STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

Transcription

1 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS SUPERIOR COURT PROVIDENCE, SC. DANIEL HEROUX, and LORI HEROUX, Individually and as Parents and next Friends of their minor children, LEIGH HEROUX, NICHOLAS HEROUX AND DARCY HEROUX, plaintiffs C.A. No. P LOUIS A. GELINEAU, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PROVIDENCE, a Corporation Sole, DANIEL P. REILLY, KENNETH ANGELL, ROBERT CARPENTER, OUR LADY, QUEEN OF MARTYRS CHURCH CORPORATION, and JOHN/JANE DOE 1-250, XYZ CORPORATIONS defendants PLAINTIFF HEREBY CLAIMS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS PROPOSED AMENDED COMPLAINT I. THE PARTIES A. PLAINTIFFS DANIEL HEROUX, LEIGH HEROUX, NICHOLAS HEROUX AND DARCY HEROUX 1. Plaintiff, Daniel Heroux (hereinafter "PLAINTIFF"), is domiciled in and a citizen of the State of Rhode Island. PLAINTIFF was born March 15, 1960, and was a minor when the sexual abuse and exploitation alleged herein

2 commenced. Plaintiffs LEIGH HEROUX, NICHOLAS HEROUX AND DARCY HEROUX (hereinafter the MINOR PLAINTIFFS") are his minor children. 2. As more specifically set forth below, PLAINTIFF, while a minor, was sexually molested by defendant priest, who had opportunities to abuse PLAINTIFF, and did so, by virtue of his position as a Roman Catholic priest under the authority, supervision, employ or control of other defendants identified herein as "HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS" and "PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)". B. HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS 1. Defendant, the ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF PROVIDENCE, A CORPORATION SOLE, and/or its predecessors and/or successors (hereinafter RCB ), is and was at all times material hereto a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Rhode Island, having its principal place of business in Providence, Rhode Island, (a) (b) which corporation s function and/or purpose was in furtherance of Defendant MOST REV. LOUIS E. GELINEAU S interests in his capacity as Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence (the highest officer in the hierarchical government domiciled within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence); and which is a primary corporate entity through which Bishop Gelineau and the Diocese of Providence conducts its business. (See EXHIBIT A-1 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) 2. Defendant, MOST REV. LOUIS E. GELINEAU, sixth bishop of Providence (appointed 12/71, consecrated 1/72 - present), his predecessors and/or -2-

3 successors, (hereinafter GELINEAU ), is and was at all times material hereto the duly appointed Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, and/or the Administrator of, and doing business as, the "Diocese of Providence," and as such Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, ex officio the Defendant RCB, a corporation sole, and ex officio, the President of the corporations, the Parish Corporation Defendant(s), and Defendants XYZ CORPORATIONS. The function of GELINEAU, as the Roman Catholic bishop and highest official representative of the Diocese of Providence, includes but is not limited to the governance of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, with a three-fold power: legislative, executive and judicial. Defendant GELINEAU can personally exercise legislative power; he can exercise judicial power either personally or through a judicial vicar and judges; and he can exercise executive power, including but not limited to the administration of property and personnel policy, either personally or through vicars general or episcopal vicars. Said administrative responsibilities include, but are not limited to the training, hiring, assignment, monitoring and/or supervision of diocesan candidates accepted for admission to the priesthood, seminarians, deacons and priests generally, and priest defendant named herein in particular, and/or the administration/supervision regarding reports or notice of alleged abuse and/or sexual misconduct against Roman Catholic priests within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. Defendant GELINEAU is a domiciliary and citizen of Providence, Rhode Island. 3. Defendant, MOST REV. DANIEL P. REILLY, and/or his predecessor(s), and/or successor(s) (hereinafter "REILLY"), was at all times material hereto an official and member of the hierarchy of the Diocese of Providence, serving in the capacity of Assistant Chancellor ( ), Chancellor ( ), Administrator of the Diocese of Providence (1971) and/or Vicar General ( ), appointed and serving in furtherance of the interests of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence and/or Defendant -3-

4 GELINEAU and/or Defendant, RCB. REILLY became the Roman Catholic Bishop of Norwich, and a domiciliary of Connecticut in 1975, and in 1994 became the Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, and a domiciliary of Massachusetts. 4. Defendant, MOST REV. KENNETH A. ANGELL and/or his predecessor(s) and/or successor(s) (hereinafter ANGELL ), was at all times material hereto an official and member of the hierarchy of the Diocese of Providence, serving in various capacities, in furtherance of the interests of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence and/or Defendants GELINEAU and/or, RCB including but not limited to: Secretary to the Bishop of Providence ( ); Assistant Chancellor ( ); and Chancellor ( ); Vicar General and/or Auxiliary Bishop ( ); and responsible for the Priests Personnel Office and Diocesan Legal Services ( ). Defendant ANGELL was appointed Bishop of Burlington in 1992, and is a domiciliary and citizen of Vermont. 5. Defendants, JOHN/JANE DOE 1-250, and/or their predecessor(s) and/or successor(s) (hereinafter "DOE DEFENDANTS"), were at all times material hereto members and/or "Diocesan Officials" of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, including but not limited to: (a) (b) The Diocesan Curia including but not limited to: the vicar(s) general of the diocese, the episcopal vicars, the chancellor(s), officials of the diocesan tribunal, examiners, consultors, auditors, the officials, promoter of justice and/or the defender(s) of the bond (See EXHIBIT A-2, p. 2, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.); Other officials of the diocese, including but not limited to the council of priests, college of consultors, members and/or directors of diocesan offices ("Diocesan Offices and -4-

