Depositions of Louis E. Gelineau, Bishop of Providence - April 2
For the record, the parties have just signed the stipulation essentially indicating that the videotapes of the depositions of Bishops Gelineau, Angell and Reilly will be retained by counsel and used exclusively by counsel and the parties; the videotapes will not be disseminated to any person not a party or counsel in this action without either written consent of the other parties or order of the court.
Next, we had two depositions scheduled yesterday -- two dates for depositions scheduled of the Bishop, today and yesterday. The parties had agreed on Monday, because of the pending snowstorm, that if in fact the courts were closed yesterday, the deposition would be postponed until today. Obviously, there was a snowstorm, and the deposition was postponed. We would like to continue this deposition to either April 11th or April 16th so that we can get the two dates in that we think we need to get in, and then go on from there. We are still waiting to get either two to four more dates from you for the continuation of the rest of the deposition. Can we agree on the 11th or the 16th? Do you have your schedule, Bishop?
BISHOP GELINEAU: I don't have my calendar here, but I will look at it at noon if that would help.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: We can all check during the noon break.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. Just so that, we just want to understand for the record, the deposition is beginning on today's date, but we need a continuation date before we adjourn today. All right. I guess --. Anybody else want anything on the record? Jim?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: A couple of things on the record. Just to make it clear, the stipulation takes care of the concerns that we had about the videotape and, because of the stipulation, we've not filed a motion for protective order concerning the videotape because the stipulation takes care of the concerns that were addressed among counsel. Secondly, we do request, pursuant to Rule 30(e), that we be provided with the transcript for the purpose of reviewing and noting any corrections that need to be made on it in accordance with that rule. Anyone else have anything? All right.
MS. McGUIRL: Anything else? All right. I guess we can start.
BISHOP LOUIS E. GELINEAU, first having been duly sworn by the Notary Public, testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY
MS. McGUIRL:
Q. Bishop, my name is Susan McGuirl. I represent Michael and Stephen Kelly in this action.
MR. Conlon, seated at my right, along with his cocounsel, represents
MR. Smith in this Federal Court case. We are both going to be asking you questions today. Let me just say, if I'm speaking too quickly, please stop me. If I ask a question that's not clear, please just indicate that to me, and I will rephrase the question. If you don't ask any questions or you don't ask me to repeat it, I'm going to believe that you understood the question and that you're answering it to the best of your knowledge and belief. All right?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Could you state your full name for us, Bishop, please.
A. Louis, L-o-u-i-s, E., as in Edward, Gelineau, G-e-l-i-n-e-a-u.
Q. Is your middle name Edward?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is your date and place of birth, Bishop?
A. Burlington, Vermont, on May 3rd, 1928.
Q. And your Social Security number?
A. 009-16-3569.
Q. And is Bishop your proper title? Is that how we would address you?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you known by any other name, Bishop?
A. No.
Q. You have no other aliases, you were never called anything else at any other time?
A. No.
Q. Your present occupation?
A. I'm the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence.
Q. And you've been Bishop of Providence for 25 years; is that correct?
A. Twenty-five years last January.
Q. Okay. And you are also, or as part of that also a priest in the Roman Catholic faith; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And when were you ordained?
A. On May 5th, 19 -- June 5th, excuse me, 1954.
Q. Now, when you're ordained as a priest, do you take vows, Bishop?
A. We don't call them vows exactly. We give ourselves to the service of the church.
Q. Okay. Is there some agreement or a promise with regard to celibacy?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. What do you call that? That's not a vow. What is that referred to?
A. It's a promise of celibacy. And we take that actually, in my case it was a year before I was ordained a priest. We took it at that time, at the time I received the subdiaconate, which was a step toward the priesthood, and it was at that time that the promise of celibacy was made.
Q. Okay. And can you explain to us in terms of the Roman Catholic Church what "celibacy" means.
A. It's a promise to live a chaste life without the benefit of marriage.
Q. Okay. And does that mean refraining from any sexual activity?
A. Yes.
Q. With any women or men; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And that promise is taken as you become a deacon a year before you actually are ordained as a priest.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Could you just give us a very brief summary of your educational background, Bishop. We have some records on it, but just for the record.
A. I had all my education in Catholic schools. Elementary school in Burlington and high school in Burlington as well; two years of college at St. Michael's College, which is right outside of Burlington, in Winooski, Vermont. And then in my third year of college I started the study of philosophy in Ottawa, Ontario, at a seminary there, which is called St. Paul's Seminary, and I had six years there: two years of philosophy, which really concludes the four-year program for college, and then four years following that of theology, which is kind of postgraduate work.
Q. The St. Michael's College you attended, was that a general college for anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. The seminary, am I correct that that is a school to educate priests?
A. Yes.
Q. And everyone that was enrolled at the seminary intended at that point to become a priest.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is it unusual to leave college in the middle of it and go to a seminary before you finish the four-year college experience?
A. It was not at that time. Even now there are some instances when we send people away for the study of philosophy to a seminary; less so now than it was then. The standard then was to go two years of regular classical course in college and then to start the study of philosophy in an atmosphere where you would have preparation for the priesthood.
Q. Okay. So your course of study was essentially, starting at St. Michael's, was philosophy.
A. It was -- no, it was a general classical course at St. Michael's. The philosophy starts in third year.
Q. And do you receive a Bachelor degree?
A. Yes, both Bachelor of Philosophy and Bachelor of Arts; from the University of Ottawa I received those.
Q. Is that at the end of four years or is that the end of six years?
A. At the end of four years.
Q. And the other two years that you take, do you receive a degree in that, for that?
A. There are four years besides that now, four years of postgraduate work. At the end of the second year in that theology course, I received a Bachelor of Theology, and at the end of the fourth year I received what they call a licensure in theology. Now, these are ecclesiastical degrees that are given by any pontifical faculty that's approved by the Holy See. So I was able to receive those in my course of studies.
Q. And is every priest required to obtain those degrees?
A. Not required, no. In Ottawa in my time there were what they called the major and a minor course. The major course people followed a different track and they studied for the degrees; the minor course people did not study for those degrees. And the degrees were not essential for ordination to the priesthood.
Q. All right. Am I correct, though, that you have to spend four years in a postgraduate seminary --
A. Yes.
Q. -- before you become a priest?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So your studying was essentially done in philosophy and theology; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us, Bishop, as part of your education during this period of time, did you ever receive any training in psychology, abnormal psychology?
A. Not psychology as such. In philosophy there's a section that's called the psychology of human nature and all, but not psychology in the secular sense of the word, no.
Q. Let me ask you more directly. Did you ever receive any education or take any courses with regard to sexuality?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That would have been at St. Paul's or St. Michael's?
A. At St. Paul's.
Q. And could you tell us the nature of that type of course.
A. It was in connection with the laws of the church and the commandments of God. We studied all of the commandments and all of the -- the Sixth and Ninth Commandments have to do with sexuality. So we studied the virtues that people should develop in order to live a good life and the failings that can happen in one's life and the sins against the decalogue.
Q. And did you study any, or did you have any education in sexuality involving homosexuality or pedophilia?
A. Homosexuality, yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form of the question.
THE DEPONENT: Would you repeat the question, then.
MS. McGUIRL: Sure.
Q. Did you have any courses or any specific education in either homosexuality or pedophilia?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer the question.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
A. We certainly touched upon homosexuality as being a sin against the Sixth Commandment.
Q. What about pedophilia; did you have any specific training or discussion on that topic at that time?
A. Not specific other than what would have been involved in any violation of the commandment. That would be with adults or with young people.
Q. Okay. Am I correct that the, just so that we understand each other, the sexual activity between a man and a woman outside of a marriage relationship is a sin against the commandments? Is that the Catholic Church teaching?
A. Yes.
Q. And any sexual activity between members of the same sex, what is commonly referred to as homosexuality, is also considered a sin by the Catholic Church.
A. Yes.
Q. Would sexual activity with children also be considered a sin in the Catholic Church?
A. Yes.
Q. And what commandments would that violate?
A. The Sixth.
Q. And I use the term "pedophilia" Do you understand what that terms means, Bishop?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your explanation or definition of it?
A. It's --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
A. It's sexual activity between an adult and a minor, or -- I think now the technical definition of it is young, young people.
Q. Okay. During the course of -- strike that. During your discussion of these topics in that course, did you ever receive any instructions or direction of how to deal with the problem of either homosexuality or pedophilia if it came up?
A. At that time I believe we were told, you know, to take all the spiritual means necessary to not only live ourselves according to the commandments but to help others to live that way as well. So it was mostly spiritual means to be strong and to avoid the temptations that come in every life.
Q. Were you given any directions or instructions of how to deal with it if you became aware that another priest had a problem with pedophilia?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. At that time in the seminary, no.
Q. Bishop, there is instruction given out in seminaries; is that correct?
A. There is instruction given --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. Let me rephrase it. Is there not in the course of education of a priest now some instructions with regard to how to handle these types of issues?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Objection to the form. You may answer.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
A. I'm not sure I understand.
Q. There was just a, there was an article in the Journal recently.
MS. McGUIRL: We can mark this.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1 FOR I.D.:
Article appearing in The Providence Sunday Journal entitled "While some debate celibacy, church works to prepare priests."
(Document tendered to Attorney James Murphy and Attorney William Murphy)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Thank you. Bishop, I'll show this to you --
MS. McGUIRL: Sorry.
THE DEPONENT: Sure.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Is it both sides? Do you mind if we untape this? Because this article is all folded up.
MS. McGUIRL: No, sure.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: The bottom part of the article is folded under and taped onto the sheet.
MS. McGUIRL: No. Go ahead. It's just there for convenience. That's fine. (Brief pause)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Susan, are you going to, just to save time, are you going to ask the Bishop questions beyond whether or not he's seen this article before?
MS. McGUIRL: I'm going to ask him that and see if he agrees with essentially the content of it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Okay. Because then I'll have him read the text.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes. I think he needs to read it. Everybody else is reading it; I think he should be able to.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: If it was simply whether he has seen it or not, it might make it a little quicker. Do you know the date of that article?
MS. McGUIRL: No, other than knowing it's recent. There's no date on the --. They usually do. No? It's in the last couple of months, I know that, but.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Has this been marked?
MS. McGUIRL: Yes; I just didn't give her a chance to put the stamp on it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Exhibit 1?
MS. McGUIRL: Is that what you're doing, 1? Yes.
(Brief pause)
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY:
MR. White, when --
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I might want to put this on the record. When you were talking, not on the record, I just shut the sound off for everyone in the room.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: That's exactly the question I was going to ask, whether the microphone picked up the conferences.
MR. CONLON: Only your client's.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Bishop, I'm going to hand you the article that counsel has given to us. It's Exhibit 1. Take your time to review it. And I'll read over your shoulder.
(At this point Plaintiff's Exhibits 2 through 7 were marked by the court reporter)
(Brief pause)
BY MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, you've had a chance to read the article I handed you and counsel; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. You would essentially agree with what the article is saying?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes, I agree that there are, there are things there that are very relevant to our situation today, yes.
Q. Is it true, though, as reported in this article, that there is more emphasis given to training in dealing with issues of sexuality in the seminary now than there were before?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Can I see where that is in the article?
(Document handed to MR. James Murphy)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, I can't --. Can you just point it out to me, Sue.
MS. McGUIRL: I'm not going to waste time getting into the article.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: No, I just didn't --
Q. Let me just ask you the question, Bishop. Is there more emphasis and more education given to issues of sexuality in seminaries now than when you were in the seminary?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer.
A. Because of the climate that's in the world today, yes.
Q. Do you know what type of education or training is given to priests now in the seminary?
A. I don't know from personal contact, but I'm presuming that the seminaries to which we send our seminarians are conscious of the needs that future priests are going to have in terms of knowledge and expectations of what's in the world today, and they give the kind of training that is going to be needed by them.
Q. The young men that wish to be priests from the Diocese of Providence go to St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore; is that correct?
A. That's one place.
Q. Okay. They go to other seminaries also.
A. Yes.
Q. Where else do they go, Bishop?
A. To Rome, the North American College in Rome; the American College at Leuven in Belgium; Mount St. Mary's in Emmitsburg, Maryland; St. John's in Boston; John the 23rd in Boston.
Q. Who decides which seminary they're going to go to?
A. Ultimately I do, but I have a committee, or commission of priests that work with our Director of Vocations who study the seminaries and then study also the needs of the individual and try to match them together and then make a recommendation to me to which seminary they should go.
Q. What's that commission called? Does it have a name?
A. It's a, I think it's just a Vocations Committee.
Q. Is there a chair of it?
A. The --. Yes, there is a chair.
Q. Who would that be, Bishop?
A. Well, right now Father Marcel Pincins is the Director of Vocations, so he would be working with that committee.
Q. Is it part of your duties as Bishop of Providence to be involved in training a priest?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Could you give me just a minute, Sue. I want to consult with Jim. (Brief pause)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm sorry. Could you read that question back to me for a second. (Pending question read by reporter)
A. Not in the direct training, no.
Q. What role do you have, then?
A. To oversee the process by which priests are trained and to have confidence that they are, that that is being carried out properly. But I don't get involved personally in their training.
Q. Do you get involved at all in what courses are taken, what type of training they're receiving at the seminary?
A. Once I assign them to a seminary, then it's the seminary that decides on the type of program they're going to follow.
Q. Do you know if the commission or your Director of Vocations gets involved in the type of training or the type of courses that they receive at any of those particular seminaries?
A. Other than reviewing what they know to be about the seminaries and what types of courses they offer, I don't think they get involved directly with the training; they leave that to the leaders of the seminary.
Q. Have you yourself ever inquired as to any of these seminaries as to what type of specific training or education they have received with regard to sexual activity?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if anyone from the Diocese has, your Director of Vocations or anyone else?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Objection. An objection to the --
MS. McGUIRL: If you know.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: -- the form of the question.
A. Could you repeat it again, then.
Q. Yes. If you know, Bishop, do you know whether anyone in the Diocese, your Director of Vocations or any other priest, has ever inquired as to the type of training that they receive at the seminaries in the area of sexual activity?
A. Our Director of Vocations visit the seminaries, they get catalogs from the seminaries, so I'm presuming that they look at the seminary program and see that it's the type of program that we, that we want for our students. And I'm presuming that all seminaries do cover theological and philosophical questions that should arise in the training of a priest.
Q. And is one of those questions that you would expect to be covered how to deal with sexual activity by themselves or other priests?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you would expect they get education and training on that in the seminary now.
A. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. You were ordained a priest I believe in 1954; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were a part of the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you just briefly explain what a diocese is, Bishop.
A. It's a canonical division of the people in the geographic area who belong to the church and who follow the teachings of the church and claim to be people of the faith that the Catholic Church teaches and lives.
Q. For example, in the state of Vermont, is the Diocese of Burlington the state of Vermont?
A. Yes.
Q. And in Rhode Island the Diocese of Providence is the state of Rhode Island?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is that always true?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now, it's my understanding you spent three years as a parish priest after your ordination; --
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What parish were you in, Bishop?
A. For two years I was up in Richford, Vermont, which is right on the Canadian border.
Q. What was the name of that parish?
A. I was an assistant then. All Saints Parish in Richford. And then I spent one year -- I was transferred from there to Winooski, W-i-n-o-o-s-k-i, which is right outside of Burlington, at St. Stephen's Parish as an assistant.
Q. My understanding, as an assistant there would be a Pastor in the parish; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the pastor at All Saints, Bishop?
A. When I arrived there it was a Father Charles Marcoux, M-a-r-c-o-u-x. And he was there until January of 1956, when he was transferred to a parish in Burlington. I remained there with the new Pastor, who was Father George St. Onge, S-t period capital O-n-g-e.
Q. Were there any other assistants assigned to that parish?
A. No.
Q. And when you moved to the other parish, who was the Pastor there?
A. At the time I moved there, it was in June of '56, and there was a Monsignor William Crowley, C-r-o-w-l-e-y. And he was transferred out of there in January of 1957, and then the new Pastor who came, with whom I stayed for about -- well, from January to June, was Monsignor Charles Towne, T-o-w-n-e.
Q. Were there any assistants in that, other assistants in that parish?
A. No.
Q. Are those priests still living in the state of Vermont?
A. They're all deceased, all four are deceased now.
Q. What were your duties as an assistant pastor or priest in those two parishes?
A. The general duties of a priest in a parish are to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to minister to people's needs.
Q. When you use the term "teach," are you using it in the scholarly sense of being in a school facility?
A. Not a full-time school, but we had religious education classes in which I either taught or supervised.
Q. Those would be with the children of the parish?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, those three years are the only time in your career that you've actually been a parish priest; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after those three years you were assigned, or you at some point attended the Catholic University; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And how did that come about, Bishop?
A. The Bishop asked me to, in June of '56 -- or '57, excuse me, the Bishop asked me to register at the Catholic University, and I did, in the school of canon law there, and I started my studies in canon law in September of 1957.
Q. Who was the Bishop at that time?
A. At that time it was Robert Joyce.
Q. Is Bishop Joyce still living?
A. He's deceased.
Q. And how long did you stay at Catholic U.?
A. Two years, two scholastic years.
Q. And did you receive a degree?
A. Yes. Licensure in canon law.
Q. And where did you live when you were in D.C.?
A. Right on campus at Caldwell Hall, right on the campus of Catholic University.
Q. And were you assigned to any particular parish or church that you worked in also at that time?
A. No.
Q. So your job was essentially go to school.
A. That's right.
Q. All right. And during the course of your studying of canon law did you have any courses or education specifically in issues of sexuality?
A. Not specifically in that, other than the way the law treated the whole question of the discipline of priests and the discipline of everyone, actually.
Q. And when you're talking about how the law treats it, you're referring to the canon law?
A. Yes.
Q. After you left Catholic U., what happened then?
A. Then I was assigned to the Chancery office in Burlington.
Q. Now, the Chancery office, my understanding, that's essentially the business office for the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. It is the canonical term to designate the place where the official acts of the church are carried out and kept.
Q. All the records of that Diocese would be kept in that building?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you receive a title or a specific job assignment?
A. I was an Assistant Chancellor at that time in June of '59.
Q. Okay. And can you tell us what the duties of a Chancellor are.
A. Canonically they are to keep the acts of the Diocese properly. My duties were a little bit broader than that. I served as secretary for the Bishop and master of ceremonies for him.
Q. When you say keep the acts properly, what does that mean, Bishop?
A. Well, the records of the, of what the Bishop does, what the Diocese is involved in, and dispensations from marriage cases, and things like that.
Q. Is the Chancellor essentially the custodian of records for the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, at some point from this time, from 1959 until 1972, did your title ever change?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that, Bishop?
A. I became -- I was an Assistant Chancellor from '59 to January of '60, and then I became Chancellor, and in '67 I became the Vicar General of the Diocese in addition to my duties as Chancellor.
Q. And can you tell us what a Vicar General is.
A. He is the --. It's a canonical title of which gives the person who is Vicar General the right to act in the name of the Bishop when the Bishop is not present or when he's delegated certain things in which to act. So he has what we call ordinary jurisdiction along with the Bishop.
Q. Were there any auxiliary Bishops in the Diocese at that point?
A. No.
Q. You mentioned the first Bishop that -- well, the Bishop, Bishop Joyce, that assigned you to Catholic University. What other Bishops did you serve under during that 13 years?
A. He was the only one.
Q. In your capacity or various capacities in that 13-year period of time did you have any responsibility or duties with regard to priests of the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I don't know how to, how to answer that, because I --.
