When Massachusetts Appeals Court judge Cynthia Cohen denied a motion December 21 to throw out a court order making public the records in 86 civil lawsuits pending against John Geoghan — the now-defrocked priest accused of molesting more than 100 children over three decades (see "Cardinal Law, the Church, and Pedophilia," News and Features, March 23, 2001) — it spelled devastation for the Archdiocese of Boston. Indeed, the 84 plaintiffs are also suing five prominent Boston bishops for failing to stop the abuse despite repeated warnings. Twenty-five of the plaintiffs, in addition, have named as a defendant the city’s foremost Roman Catholic spiritual leader, Bernard Cardinal Law. In effect, the release of these documents will provide the public — and attorneys — with a rare glimpse at how the Catholic Church treats clergy members who assault children. A glimpse that could be deeply disillusioning for many among the Catholic faithful.

In her five-page decision, Cohen upheld a ruling by Suffolk Superior Court judge Constance Sweeney, who had lifted a year-old gag order applying to documents in the 86 civil suits. "Her ruling is consistent with the well-established policy favoring the right of public access to the judicial records of civil proceedings," Cohen wrote. More important, the appellate judge blasted the archdiocese for even trying to appeal the Sweeney order in the first place. That order, Cohen explained, contains a provision that would allow Law and the 16 other church officials who are defendants in these cases to "seek individualized protection for any discovery request or response which is legitimately entitled to be kept from public scrutiny." Church officials, however, have yet to raise any issues with Sweeney. So they have yet to exhaust all remedies available to them at the trial-court level.

Or, as Cohen put it in her decision, "Their claims are not ripe for review.... Immediate appellate relief would be premature."

These words are a big blow for the Church, which has long fought tooth-and-nail to seal all documents related to lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by clergy. By standing behind her Suffolk Superior Court colleague, Cohen has paved the way for the public release of thousands of pages of previously private testimony, including sworn depositions from the alleged victims, witnesses, and Geoghan’s own Church supervisors. This is information that the public may never have learned otherwise — about how Church officials handled allegations of child molestation by Geoghan, about how they handled Geoghan himself. Information, in short, that the Church desperately wants to keep secret.

"Church officials use this argument [for confidentiality] over and over," says Richard Sipe, a former priest and psychotherapist who has testified for plaintiffs in hundreds of clergy-sex-abuse lawsuits across the country. Yet more and more, judges are refusing to back the Church because of the grave public concerns that arise from cases involving child molestation by priests. Attests Sipe, "It’s a trend for the courts not to conform with the Church’s requests."

In Massachusetts, it seems, the Sweeney and Cohen decisions mark the first time that the courts have challenged the Church’s long-held practice. Though the Boston archdiocese could appeal the latest ruling to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, many legal experts doubt that will happen. Cohen, after all, has handed down a sound judgment against the Church. Not only has she made it clear that the Sweeney order contains "no error of law or abuse," but she has also called into question the Church’s standard argument for sealing documents — that is, that the First Amendment shields the Church from government interference. Wrote Cohen, "The position that [the defendants] are constitutionally entitled to blanket protection is but another iteration of an argument which they unsuccessfully raised by motion to dismiss."

The Cohen decision could easily change how Massachusetts clergy-sex-abuse lawsuits are litigated in the future. Releasing the Geoghan documents will offer attorneys who represent victims of pedophile priests a revealing blueprint of the legal tactics that the Boston archdiocese uses in such litigation. Whether the decision will translate into a new openness when it comes to clergy-sex-abuse cases, however, is another question altogether. For starters, Cohen is but a single justice. Her opinion might sway some Massachusetts judges presiding over similar lawsuits not to seal any records, as in nearly all civil litigation. Then again, it might not. The opinion of one has less weight in the legal world than, say, a precedent-setting judgment by all seven justices of the state’s highest court.

Still, the Cohen decision represents a clear victory for the people. And it clearly puts the archdiocese in a precarious position. As Cardinal Law himself is surely aware, whatever information exists in the soon-to-be-released Geoghan documents could forever alter how the public views the Church and how the Catholic faithful view their spiritual leaders.

Issue Date: January 3 - 10, 2002

Back to the News and Features table of contents.