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 phrased it 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 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