Q. Okay. Let me ask a more specific --
A. The responsibilities --
Q. Okay. Let me ask a more specific question. Did you have any role, for example, in the training of the priests of the Diocese?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Did you have any role with regard to assignments of the priests within the Diocese?
A. Other than to carry out the wishes of the Bishop when he would delegate me to do that, no.
Q. When you say "carry out the wishes," did you actually make decisions or did you just follow through on his decisions?
A. Followed through on his decisions.
Q. Okay. And during the time that you were acting in those capacities as Assistant Chancellor, Chancellor and Vicar General, to your knowledge were there any complaints made in the Diocese against priests in the area of pedophilia?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I'm really not able to answer that. And I think this is the time that I must read a statement that I think is going to be relevant here. Can I? I decline to, I respectfully decline to answer the question because to do so I believe would violate my religious obligations under the religious doctrine and canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. Upon advice of counsel, I believe that I enjoy a legal right not to do so under the religion clauses of the United States Constitution and the Rhode Island Constitution, the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act, and because of my obligations and the rights of persons speaking to me under an expectation of religiously-based confidentiality under Rhode Island law. Further, on the advice of counsel I believe that the scope of this question violates the established law of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court prohibiting inquiry into the selection and appointment of ministers of religion, church administration, policy, and church governance.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Susan, at this point, the Bishop has raised a question of privilege, and pursuant to Rule 30(d)(1), I am going to instruct him not to answer your question because it asks about privileged matter. And together with that instruction under Rule 30(d)(1) I suppose I ought to put on the record at this time a 30(d)(3) motion to terminate the line of inquiry on the grounds of annoyance and embarrassment and oppression. Now, I want to specify this for the record. I'm not going to preclude you from asking any questions that you deem necessary, particularly so that you may build a record and file such motions to compel as you feel necessary, particularly in light of Judge Torres' order of March 5th, 1997 that directed the Plaintiffs to file their motions to compel discovery where objections have been made on First Amendment issues that impact on discovery. But I will instruct the Bishop, whenever the privilege issues do arise, not to answer the questions. Perhaps we can make a shorthand way of doing that and raising those objections. But I want to be clear on the record why I'm making the motion and why I'm instructing him not to answer. There --. This question seeks information that would relate to communications that Bishop Gelineau may have received in his capacity as a Roman Catholic priest while in the Diocese of Burlington. And I'm sure there will be questions concerning communications to him in his capacity as the Bishop of the Diocese of Providence with priests or with other individuals, communications that may be in writing, they may be verbal, and his decision-making in light of whatever confidential communications he may have received, the inquiries that he may have made pursuant to canon law, the decisions he's made in his discretion as a Catholic Bishop in carrying out that function. And I don't mean this as a stonewalling tactic, but in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, under which our Federal District Court operates, there are three cases in particular that I believe support this objection and this motion under Rule 30(d). The first is the case of Surinach v. Pesquera de Busquets -- I'll provide the spelling to the stenographer -- concerning efforts by government agencies to subpoena church records. The other cases are the cases of Dowd v. The Society of St. Columbans and Natal v. Christian and Missionary Alliance that were decided in 1988 and 1989 particularly. And it is our position, and I -- it is our position, and it is the Bishop's sincerely held religious belief, that this inquiry is being made into his exercise of ecclesiastical functions with regard to church policy, administration and governance and as it relates to the selection, retention and supervision of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, that the inquiry would have a chilling effect on the right and duty and obligation of Bishops, including Bishop Gelineau, to freely exercise their functions as Roman Catholic Bishops, and that the inquiry, in addition to the suits themselves, but certainly this line of inquiry burdens the free exercise of his religious belief and actions in accordance with the faith and the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church. And it also would implicate Rhode Island General Laws 9-17-23 relating to confidential communications between communicants and the clergy and impacts the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enacted by Congress in 1993 as well as the cases that I've just mentioned and the cases that are set forth in the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that's already before the court, and memoranda have been filed by both sides on that already, and it may impact as well on the confidentiality laws of the state of Vermont in which these communications may have taken place. Now, from a shorthand perspective, if the Bishop raises a concern of privilege, I will instruct him not to answer because of that privilege or because the inquiry interferes with and burdens his First Amendment rights. And I will, if there's no objection, if we can all agree that instead of my having to go through a speech each time, that if the Bishop sees a problem of this type, that we will set forth the religious -- I'll just simply say instruct not to answer on the grounds of religion.
MS. McGUIRL: Let me just ask you. When you --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Privilege.
MS. McGUIRL: I think obviously trying to do this in a shorthand fashion, as much as I like listening to you, I think would obviously be a shorter way of dealing with it. If you make that objection on religious grounds, are you relying on all of those grounds that you just stated in each case?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: In any given case some of them certainly will apply, and I think that the teachings of the Natal v. Christian and Missionary Alliance and the Dowd v. Society of St. Columbans cases apply to all of these; wherever there is inquiry made into the church's selection, retention, discipline and supervision of clergy they're going to apply. The Rhode Island statute concerning communications may apply in any instance where there is a confidential communication made within the purview of that statute. The Religious Restoration -- Religious Freedom Restoration Act is implicated whenever the inquiry burdens the free exercise of the Bishop's religious beliefs and duties and obligations. Some will, some won't. And that's why I'm saying, ask your questions. I'm not calling for an immediate halt to the deposition. Although I think Rule 30(d)(3) would allow that, I do think, in deference to the process, and so that we all may have a record to present to Judge Torres, that I will instruct him not to answer and move to terminate the line of inquiry. But you are free to ask the questions. At some point we may all need to, see a need to just stop and go and see the judge.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. If you could just give me a minute, Jim.
(Brief pause)
MR. CONLON:
MR. Murphy, --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, Tim.
MR. CONLON: -- is the Bishop waiving, then, any Fifth Amendment privilege as to that particular question?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Could I have that question read back, please. I can't remember the question. (Whereupon the reporter read the following: "Okay. And during the time that you were acting in those capacities as Assistant Chancellor, Chancellor and Vicar General, to your knowledge were there any complaints made in the Diocese against priests in the area of pedophilia?")
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I can't speak for the Bishop on that. I've instructed him not to answer the question, period.
MR. CONLON: On the bases that you've set forth.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, on the basis I've set forth, I've instructed the Bishop not to answer the question because of those privileges.
MR. CONLON: So you're not asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege. You're his counsel; correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm his lawyer.
MR. CONLON: Okay. And you are not asserting Fifth Amendment privileges to that question. You've asserted a bunch, I mean, at least a half dozen privileges, okay? I want to make sure we have an exhaustive list of all of the privileges. You've suggested a short form in essence First Amendment objection, which I think makes a lot of sense. I just want to make it clear for the record, so we won't have to do this twice, if it's First and Fifth, that's fine too; if it's First only, there is no Fifth being asserted as to that question, then that's fine, we don't have to go twice. But I don't want to be doing First, get past the First and come back to Fifth.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Let me ask you a question predicated on the stated position you just gave. Are you seeking to elicit at this time a comprehensive basis for all objections that might be interposed later?
MR. CONLON: Well, sure. It wouldn't be very useful to be doing this once --. Let's just hypothesize that, because we obviously have a difference of opinion as to the scope of the First Amendment protection, that at least on some of these things you guys don't prevail, he's ordered to answer a question; he then asserts the Fifth. I'm going back again. I think that's completely burdensome, makes no sense. If he's asserting privileges, and his laundry list you've got there, I just want to make sure that that laundry list is complete. If you've got 12 more privileges in your pocket for later, I don't think that's fair. So.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: I understand, I think I understand your position. Now, give me just a minute, because my view is that one person should speak for the parties' position.
MR. CONLON: I don't care who speaks.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: But I want to make certain that we have --
MR. CONLON: I'm going to suggest, if you don't mind, that we take a brief break. I'd like to personally use the men's room, if that doesn't offend anyone.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: You are perfectly at liberty to use the rest room, Tim. (A recess was called at 11:09
A.m. The deposition reconvened at 11:25
A.m.)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: There was some discussion about the Fifth Amendment before we broke, and it's our position that we have invoked a privilege under the First Amendment religion clauses in the statutes and the cases that were discussed. Frankly, as I recall the question, I don't see how it would even implicate a Fifth Amendment consideration. Throughout the deposition we will, as certain questions are raised, if there's a religious, issue of religious privilege, it will be invoked, and if other privileges become involved in connection with any question or possible answer, then we'll deal with those as they come up.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay.
MR. CONLON: So you're saying you're not asserting Fifth Amendment privilege to that question.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm not asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to that question as it's presented.
MR. CONLON: So we won't have to do this twice, if he were ordered to answer, he will not be asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I can't say what will happen later.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: To the very same question?
MR. CONLON: Yes, that exact question.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Of course not. Of course not.
MS. McGUIRL: All we want to do is -- I mean, and I think we all have the same goal. We just want to get -- I mean, you've got objections; we obviously respectfully disagree with those but we want to get the objections, everything on the record so we can go see the judge at some point and go on from here.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: That's what we want.
MS. McGUIRL: So our position is that we can use the shorthand for the religious objection, that makes perfect sense, but if you have any other rights or privileges you're claiming, that you put those on the record. If you don't --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: At the time.
MS. McGUIRL: At the time, obviously. If you don't do it, then we are going to assume that you have no other objection but the religious objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Absolutely. Oh, you're absolutely right.
MS. McGUIRL: Is that everybody's understanding?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: I'll recite it back. If the Bishop feels that he is under an obligation not to answer questions based upon a religious ground, then rather than recite what Jim has previously said on the record, we will articulate we raise religious objection to incorporate all that. By doing so we certainly do not intend to limit ourselves to the case authority that's been read into the record; there's a plethora of cases. But I'm certain you agree with that.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: If we perceive another basis for a privilege or instruction not -- another legal basis, a basis in law, for a privilege not to answer on instructions not to answer, or some other remedial action to be taken in this deposition, we will articulate it at that time. For instance, I don't see anything that's arisen to date that is a violation of the Interstate Commerce clause, but if one should come and we should be perceptive enough to see it, you bet we'll put it on the record.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. We just want to make sure --. I'm not sure the Interstate Commerce clause is going to come into effect either, but we might deal with attorney-client privilege, the Fifth Amendment, whatever. We just want to make sure those objections --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: And we're already talking about Vermont.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. All right. Well, there you go.
MR. CONLON: The attorney-client privilege was the other one that, in kibitzing among ourselves, we thought might be floating around, not necessarily in connection with that particular question, but some of these. It would be very easy for a question to hit your perception of the First, your perception of attorney-client and your perception of religious privilege. So if you say "First" or "religious," we'll litigate it with that understanding, that it took the whole number of things that he cited plus whatever containing authority on those theories, should we say. And if we don't hear anything about A-C, attorney-client, if we don't hear anything about Fifth, we'll --
MS. McGUIRL: And one question on the --. I'm sorry. Were you finished?
MR. CONLON: Go ahead. Yes.
MS. McGUIRL: One question on the religious objection, and you may have raised and addressed it in the memos that we've already filed. You objected based on religious faith and canon law. Are those distinguishable objections or are they the same objection? And can you explain what the violation of religious faith is?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Well, I think the memoranda and legal positions we've stated speak for themselves, but we believe that there is no jurisdiction, no subject matter jurisdiction, and we also believe that the entire nexus of religious doctrine and canon law as spelled out in the documents that have been presented to Judge Torres raise a privilege issue which would apply even if you were not suing, if your client were not suing Bishop Gelineau.
MS. McGUIRL: But you're essentially, then, relying on the issues and the arguments you raised in the memo.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, --
MS. McGUIRL: I'm not clear whether you're asserting a new privilege different from what you've already said before.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Well, the two are interrelated. The two are interrelated. Our position is that this entire proceeding is void because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Our position also is that if you were deposing Bishop Gelineau in a case where you were not suing Bishop Gelineau or another church authority, that the same body of law is the basis of a privilege for him not to answer.
MS. McGUIRL: All right. All right. I think --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: They're related but conceptually and legally distinct.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: And I can give you -- there is authority for that.
MS. McGUIRL: All right. I just wanted to make sure that we understood it. Okay. So our understanding is we'll go on, and if the Bishop wants to assert the privilege, he'll put the religious objection. We all understand what that means now.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Can we talk about a break? We were hoping to break, because the Bishop has other things to attend to, shortly after 12:30. Break for about an hour? Is that agreeable?
MS. McGUIRL: That's fine. Anybody have any problem? That's fine. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, after the discussion --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Which only took us 25 minutes.
Q. After the discussion back and forth, we, with all due respect, obviously disagree with your counsel with respect to this. I am going to pursue questions. This is not done in any manner to attempt to harass you or to annoy you or -- whatever the other word was -- offend you, I think, under the motion that
MR. Murphy read, but we need to put our position on the record and argue it later on with the judge. So bear with me while I ask you some more questions, and then we'll go on to another topic. All right? I think my first question was were you aware of any complaints made against any priests in the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, as you acted in your various capacities for 13 years in the Chancery office. That was a privilege. Did you have any personal knowledge of any sexual activity by priests in the Diocese during that same period of time?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Privilege.
Q. Did you --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Religious privilege?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Religious privilege?
THE DEPONENT: Religious privilege, yes.
Q. If you know, were there any policies in effect in the Diocese of Vermont for dealing with handling the complaints involving a priest and sexual activity?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Religious privilege there too.
Q. Did you yourself have any role in dealing with or handling those accusations on behalf of the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Religious privilege.
MR. CONLON: If I may, just so that the record is clear, I know the way she phrase it was "those"; I believe the word was "those." If we were to change the question such that it's not specifying "those," but simply ask --. Well, if you read the record back, it didn't say "those" and it just said such complaints, would he be answering?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Actually, there's an objection to the form as well as the privilege to the question as phrased.
MR. CONLON: That record was not clear, I don't think.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes. And I can specify sometimes the grounds. I don't want to go on big speaking objections unnecessarily. But the privilege would apply.
MR. CONLON: Even if it was rephrased such that we're not asking about, quote, those complaints, but just such complaints.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: It's a distinction without a difference, as far as I understand,
MR. Conlon.
MR. CONLON: So, yes, the privilege, you'd be asserting the privilege.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes.
MR. CONLON: Okay.
BY MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. From 1959 until 1972 did you ever receive any formal education other than what we've already gone through this morning?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Did you receive any informal education and training on any issue involving sexual activity involving priests?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Form.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Same period?
MS. McGUIRL: Same period of time.
A. No.
Q. Did the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, have a specific policy for handling complaints about sexual activity involving priests?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I object to the form of the question.
THE DEPONENT: Yes, could I have the question back?
Q. Want, want me to repeat it or read it?
A. Yes.
Q. Bishop, did the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, have any specific policy for dealing with complaints about priests involving sexual activity?
A. I'd ask you what you mean by "policy."
Q. Was there any procedure of how to handle those complaints?
A. And you said specific procedure.
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Let me ask you a more general. Was there any procedure, specific procedure how to handle any type of complaint against any priest in the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. And, Susan, you look quizzical as well, and part of the objection is to the form of that. When you use the word "procedure," are you distinguishing it from the teachings and the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church?
MS. McGUIRL: Yes, I am. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: As opposed to, for example, the Sixth Amendment -- Sixth Commandment.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: See, "procedure" and "teachings" gets intermingled.
MS. McGUIRL: You're right. We're using -- we're getting confused on semantics, I guess.
Q. Let me give you an example. If a parishioner or a member of the Catholic faith had a complaint in Burlington, Vermont, during the period of time we talked about, 1959 until 1972, about a particular priest involving any of his conduct, how would that be handled by the Chancery?
A. It would be handled by the Bishop. Because --
Q. Was there --
A. We were not, in the Chancery office, there to handle complaints.
Q. So the Bishop himself would personally handle it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I'm objecting to the form.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
A. He would determine how it would be handled; not that he would personally handle each one, but.
Q. He could direct someone else to handle it --
A. That's right.
Q. -- for him.
A. That's right.
Q. Did you ever have occasion to have to handle any of that type of complaint for him?
A. I claim the privilege there, religious privilege on that.
Q. Okay. Did you ever have the occasion to handle any type of complaint for him against any priest?
A. Religious privilege there.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether there was a specific process for handling any of the complaints, i.e., an investigation done, a referral to any counseling, any steps that would be taken?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I can't answer that. The procedure would be depending upon each individual case.
Q. All right. So it would be case by case?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Was it the practice of the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, to keep a personnel file on every priest?
A. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Was it also the practice of the Diocese to keep a parish file?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it the practice of the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, to keep the complaints, any written complaints that they received about a priest in any file?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Could I have it again? Written complaints about a priest?
Q. Yes.
A. To keep them in any file?
Q. Yes. Really I'm just inquiring as to the record-keeping process in the Diocese.
A. Yes.
Q. They would keep that in some file.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether that would be in the priest's personnel file or it would be in a parish file or a separate complaint file?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. It would depend on the nature of the complaint and the type of matter we were dealing with.
Q. Is there any policy in the church for how long you keep personnel records for individual priests?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. The canon law of the church indicates that after a certain period of time after death certain records are to be disposed of.
Q. Is it a certain period of time apart from death or is it, like, ten years, 15 years? Is there a length of time that the records can be --
A. I don't remember exactly.
Q. And you're saying that's specifically under canon law?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would be the rule that either the Diocese of Providence or the Diocese of Vermont would follow?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was that -- did that length of time change when the canon law was changed in 1983?
A. I am not sure.
Q. I assume, then, that during the time that you were assigned to the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, you would have a personnel file there; is that correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
A. A personnel file on me?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if that still exists?
A. I presume so.
Q. Do you still have occasion to return to Vermont, Bishop?
A. Rarely now. I haven't been there since Thanksgiving.
Q. Do you still have family there, Bishop?
A. I have a brother there and his family.
Q. How often would you say you go, return to Vermont to visit family or friends?
A. Now maybe twice a year.
Q. And the last time was Thanksgiving of '96?
A. That's right.
Q. And do you have any ownership interest in any property in Vermont?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Can we have just a minute? (Brief pause)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Susan, I'm going to interpose an objection at this point, and it may become an instruction not to answer. I frankly don't see how this is relevant to this action. The United States Supreme Court in the Oppenheimer Securities case ruled that it's improper to conduct discovery in one lawsuit for use not in connection with that lawsuit but in connection with other lawsuits that are pending elsewhere in other courts or other lawsuits that may be contemplated. And if you can, you know, tell me how this line of inquiry about property that Bishop Gelineau may own in Vermont relates or is likely to lead to any relevant evidence in this case of Kelly versus Marcantonio or Smith versus O'Connell, I'll consider the matter, but, otherwise, I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer under Rule 30(d)(1).
MS. McGUIRL: He already answered the question, Jim, before you --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Hmm?
MS. McGUIRL: He already answered the question, Jim, before you --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I understand that. This line of questioning I believe is improper.
MS. McGUIRL: I think there are valid reasons for pursuing the line of questioning, although that really was my last question in this area right now. I think that he's being sued individually in his capacity, I think certainly his assets are an issue. But in addition to that I think I was really inquiring with regard to his ties, his continuation of his personal ties to the state of Vermont pursuant to the questions we've already asked that there has been objections stated to.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Okay. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Is your brother's name Edward?
