Deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily
Day 2, page 3
On August 22, 2002, lawyers for three men who claim they were sexually abused by the Rev. Paul Shanley continued their deposition of Bishop Thomas V. Daily of Brooklyn, N.Y., a former top-ranking official in the Archdiocese of Boston.
Q: 10 for rape, I'm sorry. I'm showing you Exhibit No. 69. Do you recognize this as the letter you received from Paul Shanley thanking you for appointing him the administrator of St. John the Evangelist parish in Newton?
Q: Did you receive that letter?
Q: And he also says for your kind words of confidence; do you see that?
Q: Okay. Now, you are aware, are you not, that after Cardinal Law arrived in Boston, Paul Shanley was ultimately appointed pastor of St. Jean's? Are you aware of that?
A: Not aware of it, but I only -- Well, I guess we talked about it, but I'm not aware of it until the last day or so. I can't recall.
Q: I'm going to show you -- it's out of order but I will give Exhibit No. -- I'm showing you Exhibit 72 and ask if you would read that.
A: I read it.
Q: Do you think that Cardinal Law would have been justified in relying upon your decision in appointing Paul Shanley as administrator in making this decision to appoint Paul Shanley as pastor?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Well, I object. Are you asking him to form an opinion now about an act that took place after Bishop Daily left Boston?
MR. McLEISH: Do you understand the question?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Are you asking him to form an opinion now?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, I am. I'm not asking him to form an opinion, I'm asking him whether when he believed based upon his knowledge of Archidiosese and policies and procedures whether Cardinal Law could have made the appointment of Paul Shanley that's reflected in that document you have in front of you based upon your decision to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
Q: Go ahead, you can answer.
A: Not necessarily. I think he would have consulted with the -- maybe the bishop, Bishop Mulcahy. I don't know.
Q: It would not have been consistent with the practices as you understood it for Cardinal Law in making the appointment in December of '94 to simply rely upon the fact that you had just previously appointed Paul Shanley as the administrator?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. Again you are asking about practices at a point in time that Pastor Daily was not involved in day-to-day operations I think that's unfair.
MR. McLEISH: He left in September.
Q: Is that your testimony, you left the --
A: Physically, yes.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object.
Q: And the appointment was in December of 1984, okay. Before you left. You understood the practice and policies of the archdiocese in Boston; is that correct?
Q: And based upon the practices and policies of the Archdiocese of Boston as they existed at the time you left, would Cardinal Law have been justified under those policies and practices in making the appointment of Paul Shanley as pastor based upon your previous appointment of Paul Shanley as administrator?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form of the question.
A: He could have.
Q: And we've got in front of you the deposition of Cardinal Law, the various depositions of Cardinal Law. You'll see the second day. That's Father Helmick's, the second day. Please turn to page 49. It's actually -- it's page 49. As it appears in the mini-script it is page 13 in that document, page 13 in the bottom right-hand corner.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: What day?
MR. McLEISH: Second day, June 7, 2002.
Q: Are you looking at the page?
A: The bottom right?
Q: Yes, the bottom right.
A: About -- your question is what I know?
Q: No. Actually it's this one right here. Page 13 is down there.
A: I beg your pardon. Page 13 all by itself.
Q: And it says, this is from the cardinal. I will read you what the cardinal said and then ask you a question about it. "Was it your practice at the time" -- this is my question -- "that Paul Shanley was elevated to pastor by you for there to be any review of the priest's files to see if there might be some matter of scandal or abuse that would preclude him from being a parish serving young children?"
A: "No, there was -- no, because I would have assumed there was no scandal or abuse if the person was in place."
Question: "So you were relying on Bishop Daily's decision in appointing Paul Shanley as administrator; is that correct?"
A: "That's correct."
A: I see it.
Q: Was the cardinal's reliance upon your decision consistent with the practices and policies of the archdiocese as you understood them before you left the archdiocese?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question because now what you posed to the cardinal was his personal practice and now you're trying to transpose that into the practices of the archdiocese. I think it's unfair to ask the witness to comment on the testimony of another individual.
Q: Do you understand the question?
A: I do, and I think this would be reliance on the cardinal's personal inquiry with meetings as to whether he -- my decision to appointment as interim administrator, that he would he would have relied on that, as he said, and named Father Shanley.
Q: Well, you testified previously that the Personnel Board would make recommendations on pastors.
Q: And that before the pastors were finally appointed, that there would be a review of your records by you to make sure that there was not a matter that would -- such as a scandal that would prevent the person from being fit to serve as pastors.
A: Under normal circumstances, that would be it.
Q: Did that continue after the cardinal came in in March of 1984?
A: I can't say for sure.
Q: Do you remember there being any change in policy about the review that might occur before someone was named a pastor, any change in the protocol that you described before when Cardinal Law came in?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. You referred to that in one question as both the policy and a protocol and I believe the testimony was that it was a practice, so I object to the form of the question.
Q: Let's call it a practice.
A: Practice to consult?
A: In both, in every case.
Q: Well, when someone was appointed pastor, was there a practice that was in effect prior to the time that Cardinal Law arrived whereby you would be consulted to see if there was anything in the record about a particular priest that would mitigate against him becoming pastor?
A: Yes. That would follow the -- it would follow the Personnel Board meeting normally on a Friday evening. That was a kind of normal procedure that did not preclude other investigations and questions.
Q: That was a practice that was in effect; is that correct?
A: Yes, with me it was, that was, you know.
Q: Did the practice change as you recall, as you can best recall, when Cardinal Law arrived?
A: I don't think there's a formal change in policy as such of administrative action. I think that the cardinal relied on his own judgments and made that judgment as the Archbishop of Boston which was entirely within his purview.
Q: I'm talking specifically about the practice of checking with you before someone was named pastor. Was it a practice after Cardinal Law came to Boston, as you can best recall?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Either way?
A: Either way.
Q: Now, did you -- when Cardinal Medeiros was cardinal, were you -- was there a cabinet of the cardinal?
A: So-called cabinet in the question of development of the new law Cardinal Law, no.
Q: There were various departments of the archdiocese when Cardinal Medeiros was cardinal, was there not?
Q: Were there so-called cabinet officials for various departments?
A: You can call them that, administrators.
Q: Would there be meetings of administrators from time to time with the cardinal?
Q: And what were those called? Were they called admin- --
A: They were general meetings. More than likely the cardinal had a practice of seeing and interviewing administrators in an individual manner more than in a group manner, but it happened not very often, but regularly it was strictly one-on-one.
Q: Well, you at the chancery, as the No. 2 man in the chancery, you were in contact when Cardinal Medeiros was cardinal with senior officials of the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: Let me have that again.
Q: When you were the No. 2 man in the Archdiocese of Boston, were you in contact with other senior officials, bishops and others within the archdiocese from time to time?
Q: You would know Bishop Mulcahy, for example?
Q: You knew most of the bishops; is that correct?
A: I knew all of the bishops.
Q: You knew other senior officials that worked at the chancery; is that correct?
Q: Up until the time that Cardinal Law arrived, did you hear anyone state words to the effect that the recordkeeping of the archdiocese was poor?
Q: After Cardinal --
A: I don't recall any.
Q: After Cardinal Law arrived, he instituted a process of cabinet meetings; is that correct?
A: It was preliminary meetings. He hadn't actually formed the cabinet but his organizational changes, the administration changed, yes. He was bringing in people to form a so-called cabinet, interview them and do so-called establishment.
Q: You were part of that; is that correct?
A: No, not very much.
