Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily
Day 1, page 2
On August 21, 2002, Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., a former top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston, was deposed by lawyers for three men who claim they were sexually abused by the Rev. Paul Shanley at St. Jean's parish in Newton.
Q: The campion (phonetic) center that's run by the Jesuits. You know the campion center in Weston?
A: The campion center in Weston? What's that got to do with Milton?
Q: You asked me for examples. I am trying to give you examples.
A: Oh, that's just another example?
Q: Another example. I can give you some.
A: So a priest might be assigned to --
Q: Might be assigned -- if the priest is making statements and they are inconsistent with the teachings of the church and refuses to stop doing it, you said that one of things that could be done is to suspend him and prevent him from administering the sacraments; is that correct?
A: I would think that's possible. But what I'm saying, you are asking the question if he refuses to stop doing it.
Q: That's right.
A: I would hope that he would be a priest, and if he were a good priest that he would stop doing it.
Q: What if he doesn't? What are the remedies?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
A: I could get a little crude and say send him to the back room but, I mean, he would certainly be talked to and talked to severely, I would think.
Q: And if he continued to do it?
A: He might reach the stage where he would have to be suspended.
Q: In which case he would not be assigned to a parish; is that correct?
A: That's correct. Can we ask you a question? No, I can't, huh?
Q: If you'd like to. I'm perfectly happy --
A: You mentioned these places, Milton and --
A: I don't know what you are talking about.
Q: Okay. Well we can get to that later.
A: In relation to what you are saying.
Q: Well you were aware that there were, for example, if priests engaged in criminal behavior there was a place in New Mexico where they could be sent called the paraclete? Are you aware of the paraclete?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I don't think those two things necessarily relate, criminal activity and New Mexico.
Q: But you know about the paraclete?
A: I know they had a place there, yes.
Q: And that was a place for troubled priests; is this correct?
A: Troubled priests? Yes. I don't know what you define by troubled, but troubled priests who what, like, for example, an alcoholism or something of that nature?
Q: Yeah, if there was an alcoholic priest.
A: Yes, that could be possible, yes.
MR. McLEISH: You have to -- we are really going to have a very tired court reporter if we don't --
THE WITNESS: Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm sorry. Can you tell me what I am supposed to do?
MR. McLEISH: Just listen to the question and take a pause. Okay? Otherwise she is going to --
THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon.
Q: So this is -- Mr. Ford is going to count them for us, but this is the first issue that we have in the records of you having an issue with Paul Shanley; is this a fair way to describe it?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form. He didn't say the bishop has an issue.
A: Precisely. That's what I was going to say.
Q: If there was an issue with Paul Shanley that came to your attention. The first time that there was an issue.
A: Okay. All right.
Q: Is that a fair statement?
A: I think it's a fair statement. I was only on the job a month.
Q: I understand that. But this certainly, this was not a gray area, what Paul Shanley was alleged to have said, correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: At that time -- my opinion at that time you mean?
A: No, I don't know that it was gray or black or whatever it was. I don't know.
Q: It was contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
MR. W. ROGERS: I am not sure the bishop had finished his answer.
Q: Go ahead.
A: No, no, I was -- I didn't -- at that time, you have to understood, too, I was in Latin America for five years. I came back. I was in a parish up until 19 -- Paul Shanley did not come to my attention in a really strong way except as one -- as a story. It's a -- from my point of view it was upsetting, but I wasn't involved until I get into the chancellor's office.
Q: What was the story?
A: The story that he was making speeches and things like that and he was kind of an independent person.
Q: Independent person?
Q: I am not talk about before 1973. I am talking about when you come in in 1973 into the chancery. All I am doing -- I am not trying to trap you, bishop. I am just saying --
A: No, that's all right.
Q: This is a statement that he is alleged to have made that is clearly contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. That's all that I'm saying.
A: Yes, that's okay. And I agree.
Q: Next one is number 4. Do you see that, another memo to you from Father Helmick?
A: Okay, 4. Okay.
Q: And this is -- attached to this memo are copies of an exchange of correspondence I had with Mr. Charles Lorego of the Boston Phoenix. Do you see that? Did that come to your attention in 1973?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: Okay, next document, please.
A: Can I make a -- okay.
Q: Sure, you can say anything you want to say.
MR. W. ROGERS: Wait for a question.
THE WITNESS: All right. I will wait for the question. I will wait for the question. You might bring this up again. Okay.
Q: All right. The next document is a letter, January 1, 1974, to Father Finn. Do you know Father Finn?
A: What's his first name?
Q: Don't know.
A: There are two.
A: Gilbert and Paul.
Q: Gilbert and Paul?
A: Must be Gilbert. Great priest.
Q: Great priest. And it says, "Enclosed is the newspaper article from the Patriot Leger." Do you see that?
A: Oh, jee, wait a second. I don't have it.
Q: Right here. Right here.
A: I beg your pardon. I am sorry.
Q: He is from Sharon at the time.
A: Let me just --
Q: Absolutely. Take a look at it.
MR. O'NEILL: Tell us when you finish.
A: Okay. What's the question?
MR. W. ROGERS: No question.
Q: No question. Are you finished reading it yet?
Q: Do you remember this complaint about Paul Shanley speaking in Sharon where it's stated right here that -- it's stated right here, "I feel Father's talk has done irreparable harm to maintaining a voluntary course." Do you see that in that --
A: What paragraph is that?
Q: It's in the --
A: Oh, yeah. Okay, right. I got you.
Q: Do you remember if that came to your attention or not?
A: No, it did not come to my attention that I remember it.
Q: And the next exhibit, if we could, please, Mr. Ford. That's Exhibit number 6. Why don't you take a moment and read that, see if you remember that coming to your attention.
