Catholic bishops oppose law aimed at pedophiles

[skeptical scientist]

A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

Un-be-fucking-lievable.

[Shivahn]

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

Hahaha.....

I... What? I mean. Like.

I don't know. Something about the way that's worded makes it so obviously wrong. Not just a bit. I mean, it's almost like they said "Hey, your parish is run by pedophiles."

Then "so you should protect them."

[Habz]

Just ridiculously disgusting. I mean, hell... How can they even say that with a straight face?

These kind of people make me want to believe Hell exists.

[SlyReaper]

I'm trying to find a way to view this that doesn't look like they're saying "but some of the priests are pedophiles and if this law goes through, they'll be prosecuted, and that's a bad thing". A point of view from which they are not horrible human beings. I have not found one. The best I can come up with is that the news article has almost certainly butchered the story somehow.

[TaintedDeity]

That's... owning up to pedophilia and then suggesting people cover it up.
Edit: In fact, not just pedophilia but child abuse.

[Gelsamel]

"legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut"

Uh, what?

[phlip]

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

Hahaha.....

I... What? I mean. Like.

I don't know. Something about the way that's worded makes it so obviously wrong. Not just a bit. I mean, it's almost like they said "Hey, your parish is run by pedophiles."

Then "so you should protect them."

I know, that was my reaction to that sentence too...

And I can't think of any other way to interpret that sentence.

Maybe, maybe, they think that the law is a vehicle to continue the neverending persecution the Church suffers, and as soon as it passes, every church everywhere will suddenly be overrun by police using this law as a pretext to arrest and harass all the priesthood. Or something.
Sort of like the logic where, to make an example up on the spot, a law restricting the use of makeup would be sexist, even though there's nothing stopping men from wearing makeup and suffering the same restrictions, and the law itself might be worded in a gender-neutral way. Except with a large serving of stupid, and the kind of analogy-stretching abilities that let you call "wearing makeup" analogous to "child abuse". And the analogue for "makeup is traditionally the domain of women" being a scary thought.

[skeptical scientist]

The best I can come up with is that the news article has almost certainly butchered the story somehow.

The news article seems fine to me. But don't take my word for it: go to the source.

Maybe, maybe, they think that the law is a vehicle to continue the neverending persecution the Church suffers in their own rather warped brains.

Fixed. I suspect this is what you meant to say anyways.

[Silas]

I'm trying to find a way to view this that doesn't look like they're saying "but some of the priests are pedophiles and if this law goes through, they'll be prosecuted, and that's a bad thing". A point of view from which they are not horrible human beings. I have not found one.

How about, "We have statutes of limitations for a reason. Thirty years after the fact, it's impossible to mount a defense in an emotionally charged case where the plaintiff's testimony is prima facie evidence for a jury," or "Civil actions are not bearer notes, to be cashed in on your convenience. Leaving the issue lie for thirty years ought to be evidence enough that the matter was settled long ago."

[skeptical scientist]

How about, "We have statutes of limitations for a reason. Thirty years after the fact, it's impossible to mount a defense in an emotionally charged case where the plaintiff's testimony is prima facie evidence for a jury."

Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused.

"They [the church] were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar high," [Connecticut state Representative Beth] Bye said.

"Civil actions are not bearer notes, to be cashed in on your convenience. Leaving the issue lie for thirty years ought to be evidence enough that the matter was settled long ago."

...or else that these continue to be very sensitive and troubling issues with a great deal of stigma attached, not to mention pressure to keep quiet, and people may be understandably hesitant about coming forward.

[LuNatic]

After a good 5 mins of thought I can't come up with any reason interpretation for this other than an admission of guilt. A 30+ year old pedophilia/molestation/assault case must be almost impossible to convict without a confession anyway.

[Silas]

...or else that these continue to be very sensitive and troubling issues with a great deal of stigma attached, not to mention pressure to keep quiet, and people may be understandably hesitant about coming forward.

Don't look for a whole lot of debate from me. I'm only here because somebody said, "I can't imagine a way how...," and I can't let that go. I misread SlyReaper's post, anyway.

The most I can say for the bishops here is that there's some doublespeak by the legislature. It seems like either they're not being honest about how strict the rules on these cases are going to be, or there won't be any cases- in which case, why make the law at all?

[Diadem]

That's an .... interesting ... response.

But why are the bishops so worried? This change is mostly symbolic, since proving sexual abuse after 30+ years is impossible anyway. And law changes never apply retroactively, so whatever they did in the past is not covered.

[Coffee Stain]

That's an .... interesting ... response.

But why are the bishops so worried? This change is mostly symbolic, since proving sexual abuse after 30+ years is impossible anyway. And law changes never apply retroactively, so whatever they did in the past is not covered.

Apparently, this is quite the point of their opposition.

House Bill 5473 would make Connecticut the only State without a statute of limitations. This bill would put all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk. The nature of bankruptcy litigation puts all assets at risk, even if your parish has had no past incidents, reports or allegations of child abuse. That is why it is important for you to join other Catholics across Connecticut in opposing this legislation. And this is not simply about bankruptcy or the loss of property. Ultimately the legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities. As you know, in addition to instituting a zero tolerance policy, we have compassionately reached out to victims and their families through counseling, prayerful apology and considerable financial settlements. We have also created one of the most effective child protection programs in the country, and we are constantly reviewing it for improvement. We have trained thousands of children and adults under our Safe Environments Program. It is important to understand that the claims which could be made under House Bill 5473 might be 50, 60, 70 years old or older. Most often, these claims would be driven by a small number of trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases. They would be difficult to defend because key individuals are deceased, memories have faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost.

