TRENTON (NJ)
nj.com [New Jersey]
March 8, 2025
By Ted Sherman
A secret legal battle over whether the state could investigate allegations of sexual abuse by members of the clergy within the Catholic Church finally came in the open Thursday after the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the release of hundreds of pages of court filings detailing the behind-the-scenes fight.
At the same time, the high court scheduled a hearing next month to hear arguments as to whether a grand jury investigation of those abuse complaints can proceed.
Survivors of abuse at the hands of priests and others within the church have been waiting for such an accounting since 2018 — when then-Attorney General Gurbir Grewal announced he would undertake a new effort to uncover and document decades of allegations and make those results public.
But despite the creation of a special task force and the promise of a grand jury investigation, it all seemed to disappear into a black hole. Many of those hoping for the truth to come out wondered why nothing ever happened.
What nobody knew until the unexpected release last month of a once-sealed transcript involving a lower court hearing on the case was that legal challenges to the state’s plan had been playing out all the while, unseen by the public. It turns out that one New Jersey diocese had sought to prevent any investigation — and keep a grand jury from presenting its findings to a court.
What happened on Thursday is that the confidential court records revolving around those challenges were ordered released by the Supreme Court, after some redactions by the Attorney General’s office.
First Assistant Attorney General Lyndsay Ruotolo, following the release of the records, said her office’s commitment to the work of the Clergy Abuse Task Force never wavered.
“For years, we have been seeking to convene a grand jury to present evidence collected by prosecutors across the state regarding decades of sexual abuse, the conditions that made that abuse possible, and the systematic failures to prevent it — and to allow the grand jury, as the conscience of our community, to make recommendations to ensure widespread abuse by clergy can never happen again,” she said.
“We were disappointed when the trial court prevented us from even bringing this evidence to a grand jury, and we are grateful that the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear this case.”
Ruotolo said now that the case has been made public for the first time, “victims and survivors will have an opportunity to make their voices heard — and to speak to the real harms that we have never lost sight of.”
Attorney Gregory Gianforcaro of Phillipsburg, who has represented many clergy abuse victims, was buoyed by the decision that the dispute will finally receive a public airing.
“I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will reverse the lower courts decisions and allow the Attorney General’s office to convene a grand jury to investigate the Catholic Church,” he said. “Investigating all childhood sexual abuse is absolutely in the public’s interest whether it involves claims against Catholic Church or any institution for that matter.”
A promised probe
The call for such an investigation was sparked by a Pennsylvania grand jury report that had graphically detailed the abuse by priests who had preyed upon children in that state for years upon years.
Grewal, in response to that damning report, said a state task force would be given subpoena power through a grand jury to compel testimony and demand the production of documents from the state’s five Catholic dioceses.
And then — there was nothing.
Grand jury investigations are always kept confidential by law enforcement and the Attorney General’s office in the wake of that announcement refused for years to say whether a grand jury had even been called, or whether a report of its investigation had ever been completed.
Only recently did the transcript of a lower-court hearing on the matter spell out the legal fight. According to that transcript, a state grand jury had in fact sent out subpoenas to the Archdiocese of Newark and the Dioceses of Paterson, Metuchen, Trenton and Camden — ultimately reaching agreements with all but Camden on producing records.
At issue all these years was whether the state could legally use a grand jury to investigate matters involving the church.
Camden, in its objection, challenged the grand jury’s authority as its lawyers argued that no state law allowed it to present a case and this would violate the state and federal constitutions’ guarantee of a separation of church and state.
The state, according to the transcript, argued that the church and its clergy had a “direct and intimate relationship with New Jersey citizens,” and that its leaders were endowed with the public trust.
But Superior Court Judge Peter E. Warshaw Jr., sitting in Mercer County, agreed with Camden’s challenge, saying a grand jury presentment should refer to public affairs and conditions, not a religious organization.
At the same time, he said those indicted by a grand jury are entitled to a trial and an opportunity to face their accusers. Not so with a presentment, he noted, saying that such a report by a special grand jury castigates an individual, impugns their integrity “without giving him the slightest opportunity to defend himself.”
The judge added that many of the priests who may have been implicated “were dead or of such advanced age that speaking up for oneself would be nearly impossible,” wondering, “who speaks for these individuals?”
Among the court filings unsealed on Thursday was a brief by the Attorney General’s office filed in December, asking the Supreme Court to reverse Warshaw’s ruling.
“This dispute concerns one of the most wrenching public harms in recent memory: decades of sexual abuse of children by members of the clergy, and the conduct that allowed it to go undetected and unaddressed for so long,” the court was told.
The brief said the trial court decision “dramatically and incorrectly” constricted the use of the grand jury’s power to present its findings. .
“It does so even though no presentment was before the trial court, based on speculative fears and unfounded assumptions about the contents of a future presentment. And it does so based on a misunderstanding of the law — limiting New Jersey grand juries to issuing presentments only on wrongdoing by government entities, rather than on any other consequential public harms.”
Attorneys for the Diocese of Camden in its own now-unsealed brief argued that “the state overreached by announcing that a grand jury presentment against the Roman Catholic Church would be forthcoming when presentments are limited to public affairs and conditions, not the internal operations of a religious entity.”
A spokesman for the diocese did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mark Crawford, an abuse survivor and state director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP, cheered the ruling.
“This is a big day. Such matters need to see the light of day,” he said. “They may say that many of the offenders are dead. But their victims deserved to be heard.”
Bill Crane, who along with his twin brother has alleged abuse by monks at Morristown’s Delbarton School in the 1970s and 1980s, said the secrecy has gone on too long.
“Hopefully the Supreme Court will do the right thing and reverse the lower court’s decision,” he said. “It’s been a dark shadow over the whole state of New Jersey. Its only when everything comes out that healing can occur.”