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 IV


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 Tuesday, October 1, 2002, commencing at
10:06 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: Robert A. Sherman, 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.

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 FOR IDENTIFICATION:

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

MR. MIELKE: Today's date is October 1st, 2002. It is approximately 10:06 a.m. We're here for the continued deposition of Bishop John McCormack. The parties will now identify themselves for the record.
MR. SHERMAN: Robert Sherman, attorney for the plaintiff.
MS. PILLSBURY: Courtney Pillsbury, attorney for the plaintiff.
MR. TUCKER: Brian Tucker, personal counsel for Bishop McCormack.
THE WITNESS: Bishop John McCormack.
MR. ROGERS: Wilson Rogers, the Third on behalf of all defendants.
Mr. COOK: Bradford Cook for the diocese of Manchester

EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:

Q. All set. Good morning, Bishop.
A. Good morning. [9]

MR. ROGERS: Just so we're clear, we're continuing reserving all objections except as to form and motions to strike until the time of trial?
MR. SHERMAN: Correct, same stipulations as in the past. And likewise, we'll plan on taking a break every hour, if that's all right. If you need to take a break before that for any reason, Bishop, that's fine, just let me know and we'll certainly accommodate you.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Likewise, as I said before, which was day two of your deposition when I was here, I'm going to ask you a question. If you don't understand the question, please feel free to tell me that; I'll try to rephrase it. If you don't ask me to rephrase the question, I will assume that you understand it. Is that acceptable to you?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Thank you.
Bishop, when you testified last week, certain questions were asked concerning Father Cote. Do you remember that subject matter coming up?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so I understand, and I'm not [10] intending to replow a lot of old ground, you left the investigation of the Father Cote matter to your delegate, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. How involved were you in terms of what he was determining and what his findings were?
A. I received his report.

Q. Yeah. And so --
A. I knew that he was, you know, investigating it and then I received his report.

Q. Okay. As he was doing the investigation, was he keeping you up to date with the progress of the investigation, interim reports and things of those nature?
MR. COOK: I object to this and I'm going to say this for the record because I was going to say it at some point. We came here on Friday and the Cote matter, which has nothing to do with the Shanley case and is totally irrelevant to it, but I understand the technical scope of the deposition, was brought up. It was completely irrelevant to the proceedings, completely irrelevant to the case and [11] following that the matter was telephonically transmitted to the press by Mr. Ford. It was then totally disruptive to the diocese of Manchester for an entire weekend, disrupted the Bishop's life, disrupted that for no particular reason that I can determine except to put pressure and disruption on things. It is just as irrelevant today as it was then.
On behalf of the diocese, I would strenuously object to anything that doesn't have anything to do with Massachusetts and that has to do with New Hampshire because it's totally irrelevant. This is years and years after the fact of this case and I strenuously object to it, and I've got to tell you if that kind of activity took place again -- and Mr. Ford is not here so I doubt that it will happen, but if it happens again, I've asked Mr. Rogers, because it's his case, to take this matter before Judge Sweeney because, frankly, this is totally out of line and totally irrelevant and may be technically within deposition practice, but we are very upset about what happened on Friday and Saturday and it's put a tremendous change of cast over these [12] proceedings.
Now, Mr. Sherman, I know you weren't here and I may be preaching to the wrong choir, but we are outraged by what happened on Friday and Saturday. And to continue this activity, which has no relevance to this case, is maybe technically appropriate; it's irrelevant, I'm sure Mr. Rogers will object to the whole thing, but we are beside ourselves about what happened this weekend.

MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Cook, I understand from your statement you are at least acknowledging that the subject matter is within the scope of the rules for a deposition, and accordingly I intend to pursue the line of inquiry.
With respect to your other statements, obviously we have a vehement disagreement as to the propriety of those. If somebody wants to take it up with the judge, then we would welcome that because we are certainly convinced and at peace with the notion that nobody acted irresponsibly. So that having been said, I'm going to continue my line of questioning unless somebody wants to instruct the Bishop not to answer. [13]
MR. ROGERS: No, there's no instruction not to answer.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: I join Mr. Cook's objection and --
MR. SHERMAN: The object -- I'm sorry.
MR. ROGERS: That's all right.
-- and I would note that a continued line of questioning along this basis would potentially lead to a motion for protective order for harassing and annoying the Bishop, but at this point I agree with Mr. Cook and I agree with you that it is fair game.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Okay. My question, to you, Bishop, was, and I don't remember if you gave the answer just now, but --
A. I didn't.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what the question was?
A. I'd ask you to repeat it now.

Q. Okay. The question was did your delegate provide interim reports to you regarding the factual -- regarding his investigation into the [14] facts?
A. That's the custom, that he -- you know, when we meet regularly, that he keeps me updated about what he's doing. So in terms of the facts of the Cote investigation, it would have been the same.

Q. Okay.
A. I can't recall anything specific.

Q. Well, let me ask you this question: Did at any point during the delegate's investigation and his reports to you, did he inform you that the victim in that case had made statements to the effect that the abuse took place in the early '80s, which would have been before he had turned 18, or the relationship took place in the early '80s before he had turned 18?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My memory of the discussion was that when the complaint was made to the civil authorities that the victim thought that he was a minor, that he was under age 17. And so at that time I was informed, yes, and that's why I understood there was an investigation.

Q. And at the time that you were informed [15] of that, did not the Manchester diocese have a policy of removing a priest from active ministry if they're subject of sexual allegations -- I'm sorry, of allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, we are, and I have to be careful that I don't know whether I'm revealing something confidential. Can I talk with you?
MR. ROGERS: Can we take a break?
MR. SHERMAN: You may.

MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Recess.)

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

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, you've had a chance to consult with your counsel?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you remember the question that was placed before you?
A. Yes, you wanted to know whether it was the policy of the diocese to remove a man from ministry even temporarily while there was an investigation.

Q. Yes. [16]
A. Yes, that is our policy.

Q. And did you take steps to remove Father Cote from ministry at that time?
A. We were asked by the attorney -- it was the Attorney General who told us that he was making the investigation, and so I'm told that -- by our counsel and my delegate that, in the conversations with the Attorney General's office, that we were not to inform the complainant, nor take any action against the complainant until they completed their investigation.

Q. And so I understand so your reason -- strike that.
So if I understand and I can summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, even though your policy would have dictated that you remove Father Cote during the pendency of the investigation, at the request of the Attorney General's office of New Hampshire, you did not, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Correct, because the complaint was made to him and not to us and so we had no substance of the complaint except what he informed [17] us about.

Q. Was there an allegation that was brought to your attention regarding Father Cote that Father Cote had paid for sex with this -- with this adolescent?
MR. ROGERS: I'm going to object, and respectfully, Bob, you can review some of this, but this is material that was gone over on Friday and I don't want to rehash the entire line of questioning.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm not going to go through the entire line; I'll be quick.
MR. ROGERS: All right. Note my objection.
THE WITNESS: Would you want to repeat your question.

Q. My question was was it brought to your attention that Father Cote had paid for -- for sex with this adolescent?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: It was not brought to my attention at the time; I think I learned this later, probably even last week, that someone raised the [18] issue that he paid for it, but I did not know that, no.

Q. The -- and in your testimony last week -- in your testimony last week, you stated that Father Cote had admitted to having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy, is that correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection --
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. ROGERS: -- asked and answered.

Q. Okay. And is your policy, with respect to allegations of sexual relations with minors and with teenagers, different, teenagers who may not be minors?
A. Yes. You know, if a teenager is over 18 -- is 18 and over, it's different from being considered as a minor.

Q. And how is your policy different in that regard?
A. It states a minor is below 18.

Q. And what happens -- in other words, what's the difference in terms of treatment of that case?
A. Well, one is is that -- [19]

MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: One is is that when you are accused of sexual misconduct with a minor you are removed from ministry.

Q. Okay. And if it's sexual misconduct with a teenager who may be over the age of 18, then your policy does not remove that priest from ministry?
A. Correct.

Q. Now, it was reported in the newspapers over the weekend that your spokesperson, Patrick McGee, said, and I'm quoting from the news report, "that there was no violation because the diocese's independent review board determined the allegation against Cote was not credible." Did you see that statement being made, or did you read that statement having been made by your spokesperson?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. I could show you the article if that would help.
A. It would help because --

Q. Yeah.
MR. SHERMAN: Why don't we mark it and [20] then we'll have copies.

(McCormack Exhibit 54 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, directing your attention to the last full paragraph on the first page, do you see that statement?
A. I do.

Q. Okay. And is that statement consistent with what you understand the facts to be?
A. It depends on how you interpret what he means by the allegation. The allegation here is a allegation of sexual misconduct with a minor was deemed not to be credible.

Q. And --
A. That would be my understanding of it.

Q. And what was the basis in which that allegation was deemed not to be credible?
A. Because the person was determined not to be a minor.

Q. Okay. And who made that determination?
A. The -- our investigation by the delegate and our lawyer and the complainant and the complainant's lawyer. [21]

Q. Do you understand that the investigation by the Attorney General has been completed?
A. That's my understanding.

Q. Okay. Now, did -- during the course of the investigation of this matter, do you know whether the delegate or anybody on behalf of the diocese spoke with the complainant?
A. Would you repeat that.

Q. Sure.
A. During the investigation --

Q. During the course of the investigation --
A. Which investigation?

Q. I'm sorry, during the course of your office's -- do you want to call it an investigation or review, how do you prefer to term it?
MR. ROGERS: Well, it depends what you're referring to, Bob.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: So I think you need to pose the question.
MR. SHERMAN: Let me go back. Let me [22] go back.

Q. The delegate, at your request, conducted his own investigation into this matter, is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. And calling it an investigation would be a term acceptable to you?
A. Yes.

Q. During the course of the delegate's investigation, do you know whether the delegate ever spoke to this complainant directly?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you know what the substance -- and specifically with respect to the issue of age, do you know what the substance of that conversation was?
MR. ROGERS: I need to take a break with Bishop McCormack, talk about an issue.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: Thank you.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record. [23]

MR. ROGERS: Could we just have the last question read back. I want to make sure exactly how it's phrased, please.

(Question read.)

MR. COOK: This gets complicated. We had a discussion the other day with Mr. MacLeish about not going into things that are covered by a confidentiality agreement.
MR. SHERMAN: Uh-huh.

MR. COOK: The answer to that question would go into -- not the conclusion from it but the substance of the conversation and the resulting conversations are in the context of what's covered by that confidentiality agreement, which he said he wasn't going to inquire into.
So I'd have to say that the Bishop answering that question, if he knows the answer, which I'm not sure he does, but if he knows the answer would be delving into things that I thought we'd agreed weren't going to be covered.
MR. ROGERS: They fall within the parameters of the confidentiality agreement.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry? [24]

MR. ROGERS: They fall within the parameters. The question, as posed, begs a response that would cause the Bishop to breach a confidentiality agreement that was requested.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Just so I understand where we're drawing the line -- and I understand the agreement about the confidentiality provisions -- I want to ask him not what's in the agreement but his conversations with his delegate.

MR. ROGERS: And again, the way that agreement was structured, as I understand it, and I think Mr. Cook --
MR. COOK: I can represent to you that the delegate didn't have any discussions whatsoever with the complainant that were not in the context of things that are covered by the confidentiality agreement.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. So it's your position that anything that I were to ask about conversations between the Bishop and his delegate in this matter are also encompassed in the confidentiality agreement and therefore --
MR. ROGERS: No, I don't think that's [25] a --
MR. COOK: I'm not sure that's accurate.
MR. ROGERS: That's not a fair characterization.
MR. COOK: The point is --

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Again, I'm trying to understand where the line is.
MR. COOK: All of the conversations --
MR. SHERMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. COOK: -- and hit me if I'm going too far, but all of the conversations that the delegate had with the complainant --
MR. SHERMAN: Uh-huh.
MR. COOK: -- that would have been the subject of his discussions with the Bishop were in the context of those things that are covered by the confidentiality agreement because those were the only discussions that the delegate had with the complainant.
Therefore, anything he said about the substance of his conversations -- not maybe the conclusion of his conversations but the substance of [26] his conversations -- would have been reporting on the discussions that are covered by the confidentiality agreement because they were all in that context and that's why we're having difficulty.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. I'm not understanding the line and, again, let me just go at it one more time or maybe more than one time. I understand the delegate is conducting an investigation. The investigation is separate from the confidentiality agreement, that's the legal resolution of that, but there's a policy to conduct an investigation?
MR. COOK: Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.

MR. COOK: I'm not testifying, but let me tell you --
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.

MR. COOK: -- during the pure investigatory stage --
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.

MR. COOK: -- he never talked to the complainant. The only time he talked to the complainant was in a different context -- [27]
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.

MR. COOK: -- in which he obtained information, but --
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Then let me ask that question of the Bishop, okay, and then we'll go from there, okay.
MR. COOK: Sure.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, obviously you've heard the colloquy.
A. Yes.

Q. Let me summarize it. The counsel for the diocese has stated his understanding, that during the delegate's investigation or during the investigative phase of what the delegate did in this matter, he never talked to the complainant, is that your understanding as well?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. When was this matter submitted to the review board?
A. September.

Q. And what was the occasion for submitting the matter to the review board?
A. Because it was a matter of sexual [28] misconduct and so we -- you know, I thought and I think the delegate thought that this matter should be something that we should share with the review board to get their input.

Q. You said it was a matter of sexual misconduct. Why do you use the phrase "misconduct"?
A. It's a broad term that we use in regard to, you know, anybody's behavior, you know, outside of -- has to do with sex because a priest is chaste and celibate, it's misconduct.

Q. And is it the policy of the Manchester diocese to submit all instances where a priest engages in sex, regardless of whether that's sex with a minor, sex, heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, sex with an adult, to the review board?
MR. ROGERS: Presently?
MR. SHERMAN: Presently.
THE WITNESS: Presently the written policy is sexual misconduct with a minor, but our intention is that because of the amount of time that we're living in that we have to be very, you know, careful about what we do, and so the intention is to pass cases by that have to do with sexual misconduct. [29]

Q. Okay. And that's regardless of whether it's consensual sex with an adult?
A. Regardless, yeah, yes.

Q. Okay. And when did that -- strike that.
Your written policy involves a minor, but what I understand you're testifying to is that you have a practice that goes beyond what the written policy is --
A. Right.

Q. -- is that a fair characterization?
When did that practice come in to be?
A. I'd say within the past few months, as these matters have become more public.

Q. Okay. And, again, without going into other instances, my question is have there been other instances outside of Father Cote's case where there have been allegations of sexual misconduct that did not involve a minor that have been submitted to the review board?
A. At present there is one being considered, but prior to the Cote one -- my sense is, though, is that there was another one that was under [30] investigation or under discussion, and I still think that that's under investigation, too.

Q. Okay. So --
A. So that I'd say I know of one, but I think there's another one.

Q. And when you say you know of one, one that has been submitted --
A. No, one is that it is still being investigated and will be submitted.

Q. Okay. So just so we can separate them out, in that latter instance there's one that's still under investigation, but you know that one will in fact be submitted, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. There's also another one that's out there that's still being investigated, and you don't know whether that will be submitted or not?
A. We haven't completed -- my sense is is that our intention is because of the climate that we should pass by any matters of sexual misconduct with the review board.

Q. Okay. Now, can you summarize for me, to the best of your understanding, what the review [31] board's findings were in Father Cote's case?
A. They accepted the recommendations, but they changed the recommendation from a outpatient evaluation to an inpatient evaluation.

Q. Okay. And did they also make any -- strike that.
Were there also any determinations made by the review board as to how old the complainant was at the time the sexual misconduct took place?
A. They accepted the finding that he was not a minor and that he was over 18 -- 18, in his middle 18 years, 18.

Q. Okay. Now, Bishop, getting back to some of the questions and documents in the Father Shanley case that came off, it's my understanding that your testimony the last time was that your plan was to bring Father Shanley back to the Boston Archdiocese after he had completed a year of sick leave, is that -- is that a fair statement?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: To what your understanding is?

Q. I'm sorry. [32]
A. That wasn't my plan.

Q. I'm sorry, it was my understanding that was your testimony.
A. No, it was my opinion --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: -- that after his one year out there that I would encourage him to come back and -- into ministry here, in the Archdiocese of Boston, as opposed to being in California.

Q. Okay. And the reason, though, that he didn't come back was because he was not a healthy priest, is that -- is that a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And what did that mean to you?
A. Both physically he was not well and emotionally he was not in good space.