A: Check, okay.
Q: Have you ever saw that document before? That's Father Finn's response.
Q: Was Father Finn someone that you were supervising back in 1973 and '74?
A: Well the dates I am not sure of. But Father Finn --
A: Father Finn was -- yeah, he was supervisor.
Q: You were a supervisor over him?
A: Over him?
A: No, not necessarily.
Q: Okay. All right, next document, please. It's Exhibit number 7.
A: Which one? Okay.
Q: If you take a moment to read that for me, bishop.
Q: Do you recall this as a memorandum that you wrote to his eminence, the cardinal, in January of 1974 about a call you had received from Reverend Patrick Shields of the chancery office in the Diocese of Cleveland, Ohio?
A: No, I do not recall.
Q: We obtained these files from documents from the files of the archdiocese. Do you see your name is on here?
A: That's right. And my secretary's initials. Yeah, okay.
Q: And your secretary's initials were J.D.?
Q: Would it be fair to state then that back in 1974 that you had received a call from Father Shields in which Father Shields indicated that pastors, if you see the last sentence, in the area were very apprehensive about Paul Shanley's presentation? Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: So that would have been the second, I think this is the second issues that you would have dealt with with Paul Shanley, that we have in the documents; is that a fair statement?
A: Not necessarily. Keep in mind that this -- if I may say so.
A: This memorandum is directed to the cardinal. And I am reporting to the cardinal what happened in Cleveland.
Q: Well I understand that. I am just saying -- I am talking about you.
A: All right.
Q: That this was the second issues. We went through one. I think that was the Boston Phoenix report. This is now the second matter involving Paul Shanley where the issue was brought to your attention; is that a fair statement?
MR. W. ROGERS: The issue of Paul Shanley?
Q: Some problem with Paul Shanley. A problem with Paul Shanley was brought to your attention.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. I object to the form.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
MR. W. ROGERS: This is not a problem. I don't see where this is reference to a problem.
Q: Is it a problem, Bishop Daily, when a priest calls in from another Diocese and says that pastors are concerned about a presentation?
MR. W. ROGERS: This was a presentation to be made.
MR. McLEISH: I understand that.
MR. W. ROGERS: So I object -- I think it's an argumentative question and I object to the form.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q: This is the second -- let me put it to you this way. This is the second occasion where something about Paul Shanley was brought to your attention; is that correct?
A: It would seem so, yes, it is. In other words, the first one was in May and the second one was the following January.
Q: That's correct.
A: Thank you.
Q: May '73 and January '74.
Q: Let's do the next one. Do you want to take a moment and look at this? This is Exhibit number 8 which is a letter of May 20, 1974, to Cardinal Medeiros from Raymond Kashmin.
A: You mean January 20th?
Q: January 20, 1974, from Raymond Kashmin.
Q: Do you see the stamp at the top?
A: Actually, just a second.
Q: Go ahead.
Q: On Exhibit number 8, do you see the stamp at the top that says, "Cardinal's residence received January 28, 1974, Office of the Secretary"? Do you see that?
Q: Who was the cardinal's secretary in January of 1974? A 974. I was one of them.
Q: You were one of them?
A: '74? No, check that. No, I beg your pardon. Check that, no.
Q: You were not the secretary?
A: No. I was chancellor. The secretary was Father Helmick.
Q: Father Helmick. Okay.
A: And I think there was another one, but he didn't come until later, I guess.
Q: Do you recall any complaints being brought to your attention in January of 1974 again about a speech that Paul Shanley had made to a group of students in the town of Sharon concerning homosexuality? Do you recall anything like that?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Okay. Next exhibit, please.
A: Could I -- is this the same one as the one before?
Q: It may well be. All right, this is -- you can take a look at this. I am just going to ask if you would ever draft letters for the Archbishop of Boston in February of 1974, and whether you drafted this document, Exhibit number 9.
A: I did in the past draft some letters. Most of them were, I think, general -- they were drafted by the secretary. But in any case, I do not recall drafting this. I am just looking at it. I haven't read it but --
A: Do you want me to read it?
Q: No. If you don't recall drafting it, that's fine. We will move on. Unless you would like the chance to look at it.
A: I would like to read it.
Q: Fine, go ahead.
A: It's signed by the cardinal.
A: Thank you for letting me read that.
Q: Sure, certainly. Go back to Exhibit 8 for me, will you, please?
A: Exhibit 8?
Q: Eight. Number 8. That was the previous one.
Q: Do you see the stamp at the top, it says, "Cardinal's residence received January 28, 1974, Office of the Secretary"?
Q: At some point was there a stamp that was developed that would say, "Not acknowledged at cardinal's residence"?
A: I am not aware of that, but I guess it's possible.
Q: Well I am not asking whether it's possible. Are you aware of any particular stamp as the number two man in the Archdiocese of Boston starting in 1975, I think, of a stamp that was developed that would say not for correspondence? It would be stamped on not acknowledged at cardinal's residence. Do you remember such a stamp?
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.85 you said?
MR. McLEISH: '75.
A: I would just say, no, I am not aware right at the moment whether there was one. Is there something here that says not acknowledged?
Q: Not yet. Not up until this point in time.
Q: But you are about to see one.
A: Oh, all right.
Q: But I am asking you apart from --
A: What's the --
Q: I am asking you whether you were aware that at some point there was a stamp that was attached to particular types of correspondence that would indicate that the correspondence was not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence.
A: No. When you ask the question right now and you are asking me now in these circumstances, my memory says no, I'm not.
Q: You are not?
Q: And you were the number two man in the Archdiocese of Boston starting when?
A: Number two man I guess starting 1977.
