that you were typically involved in in 1990, the assignment of individual priests?
A. No.

Q. Okay. And we have before us Exhibit Number 43. You'll see that this is a memorandum to you from Father Ryan, and it says at the top "Checks for your 'Special Delivery' to priests with whom you are working." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, when did you last speak with Father Jim McCarthy?
A. I would say probably around 19 -- at least 1998 if not 1995.

Q. You have not spoken to him since his deposition which took place earlier this week?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, this particular document, 43, references -- from Father Ryan -- references the word "special delivery." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. What did you take those words to mean?
A. I don't recall what I took it at that [70] time nor do I recall what I took it at this time, now.

Q. Well, it references certain priests with whom you are working. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, is it not the case that there were priests who were accused of sexual misconduct, that when the accusations came in, you would take over from the Clergy Personnel the process of working with those priests?
A. As the delegate, yes.

Q. Well, you became the delegate when?
A. '93, '92 -- '93.

Q. But you were performing some of the functions of delegate prior to that, although you didn't have that title, is that correct?
A. Right, correct, but they were also shared with the Vicar for Administration.

Q. That would have been Bishop Banks?
A. And Bishop Hughes.

Q. And Bishop Hughes after 19 --
A. Bishop Banks, yeah.

Q. Bishop Banks and Bishop Hughes, is that [71] correct?
A. Yes.

Q. But when there was an allegation of abuse concerning -- sexual abuse concerning a priest, it would end up at some point coming to you, is that not correct, from the time -- from 1986 up until the time that you formally became the delegate?
A. No, sometimes the Vicar for Administration would handle the case himself.

Q. Well, when did you handle cases involving priests who were accused of sexual abuse?
A. When the Vicar for Administration would ask me to take -- to handle the case.

Q. You handled some. You handled Father Birmingham, for example, we went through that on the first day of your deposition?
A. No, I think Bishop Banks handled Father Birmingham.

Q. Do you remember the letter that you sent to that man --
A. Yes, I remember the letter, but in terms --

Q. Well, let me finish the question. [72] Do you remember the letter you sent to the man who made inquiry about whether it was the same Father Birmingham who was at St. Ann's that earlier had been in Salem, you recall that letter, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So you had some involvement with the Father Birmingham case in terms of dealing with people who wrote in with questions aboutFather Birmingham, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. We've already been through that letter, but you agree with me that your letter that was responsive to that man who wrote in about his son did not provide the full facts and the full answers to his questions, is that correct?
A. No, I don't agree with that.

Q. All right. So there were certain priests in May of 1990 that you were working with because there had been allegations of sexual misconduct against them, is that correct?
A. I missed that. Can you --

Q. Yes. There were certain -- [73]
A. I was thinking back to that response I made to the man. I thought that I did answer his questions in a general way than I think you were asking me; I just --

Q. Well, he asked you specifically, did he not, whether it was the same Father Birmingham who had --
A. Right.

Q. -- accusations of sexual abuse against him in Salem, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you knew that it was the same man, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you did not answer that question, did you, Father -- Bishop?
A. I told him that I spoke withFather Birmingham about his inquiry and that I felt -- and that I was assured that nothing had occurred between Father Birmingham and his son.

Q. I don't want to reiterate this --
A. But I'm just saying that, you know, how I answered it. It wasn't as specific as I know you [74] have pointed out, but I did think that I answered his question about his concern about Father Birmingham.

Q. He asked you a very specific question about whether it was the same Father Birmingham who had accusations of sexual misconduct against him and you did not specifically answer that question, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Correct.

Q. Now, so would it be fair to state that there were some priests in May of 1990 against whom there were allegations of sexual misconduct that you were working with even though you'd not formally been appointed as delegate?
A. Correct.

Q. And you started in that role working with some of these priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct when you first arrived at chancery, is that correct?
A. Early on, I think, yes; I'm not sure.

Q. So that would have been back in 1985, starting in 1985?
A. Yes. [75]

Q. And continuing up until the time that you ceased to become Secretary for Ministerial Personnel?
A. Correct.

Q. And that date was --
A. On November of -- or December 1994.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, you'll see inExhibit 43 you'll see a first reference to a Reverend Alfred Connick, C O N N I C K, and it says "on 'sick leave' in Florida." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Was Father Connick a person against whom there had been an allegation of sexual abuse?
A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Okay. You'll see underneath that, Bishop, it says "The June 1990 check and others to follow will be noted in the usual listing at Clergy Fund Advisory Meetings: 'special cases'." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And what did special cases mean?
A. Again, I think that possibly what I meant was is that this man was on sick leave not due [76] to physical illness but due to emotional illness.

Q. Okay. So individuals at the time in 1990 who had --
A. Or probably both, both emotional and physical. I think Father Ryan was probably pointing out that I was in communication with these men.

Q. So the special cases would be one where there was not a physical sickness but an emotional sickness, is that your testimony?
A. Or both, or both.

Q. But they would have to have an emotional --
A. Not have to, but that I was in contact with them and these two instances it was men who were emotionally had some difficulties but also physically had difficulties.

Q. Okay. So the special cases in May of 1990 were people who had emotional and physical difficulties or just emotional difficulties, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. What did you understand Father Paul Shanley's emotional difficulties to be in May of [77] 1990?
A. That he felt marginalized, you know, by the diocese, he felt alone, and it was just a sense that he was having some difficulties adjusting to his life circumstances.

Q. Now -- and did he have any sort of a diagnosable mental illness that you were aware of?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You are aware that Paul Shanley was asked to leave his parish at St. Jean's, you're aware of that, are you not?
A. No, my understanding is that he resigned.

Q. He resigned. So if I were to tell you that Father McCarthy testified that it was an involuntary resignation, you would have a contrary understanding to that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you testified on the second day of your deposition you believed it had to do with some sort of physical ailment, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Not an emotional ailment? [78]
A. No, I was told that the Cardinal assigned him to medical leave and that -- I don't think the word "emotional" was used but that he asked me to remain in contact with him because I think he was concerned about his emotional -- I don't think it was ever stated that clearly but that Paul was in some kind of a personal emotional state that he really needs some attention.

Q. Okay. So -- I think you anticipated my question. So right from the start when you were assigned -- I think you went over this in your last day of depositions with Mr. Sherman -- right from the start that it was decided voluntarily or involuntarily that Paul Shanley would leaveSt. Jean's, it was referred to you because the Cardinal felt there might be an emotional problem, some sort of emotional problems with Paul Shanley, is that a fair statement?
A. That would be implied, yes, that's a fair statement as being implied, yes.

Q. But you're not able to identify the type of emotional problems that the Cardinal felt Paul Shanley had in 1990? [79]
A. Right.

Q. Was there a general policy within the Archdiocese of Boston that when a priest was accused of sexual abuse that, with respect to transmissions such as Exhibit Number 43, the word -- the allegation would not be included in these types of documents that we have here as Exhibit 43? That's a bad question. Let me try it again.
Did you ever take, at the time before Paul Shanley left for California, did you ever take the time to find out from the Cardinal specifically what the emotional issues were with Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. But wasn't that the reason why he was assigned to you, Bishop McCormack, was that so you could help him with his emotional issues?
A. No, I think initially I said that was part of it; the other part was that he was given permission to go to California and he had difficulty with -- around allergies and that the Cardinal wanted somebody to maintain contact with him. So that was my initial, I think, understanding. As I began to deal with Father Shanley, I began to realize that, [80] you know, he was emotionally upset as well.

Q. But you also understood that in order for you to be involved right from the beginning there had to be some belief by the Cardinal that there was some emotional issues that Paul Shanley was having?
A. No.

Q. Well, you wouldn't typically get involved, Bishop McCormack, unless there was a priest that had both a physical and an emotional problem?
A. No, it could be -- he could have other issues that I could be involved with as well; it could be a vocational issue, it could be relationship with the Bishop, it could be other things that, you know, the Cardinal would ask me to maintain contact, particularly in this instance when he had given him permission to reside outside the diocese, the idea was to maintain contact.

Q. So I thought I heard you testify several minutes ago that you believed, at the time you were assigned Paul Shanley's case in 1989 by the Cardinal, that you believed the Cardinal felt there was some emotional issue with Paul Shanley?
A. I said that I felt that it was implied, [81] and I think that it came through as I began to deal with Father Shanley.

Q. All right. You also testified, though, that you think the principal reason why he had to leave St. Jean's was because of his problems with allergies, was that your testimony?
A. That, and I also felt that I understood he was having some difficulties around the church requirement about a pastor taking a new form of oath of fidelity, I think, is what --

Q. Right. You're aware, are you not, that there was no requirement that Paul Shanley --
A. That's right, I am.

Q. -- take -- I have to finish.
A. Sorry.

Q. You're aware, are you not, Bishop, there was no requirement that Paul Shanley, as an existing pastor, had to take an oath, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. So let's just focus not on the oath for the moment but on the allergy. Didn't you testify the second day of your deposition that [82] you thought that the reason why Paul Shanley had to leave was because of his asthma?
A. I might have made that distinction; if I did, as I recall the correspondence I had with him, it was more on allergies that probably may be affected him so that he had asthma as well.

Q. All right. So what difference would it make whether Paul Shanley went out to California to deal with his allergies or remain in Massachusetts? What was your understanding about how this would help?
A. My understanding was that he needed a dry climate.

Q. Okay. Like Palm Springs?
A. Or San Bernardino, wasn't it?

Q. Do you know where San Bernardino is, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Where is it?
A. In California.

Q. Okay. Where -- is it near Los Angeles?
A. I'm not that familiar. I know that it's near Palm Springs and I know that it's in that [83] vicinity.

Q. Do you know that it has some of the worst air pollution in the country, do you know that in 1990?
A. No, no.

Q. Do you know that now?
A. No.

Q. Okay. So wasn't it the typical process, when someone was going to be getting medical leave, be placed on medical leave, that that person receive some sort of evaluation by a doctor to determine whether they were eligible for sick leave, wasn't that the usual protocol?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, you were working as secretary for ministerial affairs and you dealt with people who were on sick leave from time to time, is that correct?
A. From time to time, yeah.

Q. Well, wasn't typically when someone went on sick leave, that was a change of status, correct?
A. Yes. [84]

Q. And that was different than the unassigned status, being on sick leave was a different status than unassigned status, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that there was discussion of Paul Shanley being on unassigned status for some period of time in 1989?
A. No.

Q. What types of individuals are placed on unassigned status, Bishop, in 1989, 1990?
A. I can't think of someone right now.

Q. Well, you can think of a number of people who were accused or being accused in the '80s and the '90s, early '90s, of sexual molestation of children, can you not, who were placed on unassigned status?
A. See, that wasn't the term we would use. We put them on -- said that they were placed on administrative leave.

Q. Sometimes they were placed on sick leave, too, Bishop in the 1980s, you testified that about --
A. Right, I was going to say initially I [85] think that we said "What do we use?" And we said sick leave, but we said this wasn't the appropriate title so we changed it.

Q. You changed it after 1990, though, is that correct?
A. I don't know when we changed it.

Q. All right. So my question is --
A. I would say beforehand.

Q. You think before -- are you sure of that, Bishop?
A. I'm not sure, but I would say that we became aware that it wasn't the right name because other men are on sick leave who had no problem.

Q. My question is whether you're certain that the term --
A. Am I certain? No.

Q. I have to finish the question here.
Are you certain, Bishop, that when someone had credible claims of sexual misconduct that before 1990 their status was to be placed on administrative leave as opposed to sick leave?
A. Am I certain?

Q. Yes. [86]
A. I'm not certain.

Q. Okay. And you agree with me that sick leave was sometimes used for people who had credible allegations of sexual molestation against them involving children, correct?
A. Yes, early on in the -- as we began to deal with this, yes, that was used.

Q. All right. Now, just before we move on, Bishop, you would agree with me, then, that as of May of 1990 Father Paul Shanley was -- fell into the category of special cases?
A. That's a term that Father Ryan used.

Q. He used it in quotes.
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, you also know, just before we leave Exhibit 43, that Father Ryan notes that "$800 will be going to Our Lady of Solitude Parish," California -- "Palm Springs, California for April and May 1990," is that correct?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. So you would have understood that Paul Shanley was leaving for Palm Springs, California and would be presiding at Our Lady of Solitude [87] initially?
A. I wonder whether Our Lady of Solitude is in Palm Springs; I thought that it was inSan Bernardino.