Q. Okay. And when you say "emotionally he was not in good space," what -- can you be a little more specific?
A. I think that he felt that he was more secure out there at that time and that he would -- my sense is is that if he returned to Boston he would feel more agitated and he didn't know how he would [33] fit in.

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say, also, that you didn't want somebody to -- who was on sick leave -- to come back and be a pastor here in the Boston Archdiocese if that person was not healthy?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would say that he shouldn't return to parish ministry if he wasn't healthy, either as a pastor or as a parochial vicar.

Q. Okay. And that doesn't matter, that's not location specific; you're saying that somebody who's not healthy should not be a pastor or a parochial vicar anywhere?
A. On a full-time basis, yes.

Q. Okay. I think we had a prior exhibit which you had marked which is number 50. Could we get it, get back to that.
Bishop, if you want to take a minute to refamiliarize yourself with that document.
A. (Witness complies.)

Q. You all set? Do you see -- and I'm going to skip through this rather quickly because I know you were asked this before. Do you see in [34] one -- paragraph 1 d), "If he came back, I do not know what we would do with him"?
A. Correct.

Q. Do you see that phrase?
A. Yes.

Q. And, again, just to go over it very briefly you -- what did you mean by that?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: Basically that I did not know what we would do with him because, you know, his being -- sense of distance from the diocesan administration, a sense that he was alone and then where we would put him because the idea is where would he live, where would he -- you know, how would he get better?

Q. Okay. And the context for that statement was the fact that if he still wasn't healthy --
A. Right.

Q. -- correct?
If he were healthy, then you would have -- there would be a place that you could find for him [35] and an assignment that you could give him, is that correct?
A. That would be my understanding at the time, yes.

Q. Okay. So if I understand it correctly, once he got healthy, it would have been your intention at that time to bring him back and place him in another assignment, fair statement?
A. It would be my intention to encourage him to come back.

Q. Okay. If you read the paragraph under d) -- and let me read it for the record. It says, "Secondly, I recommend in January, February or March I arrange with Paul to make a visit to him to see how he is doing." Do you see that? "What would you think if I coaxed him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better?" Do you see that statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Why were you thinking about coaxing him to get a pastoral assignment out there if he got better if your plan was to bring him back here when he got better? [36]

MR. ROGERS: Again, note my objection. This is a topic we went over ad nauseam last Friday in your absence, Mr. Sherman. Mr. MacLeish covered this at length, and I appreciate the fact you maybe haven't had a chance to speak to Mr. MacLeish or review the Bishop's transcript, but to continue to pose the same questions again and again to the Bishop is inappropriate.
MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Rogers, I believe that -- and I have spoken with Mr. MacLeish and I have reviewed the Bishop's transcript -- that I believe the question I'm asking was not asked before.
MR. ROGERS: Well, it has been, but go ahead.
MR. SHERMAN: You can object. We can let the record speak --
MR. ROGERS: Yeah, it will.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: Note my objection.
THE WITNESS: Okay. My understanding is is that as he got better he should be doing something. So it wasn't a you're sick and you're healthy one day -- I mean sick one day and healthy [37] the next, but as he got better, he shouldn't be just out there by himself, for want of a better description, feeling badly, but that he should enter into some kind of pastoral ministry to see whether he could begin to have a more constructive, positive approach to his priestly life and ministry.

Q. So is it fair to say that that statement about coaxing him to seek a pastoral assignment out there when he got better still was not inconsistent with your view that ultimately you would bring him back here if he was better and give him an assignment here?
A. Correct.
MR. ROGERS: Again, objection, asked and answered.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Have this marked.

(McCormack Exhibit 55 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, this is -- placing Exhibit 55 in front of you, this document is, I'll represent to you, similar to what is Exhibit 52 except in the upper left-hand corner there's -- there's handwritten [38] notes. First, can you read what those notes say?
A. They're not very clear, so -- but it says "JBM" -- now, as I read them and you can probably correct me if you differ -- "What happened in California? Looks like keeping" -- and I don't know if he says -- "Looks like keeping the priest status, but providing" -- and I don't -- I can't read the next few words, but the last three words seem to be "would be" and I read the word inspired, but I don't know really what those -- "but providing" dot, dot, dot "would be inspired."

Q. Do you recognize the handwriting?
A. Yes.

Q. And whose handwriting is that?
A. Bishop Hughes --

Q. Okay.
A. -- I think.

Q. And taking a minute to read this letter over again, can you give me a context for that note?
A. Okay. Okay.

Q. Does reading this letter provide any kind of context for as much of that comment as you can read? [39]
A. Yeah, I think now I read the comment as "What happened in California? Looks like keeping the priest status, but providing an official link would be inspired," could be important.

Q. Okay. And what does the phrase "keeping the priest status" mean in the context of this letter?
A. That he would be doing some priestly ministry in some way in California rather than in the Archdiocese of Boston where -- which he's protesting.

Q. Okay. And what do you understand the import of Bishop Hughes' note to you to be?
A. My sense is it would be similar to mine, which is that for Father Shanley, Paul Shanley, to, you know, not be doing anything would not be helpful to him; it would just be more debilitating. If he could do something to some degree, it would be helpful.

Q. Okay. And the phrase "the official link" providing the official link, what do you understand that to refer to?
A. I interpret that as doing priestly ministry. [40]

Q. Official link wouldn't mean a link back to the Boston Archdiocese?
A. I don't think of it in those terms, but it could be as well.

Q. Okay. Now, at least in terms of --
A. Excuse me, because he already has an official link with the Archdiocese; he's a priest of the Archdiocese living in California, so that's why I --

Q. Okay. At least in terms of March 1991, as reflected in this letter, you do know that Paul Shanley is involved with youth -- with young people because he mentions in the letter in the first paragraph that he's doing youth retreats --
A. Yes.

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

Q. And is it your testimony that as of March of 1991 you had no knowledge whatsoever of any allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made against Paul Shanley?
A. Correct.

Q. So as a result of that, seeing that he [41] was involved with youth didn't raise any red flags or alarms in your mind, is that correct?
A. Did not raise any red flags or alarms in my mind.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Have this marked as the next exhibit.

(McCormack Exhibit 56 was marked for identification.)

Q. And what do you recognize that document as, Bishop?
A. As a letter that I sent to Paul Shanley --

Q. Okay. And --
A. -- on the same day that he sent his letter to me.

Q. And that's what I was going to ask you. It says in the first sentence "I received your note which reflected your deliberations about the proposal I presented to you when I visited with you a couple weeks ago." Do you see that, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That would not -- the note you're [42] talking about would not have been what has been previously marked as Exhibit 55 or 52, either, which is the same document, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I won't say correct because it seems to be responding to it, but the date is the same.

Q. Okay. But based on the fact that the dates are the same, would it be more consistent with your practice that it would be referring to some other document than what has been marked as Exhibit 55?
MR. ROGERS: Well, I'd note for the record Exhibit 55 references a stamp that is received by the Office of Ministerial Personnel on March 11, 1991.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: So I don't think it's entirely consistent.
THE WITNESS: Where's that?
MR. ROGERS: Right here, it's dated March 14th, but it says received March 11th.
THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. [43]

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Okay. In light of what your counsel has pointed out to you, now looking at that document, does Exhibit 56 look like a response to what is Exhibit 55 or, again, 52?
A. Yes, it does.

Q. Okay. Now, you see in the upper right-hand corner -- I assume the exhibit mark is not over that -- a reference to C O N F. I take it --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that would be a reference to the confidential file, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when a response letter like this would have been placed in the confidential file?
A. This would usually be filed, and so my sense is is that when it was filed it was filed in the confidential file.

Q. Why was there -- strike that.
First of all, is that your handwriting?
A. It is.

Q. Okay. So you were the one that had instructed that this letter be placed in a confidential file, correct? [44]
A. Right.

Q. And therefore, is it fair to state that at the time that you wrote this letter, in March of 1991, there was the confidential file with respect to Paul Shanley?
A. There could have been another one; I think this is probably my confidential file on Paul Shanley, as opposed to having a file somewhere else I wanted to keep that in my confidential file.

Q. Okay. Let me back up.
A. Okay.

Q. Okay. And I want to go through some questions on the files. We've referred in past depositions to the fact that there was, you know, a confidential file maintained at the chancery on various priests, is that -- do you remember --
A. Yes.

Q. -- conversations about that?
Let me make sure I get the answer to the complete question. I kind of threw you for a loop by pausing in the middle. Let me ask it again, Bishop.
We've referred in the past that there [45] was a confidential file maintained in the chancery on various priests, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And these are -- and that file was maintained when there were -- when there was in part allegations, for instance, of sexual misconduct against a priest, those allegations would be maintained in that confidential file, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And there were -- and it's your testimony now, am I correct, that you also maintained a confidential file that was separate from that confidential file?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you know -- I'm sorry.
A. I'd like to also say, though, that the confidential file in the chancery also had other files on priests other than sexual misconduct, okay.

Q. If I didn't make that clear, I think I said in part.
A. I'm sorry.

Q. No, that's fine. With respect to your own confidential files, what was the purpose in your [46] maintaining your own personal -- that was a personal file to you?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What was the purpose in your maintaining your own personal confidential file?
A. That this was not part of the office file but this was part of a correspondence that I was maintaining with the priest over whom I had some responsibility.

Q. Okay.
A. It could have been -- I would maintain this in regard to priests who had vocational issues, priests who were -- so there could be other priests I was dealing with and so that it wasn't a matter of a public office file, but I was dealing with the personal issues with the priest and so I would have what I would call my confidential file.

Q. Were correspondence such as what has been marked as Exhibit 56 also put in the office files on a particular priest?
A. Not if I marked it confidential.

Q. So there are certain documents that you wrote in your capacity as Secretary for Ministerial [47] Personnel that would not have been maintained in the regular Archdiocese files, be them personnel files or the Archdiocese confidential files, but would have been maintained in your own personal confidential file?
A. When I was dealing -- at the time I was dealing with a priest around a personal matter, so it wouldn't be as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, which was an administrative role, but as a, for want of a better word, a priest who was counseling or assisting other priests through a difficult time in their priestly life in ministry, I would keep a file; and because it was something personal, it was confidential. And so I would have my personal confidential file and that would, you know, be kept until the work was ended.

Q. Well, in this piece of correspondence you are acting in your capacity as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, correct?
A. That was my -- no, I would say with Paul I was assigned by the Cardinal to keep in contact with him, and it wasn't -- didn't fall within the role of Secretary for Ministerial Personnel to do [48] that.

Q. But you are signing your letters in your official capacity, is that correct?
A. That's right, because that was my office.

Q. Okay. And through your -- you know, and through your office you've had -- you've had correspondence back and forth with Paul Shanley, and is it your testimony that that was -- that that was correspondence that you were engaged in not in your capacity as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel?
A. I guess maybe I'm not making the distinction clear. The Secretary for Ministerial Personnel was an administrative role that had to deal with the offices of the Archdiocese that dealt with ministry, so that could be priests, religious deacons, any lay ministries. And then, within that as time developed, I was asked to do some work with the priest that was not in the original job description and I don't think ever became part of the job description, but they asked me to do this and so I began to do it. And so that's why this would not be -- this would be something personal to the priest [49] more than it was to the office for Secretary for Ministerial Personnel.

Q. But aren't you in that -- even in that capacity you're representing what positions are of the Archdiocese of Boston, what the Cardinal's position are, what the -- what Bishop Hughes or other bishops' positions are with respect to Shanley, isn't it fair to say that you are acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Archdiocese?
A. Yes.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. And wouldn't it be expected that when you are acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Archdiocese that the correspondence that you send out be maintained in official files of the Archdiocese?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My sense is is that, if you want to use that description, that this would be the official file of the Archdiocese, which at that time was being dealt with in a confidential way.

Q. Okay. And this file that you talk about that you maintained back in 1991 was also a [50] file that you maintained in a wide variety -- or, strike that -- in a variety of instances where you were dealing with, as you call it, personal issues with particular priests, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And where did you maintain this file?
A. In my office.

Q. Okay. And when you left your office -- when you left either as the delegate or as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, what happened to that file?
A. My memory doesn't serve me well, but my sense is is that it was all turned over to the delegate or to the person that was succeeding me as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel.

Q. Is it your testimony that those files are not files that you took with you?
A. Oh, no, no.

Q. Okay. And can you say with certainty, Bishop, as you sit here today, that that notation of -- which refers to a confidential file was intended to be your own personal confidential file as opposed to the confidential file which has also been [51] referred to in prior depositions as one being maintained by the Archdiocese?
A. I would say with certainty to the degree that I didn't have access to the Archdiocesan confidential file on my own until I was the delegate. So prior to that, if I was going to keep something dealing with a personal matter of a priest, I kept it in my own file.

Q. And was it your practice, therefore -- strike that. Let's go back. Did you do your own filing at this time?
A. Sometimes in things like this I did; in many other matters it was my secretary.

Q. Okay. And if something was to go into your own personal confidential file, were those things that you also, as a matter of course, would give to your secretary and she would file it in your own confidential files. I say she, I'm assuming it's a she.
A. It could be both.

Q. Okay.
A. Yeah, I had a file drawer yea large and then I developed a file drawer in the office. [52]

Q. Okay. And if it was something --
A. Her office.

Q. Okay. If -- I guess what I'm asking is would that notation on that file indicate to you that that was something that you intended your secretary to file on your behalf?
A. It could be either; the filing was done sporadically.

Q. Okay. And was it your practice that if it was intended that a document be placed in your own personal confidential file that you would -- that it was your practice to make a notation of that on the document?
A. It depends, you know, where the document was. I notice that, you know, this was something that landed on my desk and I had to decide where it was to be filed; other times I might have noted it at the time, it really -- there's nothing consistent here.

Q. Okay. When you say this document landed on your desk, this was a letter that you generated.
A. Correct. And so when I get the copy, [53] and so I have copies I have to decide, you know, what goes in the office file and what was the confidential file.

Q. Was there a way, if it was intended to be placed in the other confidential file -- I don't know if there's a way --
A. I don't --

Q. Let me -- let me go back and ask this question: Is there a way to distinguish between these two confidential files in your mind? We called something the confidential file and now we're calling this --
A. Confidential file --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well --

Q. Is there -- did you refer to them differently?
MR. ROGERS: At what point, Bob?
MR. SHERMAN: Back in 1991.
THE WITNESS: I wouldn't -- I would be referring to my own confidential file in '91, I know that.

Q. Okay. [54]
A. And whether the chancery confidential file, I mean I didn't make any different notation; I just knew that I didn't have the file so that it would probably then go into the chancery confidential file, if it was a matter of whether that person had a file. So if there was a file of a man in the chancery confidential file, then I would, you know, give those probably to the Bishop's secretary and have -- I'm trying to remember how we did it -- but have her file them.

Q. And, again, so I understand, back in 1991 you were dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct involving priests other than Father Shanley --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And there were issues that were coming up in which you were generating correspondence that would go into the chancery confidential file, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And was it your testimony that when [55] that happened you would personally deliver those documents to the Bishop -- and I take it you're talking about the Vicar for Administration's secretary so that it could be filed in the chancery confidential file?
A. Either that or I'd ask for the key to file then myself.

Q. Okay. Did you ever leave those documents with your secretary to be delivered either to the Vicar for Administration or to be filed in the chancery confidential file?
A. It wasn't a practice so I can't say that I never did, but I'm going to say that it would be my exception, I think.

Q. Okay. But you didn't have a practice the other way, either, which, in other words, you didn't have a practice to never give documents involving sexual misconduct to your secretary for filing, either, that you always handled those yourself, that wasn't your practice, either?
A. She didn't have access to the file; the only person who could get access was myself.

Q. Okay. [56]
A. This is the chancery file that we're talking about.

Q. Right, but she could also deliver documents to the Vicar for Administration's secretary?
A. I'm not as clear on that practice, as I say; I think if I did it, that would have been by exception.

Q. Okay. I guess what I -- one of the things I want to ask you is that if this were a document, if 56 were a document that you left for your secretary, how would your secretary know whether it goes into your own personal confidential file or the chancery confidential file?
A. That's why I said it would be by exception; in this, I would probably have -- if this was my own file in my desk, this would have stayed, I would have filed it myself.

Q. And to your knowledge, when you left as -- strike that.
Did you maintain that same confidential file from the time you were secretary for administration -- Secretary for Ministerial Personnel [57] through the time that you were also the delegate?
A. Once again, I can't speak specifically to my memory, but once this became a matter of a sexual misconduct, this whole file would have been moved to the chancery file.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. I see we've gone over the hour and why don't we take a break right now and then we'll come back.
THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. MIELKE: Off the record.

(Recess.)