Q: Did you hear after Cardinal Law arrived in Boston, March of 1984, anyone in the Archdiocese of Boston ever state that there was inadequate or poor recordkeeping within the archdiocese or words to that effect?
A: No, I never heard anybody say that.
Q: Now, did you ever tell Cardinal Law that there had been allegations that Paul Shanley had endorsed man/boy love relationships before you left the archdiocese of Boston?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell Cardinal Law that there had been letters written in 1977 and 1979 making allegations about Paul Shanley in the area of incest, bestiality, pedophilia and man/boy love?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form. Go ahead.
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about the Stevens letter?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about Mr. McGeady's letter that attached the Gaysweek article?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about Pastor Weston's letter?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you ever tell him about Mr. Moynihan's letter?
A: I do not recall.
Q: Was there any practice since Cardinal Law didn't know anyone, any of the priests, when he arrived in Boston, was there any practice of him seeking out consultation with individuals such as yourself about the various priests of the archdiocese?
A: I would -- I -- surely he had consulted. He was consulting with people all the time, talking to people, and most especially in relation to building up his administrative team and others too I supposes; basically administrative.
Q: Did Cardinal Law ever ask you whether there were any problems with any of the priests who held appointments within the archdiocese? Did he ever ask you that?
A: That general question?
A: Not that I recall.
Q: Did you ever see him asking anybody else that question such as Bishop Banks?
A: I did not see him but I have -- I presume he did but I didn't see him.
Q: You presume he did but you didn't witness that yourself; is that correct?
Q: Now, would it be accurate to state that when Cardinal Law arrived in Boston that you were one of the individuals that he would look to if there was a serious allegation involving misconduct by a priest?
A: I would say "yes."
Q: All right.
A: Okay, go ahead.
Q: You would say "yes." Okay, let me go ahead and show you this exhibit, please, marked as Exhibit 71. Bishop, you want to take a moment and look at that?
Q: Exhibit 71. Have you read this exhibit, Bishop?
A: I have.
Q: And you'll see on the first page there's a letter from a Mr. Gregory Nash. In the first letter -- the first page of the letter he reports that in 1983 when his wife was a victim of two sexually graphic and degrading actions by Father Rivero. Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Did you know Father Rivero?
A: I can't recall. I can't put a face on it. I would say I probably knew him because he was Portuguese and we don't have too many Portuguese priests around.
Q: It says in one of the instances that he reports in May of '83 to receive the sacrament of reconciliation he blocked the only exit door and exposed himself and masturbated himself.
A: I see.
Q: It occurred in the home that's counted on the bottom of the first page, and then on the second page when you'll see on the second page Father Rivero is alleged to have arrived at Mrs. Nash's bedroom and Mrs. Nash spent two hours fighting off his pawing and pathetic pleas for her to give in to him. Do you see that at the top?
A: I read it, yes.
Q: You see your name is mentioned on page 3. It says in this letter from Mr. Nash, "The whole matter has been turned over to the office of the Administrator, Bishop Thomas Daily." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Then you'll see a letter from Cardinal Law in response of these allegations signed by Cardinal Law where it is stated in the second paragraph, "As you must know, my knowledge of the case is not complete. After some consultation, I find that this matter is something that is personal to Father Rivero and must be considered such." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Were you consulted with respect to the complaint of Mr. Nash and Father Rivero blocking the rectory door, or blocking the rectory door and masturbating in front of her, and then the second instance? Were you involved in this?
A: No. I have no recollection of being involved.
Q: All right, I would like to, if -- could you turn to page -- the second day -- I'm sorry, not the second day. The third day of Cardinal Law's deposition. I think you have in front of you.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: What is the date?
MR. McLEISH: The date on that is August 13th.
A: What page is it now?
Q: It's listed as page 9 in the bottom right-hand corner, the third day. I don't think you have the right one. Go to this document. Let me find it for you. The type of incident, Bishop, that is alleged by Mr. Nash, is that the type of incident that would stand out in your mind?
A: Yes, it certainly does. Well, it does now.
Q: Serious allegation?
A: Normally it would, yes.
MR. McLEISH: Why don't we change the tape.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the video record at 2:31 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 2:32 p.m.
Q: Let me read you a section of Cardinal Law's deposition, this is the third day, August 13th, page 33, and ask you a question about it. I'm starting on line 10.
Question: "We put in front of you Exhibit 43, a letter from Mr. Nash to you that in detail set out allegations that you yourself acknowledge were serious allegations."
A: "That's correct."
Question: "A gross misconduct by Father Rivero; is that correct?"
A: "That's correct."
Question: "And he wrote this letter to you and gave you details about other parishes where Father Rivero served and allegations of sexual misconduct and you wrote back and said, 'I find this matter something personal to Father Rivero and must be considered such'"; is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Question: "So there was no investigation of these serious allegations there was simply a letter indicating this was a matter personal to Father Rivero, correct?" Mr. Rogers: "Objection." Mr. Todd: "Objection. Go ahead, answer." "My response in seeing Mr. Nash's letter which remains my response is that I have no recollection of seeing that letter. My presumption is that this matter was handled for me by someone assisting me and this letter was prepared for my signature."
Question: "Cardinal Law, do you read your letters before you sign them as a general practice? Did you in 1984?"
A: "You know, did I on April the 3rd, 1984, three days into the job, read every letter put before me? Probably not. It is my custom now to read every letter carefully. It depends. Some are matters of routine and I would not, but I cannot recall this letter. I cannot recall Mr. Nash's letter so it's really not possible for me to go into that matter further. I think you need to ask those who are handling this case for me in this instance I would imagine it would have been Bishop Daily." Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Does that help refresh your recollection as to whether you were the person that was handling the complaint about Father Rivero from Mr. Nash?
Q: And so Mr. Nash's letter is something -- as you just read it, I think you testified it stands out, that type of allegation stands out.
A: It certainly does.
Q: And so as you best recall, you had not had any prior involvement with Mr. Nash's allegations against Father Rivero?
A: To the best of my knowledge, none.
Q: You left in September of 1984 for Palm Beach as I think you testified. Did you tell anyone in the Archdiocese of Boston before you left or even after you left about the allegations that were made that Father Shanley gave a talk in 1977 in which he mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, incest and made other remarks?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: You are excluding discussions with counsel?
MR. McLEISH: Absolutely.
A: Is there any connection between what you said before and this question? I don't understand.
Q: Let me rephrase it. In September of 1984 you left, correct?
A: This is something new now we are talking about?
Q: September of '84 you left?
A: We are not talking about Nash any more?
Q: No, Nash is over. September of 1984 you left?
Q: You were the person that had dealt with four of these complaints -- issues, let's describe it -- involving Father Paul Shanley that we talked about, correct?
Q: You were the one that appointed Paul Shanley as administrator and acting pastor of the parish?
Q: Before you left, did you take it upon yourself to tell anyone else within the Archdiocese of Boston, including but not limited to Cardinal Law, that there had been allegations made about Father Paul Shanley as is reflected in Exhibits 42, 49, 66 and 67?
A: These are more in reference to those four. They speak about meetings, statements.
Q: The meetings, the statements of what he said about man/boy love, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, all the stuff we have been through?
Q: Did you take it upon yourself that you dealt with those four letters in some capacity? Did you take it upon yourself to tell anyone before you left that these four letters had been sent in to the archdiocese?
A: I can't recall. I can't recall.
Q: Wouldn't it have been important for you as a transitional matter to let someone in a position of authority know about what had been alleged concerning Paul Shanley that you were aware of? Would that have been important for people to know about?
A: Certainly at the time of any type of action, yes. Yes.