Q. Well, it's actually in Palm Springs, but --
A. Is it in Palm Springs?

Q. Yes.
A. Because I don't recall him living in Palm Springs. Was this in 1990?

Q. Yes.
A. Because he was in two parishes inSan Bernardino, was my understanding.

Q. My question is is --
A. So --

Q. -- looking at this memorandum, it refers to Palm Springs, California as a place where rent's going to be paid, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. When you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, did you ever see a determination by a doctor that someone was eligible for sick leave before they were placed on sick leave? [88]
A. Sometimes I would receive a letter from a doctor that I had asked the priest -- or the Vicar for Administration might have got a letter, someone might have got a letter saying that this is the priest's physical health, right.

Q. Okay. But you don't have any knowledge of that happening with respect to Paul Shanley, of requesting that a doctor's letter be obtained --
A. No, that's not my understanding.

Q. You have to just wait until I finish, okay.
A. I thought you were.

Q. -- before he was placed on sick leave, correct?
A. Well, I didn't place him on sick leave, nor did I recommend he be on sick leave. When I began to deal with him, he was already placed, so I don't know whether there was a doctor's letter or not.

Q. My only question is whether you ever requested or saw in 1989 or 1990 a letter documenting his alleged physical problems that caused him to be placed on sick leave? [89]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't -- I didn't.

Q. You never requested Paul Shanley in 1989 or 1990 to obtain any such letter, did you?
A. Because I didn't place him; he was already placed when I met him. So the person who placed him would be the person who would have received that letter, if there was a letter; it would not be me.

Q. Bishop, in 1991 is it not the case that you asked Paul Shanley to obtain a letter documenting his physical illness? Did you not do that?
A. Yes, because he talked about other ailments other than his allergies or -- and asthma, and he was asking, I think if I'm correct, to be placed on full-time disability or something like that. And so I said we couldn't even begin to discuss that until I had a reading from his own doctor about what -- he must have in some way said to me that his doctor was recommending this to him.

Q. Bishop, you were the one who recommended that his sick leave be extended to the Cardinal in December of 1990, is that correct? [90]
A. It's correct that I recommended that after one year that it be extended, yes.

Q. And weren't there situations when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel when, in order to continue sick leave, the priest had to obtain some sort of a medical report from a physician? Did you ever see that when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
A. Did I ever see a letter as -- yes, I said I did.

Q. And wasn't that the typical practice when there was going to be an extension of sick leave when a person was actually physically ill, that a doctor's letter would be obtained to document the fact that the person was still eligible for sick leave?
A. No, that wouldn't be typical for me.

Q. Well, but you saw such letters, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And when you recommended to the Cardinal that Paul Shanley's sick leave be extended, you did not make any request of Paul Shanley to [91] obtain a medical certificate, a doctor's letter indicating that he was still ill, is that correct?
A. Correct, because I saw that the presenting problems that he had were not only continuing but that they had increased and so that he had other ailments as well.

Q. Psychological ailments, is that correct?
A. No, physical ailments he was talking about.

Q. Just physical ailments?
A. No, I told you that I thought he had emotional issues around being marginalized and being alone, but he also talked about other ailments, physical ailments, that are listed in his correspondence.

Q. Did you invite Paul Shanley, since he was being marginalized and alone, invite him to come back to the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. I did.

Q. Did you want him to come back to the Archdiocese of Boston in 1990 and 1991?
A. I thought that it would be helpful if [92] he returned because of the way that he felt, but also he refused and he asked for permission to continue to live out there because of his physical ailments and because he felt that he was doing well out there.

Q. Just asking about your position, Bishop. You had a priest --
A. This is what I heard --

Q. Just let me finish the question.
A. All right.

Q. Bishop, you were -- I'm only asking about your feelings. You had a priest who was feeling marginalized and alone out in California in 1990 and 1991, so your position was that the priest should come back to the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. I encouraged him, yes.

Q. Encouraged that. And that was your official position and you recommended that to others, too?
A. I don't know. I know that I was encouraging it and that I asked him to consider it.

Q. There was no reason why you wouldn't want Paul Shanley to come back in 1990 or 1991, was [93] there, Bishop?
A. No.

Q. You wanted him back, is that correct?
A. I encouraged him to come back; I won't use the word "want."

Q. You encouraged him to come back in 1990 and 1991?
A. Sometime around there.

Q. You felt that Massachusetts would be a better place for him so he wouldn't have -- be alone and marginalized, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. So if we could go to the next exhibit, which have we marked that yet, Exhibit 44? Take a moment and look at that for me, Bishop.

(McCormack Exhibit 44 was marked for identification.)

Q. All right. Bishop, showing you Exhibit Number 44, do you recognize that as Bishop Banks' handwriting at the back --
A. Yes.

Q. -- at the bottom?
And is this a note to you? [94]
A. Yes.

Q. Jack -- okay. And this memorandum to the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee regarding Paul Shanley came from Father Ryan, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. But it would be fair to state that since your name appears on the handwritten portion of this that you would have seen Exhibit Number 44, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, it says that FatherPaul Shanley "is in the Class of 1960; the monthly stipend is $844.58 monthly." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then it goes on to say "Priest number 'D-9' is the only case of which I am aware that might be a precedent."
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what Priest D-9 referred to?
A. No.

Q. Is it some sort of a name of a priest?
A. My sense is that it refers to a priest. [95]

Q. Okay. Was -- were there codes that were being used for priests in some internal memorandums that were being generated by the Archdiocese in 1989, codes like this, D-9?
A. Every once in a while my memory is that when the Clergy Fund Board Advisory Committee met that a priest's name was not used and they would use a symbol like this, D-9.

Q. Okay. Now, you'll see from Exhibit 43 that in the case of Paul Shanley reimbursement in May of 1990, that would have been five months after the Exhibit 44 which is the December 13th, 1989 memo, you'll see that the Clergy Advisory Committee voted for a monthly reimbursement of $1,474. Do you see that?
A. No, I don't. Where are we?

Q. It's on Exhibit 43. "Reverend Paul Shanley: reimbursement voted" --
A. Oh, here it is, yeah.

Q. -- "by the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee at its meeting of April 11th, 1990," $1,474. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that. [96]

Q. Do you see in Exhibit 44 that the monthly stipend in December of 1989 was going to be $844.58. Do you see that?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. And you were advocating for more money to be paid to Father Paul Shanley because he was out in California, is that correct, Bishop, were you doing that in 1989 and 1990?
A. I advocated that more money be paid to help him with his expenses, and so that 1,474 represents expenses that he had.

Q. Right.
A. Okay.

Q. So the question is -- the question is why were you advocating that Paul Shanley receive reimbursement on top of the monthly stipend that was given to priests on sick leave?
A. Now, you use the word "advocate" and I guess that at one time I felt that the $844 was not sufficient to meet all his expenses out there, but at the same time I wasn't always an advocate as much as I was a facilitator of his request, so that it doesn't mean I always agreed with all his requests. [97]
And in this instance this is for room and board, you see, auto insurance, prescriptions and physicians expenses, and these normally fall under the diocesan policy. So that those expenses that are represented there in the $1,474 would also be received by a priest of the Archdiocese if you submitted them to the Clergy Fund Board.

Q. Well, had to be voted on, correct?
A. They had to be voted on, correct.

Q. Wasn't always approved, isn't that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And I want to ask you the question again: Is it not the case that you were not just the facilitator for Paul Shanley asking for more money, you supported personally his request for more money, is that correct?
A. I supported that his expenses were increasing with doctors and because of that I supported that he -- that those expenses be paid.

Q. Was this the type of -- was this the type of matter, Bishop, that at the time in 1990 you were typically involved in, supporting requests for [98] more money to be paid to priests on sick leave?
A. The Clergy Fund Advisory Committee would review requests, and someone would present, you know, the reasoning for granting the request or for not granting the request, and then the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee would make a decision.
And I think in this instance -- I don't know about this instance, but in some instances I think that the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee at that time was not in the custom of paying doctor's bills for allergies, and Father Paul Shanley had a high amount of doctor's bills for allergies from his notes, if I recall. And so I was at that time advocating that he receive these funds to pay for his doctor's bills. That's my memory of how I came about being an advocate, but there would be other times when I was not always that supportive.

Q. We're going to get to those other times, Bishop, but at least right now what your testimony is, as I understand it, is that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board would not typically pay beyond the monthly stipend for doctor's bills for allergy treatments, that was the typical -- [99]
A. That was my understanding, yes.

Q. Okay. But they did with Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. When I presented the bills, yes, I think they did.

Q. All right. And you supported his request for these additional bills to be paid, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. This was not something that you did in typical -- strike that.
You did not typically appear before the Clergy Advisory Board asking them for -- to make special compensation for particular priests, correct?
A. Yes, I would, for other priests I would do the same.

Q. Okay. All right. But you would agree with me that the payment of these medical bills was something that was unusual in terms of the practices of the Clergy Fund Advisory Board at the time, is that correct?
A. No, I think all these bills fit within the policy of the Clergy Fund Board. [100]

Q. But you just testified that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board typically didn't pay for doctor's bills for allergies, correct?
A. I'm not sure that these are doctor's bills for allergies.

Q. Well, there's a doctor's bill right here on Exhibit 43, physician. Do you see that?
A. Right, but that doesn't mean it's for allergies.

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

Q. All you know is that you just testified here today that the reason why Paul Shanley was placed on sick leave was because -- I think when I first asked you -- allergies, is that correct?
A. Asthma and allergies, and he developed other medical problems as he was out there.

Q. All right. But you don't know what medical problems he had developed as of May 9th, 1990, the date of Exhibit 43, do you?
A. It would not be -- I do not know what the medical problems were for that physician bill [101] there, so I can't identify it, but that would not be unusual for the Clergy Fund to pay a physician's bill.

Q. I'm sorry, I thought you testified that they didn't typically pay for physician's bills for allergies, did you not so testify?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's right, and I'm not saying this is for allergies.

Q. We don't know either way, do we?
A. Correct.

Q. All we know is that you felt that Paul Shanley, the original reason for placing him on sick leave, was because of allergies, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: May I review this with you?

Q. Certainly.
A. I think that, you know, they would pay the doctor's bill; I think that the practice was not to pay the prescriptions for allergies.

Q. All right. So here we have the Clergy Personnel Board in May of 1990, with respect to [102] Paul Shanley, doing something that they don't typically do, is that correct?
A. Except in special occasions.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Well, that's not my question, Bishop. My question is the Clergy Fund Advisory Board paying for prescriptions that they don't typically pay for, correct?
A. Would you say that again.

Q. In May of 1990 the Clergy Fund Advisory Board, with you as an advocate for Paul Shanley, pays for prescriptions, something that they typically were not doing at the time, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It's not correct because I was not an advocate for Paul Shanley.

Q. Didn't you just use the word "advocate" to describe what you were -- you were advocating?
A. I said that I would facilitate much of what he was doing and at times I advocated, in terms of, as I recall, the payment for his allergies because it was such a large amount, and so that's what I remember. [103]

Q. You did not use the word "advocate"; you were --
A. I just want to --

Q. And I know you didn't support him all the time, but at least in May of 1990 you were supporting that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board, because this was a special case, make some compensation for prescription medication that they did not typically do, is that correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right. Let's go to the next exhibit.
MR. ROGERS: Is this a good time to take a break now?
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, it is. We came back at 11:20 and so we've only been doing this for 45 minutes. I mean if you want to take a break, certainly, I mean I would never begrudge someone a break. Can we come back in five minutes or --
MR. ROGERS: Fine. Can we go to one and take a lunch break at one?
MR. MacLEISH: That's fine.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record. [104]

(Recess.)

(McCormack Exhibits 45, 46 and 47 were marked for identification.)
MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, I show you three exhibits that you have in front of you which are 45, 46 and 47. Would you take a moment and review those for me, please.
A. Okay.

Q. Bishop, have you had an opportunity to review Exhibits 45, 46 and 47?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You received a letter from Paul Shanley in May of 19 -- May 13th, 1990, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. On June 5th, 1990 you sent a memorandum to Bishop Banks attaching that letter, as well as your answer to the letter --
A. Yes.