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

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, before we took a break, we were talking about your confidential file, and so I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, that this was a file that you personally maintained when you were dealing with a personal matter involving a priest that was, as you viewed it, outside your duties as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, is that a fair characterization?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And it was your practice that -- to put on the top of correspondence that was to be [58] kept in your confidential file the notation of -- notation to that effect to distinguish correspondence or other documents that needed to be maintained in that file, correct?
A. It wasn't my -- I can't say it was a consistent practice, that's the point, because I could have gotten this and gone immediately to the file and put it in and it might not have confidential on it, whereas if I was probably trying to write a lot of -- I was doing a lot of papers and deciding how they needed to be filed, I might write that on it, and then after a pile of papers, then I would begin to sift them out.

Q. Okay. And the file that you referred to as your confidential file was maintained in your desk drawer, do I --
A. Yes.

Q. -- I understand that correctly?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was this a confidential file that you started when you were Secretary of Ministerial Personnel and continued to keep once you became the delegate? [59]

A. Eventually I became delegate. No, I think I -- I think I merged all my confidential files into the chancery confidential file. I'm going to say once I realized I can't be going back and forth, nor could the Vicar for Administration, you know, he had to have access and I had to have access -- and, see, at one time if a case was active, you would keep kind of a personal file, but eventually, as these cases multiplied and the Vicar for Administration had some and I had some and we deal with this, at some time, I know that I decided that whatever we had had to be all put in the confidential file.
Now, whether everything -- every person I was dealing with got into the confidential file, I can't say, but anything that had to do with sexual misconduct did.

Q. Okay. So it's your testimony that if a matter became -- strike that.
It's your testimony that if a matter involved matters of sexual misconduct, if you had been dealing with that priest on another matter, that all the materials that you had kept -- strike that. Let me try that again. [60]
If you had been dealing with a priest on a personal matter and maintained a confidential -- your own confidential file on the matter you were dealing with, if eventually there was also a matter involving sexual misconduct with that priest, that you took those files and merged them with the chancery confidential file?
A. Yes --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: -- that would be my practice, yes.

Q. Okay. Now, before the break we had started -- you had started to say that once you left your role you had left your confidential files, correct, did you testify to that before the break?
A. Say that again.

Q. Before the break you had testified that once you left your role as delegate or -- I'm sorry, once you left your role as delegate, you left your confidential files, is that correct?
A. Whatever files I had as delegate or as -- or any other case, I would have turned over to the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel or to the [61] delegate, yes, that's correct. If that's what you understand, that's correct.

Q. Okay. And it's your assumption that those files got merged into confidential -- into the chancery confidential files or you know that they got merged into the chancery confidential files?
A. My sense is that all the files I had regarding sexual misconduct had been merged into the chancery confidential files; any other files I had that were active about a priest would have been turned over to the Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, who would have, on my -- you know, would have responsibility for following through in some way.
In some way they had to work out who was going to follow through with these men, not those involved with sexual misconduct but those other matters could be vocation or another, you know, health issue and -- but there was a delegate then appointed. When I left, there was a Secretary for Ministerial Personnel assigned, but there was also a delegate named. So there were two people who followed me in office. [62]

Q. So is it your understanding that, with respect to Paul Shanley, the confidential file that you maintained on Paul Shanley eventually was merged --
A. Yes.

Q. -- into the chancery confidential file?
A. Yes.

Q. And you know that -- you know that -- is that your understanding or you know that as a fact?
A. I know that that was my practice and so that it had to be -- as a matter of fact, this is -- obviously this became part of the file at some time, but everything I had about Paul Shanley had to be moved into the confidential file at some time.

Q. How do you know that became part of the file?
A. Because you have it.

Q. Well, how do you know that there wasn't -- that there wasn't -- that it wasn't searched? Were separate files maintained in the office of the delegate or the office of Secretary for Ministerial Personnel, for instance? [63]
A. Okay. Well --
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Say that again.

Q. How do you know that this came from the chancery confidential file as opposed to being found in separate files maintained in the delegate's office or in the office of the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know that. I thought that since you had it you got it out of the confidential file, but --

Q. All right. That was an assumption --
A. Assumption.

Q. -- that you made, okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 57 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had an opportunity to review that letter, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What do you understand this letter to be?
A. A follow-up to my letter of March 14th, [64] which meant that I had a conversation with either the Cardinal and/or his Vicar for Administration about his being assigned to permanent disability.

Q. And what was the distinction at that time between assigning Shanley to permanent disability as -- or giving him partial disability?
A. Partial disability would be that it was temporary and it would be for -- it could either be temporary or it could be that he was only able to do part-time work so he needed some other form of support, ministry, part-time ministry, or for some other form of support.

Q. Okay. And in this, in the third paragraph, you ask Shanley, Father Shanley, rather, to provide a letter from his doctor attesting to the fact that due to his physical condition he has permanent disability --
A. Yes.

Q. -- is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Was it the practice of the Archdiocese at that time to accept the word of the personal physician to a priest regarding personal disability [65] without getting independent verification from a doctor from the Archdiocese?
A. I'm not sufficiently versed in it to make a general comment. My sense is is that they -- that the priest who was responsible for the man who needed to go on disability, say it's a regional bishop or it could have been the director of the Clergy Fund, but someone would know him and they would know his condition and so they would have a sense of whether his doctor's recommendation made sense or not. I think that if they felt that it didn't make sense then they would seek a -- ask him for a second opinion, to get a second opinion.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, did you finish?
A. Something else came to mind, but I -- that's basically my understanding, yeah, I think that's it.

Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that there was no practice or policy back in May of 1991 regarding mandatory independent examinations before a determination of personal -- of permanent disability could be made?
A. I can't say that there was no policy [66] and I can't say there wasn't a practice, so -- it wasn't within my role. So all I can say is that I remember sometimes, as a member of the Clergy Fund Board, being informed that, you know, there was a medical support for this priest seeking a part-time disability or a permanent disability, but I can't remember whether there was ever any discussion about whether we have independent audit or -- independent assessment.

Q. So if there was such a practice, that didn't fall under the responsibilities of the Secretary of Ministerial Personnel to administer that?
A. Correct.

Q. Under whose responsibility would it have been to administer such a practice?
A. It would have been the staff person of the Clergy Fund and the Vicar for Administration.

Q. And so is it fair to say that, in your capacity in this case, as being the contact person with Father Shanley, that if that were required -- in other words, if a second opinion were required -- you would have been instructed by someone else -- [67]
A. Yes.

Q. -- to get that second opinion?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And most likely that would have been the head of the Clergy Fund or the Vicar for Administration?
A. He was the head of the Clergy Fund and the staff person was the person who would sometimes speak for him, Father Ryan.

Q. And can you recall instances where you were the contact with a priest who was on sick leave or medical leave where you were in fact instructed to seek an independent opinion regarding his physical condition before a determination of permanent disability could be made, again, prior to 1991?
A. I think I recall a discussion about seeking a second opinion, but I can't name you who the priest was or whether it was I who was involved.

Q. Okay. Around 1991 how many priests fell into the same category as Paul Shanley, and by I mean priests that were on sick or administrative leave that you had responsibility for maintaining contact and following? [68]
A. I'd be guessing; I really can't even begin to guess.

Q. Well, I don't want to you guess, but an estimate would be okay. I mean are we talking about more than 10?
MR. ROGERS: Objection, if you can.

Q. If you can.
A. Honestly, I can't.
MR. ROGERS: Okay. You've answered it.
Another question.

Q. And can you tell me whether it was more than five?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: If I can't tell you it's more than ten, I can't really tell you it's more than five, really, I can't, honestly.

Q. So is it possible that Father Shanley was the only one?
A. On administrative leave or permanent disability or --

Q. No, no, or sick leave. In other words, somebody that you had the responsibility for maintaining, that you were assigned the [69] responsibility of --
A. Oh, it's more than Father Shanley, yeah; there were other priests I was dealing with.

Q. Okay. And now that we're discussing it, do you have any ballpark estimation of whether we're talking about more than five or more than 10 or more than 15?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by an estimate? You know, I guess, you know --

Q. More than picking a number out of thin air.
A. Thin air.

Q. Yeah, as you sit --
A. It's more than five.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 58 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Bishop, you testified on Friday that you had been out to visit Paul Shanley in California, is that correct? [70]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And when you were out to visit Paul Shanley, he was residing in San Bernardino, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, this is a letter that you wrote on September 3rd, 1991 in which you make mention that you were notified that Paul Shanley had moved to Palm Springs, is that a fair characterization, at least of part of the letter?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was it the practice of the Archdiocese to require priests who were on sick or administrative leave to notify the Archdiocese prior to their moving to another residence?
A. I can't say, but I would say it would be normal that they would notify them, but now whether it was prior or during, honestly -- I mean I know he was on sick leave.

Q. Well, isn't it that -- didn't you testify previously that it was important that the priest be in a parish, you know, setting and have access to church, is it, facilities -- [71]
A. Shanley?

Q. I'm sorry?
A. Father Shanley?

Q. Yeah, for Father Shanley, sorry.
A. Yes.

Q. And wasn't it, therefore, for Father Shanley expected that Father Shanley would notify you if he intended to leave that kind of environment?
A. I would expect that, yes.

Q. Do you recall your reaction when Father Ryan, Monsignor Ryan -- was he Monsignor Ryan at that time, do you know?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. -- that now Monsignor Ryan had told you that Father Shanley had moved from San Bernardino to Palm Springs?
A. What was my reaction?

Q. Do you recall your reaction?
A. Well, I can't recall it, but I was surprised, I know that.

Q. Did you know at that point in time what kind of setting that Father Shanley was living in?
A. In Palm Springs? [72]

Q. In Palm Springs.
A. No.

Q. Okay. Was it important to you -- was it important to you to know that he was in a setting that involved some church-related property?
A. Was it important to me that he be -- yes, it was, yeah.

Q. Okay. Is there a reason in this letter why you didn't express that surprise and ask to find out what precipitated his move from San Bernardino to Palm Springs and what kind of setting that he was living in?
A. I think the second paragraph says that, "I'm sorry to hear that your illness has developed to be so incapacitating. I hope that it improves." That would be basically my reason for, you know, accepting what he did.

Q. Okay. So but you had no idea who he was living with, where he was living, other than having the street address that he was at 641 North Camino Real?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And did you know at that time [73] that Jack White was in Palm Springs?
A. Yes.

Q. And you had testified, at least -- strike that.
You had testified on the second day of your deposition that you didn't believe Paul Shanley living with Jack White would have been a healthy situation. Do you remember that testimony?
A. Correct.

Q. Did you still maintain that view in September of 1991, that Paul Shanley should not be living with Jack White?
A. My memory is, yes, I did.

Q. Did you inquire at the time to find out whether Paul Shanley was indeed living with Jack White?
A. I never thought he was.

Q. Why?
A. Because he had also said that he didn't think it was helpful for him to be living with Jack White, so it was something mutual. And so when he moved to Palm Springs, that didn't mean that he was living with Jack White. [74]

Q. Okay. So you made the assumption that it must have been a separate residence?
A. Yes.

(McCormack Exhibit 59 was marked for identification.)

Q. Sorry, Bishop have you had --
A. Okay. Yes.

Q. Do you understand this to be Paul Shanley's response to your note -- your letter of September 3rd which was marked as Exhibit 58?
A. Yes.

Q. And he informs you in there that he's still residing at St. Anne's and that's the parish in San Bernardino, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And he's just taking a room temporarily to November 1st, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you recall whether you were satisfied with that explanation?
A. I don't recall, to be honest, no, I don't recall, but my sense is that it kind of corrected what I was surprised at, that he had moved [75] without -- as you had said, without informing me --

Q. Okay.
A. -- and he really hadn't, that he kept St. Anne's, but it was a room there so he could be near his doctors.

Q. Okay. And did you have any understanding of how he was going to pay for an additional room?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Was it the policy of the Archdiocese at that time to continue to pay a stipend to St. Anne's for maintaining Paul Shanley, even though he had a room somewhere else?
A. My interpretation was is that he's still at St. Anne's and he's spending some time at a room in Palm Springs to be near his doctors. So that my sense was that he was still at St. Anne's.

Q. Okay. And you would have expected that St. Anne's, therefore, would have been paid for --
A. His residence.

Q. Yeah, having him in residence.
A. Correct.

Q. Now, in the upper right-hand corner of [76] this document -- again, it's cut off and correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but does that look like it says "S H confidential file," as in Shanley confidential file?
A. Yeah, I think so, but I --

Q. That would be your writing, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And as best as you can read it, recognizing that it's cut off, does that -- does that look like --
A. It's cut off, but it looks like it's an S H A.

Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, is it fair to say that your understanding that would probably say "Shanley confidential file"?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the Shanley confidential file, does that refer to your own personal confidential file or does that refer to the chancery confidential file on Shanley?
A. I would say that, you know, for me it refers to my personal confidential file.

Q. Okay. So a notation of confidential [77] file or Shanley confidential file would be a distinction without a difference --
A. Right.

Q. -- in terms of where the document was maintained?
A. Right.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 60 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it fair to say, Bishop, that this appears to be referring to a note from Paul Shanley that was received separate from what is Exhibit 59?
A. I can't say that, no. Excuse me, I can't say that, really, I don't know.

Q. Okay. You have no recollection --
A. No.

Q. -- one way or another?
Okay. It refers to, in the first paragraph, the fact that Paul Shanley was recuperating from facial surgery, is that correct?
A. Yes. [78]

Q. Were you ever told by any source that the reason Paul Shanley had facial surgery was that he had been beaten up?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you have an understanding of why Paul Shanley had facial surgery as of November -- I'm sorry, as of October of 1991?
A. My faint recollection is that it was skin cancerous.

Q. Again, you say a faint recollection. Do you have any different recollection now looking back --
A. No.

Q. -- than what you might have had at that time?
A. No, I'm surprised to hear you say it was being beaten up.

Q. Okay. And would it have been your practice if there were photos that accompanied the letter that that would also have been something that you would have a kept with the letter?
A. Depends whether I thought it was important or not, I guess. So that it isn't my [79] practice to keep photos, yeah.

Q. Okay. And would this have been a letter that you would have also maintained in your confidential -- or a copy of this letter that you would have maintained in your personal confidential file or one of the chancery files?
A. My sense is that all his papers were, you know, kept in my confidential file.

Q. Okay.
A. This is still an ongoing discussion about -- I don't know what it's about. Updating the original letters, I'm not sure what that's about.

Q. Okay. And your explanation for the fact that there isn't a notation regarding your confidential file is --
A. That I probably filed it myself immediately.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 61 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had a chance to review that letter, Bishop?
A. Yes. [80]

Q. Now, this was a letter sent to you by Dr. Shaner in October of 1991, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you understood Dr. Shaner to be Paul Shanley's physician, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it was the practice of the Archdiocese, I believe, consistent with, you know, prior practices, to put a stamp on it when the letter was received, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Can you explain to me why this stamp is May 6th, 1994?
A. I have no idea.

Q. Is it your testimony, as you sit here today, that this was a letter that the Archdiocese did in fact receive in 1991?
A. Again, I can't say that, either, yeah. It's dated 1991.

Q. You have no explanation why there would be a stamp on it that says --
A. No.

Q. -- 1994? [81]
Okay. Are you aware of other times when letters that had been received by the Archdiocese had been misstamped with dates that were years different from the date of the letter?
A. I don't recall any.

Q. Okay. Now, the -- fair to say that this was the letter that Paul Shanley had mentioned to you that was forthcoming from his doctor outlying what the nature of his problems were in order to support the issue of whether he should be placed on permanent disability?
A. Or sick leave.

Q. Or sick leave?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, by the way, do you remember receiving this letter?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, as we look into it, the disability, according to Dr. Shaner, is divided into three areas, and he lists those particular areas, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the first area talks about a [82] number of different -- can we say physical ailments, is that correct?
A. Yes, uh-huh.

Q. Number two has to do with an emotional issue, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you have an understanding back in 1991 based on your, you know, background and degree in social work and your work for the Archdiocese as Secretary for Ministerial Personnel as to what chronic anxiety neurosis would have referred to?
A. I'm not sure what you mean by the question, when you say --

Q. Back in 1991 when you read those --
A. -- referred to.

Q. I'm sorry, let me rephrase the question. That's a fair characterization.
Back in 1991 when you would have received this letter and seen the doctor mention the words "chronic anxiety neurosis," did you have an understanding of what that phrase meant?
MR. ROGERS: Objection. He didn't [83] indicate that he received it in 1991.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.

