BOSTON -- Cardinal Bernard Law answered questions for a second day Friday in a priest sex abuse case, but a judge granted an archdiocese request to block the release of transcripts from the session until Law has had up to 30 days to review them.

Law's deposition began on Wednesday, and first-day transcripts of the highly unusual questioning of a high-ranking church official were released the same day by the plaintiffs' side. But the archdiocese asked Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney on Friday to stop the unusual practice of releasing transcripts before the entire deposition was completed and those involved had 30 days to review it -- common practice under civil procedure.

The deposition would then be entered in court and would be available to the public.

The cardinal is being questioned under oath by lawyers in a lawsuit brought against Law and the archdiocese by 86 alleged victims of child-molesting priest John Geoghan. The plaintiffs accuse the church of failing to protect youngsters.

On Friday, Law answered questions for about four hours, with a break midday during which he led a Mass at a church in Boston's Roxbury section and offered prayers for victims.

But the ruling prevented details from Friday's questioning from emerging, at least for now. Plaintiffs' lawyers, citing the spirit of the judge's ruling, offered few specifics on what had taken place behind closed doors at the chancery, the archdiocese's headquarters.

Attorney Mitchell Garabedian, representing Geoghan's alleged victims, said Law was again asked about the church's supervision of Geoghan and the decision May 3 by the archdiocese finance council to back out of a settlement agreement.

When pressed for specifics, he said the transcript, when released, "would speak for itself."

Garabedian said he had hoped the transcripts would be released immediately and opposed the archdiocese's request, but called the ruling "standard operating procedure."

"In hindsight you can say it was a little surprising," that the church had not previously requested the 30-day window to review, said David Yas, publisher and editor-in-chief of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. "Maybe they underestimated with how much vigor reporters and others would go after this information."

Law and other church officials are accused of negligence for reassigning Geoghan and ignoring warning signs that he was dangerous to children. Geoghan, who is serving up to 10 years in prison on a molestation conviction, has been accused of sexually abusing more than 130 children over three decades.

Law was scheduled to continue answering questions on Monday but Garabedian said he might push for more time with the cardinal.

The decision "allows public access, but allows Law to correct obvious errors before the world reads about it," said Pat Schiltz, dean of the University of St. Thomas School of Law and a former defense lawyer who represented churches and dioceses in hundreds of sex abuse cases. "I think it's the judge trying to do a good job of retaining some normalcy in what has become a very abnormal case."

Law's lawyers were said to be upset over the intense media coverage his deposition has generated.

"They wanted to control how much spin was out there in the media," archdiocese spokesman Rev. Christopher Coyne said of the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Patrick McSorley, an alleged Geoghan victim who attended Friday's session, said Law had said he couldn't recall many of the events he was questioned about.

"He remembers, but acts like he doesn't," McSorley said.

McSorley said Law offered him his hand before the deposition began but he refused to shake it.

"I couldn't shake the man's hand because I knew what was about to come was a lie," McSorley said.

Lawyers for media outlets said they would review the ruling when it is officially filed on Monday before determining whether to counter it.

"It'd be a tough thing to say that Cardinal Law doesn't have the right to read and sign his transcript" said Tony Fuller, an attorney representing The Boston Globe, The New York Times and WBZ-TV.

However, he said, "my guess is there would be some effort to probably get it before the 30 days."

In a related development, attorney Roderick MacLeish said he served notice Friday that he intends to depose Manchester, N.H., Bishop John McCormack, and James Porter and John Hanlon, both priests convicted of sexually abusing children.

A phone message left for McCormack's spokesman was not immediately returned. McCormack, who served in Boston from 1984-1994, has been dogged by accusations that while serving as director of ministerial personnel, he ignored warnings about abusive priests and had a hand in moving them to new parishes.

MacLeish, an attorney for alleged victims of the Rev. Paul Shanley, said he intends to establish a "pattern of practice" showing why the Archdiocese of Boston should not be able to limit liability as a charitable organization.

"We're attempting to prove the massive protection of child molesters is not something that falls within the 'charitable purpose' definition of state law," MacLeish said.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/051002_law_geoghan.htm

Lawyers Expect to Press Law on Geoghan

Reassignment role is seen as critical

By Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff, 5/10/2002

Lawyers for alleged victims of pedophile John Geoghan are expected to continue their two-track deposition of Cardinal Bernard F. Law today, focusing on Law's role in reassigning the former priest despite reports he was a sexual predator, and probing the decision by Law's Finance Council to reject an agreement to settle 84 molestation lawsuits.