Q. -- your proposed answer to the letter, I gather?
A. Yes. [105]

Q. Would it have been the answer or the proposed answer?
A. Well, I asked for any thoughts, so I say I would assume it's a proposed answer. It's not signed.

Q. And then you see a handwritten note from Bishop Banks up in the top right-hand corner of Exhibit 45, "Father McCormack, Okay. Let's talk."
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Was it your typical practice at the time to be talking about requests from priests who were on sick leave with the Vicar for Administration?
A. I would say it would be typical for me to talk to the Vicar for Administration about a number of priests with whom I was working.

Q. Priests who had been accused of sexual misconduct, for example?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that could be one.

Q. Now, with respect to the letter that Paul Shanley sent on May 13th, 1990, I want to go over a couple of statements that are made in that [106] letter that I believe you've had the opportunity to read. If you could turn to page two, you'll see that Paul Shanley states "The media have found me again pressure me for a story. I'm uncomfortable with not talking to them." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then you see that Paul Shanley states in this letter to you on the third page, he states, "The only stress I have now, apart from what I've mentioned, is not knowing what will become of me. I would have to explain to any parishioners what has happened and that would precipitate the media whirlwind. I think the best for all concerned is medical retirement and let me do weekend supply." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then he goes to say -- he says "John, I know how busy you are and I don't expect you to resolve any of the problems I've mentioned but neither do I want it said later: "why didn't he tell us?" Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Does it appear to you that Paul Shanley [107] is making veiled threats in this letter to you?
A. No.

Q. When Paul Shanley talks about -- when Paul Shanley spoke about going to the media to talk about what had -- as we see on page two and page three, when he talks about going to the media and precipitating a media whirlwind -- do you see that on page four?
A. Yes.

Q. -- what did you understand him to be referring to?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.
MR. ROGERS: Mischaracterized what that letter states.

Q. Well, I'll start again. Bishop, it says on page three to page four, "I would have to explain to any parishioners what has happened and that would precipitate the media whirlwind." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And you see also in this letter that Paul Shanley wants money to cover medical expenses. [108] Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. What was the media whirlwind that you understood Paul Shanley to be referring to?
A. I don't -- you know, I can't say right here, I don't know.

Q. Well, as far as you know, he left because he had problems with physical ailments, allergies?
A. Right, that's right.

Q. Can you imagine under what set of circumstances there would be a media whirlwind concerning someone who had left his pastorship because he had allergies?
A. I could speculate, but I don't know.

Q. Well, did you ever -- don't speculate. Did you write back to Paul Shanley and say "What are you talking about?" You see your letter to him.
A. No, I did not.

Q. Well, why didn't you write back to him and say "What are you referring to when you're talking about a media whirlwind about what has happened, you'd "have to explain to any parishioners [109] what has happened and that would precipitate the media whirlwind'?" Did you ever ask him what he was talking about?
A. No, I didn't.

Q. Were you concerned about any of these statements, Bishop?
A. I don't recall being concerned about those statements. Paul -- because Paul was always the subject of the media in Boston and, you know, he was always -- and I think he probably had made some statements to the media and he was looking to -- my recollection is he was looking for a place to be assigned so that he could be -- he was looking for stability in his life, and so that that would be my memory of whatever might have passed through my mind.

Q. But you don't -- you didn't write back to him and say "What do you mean by your" -- him disclosing to parishioners what happened would create a media whirlwind, you never asked him what he meant by that, did you?
A. No, I didn't, no.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Had you ever, in your dealings for the [110] period of time when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, received a letter like this from a priest indicating that there could be a media whirlwind about his departure from a pastorship, ever receive a letter like this?
A. I don't recall, no.

Q. So then you write back to him onJune 5th, 1990, that's Exhibit 47. You state that it was nice to hear from him. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. And you say that you will ask the Clergy Fund Board to make an exception from its policy for Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you were in support of that exception for Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. For his medication, yes.

Q. It was an exception --
A. That's right.

Q. -- to the policy, you were supportive of that, is that correct?
A. Yes. [111]

Q. And then there's this other --
A. Although my letter doesn't say I was supportive so I must be careful here. My letter says I will ask the Clergy Fund Board.

Q. Did you support it or not, Bishop?
A. I presented it; for me to say I supported it, I can't say at the time that I did.

Q. Were you in favor of it?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I said I will ask, that was the issue that -- you see, I think that you have to understand my role was that I was to be in contact with Paul Shanley and make sure that he was cared for.

Q. Okay.
A. And so there were times when a priest would need some assistance and I would either facilitate it, and there were other times that I would advocate; they might ask what I thought. All I want to point out here is that at the time I wrote to him I said I will ask.

Q. Do you know whether you supported it?
A. I don't recall at this time whether I [112] did or not.

Q. We know from prior exhibits that it happened, correct, from Exhibit 43 we went through that, that the Clergy Fund Advisory Board -- we went through in Exhibit 43 --
A. But if you recall, I don't know whether that --

Q. -- May 9th, 1990, actually beforePaul Shanley's letter.
A. But, these would be -- these are not our typical grants by the Clergy Fund Board, that a priest for prescriptions could have the prescription money paid for after a 50 dollar deductible.

Q. Usual policy was not to pay?
A. No, usual policy was to pay after $50.

Q. All right. You said in your letter, Exhibit 47, that you would ask the Clergy Fund Board to make an exception to its policy, you said that to Paul Shanley, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right. Now, you testified earlier --
A. Excuse me, may I point out again that [113] the prescriptions and the physician are May 9th.

Q. Right.
A. This request around allergies was around June 5th when I responded.

Q. Right.
A. So all I -- I want to point out is that --

Q. We know that --
A. -- to my knowledge this had nothing to do with allergies; it might have, but I don't know.

Q. You're not changing your testimony from before, that you just don't know either way, correct, Bishop?
A. No, but what I want to point out is the difference in the dates.

Q. Okay. All right. I understand that he made the request on May 13th, 1990. It's also possible he may not have known about what had happened on May 9th, 1990?
A. But the request didn't come untilMay 13th and this is May 9th. Now, my understanding is is that that is for prescriptions; I'm not sure it has to do with allergies. [114]

Q. Okay. So he may have gotten additional money for allergy medication, is that correct?
A. On May 9th, no.

Q. No, after, after June, Bishop.
MR. ROGERS: Are you asking him to speculate, Eric?
MR. MacLEISH: Well --
THE WITNESS: I think, Eric, what I'm saying here is, if I might say so, is that it was normal for priests to receive funds for prescriptions each month after $50. If a prescription had to do with allergies, that was a special exception and it had to be approved by the Clergy Fund committee and that the request for this around allergy payment didn't come from him --

Q. Okay.
A. -- until May 13th.

Q. Right. You don't deny that you wrote Exhibit 47, that's your letter, correct?
A. Oh, correct, correct, yeah.

Q. Okay. So the only thing that we know is that you indicated to Paul Shanley is that if he did not have the funds to purchase the medication [115] "please let me know and I will ask the Clergy Fund Board to make an exception of its policy," that's what you said?
MR. ROGERS: I just object because, again, that's a mischaracterization. This was a proposed letter. There's no evidence that that was the letter sent.
MR. MacLEISH: He said --
MR. ROGERS: Just note my objection.
MR. MacLEISH: Your objection is noted and you're coaching the witness.
MR. ROGERS: No, just trying to find the right --
MR. MacLEISH: No, no, you're not here to testify.
MR. ROGERS: You want to take things out of context, go ahead.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, did you end up sending a letter like Exhibit 47 to Paul Shanley?
A. I'm sure --

Q. Do those sound like your words?
A. I'm sure I responded to him, yes.

Q. All right. Now, in this letter, even [116] though you indicated earlier you wanted him to come back so he wouldn't feel so alone and so marginalized, you did not mention that in your letter to him of June 1990, correct?
A. That's not mentioned here, no.

Q. Okay. So at least in this communication you were not urging him to come home, correct?
A. That wasn't the purpose of the communication.

Q. I'm not asking what the purpose was; I'm asking whether or not you were urging him to come home in your letter of June 5th, 1990, as you indicated earlier in your testimony here today you wanted him to come home?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: This was after the year of his leave. I'm not sure that his leave was up already --

Q. No, it wasn't.
A. -- the one year term. So that that would not have been part of the discussion until the [117] one year term.

Q. So when the one year came up, when the one year leave came up, you wanted him to come back, is that correct?
A. My memory is that I encouraged him to come back and that I don't have the evidence to say that I did it at that year or not.

Q. We'll get to it in a moment.
Next exhibit, please. And just before we leave this, you'll see, by the way, Bishop, on Exhibit 47, the letter's sent to him at Our Lady of Solitude in Palm Springs, California?
A. I see that.

Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. So that refreshes your earlier recollection that you knew that Paul Shanley in 1990 was at Palm Springs, California?
A. It doesn't refresh my recollection because my memory is that he was in San Bernardino for most of the time, but obviously at that time he was in Palm Springs.

Q. Okay. At Our Lady of Solitude? [118]
A. Yes.

MR. MacLEISH: Mark that, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 48 was marked for identification.)

Q. Okay. Showing you Exhibit Number 48, Bishop, am I correct in understanding that it was your practice at the time to keep copies of letters that you would send out to various priests such as Paul Shanley --
A. Yes.

Q. -- for the file?
A. Right.

Q. And would you typically keep signed copies in the file or unsigned copies?
A. I can't answer that; that would be up to the secretary.

Q. Okay. But you would sign an original, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And then there would be a copy that would be placed in the file, is that correct?
A. I can't say that; I don't know.

Q. Well, did you think it important -- [119]
A. The secretary would take care of that. So whether it was a signed or an unsigned, I didn't go check.

Q. You're Secretary for Ministerial Personnel. Isn't it the case that you wanted to have a record of your written communications --
A. That's right.

Q. -- with priests --
A. Yes.

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

Q. So it's your understanding that the practice that was in effect at your office was to have a copy of communications with priests placed in the file, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And those were your instructions to your secretary, is that correct?
A. That's my assumption; whether it's my -- and my instruction. She was a well, you know, experienced secretary. So when I wanted a copy of something, she would find it for me.

Q. And you say you have no doubt that she [120] had a proper filing system, and when you sent a communication out, there was a copy that placed in a file, do you, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Thank you. Exhibit 48, if you could take a moment and read that, please. Read the letter, Bishop?
A. I did.

Q. All right. Now, in the first paragraph of the letter you'd indicated that you'd received some sort of communication from Jack White in which Jack White told you in the letter that Jack White felt relieved to know that Paul Shanley's doctor had come up with an understanding about what had been bothering Paul Shanley.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then the next section was blacked out. Do you know what was written in the next section?
A. No.

Q. Had you expressed a belief, prior to [121] the time that Paul Shanley went out to California, that it would not be healthy for him to be living with Jack White?
A. No, I'm not sure I said that; he -- I remember him saying to me that he didn't want to live with Jack White.

Q. You remember him saying that to you?
A. Yes.

Q. But you don't remember stating, on the second day of your deposition, that you believed it would not be healthy for him to be living with Jack White?
A. Oh, I believed it, too, yeah, but I don't think I said it to him, I don't know.

Q. Okay. My question was did you --
A. I'm sorry.

Q. -- my question was whether you believed it would be unhealthy for Paul Shanley to be living with Jack White?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Why did you consider it to be unhealthy, Bishop?
A. Because Jack White was depressed and -- [122]

Q. Were there any other reasons?
A. I'm trying -- he had a -- he was a critical person and he had kind of a negative outlook and I didn't think that that would be helpful to Paul.

Q. What was Jack White doing out, as a priest of the Archdiocese, in Palm Springs, California?
A. Well, he had been assigned to -- no, he had gotten permission to serve in hospital ministry out there, and the assignment did not work out and so he took up residence in Palm Springs.

Q. Why did the assignment not work out?
A. My sense is that he felt that he wasn't getting along with the staff in the hospital, if I remember.

Q. Why did he not -- why was he not instructed to return to Boston?
A. I don't know.

Q. Palm Springs, I think we can agree at least in 1990, is not an inexpensive place to live, is that correct?
A. Again, I didn't know it then and I [123] don't know it now.