Q. Okay. Let me rephrase it -- actually, let me -- you know, what I can do is mark another exhibit or make a representation to you that you did forward on this letter in 1991, Bishop. So if we can assume, for the purposes of this question -- and I'm going to mark the exhibit in a minute, anyway -- that there is a transmittal letter from you back in that time and that you did get it in 1991, if we can make that assumption for purposes of just this question, that you received the letter in 1991, would you have had an understanding of what the phrase "chronic anxiety neurosis" meant?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: You know, it's hard for me to go back to '91 to say how I understood that, but my sense is I would have understood it, yes.

Q. Okay. And what would you have understood it to refer to?
A. That he was constantly dealing with an anxiety, I'll use the word a generalized anxiety.

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say in number [84] three, again, the reference is to physical ailments, that Father Shanley was suffering through his problems with allergies?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, in the paragraph that follows number three, Dr. Shaner also mentions other what he calls maladies, and, again, these are all physical ailments, correct?
A. Except the last one.

Q. I'm sorry, yeah, insomnia.
A. Right.

Q. And you would characterize insomnia as --
A. I don't know what I characterize it, but it's more than physical, I guess, yeah.

Q. Okay. So would it have been your understanding, at the time that you received the letter, that the majority of Paul Shanley's problems were physical as opposed to emotional?
A. Again, I can't remember back that far. I think that there was a time when I felt that some of his physical maladies were exacerbated by his emotional state. [85]

Q. Okay.
A. So that there was an interplay there.

Q. Okay. And do you remember or do you have any recollection of what you did in response to receiving this letter in 1991?
A. Do I recall?

Q. Uh-huh.
A. I think you've intimated that I've passed it onto Bishop Hughes.

Q. Well, I don't think I intimated as to who it got passed on to --
A. Oh, okay.

Q. -- but I know you did transmit it. But I'm not trying to ask you --
A. That's right.

Q. -- you know, if we could, but do you remember -- do you remember, in receipt of this letter, either talking to anybody about it or taking any kind of action in response to it?
MR. ROGERS: He's already testified he doesn't remember receiving it, Bob. So anything is based upon the documentation put before him.
MR. SHERMAN: All right. He can tell [86] me that.
THE WITNESS: As I say, I don't recall receiving this letter, but I do recall consulting with a doctor about -- a psychiatrist about Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. And that would have been Dr. Cassem?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And that's the letter that I want to go --
A. Right.

Q. -- go to now.
MR. SHERMAN: If we could have this one marked, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 62 was marked for identification.)

MR. SHERMAN: Let's put on the record that 62 is the cover letter, if you'd like me to -- it does attach what we've previously marked as 61 to it. I can either put it in as a full exhibit that way or at least make reference to the letter that 62 contains the attachment which we have previously marked as 61. I'm happy just leaving it like -- [87]
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. SHERMAN: -- like that if you are.
MR. ROGERS: That's fine.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. If you can take a minute.
It's also five after 12. Do you want to take a break now or do you want to go through this letter and --
MR. ROGERS: Why don't we go through this letter and we'll take a break.
MR. SHERMAN: That's fine.
MR. ROGERS: We'll have lunch at one.
MR. SHERMAN: Fine.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Have you had a chance to review --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that letter?
Do you recall how it was, Bishop, that you happened to enlist Dr. Cassem into this matter?
A. In other words, excuse me, why him?

Q. Well, let's start with that, why -- let's start with this -- let me just go back.
Were you the one that, on your own [88] initiative, determined to send Dr. Shaner's letter to Dr. Cassem and bring Dr. Cassem in, or was that something that was a result of conversations with others?
A. I can't say that it wasn't with conversations with others, but I think it was my own initiative.

Q. Okay. And what was the purpose of you seeking out Dr. Cassem in this instance?
A. Because I used to consult with him around priests who had emotional issues or vocational issues, life issues, and so in this instance, with all that was noted there, he's both a doctor and a psychiatrist, I thought it would be good for me to review with Ned Cassem what Paul Shanley's diagnosis was by his doctor and whether he thought that it was sufficient to really, you know, be permanent, in terms of permanent disability --

Q. Okay.
A. -- with the idea that I always thought that Paul Shanley had the ability to serve, and so whether it was some ministry -- I just think that the longer he was off alone, ill, it was not helpful, but [89] I was so -- you can see I'm going back and forth, you know, should we give this man sick leave or permanent disability?

Q. Okay. Now, earlier you testified that if there was the need to get a second opinion, that normally would have been determined by somebody else, either the vicar -- I'm sorry, most likely the Vicar for Administration or the staff person for the Clergy Personnel Board, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. But this isn't something that, as you sit here now and you recall, this is not something you talked to the Vicar for Administration about or the staff person for the Clergy Personnel Board; this is something you did on your own initiative?
A. I did -- I think I did this on my own initiative. This was a consult more than it was a second opinion. And secondly --

Q. Well, --
A. -- but I could have mentioned it to the Vicar for Administration about what I was doing.

Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part.
A. I probably would -- no, not probably; I [90] possibly could have mentioned to the Vicar for Administration what I intended to do.

Q. Okay. But do you have a recollection, as you sit here today one way or another, of having mentioned it? And at this time the Vicar for Administration would have been --
A. Bishop Hughes.

Q. -- Bishop Hughes, correct?
A. Yeah, I don't recall.

Q. Okay. Were there other instances involving priests that you were dealing with because you had been assigned to maintain contact with those priests or follow those priests while they were sick or on administrative leave that you had also sought consultation from doctors concerning their -- their condition?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And, again, in those other -- about how many other instances, as of 1991, did you seek out consultation from other doctors?
A. I can't give you a number, but I would say that any time I thought that a priest was dealing with some emotional problems I would seek a consult [91] with a doctor to learn, you know, how he would understand the situation and what was the best way of trying to help this priest.

Q. Would you do that if the priest was suffering from physical problems and not emotional problems as well?
A. See, I probably wouldn't see a priest who had just physical problems, that wouldn't -- it was usually a priest who was dealing with vocational issues, emotional issues, living situation issues, relationship issues and the sexual misconduct issues.

Q. And those would be the types of priests that would be given to you to follow or to supervise?
A. Well, it wouldn't be to supervise --

Q. All right.
A. -- it would be to assist in some way.

Q. All right. I'm sorry, to follow or to assist, is that a better way of characterizing it?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. The -- and you had -- you said before that this was not a second opinion but a consultation. What's the distinction that you see between the two? [92]
A. A second opinion would be that we would require the man to have another assessment or diagnosis by another individual, whereas this was not requiring that; this was helping me understand his own doctor's understanding and diagnosis.

Q. Okay. And what was the relationship that you had -- and I mean you in your, you know, capacities as a -- as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel and a priest of the Archdiocese -- had with Ned Cassem?
A. What kind of relationship? Basically, you know, I would consult with him, so it was a working relationship, a helpful relationship.

Q. Okay. And, you know, as of 1991, do you have any idea of how frequently you were in contact with Dr. Cassem?
A. In 1991? I can't classify that. I mean I can't remember back then, but, you know, I would probably meet with him on a regular basis. I'm going to say maybe I would sit down with him and talk about three or four instances or sometimes it would be a telephone call. And so that could be every six weeks or -- it's really -- depends on what my agenda [93] was.

Q. Okay. But it wasn't a weekly --
A. No.

Q. -- thing?
A. No.

Q. It was more a monthly or --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- month and a half type --
A. Yes.

Q. -- regular contact?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. Now, in the second paragraph you say that "My sense is Paul would like to have a permanent status with the diocese, such as permanent disability, so that he will not have to wonder whether he has to get any better or be required to return to active ministry sometime in the future." And then you say "My sense is that the Archdiocese, in light of Paul's health and difficulties, would not want to press him to return here to active ministry." Do you see --
A. Yes.

Q. -- that sentence? [94]
When you say -- you make a distinction between problems of his health and, you know, quote, difficulties that Paul was having. When you refer to difficulties, what -- or when you refer to difficulties back in 1991, what were you referring to?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I would think that -- and my basic sense is his difficulty was his relationship with the diocese and his sense of, you know, not being assisted or really having the helpful relationship that he ought to have, his resistance to returning to the diocese to do ministry or living in the diocese. So there was this real difficult he had about -- very basic, I'm going to say, relationship.

Q. Okay. And had you made a decision at this point that you didn't want Paul Shanley to return to the Boston Archdiocese?
A. That wasn't my decision as much as it was my understanding of where he was in terms of his health, in terms of his own relationship with the diocese and that it would be counterproductive at this time, you know, to recommend that he return when [95] we have all the understanding of what's happening to him out there.

Q. So is it my understanding -- or let me ask you: Was the issue of Paul Shanley coming back to Boston and assuming active ministry at some point a closed issue at this point?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't see that, I don't recall that. I think it was more at this time, you know, it's not good for Paul to come back here, it's not going to be helpful to him.

Q. Okay. Was Dr. Cassem -- strike that.
As of October 31st, 1991, you were also involved in your official capacity with priests who were accused of sexual misconduct, is that correct?
A. Was it my official capacity, is that what you said?

Q. Well, as part of your duties, you were involved with priests that were accused of sexual misconduct, correct?
A. Yes, I was, along with the Vicar for Administration at that time.

Q. Right. And did you use Dr. Cassem as a [96] resource in dealing with priests who were involved with sexual misconduct as of that time?
A. I would think so because I was dealing with some of those men.

Q. Okay. Is it your testimony that your referral of priests to Dr. Cassem went beyond just priests who were involved with sexual misconduct?
A. Much more beyond that, yeah.

Q. Okay. Can you think of other instances where you brought Dr. Cassem to consult when the issue did not involve sexual misconduct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. I'm not going to ask you, obviously, to name --
A. Good.

Q. -- those priests.
Now, in the last paragraph you talk about breaking bread and "talk about some interesting stories." Do you see that reference?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any recollection of what you were referring to?
A. When we -- when I consulted, we used to [97] go out to supper together.

Q. Okay. And do you --
A. Interesting stories would be my -- how do you call it -- yeah, the questions I had about dealing with priests.

Q. Okay. Did interesting stories refer specifically to Paul Shanley in the context of that letter?
A. It doesn't exclude him, but I don't think it intentionally includes him. It says some interesting stories, so that could be about some of the priests I was dealing with.

Q. Okay. And, again, is it your testimony that as of the time that you made this referral to Dr. Cassem in October of 1991, you had no idea that there were allegations of sexual misconduct that had been brought against Paul Shanley?
A. I had no idea.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Why don't we take a break right now.
MR. MIELKE: Off the record.
(Recess.)
MR. MIELKE: We're back on the record. [98]

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Bishop, you were saying before the break that you would get together with Dr. Cassem and have dinner, with respect to his response when you brought him into consult, is that correct?
A. Initially that's what I was doing; then later I'd go to his office, yeah.

Q. Okay. But you would actually meet with him as part of the consultation process, is that --
A. Yes.

Q. That's a fair statement?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Once again, I threw you for a loop because sometimes I hesitate in the questions; that's not your doing, that's mine.
A. Okay.

Q. And did you -- and were there -- was it your practice, also, to get a written report from Dr. Cassem, or did that vary?
A. Most often it was not written.

Q. Okay. Were there occasions when you did get a written report from Dr. Cassem?
A. If I sent him a letter, he would [99] respond by letter, yes.

Q. Okay. So it wouldn't be that you would send him a letter and then you would meet and have dinner or meet at his office and there would not be any written follow-up; if you sent him a letter, his practice was to respond in writing to you?
A. I think in general I would say that because most of the time we would meet and I would bring my questions or my concerns or my stories and we would talk about them there.

Q. So how did you determine when to send him a letter versus just to schedule a meeting with him and bring up issues at that time?
A. Are you looking for a working principle or something?

Q. I'm hoping to get one.
A. I think in this instance I would have written him a letter because I wanted him to read the letter from Dr. Shaner.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 63 was marked for identification.)

A. Okay. [100]

Q. You recognize this document to be the response from Dr. Cassem to your letter of October 31st, 1991, which we've previously marked, is that correct, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this letter was written approximately two and a half weeks after your letter to him, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall, as you sit here today, whether you had any communications or conversations with Dr. Cassem in between the two letters?
A. No, I don't.

Q. And just so I'm clear, when you say you don't, you don't recall one way or another?
A. I don't recall one way or another.

Q. Okay. Would it have been your normal practice, or was there a normal practice of getting together with Dr. Cassem to discuss the matter orally before receiving a written response from him?
A. There was no practice, no.

Q. Okay. Had you ever consulted with [101] Dr. Cassem regarding Paul Shanley prior to your sending him the correspondence dated October 31st, 1991?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay. And, again, so I understand, I don't know means you don't have a recollection one way or another?
A. I don't have a recollection of talking to him about him beforehand, one way or another, right.

Q. Okay. Do you know whether anyone else other than you, prior to November 16, 1991 -- and when I say "anybody else," I mean anybody else at the Boston Archdiocese -- had a conversation with Dr. Cassem regarding Paul Shanley?
A. Do I know that anybody -- no, I don't know.

Q. Would it, in the normal course of your interaction with Dr. Cassem, if he had heard from somebody else at the Boston Archdiocese regarding Paul Shanley, would that be something that he would have raised with you?
A. Put it this way: I don't recall him [102] ever telling me that he had conversations about a priest with another person from the Boston Archdiocese.

Q. Okay. Now, I want to direct your attention to the second paragraph of his letter to you.
A. Uh-huh.

Q. He starts "At core is what causes his disability. It certainly is not his hiatus hernia. 'Anxiety neurosis' is not a diagnosis any longer made by modern psychiatric diagnostic nosology, but Dr. Shaner's sense of it is conveyed, namely, that Father Shanley is primarily crippled by his psychiatric illness."
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Okay. Did you have an understanding back then of what Dr. Cassem was referring to as what his psychiatric illness was, what it entailed?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Did I have an understanding back then? I don't recall.

Q. Do you recall having any further communications with Dr. Cassem regarding what [103] Paul Shanley's psychiatric illness might have entailed?
A. I don't recall them, no.

Q. Okay. Do you recall discussing Paul Shanley with Dr. Cassem ever again?
A. I don't recall.

Q. So is it fair to say that, other than this letter, you recall no other communications with Dr. Cassem regarding Paul Shanley?
A. I don't recall any, right.

Q. Okay. And, again, that means that they might have happened, they may not have; you have no recollection one way or another?
A. Right, I just have no recollection.

Q. Okay. Would it -- did you have a practice and would it have been your practice, when you see a reference to psychiatric illness, to have picked up the phone and had a further or a follow-up conversation with Dr. Cassem regarding the contents of this letter and regarding that term?
A. That would have, you know, triggered my desire to find out further from him what he meant by a psychiatric illness in terms of Paul Shanley [104] because it's clear he read more into anxiety neurosis than I did.

Q. Okay. But you don't have a memory of whether you did follow up with respect to that with respect to --
A. I just don't have the memory, but it would have been practice, yes.

Q. Okay. So your practice would have been to follow-up, but you don't have --
A. An understanding --

Q. I'm sorry, let me --
A. That's right.

Q. -- let me see if I can phrase the question just so I can understand for the record.
It would have been your practice to have had a follow-up communication with Dr. Cassem, but as you sit here today, you don't have a recollection one way or another --
A. Right.

Q. -- of that having occurred?
A. Right.

Q. Dr. Cassem raises a question two sentences later of whether Father Shanley should be [105] diagnosed via a formal psychiatric consultation. Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And, again, do you recall -- strike that.
First of all, do you recall receiving this letter back in 1991?
A. The letter looks familiar to me, yes.

Q. Do you recall or do you have any memory of, back in 1991, a suggestion or a question, rather, being raised as to whether Paul Shanley should be sent for a formal diagnosis?
A. Do I recall whether a decision was made?

Q. No, no, that a question had been raised about the issue of whether Paul Shanley should be sent for a formal psychiatric diagnosis.
A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you, in response to this -- in this letter seek to have Paul Shanley engage in a psychiatric consultation, as Dr. Cassem raised the question?
A. My memory is that I pressed him to get [106] some help and so that I was -- I don't recall whether it was -- I don't recall the specifics, whether it began with the consultation and then began with "We'll find somebody to treat you," but I remember pressing him that he needed some psychiatric help.

Q. Okay. And do you remember what -- when you say you "pressed him," what form that took?
A. Like?

Q. Did you write to him? Did you call him on the phone? Did you fly out there and meet with him?
A. I didn't fly out to meet with him, so it was either by telephone or by writing.

Q. Okay. And as you sit here today, when you were pressing him to get help, do you have in your mind what the nature of his problem was?
A. As I say, I don't recall at this time having an understanding what the nature of his problem was, except that it was chronic anxiety neurosis. I do recall the sense that he was somatizing his illnesses.