5 Directors"), territorial vicars for parochial affairs, vicars forane or deans, and pastors (See EXHIBIT A-2, pp. 1-2); and/or; (c) Other agents, employees and/or servants, subject to the authority of Defendants RCB and/or GELINEAU: responsible for the administration of and/or assisting GELINEAU and/or RCB in the administration of business of within and for the Diocese of Providence, including but not limited to the training, hiring, assignment, monitoring and/or supervision of diocesan candidates accepted for the priesthood, seminarians, deacons and priests generally, and priest defendant named herein in particular; and/or the administration/supervision regarding reports or notice of alleged abuse against Roman Catholic priests within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence; and/or having actual or constructive knowledge of the activities of the priest defendant, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and/or PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS giving rise to this suit. 6. Defendants, XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-250, and/or predecessor(s) and/or successor(s) (hereinafter "XYZ CORPORATIONS"), were at all times material hereto corporations organized under the laws of the State of Rhode Island through which the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence carried on its temporal activities at the parochial and diocesan levels within the Diocese of Providence (State of Rhode Island), under the authority, through the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, of Defendants GELINEAU and/or RCB: a. which corporations' agents, servants and/or employees were responsible for the training, hiring, assignment, monitoring and/or supervision of diocesan candidates accepted for training -5-

6 for the priesthood, seminarians, deacons and priests generally, and priest defendant named herein in particular; b. and/or the administration/supervision regarding reports or notice of alleged abuse against Roman Catholic priests, within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence; c and/or having actual or constructive knowledge of the activities of the priest defendant giving rise to this suit. The activities, policies, practices and affairs of all said corporations, their agents, servants and/or employees are so dominated and controlled by the Defendants RCB and GELINEAU as to make them mere instrumentalities or agents of Defendants RCB and/or GELINEAU. (See EXHIBIT A-3 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) 7. All substantive activities of all Defendants including but not limited to decisions involving finances, property management, purchases, promulgation and/or enforcement of Roman Catholic, diocesan and/or synodal laws, policies, rules or regulations, and the appointment, assignment, maintenance and supervision of diocesan seminarians, sub-deacons, permanent deacons, temporary deacons and priests, are in furtherance of the interests of and/or subject to the direct control of Defendants RCB and GELINEAU. The activities, policies, practices and affairs of all said Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees are so dominated and controlled by the Defendants RCB and GELINEAU as to make them mere instrumentalities or agents of Defendants RCB and/or GELINEAU. 8. The above Defendants, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS". 9. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have the authority and power, either individually or collectively, to take or initiate action to effect suspension of -6-

7 faculties, removal, laicization and/or other termination of a priest, or to deny a priest access to children, if there is reason to believe that the person is morally or otherwise unfit to serve, or poses a threat to the safety of children. C. PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) 1. Defendant, OUR LADY, QUEEN OF MARTYRS CHURCH CORPORATION, and/or its predecessors/successors, is and was at all times material hereto a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Rhode Island, having its principal place of business in WOONSOCKET, RHODE ISLAND, which corporation s function and/or purpose was in furtherance of the interests and under the authority of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and in particular, GELINEAU and RCB. 2. Defendant, OUR LADY, QUEEN OF MARTYRS CHURCH CORPORATION is hereinafter referred to as the "PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)" or "OUR LADY QUEEN OF MARTYRS." 3. PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS, are corporate entities (in addition to Defendant RCB) through which GELINEAU and Defendant RCB, doing business as the Diocese of Providence, conduct business in Our Lady Queen Of Martyrs Parish, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, which day to day PARISH CORPORATION business and operation is conducted by or through a pastor of the parish and officer of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT, either with or without the assistance of an Assistant Pastor, each of whom is appointed, assigned and ratified as such pastor and officer of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT, or appointed and assigned as an assistant pastor, by HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS in general and GELINEAU in particular. 4. The activities, policies, practices and affairs of the PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS are so dominated and controlled by -7-

8 GELINEAU as to make them mere agents or instrumentalities of GELINEAU in furtherance of the interests of RCB. All substantive activities of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS, including but not limited to decisions involving finances, property management, purchases, liturgy, and retention and/or assignment of priests are subject to the direct control of GELINEAU in furtherance of the interests of RCB. 5. GELINEAU, at all times pertinent hereto, was an agent and officer (President) of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS. REILLY and ANGELL, at all times pertinent hereto, were agents and/or delegates of GELINEAU, assisting GELINEAU in supervising and controlling the operation of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS. At all times pertinent hereto, GELINEAU, REILLY and ANGELL were acting within the scope of their employment as agents of and in furtherance of the activities of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS. D. OFFENDING CLERIC ROBERT CARPENTER (PRIEST DEFENDANT) 1. Defendant, ROBERT CARPENTER, ALIAS (hereinafter "PRIEST DEFENDANT"), was at all times material hereto, chronologically, a candidate accepted for seminary admission, an assigned seminarian, deacon, and ordained Roman Catholic diocesan priest, incardinated to the Diocese of Providence, and upon "retirement" a priest pensioner, and subject to the authority of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence. 2. CARPENTIER, as Assistant Pastor of OUR LADY QUEEN OF MARTYRS, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, was an employee, agent and officer of OUR LADY QUEEN OF MARTYRS. He was paid a salary by OUR LADY -8-

