Decrees of Publication and Questions, pages 26 - 30.
Page 26:
All the evidence appears to have been gathered. I have examined it and now order that a copy of it be given to the Advocate & Procurator for the petitioner.
If there are any additional proofs, they must be presented to me by 23 February 2001. The conclusion of the case will then be ordered, unless on 23 February 2001 additional proofs are admitted (as permitted by canon 1598.2).
Given at St Roch's Presbytery
200 Burke Road
GLEN IRIS VIC.
[Signed] I.B. Waters
PRESIDING JUDGE
[Signed] A. Clifford
NOTARY
13 February 2001
Page 27:
After the Publication of the Acts, the petitioner submitted a list of questions (p. 28) requesting that they be put to the respondent by a judge. Eight of the questions were disallowed, but the other five were permitted (pp. 29-30).
The Petitioner also presented a nine-page document headed Additional Proofs of John Lilburne (pp. 31-39). The judges were very hesistant to admit it as evidence, since it appears to be mostly pleadings (even rebuttal) rather than evidence. However, after noting that here and there in that document are statements that could be seen as additional evidence, the document is admitted with a proviso. That proviso is that the pleadings in the advocate's brief are not to rehearse the pleadings already presented.
The petitioner also presented on 23 February 2001 various documents and a bag of books. These are all listed on p. 40. Of the documents, three are admitted (pp. 41-45). Three others (a letter from Bishop Manning with a media release, and two issues of a newsletter from the Committee on Liturgy of the United States Episcopal Conference) are not admitted, as they all concern the Institutio Generalis of the forthcoming edition of the Roman Missal. As the Institutio is not yet effective, it can have no juridical consequences it this case.
The supplementary interrogation of the respondent is also admitted (pp. 46-47).
Finally, another submission from the petitioner, dated 25 February 2001, was received at the Tribunal on 26 February 2001, and is admitted (p. 48).
All the evidence now appears to have been gathered. I now order that a copy of it be given to the Advocate & Procurator for the petitioner.
If there are any additional proofs, they must be presented to me by 2 March 2001. The conclusion of the case will then be ordered.
Given at the Tribunal Offices
EAST MELBOURNE VICTORIA
[Signed] I.B. Waters
PRESIDING JUDGE
[Signed] A. Clifford
NOTARY
27 February 2001
Page 28 [Note the questions were not numbered, but this has been added for convenience].
Suggested Questions to be asked of Very Reverend Gerard Dowling
1. John Lilburne has submitted three letters that were sent to you. Did you receive them?
2. Do you accept that as Dean you are responsible for decisions about who reads? (If No, who is?)
3. Do you accept that John Lilburne is an instituted reader?
If No, why, do you have records of the Institution Ceremony on
27 February 2000, can these be submitted as evidence?
4. Can you provide a list of the rostered readers, with their addresses?
5. Do you require that rostered readers live in the parish boundaries?
6. Do you know if any of the rostered readers are instituted readers? (If Yes, do they wear vestments when reading?)
7. Do you know the seminarian Fabian Smith? Are you aware that he is an instituted reader? What liturgical roles did he fulfill at the Cathedral?
8. Do you know the seminarian Peter Damian McKinley? Are you aware that he is an instituted reader? On Sunday 28 January 2001, did you concelebrated with the Archbishop, with Peter Damian as an altar server, but not reading?
9. Do you think that Canon 230.3 was breached by not using
instituted readers when they were available? In the case of:
John Lilburne
Fabian Smith
Peter Damian McKinley.
10. If No, why?
(If Yes, do you accept responsibility for this breach? Do you
have any reasons to justify the breach? What?)
11. Are payments made to Cantors, altar servers, organists or members of the choir? Do you know the amounts?
Page 29 [Note: this page has the letter-head of the Tribunal of the Catholic Church Victoria and Tasmania, with address, phone number and fax number.]
13 February 2001
Lilburne-Dowling
301-00-165
Mrs Maree Rewell
James Goold House
Victoria Parade
EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Dear Maree,
I have examined the thirteen suggested questions for Dean Dowling proposed by John Lilburne. I received these questions when I handed you a copy of the acts of the case just after they had been published. Strangely, John did not propose these questions when he appeared before me on 6 February. Dean Dowling gave evidence on 10 February.
I disallow the following eight questions for these reasons:
Q1 The respondent ws handed a copy of the petition, with the three letters attached, so I can guarantee that he has read them. Moreover, his evidence implies that he had received and read them.
Q2 The respondent has answered this in his answer 4.
Q3 His evidence clearly implies that he does not question that John Lilburne has been instituted as a lector.
Q4 His evidence indicates that he accepted that the petitioner had made himself available.
Page 30:
| Mrs Maree Rewell |
|
13 February 2001 |
Q5 The sworn evidence states that there is a waiting list. As the Tribunal accepts the respondent as unquestionably truthful, this question will not be put to him, as it would imply a suspicion of perjury.
Q6 For the same reason, this question will not be put. Moreover, the names and address of the rostered readers are of no concern to the petitioner.
Q7 This has been answered by the respondent in his answer 9.
Q13 I shall not put this question to the respondent, as it could imply that the Dean, as employer of a number of employees, does not pay just wages. The Tribunal will presume that anyone employed at the Cathedral is paid just wages. It will also presume that many persons provide voluntary services - liturgical and other - at the Cathedral, and therefore are not paid. Moreover, information about salaries and wages of individuals is confidential. Should the petitioner want to know such information, he himself should ask the individuals concerned.
Of the remaining questions, I state:
QQ8-10 I shall put these questions to the respondent, only if the petitioner can explain how they are relevant to the point at issue.
Q11 This question implies that the petitioner already knows the answers to qq. 8-10. Why should I put it?
Q12 What is the purpose of this question? Is it asking the respondent to plead guilty?
The respondent has already participated in the hearing. His cooperation was courteous and helpful. He willingly gave evidence on oath. I am of a mind that he should be treated with the upmost of respect, and therefore should be recalled to give further evidence only if really necessary.
I should be grateful to hear from you as soon as convenient.
With king regards and all good wishes,
[Signed] Ian Waters
Copyright J.R. Lilburne 16 Oct 2001.