Q. I'm sorry, that he --
A. He was somatizing his emotional [107] problems.

Q. And when you say somatizing --
A. That some of his physical difficulties were caused by his emotional state.

Q. Okay.
A. And so -- but did I have a clear understanding of what his psychiatric illness is? I don't recall that, I don't.

Q. Okay. And --
A. I knew that later there was a diagnosis, but I don't think it was at this time.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what that later diagnosis was?
A. No, I just know that one took place.

Q. And do you know who -- do you know who did the evaluation that resulted in that diagnosis?
A. He went to the Institute for Living for an evaluation.

Q. Okay. So when you refer to that later diagnosis, you're talking about the Institute for Living diagnosis --
A. Yes.

Q. -- which took place at a subsequent [108] period of time?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall -- strike that.
Again, so I'm clear, is it that you have no recollection one way or another whether you pressed Paul Shanley to also, in addition to getting -- strike that. Let me ask the question better.
You say you remember pressing Paul Shanley to get some help, and when you say "help," you're talking about therapy services, I take it, or counseling services, correct?
A. I remember him pressing to get some help. I think that since Ned Cassem recommended a psychiatric consultation or a psychiatric assessment, that that would have been the first thing I would have pressed. My sense is that he must have opposed it because I remember pressing him to get some psychiatric therapy then.

Q. Okay.
A. Yeah.

Q. All right. So your recollection is, as you sit here today, that you pressed him both to [109] get -- to have that work-up done which would result in a diagnosis --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- he opposed that, and then you pressed him to get some therapy?
A. Uh-huh, yes.

Q. Okay. Going on, in the third full paragraph, he talks about the fact that "Palm Springs is not ordinarily associated with a life of hardship, so that finding a way to get someone to support you financially to live there without having to work is sufficiently appealing to make a liar and manipulator of at least a few people. To answer this question" -- I assume the question refers to whether Paul Shanley was a liar and manipulator -- "in the negative for Father Shanley there is insufficient information in Dr. Shaner's letter. You and others may have enough supplementary information to answer the question."
Do you recall ever communicating with Dr. Cassem -- strike that.
Do you recall having an understanding of what supplementary information you needed and [110] whether you had that information regarding Paul Shanley?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Do I recall having information about Paul Shanley?

Q. The kind of supplementary information referred to by Dr. Cassem in his letter.
A. Well, I'm not clear what he meant by "supplementary information," except my own and other people's understanding of Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. Do you -- again, would that have been something that, as a matter of practice, you would have picked up the phone and talked to Dr. Cassem about if you saw that in the letter?
A. It wouldn't be that I would pick up a phone; he and I would have talked about this at some time.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, pick up the phone or else meet with?
A. Right, meet with or wait until I meet with him the next time, yeah.

Q. Okay. So normally that would be something that you would raise? [111]
A. Oh, yeah.

Q. Okay. Did you have -- had you made a determination, as of November 16th, 1991, whether Paul Shanley was a liar or a manipulator?
A. I think, in my assessment of that, that I said I found it hard to believe that he was a liar and a manipulator since he tended to be a person that I would describe as kind of scrupulous about things, scrupulous.

Q. And when you say "scrupulous about things," in what way do you mean?
A. That he would really be very exact about always telling the truth or being direct or -- this is the image that he had, and my understanding of him he's a person who would always press for clarity and sticking to what is required. So he would -- he could be kind of overly exact about things.

Q. Did you see the need -- where Dr. Cassem brings up the subject of his having a psychiatric illness, did you see the need to go look at Father Shanley's confidential file? And now I'm talking about the one that was maintained by the [112] chancery at this point.
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.

Q. Why? Why wouldn't it be something that you would want to look into to see whether there was supplementary information that would have been contained in the confidential file that would help put the pieces of the puzzle together that you would otherwise have not known?
A. It just did not dawn on me at that time that Paul Shanley would have, you know, had other information in a confidential file about him.

Q. And -- sorry, go ahead.
A. No, that's it.

Q. And, again, at this time you're dealing with other priests who -- fair to say many other priests that have issues that have arisen regarding sexual misconduct and other misconduct that had resulted in their having confidential files maintained by the chancery on them, correct?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes. [113]

Q. And so it would have been something that routinely you were aware -- you know, you were aware of; in other words, the existence of confidential files on priests, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And to -- wouldn't it have been prudent on your part to at least make a determination at this point as to whether even a confidential file on Paul Shanley existed?
A. You know, he had been assigned a pastor. My understanding is that he voluntarily left it, he was ill, and he was given a medical leave. There was nothing in my mind that surfaced that there was anything about Paul Shanley, up to this time, that was questionable in terms of his pastoral ministry in the Archdiocese.
He, as I've said before, he's one who would push the envelope in terms of reaching out to alienated, marginalized. Some people thought that he went too far, but in terms of, you know, doing pastoral ministry, there was never any question. And so when he left, I just did not assume that there would be anything questionable about him at this [114] time.

Q. Okay. Who would have known that there was a confidential file at this time that was being maintained on Paul Shanley? Who would have known, yeah, at this time, being November of 1991, if there was a confidential file that was being maintained?
A. I don't know.

Q. Bishop Hughes have known that?
A. I don't know.

Q. Would you have expected Bishop Hughes to know that?
A. I wouldn't expect Bishop Hughes to know that unless he had to -- he had reason to go to see that there was a confidential file.

Q. Okay. Same question with respect to the Cardinal, would you have expected that Cardinal Law would have known that?
A. Not unless he had reason to go to see whether there was reason to see whether there was a confidential file, he thought there was reason to check.

Q. Okay. You mentioned, back in response to questions at the beginning of the deposition, that [115] when -- that you put in your own personal confidential file issues involving personal issues with priests, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. When you, in your capacity as Secretary of Ministerial Personnel, were given the Wilma Higgs' letter, which we've discussed in this deposition, back in 1985 and asked to respond to the Wilma Higgs' letter, was that the kind of document that would have gone into the chancery files or into your own personal files?
A. I probably would have given that letter back to the Vicar for Administration, so I'm not sure where it ended up, honestly, because I think it came from the Cardinal, and usually that stuff was handled sometimes and most times through the Vicar for Administration. I remember discussing that letter with him, so that my sense is is that he probably got the material back.

Q. Okay. And you would not keep a copy of that material in any of the other files, either your own personal files or other chancery files?
A. I can't say, honestly. I don't think I [116] would have been instrumental except to keep something in my own file, but whether I did or not, I don't know.

Q. So does that mean that if you were assigned to look into a matter, because something was not acknowledged at the Cardinal's residence and so therefore given to you to respond to it, that your practice was to give that correspondence back to the Vicar for Administration?
A. I think that this matter was being handled in conjunction with the Vicar for Administration. That's why I claim that it probably would go back to him, most likely.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. All right. Why don't we take the lunch break right now, if that makes some sense.

MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Luncheon recess.)

MR. MIELKE: We are back on the record.

MR. SHERMAN: Mark this, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 64 was marked for identification.)

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: All set, Bishop? [117]
A. All set.

Q. Okay. Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 64, this is a memo you drafted in December 1991 to Bishop Hughes, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. What occasioned your getting Bishop Hughes involved in this issue?
A. Again, it would be that, you know, I wasn't responsible ultimately for making recommendations; I would be doing that in conjunction with the Vicar for Administration. So he would be the one who would be dealing with this as well as myself.

Q. In situations such as this, was it normally your practice to make a recommendation to the Vicar for Administration regarding issues of disability, permanent or partial?
A. No, but he would be asking me for my opinion. So that if I didn't give him one, he would ask me for one so usually I offered them.

Q. Okay. In the paragraph that follows the a., b., c., where it starts "It's clear to me that Father Shanley is a sick person," when you're [118] referring to the phrase "sick person," what are you referring to?
A. Well, I guess the overall assessment of Dr. Shaner and Dr. Cassem and my own sense.

Q. Okay. And what was your own sense that was separate and apart from what Dr. Shaner and Dr. Cassem had to say?
A. It wouldn't be separate; it would be confirming what they said, that he basically is a sick person. You know, he feels alienated from the diocese, he feels distanced, he feels unsupported. He has all his neuroses and psychiatric problems plus all his medical problems.

Q. Okay. Drawing your attention to the next to the last full paragraph where -- or maybe it's third to the last where it says "Based on Dr. Shaner and Dr. Cassem's observations" -- do you see that paragraph?
A. Yes.

Q. -- there's an issue that's raised there about maintaining contact with Father Shanley. What was the -- what were the considerations surrounding that issue? [119]
A. Again, it would be that I thought that the more isolated he was on his own the worse he was going to get and the more distanced he would be. So that, you know, the effort is to engage him and to really try to keep in contact with him, and so the more we could do that, the better off I thought he would be as well as the diocese would be.

Q. So is it fair to say that your desire in that was to in fact maintain contact as opposed to not maintain contact?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And you see that there is a note back from Bishop Hughes to you handwritten at the bottom where it says "Jack," and if I can read this correctly, it says "I would be inclined to favor partial disability," that's number one. Number two, "I think that we need to keep contact even if rebuffed." Did I read that correctly?
A. That's the way I would read it too, yes.

Q. Okay. And essentially Bishop Hughes, with respect to contact, is endorsing your view in terms of maintaining contact with Father Shanley? [120]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 65 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, I'll represent to you that this letter becomes also part of subsequent correspondence that you're involved with that we'll get to in a bit, but my question is do you remember seeing this letter back in 1991?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Do you remember at all being involved in the issue of whether -- where Father Shanley was living and the fact that the -- Our Lady of Solitude in Palm Springs said that they hadn't seen Father Shanley in a year? Do you remember that issue coming up, whether or not -- irrespective of whether you've seen this letter?
A. No, I don't recall this at all.

MR. MIELKE: Could we go off the record.

(Off the record.)

MR. MIELKE: Back on the record.

Q. Bishop, do you remember the topic of [121] Paul Shanley not being seen by the parish in Palm Springs coming up around this time?
A. No.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Let's have this marked, please, as the next exhibit.

(McCormack Exhibit 66 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set?
A. All set.

Q. Okay. Having read what has now been marked as Exhibit 66, does that refresh your recollection in any way regarding the subject of Paul Shanley's whereabouts coming up as a topic around this time?
A. This does not raise my confusion -- my recollection about his whereabouts as much as it raises my recollection that I think Father Shanley, in August of '91, informed me or Father Ryan that he had -- I think it was Father Ryan that he had taken a room.

Q. Right.
A. And I was surprised, but then I learned [122] that he was still in residence at St. Anne's but that he had taken a room as well.

Q. Right.
A. And I think Father Ryan was sending his salary plus his room and board to him at the new address in Palm Springs, and I said, you know, that this is not to happen, that he didn't have permission to go there and that he's not to receive his room and board as part; the only thing he's supposed to receive is his stipend.

Q. Okay.
A. I think Father Ryan then took this initiative on his own, my sense is, to send these checks to Our Lady of Solitude rectory -- rectory -- parish, but I had no -- I have no recollection that we were confused about where Father Shanley was. I think Father Ryan was confused.

Q. Okay. So if I understand it, that you think that Father Ryan thought that Father Shanley was at Our Lady of Solitude in Palm Springs when in fact he was living in an apartment, but that was not your understanding at the time?
A. When he was both in residence at [123] St. Anne's in San Bernardino --

Q. Yeah.
A. -- plus he took that apartment in Palm Springs and he took it that he -- my sense is he took it that he moved out of San Bernardino, he was in Palm Springs, he sent his full board and room and the salary to Palm Springs. I said he's not to do that, that's not correct, he should only be getting his monthly stipend. And now how Our Lady of Solitude got involved in this, I don't know.

Q. Okay. That was my next question. So you don't know where the notion of Our Lady of Solitude had come from?
A. No.

Q. But at least in your mind, as I understand it, the confusion was not yours, it was Father -- it was Father Ryan's?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If you flip over to the memo that's attached to this, which is the memo from Fred Ryan to Bishop Hughes, you see a handwritten notation in the margins. Do you know whose handwriting that is? [124]
A. Mine.

Q. Okay. And that says "without permission," is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What's that in reference to?
A. I think that -- I'm not clear whether its to -- reference to the housing allowance and stipend being sent to Father Shanley or whether it's Father Shanley -- I would think that that's it or whether it was a change of address was the other half of it. My sense is is that Father Ryan took the initiative to send the housing allowance and stipend to Palm Springs without any kind of direction from me.

Q. Okay. So it's your understanding that the "without permission" went to the sending of the funds, not the fact that Father Shanley had switched residences without clearing it with the Archdiocese beforehand?
A. Right.

Q. Okay. If you go to the last page, in the second full paragraph of the cheers line it says "As you will see, it is difficult in dealing with [125] unusual special cases, since there is no easy way for my tracking on such." Do you have any understanding of what the reference to unusual special cases is?
A. As I read this and as I recall, Father Ryan, see, would normally handle Clergy Fund cases, but in this instance it was Cardinal Law who had asked me if I'd maintain contact with Father Shanley and handle all his contacts with the diocese. And so at this time Father Ryan is referring to this as an unusual special case.

Q. And was there a reason why it was not Father Ryan but it was you who was assigned the task of maintaining contact with Father Shanley?
A. Oh, that was the Cardinal's decision, so I can't speak for him.

Q. But did you have an understanding of why you were asked as opposed to Father Ryan?
A. My -- it was my own understanding that Father Shanley had, you know, not only physical problems, but there was all this relationship with the diocese and all his -- that kind of emotional state he was in as well.

Q. And what did that -- [126]
A. Father Ryan would normally not handle a case like that.

Q. Okay. Were special cases also cases that included those where priests were accused of sexual abuse?
A. I don't know; I don't think so. I mean I'm not -- no, because I wouldn't be handling their stipends the way I was handling Father Ryan's -- excuse me, Father Shanley's.

Q. Okay. Let me go back. I left out something. Back to 66, the cover memo, paragraph c. It says "Perhaps the 'enclosure' in Jack White's recent medical bills, and the answering message has put my mind 'out of orbit'.... Just trying to get the details straight!!!!" Do you have any recollection of what that's in reference to?
A. No.

(McCormack Exhibit 67 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, actually before we get to this document, I thought of another question I wanted to ask you as to Exhibit 66, and that is that you mentioned that memo in -- or that letter in August or [127] so that Father Shanley had said that he was taking an apartment until November 1st in Palm Springs. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. In Exhibit 66 we're now at the end of December, actually two days before Christmas, and he's obviously still in Palm Springs, despite having said he was only taking his apartment through November. Am I interpreting that correctly?
A. What are you referring to that says that?

Q. The date of the memo.
A. My I Exhibit 66?

Q. Yeah.
A. Okay. But this request goes back to August, I think, and not to the fact that he's still there. I'm not saying he's not there, but I don't think that this points out that he is there.

Q. Okay. So as of this time -- as of this time, being December 23rd, 1991, you don't recall whether or not he was still in Palm Springs or he wasn't still in Palm Springs?
A. My recollection is that he was living [128] at St. Anne's in San Bernardino and yet taken this room in Palm Springs to be near his doctors. My sense of that was is that he spent maybe a day or two days there a week and that he would be back at St. Anne's in San Bernardino. Maybe he spent more days a week, but my sense was that he hadn't moved to an apartment, that he had a room and that he was -- and that it was supposed to end November 1st; now, whether it did or not, I don't know.

Q. Okay. Do you remember being concerned at the time as to whether in fact it did end when you saw the correspondence which is Exhibit 66?
A. No, because I think I didn't address it as a confusion about where Father Shanley was, that the confusion was more about a stipend was being -- and room and board was being sent to him in care of Palm Springs. That was not what was to be done.

Q. Okay.
A. And this memo, I think, refers much more to Our Lady of Solitude than it does to the actual checks being sent to Palm Springs.

Q. Okay. Okay. Turning now to Exhibit 67 -- [129]
A. Okay.

Q. -- what do you recognize that document as being?
A. As a confidential report from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin to me about allegations regarding Father Shanley.

Q. Okay. And those allegations were allegations of sexual misconduct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And it refers to certain events in July 28th, 1993. It says "Initial contacts with JBM via Scott Hendricks." Do you know who Scott Hendricks is?
A. He's a priest of the Archdiocese.

Q. Okay. And what was his involvement with respect to the subject matter of this memo?
A. My remembrance is is that he knew of a person who had, you know, concern or report to make about Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. And among other things contained in this memo, and I'm referring specifically to the notations under the date September 3rd, is that Paul Shanley had, and I'll refer to it as, a boy [130] masturbate in front of him and that later on in Paul Shanley's bedroom there was mutual genital fondling and that one of the complaining boys had ended up being one to share a bed with Paul Shanley, you saw allegations --
A. Yes.

