Posted on 03/08/2002 8:57:43 AM PST by j.frank.dobie
AG's office asks to monitor priests
Issues raised of church-state relationships
By Kevin Cullen, Globe Staff, 3/8/2002
Saying that the extent of child sexual abuse by priests is ''shocking and appalling,'' Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly has asked the Archdiocese of Boston for sweeping influence in the way the church recruits, trains, and monitors priests.
In an interview yesterday with The Boston Globe's editorial board, Reilly said his office's ambitious plan to have a say in the way the archdiocese hires its employees, and the way those employees interact with children, is needed, given the size, scope, and history of the problem within the metropolitan area's Catholic Church.
Reilly said his office wanted influence that was different from and independent of the blue-ribbon commission charged with overhauling the way the archdiocese handles the sexual abuse of children by clergy and church workers. At the request of Reilly and five district attorneys who are investigating cases of child sexual abuse by some 90 priests over the last 50 years, a prosecutor, Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley, was named to the 15-member commission that was announced yesterday.
''We see our role as separate and independent and distinct'' from the commission, Reilly said.
''We share the same objectives, but in the end we're going to be looking for a comprehensive program focused on the protection of children, and we're going to want it implemented.''
Some constitutional law experts suggested Reilly's attempt to have such a significant role in the archdiocese's affairs would violate the separation of church and state. ''If this is a program targeted at priests, I'm quite confident it would be unconstitutional,'' said Frederick Schauer, the Frank Stanton professor of the First Amendment at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
But Wendy Murphy, a lawyer who represents victims of sexual abuse, said the attorney general could cite the state's civil rights statute in seeking a role in the way the church recruits, trains, and monitors its employees. ''It's one of the broadest civil rights statutes in the country. It gives enormous power to the state,'' said Murphy. ''You could argue that he has the authority to intervene on behalf of certain classes of vulnerable people, such as children. But I think he's pushing the envelope here.''
Several legal experts said Reilly's attempt to have Cardinal Bernard F. Law cede to him some influence in church affairs reminded them of the attorney general's recent attempt to get former Red Sox CEO John Harrington to give him veto power over who would be appointed to the Yawkey Foundation, the charitable group that suddenly became one of the best endowed in New England when the Red Sox sold for $700 million. Harrington's lawyers initially rejected the request as outrageous, but in the end agreed to give Reilly an advisory role in the appointment of board members.
Legal experts agreed that the degree to which Reilly's office could influence church policies likely depends on the extent of cooperation the archdiocese grants him. Reilly said he and other lawyers in his office have had discussions with archdiocese officials, but said the details of his office's role still need to be worked out. He declined to elaborate.
John H. Garvey, the dean of Boston College Law School, of which Reilly is an alumnus, said Reilly's initiative sounds legally suspect but politically astute.
''From the public's point of view, he is doing what attorney generals do,'' said Garvey, who is considered by his peers to be one of the nation's foremost authorities on legal issues regarding church and state. ''He sees a problem the public is interested in and he's going at it with both feet. You've got to admire him for that. Maybe for an attorney general, not knowing when to stop is a good quality. But I think he has to stop somewhere short of this.''
A spokesman for Michael F. Collins, chief executive of Caritas Christi, the Catholic hospital network, and leader of the archdiocese's team responding to clergy sexual abuse, said he and Reilly had ''a very good conversation'' yesterday but declined to elaborate on the substance of their conversation.
Donna M. Morrissey, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said, ''We weren't at the meeting to hear the attorney general's comments, but we know he was very positive about the cardinal's commission to protect children and the members of that commission. We believe that the commission will be very effective and it is a great step in our commitment to protect children.''
There is apparently no precedent for an attorney general having such involvement with a religious institution. But Reilly rejected suggestions that his office's role would amount to a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state. ''We have the authority,'' he said. But when pressed to explain the legal authority he was citing, Reilly declined to elaborate.
