Edwardo V Gelineau Complaint 190930

Case Number: PC-2019-09894
Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court

Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPERIOR COURT PROVIDENCE, SC.
PHILIP EDWARDO,
Plaintiff
C.A. No. _______________
LOUIS A. GELINEAU, THE ROMAN PLAINTIFF

HEREBY
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CLAIMS A
PROVIDENCE, a Corporation Sole, TRIAL BY JURY
THOMAS TOBIN, ST. ANTHONY ON ALL
CHURCH CORPORATION NORTH COUNTS
PROVIDENCE, and JOHN/JANE
DOE 1-250, XYZ CORPORATIONS
1-250
Defendants
COMPLAINT
I. THE PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFF, PHILIP EDWARDO
1. PLAINTIFF, PHILIP EDWARDO, (hereinafter "PLAINTIFF"), is

domiciled in and a citizen of the State of Florida. PLAINTIFF was born October
2, 1966, and was a minor when the sexual abuse and exploitation alleged herein
commenced.
2. As more specifically set forth below, PLAINTIFF, while a minor, was
sexually molested by PHILIP MAGALDI, then a priest incardinated to the Diocese
of Providence, who at all times relevant hereto, acted 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)."
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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) 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
(b) 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 – 1997), his predecessors and/or
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,
(the ‘Ordinary’) includes but is not limited to the governance of the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Providence, with a three-fold power: legislative, executive and
-2-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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 OFFENDING CLERIC 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
Rhode Island.
3. Defendant, MOST REV. THOMAS TOBIN, (hereinafter "TOBIN"),
was as of April of 2005, a successor to GELINEAU, the Roman Catholic Bishop
of Providence, and a domiciliary of Rhode Island, and at all times material hereto
an official and member of the hierarchy of the Diocese of Providence, serving in
the capacity of Ordinary as set forth above, and assuming the roles previously held
by Bishop Mulvee and GELINEAU .
4. 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) 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)
-3-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
of the bond (See EXHIBIT A-2, p. 2, attached hereto and

incorporated by reference.);
(b) 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
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 OFFENDING
CLERIC 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 OFFENDING CLERIC, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
and/or PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS giving rise
to this suit.
5. 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
-4-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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
for the priesthood, seminarians, deacons and priests generally,
and OFFENDING CLERIC 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 OFFENDING CLERIC 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.)
6. 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
-5-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
make them mere instrumentalities or agents of Defendants RCB and/or

GELINEAU.
7. The above Defendants, and the Parish Corporation defendant,
identified below, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS".
8. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have the authority and power,
either individually or collectively, to take or initiate action to effect suspension of
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.
9. Notwithstanding, the HEIRARCY DEFENDANTS, acting in concert
with diocesan officials elsewhere in the country, instead acted to protect
themselves and the institution, and did so with a series of measures that protected
and enabled the offending clerics, as set forth more fully herein.
10. Their conduct as more fully set forth herein is such as to give rise to
criminal culpability as perpetrators of the abuse of children within the meaning of
GL §9-1-51.
C. PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)
1. DEFENDANT, ST. ANTHONY CHURCH CORPORATION

NORTH PROVIDENCE, 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 North Providence, 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.
-6-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
2. DEFENDANT, ST. ANTHONY CHURCH CORPORATION is

hereinafter referred to as the "PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)" or
"ST. ANTHONY CHURCH."
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 ST. ANTHONY
CHURCH Parish, North Providence, 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
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. At all times pertinent
hereto, GELINEAU, was acting within the scope of their employment as agents of
and in furtherance of the activities of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANTS.
-7-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
D. OFFENDING CLERIC
PHILIP MAGALDI
1. PHILIP MAGALDI, ALIAS (hereinafter MIGALDI or the

"OFFENDING CLERIC"), 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. MAGALDI is publically listed by
the HEIRARCHY DEFENDANTS as “credibly accused” of child sexual abuse,
with the notation – “Removed from Ministry 5/6/1992.”
2. MAGALDI, as Pastor of ST. ANTHONY CHURCH, North
Providence, Rhode Island, was an employee, agent and officer of ST. ANTHONY
CHURCH. He was paid a salary by ST. ANTHONY CHURCH. He was
responsible for the day-to-day operation of ST. ANTHONY CHURCH, in
furtherance of the interests of GELINEAU and RCB. OFFENDING CLERIC'S
activities which are typical of a Roman Catholic diocesan priest assigned as Pastor
of a parish such as ST. ANTHONY Parish, included but were not limited to,
interaction with minor altar boys and youth, solicitation of funds and maintaining
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 ST. ANTHONY CHURCH, (See EXHIBIT A-2).
3. With regard to the incidents which are the subject matter of within
complaint, OFFENDING CLERIC 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 ST. ANTHONY CHURCH, in
-8-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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 the residency of the defendants are
sufficient to establish jurisdiction and venue in this Court.
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
-9-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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
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.
-10-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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;
• that thousands of sexual molestations of minors by priests had

occurred; and
• that certain priests had been convicted for or admitted said

sexual molestations.

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.
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.
-11-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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
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 a minor child,
plaintiff in another action.
-12-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
7. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, PARISH CORPORATION

DEFENDANT(S) and OFFENDING CLERIC(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.
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
-13-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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. 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.
15. 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, as to the OFFENDING CLERIC in this
instance, he was, upon information and believe, transferred to Texas to ‘study
Spanish.’
16. In furtherance of their own interests, the primary concern of the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS has been the protection of the reputation of priests,
including OFFENDING CLERIC. Defendants have concealed the danger
-14-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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;
• 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"
-15-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
or "retired" after removal from their assignments or suspension

for misconduct; or
• Allowing offending clerics to honorably "retire".
17. 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.
18. 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 OFFENDING CLERIC 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.
19. 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. 13-14 filed in
behalf of GELINEAU dated October, 1995 (emphasis added).
-16-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
20. 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 OFFENDING CLERIC 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.
21. In instances where GELINEAU had actual knowledge about
offending clerics, he failed to warn children and their parents.
22. 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
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.
23. 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
OFFENDING CLERIC, 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,
-17-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
by its priests including OFFENDING CLERIC. (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
published in The Providence Visitor 8-3-78, 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
-18-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
interests of RCB, 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: McVINNEY, Most Rev. Russell J. (Deceased

from 7-48 to 8-71 August, 1971)
ADMINISTRATOR of the REILLY, Rev. Daniel P.

DIOCESE From 8-71 to 1-72
BISHOP: GELINEAU, Most Rev. Louis E.

From 1-72 to the present
CO-ADJUTOR BISHOP MULVEE, Most Rev. Robert E.

From 2-95 to the June 11,
1997, and BISHOP thereafter
to May 31, 2005
BISHOP –to present TOBIN, Most Rev. Robert E.
VICAR GENERAL1
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.
-19-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
VICAR GENERAL: BLESSING, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Peter E.

From 1948 to 6-57 (deceased 6-57)
VICAR GENERAL: CLARKE, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Matthew F.
to 10-63
CO-VICARS GENERAL CLARKE, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Matthew F.
from 10-63 to 12-64 DRURY, Rt. Rev. John L.
CO-VICARS GENERAL DRURY, Rt. Rev. John L.
From 12-64 to 6-67 (deceased)
From 12-64 to 6-71 KELLY, Most Rev. Bernard M.
(resigned priesthood)
VICAR GENERAL REILLY, Rev. Msgr. Daniel P.

From 4-72 to 8-74
CO-VICARS GENERAL: REILLY, Rev. Msgr. Daniel P.

From 8-74 to 8-75 (became Bishop, Norwich, Connecticut)
From 8-74 to 10-92 ANGELL, Rev. Msgr. Kenneth A.

(became Bishop of Burlington, Vermont)
CO-VICARS GENERAL: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I.

From 10-92 to 2-95 MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R.
CO-VICARS GENERAL: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I.

From 2-95 to the present MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R.
MULVEE, Most Rev. Robert E.

CO-ADJUTOR BISHOP
CHANCELLOR2
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.
-20-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
CHANCELLOR: MURRAY, Very Rev. Msgr. William F.

From 1948 to 1951 VICE -CHANCELLOR:
DUNN, Rev. Louis W.3
CHANCELLOR: MAHONEY, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Charles H.
From 1951 Asst. Chancellor: DUNN, Rev. Louis W.
to 1952
CHANCELLOR: MURRAY, Very Rev Msgr. Wm.\
From 1952 to 1964 Vice Chancellor:
DUNN, Rev. Msgr. Louis W.
with Assistant Chancellors:
VARSANYI, Rev. Vilmos I. &
REILLY, Rev. Daniel P.('55-'64)
CHANCELLOR: REILLY, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Daniel P.

From 1965 (9-3-68) Assistant Chancellor & Secretary to
to 1972 the Bishop: ANGELL, Rev. Kenneth A.
CHANCELLOR: ANGELL, Rev. Msgr. Kenneth A.

From 6-72 to 6-74
CO-CHANCELLORS: BOURESSA, Rev. Donald J.
From 1974 to 12-77 MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R.
From 8-74 to 1977
CO-CHANCELLORS: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. Wm.

From 1-78 to 1992 MATANO, Rev. Msgr. Salvatore R.4
1981 VARSANYI, Rev Msgr. William I. PAGE,

CHANCELLOR: Rev. Russell B.
ASST. CHANCELLORS: BRASSARD,5 Rev. Ronald E.
3 State of Rhode Island v. Louis W. Dunn, criminal case (sexual assault of Lucille
(Forcier) Farr, approximately 1966, at Christ the King Parish); Hutnak v. Dunn, et als, PC 95-
1294 (sexual assaults beginning approximately 1967 St. Thomas' Church, Manton (Prov.); Ryan
v. Dunn, et als, PC 95-6524 (sexual assaults beginning approximately 1976-77, St. Thomas'
Church, Manton); State of Rhode Island v. Louis W. Dunn, criminal case, sexual assaults of Mary
Ryan. Dunn has admitted sexual misconduct with females.
4
1981 edition, OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DIRECTORY, "On Duty Outside Diocese:
MATANO, Salvatore R. , Gregorian Univ., Casa Santa Maria".
-21-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
CO-CHANCELLORS: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I.

From 1993 to present EVANS, Rev. Msgr. Robert C.
4. 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.
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-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
C. HISTORY OF DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE AND

MISREPRESENTATIONS
1. PLAINTIFF alleges that at some time in the past, but at least by the
1960's6, 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 re-
offend.
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.
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 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-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
6. In order to protect children, THE SERVANTS purchased an island

upon which it intended to isolate pedophile priests. (See EXHIBIT A-10 attached
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 1985. 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
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.,
7 See EXHIBIT A-11 and A-12 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
-24-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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
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:
-25-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) 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) Suppressed the results of said "investigations" including
instances where the offending cleric admitted or acknowledged
the sexual abuse;
(e) Failed to maintain records of offenders and complaints; covered
up and kept complaints secret including the suppression and/or
spoliation of evidence regarding same;
(f) 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;
(g) Transferred and/or re-assigned the offending cleric to a new
parish thereby exposing a new population of children to
unreasonable risk of injury;
-26-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
(h) 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;
(i) Despite knowledge of his prior misconduct and/or after secretly
securing evaluation/treatment of the offending cleric at church-
operated 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;
(j) 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;
(k) Failed to take appropriate action to suspend or remove
offending clerics from their duties;
(l) 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;
(m) Failed to propose proper guidelines for the selection,
maintenance, supervision, and retention of priests;
(n) Failed to properly investigate, propose and implement policies
to understand and help prevent priest sex abuse;
(o) Failed to propose and implement policies to give primary
assistance to victims;
-27-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
(p) 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
(q) 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) 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
(d) 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.
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.
-28-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
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) At least 6 priests or former priests of the Diocese of Providence

have been indicted and/or convicted of sexual crimes against
minors.;
(b) At least 3 priests or former priests of the Diocese of Providence
admitted sexual misconduct with minors to HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS;
(c) On information and believe other priests are believed to be
under State Police investigation for sexual misconduct with
minors;
(d) 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.
(e) Plaintiff alleges that the identity of other offending clerics is
known to Defendants through other litigation, settlements, or
otherwise.
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 under the tenure of
GELINEAU (as corporate and ecclesiastical head of the Diocese of Providence).
-29-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
19. To date, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, have never divulged to

plaintiff the full history of the OFFENDING CLERIC'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. Although the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have withheld complete
information regarding priest misconduct and their role in connection with same,
plaintiff, on information and believe, provides the following specific examples
indicative of this pattern of inaction or silence, when DEFENDANTS had an
obligation to speak or act, and pattern of affirmative tortious conduct including,
misrepresentation and deceit of plaintiff, inducing plaintiff to rely to plaintiffs'
disadvantage:
-30-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. ROBERT A. CARPENTIER

(hereinafter "CARPENTIER")
1. Rev. ROBERT A. CARPENTIER, (hereinafter "CARPENTIER"), at

all times material hereto, was, chronologically, a candidate accepted for seminary
admission, an assigned seminarian, deacon, and ordained Roman Catholic diocesan
priest, incardinated to the Diocese of Providence, under the direct authority,
supervision, employ and/or control of the HIERARCHY and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S). (See EXHIBIT A-6 pp. 32-33 attached
2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that CARPENTIER was a
homosexual pedophile and/or ephebophile who made sexual advances toward
minor boys under the pretext of his duties as priests, HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS continued to reassign and/or promote CARPENTIER to positions
with access to minor boys.
3. In June, 1967, CARPENTIER was assigned as Assistant Pastor at St.
Clare's Parish, Misquamicut
4. In September, 1967, CARPENTIER was transferred from St. Clare's
Parish to Assistant Pastor at Precious Blood Parish Woonsocket.
5. In September, 1969, CARPENTIER was transferred from Precious
Blood Parish to Assistant Pastor at St. Agatha's Parish, Woonsocket.
6. In September, 1973, CARPENTIER was transferred from St. Agatha's
Parish to Assistant Pastor, Our Lady Queen of Martyrs, Woonsocket.
7. Beginning in 1973-1974, and thereafter, CARPENTIER sexually
molested a young boy, then age 13-14, at OUR LADY OF QUEEN OF
MARTYRS, Woonsocket.
-31-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
8. In April of 1975, CARPENTIER was selected along with

MARCANTONIO (about whom HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS had received
notice regarding sexual abuse of minors in 1970); and O'CONNELL (about whom
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS had received notice regarding sexual abuse of a
minor boy in 1970) to assist MICARELLI (time to time Diocesan Scout Chaplain,
offending cleric named in 7 civil law suits for sexual molestation of minor boys) at
a Yawgoog Boy Scout Camp "Camp-o-reet" (a combination camping and spiritual
retreat for young boys).
9. At some time at or around that year, CARPENTIER was reassigned to
a parish in Newport, and then again to a parish in North Providence.
10. In the 1980's, CARPENTIER was promoted to the position of Pastor,
St. Theresa of the Child Jesus Parish in Burrillville, where he invited SILVA (since
convicted for sexually assaulting a boy) to substitute for him while CARPENTIER
went on vacation. During the period of substitution, SILVA molested a youth at
premises of said St. Theresa's (See Cote v. Silva, et als , PC 94-1416).
11. In January of 1992, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
transferred/reassigned CARPENTIER from Pastor, St. Theresa of the Child Jesus
Parish, Burrillville, to Pastor, St. John the Evangelist Parish, North Smithfield.
12. In November of that year, the boy’s mother confronted
CARPENTIER regarding his misconduct with her son.
13. CARPENTIER admitted molesting Daniel, but tried to minimize the
significance of his actions.
14. He claimed:
“It was an accident, INAUDIBLE I made a mistake…”
(Exhibit H 1, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) (Emphasis Supplied
15. And suggested that:
-32-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
“the thing is it happened just a couple of times”

16. He admitted that for all the years from the time of the incident until
1992, he deliberately withheld this information from Daniel’s parents, who could
have helped and protected Daniel, and that at least one of the reasons for
withholding this information was his interest in maintaining his relationship with
the family, stating:
17.
“I would have lost you too, and I know that's selfish.”

18. Dan’s mother pointed out the obvious toll that his ongoing silence
took upon her son:
“You sacrificed Daniel.”
19. CARPENTIER’s response -
“I, no, I did not even know that, I wasn't thinking of that, …
gee” …
20. demonstrates that even as of 1992, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS

had failed to train CARPENTIER regarding the significance of a informing
victims, and apologizing to them and to their family.
21. Daniel’s mother did not have the experience and background that the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have in dealing with this kind of problem, but she
-33-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
had no difficulty in instructing CARPENTIER as to what a reasonably prudent

person knows is the duty of someone who has committed this kind of wrong:
CARPENTIER: …But what was I supposed to do after that?