A. No, Robert.
Q. Robert. Okay. The same last name, Gelineau?
A. Yes.
Q. Bishop, while you were a priest in the Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, did anyone make any accusations against you involving any sexual activity?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. Bishop, were you involved in any sexual activity with any children during the time that you were a priest in Burlington, Vermont?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I'm going to instruct you not to answer that question, Bishop. This is, in my view, a clear violation of the rules, particularly Rules 30(d)(1) and 30(d)(3). This is designed to harass and oppress; it has nothing to do with this case. And I will remind counsel that when an interrogatory was prepared in connection with the cases pending before Judge Richard Israel, this specific question was included among the interrogatories prepared by
MR. Conlon; we argued the matter before
MR. Justice Israel;
MR. Justice Israel ordered that the objection to that interrogatory be overruled and, as he said it, with vigor. So I will object to this line of inquiry. Secondly, it's not calculated to lead to relevant evidence in connection with the claims here, unless you're inquiring whether or not it involved these Plaintiffs.
MR. CONLON:
MR. Murphy, since you've mentioned my name, first of all, there was no order. Second of all, any direction from the court was without prejudice. Third of all, if you're going to follow the state court's rulings regarding what it is that your client has to answer, which you seem to want the benefit of, even though that wasn't the ruling, then half of the stuff that you're objecting to has been ruled upon. But if you want to instruct him not to answer, --.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I've instructed him not to answer and I'm making a Rule 30(d)(3) motion. But you may continue your questions if you so desire. We can have that ruled upon by Judge Torres. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. You were installed as Bishop of Providence in 1972; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In January of that year?
A. Yes.
Q. The prior Bishop of Providence was Russell McVinney; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he had passed away in August of 1971; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, during the period of time from August of 1971 until January of 1972, who was essentially running the Diocese at that point?
A. Monsignor --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Monsignor Reilly.
Q. Okay. And his title at that point was what, Bishop?
A. Administrator.
Q. Did he have any other title at that point other than that?
A. No.
Q. What would his responsibilities have been during that period of time when he was the administrator of the Diocese?
A. Those are spelled out in the canon law: That he was to continue the ordinary work of the Diocese.
Q. When you were --. When did you actually receive -- I don't know what the proper word is -- the appointment from the Pope? That was some time prior to your installation; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that, Bishop?
A. December 14th, 1971.
Q. Okay. So in December of 1971, at that point had you ever had any dealings with the Diocese of Providence before?
A. No. I had been here once for a funeral; that was the only dealings I had had with them.
Q. What was the transition process between you and -- was it Monsignor Reilly at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was the transition process, Bishop?
A. I talked with him about the arrangements for my arrival here. When I arrived the night before my consecration there was a meeting of the Diocesan consulters, at which time I presented my credentials, the nomination that I had received from, from the Holy Father. And that was actually the moment of transition of jurisdiction to me from Bishop Reilly.
Q. Not actually the installation. Actually your presenting the documents?
A. Installation was a ceremonial.
Q. All right. When you said the Diocesan consultants, who are they, Bishop?
A. It's a group of priests who are named by the Bishop who have certain canonical responsibilities.
Q. Okay. And that presentation would have been the day before you actually, the ceremony took place?
A. That's right.
Q. That would have been some type of formal type of meeting too, I would assume; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to that had you had any meetings with Monsignor Reilly to discuss issues and concerns about the Diocese?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Can you recall how many times you would have met with him prior to that?
A. Maybe three times. We talked on the phone frequently, but actual meetings, probably three times.
Q. Okay. Do you know how long those meetings took place, how long they lasted?
A. One of them was here in Providence. I came down to see Monsignor Reilly and the consulters and some of the other leaders in the Diocese; that was an overnight. The next one was in Burlington when Monsignor Reilly came up to see me, mostly about the ceremony of my ordination as Bishop. And then I think the next time was when I arrived -- he came up to see me the night before I came here, and then we came down to Providence together.
Q. And during the times that you met with him or you talked with him on the telephone, did he brief you on issues involving the Diocese?
A. Yes.
Q. And were there written documents or written reports given to you by Monsignor Reilly?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Not any written documents that I remember.
Q. Was there anyone else besides Monsignor Reilly who briefed you on the pertinent issues involving the Diocese?
A. The Chancellor at that time was, was -- or the secretary to the Bishop was Father Angell at that time; Monsignor Reilly had been Chancellor.
Q. Is Father Angell later to become Bishop Angell?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. So did he brief you also on certain issues?
A. We talked in general terms only.
Q. Anyone else besides those two individuals?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone ever tell you about any accusations that had been made against any priest in the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Privilege on that.
Q. Did you ask anyone if any priest in the Diocese had any problems with, involving sexual activity?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Privilege.
Q. Okay. Did you ask anyone whether any priest in your Diocese had any problems in violation of any church law?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Privilege.
Q. The Diocese of Providence also has a Chancery office or building; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And where is that located, Bishop?
A. At One Cathedral Square.
Q. And is that where your office is?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in the Diocese of Providence is a file kept on every priest in the Diocese?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would be fair to call that a personnel file on every priest?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And is there also a file kept on every parish?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior, or at the time that you were installed as Bishop of Providence, did you review any of those files?
A. No.
Q. At any time subsequent to your installation did you make a systematic review of all the files involving the priests in the Diocese?
A. No.
Q. In the Diocese of Providence is there a file kept or maintained with regard to complaints about individual priests?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a complaint file on every priest?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. If a complaint, about any topic, comes in with regard to a priest, what happens to that piece of paper or the writings that come in as a result of an oral complaint?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. It depends upon the nature of the complaint and the person to whom it is addressed.
Q. Okay. It could go into the priest's individual personnel file; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it ever go into the parish file?
A. It could if it's a matter that concerns a parish.
Q. Would it go into a general complaint file?
A. It could.
Q. Okay. Are there any other types of files where it could be placed?
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, Bishop, as I understand it, there's a -- and I'm not sure I'm terming it right -- a secret archives file; is that correct?
A. The canon law calls for matters of confidential nature to be kept in a, what they call a secret file.
Q. And is "archives" -- do they use the word "archives," or am I using that improperly?
A. Yes, you're using it properly.
Q. All right. How many confidential files do you maintain in the Diocese of Providence?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I instruct you not to answer that on the ground of privilege.
A. Privilege there, yes.
Q. All right. You testified previously in other proceedings --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Religious privilege is what I'm referring to.
MS. McGUIRL: Thank you.
Q. You've testified previously, Bishop, in other proceedings that there were two files, one with access just from you and one with access by you and the then Chancellor at the time. Do you still have those two separate files?
A. Can I have that repeated?
Q. Sure. You've testified earlier, Bishop, in an earlier deposition that there were two secret files or confidential files, one file where you just had access to and one file where the Chancellor and you had access to. Is that still the file-keeping system in the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection, one on the form as assuming certain testimony that I'm not sure is there, unless you have the transcript --
MS. McGUIRL: Sure. I do.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: -- and you can show me where you're referring to.
MS. McGUIRL: Sure. It's going to take me a few minutes to find it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: That's okay.
MS. McGUIRL: Why don't I do that at a break instead of wasting time.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: All right. You want to continue along and then come back after lunch?
MS. McGUIRL: Yes, I'll continue along and then come back and ask about that.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: That's fair. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Where would those secret files be kept?
A. In the Chancery office.
Q. Okay. Now, when you say "the Chancery office," do you have your own private office?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have, like, a safe or anything in your office?
A. No. I have a locked closet, but not a safe.
Q. Okay. And would the secret files be kept in that locked closet?
A. No.
Q. What's kept in the locked closet?
A. I have --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I --
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: This may involve privilege.
MR. CONLON: You need an opportunity to confer with him? I just want to get it, when you say "may," does? you are asserting? you're not?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: It may involve religious privilege. I don't know. That's up to the -- (Brief pause)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes. This is an opportunity to review in his mind what may or may not be in there. I have no ide
A.
MS. McGUIRL: Sure.
MR. CONLON: Sure.
THE DEPONENT: May I have the question again.
MS. McGUIRL: Sure. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. I asked you what was kept in the locked closet.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I object to the form as well.
A. Privilege on that, then, uh-huh. (Deponent nods in the affirmative).
Q. Now, Bishop, you are actually the Ordinary of the Diocese; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And the Diocese of Providence, I think you've testified to that before, encompasses essentially the state of Rhode Island.
A. Yes.
Q. Members of the Catholic faith in the state of Rhode Island; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have, I assume, specific duties as Bishop of Providence; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you very briefly tell us what those duties are.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form. I don't know if it can be done briefly or not.
Q. Well, if you can.
A. It's very broad. These things are all described in many documents from the, from the church, and not only the canon law but the documents of the Vatican Council, and the history of the church, the traditions of the church. So in the very broad term, my responsibility is to give leadership here in the areas of doctrine, of teaching, of sanctifying people, of administering the sacraments to them, and of serving their social needs as the church is called to do that by the nature of the church.
Q. Would you refer to those as spiritual duties?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You would also have, I assume, some administrative duties; correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. And are those --. Where is the basis for those? Is that canon law also?
A. Yes.
Q. What are the types of administrative duties that you would consider that you have as Bishop of Providence?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I deal with assigning people to various functions to assist me in my, in my administrative duties. So we have the vicariates: for example, Vicar for Education; Vicar for Finance; practically all areas. Vicars for Social, Social Work.
Q. Let me give you an example. The church, seems to me, owns a lot of property in the state. Are you basically responsible for the management of that property?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Objection to the form.
A. I have a responsibility to oversee that it's done properly, yes.
Q. Okay. Would you consider that your administrative duties are separate and apart from your spiritual duties?
A. Yes.
Q. As Bishop of Providence you are the highest spiritual leader for the members of the Catholic faith; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You've given testimony before in affidavits, and your counsel has provided some information to us, but can you give us, Bishop, again as briefly as you can in your own words, what law or rules you rely on in the administration of the Diocese of Providence.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I'm not sure I know what you're asking.
Q. Well, the canon law has come up many times --
A. Yes.
Q. -- in dealings with the counsel on these issues. Is there any other body of law other than the canon law that governs your administration of the Diocese?
A. No, the canon law sets it out pretty well.
Q. Now, the canon law was written by laymen; correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. By laymen?
Q. Yes. Who wrote the canon law originally?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Originally?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Originally?
MS. McGUIRL: I'm sorry, what did you say? I'm sorry.
MR. CONLON: Let the witness answer the question.
MS. McGUIRL: I didn't hear what anybody said.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I've objected. I've objected.
MR. CONLON: That's fine. There you go.
A. Well, there was a canon law commission that revised this code that you have there, and that commission was not made up of laymen primarily; I think it was made up of canonists who are both lay people and clerics.
Q. All right. There's no question that the canon law is not law given by Jesus Christ; is that correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. It's a -- it's one of the ways of specifying the mandate that the Lord gave, that Jesus Christ gave to the work of the church.
Q. All right. But as compared to the Commandments, which it's my understanding the church believes were actually handed down by God, the canon law was not handed down by God; is that correct?
A. That's right.
Q. All right. It was written by priests, canon law experts and laymen, --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- according to you.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Let me just ask you if you're familiar with this edition of it. (Book tendered to the deponent)
A. That's the --. No, that's not the one I use. I use the one with the Latin and the English together. This is a text and commentary.
Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the authors of that, or the editors I guess I should say of that? Are they recognized canon law experts?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I instruct you not to answer the question.
Q. Let me ask just the first part of it. Do you recognize those editors, the names of those editors?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Who are they? I can't see the book. You can just ask the Bishop to read the names that you're asking him to comment upon.
MS. McGUIRL: Sure.
THE DEPONENT: James Coriden and Thomas Green and Donald Heintschel.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm sorry, I was listening to somebody else.
MR. CONLON: We didn't get an answer to the question.
Q. You read the names, didn't you, Bishop?
A. Yes.
MR. CONLON: He didn't answer the question.
Q. Do you recognize those names?
A. I recognize two of them as teachers at Catholic University School of Law, I think.
Q. Now, this edition has an imprimatur in it; is that correct, Bishop?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: May I have an opportunity to see the text also with counsel. Then, Bishop, I'll show it to you.
MS. McGUIRL: I keep trying to give it to you, Bishop; they keep taking everything out of your hands.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, I like to see what it is you're looking at. So the record is clear, you're not going to mark this as an exhibit.
MS. McGUIRL: No, I don't think so.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: It's entitled "The Code of Canon Law, a Text and Commentary," commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, Study Edition, edited by James
A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, Donald E. Heintschel, published by the Paulist Press. (Interruption in the proceedings) (Pending question read by reporter)
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that imprimatur has some significance in the Catholic faith, does it not?
A. Yes.
Q. What does it mean, Bishop?
A. It means that the contents of the book have no, nothing contrary to faith and morals in the church.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to look at the table of contents of that? I would ask you to do so, Bishop, please.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Can I look it over with you, Bishop, --
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: -- as you go through these?
THE DEPONENT: Yes. (Brief pause) BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Do you recognize that book to contain the 1983 canon law?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me ask you: My understanding is in 1917 there was a publication of the canon law; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that it was redone in 1983; correct?
A. A revision.
Q. A revision.
A. Yes.
Q. And apparently there was some printing of it in 1985, and many times in the readings I've read, anyway, it's referred to as the 1985 canon law; is that correct?
A. It should be 1983.
Q. Okay. As far as you understand, as far as you know, I should say, the 1983 is the last version of the canon law.
A. That's right.
Q. Are there any, ever any amendments to the canon law after it's published in this type of format?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes, there are, there are things that come from the, from Rome that -- there's an official commission for the interpretation of canon law. So there are constantly, like you have in your law, there's a constant request for clarification and interpretation of what's in the canon law. And so that, that's done regularly from this commission in Rome.
Q. And there's a process for the amending of the code in the code itself, is there not?
A. That's right, yes.
Q. And do you know whether there have been amendments to the code since 1983?
A. I don't know, no.
Q. Okay. I just ask you, Bishop, on page, I guess it's page 1 of this, this edition, there's a general introduction by a John
A. Alesandro, A-l-e-s-a-n-d-r-o, I ask you if you'll just take a quick look at that and see if you've ever read that.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: The question is have you ever read it.
A. No.
Q. Okay. Do you recognize that name of the writer?
A. No.
Q. Thank you, Bishop. Now, Bishop, as the Bishop of Providence, who do you report to?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. To the Pope.
Q. Okay. He is your, essentially your only supervisor; is that correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. That's right.
Q. Now, how do you report to the Pope?
A. Every five years there is a report that has to be made on the activities of the Diocese and the state of the Diocese, and that's done in writing, and then customarily there's a visit as well made to Rome in connection with this report.
Q. And do you actually travel to Rome to make the report?
A. We send the report ahead of time, and then we visit the various offices in Rome who have already received our report. Sometimes there are matters they talk about; most usually they give some reflections on our written report in writing some time after the report has been sent.
Q. Do you yourself actually travel to Rome for meeting with either the Pope or these other officials to review the report?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And when was the last report that was made, Bishop?
A. 1993.
Q. All right. So next year you will be making another report.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Do you actually sit down with the Pope himself and review the report?
A. No; we have a ceremonial meeting with the Pope at which very general matters are discussed, but we don't go over the report itself with the Pope.
Q. You mentioned that you met with some other church officials. Give me an example of who you would meet with.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. There are congregations in Rome that have to do with various aspects of the life of the church. And usually we meet as a region of Bishops. The region that I belong to is the New England region, and so all the Bishops of the region would be there together; we would go into some of these congregations and discuss in general terms some of the concerns that the congregation might have and some concerns that the Bishops might have to ask of the leadership of the congregations.
Q. Is there any occasion where you meet with some church officials in Rome where you actually discuss the report itself?
A. There could be, but in practice there have not been.
Q. All right. You've never had the occasion to do that as Bishop.
A. I plead the privilege on that.
Q. Okay. I thought you had just said that in practice it didn't happen.
A. In practice it didn't happen, that's right.
Q. Okay. Is the report a lengthy report?
A. Yes.
Q. How many pages would you say the --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- last report was?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Instruction on privilege.
MS. McGUIRL: As to the number of pages?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You're inquiring into the report. The fact that reports are made I have no objection to you asking about. If you get into an inquiry into the nature, the length, the details of the report, you're inquiring into church matters, and I instruct the witness not to answer on the ground of privilege and make a 30(d) motion with respect to that.
Q. All right. Let me just ask a couple of follow-up questions, Bishop. What information or types of information is contained in the report?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I instruct you not to answer the question on the ground of religious privilege.
Q. Okay. Are reports of allegations against priests contained in the report?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Instruct you not to answer on the same religious grounds.
Q. Who in the Diocese is responsible for actually preparing the report itself?
A. More than one person, because there are various sections to the report.
Q. And the person in the Diocese that would be responsible for every office would write their section? Is that how it would work?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Is the report for 1998 already in the process of being written?
A. No.
Q. Other than the times that you go over to make these official reports, do you travel regularly to Rome?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form.
A. Not regularly. I was there in February on a ceremonial matter too, celebrating the 125th anniversary of our Diocese, went with a pilgrimage, did see the Holy Father at that time; but it was not a business meeting, it was a ceremonial matter.
Q. I want to ask you, Bishop, about a couple of the, for lack of a better word, organizations. You mentioned a region of Bishops. And you belong to the North -- New England region?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, that would be the New England states?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And is it just the Bishops themselves that attend those meetings?
A. It's a division of the National Conference of Bishops, and so it's --. We meet probably twice a year on matters of mutual interest.
Q. The National College does or the regional group does?
A. Both.
Q. Okay. Does the region meet separate and apart from the National College?
A. It could, but in practice it's very rare.
Q. Okay. So when you go to the National Conference you meet with the regional Bishops at that point.
A. We have one time limit, time section that is reserved for that, yes.
Q. And what happens at the two annual meetings of the National Conference of Bishops?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm sorry. Can you read that back. (Pending question read by reporter)
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Give me just a minute, please. (Brief pause)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Susan, are you asking about the general framework or are you asking about what's specifically discussed?
MS. McGUIRL: I would start with the general framework, and then I'll get into that.
Q. Is there an agenda set for the meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long do the meetings last?
A. We have a meeting in November that lasts for about three and a half days; another one in the spring of the year that's about two and a half days.
Q. Okay. Is there a chair or a president or somebody that --
A. Yes, there are elected officers.
Q. What's the --. Is it a President? What's the name of the office?
A. President.
Q. President?
A. President of the conference, yes.
Q. And that President would be a Bishop in the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. And are the agendas published agendas?
A. Yes.
Q. They're public record, so to speak?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Can anyone attend any meeting of the National Conference of Bishops or do you have to be invited to be able to attend?
A. You have to be invited.
Q. Do just Bishops attend or do other church dignitaries attend?
A. There are observers that attend who are representative of various groups in the church throughout the country, and the press is allowed into the meetings as well.
Q. Okay. What about the Chancery officials, like the Chancellor or the Vicar General; do they attend those meetings?
A. No.
Q. And how many -- what is the number of members of the National Conference of Bishops?
A. I believe it's about 350 in all, but they would not all attend every meeting.
Q. Is that just the Bishops in the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. Does the National Conference have any authority over your actions as Bishop of Providence?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. In some specific things identified in law, yes.
Q. In the canon law.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If it's not identified, any specific responsibility in the canon law, do they have any other authority?
A. No.
Q. Is it true that the National Conference of Bishops have had discussions about the issue of pedophilia?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes, privilege on that.
Q. Well, they've been reported publicly in the press, have they not?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Privilege on that, yes.
