BishopAccountability.org
	Order to Release Abuse Info Appealed The Day June 13, 2009 http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=d4c0b94f-8807-45d4-9815-f3b22fdd28d3 New Haven - The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport asked the Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday to reconsider a ruling that would make public thousands of pages of documents that detail alleged sexual abuse by priests. The court's 4-1 ruling last month covers more than 12,600 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests that have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001. Most of the victims were altar boys or belonged to church youth organizations. The records could shed light on how recently retired New York Cardinal Edward Egan handled the allegations when he was Bridgeport bishop. The diocese, which has said it was "deeply disappointed" in the ruling, wants the full court of seven justices to hear the case. "The decision raises significant concerns and deserves review by the full court, as opposed to a divided panel," the diocese said in its motion. Church officials say the ruling fails to uphold the privacy and constitutional rights of all parties to lawsuits, especially when cases are sealed, and contends the disclosure of the sealed documents is barred by the religious clauses of the First Amendment. "Our position is that the Supreme Court already carefully reviewed all the issues that have been raised by the diocese in the seven years the case has been pending," said Jonathan Albano, attorney for The New York Times, The Boston Globe and The Washington Post. Those papers and The Hartford Courant are seeking the documents. David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, criticized Bridgeport Bishop William Lori. "It's obvious that Lori's terribly afraid of the church hierarchy's complicity that is revealed in these documents," Clohessy said. Joseph McAleer, a diocese spokesman, said SNAP was misinformed. He said the victims and their attorneys had access to the documents. A Waterbury Superior Court judge ruled in 2006 that the files should be unsealed, but the diocese appealed. The high court agreed with the trial court that the documents, which include depositions, affidavits and motions, were subject to a presumption of public access. The state Supreme Court rejected church officials' claim that the documents were subject to constitutional privileges, including religious privileges under the First Amendment. "Because the defendants failed to claim these privileges or rights at the time of disclosure and because the defendants voluntarily disclosed the information to its adversaries in litigation, the defendants cannot now be heard to complain that the information should not be disclosed to others," Justice Joette Katz wrote for the majority. In his dissent, Justice William Sullivan said the newspapers should have had to prove their intervention in the case was justified by extraordinary circumstances.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.