Posted on 05/09/2002 10:18:21 AM PDT by Lance Romance
Cardinal Law Says He Can't Recall Letters About Abusive Priest, Relied on Doctors' Advice
Published: May 9, 2002
BOSTON (AP) - Alleged victims of now-defrocked priest John Geoghan reacted with disbelief after Cardinal Bernard Law said he didn't remember letters accusing Geoghan of sex abuse and complaining about his transfer from parish to parish.
"I found that the cardinal had some selective amnesia," said alleged victim Mark Keane, who heard Law's testimony during a deposition Wednesday.
The cardinal's deposition was ordered in a lawsuit filed by 86 people who say Law and the Boston Archdiocese failed to protect youngsters from Geoghan, who has been accused of sexually abusing more than 130 children over three decades.
Law insisted he relied on the advice of doctors and subordinates when he approved the transfer of Geoghan, who was convicted in January of molesting a boy and is serving nine to 10 years in prison.
The deposition, scheduled to continue Friday and Monday, was held behind closed doors. Transcripts were released after morning and afternoon sessions.
The rare deposition of a high-ranking church leader was ordered after the archdiocese last week backed out of a settlement with the Geoghan victims that would have been worth up to $30 million.
Phil Saviano, head of the New England chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said he has low expectations for the depositions.
"I think it's really significant, and he certainly should be deposed, but I'm not hopeful that there's going to be earth-shattering information exposed," he said.
The deposition began with the cardinal's attorney, Wilson Rogers Jr., making a standing objection to the questioning, saying, "The inquiry into the inner workings of the church was inappropriate."
Law later testified that he didn't recall reading letters about Geoghan's behavior, and said he was told by doctors that Geoghan was not a threat.
He specifically said he did not remember a letter from Margaret Gallant, a relative of seven alleged Geoghan victims who was upset that the church gave Geoghan another chance at a parish in Boston. Nor did he recall Bishop John D'Arcy's letter saying Geoghan was unfit to be reassigned.
But Law said he recognized his own handwriting on a note forwarding one of Gallant's letters to Bishop Thomas Daily, one of his subordinates, with the instructions, "Urgent, please follow through."
In the 1984 letter, Gallant alleged that Geoghan had abused seven people at a Boston parish.
Law emphasized he relied on the judgment of others in decisions concerning Geoghan. He has said he was prompted to assign Geoghan to a new parish on the advice of two doctors, even though both lacked proper credentials in sex abuse matters and one had been accused in a lawsuit of molesting one of his patients.
"I'm sure that medical assurance was given," Law said. "Whether it was subsequently put in writing and in an earlier form given orally, I cannot say.
"But I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that this letter would never have been put before me for a signature had we not had the assurance of someone competent to give that assurance that this assignment was safe."
Law said sexual abuse is a "gravely sinful act."
Attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who represents the alleged Geoghan victims, said it's "astounding" that Law didn't recall the warnings about Geoghan.
"He just seemed very, very sad but yet he wouldn't admit what I believe is the truth, in that he knew what was going on," Garabedian said.
Archdiocese spokeswoman Donna Morrissey defended Law's testimony.
"Cardinal Law cooperated fully and answered all the questions asked of him," she said in a statement.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs spent much of a two-hour afternoon session questioning Law on the collapse of the settlement with alleged Geoghan victims.
Attorney William Gordon questioned the council's decision to inform the media of its rejection of the deal before the alleged victims.
Law said he and his advisers decided they wanted to get the information out quickly. But in hindsight, he acknowledged he could have handled it differently.
"It's part of what I have come to experience as an exceedingly painful, complicated mess," Law said.
Although not optimistic about the deposition, Saviano said victims were relieved with the recent arrests of retired priests Paul Shanley and Ronald Paquin. Both men were charged with child rape.
"Resolution for us would be the cardinal resigning," he said. "Unfortunately, we have to take what we can get."
On Thursday, an attorney for Shanley asked a judge to lower the priest's $750,000 bail, describing prosecutors' fears that Shanley would flee as an "absolute fiction."
Shanley was arrested in San Diego last week and returned to Massachusetts on Monday. His attorney, Frank Mondano, said the court should consider fitting Shanley with an electronic monitoring bracelet.
