Conn. diocese seeks appeal to US Supreme Court

The Associated Press ^ | July 18, 2009 | JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN

[Pope Pius XII]

A Roman Catholic diocese in Connecticut sought Friday to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep under wraps sex abuse documents that could shed light on how a prominent retired cardinal handled the allegations.

Bridgeport Diocese officials asked the state Supreme Court to continue a stay on releasing the documents while it asks the nation's highest court to review the case.

The state court has ruled that more than 12,000 pages of documents from more than 20 lawsuits against priests should be released. Those documents have been sealed from public view since the diocese settled the cases in 2001.

[SuziQ]

Presumably, there was a reason for sealing the documents in 2001. Which state justice agency agreed to that, then?

Frankly, with the timing of this, I can't help but wonder if it's another attempt to punish the Bridgeport Diocese for opposing homosexual marriage. Isn't this the same Diocese that filed suit against the State about the proposed legislation regarding State oversight of Diocesan finances?

[Pope Pius XII]

Pretty soon, the state will be deciding who’s bishop without papal approval. Heck, China does this! The church will have to go underground for a while.

[Kolokotronis]

“Pretty soon, the state will be deciding who’s bishop without papal approval.”

Where do you get this prediction from a situation where the diocese is attempting to use the 1st Amendment to keep secret outrageous criminal activities involving children?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Presumably, there was a reason for sealing the documents in 2001. Which state justice agency agreed to that, then?

The documents were turned over by the Church to the plaintiffs suing them. When the case settled, the Church insisted that the plaintiffs, in exchange for the settlement money, agree to seal the documents.

Now the press has sued to get access to the documents. They weren't parties to the settlement, so they aren't bound by the sealing agreement.

[bronxville]

Why would the press be bothered as to how the bishop handled the situation a decade ago? It’s the same state, with gay officials, who wanted to take over and control the diocese a few months ago which makes it very fishy.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Why would the press be bothered as to how the bishop handled the situation a decade ago? It’s the same state, with gay officials, who wanted to take over and control the diocese a few months ago which makes it very fishy.

The motion to unseal was made by the New York Times and the Washington Post, not by Connecticut state officials. I think the press is interested because the sealed records include the deposition of Bishop Egan, who later was named Archbishop of New York.