Q: I'm asking about the time you left. You had these allegations from four different reporters from 1977 up to 1983 about Paul Shanley. Would you agree with me they were serious allegations, would you not?
A: I do.
Q: And you're leaving. Did you think it important as a transitional matter to share your knowledge of these incidents with someone such as Cardinal Law or someone else in a position of authority before you left so there would be a continuation and understanding of what had occurred, what had been alleged in the past about Paul Shanley?
A: Thinking back, it would have been good if I did. However, I don't recall. The only safety factor was that those materials were put in a file and that if something arose, a question arose or and action was to be taken with regard to Paul Shanley, there would be an automatic search of those records and they would be available.
Q: So if there was a future allegation against Paul Shanley, it was your understanding that there would be, as you described it, an automatic search for those records; is that correct?
A: I would -- yes, I would say so, yes. I would have to assume that. Yes. Specifically I can't tell you but, yes, I would say yes if he were to be -- yes, if there was some action.
Q: To whom did you turn over your files, the ones in your office when you left?
A: My files remained in the office.
Q: The ones that were locked, the ones on the so-called special cases?
A: That's correct.
Q: And who occupied your office?
A: I can't remember.
Q: Were you the moderator of the curiae at this point?
A: No, I didn't have that title. I might have acted that way but I didn't have that title.
Q: Did you know, did you make arrangements with all of these files you had about priests where there are issues of misconduct that were in your office, did you make any arrangements to formally transition over those files to someone else?
A: No. Keep in mind, you speak of files -- you seem to intimate there were many, many files, and I get the impression in your mind there was a file cabinet, rather large, with several drawers and all the rest. And the file I had written "appropriate as a priest," there was one drawer, maybe half of another.
A: So having said that, when I left, in the interim I can't recall what I did or did not do.
Q: Okay, but this was information, forget how voluminous it was.
A: Obviously there had to be someone who had a key to get into the file.
Q: That was a locked file?
A: Yes. The key would be available so they would have access to the materials inside, certainly the cardinal.
Q: So consistent with your practice certainly the cardinal would?
A: He would have access to information to get that, to get access to that file.
Q: And the letters that we've put in front you, the Exhibits 42, 49, 66 and 67, those four letters, would those have the type of material that would have gone in a file in your office?
A: Yes, normally, that's true.
Q: Okay. Although you probably can't remember which of those letters specifically you put in, my question is: Were those the types of letters that would go in the files, the confidential files maintained in your office?
A: Um hum.
Q: You have to say "yes."
A: Say "yes," sorry.
Q: And you said Cardinal Law would have a key?
A: Well, he would. Let's put it this way. He would have access to that drawer. If he wanted to get into that drawer and drawer and a half, the means to do so would have been made available, presuming he had the key.
Q: So it's your best testimony when you left, those letters that we have been over, 42, 49, 66 and 67, were in some locked file drawer in good order?
A: Well, I -- without knowing specifically, I say "yes." Were they actually there, do I have a recollection of them actually being in that file, I can't say. They could have been in another file. They could have been in the archbishop's own file or the cardinal's file.
Q: It would be impossible for you to remember?
A: I can't recall.
Q: It would be impossible for you to remember what specific recdords were in any of those files; is that correct?
A: It would be difficult.
Q: All I'm asking, is that your practice? As you look back on what your practice was, would it have been your practice to put letters such as the Sweeney, Stevens letter, the McGeady letter, the Weston letter and the Moynihan letter in the file in your office?
A: Excuse me, it would have been my practice for any record regarding inappropriate activity of a priest that I had possession of and was in control of would have gone into that file.
Q: So as you sit here today is it -- Okay, all right. When you say "inappropriate activity," that could include allegations that a priest had been involved in an organization such as NAMBLA; is that correct?
Q: Or had made remarks about incest, bestiality or other deviant sexual acts?
A: And others, yes.
Q: It's also safe to say that file was organized?
A: It was organized in the sense it was good alphabetical order. There were folders with names attached.
Q: Were they in chronological order?
A: No, they were in alphabetical order.
Q: Within each file if there were several letters on a particular priest, would they be in chronological order?
A: I can't remember. There weren't that many letters. I can't recall whether they were in chronological order. It wouldn't actually be difficult. The names, we pull the name and very easily you can find out and put them in chronological order if that's what you wanted to do, if they weren't in chronological order. But I mean the point of the extent of the -- the file itself, the name would be the telling factor, the material inside would be there and then they -- it could be easily accessed and resource for the sense of information.
Q: You certainly didn't consider your own files to be disorganized, did you?
A: If you call it organized, they were organized.
Q: I call it organized. Do you agree with that characterization?
A: Whether the characterization is true or not, that's the way it was.
Q: All right. I'm going to show you what has been marked as Exhibit 62. Just look at the first page if you want, or you can look at the whole document if you like.
A: Are we through with this now?
A: We have this one now, 62?
Q: Yes. I'm going to ask you questions about the first page.
A: Do you want me to read it now?
Q: Read it to yourself, yes.
A: First page I read.
Q: Now, you testified several minutes ago that if there were future allegations against a priest alleging some form of misconduct, that it was your understanding at the time you left in September of 1984 that it would be virtually automatic for the files that were maintained in your office to be checked. Do you recall that testimony?
Q: Okay. Now, you have in front of you Exhibit 62, which is after you left. This is April 29, 1985. This would have been after you had gone.
Q: Now, you'll see in the letter it's a letter to Cardinal Law from another woman in New York, a Wilma Hicks. Do you see that?
Q: She's from Rochester, New York it says, and she says -- You see in the first paragraph?
A: Um hum.
Q: In the third sentence, "Father Shanley apparently is involved in street ministry. He made some outlandish statements regarding the people involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not merely an orientation"; do you see that?
Q: "Here are some of the statements. Some are on tape."
A: Um hum.
Q: I want to address your attention to one of them. "When adults have sex with children, the children seduce them. Children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison knowing they are the guilty ones." Do you see that?
A: I see that.
Q: Does it strike you there's a similarity between that alleged statement and the statement that appeared in the Gaysweek news article forwarded to you by Attorney McGeady in '79?
A: I don't make the recollection but I will trust your comparison.
Q: This statement that Miss Hicks alleges that Father Shanley made, when adults have sex with children, the children may seduce them, children may later regret having caused someone to go to prison, this is certainly another statement that you would find contrary to the teachings of the church?
A: Yes, very inappropriate.
Q: Would you agree that it's abhorrent?
A: Yes, I would say the statement is abhorrent.
Q: So as of September 1984 if there had been a communication received such as this one, isn't it true that your understanding of the policy at the time that you left would have been that automatically there would have been a search of Father Shanley's files?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to form. Hypothetical question.
A: I can't recall if that was the actual policy but certainly if I had this at that time, this was in my file and I was the one to receive it from this lady, Cardinal Law said it to me, then I would assume, as I always had with Cardinal Medeiros, to check with Cardinal Law and ask him what he wanted me to do. If he said nothing and gave it to me to follow throught, or if he said, "Follow through," I would have followed through.
Q: When you said there were allegations it was automatic, the file would be looked at in your office did you not say that?
A: Yes, I would look at it. If I got this, if I had this, I always look at them, yes, because I would want to approach the cardinal, arch bishop and tell him.
Q: There were other complaints?
A: I would certainly tell him about this complaint and other complaints, too, with regard to Father Shanley if he was not aware of them or Father Shanley's story at the time. Then I have no hesitancy to respond to him and to tell him everything that I had.
Q: Just so --
A: Everything we do.
