Pennsylvania’s top prosecutor seems to have forgotten his place in the world of jurisprudence. Or he has forgotten the meaning of prudence.

Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the architect of a grand jury investigation into statewide sexual abuse within the Catholic church, was dealt a legal blow on Dec. 4 by the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court which ruled 6-1 that the names of 11 Roman Catholic clerics that had been temporarily redacted never be unredacted from a thousand-page grand jury report.

The state’s highest court agreed with the group of 11 former and current priests that they were denied the due process of law, and that revealing their identities would unfairly harm their reputations. The court found that a person’s reputation is protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution and is a “fundamental individual human right.” Their names had been temporarily redacted since the grand jury report was released earlier this year. With this recent ruling, the redactions are permanent.

Mr. Shapiro had argued against any redactions from the grand jury report which named some 300 clerics. (The only names redacted from the report were those for whom the redactions were sought.)

Faced with the decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Mr. Shapiro issued a statement criticizing the court’s ruling, which he said “allows predator priests to remain in the shadows and permits the church to continue concealing their identities.”

Mr. Shapiro has a right to his opinion and it is not unheard of for attorneys to criticize judicial decisions they don’t like.

But Mr. Shapiro went too far when he called out Catholic diocesan leaders to do what he has been legally forbidden to do: release the names of the 11. “I call on the bishops to do so immediately...” he said.

It is questionable whether such a public release even is legal. The church could be opening itself up to accusations of slander, libel, defamation.

Even if the church could execute such a maneuver, would it be right? The state’s highest court has looked at all the materials, heard all the arguments, and has determined in a clear majority opinion that publicizing the names of the 11 violates their legal rights. Should the church ignore that decision? To date, the church has not heeded Mr. Shapiro’s admonition.

The chief concern is this: Mr. Shapiro — an officer of the court, an attorney, the top prosecutor in all of Pennsylvania — is demonstrating disregard for the Supreme Court in particular and jurisprudence in general.

Mr. Shapiro clearly is passionate about a grand jury investigation that chronicled hundreds of allegations of sexual abuse committed by priests and covered up by church hierarchy across the state over seven decades. The allegations were horrific. The cover-up was unconscionable. And it is understandable that Mr. Shapiro’s passion likely would be fueled by the fact that only a few of the allegations ever could be prosecuted either because those allegations were too old or the accused were deceased. But, Mr. Shapiro should not let his passions obscure his role as a defender of the state’s constitution and the legal rights afforded to all.

The justices spelled it out clearly in the majority opinion written by Justice Debra Todd: “(C)onstitutional rights are of the highest order, and even alleged sexual abusers, or those abetting them, are guaranteed by our commonwealth’s constitution the rights of due process.”

Mr. Shapiro should not call on others to do what he has been barred from doing. It is, at the very least, imprudent.

Karen Kane is a member of the Post-Gazette editorial board.

First Published: December 21, 2018, 10:00 a.m.