Q. You've never been to Palm Springs?
A. Once.

Q. When you saw Paul Shanley?
A. Right.

Q. And what were Jack White's and Paul -- well, we'll get to that in a moment, Bishop.
So you, in Exhibit 47, wrote to Paul Shanley in June of 1990 at his address in Palm Springs. You knew that Jack White was in Palm Springs as of that time, is that correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. You knew that Paul Shanley and Jack White were friends, is that correct?
A. I knew that -- yes, I knew they were friendly, yes.

Q. When you learned that Paul Shanley was going out to California, you expressed concern that he not be in a living situation with Jack White, you expressed concern in your own mind, is that correct?
A. I don't know. I think it was when I -- eventually I came to that point probably when I knew Jack White was in Palm Springs, but I don't know [124] where -- I'm not sure that it was when he went out there.

Q. Right. All right. Now, in October of 1990, you'll see in the second paragraph of your letter, you state "Knowing that your health has been a problem and that your leave is up the first of January, I was wondering what your thoughts are about returning to Boston." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. This was a letter where you were encouraging Paul Shanley to return to Boston?
A. No, at this time I'm wondering what his thoughts were.

Q. Okay. But did you believe at this time that it would be helpful for Paul Shanley to return to Boston so he would not feel alone and marginalized?
A. I don't know whether I was thinking it at that time. What I was thinking at this time is that we needed to enter into a discussion about his return. So I wanted him to give me some thoughts about it.

Q. You mention in the letter that you're [125] going for a couple of weeks vacation with Paul O'Connell to Bangkok, Hong Kong and Kyoto, you mention that to Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. So you're on friendly terms withPaul Shanley, is that correct?
A. He was a classmate.

Q. Right.
A. So I wouldn't call that we were friends, but I would say that as a classmate, you know, you would share things at times.

Q. Was this your first trip to Asia?
A. Yes.

Q. And who is Paul O'Connell?
A. He's a priest.

Q. Okay. Have you taken other trips to Asia?
A. No.

Q. Do you know about Paul Shanley going to Asia at any time, Bangkok, specifically?
A. I think at the time of the -- that the papers were made public -- this spring was it --

Q. Yes. [126]
A. -- that it was announced that he was in Thailand, yeah.

Q. Okay. And did you undertake any inquiry to determine whether that was true?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, Paul O'Connell, is he a priest of the Archdiocese?
A. No, the diocese of Worcester.

Q. Diocese of Worcester, okay.
A. He's a classmate.

Q. Classmate, okay. All right. Now, let's go on to the next letter -- next Exhibit, which is a letter of November 20th, 1990.

(McCormack Exhibit 49 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, do you see in Exhibit 49 the return address is San Bernardino, California? Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this Exhibit 49 a letter that you received from Father Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Bishop, you'll see that one of [127] the subjects of Paul Shanley's letter is requesting that funds be allocated to pay for an allergy doctor. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And was that an exception to the policy of the clergy -- of the Clergy Fund Advisory Committee?
A. Yes.

Q. So first we had the issue with the prescriptions and now Paul Shanley is asking -- requesting that the Archdiocese pay for money for an allergy doctor, is that correct?
A. I don't think there was an issue with the prescriptions --

Q. No.
A. -- the issue was with the allergies.

Q. Because he said -- he says here that -- you'll see he says "At least in Boston I had access to a doctor and therefore to prescriptions for medication." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. You'll see on the first page he says "Bishop Banks assured me there would be no need to [128] work if I was on medical leave. 'All of your needs will be cared for.'" Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then on the second page he says "'A Monsignor Hart from Boston' corresponded with a hospital chaplain out here who warned my previous pastor who in turn warned my present pastor that he should not hire me. Thus the meagre income by which I had hoped to pay for an allergy doctor is jeopardized." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And I think that he also states in this letter, the first paragraph of the letter, he says "The problem is you need a doctor to write the damn prescription." He says "It was the doctor I could not afford." Do you see that in the first paragraph of the letter?
A. Okay. Yes.

Q. So you understand that Paul Shanley wants to be compensated so that he can get a doctor, an allergy doctor, to write prescriptions, is that correct?
A. Yes. [129]

Q. Okay. Now, on the second page of the this letter, the paragraph I just read about the Monsignor Hart from Boston calling the "hospital chaplain out here who warned" -- he used "warned my previous pastor who in turn warned my present pastor that he should not hire me." Do you know aMonsignor Hart, Daniel Hart, who is in Boston?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, I think you're mischaracterizing this, but, Eric --

Q. Okay. Did I read it accurately, Bishop? Do you want to read it again, "'A Monsignor Hart from Boston" corresponded with a hospital chaplain out here who warned my priest pastor who in turn warned my present pastor that he should not hire me." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Did I read it accurately?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you know a father or someone who at the time was a monsignor or a bishop by the name of Daniel Hart?
A. There's a Bishop Daniel Hart, and he would have been a bishop then. [130]

Q. He would have been a bishop then?
A. Yes.

Q. And was he formerly assigned to the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you know him?
A. Yes.

Q. And approximately when did he become a Bishop?
A. 25 years ago.

Q. 25 years ago. And when did he leave the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Around 1995.

Q. 1995.
A. Right.

Q. Okay. And you think that he was a Bishop 25 years ago --
A. I know.

Q. -- so that would have been in late the '70s, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. He's now in Norwich, Connecticut, is that correct? [131]
A. Correct, right.

Q. Did you ever speak to him about Paul Shanley?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. Okay. Do you know, when Paul Shanley made the statement in a letter to you that there had been warnings given from a Monsignor Hart from Boston, what did you take that at the time to mean, Bishop?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I took it that there's a priest in Boston who, you know, didn't likePaul Shanley's -- see, Paul took some very strong and different stands, and I think that there were priests who Paul -- who, you know, would not agree.

Q. Okay.
A. And so my assumption is that this is one of those priests. I think it's and, I don't know the Monsignor Hart, but it might refer to Monsignor Peter Hart.

Q. Okay. Who is Monsignor Peter Hart?
A. He's a priest of the Archdiocese.

Q. Is he presently a priest of the [132] Archdiocese?
A. He's very elderly, so if he's living, he'd been in his 90s. So he was, and if he's living, he is.

Q. You don't know whether he's alive right now?
A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you know whether he had any contact with Paul Shanley?
A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you know whether there's any other Monsignor Harts who were in existence within the Archdiocese of Boston at that time, 1990?
A. I can't think of any.

Q. All right. But you did nothing in response to receiving this letter from Paul Shanley to try to find out what the nature of these alleged warnings were to Paul Shanley's pastors out in California?
A. I can't say that; I don't know what I did. It's clear that, you know, he served in two parishes, and so to my knowledge it had nothing -- it had no bearing on his serving there. [133]

Q. Well, the point is that Paul Shanley is reporting that someone who is identified as a Monsignor Hart from Boston --
A. Made a complaint about him.

Q. -- is making complaints about Paul Shanley --
A. Right.

Q. -- and warning his previous pastor --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- "who in turn warned my present pastor that he should not hire me."
My question is very simple, Bishop: Did you do anything to investigate what these warnings were, either by talking to Paul Shanley, Monsignor Hart or Bishop Hart, did you do anything?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Because -- may I --

Q. Sure.
A. Because there were priests who would complain about Paul Shanley.

Q. These weren't -- he doesn't report it as complaints, Bishop; he talks about -- he uses the [134] word "warned." Do you see that word?
A. Because Paul always wasn't the easiest person to work with.

Q. Okay. Bishop, moving on, you'll see the next paragraph down, two paragraphs down, you'll see "I had the best parish in the Archdiocese." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. So does it remain your testimony that Paul Shanley's decision to leave what he describes as "the best parish in the Archdiocese" was a strictly voluntary one on his part?
A. To my -- yes, I will, that's my understanding.

Q. Because of allergies?
A. I'm going to say allergies plus the -- as I came to know, this emotional stance he had about, you know, being a pastor.

Q. It was a strictly voluntary departure as far as you were concerned?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. Now, he also -- let's go to the next exhibit, if we could, please. [135]

(McCormack Exhibit 50 was marked for identification.)

Q. Exhibit 50, I believe, if you would just review that, Bishop. This is the letter that I think we talked about earlier on the extension -- memo, rather, on the extension of the sick leave, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And earlier you had testified that it was around this time that you wanted Paul Shanley to come back to Boston, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Yet we see in one of the reasons that you recommend that Paul Shanley be given an extension of his sick leave for one year you state, quote, "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him." Do you see that, Bishop?
A. Correct.

Q. Those were your words, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And then in the next paragraph you say -- you state "Secondly, I recommend that in January, February or March I arrange with Paul to [136] make a visit to him to see how he is doing. What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?" Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. So you were not in fact interested in having Paul Shanley return to Massachusetts where he would be with other priests and not be marginalized and alone; you wanted him to stay out in California, Bishop, is that not correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I changed my mind after entering into conversation with him or in correspondence with him about coming back, and particularly in light of the letter that I received on -- in November of '90, Exhibit Number 49, and other conversations that I assume, I don't know, that I had with him, I was -- I changed my mind.

Q. Bishop, you testified earlier that it was around this time of the extension of his medical leave, you testified this morning that you wanted him to return to Boston so he would not feel alone and marginalized, that was your testimony this morning? [137]
A. That's the --

Q. Now we have Exhibit 50, which is, you would agree with me, contrary to your testimony this morning, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: If you're looking at a time schedule, between the time that I talked about talking to him about returning and encouraging him and then making the decision about his returning, I changed my mind. So it's not contrary --

Q. Did you --
A. -- it just demonstrates that after entering into conversation with him, as I asked him, I changed my mind about his returning. I didn't think that it would be helpful for him to return.

Q. Well, Paul Shanley stated in the letter that you received, Bishop, in Exhibit Number 49 it says -- would you turn to page two of Exhibit Number 49.
A. (Witness complies.)

Q. -- it says on the second page, it says, "I want to stay here until I can come back and be a healthy pastor." Do you see that, Bishop? [138]
A. Yes.

Q. So Paul Shanley wanted to get better and come back to Boston?
A. Correct.

Q. That's what he says?
A. That's right.

Q. That's what he says to you onNovember 20th of 1990, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Correct.

Q. And then in December 11th, 1990 you write a memorandum to Bishop Hughes in which you state "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him." And you also state "What would you think if I coaxed him" -- you used the word "coaxed" -- "to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better," correct, that's what you said?
A. Excuse me, can you say -- what paragraph?

Q. What you said in Exhibit Number 50 --
A. Oh, 50, okay.

Q. -- in your memo to Bishop Banks you said "If he came back, I do not know what we would do [139] with him." And then you also said "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. So Paul Shanley, in the letter that you had gotten on November 20th, indicated that when he got better he wanted to come back to Boston, correct?
A. No, he says "I want to stay here until I can come back and be a healthy pastor."

Q. That's correct.
A. Now, my interpretation of that is that he wanted to stay there until he was healthy. My recommendation to Bishop Hughes is that, you know, right now he's not working; as he gets better, encourage him to take some pastoral ministry so hopefully that he would become healthy enough so that when he returns he would be a pastor.

Q. Bishop McCormack, we're going to break for lunch in a second, but it's clear on page two of Exhibit 49 that Paul Shanley wants to come back and be a healthy pastor eventually in Boston, is that correct?
A. Correct. [140]

MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's right.

Q. It's also clear in your memo toBishop Hughes that you were stating to Bishop Hughes "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?"
A. Correct.

Q. When you were saying "out there," what state were you referring to?
A. California.

Q. You did not want Paul Shanley to return to Boston, correct, Bishop?
A. That's incorrect.

Q. Okay. Why don't we break for lunch.
A. I think your interpretation is wrong.

Q. Okay.
A. I think --
MR. ROGERS: Let him finish his answer.
MR. MacLEISH: Sure.
THE WITNESS: No, I think your interpretation is wrong. I'm saying that he -- at this point in time he wasn't well at all so that he wasn't doing any ministry. So my idea is to help him [141] to get his feet back on the ground and get into ministry so that as he got better he would, you know, be able to do some ministry.

Q. Paul Shanley --
A. And hopefully then he eventually would be -- so that he wanted to stay there until he got healthy enough to come back as a pastor. At this point he wasn't ready to come back as a pastor and he would need -- you know, it's a gradual thing; it's not an immediate thing where you become, you know, unhealthy to being healthy.