9 QUEEN OF MARTYRS. He was responsible for the day-to-day operation of OUR LADY QUEEN OF MARTYRS, in furtherance of the interests of GELINEAU and RCB. PRIEST DEFENDANT'S activities which are typical of a Roman Catholic diocesan priest assigned as Pastor of a parish such as Our Lady Queen of Martyr Parish, Woonsocket, included but were not limited to, interaction with minor altar boys and youth, solicitation of funds and maintaining parish and ST. MARY'S records, in behalf of, in furtherance of the interests of, and at the direction of HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS generally and GELINEAU and/or RCB in particular, and hiring persons, including PLAINTIFF, to do various jobs in behalf of OUR LADY QUEEN OF MARTYRS, (See EXHIBIT A-2). 3. With regard to the incidents which are the subject matter of within complaint, PRIEST DEFENDANT was assigned, appointed, and/or retained in his assignment and/or appointment, by Defendant GELINEAU to, and serving as, Assistant Pastor of the parish Defendant OUR LADY QUEEN OF MARTYRS, in furtherance of the interests of, and subject to the authority of Defendants GELINEAU and/or RCB, and thereafter at other parishes as specified hereinbelow, at all times continuing under the supervision and control of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS. II. JURISDICTION The monetary amount in controversy and those of the acts complained of that occurred within this state, are sufficient to establish jurisdiction and venue in this Court. -9-

10 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges on information and belief: A. INTRODUCTION 1. The Catholic Church in the United States consists of 60 million Catholics and is four times larger than the next largest religious denomination. The Roman Catholic Church, with its affiliated orders and societies, operates one of the largest health care delivery systems and the largest privately operated educational system from kindergarten through graduate school. The Catholic Church in Rhode Island, according to the national Official Catholic Directory, 1994 edition, had a total Catholic population of 645,653 people professing to be Catholics, out of a total population of 1,005,000. It had educational facilities from the pre-school level (7 Day Care Centers) to the graduate level (2 Catholic Colleges and Universities). According to the article referring to the 'Diocese of Providence Economic and Social Impact Information', "Impact Statement," The Providence Visitor July 14, 1994, page 1: "... The document, titled 'Diocese of Providence Economic and Social Impact Information', was prepared by Duffy & Shanley, a public relations firm... the document's major points include: - The diocese is among the top three employers in the state... the diocese reaches almost 57,000 children in the state as part of its religious education programs... Through its youth ministry and summer camp programs, the diocese reaches almost 80,000 young people... " (Emphasis supplied.) 2. By tradition, the public, generally, and Catholics in particular, have been taught to hold priests and bishops in the highest esteem. This attitude of respect is set out by official church teaching on the meaning of the Sacrament of Holy Orders (the diaconate, priesthood and bishopric). The Catechism of the -10-

11 Council of Trent, translated by McHugh and Callan, 1923, contains statements that summarize the laity's understanding of the priesthood: "In the first place, then, the faithful should be shown how great is the dignity and excellence of this sacrament considered in its highest degree, the priesthood. Bishops and priests being, as they are, God's interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly therefore are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God. In all ages priests have been held in the highest honor; yet the priests of the New testament far exceed all others. For the power of consecrating and offering the body and blood of our Lord and of forgiving sins, which has been conferred on them, not only has nothing equal or like it on earth, but even surpasses human reason and understanding." (Emphasis supplied). For these and other reasons relating to the practices of the Hierarchy Defendants, priests, and especially other persons in a leadership position in the Roman Catholic Church, have occupied a great position of trust and allegiance among the parents and youth of this State. 3. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and leaders in the Roman Catholic Church were aware: that due to this position of trust and access to and control over children, homosexual pedophiles, ephebophiles and/or those with psychosexual disorders were attracted to positions in the Roman Catholic priesthood; that there was a high incidence of pedophiles and ephebophiles among priests; -11-

12 that thousands of sexual molestations of minors by priests had occurred; and that certain priests had been convicted for or admitted said sexual molestations. 4. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and leaders in the Roman Catholic Church were aware that pedophiles, ephebophiles and/or those with psychosexual disorders were predatory, recidivistic, mobile, had multiple victims at one time, and gravitated to activities with young persons in order to continue to molest. 5. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and leaders in the Roman Catholic Church were aware that the effects of sexual molestation upon youthful victims could be devastating, and knew that the potential victims were largely naive and ignorant of the reality and prevalence of pedophilia, ephebophilia and/or psychosexual disorders generally, and in the priesthood, particularly. 6. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS knew that many priests in the Diocese of Providence had sexually molested children, and more specifically knew that at least: Rev. Paul Henry Leech was sentenced by a Rhode Island Superior Court Justice in 1985 to serve 3 years at the Rhode Island ACI regarding sexual assaults on 4 boys; Rev. William C. O'Connell (a) was sentenced by a Rhode Island Superior Court Justice in 1986 to 5 years (4 suspended, 1 to serve in a work-release program) with 4 years probation regarding sexual assaults on 3 boys, and (b) was sentenced in -12-