Q. -- such as that in the memo.
And these would have been serious allegations as far as you were concerned, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Was this the first you became aware of sexual misconduct allegations being leveled against Paul Shanley?
A. I'm not sure this is the first, but this was the time. I'd have to have the context for the whole thing, but it was around this time in 1993. My recollection is that we got three or four reports almost at a similar -- within a few days of each other.

Q. Okay. So whether or not this is the first, it is around this --
A. Yes.

Q. -- this time? [131]
A. It's one of the first.

Q. Okay. It wasn't -- it was in the fall of 1993 or, again, around that time that you first became aware that there were accusations of sexual misconduct being made against Father Shanley, correct?
A. Yes, right.

Q. Now, when you got this memo in September of 1993, what did you do? Strike that. Let me ask you another question.
In September of 1993, were you the delegate as of that time?
A. If I wasn't, it was near that time, yes, yeah.

Q. Would you have been functioning in a capacity that was analogous to the capacity that you function in when you were the delegate?
A. Again, you know, I would have been handling many, many cases. Now, whether Bishop Hughes could have also handled cases at this time and -- so that's why I don't want to say I handled all the cases.

Q. Okay. And that was actually going to [132] be my next question and I'll ask it anyway. Do you remember whether Bishop Hughes was involved in this particular case involving Father Shanley?
A. No, I don't.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what you did in response to this memo?
A. No, I'd need something to help prick my memory.

Q. Okay. Do you remember, again, your reaction with respect to this memo regarding Father Shanley?
A. No, I don't recall. I think that -- I wish I could, but, no, I don't actually recall what I actually felt.

Q. Okay. Did -- and, again, did you, either at this time or around this time, when these allegations regarding Paul Shanley first came in, seek out whether there was a confidential file being maintained by -- maintained in the chancery on Father Shanley?
A. At this time?

Q. Yeah.
A. I can't say that I went to the [133] confidential file then, but I'm sure that around this time I went to the confidential file because it would have been the practice.

Q. Okay. And do you have a specific recollection of receiving and reading the confidential file that was in existence on Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. You have no memory of that at all?
A. (Witness shakes head.)

Q. Do you have any memory of seeing any documents that were contained in the confidential file on Paul Shanley?
A. No.

Q. If I told you that the correspondence from Wilma Higgs, which we had referred to earlier, was in that confidential file, would that refresh your recollection in any way as to what was in the file?
A. No.

Q. If I told you that there was correspondence from a person named McGeady to Cardinal Medeiros regarding Paul Shanley in that [134] file, would that refresh your recollection as to what was in the file?
A. No.

Q. Okay. If I was to tell you that there was correspondence from a person named Sweeney in the file, would that refresh your recollection?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You were -- at the time you got this allegation, though, did you recall having been brought into the Higgs issue; in other words, the issue regarding the letter that Wilma Higgs had sent and the response?
A. Do I recall at this time --

Q. When you got that --
A. -- that there was a letter from Mrs. Higgs?

Q. Yes.
A. I don't remember thinking that or about that, no.

Q. Do you remember, at the time that you read these allegations, thinking about the fact that there was a letter in which Paul Shanley had talked about, you know, man/boy love and that the child in [135] those instances was the seducer?
A. No, I don't remember -- I don't remember thinking these things. I think my attention would have been to this.

Q. And what would have been your practice in response to getting a memorandum from Sister Catherine such as this?
A. The practice would be is that we would take this and we would sit down and decide how credible is the allegation and then ask Father Shanley to respond to it and then determine, you know, further about its credibility.

Q. Okay. Would your practice have been to actually talk to the complainant, or somebody under your authority talk to the complainant, after the initial memo was prepared?
A. Sister Catherine would normally maintain contact with the complainants, yes.

Q. Okay. And do you recall whether that was -- that practice was carried through with respect to Father Shanley in response to this memo in 1993, which is Exhibit 67?
A. I don't. [136]

Q. Okay. Do you know if anybody ever talked to Father Shanley about the allegations contained in this memorandum?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was that yes, you know somebody talked to him?
A. Yes, I do know that he was told that there were allegations made about him, right.

Q. Who told him?
A. It was either I or Father Kevin Deely; I'm not sure who actually contacted -- I don't recall the actual contact, but I know he was contacted and we asked him to come home.

Q. Okay. And who is Father Kevin Deely?
A. He was assisting me at the time and he was a member of the staff of the Clergy Personnel office.

Q. Did he have a formal title --
A. He was assistant director of Clergy Personnel, but he also was assisting me in the delegate's office, and as I say, I'm not sure about the time, but I know that he assisted me, you know, in '93, '94 for a period of time. [137]

Q. Okay. And you said Father Shanley was asked to come home?
A. Yes.

Q. And what was the purpose of asking him to come home?
A. For an evaluation.

Q. Okay. So is it your testimony that even prior to somebody contacting Father Shanley the decision had been made to ask him to come home for an evaluation?
A. No, no, I didn't say that.

Q. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead. Tell me what the sequencing was.
A. Well, I think that contact was made with him.

Q. Him being?
A. Father Shanley.

Q. Okay.
A. And that -- and the allegations were reported to him, this would be the practice, and then we would ask him for a response. And in light of that response, we would then determine what other steps should be taken, and in this instance it was [138] decided to ask him to come home for an evaluation.

Q. If -- was it also part of your responsibilities to help arrange for a lawyer for a priest if there were an allegation of sexual abuse?
A. We would tell him that if he wanted a lawyer, that, you know, there was several lawyers who would be willing to assist, and if he wanted one, we would then furnish him two or three names.

Q. Okay. And was it the practice of the Archdiocese at this time to also pay for a lawyer for the priest to assist in defending these allegations?
A. No, it's not the practice of the Archdiocese to pay for a lawyer, no.

Q. Okay. Who paid for a lawyer?
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry?
MR. ROGERS: Let's be clear.

Q. I'm sorry, at this -- in this period of time for a priest that was accused of sexual misconduct, who was paying for that priest's lawyer?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: The priest would pay for the lawyer.

Q. Okay. And was that practice uniform [139] throughout? In other words, were there exceptions to that practice, or was that the uniform practice?
A. The uniform practice was is that if the priest got a lawyer that he would have to pay for the lawyer.

Q. Okay. And it was your practice, as you said, to provide the names of two or three lawyers who were available to do this kind of work for a priest, is that --
A. Yes.

Q. -- a fair characterization?
And then it was up to the priest to pick --
A. Yes.

Q. All right. Let me finish because I --
A. I'm sorry.

Q. No, I -- that was, again, my fault; I paused in the middle of it.
It was up to the priest then to pick whatever lawyer he was comfortable with?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did the Archdiocese ever loan money to priests to hire lawyers? [140]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My understanding is that the priests would talk to the Vicar for Administration to see whether he could -- if he was in need of funds, he would ask to see whether there was a source of funding where he could get a loan.

Q. Okay. But that loan was expected to be repaid?
A. I would think so, yes, right. I wasn't in on those negotiations.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 68 was marked for identification.)

A. Okay.

Q. Do you recognize that document, Bishop?
A. Well, it's my writing.

Q. And --
A. Yes.

Q. And what is marked as Exhibit 68 is a handwritten memo of notes of yours, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And this memo was drafted approximately one week after the memo from Sister [141] Catherine regarding the sexual misconduct allegations that had been made against Father Shanley, correct, that being the --
A. Yes, okay, yes.

Q. Okay. What was the purpose of this memo -- or these notes, I should say?
A. Probably the -- excuse me, not probably; this was to record the conversation that took place between Father Shanley and myself.

Q. Okay. So these notes referenced a telephone conversation that you had with Father Shanley, and would it have been that day, on October 4th, 1993?
A. I can't say exactly, but my sense was that it would be, yes.

Q. Either that day or shortly after --
A. Right.

Q. -- after the time that you talked to him?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And did that refresh your recollection as to who had the conversation with Father Shanley regarding the allegations of sexual [142] abuse referred to in Exhibit 67?
A. Yes.

Q. And that would be you that had the conversation?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And separate and apart from what's contained in these notes, do you have an independent recollection of that conversation with Paul Shanley, now having seen what is Exhibit 68?
A. No. This helps but not --

Q. Okay. Do you recall anything about that conversation that's not contained in these notes?
A. Do I recall? No.

Q. Let me ask you specifically. Do you recall what Father Shanley's attitude was towards the allegations when you spoke to him, his demeanor?
A. No.

Q. At this time can you estimate how many cases of clergy sexual misconduct you were dealing with?
MR. ROGERS: As of October 1993?
MR. SHERMAN: As of -- I'm sorry, yeah, [143] as of October 1993.
THE WITNESS: Is it myself as a person or the Archdiocese?

Q. How about you as a person?
A. That's kind of hard because, you know, others were involved in those cases so -- so it would be difficult. I would be -- you know, let's say that more and more I'm beginning to take responsibility for much of this, and whether I was the delegate by then or not, it was around this time. So that was becoming official what was already in place, even though the Vicar for Administration and another priest, let's say, were working on these matters as well. So it would be pretty hard for me to say what ones I was personally working on.

Q. How about then how many cases of clergy sexual misconduct were ongoing as of this time for the Archdiocese as a whole?
A. I'm estimating in saying this --
MR. ROGERS: Yes.

Q. Yeah.
A. No guess, but I'll estimate around 20 to 30. [144]

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say either you were personally handling those cases or you knew about those cases and may have been consulted in those cases?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Your first note says "Tell pastor" -- and, again, if I'm -- let me stop --
A. Excuse me, could I go back to that?

Q. Sure.
A. I knew about the cases, I was handling the cases. There could be a few that had been handled that I didn't know about.

Q. Okay.
A. I just wanted to make sure about that.

Q. But that would be the exception as opposed to the rule?
A. No, I think in the beginning, probably, particularly from between '85 and '91, '93, that, you know, these cases would be handled by the Vicar for Administration more than they were being handled by me, and it was only over a period of time that I took them on more and more.

Q. Once you became the delegate, if there [145]

145 was somebody else that was handling the case, you would have been informed about it, though, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So at least, as of the time --
A. Right.

Q. -- you became the delegate, you would have known of all the cases that had associated with them --
A. Sexual misconduct.

Q. -- clergy -- yeah, sexual abuse allegations? That's correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now, in your note on 68, in paragraph one -- and, again, if I read something incorrectly, please correct me -- it says, as I read it, "Tell pastor and Bishop in San Bernardino." Did I read that correctly?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Do you know what that's in reference to?
A. Most likely it's in reference to the fact that in the conversation I would be telling him [146] that I would be telling the pastor and the Bishop in San Bernardino about this allegation.

Q. And what was your purpose in informing the pastor and the Bishop in San Bernardino of the allegation?
A. Because he could no longer serve in ministry.

Q. Okay.
A. And that, you know, he had allegations of sexual misconduct.

Q. Why both the pastor and the Bishop?
A. Because both would be needed -- would need to know; now, whether I intended to call the Bishop right away or I asked the pastor -- it would be a conversation with the pastor immediately.

Q. Okay. And the expectation -- the expectation was that Father Shanley at that point would be removed from any ministerial duties that he was carrying out under their auspices?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you know whether you did indeed inform the pastor and the Bishop in San Bernardino at or around this time about the [147] allegation concerning Paul Shanley?
A. That's my recollection, yes.

Q. Okay. And you have a specific recollection of making that call or making those calls?
A. I don't have a specific recollection, but I have a recollection of informing people out there.

Q. In your second point you mention a "concern about publicity" and "- effect on self and church and family." Again, did I read that correctly?
A. I would say that was his concern.

Q. Okay. And his, being Paul Shanley's?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Why does that lead you to believe that that was his concern as opposed to yours?
A. Because I don't recall it being my concern.

Q. Okay. You weren't concerned about the publicity that might be attendant to these allegations having an effect on the church? [148]
A. Regarding Father Shanley?

Q. Yeah.
A. I don't recall that, no.

Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, your best recollection is the issue of concern about publicity was brought up by Father Shanley?
A. See, it's not a recollection, I'll say that; it's an impression.

Q. Okay. And what's the difference between recollection and impression?
A. Well, one is an impression -- I mean I don't recall him saying this, but when it says "effect on self and church and family," I do recall him talking about his family. I don't recall him talking about church or self, and so it's my impression. I don't recall myself saying that, either.

Q. Okay. And you don't have a recollection, I take it, of Father Shanley raising the issue of any effect of publicity on victims, for instance?
A. No, I don't recall that, either, no.

Q. Okay. Number three, you mention "move [149] out from St. Anne's" and then there's telephone numbers and address. Do you know what that's in reference to?
A. Well, my sense is is that I talked about him, that he would have to leave the rectory, to leave St. Anne's, there'd be no ministry, and so my sense is that now we're talking about where he could go.

Q. Okay. And was it clear where he could go from that notation?
A. My sense is is that these are places that he thought he would go. I'm sure that this was all a matter -- I'm sure that in a conversation like this he wasn't sure where he could go and so that he presented these as options.

Q. It looks like -- 619, I believe, is the area code for San Diego?
A. Yes.

Q. So it looks like from this, am I right, that he's actually giving you a telephone number and an address in San Diego that he could go to?
A. That would be one of the options, yes.

Q. Okay. I understood from your prior [150] testimony that you wanted to tell him that he needed to come back to Boston?
A. Yes.

Q. Were you permitting him to move to San Diego as opposed to coming back to Boston?
A. No, this was probably an intervening place to stay because he could not stay there for the weekend.

Q. He would not stay there for what?
A. For the weekend.

Q. Weekend?
A. Yes, yeah. In other words, he would have to come out and he could not do any more parish ministry, and so the idea is where would you stay until you come home?

Q. Why did you know that this was a weekend?
A. No, this is not a weekend, no, but he couldn't do parish ministry on the weekend.

Q. Okay. I see, I see, okay. There's also a reference to Jack White in Palm Springs?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what that's about? [151]
A. That would be another option he probably mentioned about where he could stay.

Q. Okay. So in number three he's mentioning possibilities, going down to San Diego, staying with Jack White, and after that it says "Bp," and I can't read what that --
A. I think it says "Beaumont - help out San Gorgonio" and then "Scripps Ranch - help out," and my recollection is is that he must have been helping out at these places because I do remember part of the conversation being that there was no one around to say masses and that I think the pastor was away or something like that, and so we got into a conversation about who was going to help out.

Q. Okay. So you do recall something about that conversation?
A. I do recall that, yeah.

Q. Okay. Does that lead you to have any other recollection about what his demeanor was or attitude towards these allegations was during that conversation?
A. No, it doesn't.

Q. Do you recall whether he denied them? [152]
A. I don't recall him denying them.

Q. And do you recall whether he admitted them?
A. I don't recall him admitting them, either.

Q. Okay. Number four, it says "Paul, call Bishop on Thursday" and then it says, I believe underneath, it says "masses at coordinator"?
A. I think that's part of the trying to arrange for someone, again, trying to arrange for someone to take the masses in that parish since he couldn't remain there. And the coordinator would be the person in the parish who was coordinating the pastoral activities of the parish while the pastor was absent.

Q. Okay. Number five?
A. That would be I would try to arrange an advisor or monitor, someone to stay in contact with Father Shanley.

Q. Okay. Did the subject of Father Shanley's running youth retreats come up during the course of that conversation?
A. I don't recall, but in the conversation [153] he could do no public ministry.

Q. Okay. And that would have included --
A. Included that --

Q. -- included youth retreats?
A. Yes.

Q. And when were you anticipating Father Shanley was coming back -- well, actually, let me strike that. Let's go onto the next and then I'll ask you.
Number six was that you wanted Father Shanley to return no later than October 16th, 1993 so that would have been approximately two weeks, a little less than two weeks --
A. Two weeks.

Q. -- from the date of this memo?
A. Correct.
MR. ROGERS: Done the question?
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. Okay. There's a notation with an address of Theresa Shanley underneath.
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And who did you understand [154] Theresa Shanley to be?
A. Either his sister or his sister-in-law.

Q. Okay. Now, in number five you're talking about arranging an advisor and monitor. Was that somebody in Boston or is that somebody in California?
A. I really don't remember.

Q. Was it your practice to assign a monitor out there if the priest was expected to be returned to Boston in a -- you know, in a relatively short period of time?
A. I don't think a practice had developed, so I can't say whether there was or not.