Q. Were there any reports or --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Excuse me. I kicked him. I didn't mean to. It's inadvertent.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Long legs.
MR. CONLON: You're forgiven.
Q. Were there any reports or directions issued as a result of any discussion about sexual activity of priests at the National Conference of Bishops?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MS. McGUIRL: Religious objection?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Religious objection to any of these discussions that you're referring to the extent that they took place in a confidential session of the National College of -- Conference of Catholic Bishops.
MS. McGUIRL: That's what I'm trying to --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: As opposed to a public session.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. Maybe I'm probably confusing it.
Q. There are public sessions; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there are public reports or there's press about those public sessions, are there not?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall or do you have any knowledge yourself whether there was any such public report and/or press accompanying it about the church's discussion about the issue of pedophilia among its priests?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. When was that, Bishop?
A. I don't remember exactly when.
Q. Approximately? Ballpark?
A. The last few years. There has been a committee that has studied the question of the problems that have arisen publicly, and that committee has made reports at the general meetings.
Q. Okay. And they have been public reports, or at least there's been press --
A. Yes.
Q. -- about them; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What can you tell us about any recommendations or directions that they have given the various Bishops?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. I'm referring to public, anything that's been public.
A. To public, yes. They have given advice on places where priests can receive help if they need, and we've had some documentation given to us about procedures that are used in other Dioceses, and we've shared information.
Q. Okay. So is it like a clearinghouse of information about how various Dioceses handle these problems?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. That's been part of it, yes.
Q. All right. And you have access to that as Bishop of Providence.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And the committee reports that have been made public, are they kept and maintained someplace?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Form.
A. In Washington, I'm sure; they're in the files there, yes.
Q. There's an office for this National Conference?
A. Yes.
Q. I keep saying -- is it Conference or College?
A. Conference.
Q. Conference. Okay. And it's your understanding that they probably maintain public records?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MS. McGUIRL: If he knows.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If the committee, through the Conference, gives the various Bishops advice on this particular topic, do you have to follow it?
A. No.
Q. Okay. There's no -- they have no authority to direct you to do anything.
A. That's right.
Q. Okay. Is there something, a synod of Bishops?
A. Synod.
Q. Synod.
A. S-y-n-o-d.
Q. Okay. What does that mean, Bishop?
A. That's an international meeting that's held every three years. It was established at the time of the Second Vatican Council in the mid '60s. It's a group of representative Bishops from all over the world addressing a particular topic, like family life, like vocation of the priesthood, and they gather in Rome every three years under the leadership of the Pope himself.
Q. Have you ever attended any of those meetings?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether the topic of general sexual activity among priests has ever been a topic for discussion at those meetings?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I think it has not.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Let me interrupt with a practical consideration. We're coming up at 12:25, which is the correct time, I believe, and
MR. White has just signaled me he's about to put a new tape in. So we might be coming to a logical break.
MS. McGUIRL: That's fine.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Are you all set? Good.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: We're off the record. (Discussion off the record) (A luncheon recess was called at 12:21 p.m. The deposition reconvened at 1:50 p.m.) PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 8 FOR I.D.: Notice of
Video Deposition of Bishop Louis Gelineau.
BY MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked by the stenographer as Exhibit Number 8. It's a notice of deposition for today. Have you seen that?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you gone through all the exhibits that were attached to it?
A. Yes. Is that --. The one for today, yes.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Is that yours, Susan?
MS. McGUIRL: It's the new one that came out. It encompasses both.
Q. Did you bring documents with you today pursuant to the notice of deposition?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You brought no documents.
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. And I consulted with counsel about that, and I think they have an answer.
MS. McGUIRL: Somebody want to answer? We have five pages of exhibits of lists of records in this. We have nothing to be produced today?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: There's an objection that was filed to the --. The notice of deposition that was issued about a week and a half ago and which referenced videotape deposition had a number of exhibits. That notice was redundant of the earlier notice of deposition issued by
MR. Conlon alone --
MS. McGUIRL: That's correct.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: -- except for two regards: A, it mentioned videotaping, and, B, it had an additional --
MS. McGUIRL: List of exhibits -- list of documents.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: -- list of -- that were prepared by your office.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
MR. CONLON: At your request that we do it now as a joint --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Understood.
MR. CONLON: In other words, you say "redundant," but, I mean, you specifically requested that we put out a deposition notice together.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Understood. Understood. I rely upon the notice of objection that was served with respect to the first notice of deposition with respect to the list of requested documents that Tim prepared. I have another response that is being prepared with respect to the list of documents that you asked be produced. If you let me see the exhibit, I can identify exactly which ones are which. (Document tendered to MR. William Murphy)
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: The notice of deposition was served on 21 March 1997. Previously I had given an objection respecting the documents in Exhibit, listed on Exhibit 1. Well, Exhibit 1 itself has a number of subexhibits that have letters. Also with respect to Exhibit 2 I filed a response. Also with respect to Exhibit 3, all of which deal particularly with, all of the items in Exhibit 3 specifically deal with William C. O'Connell. Exhibit 4 there had been a response to. Exhibit 5 is the new description of documents that were appended to this notice of deposition and served upon us on 26 March.
MS. McGUIRL: 21st you just said.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Let's take a look at the exhibit. Whatever it was. It's ten days ago.
MS. McGUIRL: You haven't even prepared an objection to it?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: No.
MS. McGUIRL: You just came to the deposition without anything.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: That's right.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, earlier I had asked you questions about secret or confidential files that you may have in the Chancery offices. You've had an opportunity to look at a transcript I provided for you that is from testimony you gave, I believe, in 1989 in a previous court matter. Do you have two secret files in the Chancery at this point?
A. Maybe I can explain. There is the regular files that we talked about, the personnel files and the priests involved and the parishes. Those are the open files that secretaries can go through and all. Then there's another file in the Chancery kept by Monsignor Varsanyi, as I had indicated here, that I think would meet the prescriptions of the canon law requirement for secret files that would have confidential matters that should not be open to everyone to see. It calls, the canon law calls for the Bishop to have the key to that archive, to those files, and while I don't have the key directly, anything that I would send there would be sealed in an envelope and given to Monsignor Varsanyi, and he puts that into that secret archive. The cabinet that I have in my office has nothing concerning these cases in it. I don't keep anything of that nature in that cabinet, or in that -- it's a closet actually with a key on it. The only thing I keep there are some, some correspondence with the Holy See, the only thing I would keep confidentially there are correspondence with the Holy See about the nomination of Bishops, priests that I might send, that's supposed to be kept with a pontifical secret that only I and the other Bishops of the province would know. So I do keep that material in that closet. Other than that, in that closet there are just homily notes and personal letters; nothing to do with these cases or nothing to do with Diocesan matters at all.
Q. Okay. So --
A. So that would not be the secret archive which is, which is called for by the code.
Q. Okay. But in the earlier testimony didn't you indicate there was a locked file cabinet in your office at --
A. That's the one. That's that closet, yeah.
Q. Okay. So you referred to that as a secret file in 1989.
A. I did. But I think, as I look at it now, that that would not be a secret archive in what we're talking about in these matters.
Q. All right. And --
A. So none of the matters that we're dealing with in these cases would go into that closet in my office.
Q. Okay. So it's really a locked closet, not a locked file cabinet that we're talking about, --
A. Exactly.
Q. -- within your own --
A. Exactly.
Q. -- personal office?
A. Exactly. And the other secret archive, that is a vault where there are, there are documents kept which we would want to save from fire and that sort of thing.
Q. Okay. So it's your testimony today that in the locked cabinet, or locked closet in your office there is no documents relating to any of the cases that are pending in State or Federal Court now.
A. That's correct.
Q. What about with respect to the file cabinet that the Chancellor has the key to; are there documents in there pertaining to these cases?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
A. I don't know, to be honest with you.
Q. You have not --
A. What's in there now, I don't go into that archive myself, no.
Q. There may or may not be; is that your testimony?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I'm not sure.
Q. Okay. You did not review any of the documents --
A. No.
Q. -- in that file.
A. No.
Q. Did you look for any of the documents that we had requested in the notice of deposition?
A. No.
Q. Okay. From the period of time that the O'Connell matter was resolved in court, you had possession of some files; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at some point you turned them over I think to
MR. Bill Murphy. Oh, to
MR. Jim Murphy, I'm sorry. Okay. Where were those files kept in the meantime?
A. They were kept in that locked closet in my office at that time.
MR. Curran at that time indicated that I should keep them, and I put them in there and just left them there, never looked at them again.
Q. And when you turned them over to
MR. Jim Murphy, were they in the exact same status as when you had received them?
A. Yes.
Q. Was anything removed from them?
A. No.
Q. Do you have a file kept somewhere in your offices with regard to the Perrin case?
A. No.
Q. You have no files on that?
A. In my office?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Are there any in the Diocesan offices in Providence?
A. I don't know. I presume, but I --
Q. Where would they be, do you know?
A. In the, in those Chancery files.
Q. The one that you referred to before.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And who has the key to that?
A. Right now it would be Monsignor Varsanyi or Monsignor Plante.
Q. Are they Co-Chancellors at this point?
A. No, Monsignor Varsanyi was Chancellor; there just has been a change of positions, and Monsignor Plante is now the Chancellor.
Q. What is Monsignor Varsanyi's title at this point?
A. He's still Vicar General and Vicar for Canonical Affairs, yes.
Q. Bishop, let me ask you, in the state of Rhode Island have you ever engaged in any sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I instruct you not to answer. That's a burdensome and oppressive and harassing question and not calculated to lead to any relevant evidence in these particular cases. Absent some clarification from counsel, and under 30(d)(1), I instruct you not to answer, Bishop. And under 30(d)(3) I move to terminate that line of questioning for the grounds I've asserted.
MS. McGUIRL: Any other grounds you want to put on the record today? Okay.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I think that's sufficient for this moment under the rules. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, in the past 25 years since you've been Bishop of Providence has anyone made any accusations against you with, regarding you having sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. Last year, I believe it was, a Coadjutor Bishop was named for the Diocese; is that correct?
A. Two years ago.
Q. Two years ago. And that was Bishop Mulvey?
A. Yes.
Q. What is his role versus your role?
A. Right now I'm still the chief Bishop of the Diocese, so he serves as an assistant to me, but he has the right of succession of when I leave the office.
Q. Okay. Do you have authority over him at this point in time?
A. Authority over him? We work together. I have the final say on matters, yes, right now.
Q. You had mentioned the word he was your assistant. So you still have the final say on everything at this point?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it unusual to have a Coadjutor Bishop named?
A. No. No. There are --. In fact, just yesterday there was one in Texas who was named. The chief Bishop retired, and the Coadjutor took over immediately in Corpus Christi, Texas. So there are two others in the country now; I think just this one and one down in Trenton, New Jersey. But it's not unusual. If a Bishop, as was my case, foresees that he's going to be giving up his role as Bishop of a Diocese in the future, relatively near future, then he can request a Coadjutor Bishop, which is what happened with me. When Bishop Angell left, I was left without an assistant. The Diocese is very large, there's lots of work to accomplish here, so I needed an assistant. I felt that with the number of years that I've been here and my health, I've had some health problems with arthritis, it was my feeling two years ago, or three years ago, actually, when I began dialoguing with Rome about getting an assistant, that it would be better for me not to plan to go too many years longer as the chief Bishop. So I asked for a Coadjutor; they agreed with me and gave me the Coadjutor, who would be able to, I felt, provide for a smoother transition of responsibility when the time came. So I asked to, actually for Bishop Mulvey, and received him; he has been with me two years now,, and he'll -- I think he's learned, this is a big and complex Diocese, and I think he's learned his way around now. So when the time comes for me to retire, he'll be able to, I think, more intelligently assume the responsibilities of being Bishop here.
Q. The request for this Coadjutor Bishop, that came from you, not from Rome?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Okay. And how old is Bishop Mulvey?
A. He's 67 now. He's a year and a half younger, two years younger than I. But he's been in different places, and he's had good experience. When I was dialoguing with the Holy See about having a Coadjutor, they indicated that it would be well to have someone with experience because of the complexity of this Diocese, and someone who had been an Ordinary in a Diocese elsewhere, that had been the chief Bishop. And as I looked around the country and the Bishops that I knew, I felt that he would be one -- there were other possibilities too, but I felt that he would be one with whom I could work well, whom I would trust. Maybe there would be a shorter reign if he came in at an older age. I've been here over 25 years now; Bishop McVinney was 12 years plus. So I thought that having a Bishop for -- probably his reign would be eight or ten years, who knows, would be a good thing for the Diocese.
Q. Isn't the normal --
A. So --
Q. I'm sorry.
A. So there's no, there was no significance in the fact that he's a little older. There are several Bishops that are named -- Cardinal O'Connor was named to New York when he was 65 years old; he's now 77, I think. So there's no special age that they look at. They take everything into consideration: your health; what the place needs; the experience you've had. If the person fits the place, and Bishop Mulvey seemed to fit this place very well, that was the only underlying background that we had in the assignment of him as Coadjutor Bishop.
Q. Is the normal retirement age 70 for priests?
A. No. Oh, excuse me, for priests, we have it optional at 70, and the code requires that a resignation retirement be submitted at 75. And for Bishops the code doesn't say or give any option. It says that normally one would submit a letter requesting, or submit a letter of resignation at 75, and the Pope would make a decision. Sometimes he keeps them on longer and sometimes he lets them go exactly at that time when they submit their resignation. Prior to that, as is in my case, if there are reasons for wanting to leave before 75, usually health reasons or other reasons it might be that are present, then the Holy See entertains a request to resign earlier. And that happens rather frequently, actually.
Q. Okay. I assume from what you've been saying that you are going to be requesting retirement before age 75?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what are your reasons, Bishop?
A. Well, my health, for one; the longevity that I've had here, number two; I think it's good to have a different perspective, a different style of leadership from time to time, and so I --. My health would be one, would be the main thing. I have been at this a long time now, it's a very responsible job filled with lots of responsibility and pressures, and so I would like after all these years --. This is an extremely long time to have been a Bishop in one place. I was named at 43 years old. But that's --. At that time I was the youngest Ordinary in the country. And it's been a long time since. So I think in a job like this, that for my sake and for the sake of the Diocese, that it would be good for me to give up before I'm 75.
Q. Was the number of cases pending regarding the priests in your Diocese a consideration for you in resigning early?
A. No.
Q. Was that a consideration by the officials in Rome, to your knowledge, for the appointment of a Coadjutor Bishop?
A. No.
Q. Did that ever come up in the discussions?
A. No.
Q. Has Bishop Mulvey played any role in the discussions within the Diocese of handling these cases?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes, privilege on that.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Attorney-client privilege also.
Q. Do you have a retirement date in mind, Bishop?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you share that with us?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Is it this calendar year? Can I ask you that?
A. Pardon me?
Q. Is it this calendar year?
A. I said I couldn't share it with you, so, just better leave it at that.
Q. Is that because you don't want to or is that some kind of privilege?
A. It's not proper for me to do that now. The announcement of my retirement should come from Rome, and I should not be announcing it ahead of time, so I --. People have been asking me, they know that we have a Coadjutor Bishop, they know that I would like to retire before I'm 75, so a lot of people have been asking me; I'm telling them that it probably won't be long. But I can't do that until I send a letter to the Holy See and let them do the announcing. That's the proper protocol for it.
Q. What are your plans after your retirement?
A. I plan to stay right here and help out. A lot of options that are being offered to me: working parishes; filling in for priests; helping Bishop Mulvey with ceremonies, ceremonial matters. So I --. There are lots of things I can do where we need priests. I enjoy priestly work, I'm ordained for that, so I would plan to stay right here and be as much help as I can.
Q. So it's your intention to keep your residence in Rhode Island --
A. Yes.
Q. -- after you retire?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any plans for trips or have you received any knowledge of any assignments in Rome?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You indicated that, and reasonably enough, I think, that the pressures of running a Diocese this large as long as you have are a factor in your decision. Are you suggesting that the cases you have pending and the issues you have with the priests in the Diocese involving this type of sexual activity was not a concern of yours?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No, I'm not implying that.
Q. So I assume it was a concern you've had over the years.
A. That's right.
Q. Do you consider yourself to be in a fiduciary relationship with your members of the Catholic Church in Rhode Island?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I instruct you not to answer.
MS. McGUIRL: What grounds?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Are you asking him for a legal conclusion?
Q. Do you understand what the word "fiduciary" means, Bishop?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your explanation of it? How would you define it?
A. Fiscal relationship.
Q. Fiduciary.
A. A responsibility, a responsibility fiscally.
MS. McGUIRL: Excuse me.
Q. Do you consider yourself you're in a position of trust with your members of the Catholic Church in Rhode Island?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. Do you have a trusting relationship with your parishioners?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Trusting?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "a trusting relationship."
Q. So it's your, it's your testimony that you don't know what "fiduciary" means?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. He answered your question and gave his definition.
Q. You consider a fiduciary to be a financial relationship?
A. And a leadership responsibility.
Q. Okay. Does it involve a relationship of trust and confidence between the two people?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you consider yourself, then, to be in a fiduciary relationship with the members of the Catholic Church in Rhode Island?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. You're saying a relationship of trust and confidence.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you consider a priest in a particular parish to be in that same relationship with members of that parish?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Where do you presently live, Bishop?
A. At the Cathedral residence at 30 Fenner Street.
Q. I assume that you don't own that personally; correct?
A. That's right.
Q. Do you have any vacation residence anyplace else?
A. I don't personally, no.
Q. Does the church have some facility that is used for vacations --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- for yourself or other priests?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm objecting when you say the word "church." That's a very broad term. It's the form of the question I've objected to.
Q. Does the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, the corporate entity, own any other residences or any other homes that are used for vacations for yourself or other priests in the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. And where would that be?
A. We have a home that was left to us at Watch Hill many years ago, and since I've been here I've opened that home up and there are many groups of church-related groups that use it, groups of priests and others, and I have spent some time each summer there, in the summer months for vacation.
Q. Any other vacation-type residences outside of Rhode Island?
A. No.
Q. Is there any rule with respect to priests owning property?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. They don't, priests do not take a vow of poverty, as I understand; is that correct?
A. No. The canon law advises, and prudence advises that we live simply, but some priests have some means or of inheritance from their parents or others and they may have property of their own; I don't.
Q. Do you have any rules or norms that you have issued directing the use of any personal residences or personal property?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to visit the personal residences of any of the priests in Rhode Island?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm going to object to the form of the question, Susan. "Personal residence" might include rectory, it may not. Is that what you mean or personally owned home?
MS. McGUIRL: No, I was excluding the parish home.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
A. It would be very rare. The only one I remember, Father Charles Maher, years ago, he has a place at Narragansett, and I visited there for an evening. That's the only one I remember, actually.
Q. Okay. Bishop, you've served with three other individuals that either at that time or later became Bishops, correct, in Rhode Island?
A. Three?
Q. Bishop Kelly, Bishop Reilly and Bishop Angell.
A. Bishop Kelly, I never served with Bishop Kelly, no.
Q. Oh, he was here before you were here.
A. That's right. He left here before I came.
Q. Do you know when he left, Bishop?
A. He left in June of '71.
Q. Did you ever have any contact with him?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you maintain contact with him now?