Mitchell Garabedian, the lead attorney for the 86 people who filed the suits, said he will use today's session with Law to further scrutinize last Friday's Finance Council vote ''in order to prove that the defendants acted in bad faith and breached the settlement.''

Under an agreement announced by Law on March 12, the lawsuits were to be settled with payments by the Archdiocese of Boston totaling between $15 million and $30 million.

Other lawyers said they believe Garabedian and his associate, William H. Gordon, will continue to press for details of the Finance Council vote in hopes of avoiding trial and demonstrating that the settlement is a binding contract, despite the unexpected vote by the relatively obscure council.

''If the plaintiffs can get the mediation agreement enforced, they don't have to put on a full-blown trial and can get around any problem they might have with charitable immunity limits,'' said Eric Green, a Boston University Law School professor and a mediator in the Enron bankruptcy case.

Under the state's doctrine of charitable immunity, liability claims against nonprofit institutions such as the Boston Archdiocese are limited to $20,000.

Garabedian has said the cap does not apply to the 84 lawsuits because they make claims against Law and 16 other church officials as individuals, not against the archdiocese. But some attorneys believe Law could argue that the limit should apply to him because, in supervising priests, he is acting on behalf of the church.

Neither Wilson Rogers Jr. nor J. Owen Todd, the attorneys who represented Law at Wednesday's deposition, returned phone calls seeking comment for this story.

Joanne D'Alcomo, a trial attorney who specializes in representing plaintiffs, said that she does not believe charitable immunity applies to Law and the other defendants, and that Garabedian and Gordon will use today's deposition to try to show that Law was careless, or negligent, in delegating to others the responsibility of supervising Geoghan.

D'Alcomo also said the attorneys for the alleged victims could focus on the qualifications of the doctors used by church officials to evaluate Geoghan before reassigning him to parish work.

During Wednesday's deposition, Garabedian and Gordon introduced as evidence a doctor's letter clearing Geoghan for parish work that was received by church officials shortly before Geoghan was reassigned to St. Julia's Church in Weston. Geoghan had been accused of molesting boys during his previous assignment, and would later be accused of molesting many more while working at St. Julia's.

At Wednesday's deposition, Law was not quizzed about the qualifications of the doctor who signed the letter, Robert W. Mullins. But the Globe reported in January that he is a neighbor of the Geoghan family home in West Roxbury, and a family physician without expertise in psychology or sexual disorders.

A second doctor who examined Geoghan for the church, John H. Brennan, is a psychiatrist. But he had no expertise in sexually deviant behavior when he evaluated Geoghan, and had settled a sexual molestation claim filed by one of his own patients.

''Certainly the lawyers would want to pin down the cardinal on his knowledge about the experience these doctors had in the very specialized area of individuals with sexual disorders,'' D'Alcomo said. ''No one would say that the cardinal himself was qualified to decide whether such a person posed a danger to parishioners or their children, but was he careless in relying on people who were not qualified for advice? That's a question I think the attorneys will want to raise.''

Other attorneys said they believe Garabedian and Gordon may attempt to show a pattern of negligence on the part of Law and other church officials by questioning the cardinal about his oversight of other priests who were allowed to continue working, even though church officials had received sexual abuse allegations against them.

''If they can establish that the Geoghan situation was part of a wider problem, I think they'll feel that they have a better chance of convincing a jury that officials should have done more,'' said Green, the BU professor.

In recent days, a priest and a former priest who were under Law's supervision were arrested on criminal sexual molestation charges.

Rev. Paul R. Shanley was charged with raping a Newton boy in the 1980s, when Shanley was a priest at the defunct St. John the Evangelist Church, in Newton. And former priest Ronald H. Paquin was charged with raping a Haverhill boy in the early 1990s, when he was a priest at St. John the Baptist Church in that city.

Green said attorneys for Law could contest Garabedian's right to question Law about priests other than Geoghan. ''This is a classic tug of war.'' he said. ''I suspect that possibility is one reason the judge has said she'll be available to hear objections.''

Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney, who is presiding in the 84 lawsuits, has said she will be available by telephone to consider any disputes that arise during Law's deposition.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories2/050902_law.htm

Cardinal Bernard Law arrives at Suffolk County Superior Court for his deposition yesterday. (Globe Staff Photo / David L. Ryan)

Law Recalls Little on Abuse Case

Says under oath he delegated Geoghan matter to other bishops

By Walter V. Robinson and Michael Rezendes, Globe Staff, 5/9/2002

ardinal Bernard F. Law testified under oath yesterday that he cannot recall any of the critical events surrounding his 1984 decision to send pedophile priest John J. Geoghan to a Weston parish after abruptly removing him from a Dorchester parish where he had molested children.

Presented with documents that leave little doubt about his role, Law acknowledged that at the time he must have considered the issue ''an urgent matter'' and been involved in the fateful events that have now come to seriously erode his own stature and help ignite a nationwide scandal for the Roman Catholic Church.

But during nearly four hours of pretrial testimony in a closed courtoom at the Suffolk County courthouse, the cardinal said he cannot remember being told that Geoghan was a child molester or discussing what to do about him with the bishops who were Law's direct subordinates.

The cardinal also said he has no memory of a December 1984 letter from Bishop John M. D'Arcy challenging the wisdom of sending a known sexual offender to St. Julia's Church in Weston.

However, at one point, the cardinal testified that he was aware of Geoghan's history of involvement with boys as early as September 1984 because reassigning the priest meant ''necessitating a letter that would not have been necessary unless there was a problem.''

Law's testimony, which is scheduled to resume tomorrow, was closed to the press and the public. But a transcript of the testimony was made public under disclosure rules set by the court.

Law, who had been Boston's archbishop for barely six months at the time, cast himself as a chief executive who delegated, and he said he believes that the two bishops who oversaw day-to-day decision-making handled the reassignment appropriately.

In 1984, he declared, ''months after I came here as archbishop, I was relying upon those assisting me to handle this adequately, and I was relying on their discretion in terms of the medical expertise.''

Facing questions from William H. Gordon, one of the lawyers for 86 plaintiffs in civil lawsuits against Geoghan and his supervisors, the cardinal said Geoghan would not have been sent to a new parish without proper medical clearance, and he defended the move on that basis.

Q. In 1984, you knew, did you not, that it would have been wrong for a priest to have sexually molested boys, is that correct?

A. Oh, absolutely.

Q. OK. And that is something you would have tried to stop from happening?

A. That's correct.

For three hours and 50 minutes, interrupted by a 62-minute break during which lunch was brought into the courtroom, Law became the first US cardinal ever questioned under oath over issues of clergy sex abuse occurring in his own archdiocese.

Yesterday was the first of several days of deposition testimony for Law in the Geoghan case. On June 5, he is scheduled to appear for pretrial testimony about why he did not remove another priest, Rev. Paul R. Shanley, who had been accused of molesting teenagers and who had publicly advocated sex between men and boys.

Law gave his testimony under the gaze of one of those who has said he was sexually abused by Geoghan, Mark Keane. The transcript does not indicate that either man spoke to the other.

Wilson Rogers Jr., one of Law's attorneys, objected to Law being deposed at all, citing the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

''I have raised the First Amendment as a defense and feel the inquiry into the internal workings of the Church is inappropriate,'' said Rogers.

Law's testimony was ordered on Monday by Suffolk Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney, three days after the archdiocese backed out of an agreement to pay between $15 million and $30 million to the Geoghan victims.

Indeed, Gordon focused almost all of his afternoon questioning on why Law's Finance Council refused to approve the settlement, a decision Law disclosed he was uncertain was binding until hours after the council's vote.

Mitchell Garabedian, the lead attorney for the Geoghan plaintiffs, said last night that Gordon's questioning of Law about the Friday vote was intended to gather evidence to support Garabedian's plan to ask Sweeney to order the agreement enforced, despite the sentiments of what had been previously thought to be an obscure advisory panel of business people.

Despite the adversarial proceeding, there were occasional flashes of humor from Law, and poignant moments when he reflected on the damage he has suffered from public disclosures and sometimes, he said, from ''rumors'' generated by what he called a ''media frenzy.''

Under persistent questioning, Law all but expressed regret that news about the decision to abandon the settlement was released to the press before Garabedian and Gordon had any chance to alert the plaintiffs. Law acknowledged that he had been told that some of the Geoghan victims are considered suicidal.

Agreeing that it would have been better for the victims to find out from their attorneys, Law said: ''I can only say again, as I said earlier that ... this issue, this whole issue as it plays itself out, is full of moments when hindsight would have been helpful.''