13 1995 to 10 years by a New Jersey court to be served at a treatment center for sex offenders regarding sexual assaults upon minor boys; Rev. James M. Silva pleaded guilty in 1995 to sexually assaulting a youth in 1991, and received a 7-year suspended sentence by a Rhode Island Superior Court Justice; Rev. Joseph A. Abruzzese in 1994 pleaded Nolo Contendere to sexually molesting a boy and was sentenced to probation by a Rhode Island Superior Court Justice; Rev. Robert Marcantonio, in 1970, admitted that he had sexually molested more then a dozen boys beginning in the 1960's; Rev. Msgr. Louis W. Dunn admitted sexual misconduct involving girls to HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS; Rev. Alfred P. Desrosiers admitted sexual misconduct involving a girl to HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS; and Rev. Robert A. Carpentier admitted molesting Daniel Heroux, a plaintiff. 7. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) and PRIEST DEFENDANT(S) are supported by assessments and/or contributions by individual members of the Roman Catholic Church in Rhode Island. 8. Although the corporate HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) hold themselves out as nonprofit entities, exempt from taxation as "charitable institutions," they have used these assessments and contributions in part to amass great wealth, which provides luxury for selected individuals in the hierarchy and the resources to mount sophisticated defenses to suppress scandal regarding the organization. -13-

14 9. It is specifically alleged that HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS solicit funds and conduct business publicly as the "Diocese of Providence". 10. Scandal regarding the "Diocese of Providence," particularly with regard to sexual assaults on children, adversely impacts revenues collected by the church from parishioners. (See EXHIBIT A-4 attached hereto and incorporated by reference). 11. It was and is the policy and practice of the Defendants to secrete the identities, retain the services of, and protect pedophiles, ephebophiles and/or other sexual offenders who are or had been Roman Catholic priests incardinated to and functioning within the Diocese of Providence. 12. It is specifically alleged that Church leaders, including the named Defendants, like tobacco companies who misrepresented the addictive properties of their product, deliberately adopted a policy of public deception: While maintaining that they viewed sexual assaults of children by priests as "moral failings," Defendants professed to be saddened. They claimed that at all times they took "appropriate" steps to detect and prevent such activities. In fact, to protect the reputation and income of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, they treated the sexual assaults of children by priests as scandal that was to be suppressed at any cost, knowing that suppression put the youth of the Diocese of Providence at risk. 13. Suppression of the identity of sexual offenders by Defendants was purposely done to prevent the filing of both criminal and civil complaints in courts of competent jurisdiction, thus enabling further criminal conduct and preventing the diminution of the flow of donated funds. (See EXHIBIT A-4). -14-

15 16. The Roman Catholic Church and its affiliated Orders and Societies operates a large Catholic network of private psychiatric treatment centers and hospitals for the treatment of Catholic priests upon referral by their Bishops or Superiors General. These treatment centers have included the treatment of Catholic priests (including priests of the Diocese of Providence) exhibiting psychosexual disorders including pedophilia and ephebophilia. 17. As further specified, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have used this private treatment system to conceal and suppress the existence of the problem of pedophile priests from the public, and to affirmatively deceive the public by misrepresenting that a priest is "on leave," on "retreat," on "sabbatical" and/or participating in "advanced studies," when in fact he is sent away for evaluation and treatment due to sexual misconduct. 18. In furtherance of their own interests, the primary concern of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS has been the protection of the reputation of priests, including PRIEST DEFENDANT. Defendants have concealed the danger offending clerics present by misrepresenting them as priests in good standing in at least the following ways: Enabling their continued unrestricted access to minors; Assigning and/or allowing them to reside and serve together at parishes in Rhode Island; Allowing them to lead vacation trips including minors without an accompanying parent, both within and without the State of Rhode Island; Allowing them free and unrestricted use of premises of Defendants for otherwise unchaperoned activities with minors; Assigning them to duties specifically involving minors; -15-

16 Replacing certain offending clerics in youth positions with other offending clerics; Announcing to the public, or allowing offending clerics to give the public less disagreeable or less serious reasons for leaving an assignment or position than sexual misconduct; Promoting offending clerics within the church hierarchy; Privately assuring concerned parents that the offending cleric's problems would be "taken care of"; Directing other priests to themselves confidentially report, or direct others to report offending clerics to the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS; Providing and/or subsidizing education, maintenance and/or living arrangements for offending clerics after removal from their assignments or upon their suspensions; and/or continuously listing offending clerics in official Catholic Directories by euphemism, such as "absent on leave," on duty outside Diocese," "advanced studies," "on special assignment" or "retired" after removal from their assignments or suspension for misconduct; or Allowing offending clerics to honorably "retire". 19. The effect of these practices in concert was such as to create the misperception in the mind of plaintiff and plaintiff's family that plaintiff was safe with priests in general and with Defendant Priest in particular, and that, if there was conduct about which plaintiff or plaintiff's family might be concerned, it was an isolated instance of spurious misconduct, when in fact plaintiff was a victim of a known and preventable hazard that defendants had both created and allowed to continue. -16-