Q: Just so we're clear, understanding you weren't there in April of 1985, the time you had left, if you received a letter such as this one and had been asked to look into it, it would have been automatic that you would have looked at the locked files in your office concerning Father Shanley?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form.
A: You know, to answer the question, it would have been automatic for me. That's a presumption for me that became fact, yes, as a general practice for me whenever I got a letter like this.
Q: It was automatic you look at the file?
Q: That's what you would have expected someone to have done in April of 1985 when they got Exhibits 62. DI
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. Wait, I object to the form of the question. You are now asking for an opinion as to what someone should have done at a point in time when the bishop was not there. I think that's calling for an expert opinion and I think it's inappropriate. I instruct him not to answer.
MR. McLEISH: It's not inappropriate. You are perfectly free to ask him.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: It's asking for an expert opinion.
MR. McLEISH: It's not an expert opinion.
Q: Assuming the policy -- assuming that there was testimony that the policy didn't change between the time you left in April of 1985, do you believe there would have been some review of Exhibits 42, 44, 67 and 66?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. Now, first of all, there's no testimony that a policy; the testimony was a practice.
MR. McLEISH: Practice.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
MR. McLEISH: Objection is noted. Answer the question.
A: In this case I do not know. '85 I don't know, in '85 it was.
Q: But if this letter had been received when you were there, it would have gone to the file.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. That's a hypothetical.
A: I would have said the same thing. That's a hypothetical question.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Pretty good answer.
Q: You can answer the question. It's very -- it's not hard to do when your lawyer -- I'm asking you, when you received a letter such as this one, April 29, 1985, when you were there working for Cardinal Medeiros you would have put it in the file, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to the question. It's a hypothetical question. Go ahead.
A: The letter like this, would it have gone to the file?
A: If I had received it?
A: I would say, you know, yes, but I would also add the note it is hypothetical. Normally that would have been my practice, to find out, because I would see that as being responsible.
Q: Now, do you -- when you came -- when Cardinal Law came to Boston, I think you testified in the first day of your deposition he didn't really have that much familiarity with the priests of the archdiocese; is that correct?
A: When he first came to Boston?
A: I don't know how much familiarity he did have but he certainly -- the point of view of the size of the diocese and the number of priests, there was alot to learn.
Q: He relied on people like you to keep him updated on matters of importance; is that correct?
A: He certainly relied on me for specific questions and any information I might be able to give to him I would report. Also, however, that a lot of his activity had to do with the building up of a cabinet among people who were working in the archdiocese and had access to different departments.
Q: Would you turn to day 2, I think you have day 2 of Cardinal Law's deposition.
A: What page?
Q: Page 69. 18 at the bottom but page 69.
Q: Question -- this was to Cardinal Law starting page 69 line 7: "When you first came in you didn't have that much familiarity with the priests at the Archdiocese; is that correct?"
A: "That's correct."
Question: "Would you rely upon people like Father Daily to keep you updated on matters of importance?"
A: "That's correct."
Question: "And that would include matters with priests; is that correct?"
A: "Yes." That would include matters relating to priests; is that correct?
A: Um hum.
Q: Answer that's correct.
A: Um um.
Q: Would you concur with Cardinal Law he was relying on people like to you keep him updated on matters relating to priests?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A: Let me just say he would rely on me to give him information about a priests along with the others involved, particularly and most particularly the personnel department.
Q: Why did you not provide him with the information about Paul Shanley that we've gone through here in your deposition yesterday and today?
A: Because I -- for one thing, I do not recall him asking and at the same time he had other sources and, as I said before, the personnel department particularly. I do not -- That's not to say he didn't ask, but I don't recall him asking for a rundown on a list of priests and particular priests or priests in a certain section or what have you, you know.
Q: Cardinal Law comes to Boston at that time Cardinal Medeiros was ill for some time when he arrives in March; is that correct?
A: He died.
Q: He died before then. He had been ill for some time.
A: He died in September.
Q: You were the man in charge from September of 1983 up through the time that Cardinal Law arrived; is that correct?
Q: So wouldn't it have been the case, Bishop Daily, that Cardinal Law would have asked you something, would have asked you something along the lines of "Is there anything I need to know about, anything I need to know about Bishop Daily?" Something like that, would there have been a conversation like that?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to form.
A: Possibly, but I don't recall him asking but possibly, yes.
Q: You are certain you never told Cardinal Law about Paul Shanley's alleged involvement with NAMBLA and these other matters we have been over?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection. He's already answered.
Q: And you understand, do you not, Bishop Daily, after you departed for Palm Beach, Father Shanley stayed on in St. Jean's, correct?
A: Well, from what I'm hearing now, yes.
Q: When did you first hear that?
A: That he stayed on?
A: I think maybe today I asked the question how long was he at St. Jean's.
Q: You didn't know until today that he stayed on until January of 1990?
A: I have to say I wasn't sure about that. I didn't know how long he stayed on. I had no -- I would have -- if I said anything, it would have been a guess.
Q: Is there anything you described earlier in your testimony your regret in one area, you used the word "regret." Do you have any other regrets as you sit here today concerning the case of Paul Shanley?
A: The regret I mentioned this morning had to do with information, specific information you gave me regarding his stay in the parish.
A: After -- well, after the appointment, after -- Well, first of all, let's put it this way. We'll go back historically. He had gone to meetings, made presentations. Those presentations at meetings, NAMBLA, whatever the other organizations, were known to Cardinal Medeiros when he made the appointment to assign Father Shanley to the parish at St. Jean as administering priest. At the same time as you recall his letter of appointment contains what I regard as specific instructions how he was to conduct himself during that time. He was -- he went to the parish and from my knowledge, I had no knowledge of specific actions now, actions that he did, perpetrated or whatever that were -- to say the least were inappropriate. And it wasn't until that, whether he did them or not is something else. Whether he's alleged to have done them or not, I wasn't aware until you had mentioned it. And when you did "Did you regret," "Would you regret," you asked the question "assigning him if in fact you knew these things," the point was I didn't know these things in detail until you mentioned them to me or even in general when I read them in the paper or something like that. So that's the basis of the regret. If I had known and as I did, as I mentioned this morning, I did, I do regret having assigned him and if in fact I had known even these allegations, that's the basis of the regret.
Q: You knew there were allegations that Paul Shanley -- Just to be clear, Bishop, when you appointed him as acting pastor, you knew that there were allegations that Paul Shanley was associated with an organization that endorsed the views of an organization that encouraged, accepted sex between men and boys; is that not true?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. He never appointed him acting pastor. He appointed him administrator and the record should accurately reflect that.
Q: I think you testified earlier he was appointed acting pastor and administrator.
A: That's not true. There's only one title.
Q: He was also serving in the capacity as acting pastor because he was serving the sacrament; is that correct?
A: That was not his title. He was performing the actions of a pastor.
Q: When you appointed him to that position where he was performing the actions of the pastor and in charge at that time, temporarily in charge of the parish, you knew Paul Shanley had been associated with endorsing the views of NAMBLA, that there was an allegation to that fact, Bishop Daily; is that correct?
Q: But you went ahead and appointed him, correct?
A: He was already appointed to the parish by a man, that is Cardinal Medeiros, who knew it also. And based on the judgment the cardinal made and based on the fact the cardinal had died and I was administrator, I appointed him the administrator, the -- what do you call it, yes.
Q: You appointed him administrator without looking at whether or not any of these allegations that had been made about what Paul Shanley was stating about the propriety of sex between men and boys, were true?
A: That's not necessarily true at all.
Q: Did you undertake any investigation?
A: Formal investigation, I don't recall.