Q. Well, why would it be necessary for him to have a pastoral assignment out in California, as you say, when he got better, as opposed to a pastoral assignment in the state of Massachusetts in the Archdiocese of Boston?
A. Because my sense is is that he doesn't get better immediately and that as he got better I'd like to see him do some ministry out there and to get active again.

Q. All right. You also state "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him." Have you ever made a comment like that about any other [142] Archdiocesan priest?
A. Oftentimes I would wonder what we do with a priest, you know, in terms of ministry, what would be the best place for him.

Q. You wanted him out of state, Bishop, and you wanted him out of state in 1995 when he came before the review board, is that correct?
A. No, that was his request to go out of state.

MR. MacLEISH: I see. Well, why don't we take our break for lunch. We'll be back at five after.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Luncheon recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record.

Q. Good afternoon, Bishop. Thank you for returning.
A. Good afternoon.

Q. We have Exhibit 50 before you which we had some questions on before our lunch break. You'll see the statement that "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him." Do you see that?
A. Yes. [143]

Q. Paul Shanley was not the first priest of the Archdiocese to have physical problems such as allergies or asthma, is that correct?
A. I'm sure there were other priests who have allergies and asthma, yes.

Q. Paul Shanley was not the first priest of the Archdiocese to have emotional difficulties, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And the Archdiocese, in December of 1990, had various facilities where priests who had physical or emotional ailments could reside and obtain services, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And so when you made the statement here "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him," when you made that statement, you knew that there would be places where Paul Shanley could physically go, given his physical condition and his emotional problems, within the Archdiocese of Boston, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So why did you make the statement "If [144] he came back, I do not know what we would do with him," "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him"?
A. Because my understanding is is that he would be placed in a rectory or in a parish and that that would be the type of setting that he would be given, and that I really don't think that, you know, in his frame of mind that it would be easy to find a place for him.

Q. Well, he was in a rectory, as you knew it, out in California, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. He was in a rectory that was connected to a parish, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So why was it okay for him to be in a rectory in a parish out in California, but it would be difficult to do the same thing in Massachusetts, particularly given your earlier testimony that you felt around this time that he should come back?
A. Because the -- he was situated at a place in California that he was pleased to be with, pleased to be in, and to find a situation here in [145]
Massachusetts -- excuse me, down in Massachusetts, would not have been as easy.

Q. Okay.
A. That's just, you know, my recollection of why I said that.

Q. All right. But, again, this morning you testified that at this time, when the consideration came up of extending his sick leave, you personally wanted him back in Massachusetts, that was your testimony this morning?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Do you recall that testimony?
A. Would you please rephrase --

Q. Sure.
A. No, will you please repeat the question.

Q. You testified this morning that at the time there was consideration being given for extending Paul Shanley's sick leave you felt that Paul Shanley should return to Massachusetts because he was alone, and I forget the exact term you used --
A. Lonely -- marginalized, he felt marginalized. [146]

Q. Marginalized, that was the term you used. You recall that testimony?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. But now in this memorandum, which is at the same time that you are discussing the extension of the sick leave and you're bringing it to the attention of Cardinal Law, you state two things: "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him." And then you also state "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?" So there's an inconsistency here that I'd like to give you the opportunity to explain.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't see the inconsistency. Can you explain?

Q. No, that's all right. That's fine.
Now, you prepared a draft for the Cardinal, is that correct, draft letter for the Cardinal to send? Do you see -- do you see that reference in the last sentence?
A. Yes, yes.

Q. Before we get to that question, Bishop, [147] and that document, in the Archdiocese of Boston in 1990, did you typically, as a matter of practice, put priests who had physical and emotional problems in a parish or a rectory?
A. When a priest had a physical and emotional problem, he could either live at home or he could live in a religious house or a parish rectory, something like that.

Q. So he would not, the answer to my question is no, he would not typically be at a rectory or in a parish, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I cannot respond whether it was typical or atypical. You would think that, in referring to Father Shanley, I'm going to say or to find a place for a priest who is on sick leave if he couldn't find a place for himself, we would usually look for a place in a rectory.

Q. So most of the priests that you were familiar with in 1990 who were on sick leave were not connected with a parish, would that be a fair statement?
A. Again, I need you to repeat that to [148] understand --

Q. Okay. Paul Shanley was on sick leave in 1990 --
A. Yes.

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

Q. That was his status, sick leave?
A. Correct, right.

Q. Consideration came up to extending the sick leave, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. He was connected, as you knew in 1990, with a parish in California and was living in a rectory, that was your belief at that time, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. My question is at the same time in Boston was it typical for priests who were on sick leave to be living in a rectory and working in a parish?
A. It depends on why the priest was on sick leave. It could be a priest who was on sick leave living in a parish and it could be other [149] priests who were on sick leave living in a parish and probably helping out a bit and there could be others that probably were living at their own home, family home.

Q. Okay. Was it typical, my question was, was it typical --
A. I don't -- I can't --

Q. You have to wait.
Was it typical in 1990 for a priest who was on sick leave to be living in a rectory in Massachusetts and working at a parish?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. That's a different question.
THE WITNESS: I can't answer that.

Q. Okay. Can you identify any priests that you knew of who were on sick leave in 1990 who were living in a rectory and working at a parish, apart from Paul Shanley?
A. I can't right now.

Q. All right. Now, the next exhibit, it's going to be 51.

(McCormack Exhibit 51 was marked for identification.) [150]

Q. Bishop, have you had the opportunity to read Exhibit Number 51?
A. I have.

Q. If you go back to Exhibit 50, for a second, do you see, there's a note, I believe, in the top right-hand corner. Is that the handwriting of Bishop Al Hughes?
A. It is.

Q. And he was the auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Boston in December of 1990, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. He had replaced Bishop Banks, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. So he's, in effect, the number two man in Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And he -- the note that he wrote here, do you remember receiving this note fromAl Hughes in which it's stated "Cardinal supports your plan completely. He signed letter to Paul S. Good work! Al"? Did you receive that December of 1990? [151]
A. I think that reads "signed letter to Paul Shanley."

Q. Paul Shanley, right.
A. And then "Good work!"

Q. "Good work! Al."
A. Yes.

Q. You received that note fromBishop Hughes in December of 1990?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you speak with the Cardinal personally about extending Paul Shanley's sick leave, that you can recall, in December of 1990?
A. I don't recall.

Q. Okay. All right. Then you drafted this letter for the Cardinal Law, which isExhibit 51, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And the sentence states -- the first sentence states "I learned from Father McCormack that you continue not to feel well and that you have also been experiencing a malaise." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And does that suggest to you in [152] any way that you might have actually had a conversation with the Cardinal about Paul Shanley continuing not to feel well and experiencing a malaise?
A. No.

Q. You'll note that there's two things that are said in that first sentence. It says that he continues not to feel well. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And that "you have also been experiencing a malaise."
A. Yes.

Q. That word "malaise" was your word, is that correct?
A. I don't know. I usually don't use that word so that I'm surprised, but it could be my word or the Cardinal could have taken the letter and changed it a bit.

Q. Okay. So what did you understand that term to mean, if you had an understanding in December of 1990, malaise?
MR. ROGERS: Object.
THE WITNESS: Well, my understanding [153] was that Paul was -- he felt debilitated, he felt marginalized, he felt that he didn't have a lot of energy and -- that was my sense.

Q. All right. So by December of 1990 you believed that Paul Shanley not only had the physical problems that you testified about earlier but also emotional problems, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you had received a letter from Paul Shanley in which he reported that there was allegedly a priest from Boston warning pastors not to hire him, is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Now, let's go to the next exhibit, if you could, please.
You'll note, Bishop McCormack, in Exhibit 50 that you wanted to go out to see Paul Shanley out in California and stop in and see John White as well, is that correct?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. And was this part of your normal duties as the secretary for ministerial affairs, to actually [154] go out and visit priests --
A. No.

Q. -- in the field?
Can you identify any other time in which you did this when you were secretary of ministerial affairs, to travel out of state to visit a priest?
A. I can't.

Q. Okay. Is it fair to state, then, that this is the only time that you recall actually making a site visit to a priest who was living out of state?
A. No, I would visit priests who were in treatment facilities that were out of state --

Q. That's not --
A. -- and --

Q. Okay.
A. No, I'm just saying that, and I'm just trying to think whether -- so I don't recall any other time.

Q. All right. When you said "treatment facilities," did that include Southdown and St. Luke's?
A. Yes. [155]

Q. And when you say "treatment facilities," were you referring to facilities where priests of the Archdiocese were being treated after allegations that they had become sexually involved with children?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you would go out of state to visit priests who had been accused of sexual molestation of minors, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Apart from that, your only other visit out of state to visit a priest when you were secretary of ministerial affairs was to visit Paul Shanley?
A. And John White.

Q. And John White.
A. And I also visited another priest at the time who was teaching in the seminary atSt. John's in Camarillo, California.

Q. Okay. Was the purpose of your visit to go and see Father Fornier or was the purpose of your visit to check out Paul Shanley?
A. It was to check out both Shanley and [156] White.

Q. And White. Fornier was more of a --
A. No Fornier, that wasn't his name; Erickson his name.

Q. I'm sorry, Erickson. Erickson was not a problem priest?
A. No, he was teaching in the seminary.

Q. He was a friend --
A. Excuse me, no, he was studying and living in the seminary.

Q. Okay. But Erickson was not a priest that had difficulties?
A. Difficulties, no.

Q. So your visit with him was more of a social nature rather than --
A. No, it would be supportive because he was way out of the diocese.

Q. But that was not something that you would typically do, is that correct, visit priests who were out of the diocese? Let me withdraw the question and put it --
A. I'm wondering whether I had visited a priest in Washington, D.C. who was studying at [157] Catholic University, too, that's what I'm wondering, whether I had done that as well.

Q. All right.
A. It would be to maintain contact with them if they fell within my responsibility.

Q. How long were you secretary for ministerial affairs, Bishop?
A. 10 years, almost.

Q. Okay. And initially, apart from your visits to Washington, D.C., you could only identify this visit out to California as the time where, in your capacity as secretary for ministerial affairs --
A. Right.

Q. -- you went out to visit a priest, is that correct?
A. Correct.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
MR. TUCKER: Objection.

Q. Okay. Paul Shanley and Jack White were not the only priests who were residing out of state, is that correct?
A. On sick leave out of state, possibly, yes. [158]

Q. On sick leave out of state. Okay. What about Father Connick, the gentleman that was referred to earlier, he was living down in Florida on sick leave --
A. Right.

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

Q. Do you remember that testimony that we went over earlier?
A. Yes.

Q. So there was in fact another priest who was living out of state on sick leave, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So do you want to amend your answer? Does that help to refresh your recollection that there were other priests apart from Paul Shanley who were out of state on sick leave?
A. Correct, Father Connick was.

Q. And there may have been others, is that correct?
A. There may have been; I don't -- you know, I can't recall them. [159]

Q. All right. So you decide that a visit, actually, out to see Father White and Father Shanley would be the appropriate thing to do?
A. Right.

Q. You would not have gone out simply to make a call on Father Erickson, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So it's fair to state that the main purpose of your visit was to see Father White and Father Shanley?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And when you went out to California, you flew to where, Palm Springs directly or Los Angeles?
A. I don't know.

Q. Did you rent a car when you were out there?
A. Yes, I think I did.

Q. Okay. Do you remember whether you flew into a major city, or did you go directly to Palm Springs?
A. I don't remember.

Q. But you had a car when you were out [160] there?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You --
A. Excuse me.

Q. Go ahead.
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Did someone pick you up?
A. Yes, Fathers White and Father Shanley picked me up at the airport.

Q. Which airport, do you recall?
A. I would say Palm Springs now that --

Q. All right. So they picked you up in Palm Springs, and did you go and see where Father White was living?
A. No.

Q. What was the purpose of your visit, Bishop?
A. To meet with them to see how they were doing.

Q. Okay. So you stayed overnight in Palm Springs, is that correct?
A. Yes, right.

Q. Then you went on to see Father [161] Erickson?
A. Yes.

Q. How did you get to see Father Erickson?
A. I rented a car -- no, I think I -- I don't know whether I drove from Palm Springs up to Camarillo or whether I -- see, again, I don't know how far they are, but I know that I had a car going to Camarillo.