17 20. A further effect of these practices gave the impression that PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF'S family could appropriately rely upon the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS to act to protect both their interests and the interests of potential future victims or other children in disciplining an offending cleric, including the PRIEST DEFENDANT for clear misconduct, relying upon Defendants' representations that a priest was in good standing and that GELINEAU and other HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS would always exercise a fiduciary duty towards them. 21. GELINEAU has maintained publicly, and in related litigation that in many instances he was powerless to act or prevent harm. "... There is a common misconception that diocesan bishops are all powerful... The rights, obligations and limitations placed upon bishops devolve from theological concepts and the law of the Roman Catholic Church... the discipline of those upon whom the Sacrament of Holy Orders has been conferred is more complicated and more intertwined with the exercise of faith than plaintiffs and the public at large might think... "Response Brief pp filed in behalf of GELINEAU dated October, 1995 (emphasis added). 22. But if, in fact, GELINEAU's power was not absolute in preventing and/or denying priests continued opportunities to abuse, GELINEAU had and has a clear duty to fully disclose the extent to which his power was limited and the extent to which priests generally, and PRIEST DEFENDANT particularly pose a potential hazard; that is, a clear duty to fully warn parents and children that they must protect themselves from the threat molesting priest present. 23. In instances where GELINEAU had actual knowledge about offending clerics, he failed to warn children and their parents. 24. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS advise, instruct and issue policies and statements to the Catholic faithful and to society in general, including PLAINTIFF, on a wide range of social and political issues. Consequently, these -17-

18 Defendants had and continue to have the duty, the financial ability and the structure to study, advise, warn and instruct regarding a proper response to, as well as the prevention and treatment of, sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, in a systematic and reasonable fashion. 25. All Defendants have a fiduciary relationship with the Catholic laity and their children grounded upon the duty of good faith, fair dealing and the duty to act with the highest degree of trust and confidence. This fiduciary relationship includes the duty to warn, and to disclose, and protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation by Catholic priests whom these Defendants promote as being the "celibate and chaste" representatives of God on Earth. Plaintiff and plaintiff's family had the right to rely, and did rely on the representation of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH CHURCH DEFENDANTS that its priests, including PRIEST DEFENDANT, was a priest "in good standing," and the right to expect that the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH CHURCH DEFENDANTS would not tolerate criminal misconduct that represented a known threat to children, by its priests including PRIEST DEFENDANT. (See EXHIBIT A-5 attached hereto and incorporated by reference). B. THE "DIOCESE OF PROVIDENCE" 1. Defendant GELINEAU (including his predecessors) had the ultimate responsibility to supervise and/or control the diocesan Roman Catholic clergy including seminarians, deacons and priests, within the State of Rhode Island (see EXHIBIT A-6 attached hereto and incorporated by reference). Only by GELINEAU'S authority, as the duly appointed Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, were such priests to be assigned and/or removed from their assignments, according to a letter from GELINEAU (the text of which was -18-

19 published in The Providence Visitor , p. 2) to parishioners who requested a voice in the assignment of priests to their parish: "Dear... In all of this, I am deeply aware of my responsibility as Bishop of the Diocese.... 'The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their "counsels, exhortations and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power which indeed they exercise exclusively for the spiritual development of their flock...' (Decree on the Church, III, 27)... The pastors and their assistants are the extension of the Bishop in the individual parishes to which they are assigned. It is the prerogative of the bishop, according to Church law, to freely assign diocesan priests as pastors and as assistant pastors.... In all cases, the priests who share the ministry of this Diocese with me are accountable to me by virtue of their solemn promise of obedience and respect and my responsibility as chief shepherd...." s/ Louis E. Gelineau, Bishop of Providence (Emphasis supplied). 2. GELINEAU thus had the responsibility to ensure that assignment of such priests, incardinated and/or belonging to the Diocese of Providence, did not pose a hazard or potential hazard, to others. Priests assigned by GELINEAU to assist him in the administration of the Diocese of Providence, in furtherance of the interests of RCB, included clergy DOE DEFENDANTS, including but not limited to pastors and assistant pastors, as well as officials and members of the Diocesan Curia, so-called, comprised of various offices or positions including but not limited to Vicar General and Chancellor (all with an obligation to receive and pass on to higher officials allegations of abuse by priests). (See EXHIBIT A-7 attached hereto and incorporated by reference). 3. Serving as higher officials, including the Bishop from the late 1940's to the present were: THE BISHOP OF PROVIDENCE BISHOP: from 7-48 to 8-71 McVINNEY, Most Rev. Russell J. (Deceased August, 1971) -19-

20 ADMINISTRATOR of the DIOCESE From 8-71 to 1-72 BISHOP: From 1-72 to the present CO-ADJUTOR BISHOP From 2-95 to the present REILLY, Rev. Daniel P. GELINEAU, Most Rev. Louis E. MULVEE, Most Rev. Robert E. VICAR GENERAL 1 VICAR GENERAL: From 1948 to 6-57 VICAR GENERAL: to CO-VICARS GENERAL from to CO-VICARS GENERAL From to 6-67 From to 6-71 VICAR GENERAL From 4-72 to 8-74 CO-VICARS GENERAL: From 8-74 to 8-75 From 8-74 to BLESSING, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Peter E. (deceased 6-57) CLARKE, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Matthew F. CLARKE, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Matthew F. DRURY, Rt. Rev. John L. DRURY, Rt. Rev. John L. (deceased) KELLY, Most Rev. Bernard M. (resigned priesthood) REILLY, Rev. Msgr. Daniel P. REILLY, Rev. Msgr. Daniel P. (became Bishop, Norwich, Connecticut) ANGELL, Rev. Msgr. Kenneth A. (became Bishop of Burlington, Vermont) 1 A Vicar General holds the highest office in a Roman Catholic diocese under the bishop. A Vicar General is a bishop or priest appointed to participate in the executive (administrative) governance of the diocese with executive jurisdiction as a deputy of the diocesan bishop. In that capacity, a Vicar General assists the bishop in the government and administration of the diocese, exercising ordinary jurisdiction in the bishop's name, and is able to represent the bishop and substitute for the bishop in both spiritual and temporary matters, limited only by law(canon) or by the will of the bishop. -20-

