By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Writer
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut on Tuesday after the diocese sought to keep sealed thousands of legal documents pertaining to six priests accused of sexual abuse.
According to a report by the Associated Press, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ruled in favor of three newspapers – The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Washington Post – who are seeking access to the documents. The diocese had requested a stay on the release of the papers until the full court decides if it will review the case.
On its website, the diocese expressed its disappointment with the ruling, saying it “intends to proceed with its announced determination to ask the full U.S. Supreme Court to review the important constitutional issues that this case presents.”
In a letter to be read in all parishes this weekend, Bridgeport’s Bishop William E. Lori explains that the diocese did not pursued the matter to cover up any sexual abuse.
“All of the information contained in the documents has been shared with the victims’ attorneys and widely publicized in the media. In fact, the documents were improperly leaked to the Hartford Courant in 2002 and it ran a seven page story, including extensive excerpts from the documents,” he writes.
Rather, the diocese pursued the case because of grave concerns about the judicial process that brought the case to its current point which resulted in the Catholic Church being treated differently under the laws than other parties.
The constitutional principle the diocese is fighting relates to the fact that the Diocese was compelled via court order to produce certain documents during the pre-trial process, despite its claim that doing so violated its First Amendment rights.
“The Diocese complied only with the clear understanding that the documents would be kept under seal, pending a review of its constitutional concerns if and when a trial occurred,” Bishop Lori explains.
“Notwithstanding that, in 2007, a Superior Court Judge changed the rules after the fact, ruling that the Diocese had somehow waived its rights by complying with the court order! In a clear conflict of interest, that same Judge and a representative from one of the papers suing the Diocese were both sitting on a judicial commission reviewing the issue of public access to court documents.”
He also notes that aside from their compelling constitutional claim, pre-trial documents are usually kept private because they often contain inaccurate, incomplete or irrelevant information since they are not subject to the same standards of evidence as documents presented in court.
“The whole process has been deeply troubling from the start when the court granted standing to the newspapers, despite the fact that they filed suit well after the time limit, and invented an entirely new process that seemed tailor-made for this specific case ? thus allowing access to pre-trial documents despite legal precedent,” Bishop Lori writes.
“The Catholic Church is entitled to equal protection under the law and to an unbiased and fair review of its claims in the courts. Regretfully, that has not been the case in this matter,” he says.
Ralph Johnson III, a lawyer for the diocese, said church officials are now considering whether to ask all nine justices to rule on their request to keep the records sealed.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace® http://www.womenofgrace.com