Q. And then you had a car back to Palm Springs for the return --
A. No, I think I returned fromLos Angeles.

Q. So you stayed -- you stayed overnight in Palm Springs, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Where did you stay?
A. At the rectory, our parish rectory, in Palm Springs.

Q. Of Our Lady of Solitude?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Well, do you remember earlier we had a letter that was sent to Paul Shanley -- it's Exhibit Number 47 -- where you sent it to Our Lady of [162] Solitude?
A. Yes.

Q. Is that where you believe you stayed when you were in Palm Springs?
A. It could be there, but it could have been another parish. Honestly, you know, I'd have to -- that goes back close to 12 years.

Q. Right, but this was an unusual trip for you, is that correct?
A. Yes, right.

Q. Okay. So that's the only reason I thought there by might be some specific memory that you would have.
So you were met by Paul Shanley and Father White at the airport --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct?
And when you went out there, you did not believe that it would be good for Paul Shanley to be living with Father White, I think we covered that, is that correct?
A. No, it was -- again, it was Father Shanley who told me that he didn't want to be [163] living with Father White, and I supported that.

Q. And you supported that. All right. So where did you -- when you left the airport, where did you go with Father Shanley and White?
A. We came to the rectory, and I don't recall all this, but I know that they drove me to the rectory and I stayed at the rectory and I met with them there and then we had supper together.

Q. At the rectory?
A. No, we went out to a restaurant in Palm Springs.

Q. And do you remember what you discussed with them?
A. Not really.

Q. Okay. And at no time did you want to see where Jack White was living?
A. I think I asked to see where he was living. My sense is I remember asking, and he said that, you know, it was a rooming house and that he really didn't think that it was necessary.

Q. You now know that he was not living at a rooming house, do you not, Father McCormack?
MR. ROGERS: Bishop. [164]
THE WITNESS: No, I don't know that, no.
MR. ROGERS: Bishop.

Q. Bishop McCormack, I'm sorry, Bishop McCormack.
A. No, I don't know that.

Q. Have you heard reports about Jack White and Paul Shanley operating a motel, a gay motel, in Palm Springs?
A. Yes, I have, yeah.

Q. Do you know whether -- did you ever visit that motel?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you ever visit theSan Bernardino parish where Paul Shanley was allegedly working at the time?
A. No.

Q. Okay. So you just stayed in Palm Springs --
A. Right.

Q. -- correct?
And what was the conclusions that you drew from having seen Jack White and Paul Shanley? [165]
A. My recollection is is that they were satisfied in their living situations to some degree and that they both were -- I'll use the word -- I don't want to use the word depressed -- maybe -- I would say that they were depressed.

Q. You were concerned for them?
A. Yes.

Q. You, in your capacity as secretary of ministerial affairs for 10 years, would express concern and compassion for priests of the Archdiocese who were in trouble, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Secretary for Ministerial Personnel.
MR. MacLEISH: Personnel, right.
THE WITNESS: I would try to do that, yes.

Q. Even when the priest had credible allegations of sexual misconduct against him, is that correct?
A. I still would try to be respectful and helpful to them.

Q. Would you express similar compassion and support for the alleged victims of those priests [166] throughout the time that you were the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel and the delegate?
MR. ROGERS: We're talking about in general, Eric?
MR. MacLEISH: In general, yes.
THE WITNESS: Whenever I dealt directly with a victim, yes, I would try to express that.

Q. You were always honest and candid with victims?
A. As honest as I thought I could be. You know, I sometimes -- I guess I always put the truth.

Q. But my question is honesty and candor, were you always honest and candid with victims?
A. I was always honest and always as candid as I could be within my job.

Q. You had two separate roles; you were the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel and you were the delegate after about 1992 to the Cardinal --
A. '93.

Q. -- '93 for sexual misconduct of priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. All right. So you had obligations to [167] priests who had been accused of sexual molestation, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And yet you also, from time to time, met with victims who had been molested by priests, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you wanted to be, I think you said, as candid as you could be, but there were some constraints on you, were there not? When I say "candid as you could be," I'm talking about with victims.
A. Yes. The constraint would be if they asked whether the priest had admitted it or not or if they asked -- sometimes there would be questions that I felt that I couldn't answer.

Q. Okay. There would be questions, forexample --
A. Even though I might know the answer.

Q. There would be questions, for example, as to whether there were other allegations of other people against this priest?
A. Correct. [168]

Q. And sometimes you could not answer those questions, is that correct?
A. I think initially we weren't too sure whether we should answer them, but, you know, I think early on we began to say no, we have other allegations about him.

Q. Okay. But --
A. But I'd like to add --

Q. Go ahead, sure.
A. -- is that in '92 or '93 a woman came on board to me with the victims, and I think I've said this before, Sister Catherine Mulkerrin. So she dealt basically with the victims and so -- my point being is is that most of the contact with victims, when the number of cases began to increase, was through Sister Catherine Mulkerrin.

Q. And one of the things that you heard from victims and from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin was the need to contact parishes where some of these priests had served, I think we went over that the first day --
A. We did.

Q. -- is that correct? [169] And that was something you could not do, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you could not simply put into a parish bulletin there had been credible allegations against Father X, that was something that you could not do at the request of victims, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And even Sister Catherine wanted that done as well, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you could not do that, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And one of the reasons you could not do that is because you also had an obligation to protect the church from scandal, is that correct?
A. That was part of the reason, yes.

Q. Well, what were the other parts of the reason why you could not put into a parish directory there had been -- let's take an example such asFather Geoghan, where there were multiple allegations, was there any reason, apart from [170] avoiding scandal in the church, why you could not have put into a church bulletin in St. Julia's "There have been multiple allegations, credible allegations, against your prior former pastor" -- not pastor -- "prior former priest of this parish, John Geoghan"?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Was there any reason, apart from avoiding scandal, why you could not have done that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. What was that reason?
A. The reason was that we had agreed that this matter -- that our whole effort was to help victims heal, help the offending priest, and we felt that -- and we dealt with this in a confidential way because people approached us and they didn't want their names revealed and they didn't want any sense that confidentiality would be broached -- breached, excuse me. And so we had decided that in order to preserve and encourage people to realize that when they came to the church that they approach it with the sense of confidentiality, that at that time we said that it was wise not to move beyond that. [171]

Q. Bishop, there was also the scandal element, though, however, was there not?
A. I said that, there was also a scandal, as it's a scandal today.

Q. Right. You wanted to avoid a scandal in the early 1990s, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. Bishop, I'm not asking about publicizing the name of a victim in a parish directory; I'm simply stating why would it have been inconsistent with the wishes of victims to simply put, when you believed an allegation was credible, a notation in the parish bulletin or communicate to the parish somehow that there had been credible allegations brought against a former priest of that parish, that would not violate the confidentiality of any victim request?
A. Right.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I think that it wasn't just the victim; it was the whole atmosphere of that [172] when people come to the church that a pastoral matter is dealt with confidentially. And so now if we -- if people start coming to the church and they realize that we publicize things, we think -- at that time we thought that we were really going to break down that spirit of confidentiality that people have when they approach the church for assistance.

Q. Do you remember Ray Sinabaldi?
A. Yes.

Q. Ray Sinabaldi wanted you --
A. Yes.

Q. -- to publish allegations about the man who had molested him, correct, in the parish directories or some other means to locate other victims, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You wouldn't do it?
A. Correct.

Q. So even when you had a victim saying "I want to make sure that you do outreach to find other victims," you wouldn't do it, even when the victim requested it?
A. Because, as I just said to you, it was [173] more than just the confidentiality relationship with this victim; it was the overall confidential pastoral work of the church, and at that time that was the way that we approached it, was that it was a postural issue, that we were going to handle it with the victim and with the priest.

Q. And it was also something that, as you began to get more and more of these allegations, you realized that there was the capacity of scandal being brought to the Archdiocese of Boston, correct? Correct?
A. Yes, I think I answered that, yes.

Q. But just so we're clear, can you recall one single instance where you were approached by a victim of sexual abuse and the victim requested that there be absolutely no mention of this priest having been involved with molesting children in some public way, such as a parish bulletin, ever remember that happening?
A. No, not right now, no.

Q. So you can't say that it would have deterred victims from coming forward --
A. I can. [174]

Q. If I could just finish the question so you can listen to it.
You can't say, based on any fact, that it would have deterred victims from coming forward if you had taken the step urged by Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, urged by Ray Sinabaldi that when you had credible allegations of abuse you somehow notified people in the parish where that priest had just served, correct?
A. I can't say -- you know, I missed the focus of the question, the beginning --

Q. Okay. I'll withdraw the question. I'll withdraw the question.
A. Yeah.

Q. I'll withdraw the question.
Let's go to our next exhibit, if we could, please, which is exhibit -- will be marked Exhibit 52.

(McCormack Exhibit 52 was marked for identification.)

Q. All right. Before we get to Exhibit 52, Bishop, you don't recall in your 10 years as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel visiting any [175] other priest on sick leave out of state except Father Shanley, Father White and those who were in treatment facilities for evaluation because there were allegations of sexual molestation against them, is that correct?
A. I don't remember now, no, I don't.

Q. Okay. Didn't you then have concerns, when you went out to visit Father Shanley andFather White, that they might also have been involved in the past with the sexual molestation of children?
A. Never.

Q. None whatsoever?
A. None whatsoever.

Q. Okay.
A. Because that wasn't what drew me to go out there or to even suggest I go out. What drew me to go out there was their emotional state and their physical health and their whole attitude toward the Archdiocese of Boston, and I was going -- my whole purpose was to see can I establish a contact with these men whereby they -- you know, you could reestablish their ties to the diocese and help them with their issues, that was the purpose of my visit. [176]

Q. You made a compassionate trip out to see them, it was a trip of compassion?
A. Constructive as well as compassion.

Q. Okay. Bishop, Exhibit Number 52 you'll see the stamp on the right-hand corner, Archdiocese of Boston, Received March 11, 1991, Office of Ministerial Personnel. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Is Exhibit 52 a copy of a letter that you received from Paul Shanley in or about March of 1991?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And let me just read the first paragraph to you, Bishop. "Dear John:
"Thank you for your kindness during your brief visit to the wild west. I have wrestled with your proposal that we diminish the amount of unpredictability in my life by agreeing to have me remain several years out here but as a part-time-diocesan-curate rather than an archdiocesan-sick-leave-week-end-supply-priest." Do you see that?
A. Yes. [177]

Q. So Paul Shanley is reporting, in March of 1991, that you were asking him to remain out in California for several years?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you in fact ask Paul Shanley to remain, when you went out to see him, out in California for several years as a part-time diocesan curate?
A. Do I recall doing that?

Q. Yes.
A. No. I recall having a conversation with him about what he should do, but whether it was for several years, I don't --

Q. Well, you remember Exhibit Number 50 in which it said -- in it which it says that "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better," remember that exhibit?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So wouldn't you agree that that statement is consistent with what Paul Shanley [178] reports you saying in this Exhibit 52, his letter of March 14th, 1991?
A. I wouldn't use the word "consistent," but I would say that it complements it.

Q. Okay. So what we had this morning about you wanting Paul Shanley to come back, would you like the opportunity to change that testimony in any way?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No.

Q. Now, you'll see also in the next sentence, Bishop, in Exhibit 52 "I told you that, as it is, I do all the baptisms, youth retreats, penance services and many week-end Masses at St. Anne's." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. So you knew, from your visit out there and from Paul Shanley's letter, that Paul Shanley was involved in youth retreats at St. Anne's, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you were later to learn in 1993 that there were allegations of sexual abuse that were [179] being made against Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did you ever do anything to notify the people out at St. Anne's Parish where Paul Shanley, according to him and what you believed, had been leading youth retreats that there were now credible allegations of sexual molestation against him?
A. Yes.

Q. What did you do?
A. We notified the diocese and took him out of ministry.

Q. Are you aware of an apology that Cardinal Law has given to the diocese ofSan Bernardino? Are you familiar with that?
A. No.

Q. You're not aware of Cardinal Law apologizing for the letter of good standing that was sent to Monsignor Behan in 1990?
A. Now that you say that, I think I might have heard something on the television, something like that.