VICTIM’S MOTHER: You were supposed to tell.
CARPENTIER: Yes.
VICTIM’S MOTHER: You were supposed to tell…
CARPENTIER I was scared shit, I didn't know what…
VICTIM’S MOTHER: Because he could have gotten help. He
could have gotten help.
22. In the course of attempting to minimize his misconduct,

CARPENTIER admitted to Daniel’s mother that he had engaged in more serious
conduct before.
23. He stated:
The thing is it happened just a couple of times and and and it
wasn't, it wasn't uh, it wasn't like, uh, my first experience, it was
touches and that's all it was, uh…
24. CARPENTIER also revealed for the first time in 1992, that he had
discussed his misconduct with at least one other church official, and suggested that
he had failed to report his misconduct to Dan’s parents, at least in part because that
official had failed to instruct him to do so.
25. His 1992 exchange with Daniel’s mother went as follows:
CARPENTIER: Everybody makes a mistake in his life.

VICTIM’S MOTHER: Uh, uh.
CARPENTIER: And after that stops, can that be forgiven?
-34-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
VICTIM’S MOTHER: Oh yeah, if it's admitted.

CARPENTIER: I'm admitting it, I know I didn't admit it
then, but I…
VICTIM’S MOTHER: If the victim never has a chance to
INAUDIBLE that person, that person could
INAUDIBLE to save yourself.
…
INTERRUPTION
…
VICTIM'S MOTHER: You tried to make it up? How can you
make up something unless you undo it?
CARPENTIER: I, I know that, you say that now, but I am
not you know, I never thought of that, nor
in confessing it did anyone say to me you
need to go admit it to the family that you,
that you… SIGH.
26. To date, CARPENTIER and the HIERARCHY DEFENDANT’S have

not identified the official to whom CARPENTIER confessed his misconduct, nor
have they identified the boy or boys who were a part of CARPENTIER’s “first
experience.”
27. Due to Daniel’s frail emotional state, the family did not contact
Church officials until the following spring.
28. At that time, they contacted ANGELL and ANGELL agreed to meet
with Heroux's family,
29. They were ushered into Diocesan offices through a back door.
30. ANGELL met with members of Heroux's family,
31. ANGELL represented to the family that he would talk to
CARPENTIER.
32. Within the day ANGELL met with CARPENTIER.
-35-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
33. ANGELL thereafter advised Heroux's family that CARPENTIER

"admitted" misconduct.
34. CARPENTIER was removed from the parish immediately.
35. ANGELL, on behalf of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, urged
Daniel’s mother not to do anything that would cause public scandal, suggesting to
her that she “wouldn’t want to ruin his good reputation.”
36. ANGELL, on behalf of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, agreed to
pay counseling expenses for Daniel and his family.
37. To the Heroux’s in particular, and as a part of their public relations
strategy, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have professed care for the victims of
abuse, citing their so-called “policy” of paying counseling expenses for the
victims.
38. This caring portrayal is false and misleading, and the offer deceived
Heroux and his family.
39. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS stalled and delayed payments to
the Herouxs and other victims, used the promise of payment to demand
information about the victim’s treatment, and, in 1995, breached their agreement to
pay by simply failing to do so, even after all requested information had been
supplied, thereby further humiliating Heroux and exacerbating his injuries.
40. Official Catholic Directories for 1993 - 1994 listed CARPENTIER
(along with another admitted offending cleric, DESROSIERS) as "Absent on
Leave". (See EXHIBIT A-29 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.)
41. As of 1995, on information and belief, CARPENTIER was assigned
residence with LAMOUNTAIN and DESROSIERS (both priest defendants in
related civil actions) who are maintained by the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS at
the Regina Cleri Residence and/or Rectory of St. Joseph's Church at 92 Hope
Street, Providence.
-36-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
REV. WILLIAM C. O'CONNELL
1. WILLIAM C. O'CONNELL (hereinafter "O'CONNELL"), at all times

material hereto, was, chronologically, a candidate accepted for seminary
2. HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, despite actual and/or constructive
notice that O'CONNELL was a homosexual pedophile and/or ephebophile who
made sexual advances toward minor boys under the pretext of his duties as a priest,
from time to time assigned O'CONNELL to and serving in the capacities of,
Assistant, St. Michael's Parish, Georgiaville; Chaplain to the United States Navy;
Assistant, St. Mary's Parish, Providence, St. Joseph's Parish, Central Falls, Sacred
Heart Parish, Pawtucket; Holy Ghost Parish, Tiverton; Regional CYO
DIRECTOR of Newport County; Assistant and/or resident, Our Lady of Grace
Church, Johnston; and Pastor of St. Mary's Parish, Bristol and officer of Defendant
corporation, St. Mary's Church, Bristol, Rhode Island.
3. On information and belief, O'CONNELL was discharged by the US
Navy in 1958 under "conditions less than honorable." relating to his
homosexual activity. This discharge was in lieu of being court-martialed for
criminal homosexual contact. Naval investigative records disclose the following:
"Files of the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO,

were queried and surfaced subject's U.S. Navy Service record
which was reviewed on 08JUL85 ... Documentation contained
in his service record, EXHIBIT (1), indicated he resigned
-37-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
from the Navy to escape trial by court martial. However, his

service record reflects no indication of the criminal offense of
which subject was suspected of. His evaluations reflected the
comment "Case #ONI 866 (J) Subject: O'Connell, William
Corcoran" indicating ONI (Predecessor of NIS) conducted an
investigation of subject regarding homosexual activity. (See
EXHIBIT A attached hereto)."
See Smith, et al v. McIntyre, et al ATL-L-004059-94, page 1, Class Action

Complaint filed 10-31-94, Atlantic County, Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division.
It is alleged that the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS knew or should have
known of said less than honorable discharge and underlying reasons therefor, but
nonetheless accepted O'CONNELL back for pastoral assignment thereby
pronouncing him fit for service as a priest in developing youth ministries in various
parishes in Rhode Island.
4. On information and belief, in the 1960's and thereafter,
O'CONNELL engaged in continuous sexual forays with minors along with a
New Jersey priest, Rev. Joseph McGarvey, who would illegally transport minor
children from New Jersey to Rhode Island. Both O'CONNELL and Rev.
McGarvey were named as defendants in a recent sexual abuse civil action brought
in 1994 in the Superior Court of NJ (CA No. ATL-L-4059), as well as in another
civil suit brought in 1993 in the US District Court, Camden, NJ (C.A. No. 93-2373
JBS) by another Roman Catholic priest, Rev. Gary Hayes, who had been sexually
molested as a minor by O'CONNELL and McGarvey. (See EXHIBIT A-13
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.)
5. On June 30, 1972, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS announced the
reassignment and promotion appointment of O'CONNELL:
-38-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
"from Assistant, Holy Ghost parish, No. Tiverton, to Pastor, St.

Mary's parish, Bristol"
with knowledge on the part of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and

PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), that in 1970 an altar boy at
HOLY GHOST was molested twice by O'CONNELL and the boy's father
reported the offenses to the pastor of HOLY GHOST, the parish where
O'CONNELL was serving as assistant pastor. In a letter to GELINEAU shortly
after the move, O'CONNELL stated, "I deeply regret any anxiety that the
situation prior to my appointment may have caused you, but I'm very grateful
to God and to you that everything worked together unto good."
6. From approximately 1972 - 1977, O'CONNELL, while at ST.
MARY'S, continued to sexually molest other boys including Kenneth Smith,
Arthur G. Lee and "John Jones." - all of whom were plaintiffs in civil actions).
During that time, O'CONNELL advertised in the official diocesan newspaper, a
"19-Day Bargain European Holiday under the leadership of Father William C.
O'CONNELL, Pastor, St. Mary Parish, Bristol" to Ireland, Italy, Portugal, France,
Spain and the Vatican, including a "Papal Audience," which trip O'CONNELL was
allowed by HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS to conduct, and which trip included
Kenneth Smith.
7. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS ignored continued warnings:
(a) In 1977, Rev. Jude McGeough, a priest assigned as assistant at

ST. MARY'S, notified ANGELL of O'CONNELL'S
problems. ANGELL'S response was, "there was no proof
positive."
(b) McGeough persisted in his warnings to ANGELL, telling him
in 1978 that O'CONNELL'S behavior with boys, "was a
scandal, a serious problem". ANGELL'S response was to tell
-39-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
McGeough to put his allegations in writing. ANGELL in fact

did not believe McGeough's complaints that O'CONNELL
behaved suspiciously with boys because for 28 years he had
known O'CONNELL as a "good person".
(c) In 1978, ANGELL was told by another priest that there was
no priest or pastor in the diocese that he received more
complaints about than O'CONNELL, that of at least 30
complaints, "most, if not all, have been legitimate".
ANGELL did not ask the nature of the complaints, but was more concerned
about fall-out if he took action against O'CONNELL without sufficient evidence,
saying, "I (ANGELL) could have been sued by Father O'Connell perhaps for
defamation of character to go up and accuse him of being a pedophile".
(d). McGeough again raised the issue with GELINEAU at the

Bristol Fourth of July parade in 1978 and GELINEAU urged
McGeough to, "hang on 'til September when he
(GELINEAU) would straighten this out".
As of September, 1978, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS continued to ignore

these complaints and had taken no action.
(e) McGeough then began preparing a written report (which he

sent to GELINEAU in November of 1978) detailing a number
of complaints including labels such as "alcohol" and "scandal
of little boys". McGeough wrote that he found the "reporting"
distasteful" but was, "doing it only on the orders of Bishop
Angell, and in hope of some improvement in a deteriorating
situation".
(f) McGeough wrote of, "a steady stream of boys in the house,"
"a joke among people in the town, both adults (who will not let
their sons stay here) and high school boys who fear him,"
offering further to "give names, if wanted". McGeough related
-40-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
a specific incident in which a young man fended off a "hug"

from O'CONNELL and remarked, "I don't go for that kind
of stuff, Father," and reported that the number of altar boys at
the 350-family parish had dwindled to almost none.
GELINEAU did not ask for names, nor otherwise respond to

McGeough. In that regard, GELINEAU, notwithstanding his position as head of
the Diocese, never investigated the complaints himself, but instead took the
position that McGeough, "should have gathered testimony himself and given it to
(GELINEAU)". "He (McGeough) was expecting me (GELINEAU) to
interview people".
(g) The same month of the McGeough letter, GELINEAU

received a letter from a parishioner of ST. MARY'S who
spoke of the parish as, "being torn apart," its leadership,
"absent," and called upon GELINEAU, "as our physician" to
solve, "our problem".
On or about December 14, 1978, GELINEAU did meet with

O'CONNELL, but never mentioned McGeough's allegations, only suggesting to
O'CONNELL that, "it might be time for him to resign".
O'CONNELL refused.
(h) In December of 1978 McGeough wrote again to ANGELL

saying that he was frustrated that despite GELINEAU'S
promises, the problems had not been addressed.
GELINEAU also read the McGeough letter where McGeough
said, "I'm a priest, not an FBI agent".
GELINEAU and ANGELL not only failed to pursue these complaints but
allowed O'CONNELL to remain as Pastor at ST. MARY'S. In 1979 they
transferred McGeough to a new assignment at McGeough's request.
-41-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
(i) Between 1978 and 1984, complaints to the HIERARCHY

DEFENDANTS continued by parishioners such as one who
wrote that O'CONNELL was a "sick man," and by other
assistants at ST. MARY'S.
GELINEAU ignored these complaints as well, believing them to be "without

foundation". GELINEAU never invited the assistants to meet with him to discuss
the substance of their concerns, nor did GELINEAU initiate discussion with others
at ST. MARY'S to determine a basis for the complaints.
(j) In the Spring of 1984, Rev. Richard Bucci complained to

GELINEAU about O'CONNELL having, "a lot of boys
staying around the rectory, that maybe this was a matter
that ought to be looked into". Bucci also reported to
ANGELL an incident involving O'CONNELL taking two
young boys out late a night without the consent of their
mother, and also complained to ANGELL, "about the large
number of young boys" performing jobs for O'CONNELL
"around the rectory".
(k) In June of 1984 Bucci persisted with complaints to ANGELL,
calling O'CONNELL'S behavior with boys, "another Lincoln
incident," referring to the child molestation case then pending
against Rev. Paul Henry Leech.
ANGELL did not investigate these complaints, but told Bucci to produce
evidence.
(l) Bucci then told ANGELL about an incident he witnessed when

he had unexpectedly returned to ST. MARY'S rectory,
unbeknownst to O'CONNELL, and saw O'CONNELL
walking down the rectory stairs with a young boy, both
dressed in bikini underwear.
-42-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
(m) In December of 1984, Bucci informed GELINEAU that

O'CONNELL'S, "activities with boys" had prompted a state
police investigation.
At that time, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS still had taken no action to

remove O'CONNELL from his priestly duties or issued any warnings.
8. O'Connell is convicted of child molestation.
In June, 1986 in Rhode Island, in State of Rhode Island vs. William C.
O'Connell, P1/85-1065A, O'CONNELL pleaded Nolo Contendere to two counts
of second degree sexual assault and one count of contributing to the delinquency of
a minor for acts involving three teenage boys while Pastor at SAINT MARY'S.
The boys were 12, 14 and 17 years old at the time (including Robert Crowley and
John Doe, both of whom brought civil actions). Under a plea bargain,
O'CONNELL received a 5 - year sentence: 4 suspended, to serve 1 year in a work-
release program, with probation 4 years subsequent.
The State Police investigation revealed that O'CONNELL had recorded the
names of scores of "visitors" to his summer home (including the names of
plaintiffs who have filed similar civil suits). This "Guest Book" was recovered by
police in Rhode Island during the execution of a search warrant in 1986 and was
used in the criminal prosecution of O'CONNELL. (See EXHIBIT A-14 attached
9. On information and belief, in 1986 O'CONNELL entered into a
"special mental health program" at a church-run facility in Maryland.
10. In 1986, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS were named in a sexual
abuse civil action in Providence County Superior Court entitled, John Doe and
Kathleen Doe v. William C. O'Connell, et als (C.A. No. P86-0077). On
information and belief, said civil action file contained other information directly
material to the claims set forth in this complaint, particularly information relevant
-43-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
to fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation conduct by defendants which

prevented PLAINTIFF from timely discovering the causes of action set forth
herein. Defendants actively participated in "sealing" portions of the file and the
removal of pre-trial discovery materials that had been contained therein, including
a "sealed envelope." On information and belief, said materials originally
included the identities of other Rhode Island offending clerics known to
GELINEAU.
11. PLAINTIFF further alleges that HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have
concealed other material information relating to discovery of the causes of action
set forth herein and the discovery of same by taking similar actions in another
civil suit brought against some of these defendants in the US District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa in approximately 1990 (Craig Perrin v. Father Robert
Marcantonio, et al; C.A. No. 90-0346E). Said information is not yet fully
available or accessible to PLAINTIFF but is in the possession of Defendants.
12. O'CONNELL, after completion of his probation in 1989, left
Maryland and did not return to the State of Rhode Island. O'CONNELL
thereafter moved to the State of New Jersey and thereafter was domiciled in and
a citizen of the State of New Jersey.
13. Notwithstanding O'Connell's criminal conviction, the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS continued to ignore the reality of O'Connell's molestation.
14. Even after 1986, (the year of O'CONNELL'S criminal conviction in
Rhode Island), the HIERARCHY DEFENDANT'S continued to engage in tortious
conduct, including fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation, listing O'CONNELL
in the Official Catholic Directory under the euphemism "Absent on Leave".
(See EXHIBIT A-15 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) The
HIERARCHY DEFENDANT'S used the same euphemism for Fr. Paul Henry
-44-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Leech (convicted child molester) and Fr. Joseph D. D'Angelo (alleged child
molester in similar civil suits)
15. From approximately the time of O'CONNELL'S removal as pastor of
ST. MARY'S (on or about February, 1985) through May of 1996, the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS in general and GELINEAU in particular, provided
maintenance for O'CONNELL, who became a priest pensioner of the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS.
16. The Official Directory and Information Guide, Diocese of Providence,
published yearly in January by The Providence Visitor, for the years following his
conviction (1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992) lists O'CONNELL under
"Diocesan Priests Retired From Administration," with a listed address of, "c/o 1
Cathedral Square, Providence, R.I." the address of defendants GELINEAU
AND RCB.
17. In 1993, Mr. William G. Halpin, Director of the Diocesan Office of
Communications, was attributed in a NEWPORT DAILY NEWS article dated
June 11, as having provided the information that O'CONNELL had been ordained
in 1950, served in 4 R.I. churches, and served for 5 years as a Navy chaplain.
This sanitized biography:
(a) omitted O'CONNELL'S temporary assignments, leaves, retreats

or sabbaticals,
(b) misrepresented the fact that O'CONNELL served at not "4"
but at least 7 churches within the State of Rhode Island: St.
Michael's, Georgiaville; St. Mary's, Providence; St. Joseph's,
Central Falls; Sacred Heart, Pawtucket; Holy Ghost, Tiverton;
Our Lady of Grace Church, Johnston; St. Mary's, Bristol, and
(c) concealed the fact that in 1958 O'CONNELL was given a
discharge by the US Navy under "conditions less than
-45-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
honorable" due to allegations relating to his homosexual

activity.
(d) omitted O'CONNELL'S residence at a church-run treatment
facility in Maryland in approximately 1986-87, and his move
thereafter to the State of New Jersey.
18. In 1994 O'CONNELL was again convicted of sexually molesting

young boys, this time in New Jersey where O'Connell was maintained as a
pensioner of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS.
19. As of that time, the Official Directory and Information Guide, Diocese
of Providence, published yearly by The Providence Visitor O'CONNELL
continued to list O'Connell under the entry of "Diocesan Priests in Order of
Ordination."
20. O'CONNELL died May 12, 1996 while serving a 10-year sentence
in an Avenel, New Jersey treatment center for sex offenders.
-46-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
REV. JAMES M. SILVA

