The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport does not agree with the court’s ruling to let thousands of pages related to sexual abuse cases go public. “Church officials say the ruling fails to uphold the privacy and constitutional rights of all parties to lawsuits, especially when cases are sealed, and contends the disclosure of the sealed documents is barred by the religious clauses of the First Amendment.” What is in play here are documents that have been sealed since the diocese settled in 2001, there are over 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against 6 priest. While I have no sympathy for the individual priests, does the diocese have a right to privacy? Does the fact that it is news organizations that have been fighting for these documents to be unsealed matter? Does it matter whether or not the victims want the documents released? This situation is why I am glad that there are courts that help to make the rulings. While I know how I feel and what I believe about a large number of things I do not always know where the law falls. As a librarian I must remember to error on the side of caution. I would rather protect the rights of someone, even if I disagreed, and later be over-ruled instead of erroneously take something from someone that can never be given back, privacy.
Think… Someone knows your deepest, darkest secret and for some reason they believe they have the right to share it to the world… can you ever get your secret back if they later realize they did not have the right to share it?
Christoffersen, John. “Diocese appealing court decision.” The Newtown Bee 19 June 2009 A3 NewsBank. Goshen College Library . 19 June 2009 http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.goshen.edu/iw-search/we/InfoWeb
10 comments:
This is an interesting case and you pose some really good questions. I don't really know if those should be made public or not. I guess I feel that regardless of what they did, those priests should have privacy regarding the cases. As should the victims, if the want it. And if it is the news media who wants the records so badly... that just doesn't seem right either. The public has a right to know things, but everything about everything?
To be honest, I could care less about the privacy rights of the priests. In my opinion, they lost all their rights when they acted inappropriately. I'd be more concerned with the victim's privacy. I'm sure it took everything these people had to testify, and I'm sure that they did testify knowing it would be kept private. Now these cases are going to be open to the public. This is nobody's business but the victim's and the priest's. What if somebody wants to write a news story or book about victims of sexual abuse, looks at the records, and tries to find these people. While some might be willing to help, others would probably be horrified. And can you imagine children finding out what happened to their parents, that they were sexually abused. No, no, no!! I think this is a situation where the records must remained sealed.
I just cannot imagine how the victims feel. This is going to reopen wounds that are barely starting to heal.
And I really don't see how any good will come of this. (And since it is the news that is asking for such information-- I am sure they are more concerned with sales than "good.")
Hearing this story just really makes me dislike journalists.
Something about this makes me think of the Iraqi prison torture photos and Obama's decision not to release more. I felt similarly to that situation as I do to this. Unfortunately, when we don't have the information, our imaginations fill in the gaps, often in worse ways. On the other hand, where any people are institutionally victimized, tortured or abused we as a society have to walk this line between their rights to their story and our need to know for preventative measures. I think we get it collectively that children were seriously harmed in serious numbers by catholic priests. We know that prisoners in Iraq were routinely tortured, possibly including children. Do we need to know exactly how? Do we have that right? Would it help us come to terms with the roles of power?
As I learn everyday in reference work, I have more questions than answers.
Isn't it usually the general policy of most news agencies to protect the victim from further victimization? Or is that a legal standard? If it's just a policy and not legally binding, why are the victims in this not being protected by the same policy? The children who are named in these cases have suffered enough. If there is a need for more details, there needs to be a way to do it that doesn't compromise the privacy of the victims. As others have said, I don't care if the priests identities are public, but the victims deserve to be left alone.
I think it should be made public, who knows how many other cases are there. It's sad to think about but maybe the cases will make someone else come forward.
I hope the victims names are kept secret though because think of how hard it would have been to speak up.
I can agree with Michelle, however, I agree with privacy too. I think we are more likely to violate someone's rights when they have done something terrible. Child molesters have rights too, priest or no priest. Man, people are just sick aren't they. Off topic, I can never understand how people are attracted to children, its messed up.
I don't think they should be made public for the same reason everyone else has stated. The victims need to be protected. I am not sure if that is law or standard, but I am assuming there is a law to protect victims. Most of the victims are probably no longer minors, which may be a part of the decision to make the files public. It would still be hard for the victims.
I too could care less about the rights of the priests. They lost those rights the minute they acted on their urges. It is the victims that we should be concerned about. They are the only ones in this situation who deserve privacy. If they are willing to give up their privacy for the world to be aware of what these monsters did, then wer should respect that.
To play devil's advocate, I do see a few reasons that the documents could be useful if they were made public. They were originally sealed after a civil court settlement, which means the victims were given enough money to let the church let everything be swept under the rug. Making the documents public would let others besides the 23 families know which parrishes are more dangerous, which priests were accused, if they were still working somewhere, etc. Criminals do have rights and deserve privacy, but if no criminal case was ever argued, the accused priests could easily have just been transfered to other parrishes, presenting dangers to unsuspecting churchgoers states away.
Post a Comment