The Friday communication lag, he said at another point, is ''part of what I have come to experience as an exceedingly painful, complicated mess.'' He complained about the ''difficult matter of anything being kept confidential,'' and that ''rumors have a way of taking a life of their own, and I've certainly experienced that over the last four months.''

The decision to make public the rejection of the settlement, he said, was reached because the archdiocese's ''experience has been that things which we have assumed had been confidential meetings or confidential discussions found their way into print, and very often with a spin on them which betrayed, really, the substance of what was happening.''

Before Gordon sought to pinpoint during the morning session what Law knew about Geoghan, there was one moment of levity, when Law was asked if 2101 Commonwealth Avenue in Brighton is his residential address.

''And office, that's right,'' he said. ''I live over the store.''

Six months after Law moved into the residence in March 1984, he received a heartfelt letter from a Stoughton woman, Margaret Gallant, alerting the new archbishop that Geoghan had molested seven boys in her extended family several years earlier, warning him that Geoghan had recently been seen with young boys again, and urging Law to end Geoghan's access to children.

Law marked the envelope, ''Urgent, please follow through,'' and forwarded it to his top deputy, Bishop Thomas V. Daily. Little more than a week later, Rev. James H. Lane, the pastor of St. Brendan's Church in Dorchester, where Geoghan was assigned, went to the Chancery with more evidence about Geoghan. A day later, on Sept. 18, Law wrote Geoghan a letter removing him from the parish.

Under questioning from Gordon, Law said that receiving such a letter - one alleging that a priest had sexually abused children - would be unusual.

Q. Do you recall talking to anybody about this letter about the time it came in?

A. I do not recall.

Q. Do you recall if you were troubled by the information in this letter?

A. I do not recall having seen the letter at the time.

Q. So your memory of September 1984, you were unaware that Father Geoghan had admitted to Bishop Daily to molesting boys?

A. I do not recall being informed of this by Father, by Bishop Daily, no.

Law's written reply to Gallant's letter was brief: ''The matter of your concern is being investigated and appropriate pastoral decisions will be made both for the priest and God's people.''

Because of the subject, Law testified that Daily probably drafted that reply, but he did not remember it.

Q. Did you have a conversation with Bishop Daily about Mrs. Gallant?

A. I don't recall having a conversation with Bishop Daily on this matter.

Similarly, Law said he has no recollection that Rev. Lane had brought complaints about Geoghan's behavior at St. Brendan's to the Chancery, even though an archdiocesan document shows that Law removed Geoghan a day after Lane's complaint.

Asked if anyone reported to him in 1984 that Lane relayed complaints about Geoghan, Law replied, ''No, no, no.''

After Geoghan moved to St. Julia's that November, Bishop D'Arcy protested the assignment, an unusual step for a subordinate. D'Arcy urged the new archbishop in a letter to consider reversing the decision and noted, ''Fr. Geoghan has a history of homosexual involvement with young boys.''

But despite the letter's strong language, Law said he had no recollection of receiving it or discussing Geoghan with D'Arcy. Law also said he had no idea how D'Arcy would know about Geoghan's history.

In a deposition last year, Daily, who is now bishop of the Brooklyn diocese, the nation's fifth largest see, recalled many of the events that Law could not. And in a March statement about his oversight of Geoghan, Daily declared, ''In hindsight, I profoundly regret certain decisions.''

Several times yesterday, Law said his subordinates must have taken administrative steps about Geoghan. For example, he said he has no recollection that he ever alerted Monsignor Francis S. Rossiter, St. Julia's pastor, about Geoghan's sexual abuse. And he said he does not recall ever discussing the issue with him.

''My presumption would be that those assisting me in handling these matters would have also done what was appropriate in relationship to Monsignor Rossiter,'' Law said.

In questioning Law about the settlement agreement, Gordon pointed to R. Robert Popeo, a prominent Boston lawyer who has been advising Law, as having been an impediment to the settlement.

Did Law authorize Popeo to come to one of the negotiating sessions and warn Garabedian that unless he stopped talking to reporters, the agreement would be in jeopardy? Gordon asked. ''No,'' Law replied. ''That certainly wasn't told with my authorization.''

Q. Did anyone ever convey to you that Mr. Popeo's appearance caused a great deal of difficulty in putting the agreement together?

A. I have a vague recollection of having heard something to that effect.

Popeo could not be reached for comment.

Walter Robinson can be reached at

wrobinson@globe.com Matt Carroll, Sacha Pfeiffer, Stephen Kurkjian and Kevin Cullen of the Globe Staff contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.