(hereinafter "SILVA"):
1. REV. JAMES M. SILVA, (hereinafter "SILVA"), at all times material

hereto, was, chronologically, a candidate accepted for seminary admission, an
assigned seminarian, deacon, and ordained Roman Catholic diocesan priest,
incardinated to the Diocese of Providence, under the direct authority, supervision,
employ and/or control of the HIERARCHY and PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S). (See EXHIBIT A-6 pp. 32-33 attached hereto and incorporated
by reference.)
2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that SILVA was a
minor boys under the pretext of his duties as a priest, HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS assigned him in 1967 as an assistant at Jesus-Saviour parish,
Newport where in 1967-68 he began sexually molesting at least 3 boys (ages 8,
11 and 14) including Joseph Ruggeri and Anthony Fernandes. Rev. Joseph
Cardoza, Pastor of Jesus-Saviour parish, Newport, was made aware of SILVA'S
behavior of homosexual pedophilia/ephebophilia.
3. At some time in 1968, Defendants then transferred SILVA to St.
Francis Xavier parish in East Providence, and then back to Jesus-Saviour
parish again in 1969 where he sexually molested at least two other boys (ages
12 and 13), Kenneth Sousa and Leland White.
4. Thereafter, in June of 1971, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
announced another transfer of SILVA to assistant at St. Barnabas parish in
Portsmouth.
5. In November of 1971, Monsignor (now Bishop) Daniel REILLY
(then diocesan administrator) appointed SILVA as Regional Director of the CYO
-47-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
(Catholic Youth Organization) to replace Father WILLIAM C. O'CONNELL

(a priest defendant in other sexual molestation law suits and a convicted child
molester), where SILVA would have even more contact with youth.
6. SILVA was also promoted to the position of Diocesan Search
Coordinator as announced in June of 1972 by Rev. Frederick J. Halloran,
Diocesan youth Director, who said,
" ... He knows Father Silva will continue to see that the Search
Program is developed to its full potential for high school juniors and
seniors here in the Diocese of Providence".
7. On information and belief, "Searches" commonly involved

overnight/weekend "retreats" with youth.
8. As of November, 1972, SILVA was still one of 9 regional CYO
Directors, and was transferred in 1973 from St. Barnabas parish to "residence" at
St. Christopher's in Tiverton where he again sexually molested at least 2 other
young boys (ages approx. 14) at the Newport County CYO Center/building
located on premises of St. Christopher's Church, including David Wood, a plaintiff.
Wood had been a participant in CYO activities.
9. In 1974, SILVA was replaced as CYO Regional Director and
transferred to assistant at St. Mary's parish, Bristol, under O'CONNELL, who
then served as Pastor, where SILVA met and sexually molested another boy,
age 13.
10. In 1975-1976, SILVA was transferred to assistant at St. Matthew's
parish, Cranston, where his duties continued to include CYO activities. At St.
Matthew's, SILVA again sexually molested at least 6 young boys (ages between
approximately 12 - 15) who were active as altar boys or in CYO activities.
11. The mother of Brian Condon, one of Silva's victims and a plaintiff,
upon learning that her son was victimized by SILVA, contacted HIERARCHY
-48-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
DEFENDANTS and met with a representative of GELINEAU to whom she

related the details and sought "assurance" that SILVA would be removed from St.
Matthew's and "from further contact with young boys".
12. She was told, "it would be taken care of" (See EXHIBIT A-16 -
Affidavit of Rita Condon, attached hereto and incorporated by reference).
13. In November of 1976, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS announced the
transfer of SILVA from St. Matthew's to assistant at St. Joseph's parish,
Burrillville, where SILVA became CYO moderator and active in the church-
sponsored Boy Scout Troop, including as chaplain.
14. At St. Joseph's from 1977 - 1980, SILVA again sexually molested at
least 4 other boys (ages approx. 13 - 16) active as altar boys or in CYO or
Catholic scouting activities, including David Genereux a plaintiff.
15. SILVA'S sexual behavior with boys again was brought to the
attention of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS.
16. Several parents met personally with GELINEAU in 1978.
17. One mother in particular told GELINEAU that SILVA engaged in
conduct of a sexual nature on an overnight trip with her son.
18. GELINEAU recorded the names of those present at the meeting and
assured them he would address the problem and protect children from
further sexually inappropriate contact with SILVA (See EXHIBITS A17 and
A18, Affidavits attached hereto and incorporated by reference).
19. No action to protect children was taken by GELINEAU.
20. In the spring of 1980, GELINEAU transferred SILVA from St.
Joseph's in Burrillville to assistant at St. Lucy's parish, Middletown.
21. No warnings regarding SILVA'S obvious threat to children were
given parishioners at St. Lucy's.
-49-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
22. At St. Lucy's, SILVA again sexually assaulted at least 3 other young
boys (ages 10 - 11), including John Cunningham, in early to mid 1981, a plaintiff
whose mother reported the molestation to a Roman Catholic priest, Rev. Edward E.
Erpelding, Captain, CHC, United States Navy, who in turn notified GELINEAU
of SILVA'S sexual advances.
23. GELINEAU'S reply:
"Oh, No. Not again!"
and…
"I'll take care of it"
(See EXHIBIT A-19, Affidavit of Erpelding, attached hereto and

incorporated by reference).
24. Thereafter, GELINEAU sent SILVA away for evaluation/treatment at
the treatment center for pedophile priests in New Mexico operated by the
SERVANTS OF THE PARACLETE.
25. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS committed fraud and
misrepresentation by listing SILVA in official directories as "On Duty Outside
the Diocese/advanced studies" during his stay at the treatment center. (See
EXHIBIT A-20 attached hereto and incorporated by reference).
26. In 1983, SILVA was re-assigned as an assistant at Sts. Peter & Paul
parish in West Warwick.
27. Sometime thereafter, SILVA was sent away yet again for
evaluation/treatment at a treatment center for pedophile priests for approximately
one year.
-50-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
28. Upon information and belief, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS

were told by a representative of the Paraclete's treatment center, to keep
SILVA away from youths.
29. In 1984 official Catholic directories listed SILVA as transferred to the
Cathedral of Sts. Peter & Paul, Providence, until sometime in 1986.
30. In approximately 1987 SILVA was placed on "special assignment"
as Assistant Director of the Diocesan Office of Ministerial Formation, but from
time to time thereafter was allowed to fill in on a temporary basis for
vacationing or absent priests at various parish churches throughout the Diocese
of Providence.
31. In the summer of 1991, while substituting at St. Theresa's parish,
Burrillville, for vacationing priest, Rev. Robert A. Carpentier who has admitted
molesting another child, SILVA again sexually molested another youth, Russell
R. Cote a plaintiff.
32. In public statements and in documents filed with the court, the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS denied prior knowledge of SILVA'S past behavior
with boys.
33. Not until April of 1993 did GELINEAU publicly admit that he:
"was aware of concerns" about SILVA and his associations
with young boys "for at least seven years." (See EXHIBIT A21-
A22, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) (Emphasis
provided).
Even in this admission, however, GELINEAU was deceptive, since he did

not acknowledge earlier notices to him, in 1974, 1978 and 1981, attached hereto
and incorporated by reference).
34. Notwithstanding SILVA's clear misconduct, the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS continued to ignore the reality of his molestation.
-51-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
35. Even as of 1993, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANT'S continued to

engage in tortious conduct, including fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation,
listing SILVA in the Official Catholic Directory under the euphemism "On
Special Assignment" (1993), then "retired," with a listed address of, "c/o 1
Cathedral Square, Providence, R.I." the address of GELINEAU O'CONNELL
and RCB (1994).
36. In June of 1994, SILVA was arrested and indicted for sexually
molesting Russell Cote. He was arraigned on August 3, 1994, appearing dressed
in clerical garb, notwithstanding HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS' supposed
suspension of his priestly duties prior to this date.
37. In March of 1995, SILVA entered a guilty plea before Judge Mark A.
Pfeiffer and received a 7-year suspended sentence. (See EXHIBIT A-23 attached
hereto and incorporated by reference).
-52-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. ROBERT A. MARCANTONIO

(hereinafter "MARCANTONIO")
1. Rev. ROBERT A. MARCANTONIO, (hereinafter

"MARCANTONIO"), at all times material hereto, was, chronologically, a
candidate accepted for seminary admission, an assigned seminarian, deacon, and
ordained Roman Catholic diocesan priest, incardinated to the Diocese of
Providence, under the direct authority, supervision, employ and/or control of the
HIERARCHY and PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S). (See EXHIBIT
A-6 pp. 32-33 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.)
2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that MARCANTONIO was
a homosexual pedophile and/or ephebophile who made sexual advances toward
minor boys under the pretext of his duties as a priest, following his graduation
from the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium and his ordination for the
Diocese of Providence in June of 1967 in Louvain, HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS transferred MARCANTONIO from Assistant Pastor at Sacred
Heart Parish, West Warwick, to Assistant Pastor at St. Mary's Parish, Cranston,
in September, 1967.
3. While at St. Mary's, Cranston, MARCANTONIO molested at least
4 young boys (Angelo Almonte, age 11; John Zuena, age 12; Pasco Troia, age 12;
and James Mambro; all plaintiffs). MARCANTONIO told these children it was
his "responsibility" to teach them sexual lessons that would benefit them later in
life and that these lessons were a type a parent would teach a child.
(MARCANTONIO'S M.A. Thesis was entitled, "Sex Education in the
Home"). MARCANTONIO also instructed these children not to tell anyone about
the sexual assaults and abuse and otherwise coerced or induced them to be silent.
4. On information and belief, Pastor Oliver Bernasconi of St. Mary's
Parish, Cranston was aware of these assaults, but nevertheless he, together with
-53-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, allowed MARCANTONIO to continue to perform

his duties at St. Mary's, including contact with parish youth.
5. In 1968 MARCANTONIO was re-assigned to Assistant Pastor at
Sacred Heart Parish, West Warwick, and approximately one year later, in
September, 1969, re-assigned back to Assistant Pastor at St. Mary's Parish,
Cranston, where his duties included acting as parish CYO moderator.
6. In October, 1969, MARCANTONIO was re-assigned from full-time
Assistant Pastor at St. Mary's to part-time Assistant Pastor at St. Mary's, and part-
time teacher at Our Lady of Providence Seminary High School in Providence.
7. Defendants, after receiving direct notice from a psychiatrist of
MARCANTONIO'S sexual misconduct with boys, finally took action and
thereafter transferred MARCANTONIO for psychotherapy to Ames, Iowa, where
he again molested another boy, Craig Perrin (plaintiff in a related law suit against
MARCANTONIO and HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS.
8. According to documents on file in the matter of Craig Perrin v.
Father Robert Marcantonio, et als, Perrin was an altar boy in Ames, Iowa. Perrin's
complaint further alleges, and accordingly this plaintiff alleges on information and
belief, that:
" ... On or about June 29, 1970, Defendant Reilly (Reverend
Monsignor Daniel P. Reilly) who was then Chancellor of the
Diocese of Providence, was advised in a letter from Dominic L.
Coppolino, MD., a licensed Providence psychiatrist, that Defendant
Marcantonio was a homosexual; that Marcantonio had been
involved homosexually with a number of youngsters between the
ages of 12 and 14; that Marcantonio had participated both actively
and passively in such homosexual activity; that Marcantonio had
been involved in one homosexual episode in college, and one
homosexual episode while in seminary at Louvain, Belgium; that
during the two and one-half (year) period preceding June 29, 1970,
Marcantonio had been involved with from ten to fifteen different
boys; and that there was a poor prognosis for a cure. Dr.
-54-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Coppolino's conclusions were reached after five interviews with

Marcantonio from May 26 to June 26, 1970."
" ... On September 7, 1970, Reverend Bernard Stevens Duval,

MD., Associate Pastor at Defendant St. Cecilia Church, with Faculties
from Defendant Most Reverend James Byrne, wrote to Bishop
McVinney concerning Defendant Marcantonio. Reverend Duval
explained that he was a psychiatrist as well as a priest, and that he had
become acquainted with Defendant Marcantonio at Louvain.
Reverend Duval suggested to Bishop McVinney that Defendant
Marcantonio enroll at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, where
he could enter into a psychotherapeutic relationship with Reverend
Duval. Reverend Duval stated that he had cleared this proposal with
Defendant Byrne, who had agreed to grant Faculties to Defendant
Marcantonio.
Reverend Duval stated that he would provide periodic
reports to Bishop McVinney to allow the Bishop 'exercise
intelligently (his) episcopal role in (Marcantonio's) future'. With
respect to Defendant Marcantonio, Reverend Duval stated 'he would
be your priest, my patient' Reverend Duval further stated the
following: "
"This morning Archbishop Byrne readily expressed his
willingness to share with you his experience with a priest who had the
same problem as Fr. Marcantonio, and with whom I have had a
successful therapeutic engagement. That priest is now teaching in a
high school in this Archdiocese. May I suggest, Your Excellency,
that you call Archbishop Byrne and discuss this matter on a peer
level?"
"... Reverend Duval suggested to Defendant Reilly that
Defendant Marcantonio exercise his priesthood at the Newman
Center, which was operated by Defendant St. Thomas Aquinas
Church. Newman Center is located near the campus of Iowa State
University.
Reverend Duval stated 'you may raise your eyebrows at his
(i.e. Marcantonio's) working with students. Keep in mind that
one cannot be treated in a vacuum ...'. Reverend Duval stated that
Defendant Byrne had agreed to allow Marcantonio to live at Newman
House, a private dormitory on the Iowa State University campus
affiliated with the Diocese of Dubuque, and to work at Newman
Center."
-55-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
"... On July 7, 1971, Defendant Reilly, as Chancellor of the

Diocese of Providence, wrote to Reverend Monsignor Arthur J. Breen
at Holy Family Rectory in Mason City (Iowa) to express thanks for
the hospitality shown to 'one of our priests, Father Robert
Marcantonio, on the occasions of his visits to Father Duval (a
psychiatrist)' ..." (emphasis and parenthetical information supplied)."
Craig Perrin v. Father Robert Marcantonio, et als, Complaint filed June 29,
1990, USDCT, Southern District of Iowa (Central (DM) #90-CV-50346 and #91-
CV-50595):
9. Even after 1971, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANT'S continued to
listing MARCANTONIO in the Official Catholic Directory 1971 - 1979 editions
under the Diocese of Providence, with the euphemism "On Duty Outside
Diocese" in the "Archdiocese of Dubuque".
10 While in Iowa, MARCANTONIO received an M.S. from Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa, with a major in psychology and specialty of counseling
psychology, and a Ph.D. in 1975 from said university with the same major and
specialty.
11. From 1973-1975 MARCANTONIO was a member, Board of
Directors, Boys Club of Ames. He thereafter obtained certification and/or
licensing in Rhode Island and Massachusetts as a psychologist.
12. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that MARCANTONIO did
not disclose his prior history of misconduct in connection with his licensing or
certification, and that the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS did not require him to do
so.
13. Sometime in 1975, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS allowed
MARCANTONIO to return to Rhode Island.
14. In April of 1975, MARCANTONIO was selected to participate in a
Catholic Scouting Camping Retreat Weekend with various diocesan priests,
-56-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
including Rev. Edmund Micarelli (then Diocesan Scout Chaplain (a priest

defendant); Rev. Robert A. Carpentier (a priest defendant who has admitted
molesting a minor boy); and Rev. William C. O'Connell (about whom
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS had received notice regarding sexual abuse of a
minor boy in 1970).
15. In August 1975, Marcantonio became Director of Counseling at
Stonehill College, North Easton, MA, and was listed as such in official Catholic
directories.
16. However, after his return to Rhode Island from Iowa in 1975,
MARCANTONIO, while continuing in his position as guidance counselor and
teacher at Stonehill College, was assigned by GELINEAU to assist as a weekend
associate pastor at St. John Vianney Parish, Cumberland, Rhode Island.
17. While at St. John Vianney Parish, Cumberland, MARCANTONIO
sexually assaulted at least 3 other young boys over a period of approximately 4
years (Stephen Kelly, Matthew Kelly and Michael Kelly - all plaintiffs).
MARCANTONIO told the boys it was his responsibility to teach them about sex
and continuously plied them with alcohol.
18. On May 17, 1979, MARCANTONIO was re-assigned by
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS as Catholic Campus Minister at Rhode Island
College, Providence, RI, effective August, 1, 1979, reportedly serving in such
capacity until the Fall of 1989. While at Rhode Island College, MARCANTONIO
taught undergraduate courses, including Personality Theories and Abnormal
Psychology.
19. As of 1989, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANT'S continued to engage
in tortious conduct, including fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation.
GELINEAU supposedly suspended MARCANTONIO, but no public
explanation was given as to the reason for such suspension. Official Catholic
-57-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Directories continued to list MARCANTONIO as "Absent on leave" in the 1990,