A. I can't answer that.
Q. Okay.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Privilege grounds.
Q. On privilege?
A. Privilege, yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Religious privilege?
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
Q. Do you know why he left, resigned his priesthood?
A. I know only what was in the, in the press at that time.
Q. Have you ever had any conversations with him about that?
A. Religious privilege on that too.
Q. Bishop Reilly was, as we have already gone through in testimony, was the administrator when you first got here, and it's my understanding that shortly after you were here you named him Vicar General; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And according to an article I just read last week in your Visitor, that he was the first full-time Vicar General; is that correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form.
A. I'm not sure of that. That article says that. I wasn't here before, so I'm not sure if they had any full-time Vicars General before. I think that probably is accurate.
Q. What role do you play with regard to The Visitor, Bishop?
A. I'm the publisher.
Q. And do you have editorial approval over the contents of the paper?
A. Not as publisher, no. We have an editor and we have an editorial -- or we have a priest who is designated to be my liaison there, so. I don't have time or the energy to get involved much with it.
Q. Do you have -- do you read the editorials before they're placed in the paper?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Did you ever have any discussions with the editor with regard to either editorials or any of the contents of the paper?
A. On occasion.
MS. McGUIRL: Just give me a minute, Bishop. I have something here I wanted to show you.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 7 FOR I.D.: Article appearing in The Providence Visitor on Thursday, March 6, 1997 entitled "Abandon attack on bishop, focus on issues."
BY MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. The steno has already marked this Number 7. This is an editorial that was in The Providence Visitor on Thursday, March 6, 1997.
MS. McGUIRL: They always want to read it first, Bishop. I'll give it to him first.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Oh, we always want to. (Document tendered to Attorneys James Murphy and William Murphy)
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Is there a question pending?
MS. McGUIRL: Is there? (Pending question read by reporter)
Q. Bishop, I just ask you to look at that and see if you've read that before.
A. I've read it before, yes.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Bishop. (Brief pause)
Q. Do you know who wrote that editorial?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection for the moment. I want to meet with my colleagues, not the Bishop, for about two minutes.
MS. McGUIRL: All right. Why don't we --. I don't want to take a break. Why don't we hold that off to the break, and then you can talk about it.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Why don't we do that, then.
MS. McGUIRL: All right. That's fine. I'll take it back, Bishop, for now. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, you're very active in the pro life movement in Rhode Island, aren't you?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Object.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you get actively involved in other legislative issues?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: I --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And I object to the form.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Actively --. Well, --
MR. CONLON: Just get an answer. Just one counsel giving an objection to form, that's sufficient for the record.
A. Depending on the nature of the issue, yes.
Q. Okay. And what type of contact do you have with legislators or other political leaders when you get involved?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. It's rare that I get involved, but sometimes I'll write letters.
Q. Do you ever meet with political leaders in person on a particular topic?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I have, yes.
Q. And have you -- I assume you've spoken to people on the telephone about particular topics.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Very rarely.
Q. Okay. Have you, or were you personally involved in legislation that was in the General Assembly a few years ago regarding the extension of the statute of limitations?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Bishop, I'm going to instruct you not to answer that question --
MS. McGUIRL: On religious grounds? What's the grounds?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: No, I think there's a constitutional right for people to redress themselves to their governments and to discuss matters with their legislatures, and I don't believe it's a proper ground for interrogation of this witness as to his rights of meeting with legislators, of his rights of association, and with regard to the newspaper article that you were referring to before, the editorial, the First Amendment rights that relate to a free press.
MR. CONLON: Have you got any authority for the proposition that the existence of a constitutional right, therefore, implies some privilege to a priest to answer a question regarding one's exercise of that? For instance, you have a constitutional right to bear arms. Are you suggesting that, therefore, you have a, some sort of concomitant constitutional right to refuse to answer a question as to whether or not you have a gun?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Are you asking me a question?
MR. CONLON: Yes, sir.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm not going to answer the question.
MR. CONLON: Fine. You're just instructing not to answer.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I've instructed my witness, my client not to answer the question. I've laid forth the ground. And I'm making a 30(d)(1) instruction to him not to answer these questions, and, secondly, I'm making a motion that it be addressed to the judge to determine whether or not the question is proper, whether it's burdensome, whether it's designed to harass or annoy, or has any basis under the rules of discovery, and whether or not it violates certain rights under our Constitution, which we do have in this state,
MR. Conlon, and in this country, to freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom to deal with legislators. If you can tell me why this line of questioning is relevant to this lawsuit involving claims that Marcantonio molested the Kellys in the 1960s or '70s or molested Kenneth Smith in the 1970s, I will be glad to consider the matter.
MS. McGUIRL: Are you going to suggest that the issue of the statute of limitations is not relevant to these cases? Is that --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: The statute of limitations is the statute of limitations, period.
MS. McGUIRL: But there was legislation in the General Assembly pertaining to the statute of limitations. That's what the inquiry was about.
MR. CONLON: Assuming that there was some good faith basis, and that's all I'm trying to inquire as to, and it is relevant for the purposes of a motion for sanctions, assuming there is some good faith basis for your objecting, if there were such a privilege, which I would sincerely suggest there was not, but if there were such a privilege, then whether or not the question is relevant would not be the point. I'm simply asking you, so as to avoid litigation, if you've got any authority for the proposition that the existence of a First Amendment -- that a right in connection with the exercise of political freedom means that he has some concomitant privilege to refuse to answer a question. That's all I want to know. If you don't have any at this point, so be it. I'm just trying to avoid a motion.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, we may not avoid a motion. I don't know if a motion can be avoided or not. I've instructed the witness not to answer.
MR. CONLON: That's clear.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: There are constitutional privileges which I believe at this point, given this question, which I believe frankly is so unusual, is not the kind of thing that people would foresee, but, secondly, it is a question certainly that is designed to harass and oppress and burden this party in the exercise of his rights as a Roman Catholic Bishop and as a citizen. If you are to ask these kinds of questions of deponents, then deponents -- Roman Catholic Bishops or other citizens -- are going to be less likely to exercise their rights as American citizens as guaranteed by their Constitution, and it constitutes a direct attempt by you to chill his exercise of those rights so that, perhaps, you and your clients and your groups, whether it's
MR. Fitzpatrick, Survivor Connections or others, like
MR. Kelly who has testified before the General Assembly, can do so knowing that the Catholic Church and its Bishops and prelates will be chilled in the exercise of their rights, period.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. I want --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Now, we can bring it up with the judge, but I'm not going to argue the case with you today,
MR. Conlon. We'll cite the authorities at the time you file your motions.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. Speeches over? You've instructed him not to answer; correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, I certainly have.
MS. McGUIRL: All right. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, you're familiar, or you know several judges in the state of Rhode Island; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether any of the judges in the state of Rhode Island, whether on the state level or on the federal level, sit on any boards or commissions or organizations for the Diocese of Providence?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me who and what type of organization they're a part of.
A. Justice Weisberger is a member of our hospital board, and I'm the chairman of that board. Judge Giannini is a member of the Diocesan Finance Council, which advises and receives reports about our financial dealings in the various funds that we have. Those are the only two I can think of.
Q. Have you ever had any conversations with either one of them regarding these two cases that we're dealing with right now specifically or any of the other cases pending in State or Federal Court?
A. No.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. And I instruct you not to answer that, and I make the same motions under Rule 30(d).
MS. McGUIRL: I assume for the same reasons we just went through before.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I think so.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay.
Q. Do you remember testifying in an earlier deposition in another matter that you had some dealings with Judge Pettine and Judge Boyle?
A. Yes.
Q. And were those dealings had anything to do with any civil cases that had been filed regarding priests?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: I just didn't hear the question. "Have" or "had"?
MS. McGUIRL: I think I said "had."
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: H-a-d?
MS. McGUIRL: I think so.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I believe I testified then that I had talked with them not about the cases but simply about the, the approach that we would make for counsel.
Q. What do you mean by that, Bishop?
A. That --. With Judge Boyle, anyway, I remember only speaking with him about, about counsel in the case, about --
Q. You mean attorneys?
A. The attorney counsel, yes.
Q. And Judge Pettine?
A. Not about the --. Judge Pettine, no; that was a -- the incident there was a social evening I was at which Judge Pettine was present; some mention was made at that time of the case that was in the press at that time. So there was no discussion of the merits of the case at all.
Q. Bishop, I would assume that in your capacity as the Bishop of Providence that you have met or knew each of the Attorney Generals that have been in office since you've been here; would that be correct?
A. Knew them not personally, no.
Q. Okay. You had --
A. Met them perhaps, yes.
Q. You had occasion to meet --
A. At their inaugurations.
Q. -- and had some social discussions with Attorney Michaelson?
A. At his inauguration I think I was there and said a prayer. That's the only time I remember.
Q. Attorney General Roberts?
A. I did know him, yes.
Q. Okay. Attorney General Violet?
A. Yes.
Q. Attorney General O'Neil?
A. I know him, yes.
Q. Okay. And Attorney General Pine?
A. I know him.
Q. Okay. When you say you know them, you just know them socially --
A. Just in passing.
Q. -- or are you personal friends with them?
A. No, I'm not personal friends with them.
Q. Did you ever have occasion, since you've been here as Bishop of Providence, to have any discussions with any of those Attorney Generals with regard to any investigations on priests in the Diocese of Providence?
A. Privilege on that.
Q. Is that religious privilege?
A. Religious privilege, yes.
Q. I ask you, do you know whether anyone, any of your agents or anyone in the Chancery office, ever had occasion to have any conversations with any Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General with regard to any pending investigations in Rhode Island?
A. I don't --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I don't know of any.
Q. Have you ever had occasion to refer any matter to the Attorney General's office for investigation?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What was that matter, Bishop?
A. I plead the privilege on that too.
Q. Okay. (Discussion off the record between Attorney James Murphy and the deponent)
THE DEPONENT: Well, I could identify one case that was, where we had to refer to the Attorney General. That was the case of Father Magaldi and some issues of funds in the parish.
Q. Let me ask you, Bishop, have you ever referred any investigation to the law enforcement authorities regarding any sexual activity investigation of any priest?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I object to the form. You used the phrase "referred," which has a legal meaning, particularly in prosecutorial circles.
Q. I would rephrase that, Bishop. I'm obviously looking for any contact or any -- going back to the same word again -- referral. Let me strike it and try again. Did you ever have occasion, since you've been Bishop, to contact any law enforcement agent -- by that I would mean both the Attorney Generals, State Police or local police -- with regard to any allegation or investigation of sexual conduct by a Catholic priest?
THE DEPONENT: You're asking if I made the referral; is that right?
MS. McGUIRL: Yes. Or the contact, whatever word we want to use.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
A. Not personally, no. There may have been some member of my staff that would have made a referral.
Q. Did you direct that person to do that?
A. I knew about it but didn't direct them.
Q. And can you tell us what matter that was?
A. That was --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You mean the matter that was referred?
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You mean the person that was referred to the police or Attorney General's office?
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
A. That's --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: You mean the cleric?
A. Religious privilege on that. Religious privilege.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: No, if --. As I understand your question, Susan, if, if Bishop Gelineau or someone at his direction identified a cleric to the Attorney General's office or to a police agency in the state, you want to know who that cleric is.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: That aspect you can answer, Bishop.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Wait a minute.
A. There is a privilege involved here, religious privilege.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Okay. That's --.
Q. Could I ask a question. Was that person --. Were charges ever brought against that person so that would be a matter of public record?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: As a result of that referral.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes, or --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Or other.
MS. McGUIRL: Or other investigation.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: I think it would be helpful if you distinguish --
MR. CONLON: Why don't we get clear if he's refusing to answer the question that's pending.
MS. McGUIRL: Well, I think he did.
MR. CONLON: He said there's a religious privilege. Are you refusing to answer that question?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: If he claims a privilege, I instruct him not to answer. If he, in his conscience and knowledge, believes that there is a privilege, --
MR. CONLON: Fine, Jim. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Do you understand my follow-up question, Bishop?
A. Yeah, I would like to go back on it a minute.
Q. Okay.
A. Your original question, Susan, was whether this was a sexual matter referred to.
Q. Yes.
A. The answer to that would be no, then.
Q. All right. Can I ask, is it the same matter you referred to before, Father Magaldi?
A. Yes.
Q. That had finance -- that was finance matters.
A. That was finance, yes.
Q. So make sure I understand your testimony. In the 25 years that you've been Bishop of Providence, you, to your knowledge, have never referred or contacted any law enforcement agency about any allegation or accusation about any Catholic priest being involved in improper sexual activity; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3 FOR I.D.: Copy of Section 40-11-3.1 of the Rhode Island General Laws, "Duty to report death of child due to child abuse or neglect."
BY MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Okay. Bishop, are you familiar with Rhode Island General Laws 40-11-3.1?
MS. McGUIRL: I assume you're familiar with that.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You may answer the question.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: If you're familiar with it.
MS. McGUIRL: I was going to read the title to it, but they --
A. That's the religious, that's the religious privilege one?
Q. No, it isn't, Bishop. It's the one, duty to report child abuse or neglect.
THE DEPONENT: Oh.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'll show it to you, Bishop. (Brief pause)
MS. McGUIRL: It's the next page, I think, Bishop. They turned the page on you. There you go.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Susan, do you have the volume with the, --
MS. McGUIRL: I don't have it with me.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: -- the entire volume?
MS. McGUIRL: No, I don't have it with me, no.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Tim, do you have the --
MR. CONLON: I'm sure I have the entire Rhode Island General Laws.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: That title, because it begins with Section 3, and it talks about any person required; it doesn't define who are required on the pages that are part of the exhibit.
MR. CONLON: Why don't we see what the question is.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Sure. I would like to look at it myself while the Bishop is reading this. I take it you won't allow me to look at a copy of the Rhode Island General Laws.
MR. CONLON: I'll be more than happy to allow you. I don't have one sitting here with me.
MS. McGUIRL: Why don't we do it at the break. There's no point in keep interrupting. What did you want to look at? You wanted to look at something before.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Did I want to look at?
MS. McGUIRL: You wanted to look at something else.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: You pretty well covered it, and Tim made a position statement. I want some time on the record to consult with my colleagues and give some instructions to my office to pull the current case law about First Amendment rights respecting freedom of association, free speech and free press. That's what I was going to do.
MS. McGUIRL: That's with respect to this.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: And it's unnecessary to do now.
MS. McGUIRL: That's on this here.
MR. CONLON: I lost you.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: That's okay.
MS. McGUIRL: That's all right. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Are you familiar with that law, Bishop?
A. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. Is it your understanding, Bishop, that people in the state of Rhode Island have a duty to report child abuse to certain officials?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. And I instruct you not to answer, because what you're asking for is a legal opinion from this witness, which he is not competent to give because he is not a lawyer.
Q. Bishop, tell me what you know, if anything, about a person's obligation to report child abuse if it becomes known to you?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MS. McGUIRL: If you know.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I instruct you not to answer.
MS. McGUIRL: Why?
MR. CONLON: He's got a new privilege. It's called he's not a lawyer.
MS. McGUIRL: I mean, what is it? Everybody --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You're asking him for a legal opinion.
MS. McGUIRL: Everybody in the state of Rhode Island is covered by that law. Can't we ask him?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I object to it. And it's improper and it's oppressive, because you provided him with part of a statute, you're asking him questions based on a statute and his interpretation of the statute, unless I totally mistake your question.
MS. McGUIRL: Would you repeat the question for me, please. (Pending question read by reporter)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And I assume you mean a legal obligation.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I instruct you not to answer, Bishop.
Q. Bishop, do you think you have a duty to report any --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: By the way, I also incorporate an attorney-client privilege to the extent that any knowledge that this Bishop may have concerning that statute was conveyed to him by counsel. Go ahead.
Q. Bishop, do you have any -- do you believe you have any duty to report an allegation of sexual abuse on a child if that knowledge comes into your possession?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Instruct you not to answer. The same grounds.
Q. Do you believe that you're bound by the laws of the state of Rhode Island, Bishop?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you bound by all the laws of the state of Rhode Island?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Bishop, just a couple of, some housekeeping matters, and then we'll take a break, if that's agreeable to counsel. It's my understanding, Bishop, that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence is the corporate entity for the Diocese of Providence; is that correct.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. Do you know?
A. That's an oversimplification. There are many corporate entities to the, to the church in the state of Rhode Island.
Q. There are all the separate parishes, as I understand, are also corporate entities; is that correct?
A. And institutions.
Q. Hospitals, schools; right? They're all institutions -- I mean, they're all corporate entities also; right?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. That's an oversimplification too. Sometimes schools will belong to a parish and they belong to that corporation.
Q. All right. Is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence a corporate entity that owns the property owned by the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. CONLON: Susan. (Brief pause)
Q. I'll ask you another way.
MR. Conlon tells me I'm not asking it properly.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Susan, excuse me, technical thing. Did I pull my microphone out?
Q. Is the Roman Catholic of Providence, a Corporation Sole, the owner of the Diocesan property in Rhode Island?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection to form.
A. I'm not sure what you mean by "Diocesan property."
Q. Who owns the Cathedral, Bishop?
A. There's a Cathedral corporation.
Q. Who owns the Chancery offices?
A. That would be --. I'm not sure, but I think it's RCB.
Q. Does RCB have any employees?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Who would those employees be?
A. Well, some of the people who work in the Chancery office.
Q. Are priests employees of RCB?
A. No.
Q. You are obligated as Bishop to provide some maintenance for the priests in your Diocese; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And they are paid stipends I believe on a monthly basis?
A. Yes. I think the law calls it a remuneration for their services.
Q. All right. And if they're assigned to a parish, the parish gives them that stipend; is that correct?
A. Remuneration. Supports them.
Q. All right. Do they receive a W-2 or a 1099?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. They're self-employed. They're considered self-employed for tax purposes, priests are.
Q. So they don't get a W-2.
A. No.
Q. And you get a 1099 every year?
A. Yes.
Q. There is a pension plan for priests in the Diocese; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And how is it funded?
A. It's, it's built up over the years from contributions of some priests, some tax money on the parishes has been put aside in the pension fund, and there's some income from the investments that we have.
Q. Do the priests contribute to it as part of their remuneration, do they contribute to the pension fund?
A. No.
Q. So they don't make any self-contribution to it.
A. That's right.
Q. And who administers the fund?
A. There's a board of priests.
Q. And does a priest have to be 70 years old to receive the pension?
A. He has to have the permission of the Bishop to retire and go into a status where he would receive pension. Sometimes it's 70, sometimes later, sometimes earlier.
Q. Okay. Are there any of the priests that are presently named as Defendant in these civil cases receiving pensions?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Why don't you go down the list.
MS. McGUIRL: I'll start with the ones I know after going through the list.
Q. Father O'Connell -- well, Father O'Connell obviously not. Marcantonio?
A. No, as far as I know.
Q. Henry Leach?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. And, Susan, I'm objecting to the discovery inquiry as it relates to priests who are other than Defendants in this litigation.
MS. McGUIRL: Your cocounsel just told me to go down the list of names.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, there's two priests who are Defendants in these cases, there's actually more than two priests who are Defendants in these consolidated cases before Judge Ernest Torres.
MR. CONLON: Are you instructing him not to answer?
MS. McGUIRL: Are you going to instruct him not to answer?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm instructing him not to answer, and I'm basing it upon the United States Supreme Court's decision that I mentioned earlier of Oppenheimer -- I'll give you the exact citation so that we're not mistaken about this. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, set forth in 437 US 340, page 552, note 17, a 1978 decision, which essentially held that when the purpose of a discovery request is to gather information in proceedings other than the pending suit, discovery should be denied. And it's my position, unless it's explained to me otherwise, and I'll be happy to consider it, that in these inquiries concerning priests who are Defendants in other cases in the state courts, for example, and not Defendants in this action, are priests for whom discovery ought not be sought in this deposition.