21 CO-VICARS GENERAL: From to 2-95 CO-VICARS GENERAL: From 2-95 to the present VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I. MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R. VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I. MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R. MULVEE, Most Rev. Robert E. CO-ADJUTOR BISHOP CHANCELLOR 2 CHANCELLOR: From 1948 to 1951 CHANCELLOR: From 1951 to 1952 CHANCELLOR: From 1952 to 1964 MURRAY, Very Rev. Msgr. William F. VICE -CHANCELLOR: DUNN, Rev. Louis W. 3 MAHONEY, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Charles H. Asst. Chancellor: DUNN, Rev. Louis W. MURRAY, Very Rev Msgr. Wm.\ Vice Chancellor: DUNN, Rev. Msgr. Louis W. with Assistant Chancellors: VARSANYI, Rev. Vilmos I. & REILLY, Rev. Daniel P.('55-'64) 2 The office of the chancellor (or the chancery) evolved from the practice in the early Church of appointing an official to sign and preserve the letters of the bishop. The first function of the chancellor in the present day is gathering, arranging, and safeguarding the acts of the diocesan curia. Dispensations and other official documents also originate from the chancery. In many dioceses, the chancellor continues to exercise ordinary jurisdiction, as delegated by the diocesan bishop and may be assisted by a separate official, the vice-chancellor. 3 State of Rhode Island v. Louis W. Dunn, criminal case pending (sexual assault of Lucille (Forcier) Farr, approximately 1966, at Christ the King Parish); Hutnak v. Dunn, et als, PC (sexual assaults beginning approximately 1967 St. Thomas' Church, Manton (Prov.); Ryan v. Dunn, et als, PC (sexual assaults beginning approximately , St. Thomas' Church, Manton); State of Rhode Island v. Louis W. Dunn, criminal case pending, sexual assaults of Mary Ryan. Although the foregoing criminal cases are unadjudicated, Dunn has admitted sexual misconduct with females. -21-

22 CHANCELLOR: From 1965 to 1972 CHANCELLOR: From 6-72 to 6-74 CO-CHANCELLORS: From 1974 to CO-CHANCELLORS: From 1-78 to CHANCELLOR: ASST. CHANCELLORS: CO-CHANCELLORS: From 1993 to present REILLY, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Daniel P. (9-3-68) Assistant Chancellor & Secretary to the Bishop: ANGELL, Rev. Kenneth A. ANGELL, Rev. Msgr. Kenneth A. BOURESSA, Rev. Donald J. MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R. From 8-74 to 1977 VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. Wm. MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R. 4 VARSANYI, Rev Msgr. William I. PAGE, Rev. Russell B. BRASSARD, 5 Rev. Ronald E. VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I. EVANS, Rev. Msgr. Robert C. 4. Defendant REILLY became a domiciliary of Connecticut in August, 1975 and subsequently, of Massachusetts. Defendant REILLY was the "bridge" highest diocesan official between Bishop McVinney and GELINEAU, serving as Administrator of the Diocese of Providence from approximately 8-71 to Defendant REILLY, appointed as Vicar General by GELINEAU , was also the diocesan official next highest to GELINEAU, and had the delegated authority from GELINEAU (said defendant includes "predecessors") regarding assignments of priests until REILLY left the State of Rhode Island. Defendant ANGELL was appointed by GELINEAU to the office Vicar General August, 1974, serving edition, OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DIRECTORY, "On Duty Outside Diocese: MATANO, Salvatore R., Gregorian Univ., Casa Santa Maria". 5 Brassard is the named defendant accused of child molestation in the matter of Kevin J. Mohr v Catholic Diocese of Belleville, Inc., Father Ron Brassard, et al, filed April, 1995 in Circuit Court Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County. -22-

23 thereafter concurrently with REILLY as Co-Vicars General until REILLY'S appointment as Bishop of Norwich. 5. GELINEAU and other HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have held themselves out as acting on behalf of the "DIOCESE OF PROVIDENCE" (See EXHIBIT A-8 attached hereto and incorporated by reference), while maintaining the fiction that no such legally cognizable entity exists. C. HISTORY OF DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE AND MISREPRESENTATIONS 1. PLAINTIFF alleges that at some time in the past, but at least by the 1960's 6, numerous Roman Catholic bishops in dioceses across the United States, including these Defendants, were aware or should reasonably have been aware that Catholic clerics were sexually abusing children and that these clerics tended to reoffend. 2. PLAINTIFF alleges that Bishops, including these Defendants, were aware that Catholic priests gained access to these children as a direct result of their status and responsibilities as Catholic clerics. 3. The Servants of the Paraclete, (hereinafter "THE SERVANTS") operate a private Catholic Treatment Center for priests with "behavioral disorders," to which at least one Rhode Island offending cleric (Father James Silva) was sent for evaluation and/or treatment. 4. Many years ago, THE SERVANTS spoke of the danger child molesters pose to parishes. 6 The specific date remains unknown to PLAINTIFF, but is known to the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS. To date the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have withheld this information from PLAINTIFF. -23-