Murphy, however, said the civil rights statute could give the attorney general the right to intervene. Still, even she said Reilly was on shaky legal ground. ''I'm the first one to jump on the bandwagon of a creative AG, and this is creative,'' said Murphy, an outspoken victims advocate who has been critical of prosecutors she says have not done enough to fight sexual abuse. ''It's a heavy hammer to swing when the government gets involved in something like this, particularly in the area of religious freedoms. But I think it's a moral question, not a legal one. Are we comfortable with the AG doing this? It takes a lot of chutzpah.''
Reilly said it is imperative the Legislature quickly pass a pending bill that would require clergy to report suspected child abuse. He said he accepts that there will be a provision exempting clergy who are told about suspected abuse in confession, but he said the exemptions must be narrow.
After Reilly and the district attorneys of Suffolk, Middlesex, Essex, Norfolk, and Plymouth counties last week threatened to convene a grand jury, the archdiocese agreed to turn over the names of victims to prosecutors by March 18 so they can decide whether to bring charges against any of some 90 priests whose names the archdiocese turned over in January.
But Reilly said his office wants to do more than assist in potential prosecutions. ''We're on two tracks here,'' said Reilly. ''Track one is to get information about past allegations in the hands of prosecutors so they evaluate, analyze, and see whether there's any cases that will come out of it.
''The second track, which is every bit as important, we're looking at as an area of our responsibility. It involves the protection of children. What policies, what procedures, what programs are going to be in place within the archdiocese that will prevent this from ever happening again. If it happens again, obviously the legislation will involve reporting and these cases will be prosecuted or at least evaluated for prosecution. But how do you build in a comprehensive program that prevents this from ever happening again? That's what we're looking for. We intend to stay very involved in that until it's accomplished.''
Reilly said confidentiality agreements the church entered into with past victims helped hide the size and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of children by priests. But, he added, the interest of his office in safeguarding children goes beyond pushing for legislative changes. ''We'd be looking at education. We'd be looking at training. We'd be looking at monitoring. We'd be looking at supervision,'' Reilly said. ''We would look at ways to ensure that what has been put in place'' by the blue-ribbon commission ''is working. We'd be looking at selection and recruitment.''
Asked if he was referring specifically to the recruitment, selection, training, and monitoring of priests, Reilly said, ''Yes, absolutely.''
Asked if the role he was seeking was beyond the jurisdiction of the attorney general, Reilly replied, ''We're very respectful of the fact that this is a religious institution that we're dealing with. We're also mindful of our responsibilities to protect children, to ensure that there are programs and a comprehensive set of programs in place that make children safe.''
Access to public records enables journalists to fulfill the press' role as government watchdog, but an effort quietly undertaken by the state's attorney general would close an entire class of those records to the public.A provision has been added to the state House's proposed budget that would create a broad new category of exceptions to public records law. The change was added without legislative or public discussion, and the bill will be taken up by the House tomorrow without debate unless legislators speak up.
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly requested the new measure that would permit both state and local agencies to shield from public view any documents that might be involved in civil or criminal litigation.
At 578 pages, the proposed state budget is a hefty document. Reilly's change — which has nothing to do with the state budget — was slipped into the back of the bill, a technique often used to avoid debate.
Why the secrecy?
The attorney general's office apparently is still smarting over its loss in a civil case involving its client, the state Department of Environmental Protection, and General Electric. GE was cited for polluting the Housatonic River in Pittsfield, and the company requested from the DEP copies of pertinent state public records.
Reilly attempted to block GE from obtaining the documents, saying they were exempt from the public records law under attorney-client privilege.
The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, and ruled that the attorney general's office had to turn over the records to GE.
Every state has an open records or freedom of information law that guarantees public access to government documents. The presumption is that all records are available for public inspection unless the Legislature makes an exception and exempts something.
The state's public record laws are administered by Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who says Reilly never consulted with him about the proposed change.
The budget bill rider would amend the state law regarding public records by adding the following exemption:
"An inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, including, but not limited to, attorney work product and attorney-client privileged material; provided, that no record within this exemption shall lose its exempt status by reason of being shared with any other government official in connection with the development of a policy or litigation position."
Galvin said the amendment would create a cloak of secrecy that would have serious consequences.
"Let's suppose a letter from a subcontractor of the Big Dig comes in and it says someone is considering making a legal claim and wants to negotiate. This amendment means all documents pertaining to that portion of the Big Dig would suddenly be off limits to the public, and they would stay off limits," Galvin said. "If there was corruption, we would never know."