MS. McGUIRL: All right. So you're instructing him not to answer?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Certainly, on the grounds that your discovery request is to gather information in proceedings other than the pending suit.
MR. CONLON: That's certainly not --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And I make the Rule 30(d) motion in that regard because I believe you're oppressing this Defendant and burdening him and harassing him by asking these questions and seeking this discovery in this case for the benefit not of this case but for other litigation before Judge Israel and other judges, unless, again, you proffer some reasonable basis for the inquiry so that I can consider it, consult with my counsel and my client, and I may withdraw the motion.
MR. CONLON: You've read the Third Amended Complaint, I'm sure, MR. Murphy.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I've read the Third Amended Complaint, yes, I have. I'm not sure how the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, that's identical in the three cases before the Federal judge here and identical to the myriad of cases before Judge Israel, has a bearing on the scope of discovery when your allegation is that Kenneth Smith was molested by William O'Connell or that the two Kelly brothers were molested by Father Marcantonio and that there may have been some negligence or other breach by Bishop Gelineau. How this other material relates to it I cannot see and will argue it to the judge, but, again, I'm saying, in hopes that we can resolve it, if you've got a basis I'll discuss it with you, but after that I'm instructing the witness not to answer.
MR. CONLON: So in the vein of that discussion I'll point out to you the Complaint alleges an institutional conduct that would tend to protect the perpetrators at the expense of the victims. It is not merely a supervision.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And the question concerning whether or not other priests have received pensions has something to do with that; is that your position?
MR. CONLON: Yes.
MS. McGUIRL: It has to do with conspiracy and fraudulent concealment. There's no point arguing here. That's your instructions. Let me just, for the record, since --
MR. CONLON: You --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: No, that's fine.
MS. McGUIRL: But since he asked the list of names, I'll put those on the record of which ones we're going to inquire of. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. I believe you've already answered Father Marcantonio.
MR. O'Connell is no longer alive. Reverend Reilly. Bishop Angell. Reverend --
MR. CONLON: Bishop Reilly is a Defendant.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yeah, ask about him.
Q. Is Bishop Reilly receiving a pension?
A. No.
MS. McGUIRL: What was your problem? What was your objection?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: I have lots of problems with what's going on here, Susan, but we'll start. I was just going to ask you to read them slowly.
MS. McGUIRL: I'll give you the list after I finish. Let me just --
Q. Bishop Angell is not receiving a pension, I assume; correct?
A. No.
Q. Father Silv
A. Robert Marcantonio. Roland Lepire. Alfred Desrosiers. Monsignor Dunn. Father LaMountain. Father Micarelli. Father Carpentier. Father D'Angelo. Father Meglio. Father Smyth. And Father Abruzzese.
MS. McGUIRL: I'll give the stenographer the list of names, and then I'm sure she'll give it to you afterwards, Bill, in case you forget. Your instruction goes to all those?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: No, it doesn't go as far as Reilly, Angell and Marcantonio was concerned.
MS. McGUIRL: He's answered those.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Or O'Connell, for that matter, who is deceased. BY
MS. McGUIRL: (Continuing)
Q. Was Father O'Connell receiving a pension before he passed away?
A. Yes.
Q. You have a priest secretary and a regular secretary; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What's the name of your priest secretary, Bishop?
A. Right now it's Father Peter Andrews.
Q. How long has he been your secretary?
A. Just since January.
Q. Okay. And who was your secretary before that?
A. Monsignor Plante.
Q. Okay. And how long was he your secretary?
A. I'm not sure. I think since about 1986. I think about ten years.
Q. And do you recall who was your secretary prior to that, your priest secretary?
A. Yes. Father -- or Monsignor Evans, who is now the Co-Chancellor.
Q. All right. And how long was he your secretary, do you recall?
A. About six years. These are approximate now. I'm not sure, yes; it's been a long time.
Q. I understand, Bishop. Prior to that do you recall who was your secretary?
A. Father Russell Page, who died just last fall.
Q. All right. And prior to him?
A. He was the first --. Bishop Angell was for a couple of years until he became Auxiliary Bishop.
Q. Okay. Now, going to your private secretary, who is your secretary right now?
A. Mrs. Flora Hainey.
Q. Okay. How do you spell that last name, Bishop?
A. H-a-i-n-e-y.
Q. Is she an employee of RCB?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. How long has she --
A. I think it would come from there, yes.
Q. How long has she been your secretary?
A. About two or three years, I think.
Q. Okay. And prior to her who was your secretary?
A. A Miss Betty McDeed, M-c capital D-e-e-d.
Q. And how long was she your secretary?
A. She was for about 18 years, I think.
Q. And did you have someone before that?
A. Yes. There was a --. Her name escapes me now. Mary --. She died some years ago.
THE DEPONENT: Bill? Mary?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Bishop, you have to answer based on your own memory.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Even if I could, I couldn't help you with that, Bishop.
A. I'm just drawing a blank now. It will come to me.
Q. She's passed away, anyway.
A. Yes.
Q. Are those the only three women that served as your secretary?
A. Yes.
Q. The one --
A. Mary Young. Mary Young.
Q. Mary Young.
A. Yes.
Q. The one that's presently your secretary is currently working in the Chancery offices now; correct?
A. That's right.
Q. The one prior to that, the one you had for 18 years,
MS. McDeed, --
A. Yes.
Q. -- do you know where she currently is working?
A. She's not working. She has health problems and she's at home now. She had a stroke.
Q. Okay. Do you know what her address is?
A. Yes. I don't remember it --. She lives near Mineral Spring Avenue in North Providence, but I'd have to get --
Q. You have that as part of your records, I assume?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain for us briefly what the role of the priest secretary is versus -- again I'm referring to her as your private secretary.
A. Priest secretary serves as master of ceremonies for public ceremonies that we go together on; he'll also do some calendar work, setting up appointments for me; receiving messages on the telephone; and drawing up memos for me. The other secretary takes dictation from me and does typing and filing of our ordinary correspondence.
Q. Okay. If you get correspondence or mail directed to you that says it's personal, who opens that?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. If it's personal and confidential it comes to me.
Q. Okay. So nobody opens it, then.
A. That's right.
Q. Okay. If it's just a, say a handwritten letter written by a member of the church, does that go to your private secretary or your priest secretary?
A. Both.
Q. Okay. Explain that to me.
A. The private secretary opens the mail and sorts it, then shows it to the priest secretary, and he goes through it and makes notes on it and hands it to me.
Q. What about with regard to your telephone calls; if a priest calls up and says that they have to talk to the Bishop about something personal, do they talk to you directly or do they talk to your priest secretary?
A. They would go first to the priest secretary and then he would refer them to me.
Q. Would they have occasion to have any conversation with the private secretary?
A. They could.
Q. All right. What about if a member of the church, a member of the Diocese called up and wanted to speak to you about some matter; how is that handled?
A. Usually it would go to the priest secretary, and he would ask the nature of the matter and then refer to others, if possible, so that I would not be burdened with things that I shouldn't.
MS. McGUIRL: Okay. It's three o'clock. Do you want to take a break now?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Okay. (A recess was called at 3 p.m. The deposition reconvened at 3:15 p.m.) EXAMINATION BY
MR. CONLON:
Q. Bishop, how would you describe the condition of the Diocese at present?
A. Can you narrow that down a little bit?
Q. Are you saying you can't describe the condition of the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I can describe a lot of things about the Diocese.
Q. Okay. Go ahead. Please.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form of the question.
A. It's very broad, a very broad question. What do you mean by "condition"? We have a lot of good, strong parishes. We have some excellent clergy, very dedicated people, a lot of great support in the Diocese. We have a lot of ministry that's going on all the time to people who are in need and looking for the word of God, the life of God, and I believe that we do a good job in bringing that to people who are called to that and open to it. We do a lot of social services; thousands of people that are assisted by the combined efforts that people in the Diocese make to provide the wherewithal to be able to do that. So while we have had these matters that have been a source of scandal and sorrow to us, especially the way they've been carried in the press, I still think there's a lot of strength and hope and life in our Diocese.
Q. Sounds like an overall positive description; is that fair to say?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Restating the testimony. You may answer.
A. I say that there's a lot of positive things about the Diocese; I don't say everything is positive, but there are many, many positive things and many more positives than negatives.
Q. And would that be the case for the recent past?
A. Yes, I'm talking about the recent past.
Q. Okay. Say since 1989?
A. Yes. The Diocese is very strong.
MR. CONLON: I'm going to show you a document. And unfortunately my sister has had these things marked and we're not up to speed on our numbers. If you could just give us the next number for this document. I'll give you a moment to review the document. Number 9, I guess.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 9 FOR I.D.: Copies of two articles and letter from Pope John Paul II regarding Bishop Gelineau.
BY MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. In the interests of time, Bishop, I'm specifically interested on the letter that, if you flip it over, it was originally opened to. Keep going. Ah, there's the letter itself. Fine.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: If you could follow the normal protocol here and counsel can look --
MR. CONLON: Sure. He can share it with whomever he likes. Sure.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Thank you. (Discussion off the record) BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, referencing the letter there that's reproduced, my question is: Is that an authentic reproduction of a letter that was in fact sent regarding you?
A. That's a translation of this document which has the Pope's signature on it, yes, the Latin one.
Q. So it's an authentic reproduction of a translation of a letter that was sent to you. The letter was sent in Latin, I take it?
A. That's right.
Q. Not in English?
A. That's right.
Q. Somebody translated it into English?
A. That's right.
Q. And then you provided a copy of that in English to The Visitor?
A. That's right.
Q. And then they reprinted it.
A. Yes. But they reprinted also the Latin --
Q. I appreciate that.
A. -- original.
Q. I've heard or seen a phrase "temporal duties." Can you explain the distinction between temporal duties and spiritual duties?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. Bishop, I'm not sure that that's in the letter.
A. No.
Q. No. I wasn't asking about the letter.
A. Oh.
Q. I only had this one question. I wanted to authenticate that this was a letter that was sent. Now I'm on a different topic. Temporal duties versus spiritual, can you explain the distinction?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. There's no versus. They go hand in hand. Our spiritual duties are supported by temporal matters and temporal things. We need temporalities, we call them, and to accomplish our spiritual goals we need churches, we need rectories for priests to live in, we need schools. And so those are the temporalities which I deal with which are geared toward the goal of the church, which is to bring people into God.
Q. Perhaps rather than just giving me examples such as a church building and a school, if you could explain the term "temporal" as it relates to your duties.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
A. I don't think there's any, any other way of explaining it.
Q. Well, you say they go hand in hand. I believe you just indicated "they."
A. The temporal and the spiritual responsibilities that I have.
Q. Okay. Go hand in hand.
A. They go toward the same goal.
Q. Fine. But I'm not so much interested right now in knowing what the goal is; what I'm trying to understand is the distinction between the temporal on the one hand and the spiritual on the other. What's a temporal versus what's a spiritual?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Argumentative. Form. You may answer.
Q. Do you understand?
A. You keep saying "temporal versus spiritual," which is a contradiction in my mind.
Q. You think that they're the same.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. Are temporal and spiritual the same?
A. They're not the same but they go hand in hand.
Q. Can you explain --. I won't use the term "versus," then. If they're the same, can you explain the distinction?
A. One has to be -- one has to do with spiritual matters and the other has to do with material matters, material things.
Q. Okay. Now, the spiritual has to do with spiritual matters?
A. Yes.
Q. And the temporal has to do with material matters and things.
A. Yes.
Q. As the head of Diocese of Providence are you responsible for the day-to-day supervision of priests in the Diocese?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. The priesthood is a state of life that a person is ordained to. So I'm not responsible for the day-to-day supervision of them; they assume responsibilities to help me with my responsibilities, and it's different, therefore, from what you would have in business or in secular affairs. The concept is different.
Q. So if one were to represent that as head of the Diocese of Providence you were responsible for the day-to-day supervision of priests of the Diocese, that would not be correct.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer.
A. That's right.
Q. I just want to get that clear, because it's important that we're clear with the court. Now, going back to Exhibit 9, you had seen that before, had you not?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. This is Exhibit 9?
Q. Yes, sir, the letter.
A. Oh, yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Is that before today? Is that what you mean?
Q. Yes, before today.
A. Oh, yes. I received it.
Q. You understood my question, didn't you, --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- just now?
A. Whether I had seen this before?
Q. When I asked you if you had seen it before, you understood my question, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Why did it take you so long to review that exhibit?
A. I had not looked at it since January, and I had a lot of things going on all the time, so I wanted to review it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And I instructed him to, in your presence.
Q. You made reference to either press or media coverage in connection with these suits a few minutes ago in one of your answers. Apart from the issue of scandal, do you accept that priests' sexual abuse hurts children?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form of the question. You may answer.
A. Assuming that there is sexual abuse, and if that's your assumption, yes, of course, any sexual abuse hurts children. Priest sexual abuse, if it's done by a priest, it certainly does affect children.
Q. I appreciate your use of the word "affect." My question is: Does it hurt them?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Oh, that affects, no doubt, hurts them.
Q. Do you accept that the phenomenon of priest sexual abuse is a problem?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. It's a problem in society generally, and among priests we, since priests are human beings, we are going to be confronted with the same problems that any human being is confronted with, not at any greater degree; the scandal is certainly greater.
Q. Now, when we --. Back a couple of responses you said assuming that there is sexual abuse or -- I forget exactly how you phrased it. Do you remember making reference to an assumption on my part regarding the existence of sexual abuse?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you not accept that there has been sexual abuse by priests in Providence, in Rhode Island?
A. You said do I not accept that?
Q. Yes. Do you not accept that there has been sexual abuse?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I do accept it.
Q. You do. And more specifically that priests have sexually abused children under your watch?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. I don't mean watch, view. I mean on your watch, on your shift, if you will.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Form.
A. During my tenure.
Q. During your tenure.
A. Yes.
Q. How many children do you accept have been sexually abused during your tenure as Bishop?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I don't know.
Q. Give me the low end.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. He's answered the question. You're calling for speculation and I object to the question.
THE DEPONENT: Yes.
Q. Are you telling me --
MR. CONLON: I'm sorry, could you read the answer back, Dottie. I didn't get his answer. THE REPORTER: There was no answer.
Q. Bishop?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I don't know.
Q. How about the high end?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. He's answered the question he does not know.
A. I don't know the high end either, no.
Q. How many priests have sexually abused children under your tenure?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I'm not sure of that either.
Q. How many do you know have sexually abused children?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I'm not able to answer that.
Q. When you say you're not able, you mean you don't know the answer or are you asserting some sort of privilege? I'm just not clear, Bishop. I want to be clear.
A. Yes, I understand. I wouldn't know the answer to your question, actually.
Q. Okay. Well, let's start with one. Do you know that at least one priest sexually abused children in this Diocese under your tenure?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form of the question.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. How about two; do you know that at least two priests sexually abused children in the Diocese during your tenure?
A. Yes.
Q. Three?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I would plead the religious privilege on that.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I instruct you not to answer. And I make a motion pursuant to Rule 30(d) on the religious grounds asserted earlier.
Q. Can you explain to me how it is that you feel comfortable confirming that at least two have sexually abused children and yet you assert the privilege or what you claim to be a privilege, we don't actually agree that there is such a thing, but what you claim to be a privilege in connection with three?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. And I instruct you not to answer unless you can do it without involving matters that are subject to that religious privilege.
Q. I'm not, Bishop, asking --. I understand and I respect, although I disagree with the privilege issue, I respect your right to attempt to litigate it. I'm not trying to circumvent it. I am trying, however, so that we have a record for a judge, to get clear, if you can, as to how come you can tell me two, and then when I go to three, all of a sudden the privilege comes in. Without divulging what you consider to be protected information, if you could explain that, I'd appreciate you doing it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: If I could confer with my client concerning the privilege issue. (Discussion off the record between
MR. James Murphy and the deponent)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Very well.
A. The question is that there are two that were, that publicly admitted and were convicted in the courts of sexual abuse of children.
Q. Who are those two, sir? Just so I'm clear which names that I --
A. Father Leach and Father O'Connell.
Q. Well, Bishop, as I understand it, Father Carpentier admitted molesting a boy, and I believe it was Bishop Angell or Reilly, I don't recall which, -- we can check into that if it helps you -- confirmed to that boy's mother that he had in fact admitted sexual contact with the child. Do you recall those incidents generally?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form, to the argumentative nature of the questions. And to the extent there's a privilege involved, I will instruct you not to answer, Bishop.
A. That would be religious privilege on my part.
Q. Well, if a Bishop has already told a victim's mother that in fact a given priest, using Carpentier as an example, admitted to sexual contact with a child, are you suggesting that you would still assert some form of religious privilege regarding confirmation of that information?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form, argumentative --
MR. CONLON: A hypothetical question at this point. I'm just trying to clarify --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: It is a hypothetical question.
THE DEPONENT: That's why I don't want to --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You also said facts that are not in evidence, as well, and it is argumentative, and it is hypothetical and calls for speculation in addition to the religious issues that are involved. I'm setting forth the basis for my objections, period.
MR. CONLON: Go ahead, Bishop.
A. So because it's hypothetical, I don't know. You started off with "if," if a Bishop had indicated to the boy's mother. I don't know that that's true.
Q. I understand that, but I get to do that. You see, I think I get to pose hypothetical questions, and then we're going to deal with the judge in terms of the issues of whether or not my question is proper, et cetera, et ceter
A. So right now I just want your best answer to my question. Assume that a Bishop has already told a parent that a priest has admitted sexually abusing or sexual contact with her child. Take that assumption, please.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: A Bishop other than the Defendant here?
Q. A Bishop other than you. Assume that just to be true just for the sake of my next question. Do you have my assumption in mind, sir?
A. I can't assume that. I don't know that.
Q. I just want to ask you a question based upon that assumption, sir. Are you saying that it's impossible that a Bishop could have told a parent that in fact a priest admitted sexually abusing her child?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to your question.
A. It's probably not impossible, but I have no evidence that it did happen that way.
Q. Well, leave the evidence to us, sir. Okay? Just take for purposes of my question, so that we can be clear with the record for the purposes of them filing motions with the judge, that a Bishop has told a mother that a priest has confirmed sexual contact with her child. Okay? Having that in mind, sir, I want to know, would you still be asserting a privilege, some sort of religious privilege as to now testifying about that matter?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I object. Among other things, you have an incomplete hypothetical, and you're asking for speculation. If you can answer without invading the privilege, you may, Bishop.
A. This is a hypothesis that I have no basis for making a judgment about.
Q. The basis is that I'm asking you a question and you're obliged to give me your best answer. So I'm not interested in engaging in a debate about whether or not you have a basis for a judgment. If you cannot answer the question because you don't know the answer, that's fine, and just say you don't know. If you know the answer, I would like the answer.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Argumentative and it assumes the law. You may answer it if you can, Bishop.
A. Your question again?
Q. My question is: If you assume that a Bishop has confirmed to a mother that a priest has admitted sexual molestation or sexual contact with her son, would you still understand yourself to be required to assert some sort of privilege in connection with then testifying under oath regarding that matter?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Whether or not the information had ever been --. You're leaving an element out of this, Tim.