Q: And you are not aware of any stamp that was used then?
A: No. But that's not to say that it didn't exist.
Q: Do you use such a stamp when correspondence is sent to you right now as bishop of the Diocese of Brooklyn that certain correspondence would be stamped not acknowledged at your residence?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection.
Q: Do you use that now?
A: It depends upon the contents and so forth. If I -- if I want to file it and for whatever reason not acknowledge it. It might be just a thank you note or something of that nature.
Q: I am talking about a stamp.
A: Oh, no, no.
Q: There is no stamp that you use?
A: Let's put it this way. I never have used it, okay?
Q: Are you aware of any other bishops that have used a stamp, "Not acknowledged at the cardinal's residence" on particular types of correspondence?
A: I am not aware of it, but you are going to show me something, you said.
Q: I am talking about outside of Boston.
A: Outside of Boston? No, no. Okay, I am not aware.
Q: Let's go to Exhibit number 10, which is our first example of that. Do you see that? This is a --
A: Oh, yeah. Okay.
Q: See that? And I wasn't trying to trap you in any way. I was just trying to see --
A: No, no. No problem. No problem.
Q: You see this is a letter from Tom Flatley? You know who Tom Flatley is, don't you?
A: I do indeed.
Q: And Tom Flatley was a major benefactor of the Archdiocese of Boston in 1974; is that correct?
A: Yes. And Tom Flatley was very kind to me, too.
Q: And very kind to you?
A: I'm not saying -- yeah.
Q: Someone that you trusted?
A: He was a great gentleman. I've known him for 50 years.
Q: Very generous with the archdiocese?
A: That's my understanding.
Q: Devout Catholic?
Q: Credible human being?
Q: No reason --
A: But that's my observation. I have been out of Boston for 20 years. But that's my observation.
Q: Well I am talking about in '74.
A: Oh, yeah. Okay. I got great respect for him.
Q: Take a look at Exhibit 10 for me, bishop.
A: Okay. Well, read it? Okay.
Q: Yes, read it, please.
A: Okay. I read it.
Q: All right. Now you see the initials up at the top where is says, "Not acknowledged at cardinal's residence?" Do you know whose those initials are?
A: No. Well I am saying Monsignor Helmick.
A: Yeah, that's what I -- that's my, that's my observation at the moment.
Q: Those aren't -- I mean, I understand he might have done the writing --
A: Writing? You do you mean?
Q: The initials.
A: The initials, yes.
Q: Are the initials your initials or Father Helmick's initials?
A: No, they are my initials but I think he put them there.
Q: That was my point, they are your initials, do you see that? But he put -- it's his handwriting; is that a fair state?
A: Yeah, but he rights T or TVD kind of in an interesting way. But I have to say that that's what's stated.
Q: And you will see down below, you see, "Archdiocese of Boston Received Office of the Chancellor," do you see that? Do you see that stamped down at the bottom?
Q: And who is the chancellor in March of 974?
A: I am.
Q: So would it be fair to state that this would have been the type -- this communication would have been one that you would have seen from Tom Flatley?
A: I would -- it's fair to assume. May I ask -- okay. Who is T.J.F. at the bottom?
Q: T.J.F., that's Tom Flatley.
A: Okay, okay. Fine.
Q: This is a document that you would have seen back in March of 1974; is that a fair statement?
A: It's a fair statement.
Q: And you had a personal relationship with Tom Flatley; is that correct? I mean when I say personal --
A: It was not personal but I knew him as friend and I knew his background and his wife and family, yeah.
Q: So a letter like this is going to be taken very seriously by the Archdiocese of Boston; is that correct?
A: Coming from Tom Flatley, yes.
Q: And it says, let me just read you a question -- a couple of paragraphs and I will ask you a question about it. It's starts off, "Your eminence, on February 28th, Father Shanley spoke before the legislator's committee and, I quote, homosexuality is not a sickness. What is sick is to discriminate against the homosexual." Then he goes on to say, "After reading this statement, I have been very disturbed primarily because it was made by a man who proposes to represent you and, secondly, I don't believe I can tell me 15 year old son that such unnatural acts are not sinful." Do you see that?
Q: So we have here a clear complaint about Paul Shanley coming from a very important person to the Archdiocese of Boston; would you agree with me about that?
A: Oh, I think it's a complaint. It's a very serious complaints and he is very serious about it.
Q: He is a very important person?
A: Well, he's a -- yeah, sure. Every person is important.
Q: Everybody is important, exactly right. But he is someone well-known to the archdiocese?
A: Sure, sure. He was someone this year because that was recession time.
Q: Bringing a complaint to his eminence's attention about Paul Shanley which you end up looking at; do you see that?
A: I am seeing it.
Q: And then it says, it goes on to say, "I am and had been disillusioned over the past few years with Father Shanley. Five years ago he stated emphatically before the Board of Catholic Charities that two out of every three kids five years hence would be on drugs and one of every three on hard heroin unless parents and others catered totally to their whims and problems." Do you see that?
Q: Okay. Now with respect to the first two paragraphs, if, in fact, Father Shanley made the statements attributed to him by Thomas Flatley, those would be statements that would be contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. You are talking the statements in the second and third line in this letter?
MR. McLEISH: Yes.
A: Is it two paragraphs? You are referring to two --
Q: It's only the first paragraph.
Q: Thomas Flatley states, attributing to Father Shanley, quote, Homosexuality is not a sickness. What is sick is to discriminate against the homosexual. Is that the position of the Archdiocese of Boston in 1974?
A: No. No. Homosexuality is a condition. What is sick is to discriminate against the homosexual. It is -- that kind of discrimination is wrong.