1991 and 1992 directory editions; thereafter, there is no mention of
MARCANTONIO.
20. In 1990 and 1991, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS were named with
others in a sexual abuse civil action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa, Central Division (See Perrin v. Marcantonio, Gelineau,
et al, C.A. 90-346-E and C.A. 4-91-50595). On information and belief said civil
action files contain other information directly material to the claims set forth in this
Complaint, as well as 'pre-trial' materials including a deposition by GELINEAU
but Defendants took action to seal and/or prevent dissemination of pre-trial
materials relating to said file. Said information is not yet fully available or
accessible to PLAINTIFF, but is in the possession of Defendants.
-58-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. ROLAND M. LEPIRE

(hereinafter "LEPIRE")
1. Rev. ROLAND M. LEPIRE, (hereinafter "LEPIRE"), at all times

2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that LEPIRE was a
minor boys under the pretext of his duties as a priest, LEPIRE sexually molested
a boys at or around 1978, while Assistant Pastor, St. Aloysius Parish,
Woonsocket. (See EXHIBIT A-24 affidavit, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference).
3. One of the boy's mother reported it to the police, who in turn
apparently notified GELINEAU.
4. At GELINEAU's request, the police secured the mother's agreement
not to proceed with criminal prosecution of LEPIRE, in return for the Bishop's
promise to remove LEPIRE from the parish and that he (LEPIRE) would be given
"necessary counseling."
5. Through officer(s) of the Woonsocket Police Department,
GELINEAU requested the mother's permission to "handle the situation," and
assured her that LEPIRE would have no further contact with her son, as he would
have had in connection with a church-sponsored activity". (See EXHIBIT A-25
mother's affidavit, attached hereto and incorporated by reference).
-59-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
6. The mother signed a document, reflecting her consent to

GELINEAU's request, but was not given a copy of that document.
7. Notwithstanding this knowledge, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
assigned LEPIRE in March of 1979, as Assistant Pastor, St. Mary's Parish,
Cranston.
8. While serving in that capacity, LEPIRE had free access to the
children of the parish, including Michael Dooley, a plaintiff, then a young boy
who worked at the Rectory.
9. In the course of his position of authority as a priest, LEPIRE became
aware of Dooley's vulnerability, of which he took advantage to sexually molest
Dooley.
10. Notwithstanding the knowledge of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
regarding LEPIRE's misconduct, he continued receive assignments as follows, and
listed in official Catholic directories:
For 1981 - 1986, St. Matthew's, Central Falls;

For 1987- 1990, St. Leo the Great, Pawtucket; and
For 1991, Department of Corrections, Cranston, RI
11. In 1992 LEPIRE was promoted to Pastor of St. Vincent de Paul
Parish, Coventry, with no other priests listed with LEPIRE at said address in
official directories until 1995.
12. In November of 1995, Dooley, contacted LEPIRE.
13. He did so in connection with the State Police’s investigation of
LEPIRE for sexual assault of Dooley.
14. Although Dooley did not mention sexual assault, LEPIRE, by his
response, evidenced an understanding of the nature of Dooley's concerns.
-60-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
15. At first LEPIRE spoke readily with Dooley and was willing to meet
with Dooley to discuss problems that Dooley was having as a result of LEPIRE'S
what had happened. (See EXHIBIT A27(a) attached hereto and incorporated by
reference).
16. LEPIRE offered to meet with Dooley immediately.
17. Dooley had both a therapeutic and legal interest in meeting with
LEPIRE to further document LEPIRE'S admission of sexual molestation.
18. LEPIRE subsequently canceled a meeting with Dooley, by leaving
a message with Dooley advising him that the meeting would have to be canceled.
19. Dooley returned LEPIRE's call, expressing concern that the meeting
was canceled, at which time LEPIRE stated:
OK, but what happened was, um, after our conversation I called
the Bishop's representative because that's the policy of the Diocese
and um, talking with him he does not want me to have
conversation to answer questions without going directly through him,
so I will have to give you his phone number.
20. Dooley told LEPIRE "I just wanted to talk, talk about it Father,
uh'…
21. And LEPIRE responded:
I know, I know, but you know I am forbidden to do it, so,
give him a call, he can answer any questions you might have.
(See EXHIBIT A27(b) attached hereto and incorporated by reference).
22. He also advised Dooley that he Dooley would have to speak to the
"Bishop's representative," who he identified as "Bob McCarthy" because he
(LEPIRE) could not "answer any questions for you (Dooley) or anything, it is
the policy of the diocese".
-61-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
23. Thus, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS interfered with both the State

Police investigation, and Dooley's personal efforts to document LEPIRE'S
misconduct, all of which interfered with Dooley's recovery and the prosecution of
his claims against LEPIRE.
24. In February of 1996, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS released a
public statement indicating that notwithstanding that they were "aware in 1995 of a
Rhode Island State Police investigation of a complaint" initiated by Dooley, the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS allowed LEPIRE to continue "as Pastor at St.
Vincent de Paul" falsely stating there was an "absence of any other complaints
against the priest…" (See EXHIBIT A26 attached hereto and incorporated by
reference).
25. That false and misleading public statement was released to protect the
priest and the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and cover up their prior misconduct,
all to the detriment of Dooley's good name and reputation, and designed to harass,
intimidate and embarrass Dooley and other of LEPIRE's victims, thereby causing
Dooley further harm.
26. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS had previously given similarly
deceptive information to the State Police, in the course of their investigation,
falsely stating that there were no prior complaints regarding LEPIRE.
27. The February 1996 public statement released by the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS further cited "a lack of details about the nature and credibility" of
Dooley's charge as a grounds for having allowed LEPIRE to remain as pastor.
28. That statement was false in that it suggested:
(a) there was in fact a lack of credibility of Dooley's charge;
(b) that the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS had a genuine interest
in impartially investigating the Dooley charge; and
-62-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
(c) that Dooley's lack of cooperation with a sham investigation, as

opposed to the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS' interest in
protecting the priest, was the basis for LEPIRE continuing on as
pastor.
29. That false and misleading public statement was released to protect the
priest and the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and cover up their ongoing
misconduct, all to the detriment of Dooley's good name and reputation, and
designed to harass, intimidate and embarrass him, thereby causing him further
harming him.
30. Only after suit was filed and Dooley spoke out publicly through
the media, did GELINEAU place LEPIRE on administrative leave.
31. Even in that act, however, GELINEAU and HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS continued to protect their interests and LEPIRE's interest at
the expense of DOOLEY, and other children to whom LEPIRE poses a threat
stating, euphemistically, that they were doing so:
"for his own sake and as a matter of pastoral prudence".
-63-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. ALFRED R. DESROSIERS

(hereinafter "DESROSIERS")
1. Rev. ALFRED R. DESROSIERS, (hereinafter "DESROSIERS"), at

all times material hereto, was, chronologically, a candidate accepted for seminary
2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that DESROSIERS had a
psychosexual disorder and/or was a pedophile and/or ephebophile who made
sexual advances toward minor girls under the pretext of his duties as a priest,
following DESROSIERS' graduation from the American College, University of
Louvain, Belgium, and his ordination in Rhode Island on June 25, 1961,
DESROSIERS was assigned and re-assigned to parish church positions in
Smithfield and Warren until he was re-assigned as an Assistant at Holy
Family Parish, Woonsocket in approximately 1963.
3. DESROSIERS' assignment(s) and/or status during approximately
1970-1971, between acting as Assistant Pastor at Holy Family Parish,
Woonsocket and his assumption of duties as Assistant Pastor at St. Joan of
Arc Parish, Cumberland is presently unknown.
4. In approximately 1971-1972 DESROSIERS was re-assigned as an
Assistant to St. Joan of Arc Parish, Cumberland, where sometime between 1972 -
1976 he sexually molested at least 2 young girls, both age 15 (first Cynthia
Lewis, and then Anita Guilbault, both plaintiffs in related civil actions).
-64-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
5. Lewis, then a member of the St. Joan of Arc's Parish, came upon the
church premises for religious, social and moral training.
6. For a period of approximately 22 months, Lewis, was continually and
repeatedly sexually assaulted by DESROSIERS.
7. On numerous occasions, DESROSIERS would make arrangements for
the LEWIS to work at the rectory, and ply her with alcoholic beverages for the
express purpose of sexual intercourse and sexual assault without LEWIS' consent.
8. When questioned by LEWIS about these activities, DESROSIERS
told the her that it was his responsibility to teach her about sex, and that he would
only be able to continue to serve the people of God as a result of her being in his
life.
9. DESROSIERS repeatedly instructed LEWIS not to tell anyone about
the sexual abuse.
10. Throughout the relevant time periods, LEWIS, then a minor, was
constantly and continuously subjected to child abuse by virtue of the fact that
DESROSIERS continuously plied LEWIS with alcohol to the point that SHE
began suffering from alcohol imbibement and other psychological infirmities.
11. DESROSIERS' duties brought him in contact with LEWIS in his
performance of religious services and participating in various church functions, as
well as involvement in parish youth activities.
12. Lewis told Father Roger L. Marot, then Regional CYO (Catholic
Youth Organization) Director of the Northern Rhode Island region of the Diocese
of Providence, of DESROSIERS' illegal conduct.
13. Edward L. Cardente was a deacon assigned to the same parish, and
had knowledge of the sexual activity, but failed to protect the plaintiff.
-65-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
14 Neither Marot nor other Defendants took any action to prevent

DESROSIERS' subsequent unchaperoned activities involving minor girls at
premises of St. Joan of Arc Church.
15. Subsequently, in approximately 1975-1976, DESROSIERS sexually
assaulted Anita Guilbault at St. Joan of Arc Church rectory.
16. In 1977, Rev. Roger L. Marot was promoted and appointed by
GELINEAU to the newly created post of DIOCESAN DIRECTOR OF YOUTH
MINISTRY.
17. In early 1978 HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS promoted
DESROSIERS to the position of Pastor at Our Lady of Victories Parish,
Woonsocket, which position he was allowed to retain until approximately March
of 1993, when Cynthia Lewis personally approached GELINEAU with her
complaints about DESROSIERS.
18. GELINEAU told Cynthia Lewis that he had spoken to
DESROSIERS who acknowledged the sexual misconduct. It was then that
GELINEAU placed DESROSIERS on "leave of absence status".
19. GELINEAU did so without any public explanation until Lewis and
Guilbault filed their respective civil suits in the Spring of 1994.
20. Mr. William G. Halpin, Director of the Diocesan Office of
Communications, for the first time then publicly stated that DESROSIERS, "has
no assignment and has no authority to exercise his public priestly ministry".
21. On or about September 14, 1995, DESROSIERS was indicted for
sexually assaulting Cynthia Lewis, and is awaiting trial.
22. Even after DESROSIERS' admission to GELINEAU and his
suspension, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANT'S continued to engage in tortious
conduct, including fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation, listing
DESROSIERS in the Official Catholic Directory under the euphemism "Absent
-66-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
on Leave" in the 1994, and in the 1996 edition of the Official Catholic Directory
along with the names of the Revs. Robert A. Carpentier (who has admitted
sexually molesting a minor boy) and Michael V. LaMountain (under criminal
investigation in Rhode Island for molesting minor boys).
-67-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. Msgr. LOUIS W. DUNN

(hereinafter "DUNN"):
1. Rev. Msgr. LOUIS W. DUNN, (hereinafter "DUNN"), at all times

2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that DUNN had a
psychosexual disorder and/or was a pedophile and/or ephebophile who made
sexual advances toward minor girls under the pretext of his duties as a priest,
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS continued to reassign, appoint and/or promote
DUNN to positions with access to minor girls.
3. In 1952 and 1953 Bishop McVinney promoted DUNN to Diocesan
Curia positions, including that of Vice Chancellor and Secretary to the Bishop;
4. In approximately September, 1953 Bishop McVinney (HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS) appointed DUNN as an Diocesan Vicar for Religious (while
continuing as Vice Chancellor and Secretary to the Bishop). From the Official
Catholic Directory glossary:
VICAR: The appointment of a priest or a bishop as an episcopal

vicar (Vicar for ...) is an option given to a diocesan bishop
when he needs a deputy for governing a specific territory within
the diocese, a group of persons or a specific rite, or a type of
apostolic work within the diocese.
-68-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
5. In approximately 1956 - 1964 DUNN was listed in official Catholic

directories as residing at the Mother of Hope Novitiate (for novices and nuns)
in Hillsgrove, then Portsmouth.
6. In approximately 1956 DUNN was appointed Pastor of Christ the
King Parish, Kingston (continuing as Vicar for Religious, Vice-Chancellor and
Secretary, and residence listed at the Mother of Hope Novitiate).
7. In approximately 1964, DUNN was no longer Vicar for Religious,
Vice-Chancellor, or Secretary to the Bishop.
8. In the early to middle 1960's, DUNN sexually molested at least 2
young girls with whom DUNN came into contact by virtue of his assignment at
Christ the King Parish including the University of Rhode Island, where DUNN
served as advisor to the school Catholic (Newman) Club. Both girls were students
at URI, but minors at the time; both were requested by DUNN to assist with
various jobs around the rectory. One of the girls intended to become a nun.
9. DUNN'S inappropriate sexual advances with young girls at Christ the
King Parish were directly reported to then Bishop McVinney by another URI
student, who urged an investigation. McVinney not only failed to take corrective
action, but in fact promoted Dunn to 2 other Diocesan Curia positions, while
allowing him to remain at said parish in continued contact with young female URI
students.
10. DUNN was promoted by HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS on 9-16-66
to a Diocesan Curia position on the Diocesan Tribunal, as Defensor Vinculi
(DEFENDER OF THE BOND). Dunn held the position and title of "Defender of
the Bond," as a Canon Lawyer (J.C.L.) until 1994.
According to the Official Catholic Directory Glossary:
-69-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
DEFENDER OF THE BOND: A priest who is appointed by

the diocesan bishop for cases concerning the nullity of sacred
ordination or the nullity or dissolution of the marriage bond.
The defender of the bond is responsible for a review of the
evidence, scrutiny of the briefs, examination of witnesses, and
maintenance of proper procedures during the trial. The
defender also deals with some situations concerning the
content of the litigation rather than the legal procedures.
11. In 1967, DUNN was re-assigned as Pastor, St. Thomas Parish,

Providence, where he again sexually molested 2 other girls, Phyllis Hutnak, in
approximately 1967, who was then age 16, and Mary Ryan, in approximately
1976-77 when she was 16, both plaintiffs.
12. In 1986 DUNN had made inappropriate sexual advances to a 12
year old girl.
13. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS took no action against DUNN
until 1994.
14. In early 1994, Mary Ryan attempted to bring her complaints about
DUNN directly to GELINEAU, but Ryan was told GELINEAU would only see
her in what she was led to believe would be under the seal of confession.
15. Plaintiff specifically alleges that this "condition" upon GELINEAU's
meeting with Ryan was proposed in an attempt to protect GELINEAU's knowledge
from discovery.
16. GELINEAU at first placed DUNN on "administrative leave".
DUNN told St. Thomas' parishioners he was "ill". GELINEAU did not
publicly acknowledge the true and complete reason for DUNN'S "suspension" until
after he received another complaint from a mother who told GELINEAU that in
1986 DUNN had made inappropriate sexual advances to her then 12 year old
-70-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
daughter in her own home, and that DUNN admitted to her that he had sexual
contact with Mary Ryan, a plaintiff.
17. DUNN further admitted having had sexual contact with Mary Ryan
to representatives of GELINEAU, and admitted having had sexual contact with
Mary Ryan, and with others prior to Ryan, and to a Catholic religious priest who
refused DUNN'S request that he (DUNN) talk:
"under the seal of confession."
18. Notwithstanding this clear history of misconduct, HIERARCHY

DEFENDANTS promoted DUNN approximately 4 months later, in June, 1994, to
Pastor emeritus, St. Thomas, Providence" and announced DUNN'S "retirement"
from the administration of St. Thomas' Parish in the official Diocesan newspaper
with an accompanying article summarizing DUNN'S history of service for the
Diocese of Providence.
19. The article conveyed false and/or misleading information,
including no mention of DUNN'S prior assignments at St. Mary's Parish,
Providence, St. Michael's Parish, Providence, or St. Matthew's Parish,
Cranston, and further indicated Dunn was, "Pastor at Christ the King in
Kingston in 1964".
20. Even after the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS supposedly suspended
DUNN from his priestly duties, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS continued to
listing DUNN'S name, in the Official Catholic Directory for 1994 along with the
names of other offending clerics known to HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, as
"Absent on Leave". (See EXHIBIT A 28 attached hereto and incorporated by
reference.). However, in said directories for the years 1995 and 1996 DUNN is
-71-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
listed under, "Retired, Reverend Monsignors" for the Diocese of Providence.