A. If the information came to me how?
Q. Which information, sir?
A. That a Bishop had told this to a mother, and I knew that.
Q. Let's assume you knew that a Bishop had told a mother.
A. How would I come to that knowledge? We're in a hypothetical situation, --
Q. Yes, we are. The Bishop told you --
A. -- which I'm very uncomfortable with, I'll tell you that. Because you're hypothesizing about things that --. I think it's very unfair.
Q. I appreciate that. So Bishop X comes to you and says, I've told mom that Father so-and-so has admitted sexually molesting a child. The cat's out of the bag, he's told mom. That's what he's told you. Would you still be asserting this privilege?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Bishop X has told the Bishop.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, and I will instruct the Bishop that the questions, the hypotheticals that you're phrasing to seek to inquire and ask for basically an advisory opinion from this Bishop on how he would handle a matter of church discipline, polity and governance under the Code of Canon Law and the teachings of the Catholic Church and his right as a Bishop to oversee his Diocese pursuant to the tenets of his religion, is an inquiry which I submit to you is barred by the First Amendment of the Constitution and may well implicate, even though it's a hypothetical, the provisions of Rhode Island General Laws 9-17-23 and the other religious issues. And you're asking for him to speculate on, on questions frankly, Timothy, I find incomprehensible.
MR. CONLON: Are you instructing him not to answer?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And I'm instructing him not to answer, and I'm making a motion under the Rules, 30(d)(3) to terminate this type of hypothetical fishing expedition.
MS. McGUIRL: Jim, if the question is essentially does the privilege apply when the confidentiality has been breached outside of the Bishops, isn't that a legitimate question to answer?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, that's not what you've asked him.
MS. McGUIRL: Yes, it is. He asked it in the form of a hypothetical. That's what he asked.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: He asked a hypothetical question in which you say another Bishop spoke to the mother of a victim, without initially in the first half dozen versions of the question indicating that this Bishop ever even knew of it. You're putting in various --
MR. CONLON: Jim, I'd like to pose another question. You've instructed this witness not to answer.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Certainly. Go ahead.
MR. CONLON: So I'm going to ask him another question. That's generally how the deposition process works. I appreciate the two of you discussing this because it's given me maybe a short version of this.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Good. Thank you. BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Let's forget about who. If a cleric has already confirmed to a family member that another cleric has sexually abused or sexually molested that family member's child, -- am I clear so far?
A. (Deponent nods in the affirmative).
Q. I am?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. -- does that, then, abrogate or otherwise put an end to your perceived necessity of asserting some sort of privilege in connection with subsequent inquiry about this point under oath?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. I instruct you not to answer it, Bishop. And the basis for this is what you're asking the Bishop to do is give a legal conclusion on when a privilege is or is not waived. Now, making the basis on the record so that you understand what it is, and as authority for that I would cite, among other cases, the case of People v. Burnidge decided by the Appellate Court of Illinois in 1996, and the case of Mockaitis decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well in 1996, relating to that question of whether there is a waiver when persons have disclosed information to the public generally or to other third persons. So you're asking for him really to give a legal opinion on when a privilege is waived, and I will instruct him not to answer. Mockaitis is M-o-c-k-a-i-t-i-s.
MR. CAPPALLI: Jim, what was the first one, please?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: People v. Burnidge, B-u-r-n-i-d-g-e. BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop, your attorneys have cited me various provisions of canon law. Is it your position that canon law governs your behavior?
A. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. And what about the catechism; would that also be relevant in terms of guiding your behavior?
A. Both of those are tools by which we are guided and directed in our ministry.
Q. So --. And I'm just tying to get clear on the record the nature of the various pieces of this First Amendment right that you're asserting. The provisions of the canon law and the catechisms guide and control your behavior, or are supposed to; is that correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Catechism not so much the behavior, because the catechism is a teaching instruction and it's a useful instrument, but it doesn't guide the behavior of the Bishop.
Q. Well, would the proscriptions in the catechism regarding propriety be applicable to all Catholics, including yourself?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Propriety of what?
Q. Do you understand the question, Bishop?
A. Propriety?
Q. Yes. Of behavior.
A. Of behavior? I don't know what you're thinking about in the catechism that would govern that other than -- the Ten Commandments are you talking about?
Q. Are you familiar --
A. What part of the catechism are you talking about?
Q. Bishop, the last thing I wish to do is get into a debate with you about specific provisions of either the catechism or the canon law. I will have some questions, okay? But just as I made reference to the canon law, is it correct that -- I'm going to show you a book -- disregard the 10 percent off sticker, but --. Catechism in the Catholic Church. Generally you're familiar with this?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm willing to bet somewhere in here there's one of those -- yeah, there is -- imprim -- my Latin is terrible, but. The catechism, how would you describe the catechism in the Catholic Church? What would you call this?
A. It's a compendium of the teachings of the church.
Q. And it addresses, amongst other things, appropriate or proper behavior by members of the church.
A. Yes.
Q. Sort of dos and don'ts.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And both the canon law, which is itself a bunch of pages, and this catechism, a bunch of pages, speak to appropriate behavior on the part of Catholics generally.
A. Yes.
Q. So within this generally is yourself.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So to understand your First Amendment position, your behavior is governed or dictated or directed or guided, whichever term you choose to use, by these catechisms and canon law; is that fair?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the question. Objection to the extent that you're seeking a legal answer from this Bishop --
MR. CONLON: I'm not seeking --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: -- concerning the First Amendment arguments. However, I will allow him to answer the question.
A. I don't understand the connection between the First Amendment that you're talking about and what you're driving at in here.
Q. We'll let your lawyers attempt to make that connection for you. Okay? Is it correct that, then, you're saying that these two works are proscriptions pursuant to which you are, as a Catholic, and more specifically as a Bishop, supposed to be operating under?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes. Now, these are not the only two works, you understand.
Q. I appreciate that. And, gosh, we could probably be taking lots of hours if we went into every other work, but let's just --
A. There are libraries.
Q. I'm sure there are. We'd probably like to get this deposition over with in something other than a year. So for now I'm going to focus on canon law and the catechism. The statement that you just made, or the response that you just gave regarding proscription of conduct by these works would be -- and I'm just trying to ask you -- it would also be the case as to the conduct of other Diocesan officials. Let me rephrase that. I don't mean to suggest that every canon law applies to every official. I understand that certain canon laws go to, just to make one up, Vicars, and certain ones go to clerics, and certain ones go to Ordinaries and what have you. But both yourself and the other Diocesan officials would have their conduct proscribed by the canons and the catechism; --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- is that correct?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection also to the extent that you've characterized what he may have testified before, restated it in this question. You may answer the question.
A. Yes, we're guided by the material that's in those two volumes.
Q. Do you have that document from which you read earlier today, that document from which you read today relating to this purported privilege that you're asserting?
A. Yes.
MR. CONLON: May I have that, please.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: No. It's an attorney-client privileged communication.
MR. CONLON: I'm going to ask that you preserve it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Certainly.
MR. CONLON: I will let the stenographer --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Secondly, there's an improper foundation for asking for that document at this stage of the questioning.
MR. CONLON: Well, let's let
MR. White change his tape. I was told --. I had a two-minute warning. So let's take a break for him. (Brief pause) BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Bishop Gelineau, the document that you just handed to
MR. Murphy to
MR. Murphy, the two
MR. Murphys, would be the statement from which you read earlier into this record?
A. Yes.
MR. CONLON: Okay. Bill, I'd like to ask you if you would hand it to Dottie so she can mark it and keep it.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: No, I will not. But this is what I will do: If you have a stenographer or secretary bring in a plain envelope, we'll seal it, and you and I will sign the back of it, and then we'll give the sealed envelope to Dottie.
MR. CONLON: That's fine. Why don't you just hold it right there. I'm sure we'll have another break between now and -- well, maybe not. Perhaps we'll do it at five. But, regardless, I'll --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Have somebody come in now. We'll do it right now. You don't even have to interrupt the questions.
MR. CONLON: Well, yes, I do, because I'm wired. But Sue will go.
MS. McGUIRL: I'm wired or whatever. I got it.
MR. CONLON: It's not that simple when you're wired to Bill White.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You're carrying wire around, getting envelopes.
MS. McGUIRL: I know. Good thing I'm here. BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Again, so that I understand your position, Bishop, you believe that either the canon law or the catechism or both preclude you from answering certain questions --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- that have been posed to you today?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. And is that also a basis of your refusal to answer certain questions on March 19 in Superior Court?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Objection. Excuse me.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Do you --. No, let's go on the record. Stay on the record.
MR. CONLON: Just an objection. If you're instructing --. It's a simple question: "yes"; "no." If you want to instruct him not to answer, just do it.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Can we have just a moment?
MR. CONLON: Certainly. (Brief pause)
MR. JAMES MURPHY:
MR. Conlon, you've --. I'm objecting to your question because we do not have the transcript of the questions asked of Bishop Gelineau in that Superior Court proceeding to which he exercised a privilege and did not answer. I'm not sure which questions you're referring to.
MR. CONLON: Well, if it's different as to different questions, I'm sure that he could tell me that, or you guys can just tell me that.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, I don't have the transcript and I don't know what he said. I certainly can't recall what he said. And I do not want my client guessing as to what he said or what questions may have been asked of him in that proceeding.
MR. CONLON: Well,
MR. Murphy, I'm going to respectfully ask that you stop coaching your witness.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm not.
MR. CONLON: Let's just find out if he can answer a simple question. Is it his understanding that the canonical laws and the catechism, one or both, okay, are germane to his refusal to answer questions in the Superior Court on March 19th. If he says "no," fine. If he says "yes," fine. If he says he can't understand that question, maybe I can clarify it for him. Maybe some questions, not all. I don't know. It's not that complicated.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: You're asking the witness to identify his --
MR. CONLON:
MR. Murphy, let's just see if he can answer this question. I'd like to find out if the Bishop can answer this question.
Q. Can you answer that question?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: This is entirely improper.
MR. CONLON: Thank you.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And it's unduly complicated, Timothy, because you've adopted a methodology of asking this witness questions about a document and about testimony that he gave that's in a transcript without even having it here.
MS. McGUIRL: I have the transcript.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Do you have the transcript of that proceeding?
MS. McGUIRL: I have the transcript.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Fine. Now we can do it the right way. And I --
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: That's been here? Why don't we clear up this housekeeping thing. I'm putting the statement that Bishop Gelineau handed to
MR. James Murphy and
MR. James Murphy handed to me in an envelope, -- thank you for having the tape here, because I'm being observed -- and I'm putting my name on the seal. One of the Plaintiffs' counsel wants to do the same? And I ask that you hand it to
MS. Depointe and have it marked as a deposition exhibit.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I suggest if we can ask the stenographer to place the deposition exhibit sticker right over the seal.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 10 FOR I.D.: Sealed envelope containing statement read by the deponent.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Now that we're back on the record, it appears that there is a copy of the transcript present and MR. Conlon has it right now. If you will ask the Bishop about any question that's set forth in the transcript to which he exercised a privilege or declined to answer and you want to ask him whether or not it's based on what's in the canon law or the catechism, I will allow him to answer as long as he knows what that question is and we have a chance to see it.
MR. CONLON: Thank you, Jim. Could I have the last question that I asked the Bishop read back, please. (Whereupon the reporter read the following: "And is that also a basis of your refusal to answer certain questions on March 19 in Superior Court?") BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Go ahead, Bishop, if you can, please.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Let the record reflect the transcript is still in
MR. Conlon's hands. Bishop, can you answer the question?
A. I'd like to see the transcript first.
Q. Are you saying --. Again, Bishop, if you're saying you can't answer the question, that's fine. I would just like you to say that. If you can, I would like your answer from the top of your head, if you can give me one.
A. You said there were certain questions that I refused to answer on the basis of the privilege.
Q. No, I didn't --
A. You said "certain questions."
Q. I asked --
A. I think there was only one.
Q. Okay. That's fine. So at least one, it is your recollection, unrefreshed, -- I appreciate you haven't looked at this -- it's your recollection unrefreshed by looking at this transcript that at least one of the questions the canon law also governed you in terms of not answering; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your best answer. Let me hand you the transcript, and take a look at that and see if that --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Mark that as an exhibit, please.
Q. -- changes your --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Exhibit A.
MS. McGUIRL: It's my exhibit; I think it stays with my number.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: All right. Okay. You can give it a number, whatever number you want.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 11 FOR I.D.: Transcript of hearing before The Honorable Justice Thomas Needham on March 19, 1997 in the matter of State of Rhode Island v. Alfred Desrosiers.
(Brief pause) BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Have you had a chance to look at the transcript now, Bishop?
A. I didn't look at the whole thing carefully, but I found the instance that you were talking about in there.
Q. Well, Bishop, honestly, I wasn't talking about a specific instance. I have never even seen the transcript. I didn't know
MS. McGuirl had it. I was just trying to ask you if in fact the code and the catechism bore upon your inability or perceived inability to answer questions in Superior Court. You, as I understood it, had said that at least as to one question it did. Now that you've read the transcript, is it the case that the code and the catechism bear on more than one question?
A. No, it bore on one question.
Q. Just one question. So as to the balance of those questions, the code and the catechism do not preclude you from answering; is that the case?
A. That's right.
Q. And again referencing the code -- I'm sorry, the canons and the catechism, you perceived those to prohibit you from producing certain documents to us; is this correct?
A. Yes.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Yes, please. (Document tendered to
MR. William Murphy)
Q. Those documents would include documents relating to action taken against Father Marcantonio?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. And those documents would include documents relating to action taken against Father O'Connell?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I object to the form when you use "against."
Q. And again, as to documents that you perceive you have some privilege against producing, would that include records regarding your practices, both your as Bishop and your as the institution? If I'm not being clear with that question, you just say so and I'll try to straighten it out.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And I do object to the form.
A. It's not clear. I would --
Q. Okay. The last couple of questions have been about what things it is that you perceive you can't produce because of this asserted privilege. We're communicating on that; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I wanted to chase down that list a little more and figure out exactly what kinds of things you're saying you can't produce. We're still clear?
A. Yes.
Q. Great. Specifically, then, as to records that relate to the practices of either yourself or the other Diocesan officials as they relate to handling of child sexual abuse complaints, is it your position that you have some form of privilege prohibiting you or that would otherwise allow you to refuse to produce those documents to us?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer to the extent it doesn't involve attorney-client matters and legal opinions.
A. The manner in which I handled those things you're saying, is that privileged?
Q. Well, documents regarding the manner.
A. You're asking --
Q. I'm asking about documents regarding the manner in which you handled those matters. Are you asserting that you can't produce those to me for some sort of religious reason?
A. If those documents give me information that is to be held confidential, then I assert the privilege.
Q. Okay. Forget the actual investigation document containing actual information about an actual investigation per se. Just let's forget that. Okay? Let's talk about documents that relate to how investigations or complaints or discipline are to be handled that, therefore, would not actually contain any information. Am I being clear with you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay, good. As to those documents do you assert you have some sort of privilege that absolves you of a responsibility to produce that stuff?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm going to object to the form of the question. When you use the word "privilege," as an attorney I understand you're talking about a legal privilege. And I'll instruct him not to answer questions that call for an interpretation of what is or is not a legal privilege. If you're asking about whether there are documents of a general nature that set forth how do you deal with things, I can understand and I'll allow him to answer that question.
Q. Bishop, are you clear on what kind of documents I just described? Because I thought we got that straightened out between you and I --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- on this record.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection as to what you thought. You may answer.
A. I'm not clear. I --
Q. Okay.
A. Yes.
Q. If you're not clear, --
A. Yeah.
Q. -- that's fine. I'm a very patient man, and --
A. I'm not sure what kind of documents you're talking about.
Q. Okay. I apologize. I can make things more complicated than they need to be. Documents that relate to how it is that investigation of child sexual abuse complaints are to be handled. Let's take that class of documents. Is that clear in your mind?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So we're not talking about actual investigations; we're talking about documents that say do this, do that, tell him, don't tell him, whatever they'd say. We're clear.
A. Yes.
Q. Great. Do you contend that your religious obligations preclude you from giving me those documents?
A. No.
MR. CONLON: Okay. May I have a moment, please. (Brief pause) BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. So, Bishop, can you explain to me why I don't have those?
A. I can't explain it, no.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Without revealing attorney-client communications?
THE DEPONENT: That's right.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Attorney-client privilege. And, secondly, it presumes that you do not have all the documents that there may be.
MS. McGUIRL: We don't have any documents, Jim.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And, thirdly, there are documents that you don't have that fall within that category.
MR. CONLON: Well, we're going to go through what we have,
MR. Murphy.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You've got a lot.
MS. McGUIRL: Those documents are requested in a notice of deposition, those particular documents we just had the discussion about, and we have not received anything.
MR. CONLON: We'll go through it on the record, Jim.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: In the course of discovery a lot of information has been given. Implicit in the question was that we did not --
MR. CONLON:
MR. Murphy, if you please, we don't need to get into a debate at this point.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I agree with you.
MR. CONLON: Okay. Then don't bring up one side of an issue and expect us to sit around and not respond to it. Let me just pose the next question. The witness said he doesn't know why. There's been a statement on the record. I'll move on.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Maybe just to clear the air and make the record clear, many of my objections are made because preparatory to the question you give a speech, and then after the question is given you give another speech, and when I make an objection you make a speech, and you make all kinds of assertions,
MR. Conlon. Perhaps if you limit yourself to asking the questions without the preparatory recitation of what you thought the witness said before, or what you thought the evidence is or scenarios that you believe may or may not exist, or whether or not we've been compliant with things. Just ask the question and we'll get through this much faster.
MR. CONLON: If you don't mind, I'm going to pass on responding to that.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: That's very good. BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Now, Bishop, I believe in connection with the class of documents that I just defined we referred to documents relating to how such complaints are handled; is that your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, within that would you understand, then, that whatever policies, or guidance, whatever term you would use, as to the investigation of child sexual abuse allegations would accordingly be something you're not asserting First Amendment right as to?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. So from a religious point of view you don't have any problem producing to me the documents that explain how it is you are to be going about -- when I refer to "you," you or other Diocesan officials -- investigating child sexual abuse complaints; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Or reporting child sexual abuse complaints?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, what about remedial measures in connection with child sexual abuse complaints; is there, from your point of view, some religious issue implicated in releasing to me, or to Plaintiffs' counsel generally, documents relating to remedial measures in connection with child sexual abuse?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You mean generally and not with reference to a particular individual?
MR. CONLON: That's correct.
Q. Not in reference to -- I'm not saying, you know, Father Jones did X, therefore we're going to do. But if you've got documents that suggest that, by the way, if you ever get this, or we've now decided that from now on we're not going to do the following. Okay? Am I communicating with you? You're nodding your head, which is a good sign; it means I'm probably --
A. Yes, I understand.
Q. Good. Any problem giving me those documents, sir?
A. No.
Q. Now, again so the record is clear, you folks do do investigations into allegations that priests have sexually abused children, don't you?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form of the question, "you folks." That's a broad question. If you understand, you may answer.
A. The code calls for us to investigate any misconduct on the part of anyone.
Q. Well, just now I did not intend to ask you about whether or not the code mandates or directs you to do something. I was trying to ask you about what in fact you do. Do you understand the distinction?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you or other Diocesan officials do investigations of allegations that children have been sexually abused by priests?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you maintain records of such investigations?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Those records -- again, I'm just trying to make sure I'm clear. But those records are records which you assert your religious obligations prohibit you from giving to me; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you reviewed those records with your attorneys in connection with this issue?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Attorney-client privilege.