Q: Any type of investigation?
A: I don't recall. I could have been quiet. I don't recall. Say specifically I do not recall. That's not to say I didn't ask questions.
Q: Do you have any recollection of asking Paul Shanley at any time in 1983 before you appointed him administrator whether he was a member of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: Those questions were asked and verified by Cardinal Medeiros before he died and he was appointed.
Q: I'm not asking when he was appointed to the parish. I'm asking what you did. After Cardinal Medeiros died did you make any investigation or inquiry whether Paul Shanley was openly associating himself with the man/boy love views of the North American Man/Boy Love association? Did you do that?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question.
A: What I had done and what I was relying upon, the cardinal's appointment of him to the parish and at the same time the unanimous opinion of the Personnel Board, that's what I relied on, and his good record and so on and so forth.
Q: His good record?
A: There was no report to me of any action he committed or did during that time. There were allegations. That's all it was.
Q: Allegations that were never investigated, correct?
A: There were no allegations of actions that were done. There would be allegations he made these statements. Not the allegations, the fact that -- the presentation of the fact that his presentations were known.
Q: Earlier you testified and I thought I heard you testify --
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Would this be a time to take a break.
MR. McLEISH: I have one more question.
Q: Earlier I thought you testified, Bishop Daily, that anyone who was openly encouraging sexual relations between men and boys, endorsing them, could be considered to be a threat to children. Do you remember that testimony?
A: I don't remember.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. Go ahead.
A: I don't recall, but if that was -- if that's accurate, if what you are saying is accurate and that he was encouraging action or just reporting action or that kind of -- not reporting action but approving policy, his thoughts with regard to these things, not anything specific then, yes, I would say that was serious, about as serious as doing the action itself or encouraging particular action between individuals who were known at that kind of thing.
Q: If Paul Shanley, as was reported in the materials that were sent to you by Attorney McGeady, was endorsing sex between men and boys, would that in your view render him unfit to be promoted by as to administrator to St. Jean's in 1983?
A: If that were true?
A: If that were true, yes, it would cause a real problem for me.
Q: But you didn't take any specific action that you can recall today to investigate whether those allegations were true, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Object to the form.
A: I made no contact with the individuals that I knew about. I would like to review the record and any correspondence that went back to the individual.
Q: You didn't even review with Paul Shanley the allegations of Pastor Weston and Pastor Moynihan, did you?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection.
A: Apparently there's a record of it. That's not to say I didn't do it. I don't recall.
MR. McLEISH: I don't have other questions.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Can we take a short break and see if we have questions.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 3:05 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 3:18 p.m. EXAMINATION BY
MR. WILSON ROGERS:
Q: Bishop Daily, you have testified about your role from time to time in appointment of priests both during the tenure of your time as Vicar General and as Bishop and Chancellor in Boston and during the time you were administrator in the Archdiocese of Boston following Cardinal Medeiros's death from September '83 to 1984. Is it fair to say your ability to assign and deal with priests within the context of their assignment was determined and circumscribed by the code of canon law in the Catholic church?
Q: When you became chancellor of the archdiocese of Boston -- Which I believe you told us was in 1973.
Q: -- Father Shanley, is it fair to say he was already working in a ministry to the homosexual community and in a ministry of alienated youth to the archdiocese of Boston?
Q: Was he not in engaged in those two specialized ministries from a time going back to Cardinal Cushing's era?
A: That's what I understand.
Q: After Cardinal Cushing passed away, then Archbishop Medeiros who was elevated to Cardinal was archbishop in Boston?
Q: These ministries by Father Shanley were continued, were they not?
Q: They continued on into 1973 when you became Chancellor?
Q: And as a matter of fact, between 1973, between 1973 and until you actually left the Archdiocese of Boston, you have gone through in response to questions by Mr. McLeish and identified complaints that were made regarding comments or talks given by Paul Shanley; isn't that a fact?
Q: And as a matter of fact, you had talked about a letter that came from a Jean Sweeney to Cardinal Medeiros with respect to a talk given by Father Shanley in Rochester back in 1977; do you recall that?
Q: And where there were statements alleged to have been made by Father Shanley during the course of this talk in 1977 in Rochester dealing with homosexual activity?
Q: And there were comments made regarding pedophilia?
A: Yes, that's right.
Q: You indicated you thought those comments were inappropriate?
Q: Then there was also correspondence received in April of 1979 by His Eminence, Cardinal Medeiros, from a Paul McGeady, who was an attorney in New York; do you remember that?
Q: He forwarded two copies of two articles, one from a publication known as Gaysweek and one from a publication known as Gay Community News; do you recall that?
Q: And the one in Gaysweek talked about an organizational meeting of NAMBLA, North American --
A: Yes, that's my remembrance.
Q: -- Man Boy Love?
MR. McLEISH: Objection.
A: Yes, that's what I remember.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Where are the original exhibits?
MR. McLEISH: Rodney has them.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I can use my copies if you don't mind.
MR. McLEISH: Sure. Just identify by number.
Q: I will show you a copy of what has been identified as Exhibit 53 in your deposition, which is a letter to Father Shanley from Cardinal Medeiros. Do you remember seeing that?
Q: And could I just see that one second. This is a letter within a week to ten days after Paul McGeady's letter, Paul McGeady's letter forwarding those two articles we just talked about which came to -- Paul McGeady's letter to Cardinal Medeiros, Cardinal Medeiros within two weeks writes to Father Shanley removing him from ministry or alienated youths; is that right?
A: Give me --
Q: He removes Father Shanley from his ministry of alienated youths?
A: As of April 15.
Q: In the last sentence of paragraph 1 Cardinal Medeiros refers to the fact he already ended his ministry to the homosexual community; is that right?
A: Yes, he says when he last visited me.
Q: At that point he assigns him as the associate pastor to St. John's the Evangelist as pastor in Newton?
A: I see that.
Q: Throughout the period you were Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Boston up through and including April of 1979 while Father Shanley was in the specialized ministries, is it fair to say he was reporting directly to Cardinal Medeiros?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. Lack of foundation.
A: Yes, it is. It is.
Q: And he would throughout this period of time report directly to the cardinal?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. Lack of foundation.
A: It's fair to assume, okay.
Q: It was your understanding that Cardinal Medeiros was directing these specialized ministries?
Q: You told us that your role during this period of time in dealing with complaints about Father Shanley were to refer these for informational purposes to Cardinal Medeiros for whatever action he deemed appropriate?
A: Yes, I think that's the record.
Q: You were prepared to do whatever he asked to you do as Chancellor during that period incident to any of those complaints?
A: Yes. Or anything else. I was his assistant.
Q: During this period of time up until April of 1979, were you aware of any complaints of inappropriate activity by Father Shanley as opposed to inappropriate talks or comments?
A: No, just the comments.
Q: And as a matter of fact, during that period of time there were continued efforts, were there not, to try to get Father Shanley to conform his public comments to the teachings of the church in a way that would not mislead the faith; isn't that fair to say?
A: The cardinal demanded that.
Q: And as a matter of fact, taking a look at Exhibit 53, which is in front of you there, Cardinal Medeiros gives a specific direction to Father Shanley in the second paragraph of that letter, does he?
A: No, he does.
Q: Would you read that into the record.
A: "It is understood that your ministry at St. John's Parish and elsewhere for this Archdioces in Boston will be exercised in full conformity with the clear teachings of the church as expressed in tabled documents and other pronouncements of the Holy Sea, especially regarding sexual ethics. The pastoral authority of priests can hardly be effective apart from the healing and saving truth of Christ proclaimed by his church even when," and I quote, "the saying may be hard," end of quote.