There is no indication that DUNN'S priestly faculties are suspended. DUNN
presently resides at St. John Vianney Residence for Retired Priests.
21. DUNN is presently awaiting trial in Rhode Island on the charge of
felonious sexual assault (See FN. 3, Section II (C) (2) of this complaint).
-72-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. MICHAEL V. LAMOUNTAIN

(hereinafter "LAMOUNTAIN")
Rev. MICHAEL V. LAMOUNTAIN, (hereinafter "LAMOUNTAIN"), at all

times material hereto, was, chronologically, a candidate accepted for seminary
1. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that LAMOUNTAIN was a
DEFENDANTS in 1976 transferred LAMOUNTAIN from Deacon Assistant,
St. Catherine's Parish, Warwick to Assistant Pastor, St. Kevin's Parish,
Warwick.
2. Later in 1976 LAMOUNTAIN was replaced as the Warwick-E.
Greenwich CYO Regional Director for the Diocese of Providence by Rev.
Douglas Spina.
3. As of November, 1978, LAMOUNTAIN was Spiritual Director of
the Warwick-E. Greenwich Regional CYO Center.
4. LAMOUNTAIN sexually assaulted several young boys at St.
Kevin's Parish, Warwick, between 1976 - 1983, including Timothy Bragg, age
10, in approximately 1983, (plaintiff in a related sexual molestation civil action).
5. Upon information and belief, LAMOUNTAIN was receiving
"professional assistance" regarding his behavior with minor boys, in
approximately 1983.
-73-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
6. As of 1984, LAMOUNTAIN was listed in official Catholic

directories as serving as Assistant Pastor at St. Joseph's Parish, Woonsocket.
While at St. Joseph's Parish, LAMOUNTAIN continued inappropriate sexual
behavior with other young boys, including sexually assaulting James Egan,
age 10, (plaintiff in a related civil action).
7. LAMOUNTAIN was allowed to remain at St. Joseph's Parish until

approximately 1987, when HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS promoted him to the
position of Pastor, St. John the Baptist Parish, West Warwick, where in
approximately 1990-91 he again molested another young boy, Daniel Turenne, age
13-14 (plaintiff in a related civil action).
8. Upon information and belief, in early 1993, HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS received direct notice of LAMOUNTAIN'S inappropriate sexual
behavior with young boys.
9. In June of 1994, the official diocesan newspaper announced that
LAMOUNTAIN was away for "Sabbatical Studies, Institute for Continuing
Education, Rome" from "2-8-94 to 4-29-94".
10. Sometime prior to March of 1995, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
allowed LAMOUNTAIN to return to his position as Pastor at St. John the Baptist
Parish.
11. In March of 1995, GELINEAU placed LAMOUNTAIN on
"administrative leave". Subsequent to HIERARCHY OFFICIALS learning of an
on-going criminal investigation of LAMOUNTAIN by law enforcement officials,
GELINEAU for the first time notified the public. GELINEAU personally appeared
at a church (St. John's) and personally informed parishioners of the basis for
LAMOUNTAIN'S placement on "indefinite leave of absence for alleged sexual
misconduct".
-74-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
12. LAMOUNTAIN is still under investigation by law enforcement

authorities.
-75-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
REV. EDMOND C. MICARELLI
1. REV. EDMOND C. MICARELLI, (hereinafter "MICARELLI"), at all

2. HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, despite actual and/or constructive
notice that MICARELLI was a homosexual pedophile and/or ephebophile who
made sexual advances toward minor boys under the pretext of his duties as a priest,
from time to time assigned MICARELLI to and serving in the capacity of Parish
Priest of St. Alexander’s Parish, being the Defendant, ST. ALEXANDER
CHURCH CORPORATION, WARREN.
3. On information and belief, MICARELLI possessed the propensity and
capacity of being a homosexual pedophile and/or ephebophile who made sexual
advances to minor boys under the pretense of his duties as a priest.
4. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of
said propensities, but nevertheless accepted MICARELLI for pastoral assignment
thereby pronouncing him fit for service as a priest in developing youth ministries
in various parishes in Rhode Island.
5. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that MICARELLI was a
-76-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
DEFENDANTS continued to assign and/or promote MICARELLI with duties

involving minor boys.
6. In the late 1950's/early 1960's MICARELLI was appointed as
Diocesan Catholic Scout Chaplain (Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Camp Fire
Girls) with summer chaplaincy and residence at Camp Yawgoog Boy Scout
Camp.
7. MICARELLI was assigned as an Assistant Pastor and/or with
residence at various parishes throughout Rhode Island, including Christ the King
Parish, Kingston (where he served with DUNN (another priest defendant) while
Newman Center Catholic Chaplain at URI.
8. From the early 1960's to the mid 1970's, while serving as a diocesan
priest as well as serving with diocesan assignments or appointments directly
related to scouting activities, MICARELLI sexually molested at least 7 young
boys, including his own nephew (Michael Medina, Thomas Devona, A.J. Butler,
Dennis Devona, Michael Baton, Thomas LaFazia, and Edward Balasco, all
plaintiffs in related civil actions), some meeting MICARELLI at St. Alexander
Parish, Warren.
9. In approximately June, 1969, MICARELLI was transferred from
Assistant Pastor, St. Ann's Parish, Providence, to Assistant Pastor, St. Ann's Parish,
Cranston, (a time period during which MARCANTONIO (another priest
defendant) was serving at St. Mary's Parish, Cranston, an adjoining parish with a
parking lot shared with St. Ann's, Cranston).
10. In September, 1972, MICARELLI was transferred from Part-time
Diocesan Scout Chaplain and Part-time Assistant Pastor, St. Ann's Parish,
Cranston, to Diocesan Scout Chaplain, and Part-time Assistant Pastor, SS.
Peter and Paul Parish, West Warwick.
-77-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
11. MICARELLI was allowed to remain as diocesan Boy Scout Chaplain

and in fact, in approximately 1972, became a Catholic Scout Chaplain for the
Northeast Region of the United States after receiving permission from
GELINEAU, who in his recommendation wrote that he was, "happy to give (his)
approval for Father Micarelli to serve on the Executive Board as a regional
chaplain and to have him share his talents with the National Catholic Committee".
12. In August of 1973, MICARELLI was transferred from part-time
Diocesan Scout Chaplain and promoted from part-time Assistant Pastor, SS.
Peter and Paul, West Warwick, to Pastor, St. Alexander Parish, Warren.
13. In 1975, the MICARELLI, invited Michael Medina to spend time with
him overnight at his summer home on the pretense of taking Medina fishing at a
nearby lake the following morning.
14. On said occasion, MICARELLI exploited the power of his position to
perform lewd and lascivious homosexual acts with Medina, offensively touching
the body of Medina without his consent.
15. In 1975, the official Diocesan newspaper announced that
MARCANTONIO (about whom HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS had received
notice regarding sexual abuse of minors in 1970); CARPENTIER (who has
admitted molesting a minor boy); and O'CONNELL (about whom HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS had received notice regarding sexual abuse of a minor boy in
1970) were "selected" to assist MICARELLI at a Yawgoog Boy Scout Camp
"Camp-o-reet" (a combination camping and spiritual retreat for young boys).
16. In 1978, MICARELLI was the keynote speaker and concelebrated a
Catholic mass held at a conference hosted for leaders by the Catholic Committee
on Scouting at the Newport Naval Training Station, where, as reported in the
official diocesan newspaper, GELINEAU, "asked those attending to sponsor
-78-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Scouting in their parishes or Knights of Columbus Councils, in order to reach

more of the youth in their respective areas."
17. MICARELLI retired in approximately 1988-1989, and his position
as pastor at St. Alexander's Parish, Warren was replaced by an "administrator"; St.
Alexander's through 1996 has only an "administrator".
18. In the Official Catholic Directory for 1993, the following listing
appears:
"MICARELLI, Edmund, retired, Tel: 401-847-0065".
However, in the Official Directory and Information Guide, Diocese of

Providence, the following listing appears in the Clergy Retired from
Administration:
"Rev. Edmond C. Micarelli, 3589 LaAires Court, Bldg. #107,

Apt. C-B, Green Acres, FL 33463"
19. The same Official Catholic Directory also lists SILVA (convicted of
sexual assault) and O'CONNELL (also convicted of sexual assault) as having the
same telephone number: "401-847-0065"
20. That telephone number is also the telephone number listed for St.
Joseph's rectory, Newport, at which parish Rev. John J. Lavin serves as pastor.
21. Rev. John J. Lavin, J.C.D. or "Canon lawyer," is a "DEFENDER
OF THE BOND" (of sacred ordination, or marriage) on the Diocesan Tribunal, and
a member of the Diocesan Curia.
22. According to the Official Catholic Directory Glossary:
DEFENDER OF THE BOND: A priest who is appointed by

the diocesan bishop for cases concerning the nullity of sacred
ordination or the nullity or dissolution of the marriage bond.
-79-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
The defender of the bond is responsible for a review of the

evidence, scrutiny of the briefs, examination of witnesses, and
maintenance of proper procedures during the trial. The
defender also deals with some situations concerning the
content of the litigation rather than the legal procedures.
23. On or about August 6, 1991, Medina, in an effort to report the sexual

abuse perpetrated upon him by MICARELLI, called the HIERARCHICAL
DEFENDANTS at a phone numbers currently listed as follows:
DIOCESE OF PROVIDENCE
278-4500
and…
SECRETARY TO THE BISHOP/VICE CHANCELLOR

278-4547.
24. In response to said telephone calls, Medina was specifically advised

by a person answering that, inter alia:
“If you know what is good for you, you’ll keep your mouth shut
and forget about this.”
-80-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. JOSEPH D. D'ANGELO

(hereinafter "D'ANGELO")
1. Rev. JOSEPH D. D'ANGELO, (hereinafter "D'ANGELO"), at all

2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that D'ANGELO was a
DEFENDANTS continued to reassign and/or promote D'ANGELO to positions
with access to minor boys.
3. In May, 1979, D'ANGELO was transferred from Deacon Assistant,
St. Anthony's parish, Providence to summertime assistant hospital chaplain, Rhode
Island Hospital, with residence at St. John's Parish, Providence.
4. In September, 1979, D'ANGELO was transferred to Assistant Pastor,
Saint Augustin's Parish, Newport, which had a school, grades pre-K - 8.
5. In approximately 1981, D'ANGELO was serving at Our Lady of Mt.
Carmel Parish, Providence, with Msgr. Galleano Cavalaro.
6. In approximately 1982, D'ANGELO was serving as an assistant pastor
at St. Margaret's parish, Rumford, with Msgr. Arthur Geoghegan.
7. In the 1980's, D'ANGELO sexually molested a young altar boy, age
10, (Brooks, plaintiff in a related civil action) during his service at St. Margaret's
-81-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Parish, Rumford, where D'ANGELO was allowed to remain until 1983, when,
upon information and belief, he moved to Massachusetts for 'treatment".
8. Upon information and belief, in 1983 Msgr. Geoghegan, Pastor at St.
Margaret's parish, removed D'ANGELO'S belongings to the Rectory basement.
9. The 1984 to 1986 Official Catholic Directories list D'ANGELO as
"Absent on leave" along with Rev. P. Henry Leech (convicted child molester) and
Fr. William C. O'Connell (convicted child molester). (See EXHIBIT A-15 attached
10. Upon information and belief, in 1984 D'ANGELO moved to Rome,
and was housed at the "Casa Romana del Clero via Della Transpontina, Rome,
Italy; and subsequently, the "Casa /San Gaetano via Pietro Paolo Bergerio, Rome".
11. From 1987 and thereafter, D'ANGELO no longer appears in said
directories, at least associated with the Diocese of Providence.
-82-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. RICHARD MEGLIO

(hereinafter "MEGLIO"
1. Rev. RICHARD MEGLIO, (hereinafter "MEGLIO"), at all times

2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that MEGLIO was a
DEFENDANTS continued to reassign and/or promote MEGLIO to positions with
access to minor boys.
3. In the early to mid-1970's, MEGLIO sexually molested a young
boy (plaintiff in a related civil action) during MEGLIO'S assignment as an
Assistant Pastor at Our Lady of Grace Parish, Johnston.
4. MEGLIO, in 1980, was transferred to Sacred heart Parish, West
Warwick.
5. The Official Catholic Directory listed MEGLIO in 1989 as
"Absent on Leave".
6. Thereafter MEGLIO no longer appears in said directories, at least
associated with the Diocese of Providence.
-83-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. BRENDAN SMYTH

(hereinafter "SMYTH")
1. Rev. BRENDAN SMYTH, (hereinafter "SMYTH"), at all times

2. Despite actual and/or constructive notice that SMYTH was a
pedophile and/or ephebophile who made sexual advances toward minor boys
and/or girls under the pretext of his duties as priests, HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS assigned SMYTH to a position with access to minor boys and
girls.
3. In the mid 1960's, SMYTH, of Ireland, came to Rhode Island on
loan as a "favor" from his Abbot to then Bishop McVinney, whose forefathers
came from a town near the Abbey, and who while visiting his ancestral town asked
the Abbot if he had any priests to lend him to help ease a shortage.
4. McVinney assigned SMYTH to Our Lady of Mercy Parish, East
Greenwich, which had a school (boys: 297; girls: 329) from approximately 1965-
68, during which time, as reported by the Providence Journal-Bulletin, SMYTH
helped rejuvenate Rhode Island's Catholic Youth Organization (CYO) and gave
hour after hour of unofficial attention to the Girl Scouts. " During his time in
Rhode Island SMYTH sexually molested Rhode Island children" according to a
front-page Providence Journal article dated 2-6-95, following the Abbot's public
-84-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
disclosure that SMYTH was a pedophile. (See EXHIBIT A-30 attached hereto
and incorporated by reference.)
5. Rt. Rev. Kenneth Smith, shortly before his resignation as Abbot of
Holy Trinity Abbey in Kilnacrott, County Cavan, Ireland, acknowledged that he
and others had known for decades that SMYTH had a "problem" with
children (boys and girls) and thought they would deal with it by having him
reassigned to prevent him from forming "attachments to families and children".
Abbott Smith claimed that he did not warn the "bishop of the diocese to which he
(SMYTH) was sent" (emphasis added), having allowed SMYTH to serve not only
in Rhode Island, but also in North Dakota. Rt. Rev. Kevin Smith
acknowledged, "On both occasions Father Smyth offended against young
parishioners".
6. HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS publicly responded to the article
with professed shock, claimed they had "no record" of the priest having a sexual
abuse problem in Rhode Island, and stated they did not "have the capability to
launch a full scale investigation to find Smyth's victims," but encouraged
anyone molested to contact the Church. (See EXHIBIT A-31 attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.)
7. On information and belief, some Rhode Island victims of SMYTH
contacted HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS within days of the news article and
related specific information to GELINEAU'S investigator, Robert N.
McCarthy. HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS conducted no further
investigation and/or suppressed from public knowledge any information
received by them regarding SMYTH.
-85-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Rev. JOSEPH A. ABRUZZESE

(hereinafter "ABRUZZESE")
1. Rev. JOSEPH A. ABRUZZESE, (hereinafter "ABRUZZESE"), at all

2. According to a Providence Journal-Bulletin news article, page A4,
September 24, 1994, ABRUZZESE, on September 23, 1994, pleaded no contest
to a charge of second degree sexual assault on a 16 year old boy.
3. ABRUZZESE had been arrested on the charge in November of
1993. Although, according to the article, "Abruzzese was suspended from his
priest's duties shortly after his arrest, "according to William Halpin, a spokesman
for the Diocese of Providence" (Mr. William G. Halpin, Director of the Diocesan
Office of Communications), the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS withheld the
suspension until the plea bargain became public some 10 months later.
4. Halpin at that time added that ABRUZZESE'S case would be
reviewed by GELINEAU, who would decide whether ABRUZZESE would be
allowed to resume his duties, though it was "unlikely". Halpin went on to say
that despite the suspension, ABRUZZESE remains a priest, unless relieved of his
priestly vows by the Vatican, something that could happen if requested by
ABRUZZESE or the bishop. (See EXHIBIT A-32 attached hereto and
-86-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
5. The 1994 Official Catholic Directory edition's Supplement listed