Q: And so part of this was -- is this consistent, the statement that is alleged, Paul Shanley is alleged to have made, is it consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as you understood them in 1974?
A: Let me just say this. I think I could, I could, I could not understand at that time why he made such a statement. I would refer however to second paragraph. Is that all right?
Q: Second paragraph, yeah.
A: "After reading the statement I am very disturbed primarily because it was said by a man who proposed to represent you and, secondly, I don't believe I can tell my 15 years old son that such unnatural acts are not sinful."
A: That's a true statement. But that's different from the condition.
Q: I understand it's different from the condition.
A: Okay. He is making the -- and it's true. He is making the distinction.
Q: Let's move on to the third paragraph, bishop. Was it the position of the Roman Catholic Church in 1974 that -- I am sorry. You see the statement in the third paragraph that Mr. Flatley makes about what Paul Shanley is alleged to have said five years earlier about three kids, two out of three kids being on drugs and one out of every three on hard heroin?
Q: Is that the type of statement that would be of concern to you in 1974?
Q: And do you know whether there was --
A: It is now, sure.
Q: It is now. And if a priest had made those statements, would that be the type of statement that would have been of concern to you in 1974?
A: It would provoke a question from me. It would be a concern. It would provoke the question is it a gratuitous statement or does he have some basis of fact.
Q: And do you know whether there was anything done to follow up on what Tom Flatley --
A: Says here?
Q: -- says here about what Father Shanley was staying?
A: I do not know that.
Q: You can't think of any as you sit here today; is that correct?
A: As I sit here today, I do not know that. The documents today, it depends on the document.
Q: So this, you would agree, is the second -- sorry, the third issue that you have been -- that you have seen involving Father Paul Shanley that we know from the documents so far; is that correct? That's number three?
A: Say that again.
Q: This is the third issue involving Paul Shanley from the documents that has come to your attention today; is that correct?
Q: Let's have the next document.
A: In the period of a year.
Q: That's right, in the period of a year, third issue. Showing you Exhibit number 11, I would just ask you very briefly -- and this refers to the same legislative hearing -- if the handwriting in the upper left-hand side is your handwriting. I just don't know the answer to the question.
A: I -- no. That's not -- that's not my handwriting.
Q: All right, we can put that aside then. Next Exhibit number 12.
A: I can't read it. Okay.
Q: I couldn't either. That's why I asked.
A: But that's all right. Go ahead. Sorry.
Q: Now I would like you to spend a little bit of time on this and feel free to read Exhibit number 2. It's a memorandum to you from Father Helmick dated March 18, 1974, which concerns a discussion on the gay community at Massasoit Community College. Do you see that?
A: I see it, yes.
Q: Could you take a look at the article in the -- that Father Helmick attaches in his memorandum to you?
A: Okay, I have it, yeah. By Joe Percell, is that the one?
Q: Joe Percell, right.
A: That's interesting.
Q: Do you see the article?
A: I haven't finished it.
A: I am reading it because it's very interesting.
Q: It is.
Q: Now you will see the statement in Mr. Percell's article on the first column about two-thirds of the way down where it says Father Shanley said that homosexuality is a controversy raging in theological circles and that the National Federation of Priest's Council is seeking to deal responsibly with the subject matter he said homosexuality is not sinful. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Now I am not bringing this to your attention because I disagree with any of these comments. In fact, I probably would agree with most of them. But is it accurate to state that the statements attributed to Paul Shanley in this article were contrary, at the time, to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church? The alleged statements.
MR. W. ROGERS: Which statements?
MR. McLEISH: The one I just read.
MR. W. ROGERS: The one you just read? Okay.
A: Oh, yeah, I think that's important. Which statements are you talking about?
Q: The one I just read.
A: Father Shanley said that homosexuality is a controversy raging in theological circles.
A: And the National Federation of Priest's Council is seeking to deal with the subject matter. Number one, there is a controversy raging in theological circles.
Q: Is that accurate?
A: I don't know that. I think it's -- if I were to say so, it may well be gratuitous.
Q: Okay. All right, the next statement. He said that homosexuality is, quote unquote, is not sinful, closed quote.
A: That's right.
Q: If he, in fact, said that, would that be contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: Yes. Its actions are sinful. It's a condition.
Q: I understand that. But he didn't make that distinction, did he, in this article?
A: He didn't here.
Q: All right. Next up -- let's go back to Exhibit number 10 which is the Flatley letter, bishop, for a moment. Flatley letter.
MR. O'NEILL: Can we have the answer to that question read back? The answer to that question, last question, read back.
MR. McLEISH: Sure.
MR. O'NEILL: Listen to the answer.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 11:57 a.m.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 11:58 a.m.
Q: Go back to number 10, if you could, please, Bishop Daily. Exhibit 10, Tom Flatley's letter.
A: I beg your pardon. Okay.
Q: Number 10. Not acknowledged at the cardinal's -- at cardinal's residence, that stamp, do you know how that stamp developed?
A: No, I have no idea.
Q: To your knowledge, you have not seen that stamp before today that you can recall?
A: Okay, that's right, that I can remember.
Q: Can you think of any reason why such a stamp would be affixed to a letter such as this?
A: It would be an indication that someone else would respond to it. I would think. You know, that's my --
Q: All right, let's go to the next exhibit which is a letter from a Diane Adams to you.
MR. W. ROGERS: We don't have that.
MR. McLEISH: You are going to get it.
Q: May 30, 1974, Exhibit number 7 -- number 3. Same article.
A: Oh, I beg your pardon. Okay.
Q: Same article that she attaches. If you want to read it again, you can.
A: That's all right.
