BOSTON -- An attorney for alleged victims of a pedophile priest asked Cardinal Bernard Law questions Thursday about a settlement agreement rejected by the archdiocese.

Video

Watch Amalia Barreda's Report

NewsCenter 5's Amalia Barreda reported that attorney Mitchell Garabedian's questions are limited to Law's knowledge of the $15 million to $30 million settlement that the alleged victims of defrocked priest John Geoghan thought that they had with the archdiocese.

Law has stated that he was in support of settlement, but his Finance Council refused to grant approval to it, saying the settlement would drain the archdiocese's resources and not allow it to provide for other victims.

"I can't be specific, but I wouldn't be going forward if I didn't think we had a strong case," Garabedian said. "The public evidence is that 86 clients, 86 claimants, 86 victims signed this agreement."

Garabedian said that he and his clients believed that the settlement was binding when Law signed it.

"There were representations made in court that the settlement was, in effect, taking place," Garabedian said. "And they were acting in bad faith."

Two alleged victims said that they felt like they were being victimized again when the Finance Council backed out of the deal. They said that they did not believe the cardinal's claims that he didn't know his Finance Council had to approve the settlement.

"The Finance Council was an advisory committee only," alleged victim Mark Keane said. "Cardinal Law knew that. I think he lied the whole way through. He's trying to stretch the amount of time that he can get."

The Archdiocese of Boston is also claiming that it is not financially responsible in any case because it is not named specifically as a defendant in the lawsuits.

"I think they're just trying to avoid the real issue of was there a contract in a civil sense," Garabedian said. "I think it's just more delay and deception, and I think they're just trying to divert attention from what's really going on."

A hearing is scheduled for July 31, in which Superior Court Judge Constance Sweeney will be hearing arguments on the validity of the settlement.