ABRUZZESE, Joseph A. as being on "Leave of Absence," and the 1995 and
1996 Official Catholic Directory editions list ABRUZZESE as being "Absent on
Leave" under "Diocese of Providence".
-87-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS' INVESTIGATOR

Robert N. McCarthy
(hereinafter "McCARTHY")
1. In May, 1993, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS recommended

creation of the position of "sexual concerns coordinator," reportedly in
response to the growing number of reports of priests sexually molesting children.
The position was to "function with the powers of a director" in the vicariate for
social ministry. The coordinator was to have 2 general responsibilities: (1) to
educate and (2) to "field all allegations of sexual misconduct and coordinate and
carry out all appropriate and related actions" ("an amendment to the 'former'
diocesan sexual misconduct policy in which all allegations" were "reported
directly to the Vicar General"). The coordinator in turn was "expected to
report to the Vicar General as well as to other local and state authorities".
(See EXHIBIT A-33 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.)
2. GELINEAU publicly announced his approval of the position, but
added that the coordinator was also to "report daily to the Diocesan Vicar for
Social Ministry, Msgr. George L. Frappier" and "be accountable for reporting
sexual misconduct to the Bishop of Providence, or in his absence, to a
Diocesan Vicar General or the Co-Chancellor".
3. GELINEAU publicly stated that the coordinator's reporting
responsibilities were to include "prompt notification of civil and diocesan
authorities" and initiation of "an immediate investigation of charges". (See
EXHIBIT A-33 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.)
4. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS were, however, silent as to the
status (public vs. confidential) of the results of the coordinator's "investigation."
5. In fact, unitl July 1 of this year, none of the investigative results have
ever been made public.
-88-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
6. Candidates for the "coordinator" position "were expected to hold

advances degrees in psychology, social work or a related field, with experience in
treating victims of sexual abuse".
7. After a search, GELINEAU, in September of 1993 announced the
hiring of Lt. Robert N. McCarthy, a "retiring supervisor of cases and reports for the
Massachusetts State Police as the "Diocese's first education and compliance
coordinator for sexual concerns".
8. The announcement pointed to McCARTHY'S "extensive investigatory
and instructional experience," his past duties which included internal affairs
investigations, his 24 year career with the State police, and his educational
background which included degrees in criminal justice/sociology (1974) and in
human development/sociology (1976). GELINEAU stated, "Lt. McCarthy has the
precise blend of commitment, education and experience we were hoping for ... "
9. Thereafter, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have consistently to date
represented to the public in the State of Rhode Island that when they learn of
accusations of sexual molestation by a priest, the matter is turned over to
McCARTHY for investigation, further representing that such an investigation is
impartial and consistent with full cooperation with law enforcement officials of the
State of Rhode Island.
10. That representation is false and misleading. McCarthy is part of the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS legal defense to plaintiffs' civil damages claims.
The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS failed to disclose that information given to
McCarthy is being gathered as part of that defense.
11. In the case of Cote v. Silva, et als, CA 94-1416, (Response of
Defendant, Bishop Louis A. Gelineau to the Plaintiff's "First Request for
Production of Documents," pp. 11-12, dated 4-18-94) the HIERARCHY
-89-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
DEFENDANTS resisted discovery requests relating to McCARTHY'S

investigations as privileged material:
"as same, constitute writings obtained or prepared by him as

agent and investigator for defendant, and defendant's attorneys in
anticipation of litigation and preparation for eventual trial …".
(see Exhibit A-35 attached hereto and incorporated by
reference)
12. As part of his efforts in support of the investigation for the defense,
McCarthy has investigated the victims, seeking information about their past for the
purpose of assisting the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS in discrediting the victims
of child abuse and defending against plaintiffs' claims.
13. Apart from the deception regarding McCarthy's interest in assisting in
a meaningful investigation, as opposed to assisting the defense, the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS have further deceived plaintiffs, and the public by failing to
disclose their intent to hide the results of McCarthy's "investigation" under a cloak
of "confidentiality based upon secrecy in the Sacrament of Reconciliation" or
"pursuant to the notion of Internal Forum." (See EXHIBIT A-36 attached
14. Although The Diocese of Providence Policy and Procedure in Cases
of Sexual Misconduct, Section (D) purports to speak to "Cooperation with law
enforcement authorities," that policy as applied by the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS leaves determination of "cooperation" up to the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS:
Nothing in these policies shall be construed as an instruction

not to cooperate with law enforcement and governmental
authorities, as required by law, provided that the cooperation
-90-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
does not require a violation of legal rights of other persons

including rights of privacy and confidentiality based upon
secrecy in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and pursuant to
the notion of Internal Forum. (emphasis added)
It is the practice of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS to routinely withhold

or conceal information regarding misconduct by priests, at their sole discretion.
15. In the case of Cote v. Silva, et als, CA 94-1416, (Response of
Defendant, Bishop Louis A. Gelineau to the Plaintiff's "First Request for
Production of Documents," pp. 11-12, dated 4-18-94), and in response to virtually
all requests for information regarding priest misconduct, the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS resist discovery requests relating to McCARTHY'S investigations
as privileged material, and as material that "may involve secret and confidential
information" pursuant to the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS' "Canon Law and
other directions of the Roman Catholic faith". (See EXHIBIT A-35 attached
16. This "qualified reporting" is a sham designed to give the public the
impression that law enforcement is notified of reported sexual molestations by
priests, when in fact, law enforcement is notified of facts only when
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, in their sole discretion, do not suppress them,
or when the information is already publicly known. This "qualified reporting" is
no reporting whatsoever.
17. To the extent that the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS retain discretion
to unilaterally determine certain reports of misconduct to be "private," they bear
the risk of future misconduct by the priest, and deceive the public, including
plaintiff, who relied for protection upon the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, into a
false sense of security, thereby protecting the priest at the expense of innocent
-91-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
children who could reasonably be expected to come into contact with such priest.
18. Given the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS' clearly established practice
of withholding all information regarding their priests' activities and their
supervision of same, they have deceived plaintiff and the public by failing to
honestly state that their investigation is internal, rather than impartial, that the
public cannot rely on HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS to protect their interests, that
McCarthy is part of their defense team, that a victims speaks to him with no
expectation of cooperation or assistance in pursuing the truth, and that information
regarding misconduct by officials of the church will be released only if church
officials see fit.
-92-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
RECORDS and SECRECY
1. At least one Rhode Island offending cleric, James M. Silva, was sent
by GELINEAU to a New Mexico pedophile treatment center - operated by The
Servants of the Paraclete.
2. In a lengthy affidavit filed by Father Liam J. Hoare, S.P. in the case of
Cote v. Silva, et al (CA No. 94-1416), Father Hoare described the procedure
followed by the treatment center. (See EXHIBIT A-37 attached hereto and
3. Father Hoare, Servant General of The Servants of the Paraclete, and
Peter Lechner, Director, in the past requested bishops to destroy or return
evaluation/treatment documents. (See EXHIBIT A-38 attached hereto and
4. In April of 1990 at a Midwest Canon Law Society conference in
Ohio, Bishop James Quinn of Cleveland encouraged diocesan officials to send
files on priests who had been accused of child sex abuse to the Vatican
Embassy in Washington, D.C., where diplomatic immunity could be claimed to
protect the documents from being subpoenaed. (See EXHIBIT A-39 attached
5. Until at least approximately 1984, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
generally and ANGELL in particular failed to retain and in fact discarded and or
destroyed anonymous letters of complaint against priests. In other instances
complaints were recorded and deposited in "secret archives" so-called.
6. In 1990, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, in support of motions to
keep secret their answers about how they handled complaints that a priest was
sexually abusing boys, contended "they have a Constitutional right to preserve the
confidentiality of information brought to their attention by other members of the
-93-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Church, be they laypersons or clergy" and that the theological concept of internal
forum protects practically all information so gathered. GELINEAU
contended it was up to him to decide when he could disclose matters obtained
outside the confessional, and only under certain circumstances such as:
• consent;
• if continued secrecy would harm the person who supplied the
information;
• if keeping it secret would harm a third innocent party;
• or when disclosing it "is necessary to avert a grave danger to the
good of the Church or the public good" - a judgment "left to the
bishop".
7. When Defendants received complaints regarding sexual assaults and

abuse of minors by a priest, Defendants not only kept the complaints secret, but
also concealed from the public (including individuals such as PLAINTIFF) the
fact that the offending cleric was sent away for evaluation or treatment.
Instead, the offending cleric was listed in official Catholic directories by various
euphemisms such as "Absent on Leave," "On Duty Outside the Diocese," or for
"Advanced Studies".
8. It is alleged that by use of the aforementioned euphemisms, the
Defendants continuously concealed the true nature of the status and/or
whereabouts of many offending clerics and instead continued a
misrepresentation that such offending clerics remained in effect in good
standing with the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, preventing victims (including
PLAINTIFF), who relied upon representations made by the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS, from discovering the causes of action set forth herein until
within three years of the date of filing.
-94-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
9. Defendants, as a matter of policy, even when the identity of a priest

perpetrator became public through civil action, responded with denials of
knowledge and promises to investigate thereby continuing concealment of their
prior conduct and knowledge. This policy deliberately interfered with the efforts of
the victims of these assaults and abuse and their families, who relied upon
representations made by Defendants, to identify the cause of their injuries.
-95-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
PLAINTIFF
PHILIP EDWARDO
1. PLAINTIFF PHILIP EDWARDO was raised in a devout Christian,

Roman Catholic family whose members received the sacraments including
Baptism, Confirmation and/or Matrimony, regularly participated in the celebration
of the Eucharist, and fulfilled their obligations of financial and other support,
through the Roman Catholic Church and in particular, through parishes within the
Diocese of Providence. As such Roman Catholics, PLAINTIFF and his family
were obliged to fulfill their obligations to priests by following them “as pastors and
fathers.” Accordingly, PLAINTIFF developed great admiration, trust, reverence,
respect for and obedience to Roman Catholic priests, including OFFENDING
CLERIC. PLAINTIFF trusted that the Defendants, their servants and official
representatives would always act as they held themselves out to be, namely holy
and chaste men, acting in his best interests, with confidence that they would warn
him and his family of any known danger.
2. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, the PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S), owned, operated, maintained and/or held the premises where
OFFENDING CLERIC performed his duties and obligations in furtherance of the
interests of said Defendants in his capacity as a diocesan priest, Assistant Pastor or
Pastor of said PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S). OFFENDING
CLERIC, in furtherance of the interests of said Defendants, had access to the
faithful, including minors, at premises of PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S), and elsewhere.
3. PLAINTIFF, while a minor, child parishioner and altar boy, became
acquainted with OFFENDING CLERIC, and held OFFENDING CLERIC in
particularly high esteem, reverence and trust.
-96-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
4. Beginning in 1977 or 1978, and continuing thereafter for

approximately five (5) years, OFFENDING CLERIC, initiated and maintained a
relationship with the PLAINTIFF as his mentor and confidante, beginning with
religious instruction, training, spiritual guidance and socialization of PLAINTIFF,
all in furtherance of the interests of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and
through this relationship became aware of problems in the PLAINTIFF’S house.
5. During the times of OFFENDING CLERIC’s religious guidance,
teaching and counseling of PLAINTIFF, OFFENDING CLERIC exploited the
power of his assigned and/or appointed positions, his authority, duties, and/or
obligations as a diocesan priest and PLAINTIFF'S Pastor, to take advantage of
PLAINTIFF'S vulnerability, naiveté and trust, and thereby to induce the
PLAINTIFF to participate in sexual activities. In furtherance of these efforts and
to induce the PLAINTIFF to fail to see the wrongfulness of OFFENDING
CLERIC’s actions, and remain silent regarding these actions he:
(a) Misrepresented himself to both PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF'S

father as a close friend of the family, an additional father figure
and male role model for the PLAINTIFF;
(b) Assigned PLAINTIFF compensated jobs about premises,
allowing PLAINTIFF to stay at the church rectory and
providing him with keys to the facility;
and otherwise using his position with the Diocese to accomplish his
abuse of the PLAINTIFF.
6. PLAINTIFF was brought to his first Mass as an alter boy by his

father, and while walking to the church was approached by a priest later known to
be FR. PHILIP MAGALDI. The priest smiled and chuckled and stated that his
name was Philip, too.
-97-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
7. As they walked to the sanctuary, the OFFENDING CLERIC advised

that he wanted him to ‘hold the book’ for him during the Mass. PLAINTIFF was
impressed by this attention and thought that the OFFENDING CLERIC had been
so kind to him.
8. Continuing for the remainder of the year, the PLAINTIFF worked as
an alter server at Masses and meetings and gatherings and was always favored by
the OFFENDING CLERIC.
9. PLAINTIFF was a student at St. Thomas Catholic Regional
Elementary School in Providence, Rhode Island, an institution operated under the
control of the HEIRARCHY DEFENDANTS.
10, Using the position afforded to him by the HEIRARCHY
DEFENDANTS, the OFFENDING CLERIC was able to contact the school
principal and inform him that he would be picking up PLAINTIFF in the morning
to serve at a funeral and return the child to the school when this was done.
11. The school allowed the OFFENDING CLERIC to do this several
times per month while the child attended grade school.
12. In 1979 or 1980, as part of his ‘mentoring,’ the offending cleric
learned that the PLAINTIFF’S mother developed a serious drinking problem and
the PLAINTIFF’S home life was difficult and not comfortable.
13. The OFFENDING CLERIC made St. Anthony’s a place for the
PLAINTIFF to be while not in school, and encouraged the PLAINTIFF to spend
his spare time at the St. Anthony’s rectory and church to assist in cleaning,
organizing and setting up for functions in the church and in the rectory.
14. The PLAINTIFF became very close to all employees, and specifically
to the OFFENDING CLERIC, and eventually started to be compensated for his
work there.
-98-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
15. In or about 1980 after the PLAINTIFF’S father confided in the

OFFENDING CLERIC about the troubles at the PLAINTIFF’S home, the
OFFENDING CLERIC advised the PLAINTIFF’S father in several meetings that
he would make St. Anthony’s a refuge for Plaintiff, the PLAINTIFF would be able
to stay at the rectory anytime that the PLAINTIFF wanted or needed to.
16. By this time the PLAINTIFF was serving Mass every Saturday night
and all morning on Sundays, and on several occasions the OFFENDING CLERIC
invited and encouraged the PLAINTIFF to sleep at the rectory and use the church
facilities to cultivate and grow a relationship with your PLAINTIFF where the
PLAINTIFF was allowed to stay in a spare bedroom on the second floor.
17. The PLAINTIFF accepted the OFFENDING CLERIC’s invitation to
seek refuge from the difficulties at home, and became more involved in many
different activities throughout the church which were overseen by the
OFFENDING CLERIC, spending the vast majority of his time there.
18. The OFFENDING CLERIC continued to cultivate a close relationship
with the PLAINTIFF, even taking him with him to visit the OFFENDING
CLERIC’S mother at her home in East Providence and to visit her for dinner,
leading the PLAINTIFF to feel that he was part of the OFFENDING CLERIC’S
family.
19. In the Spring of 1980, shortly after the winter had ended, the
OFFENDING CLERIC brought the PLAINTIFF to Iggy’s Restaurant in West
Warwick for lunch.
20. The child did not understand at the time that OFFENDING CLERIC
had a practice of entertaining young boys with dinners out, which was a tactic used
by other predator priests in the Diocese.
-99-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
21. He then took your PLAINTIFF to a Spa in Warwick, Rhode Island,

which he frequented on a weekly basis, telling the child that he brought him on this
occasion to use the pool and swim.
22. While at the spa, PLAINTIFF complained that he didn’t feel well, and
the OFFENDING CLERIC used a pretext to perform an ostensibly ‘medical’
procedure, which he proffered he used on himself, and would help plaintiff feel
better, but in fact he sexually assaulted PLAINTIFF.
23. The PLAINTIFF did not resist until he became dizzy and vomited.
24. That summer, the OFFENDING CLERIC accelerated his sexual
interest in plaintiff using another technique common among the perpetrator priests,
and known by the HEIRARCHY DEFENDANTS – supplying the child with
alcohol.
25. PLAINTIFF had never drunk alcohol prior to this point other than an
occasional taste of wine and had never previously been intoxicated.
26. After several drinks, the OFFENDING CLERIC again feigned a
medical problem, and induced plaintiff to ‘help him’ which again culminated in a
sexual assault.
27. Over the course of the ensuing months the offending cleric became
very physical when he was near PLAINTIFF and the tenor of their relationship
changed considerably.
28. Although he postured himself to be caring and affectionate, he
touched the PLAINTIFF every chance he could get, grabbing his buttocks and
genitals, and made a game of the same.
29. When the child attempted to ask the OFFENDING CLERIC to stop,
he was threatened by the suggestion that the CLERIC would advise the
PLAINTIFF’S father that he drank alcohol and had gotten drunk. The offending
cleric also used gifts and his continued attention to keep plaintiff in line.
-100-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
30. The PLAINTIFF was intimidated by these threats and was unable to
get the OFFENDING CLERIC to stop for several years.
31. During the course of this period, the abuse continued, for example, on
several occasions while acting as an alter boy during outings to Rocky Point, the
OFFENDING CLERIC had followed the PLAINTIFF around and when he felt no
one was watching would grope the PLAINTIFF’S buttocks and genitals, including
while on rides. There are numerous other incidents of sexual abuse suffered at the
hands of OFFENDING CLERIC. PLAINTIFF estimates that between 100 and 300
times between 1978 when the PLAINTIFF was 12 and 1983 when the PLAINTIFF
was 17, he was inappropriately touched, molested and/or abused, which abuse was
often accompanied by the so-called ‘medical’ procedure that the OFFENDING
CLERIC incorporated into his sexual activity.
32. The OFFENDING CLERIC also took the PLAINTIFF on out of state
trips, for example to New Hampshire for a two-day Hampton Beach trip during
which he was abused, again using alcohol to take advantage of the child sexually,
and thereafter threatening plaintiff to assure his ongoing silence.
33. Thereafter, the OFFENDING CLERIC brought plaintiff to New York
City, staying at a luxury hotel and dining at luxury restaurants, and plied him with
alcohol.
34. During the course of this trip, the priest communicated with defendant
GELINEAU, advising plaintiff that he had informed BISHOP GELINEAU of the
trip because it was related to his priestly duties.
35. After dinner, they returned to the suite and the PLAINTIFF went to
bed and went to sleep in his room, but was again molested.
36. After returning from the trip to New York City, your PLAINTIFF
withdrew from his interactions with the OFFENDING CLERIC, and alleges, on
information and believe, that it was as a result of this withdrawal that he was
-101-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
physically beaten by another priest, with whom Magaldi was friendly who asked
8
him why he had been so withdrawn and quiet.