Q: So this is a specific directive given by Cardinal Medeiros to Father Shanley as he undertakes a parish ministry?
Q: And it's your understanding, is it not, that Father Shanley did undertake this assignment and serve in St. Jean's parish through -- certainly through 1983, when you appointed him administrator?
A: That's my understanding.
Q: And as a matter of fact, you had in front of you before Exhibit 66. Take a look at that. And I believe the date is May of 1983.
A: Yes. It's received May 5, 1983, there's no other -- No, May 6th received. Yes, the archdiocese, May 6th.
A: Um hum.
Q: You read this before today?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: And this refers to information that Pastor Hugh Weston had which he obtained in a book that had recently been published entitled "The Homosexual Network"?
A: That's my understanding, he has it here, yes.
Q: And the reference to Paul Shanley being at the founding conference of NAMBLA, which is found on the first page of Exhibit 66, you see that?
A: First page?
Q: Of 66. That references, the fact or inquiry regarding Paul Shanley being at the founding conference of NAMBLA.
A: Yes, I see that.
Q: As a matter of fact, isn't it your understanding from the earlier materials, specifically the Paul McGeady letter which is Exhibit 49, the founding conference of NAMBLA took place in the fall of 1979?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. That mischaracterizes that letter. It says the Man Boy Lovers Association, it does not say NAMBLA, as you well know. I object. It mischaracterizes the testimony and the document.
A: Well, for the sake of clarity, I think in parentheses it says "North American Man Boy Love Association," which in view of your letter it is -- would be NAMBLA. That's just an association I'm making.
Q: Is it your understanding that refers to activity involving Paul Shanley going back to 1978?
MR. McLEISH: Objection.
A: It's my understanding, yes.
Q: This was a book published a number of years later and includes information regarding the founding conference of NAMBLA; isn't that so?
A: That is my understanding.
Q: So this is --
A: I --
Q: This is not a reference to recent activity of Paul Shanley; am I right?
MR. McLEISH: Objection. No foundation.
Q: As you understood it, is that not correct?
Q: Now, during the period of April of 1979 through to November of 1983 when Father Shanley was at St. Jean's in Newton, did any information come to your attention regarding inappropriate activity by Paul Shanley?
A: To my recollection is no activity, no.
Q: Did you have any additional new complaints of inappropriate comments or teachings taking place during that time?
A: During that time?
A: My recollection is no.
Q: Now, at some point in the fall of 1983 there was reference to the fact that the pastor at St. Jean's parish in Newton passed away. Do you remember that earlier today?
Q: And you indicated that upon the recommendation of the Personnel Board of the archdiocese, you appointed Paul Shanley as associate pastor of St. John the Evangelist parish; am I right?
A: No, I appointed him as -- Clarify the letter, say what do you call it?
Q: You ended his appointment as associate pastor and appointed him administrator?
Q: Let me show you a document. Can we have this marked as Exhibit -- this will be 73. Let me show you a document marked Exhibit 73.
A: All right.
Q: Which is a letter addressed to you as administrator of the Archdiocese of Boston signed by Dr. Maxine McHugh, professor at state college. Is that a letter of recommendation that you received as administrator of the Archdiocese of Boston regarding the position of administrator at St. Jean's parish in Newton?
A: Could I review the text?
A: Yes, that certainly is a letter of approval and more than that praise.
Q: A letter in effect, in effect a letter recommending Father Shanley as a candidate for the position of administrator of St. Jean's parish?
Q: And you received this letter back in 1983; am I right?
Q: And you indicated that you had no information regarding inappropriate activity by Father Shanley at that point?
Q: And you had no indication that he had been teaching inconsistent in a manner inconsistent with the teachings of the church during his time at St. Jean's?
Q: And you had a recommendation of the Personnel Board of the Archdiocese of Boston recommending Father Shanley's appointment as administrator?
Q: Based on that information, you then appointed Father Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's Parish, am I right?
Q: Then you had gone through some other documents with Mr. McLeish which indicated in due course Father Shanley was appointed pastor of St. Jean's parish in Newton?
Q: That was at a point in time after you had left the Archdiocese of Boston; am I right?
Q: You testified earlier today that -- in response to questions by Mr. McLeish that you had regret regarding your action in appointing Father Paul Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's parish in Newton?
A: I said that, yes.
Q: At the time you made the appointment that we just reviewed and which is -- was dated November 4, 1983, it was your opinion at that time that the appointment as administrator was appropriate in all of the information; is that so?
A: In my point of view in making the appointment, yes.
Q: As a matter of fact, the regret you voiced this morning is grounded in large part upon the fact that you now know there are allegations and in fact pending criminal indictments against Father Paul Shanley with respect to activity that allegedly took place at St. Jean's parish after you had appointed him administrator?
MR. McLEISH: Object. That was not his testimony, but go ahead. THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please. (Question read.)
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Okay, I have nothing further. Do we need to change seats?
MR. McLEISH: Yes, we do. FURTHER EXAMINATION BY
Q: Bishop Daily, showing you Exhibit 73, this was a letter from Dr. Aracene McHugh that counsel showed you.
Q: Did you write back with Miss McHugh to tell her you received two letters in May and July of 1983, approximately five months before her letter indicating that there was an issue as to whether Paul Shanley was present at the convening of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Did you write back to her in any way and tell her Paul Shanley received two letters? They are Exhibits 66 and 67. We have them right here if you want to see them. Here it is, Bishop. 66 and 67, a letter from Pastor Moynihan. Do you see that?
Q: And Pastor Weston and Mr. Moynihan. Do you see that?
A: I do.
Q: Those were letters you received approximately I believe while you received them one in May that was the Weston letter and the other one was in July; is that correct?
Q: And if you take a look at the Moynihan letter, the last page of the letter of the exhibit, Exhibit 67, the last page.
Q: It is stated by Father Little "For information concerning Father Paul Shanley or his presence at the conference" -- That would mean the NAMBLA conference, correct? Do you see that?
A: Where does that say that?
Q: Second paragraph.
A: Second paragraph?
Q: Second paragraph. "For information concerning Father Paul Shanley or his presence at the conference," do you see that?
A: Yes, but could you finish the paragraph.
Q: "His Eminence suggests you write directly to him at St. John's church, 253 Watertown Street, Newton 02158."
A: The right sentence.
Q: My question to you, isn't it true that as of -- as of July of 1983, you hadn't even bothered to inquire whether Paul Shanley had attended the NAMBLA conference; is that not true?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form. It's argumentative and wholly inappropriate.
Q: Go ahead.
A: Could I finish the paragraph?
Q: If you want to, sure. But if you can also then answer my question.
A: Okay. His Eminence also indicates in no way was Father Shanley authorized to represent him in any conference sponsored by NAMBLA and doubts any claim that Father Shanley represented him in this regard. Having said that, may I have the question again.
Q: The question is, Bishop, you didn't even know at the time that letter was written whether Father Shanley had actually attended the NAMBLA conference? That's the North American Man Boy Association, correct?
A: But His Eminence did.
Q: There's no suggestion in this letter that His Eminence knew that Paul Shanley had attended the NAMBLA conference. What is stated is that His Eminence personally doubts any claim that Father Shanley represented him in this regard. Do you see that?
A: I see that, but also the question is, from the point of view his knowledge, that is the cardinal's knowledge, he -- that he knew and in the light of his knowledge, his attendance and his presentations, he put the specific restrictions and instruction given him with regard to his appointment.