Q. Did you personally insure yourself when [180] Paul Shanley was removed from San Bernardino that you told, you or someone under your direction, told the people out in San Bernardino that there were now credible allegations of child molestation against Paul Shanley?
A. That would be up to the diocese ofSan Bernardino to handle once we notified them.

Q. My question is what did you notify them, Bishop McCormack?
A. That would be -- I -- that would be crossing boundaries. That's not my responsibility or it's not within my responsibility to, you know, enter into the diocese of another bishop or a parish and tell them what to do.

Q. All right. I think you misunderstand my question.
MR. ROGERS: Yeah.

Q. Let me clarify my question. My question is did you make sure, knowing that Paul Shanley had been leading youth retreats at a parish in San Bernardino diocese, did you personally -- start just with you personally -- call someone in 1993 out in San Bernardino and tell them [181] that there were now credible allegations of child molestation against Paul Shanley?
A. Yes, we called, and I'm not sure it was I or -- but we called the diocese of San Bernardino, told him what the allegations were, that he was serving in the diocese -- that he was serving in the parish of St. Anne's and that, you know, we have to call him back from ministry.

Q. Who --
A. Now, we would then at that time expect the diocese of San Bernardino to follow their policy about handling the allegations of sexual misconduct.

Q. Okay. You would have expected them to go back to their parishes --
A. Yes.

Q. -- and tell their parishes what had gone on -- the parish where Paul Shanley was serving?
A. No, they would go back to the pastor and tell -- this is my assumption. My assumption is that they would go to the pastor. They would follow their policy, whatever it was.

Q. And who was it that contacted the diocese of San Bernardino? [182]
A. I don't remember; all I know is that we contacted them and called --

Q. How do you know that?
A. Because I do know it.

Q. Well, you have to provide me with some facts here, if you could, Bishop. How do you know that someone called them and told them that there were credible allegations against Paul Shanley involving sexual misconduct --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My memory.

Q. -- with minors?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Is there anything more specific that you can give me, Bishop?
A. I don't know whether --
MR. ROGERS: Are you asking for a document, or are you asking for his memory?
MR. MacLEISH: I'm asking for who he told, who he instructed to speak with them, a document, any specifics that would substantiate --
THE WITNESS: See, I don't --

Q. Well, you have to finish. [183] -- that would substantiate what you've said that you notified the diocese of San Bernardino in 1993 that there were credible allegations of child molestation, any facts to support that assertion?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't have all the documents. I don't have those documents.

Q. I don't either.
A. Yeah.

Q. Do you think that there was a written transmission?
MR. ROGERS: I'm going to object and put this down on the record. If you want to ask questions, go ahead; you have been provided documentation, Mr. MacLeish.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. Not on that.
MR. ROGERS: Well, again, you've been provided all documentation. If you want to make statements, do it outside the deposition.

MR. MacLEISH: If's there's any records --
MR. ROGERS: You have an opportunity to ask questions. If you want to ask questions, go [184] ahead.

MR. MacLEISH: If there's any record that supports this, I want it produced because I don't have any record, I'm making that representation to you right now.
MR. ROGERS: Just ask questions, please Thank you.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop McCormack, can please identify any facts to support your belief that you not only removed Paul Shanley but that you told the diocese of San Bernardino that there were credible allegations of child abuse that had been brought to your attention here in Boston? Can you provide any specifics whatsoever to support your belief that that happened?
A. Outside of my memory, I'd be surprised that there's not a note that I talked to either the Vicar General or someone out there to tell them why we're taking him back.

Q. Where would that note have been filed?
A. In Paul Shanley's file.

Q. So is it your belief that you were the one who personally made contact with the senior [185] official in the San Bernardino diocese to tell them that there had been credible allegations --
A. I don't recall, honestly.

Q. Well, I thought you just said that you thought there might be a note in the file of your call, I thought that's what you said?
A. That's right. Well, if a call was made, I'd be surprised that a note wasn't made.

Q. You're now saying if a call was made?
A. Excuse me, no, that's wrong. A call was made, I know a call was made, and that he was taken out of ministry there, he was -- and that they were informed, I know that.

Q. Well, I would again ask if there was a writing of this that it be produced. It has not been produced to us.
A. Well, then I think that we should check it out to see whether there is one.

Q. Bishop, you don't know who made the call to inform San Bernardino that there were allegations of child abuse, as you sit here today, you don't know whether it was you or somebody else, correct? [186]
A. Right, it would have been me or it would have been the Vicar General or Vicar for Administration.

Q. Father Hughes -- Bishop Hughes?
A. Bishop Hughes.

Q. Okay. It would have been one or the two of you, and you don't remember who it was that --
A. Or it could have been one who was working with me at that time, but I don't know whether anybody was -- as a matter of fact, it was '91. I wasn't the delegate, so my sense is most likely that it was probably Bishop Hughes.

Q. Well, '93 was when the allegations started to come in, is that right?
A. Okay, okay.

Q. So you don't know who it was who made the call out to San Bernardino, correct, to tellthem --
A. Right.

Q. -- that there were credible allegations?
A. Right.

Q. You don't know the name or the title of [187] the person who was called, is that correct?
A. My sense is that -- my recollection is that -- is that the Vicar General out there was told.

Q. Do you remember his name?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Can you state with certainty that it was the Vicar General who was called?
A. I just have this vague memory that it was him who was called, but I'm not sure.

Q. I'm talking about with certainty, my question was can you state with certainty --
A. I can't state with certainty, no.

Q. Okay. You cannot state with certainty whether any call was made --
A. Yes, I can.

Q. Well, let me finish my question.
A. I'm sorry, I thought that was the question.

Q. No.
MR. ROGERS: There was a pause, so I think it was a fair assumption by the Bishop, but go ahead.

MR. MacLEISH: We don't need that [188] editorializing, Mr. Rogers.
MR. ROGERS: You're suggesting --

MR. MacLEISH: I speak a little slower than you do, not much but a little slower.
MR. ROGERS: Go ahead.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: The question was can you state with certainty that there was an individual that told the Vicar General or anyone in theSan Bernardino diocese that there were credible allegations of child molestation against Paul Shanley in 1993?
A. I have a certain memory that a call was made; the degree --

Q. Specifics --
MR. ROGERS: Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS: The degree of certainty, I can't guarantee a degree of certainty, but I have a strong memory that a call was made and that they were informed.

Q. And you stated that you assumed that the protocol would be that the pastor of St. Anne's in San Bernardino where Paul Shanley had been leading youth retreats was notified? [189]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, was that the same policy that was followed in Boston, that when there were credible allegations against a priest of the Archdiocese that the pastor of the parish where that priest had been serving was notified?
A. Yes.

Q. When was that policy instituted?
A. I don't know when it was instituted, but it was instituted.

Q. And so in the case, for example, of Father Paul Shanley, when there were allegations coming in in 1993 about Paul Shanley molesting children, your testimony is is that there was a policy whereby the pastor of St. Jean's at the time was notified about these allegations?
A. No, that wasn't what I said.

Q. I'm sorry.
A. I said that the pastor where the priest was serving was notified, and Paul Shanley was serving in St. Anne's Parish in San Bernardino. So that where he was serving that pastor would be -- you know, in Boston the pastor would be notified, I think [190] that was your question.

Q. Okay. So the pastor in San Bernardino where he had been serving was -- would be -- was notified, that would be consistent with your policy here in Boston, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.

MR. ROGERS: You're talking about the San Bernardino policy or the Boston policy?
THE WITNESS: It's the San Bernardino policy, it would be up to the bishop atSan Bernardino how he dealt with him.

Q. But the Boston policy was to notify the pastor where that priest had been serving --
A. Correct, right.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Yes. Now, when it was implemented, I don't know, but --

Q. Okay. What was that pastor supposed to do with that information?
A. He was supposed to be aware, and then if he had anything to support, you know, or any knowledge that he would be aware of what happened in [191] his parish, he would be aware of what this priest's behavior was, and then we would learn other things from him as a result of that or he could be helpful to his parishioners as a result of that.

Q. Well, you said he could be helpful to his parishioners, but one thing he could not do was to make a general announcement, as we went over earlier --
A. That's right.

Q. -- that there had been an allegation against a priest who had been serving in that parish?
A. Correct.

Q. He was not allowed to do that?
A. It wasn't that he wasn't allowed; he wasn't given the information to do that.

Q. I thought he was told --
A. I don't know -- no, I don't know of any pastor who said that he wanted to announce it and we said no. That might have been happened, but I don't know.

Q. My question is, and we just went over this, part of your policy was not to announce to the parishes where these priests had been serving, who [192] had allegations against them of child molestation, not to announce to the parishes that the allegations were in existence?
A. That was our policy.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. All right. So a pastor was not free to do that when he was notified?
A. If a pastor knew it -- I don't know whether any pastor notified it or not.

Q. Notified the parishioners?
A. Yeah, I don't know.

Q. You can't identify any as you sit here today?
A. I think Hingham did, St. Paul's in Hingham did.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
A. I think that St. Paul's Parish in Hingham did it around Father John Hanlon.

Q. Father John Hanlon, the man who was prosecuted --
A. Yes.

Q. -- for a crime? The Wood brothers, you remember the Wood brothers? [193]
A. Yes.

Q. That was in the newspapers, right?
A. Okay. Yes, and so that's probably why -- I just remember that there was a lot of activity in the parish there trying to help the parishioners deal with it.

Q. Right. Father Hanlon was prosecuted by the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office as a result of complaints of two of my clients, Matthew and William Wood --
A. Yes.

Q. -- do you remember that?
A. Yes.

Q. And that's how the word aboutFather Hanlon got out?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. Returning to Exhibit Number 52, you'll see in the second to last paragraph "The internist and the psychologist concede my unpredictably precarious health is a function of my unpredictable ecclesiastical future." Do you see that?
A. Yes. [194]

Q. So at least at this point, in March of 1991, you know that Father Paul Shanley is seeing a psychologist --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?
That he has been leading youth retreats in San Bernardino?
A. Yes.

Q. And that he reports that someone, a priest from Boston, has been warning his previous pastor not to hire him, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. Let's --
A. However --

Q. Go ahead.
A. I think you're linking what the priest from Boston who called -- I don't know what reasons that priest called to say not to hire him.

Q. But you never investigated it, did you?
A. No, because a lot of priests, as I have mentioned, you know, had some feelings about Paul Shanley in terms of how he said things or how outspoken he was at times. [195]

Q. Well, what would have been the downside, Bishop McCormack -- excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead and finish.
A. And he was difficult to work with at times.

Q. I understand that, but what would have been the downside of picking up the phone, since there was a Monsignor Hart there, picking up the phone and saying "Did you warn someone out in California not to hire Paul Shanley; and if so, why?" Would there have been any downside for doing that, Bishop?
A. No, but it just didn't prompt me that there was, you know, a serious enough reason raised.

Q. Okay. There wouldn't have been any reason why you couldn't have done it, correct?
A. There would have been no reason why I couldn't have done it, but there would be no reason -- I had no reason at the time to do it.

Q. Okay. Let's go to the next exhibit.

(McCormack Exhibit 53 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, you just testified that you [196] were in touch or had someone be in touch with the bishop of San Bernardino to tell him about the allegations against Paul Shanley.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognize in Exhibit 53 a letter that you sent, retained from the Archdiocese's files, to Paul Shanley on February 14th, 1994?
A. Yes.

Q. And by this point in time you would agree with me there were allegations aboutPaul Shanley being involved in sexual molestation of children?
A. Yes.

Q. And I would just like to read this paragraph and see if these are your words that you used at the time: "I have not been in contact with the bishop of San Bernardino who would be the one to recommend a 'supervisor' for you but I was hoping to have the information from Tim O'Neill before I contacted him. If it is delayed much longer, I should contact the Bishop since he is unaware of your presence in Palm Springs." Were those your words?
A. Yes. [197]

Q. Now, you -- the information fromTim O'Neill that you're referring to here, that was the evaluation of Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you wanted to have the evaluation of Paul Shanley before you contacted the bishop of San Bernardino, is that correct?
A. Regarding the recommendation of a supervisor.

Q. That's right. And the bishop ofSan Bernardino in February of 1994 was unaware that Paul Shanley was back in Palm Springs, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And he was unaware --
A. I shouldn't say that; I don't know. I don't -- I should not say that. I said I have not been in contact with him about recommending a supervisor.