Q: So would it be accurate to state that on March of 1974 you received this would be I think the fourth issue involving Father Shanley that we have from the documents we have discussed today, which is a letter from Diane Adams to you about Father Shanley's alleged statements at Massasoit Junior College.
Q: Do you see that?
Q: That was a letter sent directly to you; is that correct? Is that correct, bishop?
Q: And you responded to that letter which is an Exhibit number 14 which we have right here. See that?
Q: Okay. And you state in this letter back to Ms. Adams, you state, "I can assure you that the archdiocese is aware of Father Shanley's mission to you and particularly the homosexuals of the Boston community. If Father Shanley should teach apart from the teachings of the Catholic church, he must be held responsible and accountable, as any other priest in the same circumstances." Do you see that?
Q: That's a letter signed by you? It's not signed, but it's a copy of a letter that you sent back to Ms. Adams. Do you see that?
Q: And how if Father Shanley was teaching apart from the teachings of the Catholic church, how could he be held responsible and accountable? What did you have in mind when you said that?
A: He had to be held responsible. He had to respond and say why he was teaching this way to give some rational.
Q: Well were priests during 1974 -- and again I am not in any way indicating that Mr. Ford or any of us are unsympathetic to Father Shanley's views, but if a priest was making public statements that were contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, was he just free to keep doing that without repercussion?
Q: Well do you know of anything that happened after Ms. Adams wrote in?
A: I do not. Which is -- to which is she referring?
Q: To which is she referring?
A: Yeah, that's about teachings against the Catholic church?
Q: These are your words. These are your words, bishop.
Q: You said, "If Father Shanley should teach apart from the teachings of the Catholic church, he must be held responsible and accountable, as any other priests in the same circumstances." Do you see that?
Q: And we have already -- in your last testimony you said that while the condition of being homosexual or gay is not sinful by itself, the acts of homosexuality are and you acknowledge that Father Shanley, at least according to the article, did not make any such distinction; do you recall that testimony?
Q: So I am asking you when Ms. Adams writes in to you personally, do you remember whether you did anything to sit down and talk with Father Shanley or investigate her upsetment and her allegations?
A: To clarify what needs to be clarified?
Q: Yes, yes.
A: No, I did not speak to her.
Q: No, you did write to her. Did you speak with Father Shanley?
A: Oh, no. I don't recall speaking to Father Shanley.
Q: Well do you have any -- this is not the first time that there has been an issue that has come up with Father Shanley that we have seen from the documents. Do you have any explanation as to why you didn't speak with Father Shanley at that time?
MR. W. ROGERS: I will object to the form of the question.
Q: You can answer the question. No?
A: No, no, excuse me. Do I have any reason for --
Q: Any explanation as to why you didn't speak to Father Shanley.
MR. W. ROGERS: Object to the form.
A: On this, no, I don't have any.
Q: On the Flatley letter?
A: On the Flatley letter, I think I referred it to the cardinal. Because the letter was written to the cardinal. The cardinal had it. The cardinal gave me no instructions about talking with Mr. Flatley.
Q: I see.
MR. W. ROGERS: I don't think there is any testimony that it's against the teachings of the church in the Flatley letter.
MR. McLEISH: Well I think the testimony speaks for itself.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 12:05 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 12:06 p.m.
Q: All right, this is exhibit -- the next exhibit, 15.
A: I got it.
Q: I don't think you have the right one. Here are the ones we are looking at.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. I am sorry.
MR. W. ROGERS: You are doing 16 first.
MR. McLEISH: Yes, it's right over there. If you could just look to your left.
THE WITNESS: This is 15. This is 16.
MR. McLEISH: Yeah, read 15 first, please.
THE WITNESS: Silently or out loud?
MR. McLEISH: You can read it to yourself. It's a memo to you from Father McQuinn (phonetic).
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I got it. I read it. Okay?
Q: It says, "Attached to this memorandum please find an exchange of correspondence between Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Melia (phonetic) of 31 Kenwood Road and myself in the absence of the cardinal, his eminence, relative to Father Paul Shanley." Do you see that? "Received Office of the Chancellor, May 6, 1974."
A: I see it.
Q: You are the chancellor on May 6, 1974?
Q: Then you will see on Exhibit number 16 --
Q: It's a letter to Cardinal Medeiros and it says -- it's hard to read, but it says, I believe, "We strongly protest the viscous attack on the church and the horrible, disgusting remarks about the holy father. Bishops, priests, nuns and brothers by this erring" -- I think it's erring -- "priest in his remarks at Marymount College. We think he should be silenced immediately." It's signed Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Melia. And then I can't --
A: PS, it has something to do with we will still be continuing to be sending money to the bishops.
Q: Right, okay. And this was another complaint. This is clearly a complaint about Paul Shanley; is that correct? No question about that?
A: Oh, yeah.
Q: Brought to your attention; is that right?
Q: Okay. We are going to be out of order here for a second. I am going to show you number --
MR. W. ROGERS: Would this be a good time to take the break?
MR. McLEISH: Sure, whatever you want to do.
MR. W. ROGERS: Yeah. Just five minutes and then we will come back and then go until :00.
MR. McLEISH: That's fine. Good idea.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 12:09 p.m.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 12:22 p.m.
(Discussion off the record.)
Q: All right. Next document is Exhibit number 19, which is a letter to you from Arthur Reardon. Do you see that?
A: Yeah, he is my -- yeah.
Q: Do you know who Arthur Reardon is?
A: He is my classmate. He is dead now.
Q: He is dead. He was the pastor of Saint Patrick's, is that correct, in Lawrence?
A: I am not sure whether he was the pastor. Maybe he was the assistant. I am not sure.
Q: Well he wrote to you on the 25th of April 974; is that correct?
Q: And you see the article that he attaches; is that correct?