24 5. In 1957, Father Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the SERVANTS, advised Archbishop Edwin Byrne in writing not to offer "hospitality" to men "who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls," stating: "These men are devils, your Excellency, and the wrath of God is upon them, and if I were a Bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization." (removal from the priesthood.) (See EXHIBIT A-9 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) 6. In order to protect children, THE SERVANTS purchased an island upon which it intended to isolate pedophile priests. (See EXHIBIT A-10 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) 7. Despite the forseeability of the interaction with and sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and the duty to act, these Defendants have failed to act in a reasonable and prudent manner to address and warn of this danger to children, including but not limited to Catholic children. 8. Defendants can be linked to a national scheme to cover-up abuse in the Church at least as far back as Officials of the Diocesan Curia of the Diocese of Providence, and in particular Defendant ANGELL, one of HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, attended a highly confidential pedophilia conference where ANGELL "spoke from the vantage point of one who had such problem priests, 7 " and where attendees received what was intended to be a secret report on the issue of pedophilia and Roman Catholic priests. The meeting was held in Minnesota. The report was given to bishops in the United States with this cautionary instruction: The national press has an active interest in items discussed herein, and therefore, an abundance of caution is required. It is requested that each reader return the document to the person from 7 See EXHIBIT A-11 and A-12 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. -24-

25 whom they received same, without copying. It is requested that no copy be retained by the reader. The rationale for this request is the great interest of the press. Over the last two weeks there has been national press coverage of the problem and that coverage is increasing. Security for the entire Project is extremely important. (Emphasis supplied). 9. The report was prepared for the National Catholic Conference of Bishops (NCCB) and the United States Catholic Conference (USCC) by representatives of the Vatican Embassy/Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C., St. Luke's Treatment Center, and an attorney representing a priest sex offender. The report, among other things, warned the bishops of the extent of the problem, the harm to children caused by priest sex abuse, and the need for pastoral efforts including therapy and counseling to minimize the emotional, physical and psychological damage to victims. 10. The 92-page internal report to American Bishops on pedophilia discussed many issues, including financial ramifications. 11. The report (entitled "The problem with sexual molestation by Roman Catholic clergy: Meeting the problem in a comprehensive and responsible manner." Unpublished 1985, F. Ray Mouton, J.D., Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., and Rev. Michael Peterson, MD.) recommended to the United States Catholic Conference and to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, of which GELINEAU, ANGELL and REILLY were members, that they take concerted action to address this issue. Plaintiff alleges that such concerted action was not taken. 12. From at least the 1950's and thereafter, Defendants, despite actual as well as constructive knowledge of complaints of sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic priests of the Diocese of Providence, individually as well as acting jointly and with others, breached their duty of care to the then minor PLAINTIFF and others. Further, these Defendants acted recklessly and/or willfully to protect the -25-

26 reputation of the Roman Catholic Church rather than the safety of the children entrusted to their care, ignored, concealed and/or pretended to be unaware of the existence of priest sexual abuse of children in order to avoid public exposure of the problem, and tortiously engaged and in many instances continue to tortiously engage in a pattern of conduct which has included the following: (a) (b) (c) On discovery of an offending cleric's sexual misconduct, concealed said knowledge, failed to timely if not immediately report, and prevailed upon others not to report said misconduct to law enforcement authorities; improperly used their power, influence or authority, to coerce and/or dissuade criminal prosecution of and/or civil law suits against offending clerics; Falsely assured parishioners, law enforcement, state or court officials, and/or others, expressly and/or impliedly, that Defendants would responsibly deal with offending clerics; falsely promised reviews/investigations and falsely promised to take preventive measures against further harm; Ignored, and/or failed to properly investigate complaints; compounded harm when victims, their families, and other priests brought complaints to high church officials to whom they looked to for guidance, protection and care, (1) by sending them away and insisting they gather "proof," and (2) by otherwise harassing or intimidating them; (d) (e) Suppressed the results of said "investigations" including instances where the offending cleric admitted or acknowledged the sexual abuse; Failed to maintain records of offenders and complaints; covered up and kept complaints secret including the suppression and/or spoliation of evidence regarding same; -26-

27 (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) Engaged in the sealing of records of civil litigation and civil settlements and in the removal of materials from court files including pre-trial discovery materials which identified offending clerics and reflected affirmative tortious conduct on the part of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS; Transferred and/or re-assigned the offending cleric to a new parish thereby exposing a new population of children to unreasonable risk of injury; Maintained the offending cleric at a parish or in a clerical position with the benefit of his priestly authority, where he would have access to and subsequently molest other minors; Despite knowledge of his prior misconduct and/or after secretly securing evaluation/treatment of the offending cleric at churchoperated treatment facilities (while misrepresenting the true reason for his absence in Official Catholic Directories), allowed the offending cleric to return to various assignments, temporary as well as permanent, and/or conferred further privilege, prestige and power to the offending cleric by way of promotion; Assigned, maintained and/or permitted offending clerics to reside and/or serve at the same parish together, or serve in the same diocesan youth programs together, and/or otherwise permitted offending clerics to participate together as priests in settings where it was foreseeable they would come in contact with youths; Failed to take appropriate action to suspend or remove offending clerics from their duties; Falsely held offending clerics out as a safe, competent, and moral priest, fit and/or suitable to serve and/or minister to parishioners and/or others with whom he would reasonably come into contact in the course and scope of his employment and agency, including minors, thereby allowing the priest to deceive parents into believing that a child molester, disguised in priestly garb, was no different than any other priest; -27-

