Court to hear objections to church abuse report

HARRISBURG, PA. » Pennsylvania’s highest court on Friday decided against immediately releasing an investigative grand jury’s report into allegations of decades of child sexual abuse in six Roman Catholic dioceses, instead saying it would hear arguments from priests and others that making it public would violate their constitutional rights.

The state Supreme Court gave lawyers for those who object to being named in the nearly 900-page report and want to prevent its disclosure until Tuesday to lay out their arguments in writing, and the attorney general’s office until July 13 to respond.

Attorney General Josh Shapiro has said he wants the report made public as soon as possible, noting that unindicted people who were cited in the report in a way that “could be construed as critical” were given an unrestricted right to file responses that are expected to be released along with the report. His spokesman declined comment on the court orders.

More than two dozen current and retired members of the clergy have argued to the court that the report is replete with errors and mischaracterizations that would violate their constitutional rights to due process and to protect their reputations.

The court has not made their identities public, and many of their arguments have been made under seal.

But 14 orders posted online late Friday by the high court revealed new information about the specific complaints.

Several criticized the Grand Jury Act, saying it unconstitutionally denied those who have not been charged with crimes the ability to see and challenge the evidence against them. They claimed the report drew inaccurate conclusions about them without the “preponderance of the evidence” required by law.

Some of the criticism was highly specific to individual people, including a dead man referred to as a child sexual abuse offender, a man who the report said should have told a school district that a priest was previously the subject of an abuse or sexual misconduct investigation involving children, a priest who said the report would falsely allege he witnessed child sexual abuse by another priest and did not call police, and a person who said the report would disclose “confidential, privileged medical/psychotherapist evaluation and treatment communications and descriptions,” violating five statutory and constitutional rules.