AG's office asks to monitor priests (Chilling - but, it's "for the children"!

Boston Globe | 3/8/2002 | Boston Globe

[KC Burke]

I notice that keeping secrets is actually on the high prioity list of the Mass AG when it comes to Government:

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?

[KC Burke]

there are a lot of "predator" everythings out and about....it has little to do with the nature of the Catholic Church and much to do with our leftist-liberalism corrupted society.

[Heyworth]

I'm beginning to think there's grounds for a RICO prosecution of the Boston archdiocese.

[american colleen]

My son will be an altar boy as soon as he makes his First Communion this spring. I have friends who think as you do. If everyone thinks like this and doesn't support the good Priests and Parishes, we are done for - destroyed from within. Believe me, NO Priest will be alone with children after all this. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

I'm from Massachusetts, btw.

[Publius]

"If there was corruption, we would never know."

And, of course, that is the desired end.

[rbmillerjr]

I respect your parental choice Colleen.

[american colleen]

Spagnolia had relationships with adults - that is a matter of record. We need to get rid of him and his ilk. I fell for his press conference when I saw it and hoped "good" Priests were finally speaking out - turns out that Spagnolia lied, of course.

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.

[american colleen]

Of course I respect your choice as well. I just don't want to abandon my Church - it goes without saying that I will be with my son at all times, I will never just "drop him off" - I would never, never put being and altar boy above my children's safety.

[Renatus]

there are clearly many predator priests out there.

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.

[aristeides]

The words "separation of church and state" may not appear in the First Amendment, but the words "free exercise thereof," (i.e., "of religion,") certainly do. This sort of program would pretty clearly violate that free exercise.

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.

[rbmillerjr]

Spagnolia had relationships with adults - that is a matter of record.

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.

[aristeides]

True that the First Amendment, by itself, does not bind the states. But the U.S. Supreme Court has held, since rather early in the 20th century, that the 14th Amendment extends obligations under the First Amendment to the states.

[american colleen]

No, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt this last time, if you lie about one thing, that makes you a liar.

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.

[Mike Fieschko]

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.

Liberal candidates (a euphemism for men who dissent from Catholic teaching) are one thing.

Homosexuals are an entirely different matter.

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 >

[Logophile]

This sword cuts both ways. Be careful how you wield it.

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.)

[american colleen]

I was actually using the term "liberal" meaning homosexuals who by definition would not be following the Church's teaching - the traditional types supposedly don't have many homosexuals among their ranks.

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.

[grania]

''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.''

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.