The identity of Catholic priests whose names were redacted from a scathing report on clergy sex abuse will remain protected by that redaction, Pennsylvania’s highest court on Monday ruled.
In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that redaction was the only viable due process remedy that could be extended to the petitioners - the priests - to protect their constitutional rights to reputation.
Eleven priests - out of the more than 300 priests identified in the report from the 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury - had petitioned the court to keep their names blacked out of the report as revealing their names would violate their constitutional rights.
The report - released in August by the Office of State Attorney General Josh Shapiro - unearthed the decades-long systemic sexual abuse of thousands of children across Pennsylvania at the hands of Catholic priests. Investigators found that in the majority of cases, church officials and leaders concealed the crimes from authorities and parishioners. The high court had ordered the Commonwealth to release the interim report, which protected the rights of the petitioners who challenged that the report would violate their constitutional rights.
Shapiro said the court decision allows predator priests to remain in the shadows and permits the Catholic Church to continue to conceal their identities.
“I will continue to stand with all survivors, fighting to ensure every victim gets their day in court and that every predator priest and every bishop and church official who enabled child abuse is held accountable for their abhorrent conduct," Shapiro said in a written statement. "The public will not relent in its demand that anyone involved in this widespread abuse and cover up be named. No one victim’s truth is any less important than another and no one’s criminal conduct any less loathsome.”
The names of the nearly dozen priests remained redacted while the court considered the arguments from petitioners, as well as that of Shapiro, who appealed to the court to release the names of the priests. Victims have decried the so-called “interim report.
Victims advocate Rep. Mark Rozzi said the court decision was made "at the expense of victims.”
“Of course I am disappointed, mad and angry,” said the Berks County Democrat. “Again the church gets another victory walk while victims are thrown out to the curb. Those stories of victims matter. It just shows you what money can buy in this world... it shows you the power of the church. If you have money, you can buy anything and anyone in this world.”
Writing for the majority, Justice Debra Todd wrote that “as the content of Report 1 is condemnatory of Petitioners, we conclude that principles of fundamental fairness demanded enhanced procedural protections be afforded Petitioners in order to safeguard their right to reputation.”
The court rejected the Commonwealth’s suggestion that the investigating grand jury could be recalled to hear testimony and receive evidence from petitioners.
Aside from logistical difficulties entailed in that suggestion, the court argued that “such an extraordinary measure is not authorized by the plain text of” the statute governing grand juries. In its opinion, the court stated that the grand jury had fulfilled its time limitations: “Thus, given that the grand jury’s term has expired and that it has been disbanded, we conclude that the 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury has not authority under the Act to take any further official action.”
The high court did not strike down the statute governing grand juries. Defense attorneys had argued that grand juries were unconstitutional, infringing on the rights of defendants to challenge their accusers in court. Todd noted that the General Assembly had the purview to rewrite the statute.
Shapiro noted that while the court order barred him from releasing the names of the 11 petitioners, it did not prevent the six Catholic dioceses at the center of the grand jury report from releasing the shielded names with their parishioners and the public.
“I call on the bishops to do so immediately, consistent with their recent calls for transparency,” Shapiro said.
In addition to Todd, Justices Max Baer, Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty, David Wecht and Sally Updyke Mundy joined the opinion.
Chief Justice Saylor filed a dissenting opinion. He argued that “at a minimum” the petitioners should be provided the opportunity to testify before the court to answer to the grand jury’s “particularized findings of criminal and/or morally reprehensible conduct are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Saylor also opined that petitioners who were never given the opportunity to testify before the grand jury’s term expired, had the right to be given that opportunity.