A: Yes, I see the article, yeah.
Q: I am not going to really ask you about the article, but you are free to read it, if you'd like. I am interested in your response, which is Exhibit number 20.
A: Exhibit number 20, my response?
Q: Yes, I will give that to you right now.
Q: Exhibit number 20, if you want to take a look at that, that's your letter back to Father Reardon.
MR. O'NEILL: Okay, I would like you to read the articles before you respond to any question.
THE WITNESS: I would like to do that, too.
MR. McLEISH: You are free to do whatever you'd like.
MR. O'NEILL: The newspaper articles attached.
Q: Okay, you see your letter to Father Reardon?
A: I do.
Q: And you state in the second paragraph, "I can assure you that his eminence is aware of the situation and equally upset. I know that he recently" -- he is upset with Paul Shanley; is that correct?
Q: "I know that he spent some time with the priests in Havro (phonetic) recently and surely the matter was discussed." Then there is a new paragraph, which you wrote. "Father Shanley has been to this office at least on two occasions recently. All of us are concerned and are trying to do our best to insure that the faithful have proper knowledge of the church's attitude and teaching relative to this whole question of homosexuality. I shall advise his eminence of your letter and enclosures. With best regard I am" -- and then your name appears; is that correct?
Q: And that's how you responded to Mr. Reardon?
A: Yeah. He is a priest, too.
Q: I am sorry. Father Reardon. And you were concerned about Father Shanley at this point; is that correct?
A: Yes. Yes.
Q: And you were concerned about Father Shanley because he was making statements that were inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form. What statements are you talking about?
MR. McLEISH: The statements that are -- okay, your objection is noted.
Q: Do you understand my question?
A: I understand you are asking me -- repeat the question.
Q: Certainly. You were concerned about Father Paul Shanley; is that correct?
Q: Were you concerned about Father Paul Shanley because he was making statements that were inconsistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?
A: I might well have been.
Q: Were you concerned about him personally?
Q: Were you concerned about him being insubordinate?
A: What do you mean by insubordinate?
Q: Well you have had two meetings with him that you refer to. You say to Father Reardon, "Father Shanley has been to this office at least on two occasions recently."
A: I am raising my hand here. That doesn't necessarily -- the office is the chancery office. That doesn't necessarily mean his meetings were with me. They might have been, they may not have been. Beg your pardon?
Q: You mean they may have been, they may not have been?
A: They may have been. And they may have been with the cardinal.
Q: All I'm asking you is it say, "All of us are concerned." Do You see that?
A: Uh-huh. Yes.
Q: That is a reference to concern about Father Paul Shanley?
Q: Okay. This is April of 1974?
Q: And I am asking you what, if you recall, was the basis for your concern about Father Paul Shanley.
A: Let me just say that it would be in reference to what Father Reardon wrote. The general tenor of the subject of his concern. His concern.
Q: Were you concerned that Father Shanley was being insubordinate at that time?
A: The word not so much insubordinate. He's -- he is being very independent and incorrect.
Q: Had you ever been confronted, as of April of 1974, with a priest that was being as this independent and as this -- what was the other word you used, incorrect?
Q: Had you ever been confronted with a situation like that as of April of 1974?
A: I had not been.
Q: Had you ever been confronted with a situation like that from 1974 up through 1984 with another priest that was as independent and as incorrect as Paul Shanley?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I can't -- I can't recall. That's not to say it didn't happen, but I can't recall. Yeah, okay.
Q: You can't identify anyone here today?
A: Not immediately, no.
Q: Since you have been in the Diocese of Brooklyn, have you been confronted with any situation where you had a priest as independent and incorrect as Paul Shanley?
MR. O'NEILL: Objection.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. I don't think it's appropriate to inquire as to what has transpired in Brooklyn in a different role, a different Diocese.
MR. McLEISH: Your objection is noted.
Q: Go ahead, father.
A: I think I would agree. It's a different situation. I am just thinking back to Boston.
Q: Let's take it forward through Brooklyn. I am trying to put this in some context. Have you ever in any of the places where you have been as auxiliary bishop or bishop been confronted with a priest that was as independent and incorrect as Paul Shanley? That's the question.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. But go ahead.
Q: Go ahead.
A: Let me just say no one -- I am not saying that there have been priests who have been what you call insubordinate. Independent and incorrect. To the extent how do you measure that? The influence they have on people? Or whatever. But, yes, there have been times when I have been in a position where I had to speak to priests and to -- and to correct them at some time. And at the same time refer -- refer them to the cardinal.
Q: So my question is you have been involved with priests in your capacity as bishop?
Q: That were as independent and as incorrect, those were your words, as Paul Shanley?
A: It depends on how you measure that but, yes. People who independent and incorrect that caused me to call them in and speak to them.
Q: At the same level as Paul Shanley?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: I don't know when you are talking about levels. What's levels?
Q: Can you name one of the priests that you are referring to?
A: Off the hand, no, I can't. But I could --
Q: Just one.
A: No. Name any priest?
Q: Name a priest that was as independent and incorrect as Paul Shanley.
A: No, I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't do that anyway. He would be apart from this case.
Q: Well, okay. You can't name one; is that correct?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to form.
A: Can't or wouldn't.
Q: Can't and you wouldn't?
A: That's correct.
Q: All right, next exhibit. Did you consider, by the way, in 1974 Paul Shanley to be a troubled individual?
A: Well how do you define troubled?
Q: Well we are going to actually get to those words later on. Okay? I will reserve that question.
A: I would like to know what the definition of troubled is.
Q: It doesn't have a -- a troubled priest, you have never come across that?
A: Across --
Q: Have you ever come across a priest that you yourself, in your own words, considered to be troubled?