Q. And there's a notation to the left, in the left margin of number five, that looks like "Ed" or "El."
A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know what that's a reference to?
A. No.

Q. Okay. Just one other question. During that conversation with Paul Shanley that you had on or about October 4th, did the subject of a lawyer come up in that conversation that you can recall? [155]
A. I know that a lawyer came into the conversation; whether it came into the conversation that day, I don't know.

Q. Okay.
MR. SHERMAN: Mark this, please.

(McCormack Exhibit 69 was marked for identification.)

Q. You've had a chance to review what has now been marked Exhibit 69, is that correct, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And is this, once again, another memo that you made of a telephone conversation that you had with Paul Shanley at or about October 8th, 1993?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And fair to say that you knew that Paul Shanley at that point was in San Diego since that's the 619 area code?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, in number one the name of a lawyer does come up, and that's Tim O'Neill, is that correct?
A. Correct. [156]

Q. Do you know where the notion of hiring Tim O'Neill originated?
A. Oh, I'm sure it came from the Archdiocese, but I don't know from whom.

Q. Do you know whether it came from you?
A. I don't know; it could have.

Q. Would you have, consistent with your practice, provided Father Shanley with the names of three attorneys for him to select?
A. That was -- again, it wasn't our practice, but I began to realize that when some of these men were looking for lawyers they were asking us for names of lawyers and so we would give them names. And so at some time between the time I spoke with him and this date the names were given to him; now, whether it was me or -- I would think it probably was me, but I'm not sure it was on the first -- I don't know when it was.

Q. Okay. But to your knowledge -- strike that.
There's a notation, as I understand it, for you to arrange a check for $2,500 to be paid to Tim O'Neill, is that correct? [157]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know. That could be Tim O'Neill requiring a check for $2,500.

Q. I'm focused on the word "arrange."
A. It could have been for Paul --
MR. ROGERS: Wait for a question.
THE WITNESS: I thought it was.

Q. Okay. I'm focusing on the word "arrange." Do you understand that it was your obligation or that you were the one that was in -- was facilitating a check for $2,500 to be given to Tim O'Neill?
A. I don't understand it that way, no.

Q. Okay. How do you understand it?
A. That Paul would have to arrange for a check for $2,500 to Tim O'Neill.

Q. Okay. So far as you knew, that you had nothing to do between the relationship of Paul Shanley and his lawyer in this case, Tim O'Neill, regarding payment or anything else, correct?
A. That's my recollection.

Q. Okay. And that would have been [158] consistent with your practice?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You didn't get involved in those matters, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Number two, again, was something that you were going to do, which was mail Paul the statement of allegations with a copy to Tim O'Neill, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And underneath it says "procedures."
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what that's in reference to?
A. It would be probably -- my -- my understanding is that it refers to the procedures of the diocese in handling allegations of sexual misconduct.

Q. Okay. And was that a written document that you were going to mail to Paul? If you see, it says "Will mail Paul - allegations - copy to Tim O'Neill" and then underneath that "- procedures." [159]
A. Right.

Q. Was that a written document?
A. I don't -- you know, as I understand your question, you're saying this was a document that was already prepared that we would send out. If the policy had been written -- had been completed by this time, that would have been the policy that we would have sent out; if not, it would have been that I would have summarized the actual procedures for him.

Q. Okay. So it might have been a document that you would prepare which summarized what the practices or procedures were and then shipped that out to him --
A. Right.

Q. -- as well, correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Number three says "No past record." What's that in reference to?
A. My understanding is that it meant no past record regarding sexual misconduct.

Q. And is that what Father Shanley told you?
A. It could be. [160]

Q. Do you know where that information came from that's reflected in your notes here?
A. It could be that or it could be that I had, you know, checked his file for whether there was a past record, but I don't know.

Q. Okay. And it's your testimony --
A. Or both.

Q. I'm sorry, go ahead.
A. Or both, it could have been that I asked him and that, you know, I had checked the file; it could be either.

Q. Okay. And, again, do you have a recollection of looking at his file at or around this time to see what was in it?
A. I don't have a recollection of doing it, no.

Q. Would it have been your practice to have done it?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And to the best of your recollection, there was nothing in his file that gave any indication of any kind of past record of allegations of sexual misconduct? [161]
A. Correct.

Q. It says "Paul returned by the 16th," again, that was his coming back to Boston, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And then you had two issues that you still needed to resolve, I take it, which are listed, the length of time handling Paul's case?
A. (Witness nods head.)

Q. What was the issue that was associated with that?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. And the second issue is where will Paul stay?
A. Correct.

Q. That's -- was that in California or when he was back in Boston?
A. When he was in Boston.

Q. Okay. And what were the considerations?
A. I think possibly for both would be is where would he stay until he had the evaluation and then where would he stay after the evaluation until [162] we resolved the reports and the evaluation.

Q. Okay. Now, also there's -- you say you talk about assessment. Is that in reference to the fact that you did talk to Paul Shanley about the fact that an assessment would be done?
A. I think he knew that already or I think -- when I talked to him about coming home, so maybe we did talk about the assessment. It could also mean that I needed to determine with, you know, my consult with some of the staff, you know, where can we get an assessment as soon as possible.

Q. Did you consider the Wilma Higgs' letter as a past record regarding sexual misconduct?
A. No.

Q. Why?
A. Didn't see it as falling within the area of sexual misconduct.

Q. You didn't view Paul Shanley's statements regarding relationships between man and boys as falling within the area of sexual misconduct?
A. No, my understanding was is that he wasn't endorsing man/boy relationships but that he, at the time, was explaining that some boys seduce men [163] and that they -- by prostituting themselves and that some people -- and some of these people think that, you know, that they're always the ones. And he was saying that sometimes these boys need help, they're the ones who really have a problem.

Q. Okay. When you had this now, at least, second conversation -- and I say at least; it may have been others, you don't recall, but we know that at least two conversations in the aftermath of the September 27th memorandum from Sister Catherine that you had with Paul Shanley -- did you at any time ask Paul Shanley "Are these allegations true," words to that effect?
A. We would always report the allegations and tell them that whatever they said to us would be discoverable, but we'd say we'd like a response to what the allegations are.

Q. And did you get that response from Paul Shanley?
A. I don't recall.

Q. You don't have a memory, as you sit here today, of asking Paul Shanley to respond to these allegations and what that response was? [164]
A. My sense is is that -- or my recollection is that he wanted to work through his attorney, Timothy O'Neill.
Now, what happened in the first conversation, I just must tell you I don't recall what he said or whether he withheld comment.

Q. If that's what he said, Bishop, why didn't you make a note of that, that fact? Weren't you trying to capture the essence of your conversations with him in your notes?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Wouldn't it have been important to write a note and say "I asked Father Shanley about these allegations and he said 'I want to work through my attorney'" or he denied them or he admitted them, whatever his response was, wasn't that important to keep, you know, to keep a record of that to show that you were trying to get at the heart of this?
A. I think I was trying to get at the heart of it; I didn't think at the time that I needed to do prove it.

Q. Or even make a record of what the response might be? [165]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: At that time -- at that time I had to be careful about putting something into writing that the man -- that's not what I want to say -- is that I thought that the man had the right not to incriminate himself. And so -- now, if he told me that he didn't do it or if he told me that he did do it, that would -- and he knew that it was discoverable, then that would usually, I would think, be recorded.
My sense is from this, that since there's nothing written, is that from early on he said that, you know, he didn't -- he wanted to handle this -- he wouldn't say anything until he talked to a lawyer.

Q. But didn't you tell me before that the practice was when you got the -- you know, when you got the allegations, you did in fact confront the priest with the allegations to get the priest's response, isn't that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So when you just said now that, you know, your feeling was that you didn't want the [166] priest to say anything that may incriminate him in that, isn't that inconsistent with your desire to confront the priest and get a response to the allegations?
A. I want to get as best a response as possible, but I had to respect his rights. I learned more and more as we dealt with this that whatever was said to us was discoverable, and he had to know that.

Q. So what you were -- so is it fair to say that one of the things that you were afraid of is that if you recorded his response it could be found out by lawyers or law enforcement officials; in other words, when you say "discoverable," that the legal process -- that through the legal process somebody may gain access to those notes, you were aware of that?
A. That's true, yes.

Q. And you weren't going to put anything in those notes that ultimately might have to be turned over to either --
A. Oh, no.

Q. -- a private attorney or law enforcement? [167]
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I didn't say that, no. I said that whatever he said to me I would usually record, to my knowledge, but in this instance when there's no record of it, my sense is that -- and my remembrance of it is that early on he was very protective and that he wanted to talk -- he said he'd only work through his attorney.

MR. ROGERS: Bob, is now a good time for a break?
MR. SHERMAN: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. ROGERS: That's fine. I was waiting for a --
MR. SHERMAN: That's fine, that's fine.
MR. ROGERS: If this isn't a good place --
MR. SHERMAN: This is fine, this is fine.

(Recess.)

(McCormack Exhibit 70 was marked for identification.)

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

Q. Bishop, during the break I marked what [168] is Exhibit 70 in front of you.
A. Yes.

Q. Do you see that exhibit?
A. Yes.

Q. And, again, am I correct that this refers to another telephone conversation that you had, this time regarding Paul Shanley?
A. I would say yes.

Q. Who's Dan Webber?
A. Don Webber --

Q. Oh, Don Webber, excuse me.
A. -- of San Bernardino, I would think that he probably is either the -- I don't know, but I'm going to estimate that he's either the Vicar General or the pastor, I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. This would refer to your note of contacting either the Bishop or --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- or the pastor out there regarding the allegations against Paul Shanley?
A. Correct.

Q. And would this memorandum be a reflection of the fact that you did in fact do that? [169]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And in number one it says you spoke -- does it say "spoke with Paul Shanley"?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Is that in reference to your speaking to him or Don Webber speaking to him?
A. My sense is this is Don Webber of San Bernardino speaking with Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. And the next line says "no misconduct there"?
A. Yes.

Q. What does that mean to you?
A. Meant that there were no reports of sexual misconduct by Paul Shanley there.

Q. Okay. Was it your understanding that it was Paul Shanley that was reporting that there was no misconduct out in San Diego or that Don Webber was reporting that, independent of Paul Shanley, he was not aware of any allegations of sexual misconduct there?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: My reading is that this is Don Webber saying that. [170]

Q. Okay. The next line says "spoke with pastoral coordinator - no info."
A. Correct.

Q. And what does that mean?
A. That there would have been a pastoral coordinator in the parish at St. Anne's in San Bernardino and that there was no information from the pastoral coordinator.

Q. What is the pastoral coordinator?
A. This would be a person who would either be replacing the pastor or substituting for the pastor or assisting the pastor, and I'm not sure which.

Q. And, again, is that a reference to the fact that Don Webber had spoken with the pastoral coordinator?
A. That's my reading of this, yes.

Q. Okay. And number two it says "lived in San Diego diocese. Touch base with San Diego. Steve Callahan."
A. Yes.

Q. Is this a reference to the fact that Father Shanley lived within the San Diego diocese and [171] you needed to touch base with Steve Callahan?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Either he's been in touch with Steve Callahan or he's recommending that the person I be in touch with be Steve Callahan.

Q. And do you know who Steve Callahan is?
A. Again, no.

Q. Would it be a fair assumption that he is an official within the San Diego diocese of some sort?
A. I would think so, yes.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 71 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had a chance to review that document, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What has been marked Exhibit 71, again, is further notes of a telephone conversation that you had with Father Shanley, is that correct?
A. It's about Father Shanley; now, whether it was a conversation I had with him, I don't know, honestly. [172]

Q. Okay. In the past when you had put his name at the top of the page, it indicated you actually spoke with him. The prior exhibit where you spoke to somebody else you said regarding Paul Shanley. The fact that you had listed his name at the top, does that indicate to you one way or another that you actually spoke to him on October 14th, 1993 or around that time?
A. No, what it also could have been was a memo to myself about two things that were happening.

Q. Okay.
A. And I really don't know, honestly.

Q. Okay.
A. I don't remember.

Q. All right. And the first notation is that Paul Shanley was coming back to Boston essentially --
A. Correct.

Q. -- imminently. And the second when it mentions the "retainer fee - arrange $2,500" and then there's a notation below that says, I believe, "William Murphy retainer"? [173]
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Does that indicate to you that the Archdiocese was in fact paying the retainer fee of $2,500?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, my sense is is that he was to speak with Monsignor Murphy about getting -- arranging a loan of $2,500.

Q. Okay. To pay the retainer?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you have an independent memory of that conversation taking place?
A. No.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 72 was marked for identification.)

Q. Have you had a chance to review what has been marked as Exhibit 72, is that correct, Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And fair to say you recognize this as a memo from Sister Catherine Mulkerrin to you in October of 1993 regarding another complaint of sexual abuse by Paul Shanley? [174]
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And in this one this involved a young boy who had been brought to Father Shanley for counseling, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. At least that's the allegation, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this was at least now the second separate complaint that had been brought to your attention regarding Paul Shanley, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And was there anything you did in response to this complaint having come in -- or was there anything additional, I should ask, that you did in response to this complaint now coming in?
A. Well, at this time Father Shanley, if I'm correct, would have been -- would have returned to Boston. So this would have been included as part of the report to the evaluation institution --

Q. Okay.
A. -- you know, about allegations being made about him. [175]

Q. Okay. When Father Shanley came to Boston, he was at the Campion Center, is that where --
A. Yes --

Q. Okay.
A. -- but he also stayed, I think, for a while, too, at The Marist Fathers or something.

Q. Would it, again, have been your practice to have talked to Father Shanley regarding this complaint and get a response from him regarding the complaint?
A. Normally that would be the practice.

Q. Do you know whether you did that in this instance?
A. I don't.

(McCormack Exhibit 73 was marked for identification.)

Q. All set?
A. All set.

Q. Bishop, we've seen in review board documents that have been produced priests referred to by numbers, number 56, number 27, number 33. At the top of the page this says number 33 at the top. When [176] were numbers assigned to cases?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: As they were presented to the review board, that's my memory.

Q. So would this number have been assigned as of 12-3-93.
A. I would say sometime -- sometime around that time it was, yes.

Q. Okay. So it's your understanding that Father Shanley's case was presented to the review board somewhere around December of 1993?
A. That's what -- I don't know that.

Q. Well, why would there be a number that would be assigned at that time if it was not being presented to the review board?
A. You know, I can't explain that. I guess what I'm saying is I don't know when this case -- I know this case has been presented to the review board twice, but I'm not sure of the dates so I really can't tell.

Q. Is that number 33 your handwriting?
A. Yes.

Q. Is all the handwriting on this page [177] your handwriting?
A. Yes, I think so, yes.

Q. Okay. So number 33 refers to a case number that was synonymous with Paul Shanley.
A. Correct, yes.

Q. Okay. And this refers to a conversation you had with Tim O'Neill, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Now, you -- it was the Archdiocese that asked that Father Shanley be assessed, is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And this was something that was done by Father Shanley at the behest of the Archdiocese, correct?
A. Only an agreement that it be actually done through the -- my recollection is is that it was done through Timothy O'Neill, so that it would be Timothy O'Neill who would receive the report.

Q. Okay. And it was your understanding that it was done through Timothy O'Neill because, if it was done through Timothy O'Neill, then arguably [178] the report was confidential and not discoverable, is that your understanding?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: It was that Father Shanley would not share the full report with us, unless it was protected by the lawyer/client privilege.

Q. Okay. And was it your understanding that as long as the report was given to Timothy O'Neill that it was protected by the lawyer/client privilege, was that your understanding?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And so therefore the information that you received regarding the Institute for Living was information that was communicated to you in this conversation with Timothy O'Neill, is that correct?
A. That's my sense from what this says right here, yes.

Q. Okay. Could you please read your notes. I can't read them --
A. Okay.

Q. -- quite as well as I can read some of your other handwriting. [179]
A. Okay. "Dr. Zieman at Institute of Living." My sense is that this would refer to -- is that Timothy O'Neill talked with Dr. Zieman at the Institute for Living, that's my sense.

Q. Okay.
A. And the words I wrote down were "interesting, candid, believable. Assessment" -- therefore, "assessment fairly sure."

Q. Okay. And --
A. Those three dots mean therefore.

Q. Okay. And what did that phrase -- what did that mean to you "interesting, candid, believable" therefore "assessment fairly sure"?
A. That he was forthright and that what he said was believable so that -- that the outcome of their assessment was something that was fairly sure.

Q. Okay. And the "he," of course, you refer to as Father Shanley, correct?
A. Correct, right.

Q. Okay. Now, going down to the next lines?
A. "Bottom line - attracted to late adolescents 18 to 20." Next line "not knowingly [180] become with minors."