Q: Do you recall your testimony earlier today when I asked you whether this letter suggested to you that you were not aware as of July of 1983 whether Paul Shanley had attended the conference, the NAMBLA conference? Do you remember when I put that question to you today and you agreed this letter suggested that as of July 1983 the archdiocese did not know whether Paul Shanley had attended the NAMBLA conference; do you remember those questions?
A: No, I don't, but that's all right.
Q: You don't know for a fact, do you, that as of July of 1983, anyone in the archdiocese had ever asked Paul Shanley whether he had attended the NAMBLA conference, correct?
A: July 1983?
Q: Yes, the date of the Moynihan letter.
A: I was three years in Brooklyn, and I was --
A: I beg your pardon?
A: I thought you said '93. Go ahead again.
Q: As of July of 1983 you can't state whether anybody from the archdiocese asked Paul Shanley whether he attended a meeting of the North American Man Boy Love Association, correct? You can't state that, can you?
A: Well, did anybody at the archdiocese had scene or knew that Paul Shanley had gone to these? I certainly wasn't aware of it but the cardinal was.
Q: You don't know that for a fact, do you?
A: The cardinal doesn't mention it but he appoints him having reviewed all of these matters.
Q: Let's go to July of 1983. In what kind of physical condition was Cardinal Medeiros in July of 1983?
A: He was in condition -- he was composed, he went -- he loved to go to Montreal. He went to Montreal for two weeks. He came back, enjoyed himself, talked about going to the movies and things like that.
Q: He was ill in July of 1983?
A: He wasn't in tiptop condition. He died in September of '83.
Q: So when Dr. McHugh wrote to you on October 16, 1983 urging that Paul Shanley be appointed administrator, did you inform her in response that you had information in your files which indicated that Paul Shanley may have attended a conference of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: I don't recall informing her.
Q: I think you testified earlier that you didn't -- it indicates in Exhibit 72 that she's writing as a member of St. James parish. Do you see that, Exhibit 72?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: He does not have the exhibit in front of him.
MR. McLEISH: Let's change the tape.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I have another document marked Exhibit 72.
MR. McLEISH: It's Exhibit 73. Let's change the tape.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 3:43 p.m. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the video record at 3:44 p.m.
Q: Let's just make it clear. Mr. Rogers asked whether you were the person who made the decision to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's parish. You responded you were, it was your decision?
A: Correct, ultimately my decision.
Q: It wasn't Cardinal Medeiros's decision, he had passed on?
Q: You testified in response from a question Attorney Rogers there was some recommendation from the Personnel Board; is that correct?
Q: Were these recommendations usually in writing?
Q: Do you have any explanation as to why we don't have that document, that written document recommending Paul Shanley for appointment as administrator in the files that have been produced to us?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A: You do.
Q: We don't have a written recommendation. We have a notation there was a written recommendation. We don't have the written recommendation.
A: Excuse me, did I or I did not see it here? I beg your pardon. There was a letter from Father Thomas Olsten.
Q: If you do have it, I would like to see it because it hasn't been produced in this case.
A: We are not hiding it, are we?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: We are not hiding anything.
A: Let me say it does exist. It's a formal letter. It's a recommendation from the Personnel Board and I mentioned this a couple of times as a basis for appointing him. We have it. Somebody's got it.
Q: Who do you think has it?
A: Let me say right now I don't have it. You don't have it obviously?
Q: No, I never received it. Does Mr. O'Neill have it?
A: He's looking.
Q: Well, if someone has that document, I would very much like to see it.
A: Maybe Mr. Ford.
Q: He's the father of a victim of sexual abuse. He would not have that. These are the records of the archdiocese. Well, we don't have it. I hope you'll take my representation for that.
A: Excuse me. Could I take my representation for the fact it exists.
Q: I'm happy to take that. I would like to see that document. It was not provided to me. I absolutely except your statement on that. In Exhibit 72, Exhibit 72.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: 73.
Q: 73, I apologize. Did you think it important that Dr. McHugh have the same information that you had about Paul Shanley, mainly there had been allegations he had been affiliated with the NAMBLA group?
A: No. That's an opinion. There was -- you are asking me for my opinion?
Q: I'm asking you whether you considered in your mind to be important. It's not an opinion question.
A: If you're asking me if it was important, that's an opinion.
Q: We can characterize it as such, but did you ever think it was -- did that thought ever cross your mind as a matter of fact that it might be important for Dr. McHugh, who had taken the time to write in about Paul Shanley, to have the benefit of the information there were allegations that Paul Shanley had associated himself with the views of the North American Man Boy Love Association?
A: I have no letter or information directed to Dr. McHugh about that but I assume like everybody else was reading the newspapers and had access to the public knowledge, he had gone to these places.
Q: Was that a publication that you are familiar with that he --
A: No, but I --
Q: Excuse me. Was there some publication which indicated Paul Shanley had attended a NAMBLA conference apart from the article that was sent to the archdiocese from Attorney McGeady?
A: My opinion is a check with the Boston Globe might reveal that.
Q: Are you able to identify with certainty any such information right now?
A: At this particular time, no.
Q: What do you think the reaction would have been of Miss McHugh, had she realized that Paul Shanley, the person you appointed administrator of St. Jean's parish had been associated with the group that openly espoused sex between men and boys?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. There's no testimony no evidence here she didn't know that, so I think that's an inappropriate foundation, an inappropriate question.
MR. McLEISH: You got an answer.
MR. O'NEILL: He's asking you to speculate what someone else's reaction might have been to something you might have done, and you don't have to form such speculative opinions if you don't want to.
A: My answer was to be, it would be presumptuous for me to say so.
Q: Do you know whether Dr. McHugh was the parent of any children who attended St. Jean's?
A: Do I know? No, I do not know.
Q: You knew there were parents of St. Jean's who had been at St. Jean's parish?
A: We both can assume that. That's not a difficult question.
Q: No, it's not. Do you think it would have been -- in your own mind, it would have been important for parents of children that would have contact with Paul Shanley to know the same information that you had in July, that there were allegations that he was associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to the form of the question.
A: Go ahead. What was the first part of the question?
Q: We can assume there were parents of children that attended St. Jean's parish?
Q: We can assume there were CCD classes where little children would be in attendance?
A: Normal activities.
Q: My question is: Do you think as a parent of a child that it would be important in 1983 for those parents to have the information which you had in May and July from Pastor Weston and from Mr. Moynihan that Paul Shanley had an association with the North American Man Boy Love Association?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form of the question. Argumentative.
A: What I would feel, what I feel would be that in accordance with the law of the church, given that kind of information, there would about canon law now -- I'm talking about a canon law now that could have been -- might have been decided that there be a type of canon law, documents that would remind Father Shanley of the restriction that the cardinal placed upon him in the light of that report. That apparently did not take place but it might well have. I don't know that. I don't know that.
Q: My question is: You have little children going to this parish in Newton. You know that -- you know how much parents care about their children?
Q: And wouldn't it just be common sense that people -- I don't know whether Dr. McHugh had a child. Let's assume she did. Wouldn't it be important for her to know Paul Shanley had associated himself with an organization that openly espoused sex between children and adults?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form. It's a hypothetical question asking Bishop Daily to speculate as to what Dr. McHugh might deem to be important or not important, and I do not think the bishop has to speculate as to the state of mind or potential state of mind of Dr. McHugh.
Q: You can answer.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I think it's an inappropriate question asking him to speculate.
A: Well --
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I don't think you have to speculate as to her state of mind.
MR. McLEISH: You are instructing him not to answer the question?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I don't think he should speculate, if he's uncomfortable speculating.
A: I accept counsel's --
Q: You won't answer the question?