Q: So you have an understanding of what the word troubled means; is that correct?
MR. O'NEILL: As he uses it?
A: Yeah. Well, excuse me. I am sorry.
Q: Let's use your definition. What's your definition?
A: Somebody who is disturbed in one sort or another. Might have a concern. Might be a legitimate concern, an illegitimate concern. Person who had a physical condition, a psychological condition. A person who had responsibilities that put weight upon him causing him all kinds of stress. Relationships. That kind of stuff, sure.
Q: Bishop Daily, did you consider Paul Shanley as of April 1974 to be a troubled priest using the definition that you just provided to us?
A: Yes. I would say he was a troubled priest that needed help.
Q: Well was he sent in for any type of mental health assistance or evaluation at that time?
A: At that time I am not aware of that.
Q: Did you ever --
A: And maybe that -- okay, go ahead.
Q: Did you ever send --
MR. W. ROGERS: Did you finish?
Q: Go ahead.
A: No, no, I am not aware of sending him to a psychiatrist.
Q: But you felt he needed help?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And other priests had been sent to psychiatrists; is that correct?
A: Other priest had been?
Q: Had been in 1970 -- between 1974 and 1984?
A: Any other priests?
Q: In the Archdiocese of Boston.
A: I don't recall. But the records would show yes or no.
Q: But and you could order -- could have ordered Paul Shanley to be evaluated, is that correct, by a psychiatrist? You could have done that?
MR. W. ROGERS: Objection to the form.
Q: Go ahead.
A: I would -- I could -- that's not something I would order. I would put a lot of pressure on him to go to see a psychiatrist. If he refused, then I would refer him to the cardinal.
Q: And if he refused to be evaluated, then his faculties could be removed; is that correct?
A: Only the cardinal would do that.
Q: Well did you suggest to the Cardinal Medeiros, to start with Cardinal Medeiros, at any time that in light of the fact that you felt that Paul Shanley needed help that he should be evaluated by a psychiatrist?
A: I don't recall. That's not to say I didn't. I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell Cardinal Law that you felt that Paul Shanley was a troubled priest and needed to be evaluated by a psychiatrist?
A: I don't recall doing that. Okay? Less -- no, I do not recall. Answer to the question, no.
Q: Well since you considered him to be a troubled priest who needed help, could you provide us with an explanation as to why you didn't make that recommendation?
A: Sure. Sure. I think it's a question of the help that he did receive from his eminence and also from other priests. And at the same time it could be very well in his case good spiritual direction and good forceful spiritual direction.
Q: Well did that happen with Paul Shanley?
A: I am not sure.
Q: So you really --
A: I am not saying it didn't happen because that's a private matter. But I didn't -- I -- I can't say for sure.
Q: Were you aware of him receiving any sort of spiritual help or guidance from his eminence? Are you aware of that happening?
A: Well I think I will refer back to the documents.
Q: Well apart from the documents --
A: Well that's where it took place. I mean, they show it.
Q: But just so we are clear, by 1974 you considered him a troubled priest who is in need of help, right?
MR. O'NEILL: Yes?
A: Even my own.
MR. O'NEILL: Yes or no for the record.
Q: But you can't recall doing anything about it?
A: Specifically, no.
A: Well to tell you the truth, I didn't see him that often. I wasn't in that much contact with him. What direction he received, advice, counsel, what have you, was given to him by his contacts, through his contacts with his eminence.
Q: But you don't know what those were?
A: No. That's a private matter. I am not privy to that.
Q: So you even in a general way, you don't have any explanation as to why you didn't approach his eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, and suggest that Paul Shanley be referred to a psychiatrist?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. McLEISH: Let me finish the question, please.
MR. W. ROGERS: I am sorry. I thought you had. He hasn't finished the question.
Q: Be referred to a psychiatrist to get some mental health assistance.
MR. W. ROGERS: I object to the argumentative form of the question.
Q: Go ahead.
A: No. I asked -- I sought preliminary advice from others who -- and asked their advice as to how best to treat the situation.
A: One particularly was Father Alfred Hughes.
Q: What did you talk to Father Hughes about with respect to father -- wait a second -- with respect to Father Shanley?
A: I asked him what would be a good way to deal with -- what he felt would be a good way to deal with Father Shanley.
Q: You felt he was troubled and in need of help and you went to see Bishop Hughes; is that correct?
A: No. Did I go to see him?
Q: Did you go to see him?
A: No, no. You are saying who went to see him, Shanley?
Q: No, I thought you went to see Al Hughes.
A: No. I either called him or wrote to him or even talked to him. He wrote back to me. I think we have documentation of that, I think.
Q: I think we do.
Q: And that's what you did; is that correct?
A: Yeah. And he gave me a plan.
Q: He gave you a plan?
A: And we kind of followed it. That's all documented.
Q: You saw in some of the previous correspondence like from Mr. Flatley that he was concerned about the effect that Father Shanley was having on his son; do you remember that?
MR. W. ROGERS: I object. I don't think that's what he said. I object to the form of the question. It's an argumentative question.
Q: He was concerned about his 15 year old son; do you remember that?
A: I guess, yes. If you get the letter out and find out exactly what he said.
Q: Did you believe at some point in 1974 and 975 or even thereafter that Paul Shanley had potential to be harmful to children?
A: Not -- not specifically. It's the harm -- the harm that he was doing, as I read it, was not so much -- not overt acts. I didn't see him doing overt acts. What I did experience as harm was the way he was talking and the way he was teaching.
Q: And we know, do we not --
A: And encouraging.
Q: We know, do we not, that sometimes when people say let's call them deviant things that they can act on those deviant expressions?
A: They can, but not always.