There was no immediate ruling on Modano's request.
Who says Bill Clinton hasn't hurt the country? Even Cardinal's are lying under oath.
But, you're right---it is pretty disgusting to see a Cardinal lie in such a blantant manner. The legacy of Bill Clinton.
I'm sorry, I can no longer refer to him as a Cardinal. He has lowered himself to the same level as the common lier. He will do and say whatever is required to save himself and cares nothing for those who really suffered by his inaction.
He is so filled with his own self importance and arrogance that he is unable to accept that anyone would have the nerve to question is actions or words.
Maybe him and Stanley could share the same cell.
I really don't know how he can sleep without having nightmares about the children being raped by the perverts he was protecting.
I'm sorry, I can no longer refer to him as a Cardinal. He has lowered himself to the same level as the common lier. He will do and say whatever is required to save himself and cares nothing for those who really suffered by his inaction.
He is so filled with his own self importance and arrogance that he is unable to accept that anyone would have the nerve to question is actions or words.
Maybe him and Stanley could share the same cell.
I really don't know how he can sleep without having nightmares about the children being raped by the perverts he was protecting.
Before you all jump to judgement, step back for a minute and ask yourselves just what you recall from 1984. As for Clinton, he only had to search back a few years .... NOT 18!
Stupid question, but why would he consult with doctors if this was just an ordinary transfer?
Question two: is lying a violation of Cardinal Law?
This is certainly part of the problem. The ordinary of a diocese has almost unlimited power to hire and fire whomever he wants. Since the days of Vatican II, the Church in America has been filled with the usual assortment of liberals, leftists, dissenters, perverts, and what would have been called heretics in the old days when people spoke honestly, all bent on "seizing the levers of power," just as they have managed to do everywhere else in government, academia, the professional societies, entertainment, and the media. As a result, diocesan chanceries and other nodes of bureaucracy within the Church are heavily loaded up with disloyal Catholics who are following their own agendas.
Cardinal Law had the power to clean these people out of his chancery, out of the liturgy advisory boards, out of the catechetical advisors and Catholic school boards, and so on, but he did not. He didn't, not because he is himself probably a dissenter, but because these leftwingers are the trouble-makers and power-seekers. It's easier to slap down a few loyal Catholics, who will not complain about their treatment, than it is to deal with dissenters, who will scream their heads off and complain to the press if you try to pry them away from their levers of power.
So. He got bad advice. Naturally. But in the end the responsibility is his, because he took the easy path and surrounded himself with perverts, dissenters, feminists, and the kind of power-mad leftists who have been littering the culture in America ever since the 1960s.
I don't think Cardinal Law is an evil man, but he has been a weak and foolish man, like too many of his fellow American bishops. He needs to resign and give his position to someone who can straighten out the mess he has presided over for so long.
I have known a lot of corrupt church officials (Lutheran, not Catholic). They are conservative until they get the position they covet. They are smart until someone challenges them. Then they are so dumb they seem retarded. They remember gossip about everyone they want to hurt...and even invent things whenever it suits them. But they cannot recall anything that might suggest they are less than ethical in their treatment of others, especially victims of sexual abuse.
The financial meltdown will be good for everyone concerned. It should happen - and I think it will happen - in all the denominations. "When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith?"
Are you seriously suggesting that movies and lunches are as memorable as having to deal with a priest—under your authority—accused of sex with boys?
I don't remember what I had for lunch 18 years ago, but I clearly remember two traffic tickets I got more than 18 years ago. I remember where I was. I remember what time it was. If you got audited by the IRS, would you remember that 18 years later? (Even if you didn't want to?)
If Cardinal Law found the situation concerning a pederast priest and the Roman Catholic Church to be no more memorable than lunch, what kind of Cardinal is he?
Disclaimer: I am not a Roman Catholic, nor do I play one on TV.
Isn't that just great?
That was my first reaction. If he is being truthful, and such a situation was truly not memorable for him, then he is morally blind and deaf and should have been canned long ago.
On the other hand, I wonder if he is able to recall that bearing false witness under oath is a mortal sin.
You are correct. There had to be a reason for doctors to be involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.