Q. Okay. Let me stop you. This is referring to the bottom line of the assessment?
A. My sense is that's what it means, yes.

Q. Okay. And the assessment said that he was attracted to adolescents in the 18 to 20 year range, is that your understanding?
MR. ROGERS: Bishop, just if I may, I don't want to interrupt you, but you keep saying "my sense is"; if you know. I don't think Mr. Sherman or I want you to speculate here today. If you know, you can testify to that, but I don't want you guessing here today.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Would you repeat your question, then.

Q. Sure. And I know you use it's "my sense" a lot in your correspondence, Bishop, so I'm taking it to be you're not speculating.
It says "bottom line" --
MR. ROGERS: The Bishop is still going to answer questions --
MR. SHERMAN: Absolutely.
MR. ROGERS: -- based on fact not based [181] upon what you would believe "my sense is."
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. That's fine.
MR. ROGERS: Okay.

Q. "Bottom line - attracted to late adolescents 18 to 20," meaning 18 to 20 years old. What was your understanding of what was being reported?
A. That was the bottom line of the assessment of Paul Shanley.

Q. Okay. That he was attracted to adolescents ages 18 to 20?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the second line there "not knowingly" -- did you say become or became?
A. Become.

Q. "With minors"?
A. Yes.

Q. What does that -- what does that mean?
A. It means that he not knowingly becomes involved with minors.

Q. Okay. But there is -- strike that.
Did that mean, however, that he does become involved with minors but it's not something [182] that's done knowingly, or what's the context of that remark?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I think just what it says, that that's all I could read it as.

Q. Okay. Keep on going down, "medical condition"?
A. "Prostate."

Q. Okay. If you keep on going.
A. Sexual -- no, several, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what that word -- I can't read my own writing. I don't know whether it's sexual or several, I don't know what the second word is, "declined," and then "now" -- the next line says "now except once in past 20 years," and then I don't know what that next word is. So I'm not sure it may be sexual contact declined, I'm not sure. And then "now except once in 20 years" and then the next line would be --

Q. Could that be "none"?
A. "None except once in past 20 years." And then there's a word there, I don't know, me, M I. And then on the next line is would be talking with [183] counselor. No -- yeah, could be "would be talking at counselor" or with counselor, I'm not too sure what that means.

Q. Okay.
A. Then is "not a significant" --

Q. Risk?
A. -- "risk," "not a significant risk."

Q. Actually, I take it back, I read your handwriting better than you do.
A. Right.

Q. Okay. Keep going.
A. "Rorschach - suicidal projection." Next line "run away from feelings - psychotherapy." Next line "should stay on for a couple weeks - unclear." Then there is "Too exposed to criticism and risk. No plan." And then a "neurological workup" about parents dead from stroke, I think this says "Paul has shakes, brother has Alzheimer's, forgets nouns, forgets subject or topic."

Q. Okay. What did this assessment mean to you?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That he had clear [184] psychological problems, that he had a sexual attraction, that he said that he was not sexually active for a number of years, there was a suicidal projection, that he runs away from feelings, needs psychotherapy, and so that in my sense in some way is that this is an early on assessment, it's kind of an incomplete assessment, that would be my sense.

Q. And when you say "early on" --
A. There would be a fuller report to come.

Q. Okay. So this was a preliminary assessment, is that how -- can I characterize it that way?
A. No, I think it's an assessment but that this came out of a conversation he had with the doctor at the Institute of Living. My sense is is that this was a oral -- the conversation was oral and that later it would be followed up with a written report.

Q. Okay. This kind of assessment being presented to you, did you form a conclusion as to whether Paul Shanley, based on this assessment, should have any sort of ministerial responsibilities?
A. Well, at this time he had been removed [185] from ministerial responsibilities and we had not made a determination whether he should return because we were waiting for this assessment and then the handling of the allegations, a decision about the credibility of the allegations. And so at this point this is just helping us -- this is part of the effort to reach a conclusion.

Q. Was there a concern at this point that -- to insure that Father Shanley be kept away from children and adolescents?
A. Oh, yes, right.

Q. Okay. And was that concern carried out given his living situation at the time?
A. Yes.

Q. And how was that carried out?
A. That both places where he was living there was no youth involved.

Q. Okay.
A. That's at The Marist Fathers and the Campion Center.

Q. And it was also your belief that he should not be around youth --
A. Correct. [186]

Q. -- in that case, is that correct?
A. Right.

Q. Okay.

(McCormack Exhibit 74 was marked for identification.)

MR. SHERMAN: Actually, why don't we mark -- there's a response to this, too, why don't we mark it.

(McCormack Exhibit 75 was marked for identification.)

Q. Bishop, turning to Exhibit 74, which is, I take it, you recognize is a January 16th, 1994 letter from Father Shanley to you, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. At this time Father Shanley is back in California, is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. What were the circumstances in which he was allowed to return to California?
A. I presented to the review board his request that he return there, that there was no place he could stay here. And so in light of the evaluation that we were still waiting to hear from [187] and in light of there's no place to stay for him here, where he felt that he could stay, but that there was a place in San Diego where he felt that he'd be better off, I consulted with the review board, which is the lay people and another priest, and we concurred that he could go there until the matter was settled.

Q. Okay. Now, why couldn't he stay at the Campion Center?
A. Campion Center was a home for elderly and sick priests, and I think that, again, at his age and in his own emotional and physical condition, he didn't feel at home there.

Q. Well --
A. And they had a hard time, also -- I'm not sure whether they were willing to keep him there.

Q. Yeah.
A. I'm not -- I have a sense that there was also a -- an unwillingness for them to keep him there.

Q. Okay. And how about -- there were priests that had been accused of sexual misconduct that were also placed at Our Ladies Home in Milton, [188] is that correct?
A. Correct.

Q. Why couldn't Father Shanley be kept there?
A. Again, I don't know; I'd have to be speculating.

Q. So it's your testimony there was no place within the Boston Archdiocese that Father Shanley could have been kept pending resolution of these issues?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: There was no place in Boston where we thought we could put him up where he would be at home, for want of a better word; and in light of his emotional and physical condition, that it would be okay for him to return.

Q. Okay. What arrangements were made regarding supervision -- strike that.
What arrangements were made regarding the supervision of Father Shanley while he was in San Diego?
A. I don't think we intended to have him supervised; I think we wanted to have the diocese [189] informed that he was there and that he could not do ministry, and the effort would be to structure a program for him where he would find some psychological and spiritual and social support.

Q. Do you know what kind of place this was that he was staying at?
A. I don't recall, no.

Q. Okay. Do you know if it was affiliated with the diocese?
A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know one way or another?
A. No.

Q. Okay. You said it was important, in light of the Institute for Living's preliminary assessment as communicated to you by Tim O'Neill -- or initial assessment, I think you used, as communicated by Tim O'Neill, that Father Shanley be kept away from youth?
A. Correct.

Q. Okay. What arrangements were made to insure that he was kept way from youth while he was in San Diego?
A. By saying that he could do no ministry [190] in the name of the church. He was not allowed to function as a priest, and so he could do -- you know, and not in the name of the church he could not in any way have any kind of relationship with youth.

Q. Okay. But that didn't prevent him from going out onto the street and making friends with young boys or engaging in that -- engaging in that kind of activity on his own, did it?
A. We have no way of supervising someone, you know, 24 hours a day.

Q. Was the diocese of San Diego informed about the -- at least the initial evaluation from the Institute for Living when he was allowed to return there?
A. Again, we didn't have the -- I think that while he was there we had not had the assessment, we had not had the -- had the real report or the full report.

Q. But you had some information --
A. Yes.

Q. -- correct?
And the information that you had, you testified earlier, resulted in you taking some [191] protective steps while he was still in Massachusetts?
A. Right.

Q. Did you take any kind of protective steps, with respect to informing the diocese of San Diego of the information you at least had had that was communicated to you from Tim O'Neill, while he was out there?
A. My previous note that there's a note about contacting Steve Callahan in San Diego. I don't recall making the contact, but there's a note there about it.

Q. Okay. But you have no -- but it would have been your practice at that time, if you had made contact with Steve Callahan in San Diego, to have written a memo to that as you did when you contacted the people in San Bernardino and as you did when you had other conversations, is that correct?
A. No, I think that the only thing -- the only note I have here is contacting Don, Father Don Webber -- or it says Don Webber, and then it has a note about contacting Steve Callahan. My sense is is that that's the note; now, whether -- but I don't recall the actual conversation. [192]

Q. Okay. And you have no recollection of talking to the people in San Diego, California regarding the information that you got from the Institute of Living?
A. No, I don't recall.

Q. Okay. And you have no note to the fact that you did that, correct?
A. Well, I think there's a previous note, but it --

Q. Well, the previous note --
A. -- that alludes to it.

Q. There's a previous note about making the call, but it doesn't allude to the fact that the call was actually made, is that -- wasn't that your testimony before?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now --
A. Excuse me --

Q. I'm sorry.
A. -- may I just add that I don't think -- there's often -- when I make calls, it doesn't say that the call's always made.

Q. Okay. If you knew that there was a [193] priest that had a problem and you wanted to communicate what that problem was to officials of another diocese, wouldn't it have been your practice to memorialize that conversation in a note such as you did when you contacted Father, I believe it was, Webber?
A. Can you point to the note that you're talking about?

Q. When you -- the prior exhibit, when you talked to Father Webber --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- you memorialized that conversation --
A. Yes.

Q. -- in a note, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That would have been Exhibit 70 --
A. Uh-huh.

Q. -- at that point.
If you look at Exhibit 70, it refers to "touch base with San Diego, Steve Callahan." Do you see that?
A. Yes, correct. [194]

Q. Okay. That note doesn't say that you actually did touch base with Steve Callahan, for lack of a better word, it's on a -- it's a to do item?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm not sure. That's your interpretation, and I'm not sure whether it is a to do item or whether it's a conversation that I had with Don Webber that he told me that or whether he was going to do that or whether I did it, I really -- this doesn't say any of those to me; it's open to interpretation.

Q. Wouldn't it be fair to say that if you talked to Steve Callahan you would have said "touched base with San Diego, Steve Callahan" as opposed to "touch base"?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Correct, but I could have touched base as a result of this.

Q. Okay. But you have no note to that effect?
A. Right.

Q. Now, with respect to these documents, if I can have a couple minutes to finish up on these [195] two documents --
MR. ROGERS: Are you going to conclude?
MR. SHERMAN: What?
MR. ROGERS: Are you going to conclude?
MR. SHERMAN: The deposition?
MR. ROGERS: Yeah.
MR. SHERMAN: No, we won't be able to finish it today; we've got more to do, but let me just finish up on these documents today.
MR. ROGERS: How much more you got, Bob? I mean I don't want to be difficult, but --
MR. SHERMAN: Well, let's finish up on this and then we'll --
MR. ROGERS: No, I'm asking how much more you got on these documents.
MR. SHERMAN: Oh, probably another 10 minutes, that's it.
Can you stay another 10 minutes, Bishop?
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Thank you.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: In Father Shanley's note to you of January 16th, 1994 he mentions in the [196] third paragraph on page one "the loan from the Archdiocese came (for the lawyer)." You see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you know the Archdiocese did in fact loan him the money to hire Timothy O'Neill, correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And he says -- he says "I am not at ease to be unable at the time to repay Monsignor Murphy and hope he understands that I never in my life owed money before or ever borrowed - except a car loan." Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, at the top of the next page he says "I've heard no more from anyone about my proposal to offer a safe-house to 'ware-housed' priests," and we've talked about what the term "warehoused" means in our -- in the prior -- day two of your deposition. Safe house was a word that you understood, is that correct, when he used it?
A. When he used it, I have a sense of what he meant, yeah. Again, it's my subjective interpretation. [197]

Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that the word "safe house" is a term that's commonly understood to have come out of the world of espionage?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

Q. That's where spies were sent to be concealed from people who were looking for them?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Never.

Q. That was not your understanding?
A. Not at all.

Q. That's not your --
A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the Tom Clancy book called Safe House?
MR. ROGERS: All right. Bob, you know, come on. You're not going to argue with the Bishop.
THE WITNESS: No, I'm not familiar --
MR. ROGERS: He's answered the question and you're not going to argue with --
THE WITNESS: -- I'm not familiar with the book and that was never my intent, that was never my understanding. [198]

Q. What was your understanding of the word "safe house" as that was used?
A. It's a place where priests who had sexually abused minors in the past who could not be placed in any kind of ministry who needed a structured setting, who needed some support and some counseling, and so it was a place that it would be safe for this man to live.
Now, that's my understanding. And he had this idea that he could be the coordinator of the safe house or the -- and so that's what I think. That's how I understood it and I think that's what he meant.

Q. Where does he say that he wanted to be the coordinator of the safe house?
A. I think that in some -- this must have been a conversation he had with me.

Q. Do you remember having a conversation with him regarding this subject, separate and apart from what he had written in this letter?
A. I don't remember the exact conversation, but I do remember him having some kind of an idea about running -- of his being the one who [199] could run this safe house.

Q. And in the term -- was safe house his term or your term?
A. I think it's his term.

Q. Okay. And when he used the word "safe house," did you ask him what he meant by that?
A. Well, I think this reflects a conversation we had and so that's how I understood it.

Q. Okay.
A. He knew of the need that the diocese had to place priests not -- you know, in a place where they would not be a danger to minors.

Q. Okay. And the notion of safe house in your mind did not imply in any way a concealment --
A. Oh, no.

Q. -- or a hiding?
MR. ROGERS: Again, objection. If we're going to continue this line of questioning, we're going to end the deposition.
MR. SHERMAN: All right. You can end it; I'm just asking --
MR. ROGERS: Why don't we end it now, [200] then. It's five past four. I think you --
MR. SHERMAN: I believe he said he could go for another 10 minutes and I intend to use the 10 minutes.
MR. ROGERS: Again, I've got an appointment, Bob, that I've got to keep, so we've agreed we're going to suspend at 4:00. You've indicated you're not going to conclude today. We'll finish it the next time we're up here.
MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Rogers, I asked before if 10 minutes was all right. Everybody agreed 10 minutes was all right.
MR. ROGERS: I didn't agree.
MR. SHERMAN: That wasn't your agreement before?
MR. ROGERS: You asked the Bishop. I was letting you continue this line of questioning.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.
MR. ROGERS: If we're going to ask the same question six different ways --
MR. SHERMAN: I'm not going to ask the same question; I'm going to move on. Do I have my five minutes? [201]
MR. ROGERS: Finish this letter and then we're ending.
MR. SHERMAN: Okay.

Q. BY MR. SHERMAN: Let me go on to that, Bishop. You say -- he says later on "I am anxious that public charges might be brought against me." Did you understand from that letter that when he talked about public charges he was talking about criminal charges?
A. I didn't think of it in either terms of civil or criminal except that they were public and that was his concern.

Q. Okay. So the fact that there were public charges that were brought against him, did you have an understanding of what his concern was regarding public charges?
MR. ROGERS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That it was going to be made public.

Q. I'm sorry?
A. That it was going to be made public.

Q. Okay. And he says "Have you heard any more from the victims or their lawyers," again, [202] asking information regarding these -- regarding charges of sexual abuse -- strike that.
Again, what he is asking you is if you heard any more information from victims or lawyers regarding charges of sexual abuse, is that correct?
A. He says "Have you heard any more from the victims or lawyers," and those would be the victims who had made the complaints or the lawyers who were representing them, I guess; and to my knowledge, those were civil complaints, they had made contacts with the diocese.

Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, were civil complaints that were being made, in the form of letters to the diocese, public charges? Were they public?
A. No, they were sent to the diocese, no.

Q. Okay.
A. Or to the lawyers, no.

Q. Okay. So is it fair to say that there's a distinction between what the lawyers or the victims were sending to the diocese and his concern regarding public charges?
A. Yes. [203]

Q. That's separate from what the victims and the lawyers were doing, correct?
A. No, I think it's related, but I'm not too sure. I think he is just concerned are these charges going to be made public in some way?

Q. Okay.
A. I think that's my sense and that's why he had a lawyer.

Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you one last question. Isn't it fair to say that the notion of public charges, as that phrase is commonly used, commonly understood, would involve charges by public authorities, i.e., criminal charges? Did you have an understanding that that's what he was referring to?
A. No.
MR. ROGERS: Objection.

MR. SHERMAN: Okay. Let's conclude right there or suspend, rather, right there.
MR. MIELKE: Going off the record.

(Deposition suspended at 4:11 p.m.) [204]

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 Shorthand Reporter 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)