Q: But then since you had the ability to request that Paul Shanley, through the cardinal, submit to an evaluation, medical, psychiatric evaluation, in light of the fact that you considered him to be a troubled man, why didn't you do that?
A: I went to Father Hughes first because he was of that time the spiritual director of Saint John's Seminary. And he had some assistance and I asked him at that time what would be a good plan to deal with and to deal with Father Shanley, given his condition and what he was saying. He did give me a plan. He did give me some suggestions.
Q: Do you have access to the records at the Archdiocese of Boston in 1975 and beyond up to 1984?
A: What records do you refer to?
Q: Well let's start with the personnel files. Do you have access to the personnel files?
A: No. All the personnel files?
A: No. They were kept in the personnel department. Priest's personnel.
Q: When you became the number two man in 977, did you have access to those files?
A: Let me just say this. I could have had access if I wanted to have access. I did not go to those files. I went through the directors themselves. Even as they did with me in the private spotlight.
Q: When you say the directors, who do you mean?
A: The personnel directors at that time, they had changed. I couldn't tell you exactly who was --
Q: Father Oats?
A: You referred earlier to Gilbert Finn.
A: And that -- and this year of '74, that may be -- he may have been in charge. It's a question of just checking the record, that's all.
Q: Then it was Father Oats; is that correct?
A: Father Oats succeeded -- yeah, okay. That's my understanding. That's my remembrance.
Q: Did you ever go to the personnel records to take a look at the files of this man that you considered to be a troubled priest and in need of help?
A: No. But I had a draw, as I remembered before, about special cases in my own office. And I had referred that -- I referred to that almost every week.
Q: Was that -- did that include Paul Shanley?
A: No, I don't remember exact -- specifically any kind of a significant file on Paul Shanley. But if he had been involved in any kind of what you -- what his deviant activity.
A: I would have had some knowledge of that and some record of that in that file.
Q: So this was a special file for particular priests that was in your office; is that correct?
Q: And you can't say either way whether Paul Shanley had a file with one of the special file subjects?
A: No, no, no.
Q: You have to wait until I finish.
A: I am sorry.
Q: You can't, looking back on it, you don't know whether Paul Shanley was one of those special cases or special files that were in your office; is that correct?
A: I can't remember now, but that's not to say he wasn't there. But in my file I can't recall.
Q: And is this the same thing as the so-called confidential file that was maintained under canon law, the files that were in your office?
A: You know, with all due respect, I thought it was. But, you know, there were other personnel files, as we already mentioned from the personnel department, the cardinal's own personal file on personal things that didn't necessarily mean priests and that kind of thing. I think you have most of them. I think they gave them, whatever. And what else? And we had a file in a secret safe that only I -- which I had a combination or a key, I forget now which one, and the cardinal, that had to deal with priests who were troubled priests who were, most of whom, if not all of whom, were dead. And they were kept in this file in a special safe.
Q: But you had access -- you and the cardinal were the people from 1977 on that had access to all the files; is that not correct?
A: Oh, yeah, sure. Well let's put it this way. Excuse me, check that. The cardinal certainly had access to all the files, if he wanted to. I think that if I had pressed for information in the file, I would also have been given that. But I -- but I assume because the cardinal had access that he would have told me if he wanted me to move in on the file and get access to specific information on any particular priest.
Q: Well let's just be clear here. There is, under canon law, you are aware that there are files called confidential files that relate to matters that would bring scandal to the church; is that correct?
A: Uh-huh. Yes.
Q: And those have to be maintained separately and only certain people get access to them; is that correct?
A: That's true.
Q: And you were one of those people in the archdiocese that had access to the confidential files for these priests; is that correct?
A: The principal is correct. The fact is that I -- I had access into the file, locked file, in my own office which contained these records. Now and I thought and it was my impression -- may well be. I don't -- because I don't -- well I guess anyway. That I -- that it was, the cases, the difficult cases. And that's it.
Q: So those -- the difficult cases were in, you felt were in the locked file cabinet in your office, correct?
Q: And the locked file cabinet in your office would contain matters relating to scandal in the church including allegations that priests had sexually molested children; is that correct?
A: Yes. If they were there, yeah.
Q: And I want to show you a document that we are going to mark. We are jumping out of order again. Exhibit number 27.
A: It this it?
Q: It's an extra copy. Exhibit number 27. Why don't you take a moment and look at that for me? If you need any help with the handwriting, I might be able to help you.
A: I can't read the name of it.
Q: Let me try to help you, if I could.
A: What's the last sentence of the first paragraph?
Q: The last -- the priest actually manipulates the boy.
A: All right. Okay. The second page, the paragraph --
A: William stopped seeing Father Shanley immediately --
Q: Immediately after something incident.
A: Then mother noticed --
Q: Mother noticed.
A: What's that?
Q: Remark. I don't know. I can't read it.
A: Remarks of boy making of priest.
A: And what's the next one? Two plus two is two and two. Boy's father does not know when Father Shanley might --
Q: I can't truthfully read that last paragraph in an accurate fashion.
A: Mixed up family. Father Shanley might something. Family is a mixed up family. That's the last line.
Q: That's William's family.
A: Then the next -- you want me to keep going?
Q: Yeah, the next page I think are some notes that were --
A: Father Arthur Shevel (phonetic).
Q: Do you know him?
A: No. He obviously is a Lasolet (phonetic) priest. So I assume he is a religious order priest.
A: Father Paul Shanley, Saint Patrick's.
Q: Don't read the next name because it relates to a victim. Just don't read it out loud.
A: That's all right. Of Saint Patrick's.
Q: I can't read the --
A: Something about treatment.
Q: Burglar, burglar something of treatment.