Oh, no, not us...

Paul Vitello has an article in The New York Times about priestly behavior:

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport asked the Connecticut Supreme Court on Friday to reconsider its order to unseal 12,000 pages of court documents related to lawsuits claiming sexual abuse of children by priests. The motion represents the last possible appeal— short of the United States Supreme Court— in a seven-year tug of war between the diocese and four newspapers, including The New York Times. The newspapers are seeking records in 23 lawsuits filed against the diocese and seven of its priests in the 1990s, during the tenure of Bishop Edward Egan, who became archbishop of New York in 2000 and retired two months ago.
The documents were sealed in 2001 after the diocese reached settlements with the plaintiffs, most of them former altar boys and youth group members who say they were molested in the 1960s, ’70s, and early ’80s, before Bishop Egan’s arrival.
Bishop Egan, who is now a cardinal, was accused by victims’ advocates in the Bridgeport Diocese of having shuffled priests accused of abuse from parish to parish. He has said he followed the conventional practice at the time— sending accused priests to psychiatric institutions, and returning them to parish work only after they had been cleared for duty by mental health professionals.
In its petition on Friday, the diocese asked that all seven members of the state’s highest court convene to reconsider the decision to unseal the files, which was reached on 22 May by a five-member panel of the court. “The decision raises significant concerns, and deserves review by the full court, as opposed to a divided panel,” the petition argued. The panel ruled four to one in favor of the newspapers, which in addition to The Times include The Hartford Courant, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post.
The diocese gave three reasons for a rehearing. It questioned the impartiality of the Superior Court judge, Jon Alander, who initially ruled in 2006 that the documents be unsealed, arguing that he should have recused himself because he was then on a judicial task force studying the release of public records, that included a reporter for The Courant. In its ruling last month, the Supreme Court rejected that claim.
The diocese also argued that unsealing the records would violate protections afforded religious institutions under the First Amendment and breach the privacy of plaintiffs, defendants and others named in the documents.
George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times, criticized the diocese’s request for another review. “It’s extremely regrettable that the diocese is doing everything it can to delay the release of documents that are so clearly of public interest,” he said. “It is directly contrary to the church’s rhetoric about openness and putting the scandal behind it.”

Rico says it may be 'extremely regrettable', but it's not surprising; the Church is gonna get their ass handed to them over this stuff, and they don't want it in the public eye unless they're forced to...