37. The day after PLAINTIFF was finally able to tell the OFFENDING
CLERIC that he would no longer allow him to abuse him, the priest contacted the
PLAINTIFF’S father and asked him to come to the church rectory, and then
fabricated a story, telling his father that the PLAINTIFF was stealing money from
the church and he demanding the return of the church keys.
38. Because plaintiff was so embarrassed by the relationship that had
occurred with the OFFENDING CLERIC and his abuse, he acquiesced.
PLAINTIFF also chose to let his father believe he stole money from the church,
which he did not, in order to conceal the abuse he suffered at the hands of the
OFFENDING CLERIC. The decision to lie to his father and allow him to believe
that his son was a thief caused considerable pain and suffering to PLAINTIFF and
haunts him to this day
39. It was not until approximately 2007 that PLAINTIFF was able to
speak about the abuse that occurred at the hands of the OFFENDING CLERIC
when PLAINTIFF was a child.
40. PLAINTIFF contacted the BISHOP’S office to advise of the
OFFENDING CLERIC’S abuse and was then connected to ROBERT
MCCARTHY in the Office of Compliance.
41. PLAINTIFF spoke to him several times by phone and provided a
statement detailing the years of abuse, and learned that the OFFENDING CLERIC
had been transferred out of the Diocese to Texas, where he was accused of
engaging in the same ‘medical’ behavior with another child.
8
And who also had a sexual interest in young men.
-102-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
42. The OFFENDING CLERIC exploited the power of his assigned

and/or appointed positions, his authority, duties, and/or obligations as a diocesan
priest and PLAINTIFF'S Pastor, to take advantage of PLAINTIFF'S vulnerability,
naiveté and trust, and thereby to induce the PLAINTIFF to participate in sexual
activities, to further induce the PLAINTIFF to fail to see the wrongfulness of
OFFENDING CLERIC’s actions, and remain silent regarding these actions by:
(a) Misrepresenting himself to both PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF'S
father as a close friend of the family, an additional father figure and male role
model for the PLAINTIFF;
(b) Assigning PLAINTIFF compensated jobs about premises of the
parish, including work at the rectory and church;
(c) Misleading and coercing PLAINTIFF through misrepresentation and
psychological duress by:
(d) Tacitly suggesting that he was engaged in types of activity that were
normal or normal for a priest;
(e) Suggesting to the PLAINTIFF that he was responsible for the sexual
nature of their relationship;
(f) Rewarding the PLAINTIFF for his sexual cooperation with attention,
money, cars, travel, and public status of import in the church community;
(g) Encouraging PLAINTIFF to sleep at the church and the rectory by
providing PLAINTIFF with the keys and unrestricted access;
(h) Coercing PLAINTIFF into allowing him to perform lewd and
lascivious acts, upon and/or with the PLAINTIFF, including masturbation, sexual
intercourse; and
(i) Engaging in criminal sexual contact, including penetration, with the
PLAINTIFF; all without PLAINTIFF’S valid or knowledgeable consent, thereby
-103-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
engendering fear so great that PLAINTIFF believed that the OFFENDING

CLERIC would retaliate.
43. The acts of OFFENDING CLERIC were undertaken during the course
and within the scope of his employment as a priest incardinated to the Diocese of
Providence of the Roman Catholic Church, under the authority of GELINEAU.
44. The acts of sexual abuse perpetrated upon PLAINTIFF by
OFFENDING CLERIC were intentional, willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, and
outrageous in his disregard for the rights of said PLAINTIFF, and were undertaken
with full knowledge that the acts were criminal and would inflict upon
PLAINTIFF severe injuries and physical and emotional pain.
45. At all time material hereto, PLAINTIFF was operating under duress
as a result of the conduct of, and coerced into believing by, OFFENDING
CLERIC, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S),that:
(a) Harm would come to PLAINTIFF if PLAINTIFF complained

of and/or revealed OFFENDING CLERIC’s conduct; and/or,
(b) That PLAINTIFF’s own conduct was wrong or sinful; and/or,
(c) That OFFENDING CLERIC’s conduct was proper and beyond
reproach; and/or,
(d) That casting aspersions upon OFFENDING CLERIC would
result in harm and/or punishment to PLAINTIFF or his family.
46. PHILIP EDWARDO was so disabled by the misconduct of

OFFENDING CLERIC, that he was unable to speak of that misconduct to anyone
until 2007 while participating in marriage counselling. Thereafter, for the first
time, he was able to make a statement to any person that he had been abused
sexually by OFFENDING CLERIC.
-104-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
47. At all times material hereto, PLAINTIFF was in the exercise of due
care.
48. As a direct and proximate result of the sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation, PLAINTIFF was severely and permanently injured, and suffered and
will continue to suffer severe pain, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, post-
traumatic stress syndrome, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of self-esteem,
was prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing his normal daily
activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life, sustained and will continue to
sustain loss of earning capacity, and incurred and will continue to incur expenses
for medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling,
which OFFENDING CLERIC has interfered with, thereby exacerbating those
injuries.
-105-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
COUNT I
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)
Intentional Misconduct
1. PLAINTIFF repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation

contained in the above paragraphs of the complaint, as if fully set forth.
2. Prior to the dates of sexual molestation perpetrated by OFFENDING
CLERIC upon PLAINTIFF, and thereafter, OFFENDING CLERIC has been
known or should have been known to HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), to have been a pedophile and/or ephebophile
or other sexual offender, with a habit of making sexual advances and engaging in
unnatural sexual acts with children, under the pretext of OFFENDING CLERIC'S
duties as a priest, and utilizing his position as a priest to overcome such children's
reluctance and fears. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS further knew that the
practices and systems that they had put in place to protect themselves from scandal
and embarrassment provided protection to and aided the OFFENDING CLERIC in
such misconduct.
3. After learning through complaints from other priests and/or others that
OFFENDING CLERIC had utilized his position as a priest to lure and persuade
children to commit sexual acts with him, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and
PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) deliberately and outrageously
reassigned OFFENDING CLERIC from parish to parish and/or from position to
position, where OFFENDING CLERIC would have further access to children,
including PLAINTIFF, who had no awareness of his improper sexual practices at
his previous assignments or appointments; thereafter, they failed to remove or
suspend OFFENDING CLERIC from his duties as a priest, or otherwise act to stop
him from pursuing his sexual assaults on children, including PLAINTIFF, after
-106-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
receiving further complaints and reliable information that OFFENDING CLERIC

was engaging in such illegal and improper activities with children.
4. The actions of said Defendants as alleged in the preceding paragraph
constituted intentional misconduct with the harm which befell PLAINTIFF as a
directly foreseeable consequence.
5. At all times material hereto, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and
the PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or
employees' actions were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, and outrageous in
their disregard for the rights and safety of PLAINTIFF.
6. As a direct result of said tortious conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered
the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT II
Intentional Misconduct

contained in the above paragraphs of the complaint, as if fully set forth.
2. DEFENDANTS owed a duty of care to all persons, including plaintiff,
who were likely to come within the influence of the OFFENDING CLERIC in his
role as a priest, to insure that OFFENDING CLERIC did not abuse his authority as
a priest to injure others by sexual assault and abuse.
3. DEFENDANTS intentionally breached their duty of care, and
willfully, intentionally and recklessly disregarded the rights and safety of plaintiff,
by failing to warn or otherwise protect the plaintiff from OFFENDING CLERIC ,
who was acting under their supervision, and whom they knew or should have
known was likely sexually to assault and abuse person such as plaintiff in the
-107-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
manner described herein, and by failing to insure that OFFENDING CLERIC

would not have unsupervised access to people such as plaintiff.
As a direct and proximate result, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
suffer the injuries described above.
COUNT III
Negligence in the Hiring, Supervision and Retention of
OFFENDING CLERIC

contained in the above paragraphs of the complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
2. HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees had actual or
constructive knowledge, and it is therefore reasonably foreseeable, that in the
ordinary course of a priest's duties, a priest might present a threat of injury to
minor parishioners.
DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees had actual or
constructive knowledge that OFFENDING CLERIC was a sexual offender or had
propensities of pedophilia and/or ephebophilia - involving children and was unfit
to perform his employment responsibilities, duties and/or obligations as a priest
involved in ministry to children, and was a severe danger to such minors, including
PLAINTIFF.
4. Said Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the
continual formation of priests, including the screening, selection, training,
supervision, retention, assignment, transferring, appointment and/or employing of
OFFENDING CLERIC, for the work assigned to him, and for purposes of
-108-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
determining his fitness for access to minors, including PLAINTIFF, and were
negligent in that said Defendants failed to adopt and establish reasonable or
adequate policies, guidelines or other means whereby they would learn to
recognize a priest's propensity for deviant sexual behavior or the behavior itself,
failed to adequately screen and/or investigate OFFENDING CLERIC regarding his
candidacy for the priesthood; failed to adequately investigate his prior activities
and behavior with regard to minors; and failed to adequately monitor and/or
investigate OFFENDING CLERIC’S conduct, during his seminary training,
probationary period prior to incardination, and conduct prior to each change in
assignment and/or appointment of OFFENDING CLERIC as a diocesan priest,
particularly through OFFENDING CLERIC’S assignment or appointed position
with PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), and thereafter.
5. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and the PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees, had
an ongoing duty to keep and retain OFFENDING CLERIC under supervision that
provided assurance that OFFENDING CLERIC was fit to perform his employment
and/or assigned or appointed responsibilities and did not present a risk to the
health, safety and welfare of those individuals, including PLAINTIFF, who would
reasonably be expected to come into contact with OFFENDING CLERIC as a
result of his employment, and/or duties and responsibilities of his assignments or
appointments while a diocesan priest and to retain him only as long as he was fit
and competent.
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees,
breached their duty of care in that they failed to take any action to ensure that
PLAINTIFF was not harmed by OFFENDING CLERIC, despite their actual or
constructive notice of OFFENDING CLERIC’S psychosexual disorder or conduct
-109-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
of pedophilia and/or ephebophilia, more specifically, the HIERARCHY

DEFENDANTS and the PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their
agents, servants and/or employees, negligently screened, selected, trained, retained,
employed, assigned, transferred and/or appointed OFFENDING CLERIC to the
position of trust and authority as a diocesan priest, Assistant Pastor and/or Pastor
of the PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), in direct contact with youth,
and further negligently failed to provide and/or ensure reasonable supervision of
OFFENDING CLERIC and negligently failed to provide adequate warning to
PLAINTIFF, negligently failed or refused to remove or suspend OFFENDING
CLERIC from his duties at his various assignments or appointments or as a priest,
or otherwise act to prevent OFFENDING CLERIC from pursuing his sexual
assaults on children, including PLAINTIFF and to require him to report same to
his victims, and otherwise failed to adopt and establish policies, guidelines, or
other means protecting Plaintiff from a priest's propensity for deviant sexual
behavior or the behavior itself.
7. At all times material hereto, the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and
the PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or
employees' actions were willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, and outrageous in
their disregard for the rights and safety of PLAINTIFF.
8. As a direct result of said negligent conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered
-110-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
COUNT IV
Respondeat Superior

CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees had
the responsibility to supervise and control diocesan priests serving within the
Diocese of Providence and specifically, had a duty not to aid OFFENDING
CLERIC by assigning, maintaining and/or appointing him to a position with access
to minors including through OFFENDING CLERIC’S position as a diocesan
priest, Assistant Pastor and/or Pastor of the PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S).
3. In fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as Bishop, Vicar General
and/or Auxiliary Bishop, Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Assistant Chancellor,
and/or as officials and members of the hierarchy, "Diocesan Officials," and/or
Diocesan Curia of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, said HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS were acting within the course and scope of their employment in
that upon information and belief, within the Diocese of Providence, Defendant
GELINEAU had the authority to assign, appoint and/or remove OFFENDING
CLERIC to and/or from any pastoral assignment within the Diocese of Providence,
and to grant and/or withhold permission for OFFENDING CLERIC to exercise his
faculties as a priest in public within the State of Rhode Island. OFFENDING
CLERIC had a duty to receive and execute whatever orders were given him by
Defendant GELINEAU, and a duty to submit to Defendant GELINEAU'S
decisions, and the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, particularly Defendants
-111-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
REILLY and ANGELL, and the PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S),

had duties and responsibilities directly to Defendant GELINEAU to give him
effective assistance in the administration of the Diocese of Providence including
consultation regarding the assignment of priests.
4. The provision of religious instruction and advice to minors, as well as,
giving attention to youth “with special diligence," and joining together with them
“in friendly meetings” is within the course and scope of employment, duties,
obligations, and/or responsibilities of a Roman Catholic diocesan priest. (See
EXHIBIT A-5 attached hereto and incorporated by reference.) Said Defendants,
their agents, servants and/or employees were reasonably on notice that a priest
could exploit the power of his position and such relationships with minors as a
confidant and teacher to abuse and sexually molest them.
5. As a diocesan priest, Assistant Pastor and/or Pastor at said PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), OFFENDING CLERIC was acting as the
agent, servant and/or employee of said HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and
PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), during and within the course and
scope of his agency and employment, and thereby gained access to PLAINTIFF
and used the powers and influence of his positions and status as actual and
apparent agent of defendants to sexually abuse PLAINTIFF.
6. As a direct result of said conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered the
injuries and damages described herein.
-112-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
COUNT V
Negligence for Premises Liability

2. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and/or PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S) owned and/or operated and/or maintained premises of PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S).
3. At all times material hereto, OFFENDING CLERIC was permitted on
the premises of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) by and with the
knowledge of HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and/or PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S) .
4. At all times material hereto and more specifically at the time of the
sexual abuse of PLAINTIFF, OFFENDING CLERIC was retained, assigned and/or
appointed to his position at said premises of PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S) by Defendant GELINEAU.
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), in the exercise of reasonable care, knew or
should have known that OFFENDING CLERIC represented an unreasonable risk
to PLAINTIFF on said premises of PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S).
6. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S) failed to warn PLAINTIFF of said risk.
7. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and Defendant, PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) failed to make said premises safe from
-113-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
OFFENDING CLERIC’S sexual predations and conduct perpetrated against

PLAINTIFF.
8. But for the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS' and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)' failure to warn PLAINTIFF, and/or the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS' and PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT'S(S') failure to make the premises of Defendant PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) safe from OFFENDING CLERIC’S sexual
propensities, predations and conduct, PLAINTIFF would not have been sexually
abused as aforesaid.
9. As a direct result of said negligent conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered
COUNT VI
OFFENDING CLERIC, HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS,
and PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)
Conspiracy to Commit Acts and Violate Plaintiff’s Rights

