Court rules people accused of complicity in Catholic Church sex abuse can’t be named

Prosecutors may not disclose the names of more than a dozen clergy and laypeople accused of hiding or failing to report child sexual abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore, the Maryland Supreme Court ruled Monday.

These are people who did not themselves abuse children but are accused in an attorney general’s report of failing to stop it, concealing the behavior or engaging in otherwise problematic conduct. They have not been charged with crimes, and they challenged a decision by the lower court that would disclose their identities.

Their names are blacked out from the grand jury investigation into the history of child sexual abuse within the Archdiocese of Baltimore. In 2023, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown released the 456-page report, describing how 156 priests and other personnel perpetrated “horrific and repeated abuse” while church leadership turned a blind eye.

The attorney general’s office sought to disclose the names of those complicit and set off the yearslong legal fight with the unidentified people.

The justices ruled that a desire for public accountability did not overcome the fundamental secrecy of grand juries in the absence of an indictment.

“A court may not order disclosure of secret grand jury material, over the objection of an uncharged individual, for the purpose of holding that person accountable in the court of public opinion,” Justice Jonathan Biran wrote in the 37-page opinion.

David Lorenz, a member of the Abuse Survivors Coalition, said he was disappointed by the court’s decision.

“Anybody who covers up a crime like this is capable of potentially doing it again, right,” he said. “The best way to protect children is to make sure we know who these people are.”

The lower court ordered the attorney general’s office to withhold the names of 35 people in the report.

Baltimore Circuit Judge Robert K. Taylor Jr. then ruled that the names of all but three of them could be made public. Eighteen people challenged the order. One of them was dismissed out of the case, leaving 17 redacted names.

Then, Brown released a revised version of the report that featured fewer redactions, and several people appealed the decision.

Meanwhile, The Banner and The Baltimore Sun revealed the names of several people accused of abuse whose names had also been redacted.