A: I respect counsel. I would like to read Dr. McHugh's letter as an expert from the point of view of analysis of religion and who seriously analyze and research delivered for the past 10 years. From my research I find Mr. Shanley rare indeed. The one quality that impresses me is his deep spirituality quality may be overlooked but a quality not overlooked by people present in his masses." A woman of that kind of background and education and professional expertise from the point of view of church analysis would seem to me -- would you mind if I ask a speculative question of you? Would you presume that a woman with this kind of educational background might indeed know about these things have to do with religion as they affected the man in her parish.
Q: I think Miss McHugh would find it vitally important to know that Paul Shanley, namely you who appoint what associated with the Man Boy Love Association. If I can be permitted. Any parent of any child would want the benefit of that information?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Wait, there's no question.
A: I was going to continue the debate.
Q: Now we're back to my questions. Putting aside Dr. McHugh, isn't it common sense and given the notoriety of the North American Man Boy Love Association, anybody who had a parent -- who was a parent of a child at that parish would want the same information that you had about Paul Shanley association with NAMBLA; isn't it just common sense?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to the form. Argumentative question.
A: Given the way you put it and the point of view what his attendance at these meetings, I would think that parents would appreciate that kind of knowledge.
Q: But you didn't give it to them?
A: It was a decision to make if they wanted to make that decision. I didn't take it upon me at that time to do that because the -- we go back to the original situation, namely the cardinal had appointed him to a parish after he knew these situation and after he had given him the specific instructions, so he in his own mind felt that was sufficient. It was the direction he wanted to put the pastor in regarding his approach to people to the parish and to activities of the ministry of the priest.
Q: But Cardinal Medeiros passed on?
A: But he was alive.
Q: He had passed on by the time you made the decision?
A: He made a decision primarily -- excuse me for interrupting. He made the decision to appoint him to the parish as a priest.
Q: Listen to my question. You made the decision to elevate him. That was your decision. You testified on cross examination you had the authority to do it and you did it.
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Objection to "elevate."
A: We went through that this morning.
Q: You appoint him?
A: As administrator, administrator of the daily activities of a parish.
Q: And the person to deliver the sacrament in the absence of the pastor?
A: To be a priest.
Q: My question to you, that was your decision to make, Cardinal Medeiros had passed on?
A: Not in an arbitrary fashion.
Q: What I'm saying to you, I think you answered the question earlier that as parents of children attending this parish, you could have informed them that you had reason to believe that Paul Shanley had been associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association. There was no restriction to prevent you from doing that, correct?
A: There's no restriction from me doing that but at the same time, you know, there's also the matter of the fact that his attendance was a matter of public information anyway.
A: And we can assume in the paper, maybe in the Boston Globe.
Q: Do you know his association with the North American Man Boy Love Association was published in the Boston Globe?
A: No, I don't know that, but I would be interested in finding out.
Q: But you appointed him believing he had the association with the Man Boy Love Association; you made that association, didn't you?
A: Knowing that the cardinal of Boston also knew that.
Q: But you don't have any information whatsoever or facts to support the notion that one member of St. Jean's parish knew that Paul Shanley was associated with NAMBLA, do you?
A: This particular person?
Q: Anybody, anybody in that parish. You don't have any information to suggest in any way that any one parishioner at St. Jean's knew that Paul Shanley was associated with NAMBLA?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: Knew when?
Q: When you made the appointment.
A: When I made the appointment? There's no documentation, I have no specific knowledge.
Q: But you knew, correct?
A: I knew what?
Q: You knew he had an association.
A: So did a lot of other people.
Q: I'm talking about you, the man who made the appointment.
A: That he was at these two meetings.
Q: That he was at these two meetings?
A: Yes, I do. The documents show that. They do, don't they? The documents show that I knew.
Q: The documents show that you knew. And you knew, you knew about what Stevens, Miss Stevens, had said and you knew what was reported in Gaysweek magazine, what Paul Shanley said in a conference in 1979?
A: Because you presented the materials today. Yes, you presented the materials today and indicated that.
Q: That's what the record shows that you knew, correct?
A: I guess so, because of the time in the records and so on and so forth. I can't recall reading the material but I would have to say yes, the way you present the question, and it's not -- it's a general question and it's almost presumptive, but yes.
Q: Almost presumptive?
A: In the sense because of the fact that the cardinal knew about it, the fact he made the appointment and therefore it's presumptive that I knew because of the fact of the cardinal and his presumption.
Q: I don't want to go over all the documents but your name is associated with all four of those documents. I don't want to go through Exhibits 44, 46, 49, and your name appeared.
Q: You are not blaming or in any way saying that you were bound -- you were required by Cardinal Medeiros, who was deceased at the time, to appoint Paul Shanley at that time?
A: No. Would you deny me the privilege knowing the cardinal knew about these before he made the appointment to the parish?
Q: I'm not asking that. I'm asking whether or not you were bound under some principle of canon law or any other restriction, you were bound, required to appoint Paul Shanley as administrator of St. Jean's parish in 1983. You weren't bound by any restriction; it was your decision and you made it?
A: Correct. Based on what I told you before, mainly the cardinal's appointment of him to the parish, knowing these meetings had took place all before, is it all that presumptive to think and say that the cardinal didn't know about these meetings and his attendance and his presentation.
Q: Now you are the man in charge. You have to make your own decision.
A: That's right. I have a recommendation from the board, that you don't have, I'm going give to you, the Personnel Board, saying that -- the recommendation of the Personnel Board of the diocese recommending Paul Shanley, Father Shanley, for the office of administrator.
Q: And to be serving in the function, serving as -- in the capacity of pastor as well, acting pastor? Performing the functions of pastor?
Q: You are not blaming the deceased cardinal or the personnel clergy personnel board for the decision that you made; it was your decision, right?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form. That's really argumentative. He's not blaming anybody. He's here testifying under oath and I think it's inappropriate to say he's blaming somebody.
Q: I'm pressing the question. It was your responsibility ultimately not the clergy board and not the deceased cardinal? You take responsibility for it?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: For what?
Q: The appointment of Paul Shanley as administrator in St. Jean in November. It is your responsibility and you take responsibility?
A: That's what the letter says on the basis of the Personnel Board, the Archdiocese of Boston and their recommendation.
Q: On the basis of that you made the appointment?
A: That's right. Not the only basis. As I indicated before, we have that historical situation with the cardinal namely that he knew, but what you are objecting to and the fact he made an appointment to be a priest, act and exercise priest in the ministry by volunteering.
Q: And you knew the people, that there was a threat to children for people who were espousing their acceptance of sexual relations between children and adults, correct?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object. Threat of what?
Q: Threat, threat of harm, threat of harm. Do you understand the words "threat of harm"?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I don't think the bishop said that.
A: No. If I did say that, automatically he would --
Q: Not automatically. Threats are not automatic.
MR. O'NEILL: What the bishop said is what the bishop, said. It's certainly not my memory he ever said anything like that. Ask a question. Don't go back to what he said somewhere else unless you have a transcript of testimony.
Q: Wouldn't you agree with me someone who was openly endorsing sexual relations between men and boys could be displaced in the position of power without the parishioners knowing about it, the potential threat to children?
MR. WILSON ROGERS: I object to form.
MR. McLEISH: You can answer the question.
A: Well, I would have to consider that element, yes, sure.
MR. McLEISH: Nothing further.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record at 4:03 p.m. (Recess taken.)
MR. WILSON ROGERS: We have no further questions.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record at 4:03 p.m. We are ending the video record at 4:03 p.m.