William Plante, executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, said Reilly's move is heavy-handed.
"We . . . consider this to be an unconscionable action by the attorney general to further limit the public's right to know information germane to its appreciation of public affairs," Plante said.
Some efforts will be made by legislators Monday to amend Reilly's restrictions, but the attorney general doesn't plan to cooperate.
"It cuts to the core of our attorneys trying to do their jobs for the state," Reilly said. "We're just looking for a level playing field for the state. We need protection or we can't do our jobs."
Reilly contends his amendment goes no further in limiting public information than federal officials already have. Galvin, Plante and others disagree.
Reilly wasn't budging from his position Friday. When asked if there was room for any movement, perhaps making the language more specific, the attorney general said, "I don't think so. Why not give it a chance to see if it works? It can always be re-examined."
Meanwhile, however, how much information would be kept from the public, and about what?
I'm from Massachusetts, btw.
"If there was corruption, we would never know."
And, of course, that is the desired end.
I read an article that stated that a disproportionate amount of these Priests came out of St. John's Semanary in Brighton, Ma in the 60s and 70s - the admittance heads turned away the more traditional kind of applicants and let in the liberal candidates. One of the big questions was the ordination of women - if you firmly held the belief that a woman priest was unacceptible, then you were out. Supposidly, Cardinal Law has changed all that and gotten the liberals out of the Semenary. Hopefully, that is true.
I don't doubt it for a minute. The struggle is breaking through all of this and keeping our focus on the beauty and strength and power given to priests as instruments of God's grace. When I come to die I hope and pray every day that a priest will be with me to give me communion, to anoint me, to forgive me my sins and to pray with me. It's all about grace. Everything is grace. If the priest should happen to be a pedophile I will thank him for being that instrument of grace for me.
We all know that not all priests are pedophiles or homosexuals but all now have a "P" or "H" in scarlet letters printed on their foreheads because of weak bishops and a wicked press. I hope we will not lose our respect for them for truly they are instruments of God's grace and power and are men called by God, consecrated and configured to Jesus as head and shepherd. What an awesome calling is theirs.
And the First Amendment, being part of the U.S. Constitution, trumps anything any current or proposed Massachusetts law may say. And that's an issue the federal courts get to judge.
That is givng him way too much benefit of the doubt. If a Priest who has taken vows has violated those vows, and with other men (in my mind worse exponentially for a priest).......and he has been accused of child molestation, I find it hard to believe you are givinghim the benefit of the doubt yet again. This is what pedophiles do - they prey on innocent thinking people, being sociopathic is inherent to being a pedophile.
He insisted he was celibate and after that made the papers, people who knew him outside the Church (he was on a 20 yr sabbatical) called the newspaper and said "hey wait a minute, he was living with a guy when we knew him" - now Spagnolia is gone to parts unknown and I don't think anyone would believe him about anything.
No, it cuts only one way: in favor of the State and against all others.
Or are you seriously suggesting that the AG's position would lead to the posting of the Ten Commandments on "government" property? (More likely, it would result in the banning of the Ten Commandments from church property.)
Of course, I fully expect the Massachusetts Attorney General's office to insist on strict enforcement of the Church's teaching that homosexuality is a 'grave disorder', don't you? < /sarcasm >
I don't think that this whole thing will come to pass, but imagine the contortions the AG and the MA Government would have to go through? Now, that might be fun to watch.
Massachusetts has very specific laws to protect children who are victims of abuse, which were passed in response to some really horrific situations. When I was teaching in a public school, the whole staff was given information about the law and what situations need to be reported..."failure to report" is a violation of the law.
This is what's tricky here. The church was taking care of its problems (it thought) without regard to necessity to report abuse cases. It's complicated. I hate to see the state interfere with church matters, but the church really failed on this one. The church had a special obligation to stop this abuse, because parents would be less likely to believe accusations of abuse by the clergy, and young children would be less likely to think of a priest as a bad person. Maybe "you reap what you sow" applies to the Boston archdiocese in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.