MR. CONLON: Are you instructing him not to answer?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm instructing him not to answer as to what kinds of communications or documents have been reviewed with counsel.
Q. Other than your attorneys, who reviews those records?
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Just a minute.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. WILLIAM MURPHY: Just a minute. (Brief pause)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Go ahead. Is there another question?
MS. McGUIRL: There's a question pending.
MR. CONLON: There's a question pending.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I thought I objected. Was there another question since I --
THE DEPONENT: No.
MR. CONLON: Would you read the last question back, please. (Pending question read by reporter)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm going to make a motion under Rule 30(d)(3) and instruct you not to answer, Bishop. This goes to the jurisdictional question as raised earlier on religious objections under Natal, the Natal case and the Dowd case and the Surinach case relating to the subject matter of the jurisdiction where the inquiry here appears clearly, to me at least, to be directed to the internal workings of the Catholic Church and the exercise of the Bishop's discretion and obligations, rights and limitations under the law of the Catholic Church and its faith and doctrines and tenets.
MR. CONLON: Is this the religious -- I thought we agreed that you could just say religious, instruct him not to answer.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, religious. There are two aspects of it. One is --
MR. CONLON: This is different?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: One is the confidential communications aspect that our statute talks about and that the code talks about with regard to the confessional and other confidential communications. The second aspect, which is the subject matter of the 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, is the dangers to the religion clauses, and to the church as a result thereof, of this type of inquiry into the internal operation, functioning, discipline and governance of the Catholic Church, which this question, as I believe it to be phrased, does. And for that reason I'm instructing the Bishop not to answer that question.
MR. CONLON: Is that a new privilege besides the privilege that we agreed would be referred to as the religious privilege,
MR. Murphy?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: No, no, it's incorporated in it. The religious privileges, as I indicated, incorporate the motion to dismiss that was filed and those cases.
MR. CONLON: Could you kindly just refer to this, since I thought
MS. McGuirl, you and I worked out something --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: We did. I'll call it the religious privilege.
MR. CONLON: Religious privilege. Which we don't assert -- we don't believe it exists. But, in any event, let's call it the religious privilege.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: And based on that I'm instructing him not to answer. I just wanted to make it clear.
MR. CONLON: I'd like, if we could, to get a document marked, which would be 10 -- no, 11.
MS. McGUIRL: 11.
MR. CONLON: 10 is sealed. 11 is whatever it is.
MS. McGUIRL: 11.
(Discussion off the record)
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 12 FOR I.D.:
Eight-page Affidavit of Louis E. Gelineau in the matter of James J. Smith and Sandra Smith, et als. vs. Rev. James P. McIntyre, Individually, et als., dated September 29, 1995.
MR. CONLON: We're going to hand that over to you, and you can do, I guess, whatever you choose to do with it. Just so it's clear to you, the only question I'm going to ask you is -- I shouldn't say "the only," but I'm going to ask you two questions: One is to confirm your signature there, and then I'm just going to ask you about it being affirmed under oath. Okay? We're not going to get into substance of the document.
(Discussion off the record)
MR. CONLON: Now that the three of you have finished, let the witness, please, --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, it's an eight-page affidavit. You had two questions for the Bishop on that. One was whether it was his signature. And the other was, was what? BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. I want to know whether that's your signature.
A. Yes.
Q. And that's your affidavit?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Can you take a look at the line above your signature, please.
A. (Deponent complies).
Q. Do you see the sentence immediately prior to your signature, sir, "I am aware that if"?
A. Yes.
Q. Was "willfully" intended to be some form of qualification?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer if you --
A. I didn't get the question again.
Q. Was the word "willfully," as it appears in that sentence, some form of qualification?
A. "Willfully false"?
Q. Yes. As opposed to just "false."
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You mean through mistake or inadvertence?
Q. Sir, if you can just answer the question, fine. If you can't answer the question, you can't answer the question.
MR. CONLON:
MR. Murphy, please stop interrupting and questioning me during my deposition. Thank you.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm sorry. I objected to the form of the question.
MR. CONLON: You didn't object,
MR. Murphy.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Well, I object to the form of the question.
MR. CONLON: You may object now, but you're interrupting. So, please, Bishop.
A. What the word says is if I know this is willful -- or is intentionally false or I understand it's false, then I'm subject to punishment, yes.
Q. As opposed to just false.
A. That's right.
Q. Now, when it says "subject to punishment," would that mean the penalty of perjury, sir?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. May I see the affidavit. I object to the question. It calls for a legal conclusion from the witness. I'll allow him to answer it to the best of his knowledge as a lay person from a legal sense.
A. I presume so.
Q. Okay. Sir, did you ever have knee surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. About when was that, sir?
A. 1993.
Q. Are you a citizen of the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a citizen of the state of Rhode Island?
A. Yes.
Q. Did there ever appear a time that you used a convertible?
A. No.
Q. Was it ever your habit to be driven or drive in a convertible automobile?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Roger Oliver?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Could you spell that, please.
A. I don't think so.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Could I have the spelling, just for the record?
MR. CONLON: Sure. O-l-i-v-e-r.
Q. Did you ever have a personal altar boy by the name of Roger Oliver?
A. Not that I remember.
Q. Do you keep records of such things?
A. No. And I don't have personal altar boys. There are servers where I go, altar servers, but I don't, I don't have -- I don't know what you mean by "personal altar boy."
Q. I appreciate that distinction. Has an altar boy ever served for you by the name of Roger Oliver?
A. Not that I remember. I don't recognize the name.
Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I suggested that he considered the seminary, this Roger Oliver?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the entire question. (Pending question read by reporter)
A. No, I don't remember that.
Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I advised you that he was killed?
A. No, I don't remember.
Q. You don't recall a Roger Oliver being killed.
A. No.
Q. The gentleman was involved in male prostitution. It doesn't ring a bell?
A. No.
Q. Would you tell me everything you know about the name Gordon Reed.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Would you spell that, please, for the record.
A. Gordon Reed?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. I don't recognize that name.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Could I have the spelling for the record?
MR. CONLON: I don't know the correct spelling.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: R-e-e-d? R-e-i-d? R-e-a-d? You don't know?
MR. CONLON: Not off the top of my head.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Okay.
Q. You say you don't recognize the name. Have you ever heard the name?
A. I don't remember it at all.
Q. Are you saying you've never heard the name, you don't recall hearing the name?
A. I don't recall hearing the name.
Q. Have you ever used that name?
A. Not that I remember. You mean used it for myself?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. No.
Q. Has anyone ever referred to you as Gordon Reed?
A. No.
Q. What years were you a seminarian at St. Joseph's in Burlington?
A. Was I a seminarian?
Q. The question I asked, and perhaps I've got the phrasing wrong, was: What years were you a seminarian at St. Joseph's in Burlington.
A. At St. Joseph's Orphanage?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. That was 19, the summers of 1950, '51, '52 and '53.
Q. Had you been working or -- by "working" I don't mean necessarily as an employee, but serving in some capacity there other than as a seminarian at some other point in time as well?
A. No.
Q. And what were your duties there?
A. I was assigned there for the summers to, with another seminarian, supervise the recreations of the, of the residents there, the boys at the orphanage.
Q. Do you remember Robert Charles Cadorette, or Cadorette? I'm not good with my French.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Could you spell it for the record, please.
MR. CONLON: C-a-d-o-r-e-t-t-e.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: C-a-d- --
MR. CONLON: But,
MR. Murphy, if you would, let the witness answer the next time, and then you can ask me to spell it for the record. If the witness needs it clarified, I'd be happy to --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Fine. As long as we get it on the record, the spelling, just so we have a record.
MR. CONLON: And I'd like you to stop interrupting between my question and his answer other than to state an objection, as you're authorized to do under the rules.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Fine. BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Sir, my question was: Do you remember Robert Charles Cadorette? Or Cadorette, perhaps?
A. I remember the name.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Could we have the spelling of the name?
MR. CONLON: C-a-d-o-r-e-t-t-e, to the best of my knowledge.
Q. And do you remember him as someone who was there when you were there?
A. Yes, I remember the name; I don't remember the individual now.
Q. You can't picture the face.
A. That's right.
Q. But when you --
A. I remember there was a name Robert Cadorette, yes.
Q. Did seminarians ever take girls swimming?
A. Take whom swimming?
Q. Girls.
A. Girls? No.
Q. Did you ever have any form of physical contact with Robert Cadorette?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. When you were there did you serve or were you referred to as Brother?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there a lake at the premises?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I'm going to object. And at this point it seems, without making a speech, I'm going to object and I'm going to instruct the witness not to answer and I'm going to make a motion again under Rule 30(d)(3). From the line of questioning thus far it seems,
MR. Conlon, you're engaging in discovery in a case that may exist in another jurisdiction or elsewhere, or may be planned, that has nothing to do with the claim involving Kenneth Smith or the Kellys. And again, citing the Oppenheimer case and propositions for which it stands about doing discovery in one action for use elsewhere in other actions, I make that motion. And I instruct you not to answer, Bishop. I've given you leeway in this to see where it was going, but it seems that you're conducting a discovery deposition here for use in some other matter. Unless you can provide me with some reasonable basis to show I'm mistaken in that regard and I'll consider the matter with counsel and the client and perhaps allow the inquiry to proceed.
MR. CONLON: Are you finished?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes. BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Did you go down to the lake with that boy?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: The instruction and motion, Rule 30(d)(1) and (3).
Q. Did you try --
MR. CONLON: Are you finished? I'm sorry.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Yes, I'm finished. Rule 30(d)(1) and (3).
Q. Did you ever attempt to drown that boy?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Motion and instructions pursuant to Rule 30(d).
Q. At or around the time of your surgery who were the altar boys that served with you? Knee surgery.
A. I had my knee surgery at St. Joseph's Hospital. I had no altar boys there at all.
Q. I apologize if I was unclear. If I recall correctly, you indicated to me that your knee surgery was in approximately 1993. Do I have that correct?
A. That's right.
Q. All right. At or around 1993 were there altar boys who worked with you?
A. No specific ones.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No specific ones. When I go around the Diocese, the altar boys are supplied by the parishes, and I have nothing to do with getting them or working with them directly; they served as liturgists and that's it.
Q. What about at the Cathedral?
A. At the Cathedral there are altar servers there, boys and girls now, but I have nothing to do with getting them or -- other than going in, having them at the ceremony, and leaving after that, I have nothing to do with them.
Q. So you -- I guess my phrase "your altar boys" doesn't resonate with you; is that where the question is breaking down, sir?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer.
A. I presume you're meaning altar boys at the Cathedral, yes, but I --.
Q. Who were the altar boys at the Cathedral at or around 1993?
A. I wouldn't remember that because I have nothing to, to base that on.
Q. Do you have records reflecting the altar boys at the Cathedral at or around 1993?
A. No.
Q. Does the Diocese or the Chancery or any of the institutions of the church maintain records reflecting the altar boys at or around that time?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection to the form.
A. Not that I know of. There may be some parishes that keep records of who served when, but the Diocese doesn't and the Cathedral does not, as far as I know.
Q. Okay. I apologize again; I'm probably being unclear. I'm trying to focus as to altar boys who would have served with you at the Cathedral at or around 1993. So I can't imagine that the parishes would have records relating to those persons. Do the Cathedral offices, the Chancery, the other institutions in the church maintain records reflecting the identity of the altar boys who served --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- at the Cathedral?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. You may answer.
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Who would know that?
A. In each instance the people in charge of the altar servers that are at the parish or at the Cathedral. I --
Q. Well, --. I'm sorry. Were you finished?
A. And I don't know who that would be in 1993 either.
Q. Let's focus on the Cathedral in 1993.
A. Yes.
Q. Who was in charge of the altar servers or -- I apologize, I've forgotten the phrase you just used, but I keep calling them altar boys. Maybe they're altar boys and girls.
MR. CAPPALLI: Altar servers.
Q. -- altar servers at or around that time?
A. Father Giudice is the Rector of the Cathedral.
Q. Now I'm going to ask for a spelling, sir.
A. Giudice, G-i-u-d-i-c-e.
Q. And where is he?
A. He's the Rector of the Cathedral, lives at the Cathedral residence.
Q. Still.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have an affair with an altar boy at or around that time, 1993?
A. No.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. Apart from my use of the word "affair," did you have any form of sexual contact with an altar boy at or around that time?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Do you know of any altar boy who, having served with you at or around that time, subsequently became depressed?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. I believe, sir, that you indicated that you studied in Canad
A.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you travel to Canada?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. I haven't been in a long time. I think the last time I was there was 1987; I went to Ottawa for a reunion of the alumni, and it was the 40th reunion of the founding of the seminary. I'm pretty sure that's the --. I haven't been there since.
Q. Well, then, going back from '87, approximately how frequently did you go to Canada from let's say the late '70s through '87?
A. That was the only time I went there since I've been a Bishop.
Q. How about before you've been a Bishop; did you go to Canada?
A. Before I was Bishop I was President of the alumni association along in the '60s, so I went to a couple of reunions at that time in Ottawa.
Q. With whom did you go, if anyone?
A. I don't remember. There were some priests from here who went to the '87 reunion, I think, but I'm not sure of who they were.
Q. How about the pre '87 trips; did you go with any person?
A. I would have been with some other priest alumni too.
Q. That's fine. Who, sir?
A. I don't remember exactly who.
Q. Anyone --
A. There were several, several priests who studied there and are alumni, like myself, and I think we went in that group, had some classmates. But that's a long time ago.
Q. Well, can you give me the names, to the best of your ability, sir?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. Asked and answered.
A. I'm not sure who it was. I don't remember those trips that specifically. I, I think it would have been Father Walsh, who is a classmate of mine, and Father Bresnahan, but I don't have any clear recollection of who went with me.
Q. How about anyone who ran a monastery; do you recall going to Canada with someone who ran a monastery?
A. No. Who ran a monastery?
Q. Yes, sir. Was responsible for a monastery.
A. No.
Q. Do you recall going with someone who had a relationship with a monastery other than just running it?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. Have you ever traveled to Hawaii?
A. No.
Q. Now, sir, you recall publicly disavowing a rumor relating to a rest stop?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. Yes.
Q. Directing your attention to the time period around 1984 to 1985, at any time did any person associated with a police department, either Mass. state or Mass. local, have any contact with you relating to your presence at a rest stop?
A. No.
Q. At any point during that period of time were you at a rest stop?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
A. No.
Q. Were you ever at a police station?
A. I visited the police station here in Providence to greet the chief and others at Christmastime; other than that, no.
Q. So is it your testimony, sir, that you've never been at any police facility in Massachusetts?
A. That's right.
Q. Do you know the name of the young man that Father Magaldi split the money with?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. And I'm going to object and instruct you not to answer, Bishop, on the grounds of the Oppenheimer case again. Unless somehow that has any relevance to these cases, --
MR. CONLON: I think it has tremendous relevance.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: -- I'm going to make a motion.
MR. CONLON: All this has relevance,
MR. Murphy.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Fine. We can do it off the record and we can consult about it. I'll be happy to confer with you on it to see if there's some ground on which I might reconsider this. But from what I can see in the context of your Complaint and the examination thus far, what any person and Magaldi, who allegedly split money with each other, has to do with these three Federal cases, I'm going to make the motion. But I'll be glad to confer with you during the break between this session and the next session of the deposition.
MR. CONLON: Well, it's about ten minutes of five,
MR. Murphy, so it would appear that the fates have given us ample time to do our conferring.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Fine.
MR. CONLON: I'm going to take it as an objection and instruction not to answer, have an opportunity to discuss this matter with counsel prior to filing of the motion, and I'm going to move along.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Fine. You've got my 30(b) motion.
MR. CONLON: I'm going to ask the stenographer to mark a document, which is probably kissing good-bye the last ten minutes, but, in any event.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Bishop, you've probably never had such an opportunity to read so many newspaper articles in one afternoon, have you? I wish I could get the chance to read the newspaper at home.
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 13 FOR I.D.:
Four pages of articles appearing in Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly on February 8, 1988.
(Discussion off the record)
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Bishop, you're going to have to read this. It's rather lengthy.
MR. CONLON: I'll just tell you that my questions are not going to be terribly detailed. Just general questions about the fact that such an issue was raised. But do whatever you feel you need to do.
MS. McGUIRL: He reads faster than you do.
THE DEPONENT: Should I read the whole thing now?
MR. CONLON: I'm sorry, what, sir?
THE DEPONENT: Should I read the whole thing now?
MR. CONLON: I can't give you advice. I'm going to ask you a couple of general questions about that. So if you feel comfortable skimming it and seeing whether you can respond to the question, it's fine. Maybe when I ask the question it will proceed --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: You have an appointment --
THE DEPONENT: Yes, I have to go soon.
MS. McGUIRL: We're going to break after this.
MR. CONLON: We're going to get you out of here quite shortly, sir, and we're all going to get back together on the 11th or the 16th, subject to
MR. DeMaria's schedule.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Might I suggest, Tim, just because I know the Bishop has an appointment, that we provide him with a copy of this, and the next question you can ask him, Have you had an opportunity to read the whole thing? I will have had an opportunity to read the whole thing, because I haven't myself, because it's now, by my watch, slightly after five o'clock. It's a multiple-page article from the Lawyers Weekly.
MR. CONLON: I understand that.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Okay? And I'm probably going to tell him not to answer the question because you're going to ask for something that has to do with a legal conclusion on his part. Right?
MR. CONLON: You're asking me "right"?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I know you well enough to know --
MR. CONLON: No, if you think that I think it's right for you to be instructing this witness not to answer because it, quote, calls for a legal conclusion, you're dead wrong. But that's neither here nor there.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I don't know what your question is going to be.
MR. CONLON: Let's just let this nice witness do what he's doing with a piece of paper. Let me pose a question and see if he can answer it. If he can't, let's go from there.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: I don't want him to rush through it.
MR. CONLON: I don't want him to rush.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Why don't you pose your question while it's being read, and I can decide whether it's objectionable or not. BY
MR. CONLON: (Continuing)
Q. Do you recall, sir, the issue of the First Amendment as it relates to the jurisdiction of the civil courts being raised in connection with the earlier O'Connell case?
A. Yes.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
MR. CONLON: Oh.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection. And I instruct you not to answer as to an opinion as to whether it was a motion concerning the jurisdiction of the civil courts as opposed to a 12(b)(6) motion. That's the problem I foresee you're having. You're asking a legal question of a lay witness --
MR. CONLON: Thank you, Jim, let's not argue. Okay?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: -- about types of motions that were filed and issues that were raised.
Q. Do you recall, sir, the First Amendment not succeeding as a defense to the jurisdiction of the civil courts --
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection.
Q. -- in connection with this earlier O'Connell case?
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Objection for the same reasons. You may answer the question.
MR. CONLON: To the extent that you're able, sir.
A. I don't recall that we specifically indicated or that there was any indication that the First Amendment involvement here did not succeed.
MR. CONLON: Why don't we stop there, and we'll pick up at either the 11th or the 16th, subject to MR. DeMaria.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Ten o'clock?
MR. CONLON: The 16th certainly fine. Ten o'clock. We can hear from
MR. DeMaria; the 11th we'll be on at ten.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Very well.
MS. McGUIRL: I think the depo notice was for my office for the next one, but this is a bigger conference room than mine, so why don't we come back here. If that's okay with you?
MR. CONLON: That's fine with me.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Okay. Very well. (The deposition recessed at 5 p.m.)