28 (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) Failed to propose proper guidelines for the selection, maintenance, supervision, and retention of priests; Failed to properly investigate, propose and implement policies to understand and help prevent priest sex abuse; Failed to propose and implement policies to give primary assistance to victims; Falsely represented that Defendants actively assist in the criminal investigation and prosecution of priest sex offenders, instead gave refuge and defense to offending clerics; and Otherwise failed to warn parishioners and/or others with whom the offending cleric would reasonably come into contact in the course and scope of his employment and agency. 13. By virtue of the above pattern of conduct and practices the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS: (a) Deliberately interfered with the ability of the victims, including PLAINTIFF, to identify the cause of his injuries; (b) Concealed from PLAINTIFF his claim against the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S); (c) (d) Misrepresented to PLAINTIFF or otherwise by fraud concealed and or withheld facts which they had a duty to disclose constituting the basis of such claims; and Otherwise, through practices of intimidation, duress and deception, delayed PLAINTIFF from bringing this action. 14. PLAINTIFF alleges an ongoing conspiracy among these Defendants and others in the Catholic hierarchy, in existence before this incident and continuing to the present, which was designed to cover up and prevent public exposure of the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clerics. -28-

29 15. The actions of Defendants outlined in this case are quite similar to actions taken in other cases throughout the United States, all evidence of a common plan and a meeting of the minds regarding how to suppress incidents of priest sexual assaults, ignore the needs of the victims, and avoid public exposure and responsibility. 16. The result of this conspiracy has been to allow these incidents to occur when it could have been prevented, to inflict further severe emotional and physical harm on plaintiffs and fraudulently conceal from plaintiff the true facts of this and related cases. 17. As of the date of this writing; (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) At least 6 priests or former priests of the Diocese of Providence have been indicted and/or convicted of sexual crimes against minors.; At least 3 priests or former priests of the Diocese of Providence admitted sexual misconduct with minors to HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS; At least 2 other priests are believed to be under State Police investigation for sexual misconduct with minors; At least 12 priests or former priests of the Diocese of Providence have been named as defendants in civil actions regarding sexual abuse of minors, some also providing alcohol to minor plaintiffs for the express purpose of getting the minors intoxicated and/or providing pornography and other lewd material to such minors. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and various PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) have been named as co-defendants in those civil actions. Plaintiff alleges that the identity of other offending clerics is known to Defendants through other litigation, settlements, or otherwise. -29-

30 18. The aforementioned pattern of tortious conduct/conspiracy, fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation, regarding offending clerics commenced under the tenure of Bishop McVinney and REILLY, and continues into the present under the tenure of GELINEAU (as corporate and ecclesiastical head of the Diocese of Providence). 19. To date, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, have never divulged to plaintiff the full history of the PRIEST DEFENDANT'S misconduct, the full scope of their prior knowledge regarding such misconduct, their investigation of such misconduct (or other activities in connection with same) and their role in withholding and/or suppressing the results of those investigations or activities. 20. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, have never divulged to plaintiff, to the public, and to other victims of abuse at the hands of their priests, the full breadth of such abuse within the Diocese of Providence. 21. From the media, and from public documents listing the names of offending clerics who have served as Rhode Island priests, or identifying those named as defendants alleged to have sexually abused minors, plaintiff can identify the following instances in which there should have been investigation by HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS into allegations of priest misconduct, but the results of such investigation, if any by HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, have not yet been disclosed: -30-

31 LIST OF IDENTIFIABLE CIVIL/CRIMINAL RI CLERGY MOLESTATION CASES John Smith v. John Brown, et als, PC, Doe (Heroux) v. Carpentier, et als, CA Doe v. D'Angelo, CA Lewis v. Desrosiers, et als, PC Guilbault v. Desrosiers, et als, PC State of RI v. Desrosiers, et als, case pending Hutnak, et als, v. Dunn, et als, PC Ryan, et als v. Dunn, et als, PC State of RI v. Dunn, criminal case pending State of RI v Dunn, criminal case pending Bragg v. LaMountain, et als, C.A Egan v. LaMountain, et als, C.A Turenne v. LaMountain, et als, CA State of RI v. Paul Henry Leech (criminal case disposed, 1985) (TRM, JR.) v. Paul Henry Leech, et als, PC Dooley v. Lepire, et als, PC Doe (JZ) v. Marcantonio, et als, PC Doe (PT) v. Marcantonio, et als, PC Mambro v. Marcantonio, et als, PC Marchione v. Marcantonio, et als, PC Almonte v. Marcantonio, et als, PC Identified to plaintiffs solely through discovery in connection with the matter of Craig Perrin v. Father Robert Marcantonio, et al; USDCT, IOWA, C.A. No ADMITTED MISCONDUCT TO SUPERIORS IN HIERARCHY ADMITTED MISCONDUCT TO SUPERIORS IN HIERARCHY INDICTED ADMITTED MISCONDUCT TO SUPERIORS IN HIERARCHY INDICTED INDICTED related State Police Investigations believed pending CONVICTED related State Police Investigation believed pending Plaintiffs know that Hierarchy Defendants have a letter from Marcantonio's psychiatrist confirming Marcantonio's admission of homosexual involvement with a -31-