Q. Bishop, you say "If it is delayed much longer, I should contact the Bishop since he is unaware of your presence in Palm Springs."
A. Okay. [198]

Q. Isn't that what it says?
A. Yes, it does, yes.

Q. So right now, in February of 1994, Paul Shanley, with credible allegations of child molestation, is a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. Living out in Palm Springs, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Has not had any restrictions at that time placed on his ministry?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, he wasn't serving in ministry.

Q. Was he wearing a collar?
A. He wasn't allowed to wear a collar.

Q. Okay. But he was back out inPalm Springs, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Where he had been before?
A. Right.

Q. Where you had visited him?
A. Yes. [199]

Q. And the bishop was unaware of his presence?
A. Yes.

Q. And there was no supervision over Paul Shanley in Palm Springs as of February of 1994, correct?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. Now, Bishop --
MR. ROGERS: Eric, is it now a good time to take a break?
MR. MacLEISH: Yeah, sure.

MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record.

Q. BY MR. MacLEISH: Bishop, you wanted to share the information about the allegations ofchild molestation by Father Paul Shanley withSan Bernardino because you wanted to make sure that they had the same information which you did, is that correct?
A. Say that again, I wanted to share --

Q. Yeah, sure. In 1993 you began --
A. Yeah. [200]

Q. -- to get complaints in about Paul Shanley --
A. Yes.

Q. -- molesting children, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Your testimony is that you shared that with the diocese of San Bernardino?
A. Yes.

Q. One of the reasons you wanted to share it with them is because you wanted to make sure that they would have the same information that you had so they could do whatever was necessary to help the people out in San Bernardino, is that correct?
A. When you say "the same information," could you explain what you mean.

Q. Well, the information that you had that Paul Shanley had credible allegations of child molestation against him.
A. Yes, recently.

Q. You did not actually share every bit of information, all the letters, the complaints that were coming in about Paul Shanley; what you toldSan Bernardino, as I understand it, is that there [201] were credible allegations of child molestation against Father Paul Shanley and that he needed to return back to Boston, is that correct?
A. Right, but we -- at that time I don't think we had any letters.

Q. Any what --
A. Any -- a bunch of letters at that time when -- initially; it was a couple telephone conversations and I think a person came. There was about three or four that all came in all at one time.

Q. Right. About Paul Shanley?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you had credible evidence --
A. That's right.

Q. -- let me put it that way, you had credible evidence from people who were unrelated to each other that Paul Shanley was someone who had molested children, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. You had that evidence in 1993, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you contacted San Bernardino [202] because you wanted them to have also information that there had been these allegations --
A. Right.

Q. -- about Paul Shanley so they could do whatever they needed to do to help the people out in San Bernardino, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So why did you not -- let me back up for a second. You knew that Paul Shanley had been at St. Jean's in Newton for 10 years before he had left for California, you knew that, Bishop --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?
So if you wanted to help the diocese of San Bernardino so they could help people out in California, why did you do nothing to instruct or inform the people at St. Jean's parish, such as Mr. Ford who's sitting to my right, that there were credible allegations against Paul Shanley of child molestation?
A. Because, as I've said before, it wasn't our practice to do that.

Q. But your practice was to let [203] San Bernardino know so they could help people out in California potentially, correct?
A. So that they could take the steps -- yeah, people or to whatever it is that their practice and policy was in terms of handling allegations of sexual misconduct.

Q. But --
A. And --

Q. Go ahead.
A. So and I don't know exactly, you know, what their policy was.

Q. But one of the reasons you wanted to share it with San Bernardino was so they could potentially help people who might have been at the parish where Paul Shanley had served, St. Anne's, correct?
A. No.

Q. Just to let them know for the sake of knowing?
A. It was to let them know that he was coming home, that he couldn't serve in ministry and these are the reasons why he couldn't serve in ministry, and then they would -- then my assumption [204] is they would take the steps that they felt were necessary to deal with that with the people and the staff of the parish.

Q. With the people of the parish as well, the people includes the congregation, is that correct?
A. If that was their practice, yes.

Q. Okay. And it was the practice in some diocese to share that information in 1993 with their parishioners, is that correct?
A. My understanding is it was.

Q. It was not the practice in Boston, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you're a social worker,Bishop McCormack. You actually volunteered that information earlier today, that you're a social worker, have training in social work, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You have -- there's a variety of documents that we'll probably explore at our next session which shows that you're familiar with [205] clinical terms and information about mental illness and mental health, is that correct?
A. Yes, to some degree.

Q. In fact, I think you -- there's some handwritten notes of yours that we're going to get to in a while that describe potential diagnoses of Paul Shanley, AXIS I, AXIS II, you're familiar with those terms, AXIS --
A. I'm familiar with the terms, yes, right.

Q. Okay. So as a trained social worker and as someone who is working with victims, wouldn't it have just been common sense by 1993 when these allegations are coming in that Paul Shanley had molested different individuals as children, wouldn't it have been just common sense to go to the people in Boston -- I'm sorry, in Newton at St. Jean's in the same way that you had gone to San Bernardino to share the information with them?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that, again, as I've said before, that, you know, our practice at the time was to insure confidentiality and so it was [206] in that umbrella, that context, that we did not go out and make public statements about this because we wanted people to feel that they could -- that -- the confidential pastoral nature of the church.

Q. Any of Paul Shanley's victims request that you not share this information with other parishes?
A. I don't know.

Q. Didn't you in fact represent, you personally, represent to victims of Paul Shanley, that he'd been away from active ministry for many years? Did you ever represent that to any victims of Paul Shanley?
A. I don't recall, but all I can say is I could have.

Q. Bishop McCormack, do you know a Father John Martin?
A. Yes.

Q. How do you know Father John Martin?
A. He served in the Archdiocese of Boston.

Q. How well did you know Father Martin?
A. Again, I knew him as a priest for the Archdiocese; I didn't know him well. [207]

Q. Okay. He lives here in New Hampshire, does he not?
A. Yes.

Q. He lives in Barnstead, New Hampshire, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Same place as Father Bernard Lane, is that correct, same town?
A. Same town, could be, yes.

Q. Barnstead?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. You know where Barnstead is, right?
A. Oh, yes, I know where Barnstead is, but I'm not sure both of them live in the same town.

Q. Okay. Does Father John Martin live in Barnstead?
A. My understanding he does.

Q. Does Father Bernard Lane live in Barnstead?
A. I don't recall, I don't recall.

Q. Now, you know there are credible allegations of child molestation against Father Bernard Lane, is that correct? [208]
A. Yes.

Q. Is Father Bernard Lane under any sort of supervision from the diocese of Manchester that you're aware of?
A. No.

Q. Well, you wanted a supervisor for Paul Shanley out in California in 1994, is that not correct, someone from San Bernardino who would supervise him out there?
A. The supervision was in quotation marks, someone who would, you know, know who he was, what the allegations were and have a sense of where he's living and what he's doing; it wasn't a strict supervision.

Q. But there's no arrangement up here over Bernard Lane, is that correct?
A. We have no responsibility for Bernard Lane and there's no ability to supervise him. He's not here at our invitation.

Q. I understand that. Have you ever been asked to supervise him?
A. No.

Q. Now, do you know whether there, during [209] the time that you were in the Archdiocese of Boston, that there were allegations of inappropriate sexual misconduct by Father John Martin?
A. No.

Q. Never heard anything about that?
A. No.

Q. At some point, Bishop, you receiveda report from Tim O'Neill regarding the recommendations of the Institute for Living about Father Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And that was given to you directly over the telephone by Attorney Tim O'Neill, is that correct?
A. That's my memory, yes.

Q. Had he actually read to you from the Institute for Living report, is that correct?
A. I don't know that; all I know is that he gave me some summary statements of the report, yes.

Q. Did he appear to be reading from the report when you got this information?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. [210]
THE WITNESS: I can't say that, honestly.

Q. Was he using clinical terms?
A. I don't recall.

Q. You don't recall?
A. I think he -- I think that he tried to give me a summary of what the report was from the Institute for Living and I do recall writing some notes, but I don't know -- do you have the document?

Q. I think we might have the document;Ms. Pillsbury is just finding it.
And this was something that you had requested from Paul Shanley, that you be given the information from the Institute for Living so that the Archdiocese could make its determination as to what would be appropriate for Paul Shanley, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. But you allowed him to go back out to California without having the results of that evaluation, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You allowed him to go out to California [211] without telling the Bishop of San Bernardino that he was out there, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You allowed him to go out toCalifornia without the knowledge of the Bishop ofSan Bernardino, even by that time you were convinced that there were a number, more than three, credible allegations of child molestation against Paul Shanley, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You know, I don't know whether I told him that he was going to be living out in the area or not because there's -- I know at one time there was a question about where he was going to live.

Q. Well, we just went through the letter where you said, did you not -- in February of 1994 -- where you said that the Bishop of San Bernardino was unaware of Paul Shanley's presence out there, do you remember that?
A. No, it was -- that's right, I did, but I keep thinking it's about the supervisor.

Q. No. [212]
A. No, about his presence, okay, yes.

Q. So what I said was correct?
A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Despite the fact that you hadn't received the evaluation from Father Shanley, despite the fact that there were credible allegations of child molestation against Paul Shanley, you permitted Paul Shanley to return to California without notifying the Bishop of San Bernardino that he was out there, correct?
A. It was my intention to notify him, but I was waiting for a report from Tim O'Neill.

Q. My question, again, Bishop, is when he went out there you had not received the report from Tim O'Neill, correct?
A. Right, right.

Q. You did not notify the Bishop ofSan Bernardino that he had returned out to San Bernardino, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You had credible allegations of child molestation against Paul Shanley, correct?
A. Correct, right. [213]

Q. Now, with respect to the Institute for Living report, would it be accurate to state that you had approached Paul Shanley initially about doing -- going to the Institute for Living, is that correct?
A. I think so, yes.

Q. There were a number of priests who were being evaluated and assessed by the Institute for Living that had credible allegations of child molestation against them, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: I object.

Q. And Paul Shanley was told that this was something, in essence, that he had to do if he wished to remain as a priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, is that correct?
A. It was expected him to undergo it, yes, some way, I'm not -- he would always be a priest of the Archdiocese no matter what he did.

Q. Unless he was laicized?
A. Okay, correct, okay.

Q. He was told he had to go, is that correct, Bishop?
A. It would be required of him if he [214] wanted to remain a priest of the Archdiocese, yes.

Q. So this was not some voluntary effort by him to obtain treatment in the face of these allegations, is that correct?
A. No, this was an assessment.

Q. This was an assessment, right. There was no treatment aspect to it, was there, Bishop?
A. Not when he was sent to the Institute for Living, no.

Q. Did you ever actually see any pages of the assessment of the Institute for Living or any --
A. No.

Q. I have to finish the question.
A. Oh.

Q. -- any records from the Institute for Living regarding Father Paul Shanley?
A. I didn't receive any assessment or any kind of assessment; I might have some correspondence with them around here, I don't know.

Q. I'm sorry, some --
A. I might have some correspondence about him, but nothing in terms of his, you know, emotional, psychological, physical health. What I'm [215] saying is I didn't receive any assessment of him, but I might have had some correspondence with the institute.

Q. About Paul Shanley?
A. Recommending him or telling him what the arrangements were.

Q. Okay. And Paul Shanley was initially quite reluctant to go to the Institute for Living, is that correct?
A. I don't know; I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Are you aware of any, after he left the Institute for Living, are you aware of any requirement that was placed upon him that he obtain any psychiatric treatment as a follow-up, are you aware of that?
A. I'm aware that for him to remain in California that he would have to, you know, follow the structured recommendations -- he would have to follow the recommendations that were given to us regarding his future life.

Q. My question was do you know whether Paul Shanley had follow-up consultation with a psychiatrist, psychologist or mental health [216] professional after he returned to California or when he went to New York?
A. I don't know about New York, but I know in California that I -- my memory is is that I was corresponding with him around who he was seeing, yes.

MR. MacLEISH: Okay. It's 3:30, Bishop, and I want to thank you for coming in today and we'll resume on Tuesday.
THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. MacLEISH: Thank you, Bishop.

(Deposition suspended at 3:30 p.m.) [217]

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:

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)
23