2. Upon information and belief, OFFENDING CLERIC, and the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and the PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees, motivated by their
desire to prevent knowledge, prevent criminal prosecution, and minimize disgrace
and scandal, and by their desire to retain the active service of a diocesan priest
and/or manifestly and impliedly protect said Defendants’ perception of the rights
of such adult diocesan priest over and above the rights and safety of potential
minor victims, under the laws of the State of Rhode Island and the United States,
thereby gambling with the safety of such victims, agreed to enter into a conspiracy,
-114-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
and conspired, aided and abetted to commit the acts complained of herein and to
violate the rights of minor children, including PLAINTIFF.
3. In furtherance of said conspiracy and agreement, DEFENDANTS,
through their position and authority as leaders, and their unique authority and
coercion over plaintiff, overtly protected DEFENDANT PRIEST, facilitated his
access to minor children, including PLAINTIFF, engaged in a cover up of his
activities, prevented PLAINTIFF from discovering the wrongfulness of
DEFENDANT PRIEST’s actions, and otherwise acted to injure PLAINTIFF.
4. At all times material hereto, the actions of said Defendants were
willful, wanton, malicious, reckless, and outrageous in their disregard for the rights
and safety of PLAINTIFF.
5. This conduct by defendants was deliberately designed to further
defendants' interests at plaintiff's expense, and to protect defendants and their
reputations at plaintiff's expense.
6. Said conduct has continued up to and including the present time.
7. As a direct and proximate result PLAINTIFF has suffered and will
continue to suffer the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT VII
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, and PARISH
Fraudulent Concealment/Misrepresentation

2. Upon information and belief, Defendants, motivated by their desire to
prevent knowledge from being disseminated, prevent criminal prosecution, and
minimize disgrace and scandal, and by their desire to retain the active service of a
-115-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
diocesan priest and/or manifestly and impliedly protect said Defendants’

perception of the rights of such adult diocesan priest over and above the rights and
safety of potential minor victims, under the laws of the State of Rhode Island and
the United States, thereby gambling with and/or egregiously endangering the safety
of such victims, agreed to enter into a conspiracy, conspired to and did fraudulently
conceal and/or misrepresent their knowledge, negligence, and activities from
PLAINTIFF. Said Defendants engaged in a course of conduct including false
representations, promises, religious duress and failure to disclose and/or
suppression of material facts, designed to prevent victims such as PLAINTIFF
from timely discovering the wrongfulness of Defendants' actions and
PLAINTIFF'S resultant injuries as well as the causes of action - all as more
specifically set forth in detail elsewhere in this complaint.
3. Defendants willfully misrepresented, and deliberately misled plaintiff
and failed to inform him concerning at least the following:
their interest in protecting DEFENDANT PRIEST in particular,

and priests generally from investigation;
the activities of DEFENDANT PRIEST in particular, and
priests generally;
the wrongfulness of said activities;
and the injury to plaintiff that was likely to result and that did in
fact result.
4. Because of plaintiff's position and defendant's position and authority,

the plaintiff reasonably relied upon defendant's misrepresentations and omissions.
5. Further dates, details, and circumstances whereby Defendants have
engaged in fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation against PLAINTIFF cannot
at this time be set forth with more particularity because such documentation is
-116-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
either sealed in other court files or in the possession of Defendants and not as yet
fully accessible to PLAINTIFF.
6. Due in part to the Defendants’ fraudulent concealment, PLAINTIFF
herein lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the factual and legal basis for
this lawsuit, particularly against the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees, was
prevented from realizing the wrongfulness of defendant's actions and plaintiff's
resulting harm, and from remediating that harm.
7. PLAINTIFF, despite his exercise of due diligence, was prevented
from discovering these causes of action set forth herein, as a direct result of
Defendants’ conduct.
8. At all times material hereto, the actions of said Defendants were
COUNT VIII
THE HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, and the PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) - Breach of Fiduciary
Duty

2. PLAINTIFF was placed in the care and ministry of Defendants, and
by Defendants in the care and ministry of DEFENDANT PRIEST, for the purposes
of, inter alia, providing PLAINTIFF with religious instruction, training, and
spiritual guidance and counseling expounded by the Roman Catholic Church. As
-117-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
such, there existed a fiduciary relationship of trust, confidence, and reliance

between PLAINTIFF and all Defendants.
3. Under their fiduciary relationship, Defendants were entrusted with the
well-being, care, and safety of PLAINTIFF.
4. Under their fiduciary relationship, Defendants assumed a duty to act
in the best interest of PLAINTIFF.
5. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to PLAINTIFF.
6. At all times material hereto, OFFENDING CLERIC was under the
direct supervision, employ and/or control of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
and the PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or
employees.
7. At all times material hereto, said Defendants' actions were willful,
wanton, malicious, reckless, and outrageous in their disregard for the rights and
safety of PLAINTIFF, which amounted to conduct equivalent to criminality.
COUNT IX
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S) - Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress

2. As described aforesaid, the actions of said Defendants, their
predecessors and/or successors, agents, servants and/or employees were conducted
in a negligent manner.
-118-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
3. As a direct and proximate result of said Defendants’ negligence,

PLAINTIFF suffered the injuries and damages described herein including mental
and emotional distress.
COUNT X
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS - and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S-Breach of Duty In Loco
Parentis

2. PLAINTIFF was entrusted by his parents to the Defendants for the
purposes of, inter alia, providing PLAINTIFF with religious instruction, training,
counseling and spiritual guidance expounded by the Roman Catholic Church. As
such, there existed a special relationship including a fiduciary relationship for the
well-being, care, and safety of PLAINTIFF. The Defendants owed a duty to
PLAINTIFF in loco parentis.
3. By sanctioning the entrusting of PLAINTIFF, then a minor child
having his physical, mental and emotional safety entrusted to the Defendants, said
Defendants actually and/or impliedly accepted, assumed and ratified the duty in
loco parentis to protect him, as he was a minor child unable to protect himself. At
all times material hereto, OFFENDING CLERIC was under the direct supervision,
employ and control of said HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S), their agents, servants and/or employees.
4. That in the performance of his duties as a diocesan priest, Assistant
Pastor and/or Pastor, OFFENDING CLERIC engaged in and/or was enabled by his
power and position to engage in sexual molestation perpetrated against
PLAINTIFF as described hereinabove.
5. Defendants breached their duty in loco parentis.
-119-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
6. At all times material hereto, said Defendants' actions were willful,

wanton, malicious, reckless, and outrageous in their disregard for the rights and
safety of PLAINTIFF.
COUNT XI
Invasion of Privacy

2. As a direct result of Defendants’ actions as alleged herein, Defendants
heinously invaded PLAINTIFF'S privacy.
3. In addition to invasion of PLAINTIFF'S common-law right to
privacy, said invasion of PLAINTIFF'S privacy is also in violation of GL 1956
(1985 Reenactment) §9-1-28.1.
4. At all times material hereto, said Defendants’ actions were intentional,
-120-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
COUNT XII
NEW YORK CHILD VICTIM’S ACT CLAIMS

2. The acts of OFFENDING CLERIC in the State of New York as
described above were undertaken during and/or enabled by the course and scope of
his employment, appointment and/or agency with the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS and PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT (S) and/or as a
diocesan priest.
3. At all times material hereto, OFFENDING CLERIC represented an
unreasonable danger to PLAINTIFF and other minors due to OFFENDING
CLERIC'S sexual propensities of pedophilia and/or ephebophilia.
DEFENDANT knew or should have known that his psychosexual disorder and/or
his sexual propensities of pedophilia and/or ephebophilia posed an unreasonable
risk of sexual abuse and harm to PLAINTIFF, knew or should have know that
candor with plaintiff and plaintiffs’ family, both prior to his misconduct and to the
present was needed to remediate the effects of that misconduct, and knew that the
OFFENDING PRIEST, like many of its priests, could use his position to travel
with children such as PLAINTIFF out of state, and sexually molest plaintiff in the
course of such travel.
DEFENDANT owed plaintiff a duty to protect plaintiff from defendant's sexual
deviancy, and a duty of candor with plaintiff and plaintiffs’ family, both prior to
his misconduct and to the present.
-121-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.

DEFENDANT breached that duty.
7. But for HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and PARISH
CORPORATION DEFENDANT’s conduct, PLAINTIFF would not have been
sexually abused by him during his trip to New York.
8. The intentional or negligent acts or omissions of the HIERARCHY
DEFENDANTS’ and PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT’S resulted in the
commission of conduct in New York which would constitute a sexual offense
as defined in article one hundred thirty of the New York penal law committed
against plaintiff while he was less than eighteen years of age, or a predecessor
statute that prohibited such conduct at the time of the act.
9. As a direct result of said conduct, PLAINTIFF has suffered physical,
psychological or other injury or condition and damages as described herein.
-122-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Tolling of Statutes of Limitation; Equitable Estoppel


2. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS knew, based upon their
institutional knowledge and prior experience with offending clerics and their child
victims, that their conduct and acts assisted priests generally, and the
OFFENDING CLERIC in particular, both before and after the fact of molestation
in continuing to conceal, hide, coerce and misdirect victims of sexual abuse, and
law enforcement, and further that priests:
a) Used their positions within the institution to obtain access to children

for illegal sexual conduct;
b) Used their positions, and their movement of positions, within the
institution to create opportunities for illegal sexual conduct;
c) Used their positions, and movement of positions, within the institution
to transport children both within the state and across state lines for
illegal sexual conduct without suspicion;
d) Used their positions, and authority within the institution to, entice
children generally and specifically into positions within the institution
that would enable their abuse.
e) Used their contact with others within the institution to form groups
within the institution with common interests in illicit illegal activity,
including illegal sexual conduct with children;
-123-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
f) Used the facilities and resources provided by the institution to

support, facilitate and conceal their illegal activity, including illegal
sexual conduct with children, within the state across state lines, and
further understood that:
3. The HEIRARCY DEFENDANTS could be relied upon, in turn, to use

their positions, and authority within the institution to:
a) Act to thwart, hinder, pressure, and or otherwise frustrate the

reporting and criminal prosecution of the abuse of children;
b) Set up sham treatment for offending priests that would enable them to
reoffend;
c) Affirmatively and deliberately provide false statements to the public,
to law enforcement, and to the Courts so as to protect the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, the DIOCESE and the offenders.
d) Use their institutional authority to pressure law enforcement to protect
offenders;
e) Move priests as a form of protection, thereby enabling and facilitating
abuse.
4. The conduct of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS evidences a

conspiracy which renders the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS as accessories both
before and after repeated criminal acts, such that HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS
are themselves perpetrators within the meaning of GL §9-1-51 (a)(1) as amended,
as specifically:
a) There is an agreement among themselves and those acting at their
direction;
-124-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
b) There are acts to affirmatively aid and assist in the concealment and
continued perpetration of the abuse of minor children; and
c) The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS constitute an enterprise operated to
further and protect criminal activity.
4. The conduct of the HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS evidences

an agreement among themselves and those acting at their direction,
and
acts to affirmatively aid and assist in the concealment and continued
perpetration of the abuse of minor children;
an enterprise operated to further and protect criminal activity
such that to render the HIERARCY DEFENDANTS accessories both before
and after repeated criminal acts as well as conspirators, such that the
HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS are themselves perpetrators within the meaning of
GL §9-1-51 (a)(1) as amended.
5. PLAINTIFF pleads misrepresentation, fraud and fraudulent

concealment thereof on the part of Defendants, thus tolling and/or suspending the
running of limitations against all Defendants as to all claims.
6. PLAINTIFF pleads fraudulent concealment of facts under
Defendant’s control, giving rise to PLAINTIFF'S causes of action against all
Defendants, thus tolling and/or suspending the running of limitations against all
Defendants as to all claims.
7. PLAINTIFF pleads breach of fiduciary duty, including but not limited
to the duty to disclose, against all Defendants, thus tolling and/or suspending the
running of limitations against all Defendants as to all claims.
-125-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
8. PLAINTIFF pleads conspiracy to commit acts, to conceal their own

conduct and that of the offending priests, and to commit fraud and to fraudulently
conceal the acts and the existence of the fraud and conspiracy, thus tolling and/or
suspending the running of limitations against all Defendants as to all claims;
9. PLAINTIFF alleges that the actions of all Defendants because of their
conduct, statements, promises and representations, preclude them from claiming
the bar of limitations to any of the Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff thus pleads the
doctrine of Equitable Estoppel.
-126-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF demands judgment against the

HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, and PARISH CORPORATION
DEFENDANT(S), jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, and for
punitive damages, together with interest and costs.
PHILIP EDWARDO,
By his attorneys,
TJCESQ, psc
Timothy J. Conlon, Esq. (2523)

76 Westminster Street, Suite 420
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 272-6702
Chaika & Chaika,
/S
Daniel E. Chaika, Esq. (3765)
559 South Water St.
Providence, RI 02903
-127-
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.
Submitted: 9/30/2019 5:24 PM
Envelope: 2274916
Reviewer: Carol M.

Edwardo V Gelineau Complaint 190930

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Edwardo V Gelineau Complaint 190930

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case Number: PC-2019-09894

Filed in Providence/Bristol County Superior Court

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

C.A. No. _______________

LOUIS A. GELINEAU, THE ROMAN PLAINTIFF

1. PLAINTIFF, PHILIP EDWARDO, (hereinafter "PLAINTIFF"), is

1. Defendant, the ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF

(a) which corporation’s function and/or purpose was in furtherance

2. Defendant, MOST REV. LOUIS E. GELINEAU, sixth bishop of

judicial. Defendant GELINEAU can personally exercise legislative power; he can

of the bond (See EXHIBIT A-2, p. 2, attached hereto and

5. Defendants, XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-250, and/or predecessor(s)

the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, of Defendants GELINEAU and/or

(a) which corporations' agents, servants and/or employees were

make them mere instrumentalities or agents of Defendants RCB and/or

C. PARISH CORPORATION DEFENDANT(S)

1. DEFENDANT, ST. ANTHONY CHURCH CORPORATION

2. DEFENDANT, ST. ANTHONY CHURCH CORPORATION is

1. PHILIP MAGALDI, ALIAS (hereinafter MIGALDI or the

furtherance of the interests of, and subject to the authority of Defendants

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The Catholic Church in the United States consists of 60 million

" ... The document, titled 'Diocese of Providence Economic and

2. By tradition, the public, generally, and Catholics in particular, have

3. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and leaders in the Roman

• that there was a high incidence of pedophiles and ephebophiles

• that thousands of sexual molestations of minors by priests had

• that certain priests had been convicted for or admitted said

4. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS and leaders in the Roman

6. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS knew that many priests in the

Rev. Paul Henry Leech was sentenced by a Rhode Island Superior

7. The HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS, PARISH CORPORATION

While maintaining that they viewed sexual assaults of children

saddened. They claimed that at all times they took

13. Suppression of the identity of sexual offenders by Defendants was

offending clerics present by misrepresenting them as priests in good standing in at

• Enabling their continued unrestricted access to minors;

or "retired" after removal from their assignments or suspension

by its priests including OFFENDING CLERIC. (See EXHIBIT A-5 attached

1. Defendant GELINEAU (including his predecessors) had the ultimate

2. GELINEAU thus had the responsibility to ensure that assignment of

BISHOP: McVINNEY, Most Rev. Russell J. (Deceased

ADMINISTRATOR of the REILLY, Rev. Daniel P.

BISHOP: GELINEAU, Most Rev. Louis E.

CO-ADJUTOR BISHOP MULVEE, Most Rev. Robert E.

BISHOP –to present TOBIN, Most Rev. Robert E.

VICAR GENERAL: BLESSING, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Peter E.

VICAR GENERAL REILLY, Rev. Msgr. Daniel P.

CO-VICARS GENERAL: REILLY, Rev. Msgr. Daniel P.

From 8-74 to 10-92 ANGELL, Rev. Msgr. Kenneth A.

CO-VICARS GENERAL: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I.

CO-VICARS GENERAL: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I.

MULVEE, Most Rev. Robert E.

CHANCELLOR: MURRAY, Very Rev. Msgr. William F.

CHANCELLOR: REILLY, Rt. Rev. Msgr. Daniel P.

CHANCELLOR: ANGELL, Rev. Msgr. Kenneth A.

CO-CHANCELLORS: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. Wm.

1981 VARSANYI, Rev Msgr. William I. PAGE,

CO-CHANCELLORS: VARSANYI, Rev. Msgr. William I.

4. GELINEAU and other HIERARCHY DEFENDANTS have held

5 Brassard is the named defendant accused of child molestation in the matter of

C. HISTORY OF DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE AND

6 The specific date remains unknown to PLAINTIFF, but is known to the