If the claim is that proof of sexual abuse is nigh impossible 30 years after the fact, supporting a statute of limitations would be in line with a desire that the defendants of true allegations be convicted and those of false allegations be acquitted.

[Chen]

I love the way the legitimate concerns of the church are brought up in a tiny part of the end of the original article and ridiculous out of context statements are what make up the body of it. That reporter should be shot.

[Le1bn1z]

I don't think Holy Mother Church has much legitimacy on this issue at present.

Also, I am increasingly suspicious that the South Park episode about the Church was, in fact, a documentary.

But here we have the systematic abuse of children at issue, and all they can think of is limiting the cost to them. Typical.

[Decker]

I've been looking for an excuse to tell my parents I'm not Catholic anymore. I think I found it.

[The Reaper]

But here we have the systematic abuse of children at issue, and all they can think of is limiting the cost to them. Typical.

Typical of humans? Typical of sentient beings? Typical of living creatures? Yes.

[Le Téméraire]

A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

Un-be-fucking-lievable.

Not only unbelievable, it is also not in agreement with the guidelines for the struggle against pedophilia in the church published this Monday by the Vatican.

Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.

[Heisenberg]

And I can't think of any other way to interpret that sentence.

How about:
"We have limited resources available to investigate claims, and we'd rather investigate Father Stan and Father Phil who are currently running a summer camp than Father Eugene, who is retired, and Father Mel, who is dead."

These claimants would have to be over 48 and the accused priests would be at least a generation older. The Catholic Church doesn't want to let every accused priest spend their retirement in jail, so they'll have to defend every case.

Wouldn't it be better to address the source of the problem rather than investigate every retired, senile priest to condemn a few of them for past crimes?

[skeptical scientist]

How about:
"We have limited resources available to investigate claims, and we'd rather investigate Father Stan and Father Phil who are currently running a summer camp than Father Eugene, who is retired, and Father Mel, who is dead."

These claimants would have to be over 48 and the accused priests would be at least a generation older. The Catholic Church doesn't want to let every accused priest spend their retirement in jail, so they'll have to defend every case.

Wouldn't it be better to address the source of the problem rather than investigate every retired, senile priest to condemn a few of them for past crimes?

I think you're missing the part where this law refers to civil rather than criminal litigation.

[EsotericWombat]

This is about more than just money. This is also about production of documents, testimony under oath, and bishops saying "I don't recall" until their lips turn blue.

For all the claims they make about having atoned, the Church still probably has quite a lot that it doesn't want you to know about the way they've handled abuse. It follows that they're doing everything in their power to keep it that way.

[Weeks]

I love the way the legitimate concerns of the church are brought up in a tiny part of the end of the original article and ridiculous out of context statements are what make up the body of it. That reporter should be shot.

From the source given earlier:

When similar bills passed in California and Delaware, the result was over 1,250 plaintiffs filing suit against Catholic institutions, two dioceses in bankruptcy, efforts to foreclose on parish and diocesan properties, and the transfer of over $1.3 billion from Catholic institutions and their insurers to claimants and their counsel.

These risks are real. Over 140 persons have already sued St. Francis Hospital due to the alleged rogue and wicked acts of one physician who practiced there decades ago. Forty-nine of these persons are now suing the Archdiocese of Hartford. According to the Hartford Courant, there are many more patients who have not yet sued. Since 2002, the dioceses in Portland, Spokane, Tucson, San Diego, Davenport, Fairbanks, and Wilmington have filed for bankruptcy. In most of these cases, claimants have sought to liquidate parish properties to satisfy their demands.

I guess that's what you're talking about. So yes, they haven't confessed, which is far more believable.

[G.v.K]

The best I can come up with is that the news article has almost certainly butchered the story somehow.

The news article seems fine to me. But don't take my word for it: go to the source.

interesting letter. mostly utter bullshit, but they do make the point that certain greedy lawyers will see this as an opportunity to hold the church to ransom by launching suits presumably in the hope of getting some easy settlements. if that is true, it is understandable that there would be concern. even the church has to be pragmatic, i suppose.

[BoomFrog]

Umm, the kind of did confess, but then said we've already fixed it, please let go of the past.

This unfairness is greater because Catholic institutions have largely resolved their problem of childhood sexual abuse through zero tolerance practices implemented in 1992 and excellent safe environment programs beginning in 2002. Connecticut Catholic dioceses and parishes have conducted over 2,500 classes on identification of early warning signs and on mandatory reporting; trained 234,000 clergy, lay employees, parents, and youth; and conducted over 68,000 criminal background checks.

From this standpoint their case seems reasonable. They want to let the past die, and this law allows digging up the past for an extra 60ish years. But, the previous point that testimony from 48+ year old victims can only be used as part of a case with a younger victim means the church's objection is invalid.

[SummerGlauFan]

[

I love the way the legitimate concerns of the church are brought up in a tiny part of the end of the original article and ridiculous out of context statements are what make up the body of it. That reporter should be shot.

More like a single sentence from the church was brought up, in itself highly out of context, and the rest of the article was little more than biased speculation. It's amazing how actually reading the paragraph that sentence was actually in brought to light the true concern, that of going bankrupt due to frivolous (and almost impossible to prove or disprove) lawsuits.

And to think, for a time I wanted to be a journalist!

[Kayangelus]

Honestly, if people are suing them 30 years after the event, how are they even supposed to mount a defense?

I can't see anything beyond a "my and whomever I bribed of/am friends with"'s word vs "your and whomever you bribed of/are friends with"'s word case. If you are suing someone in a case where, even if they are innocent there would be physically no way for them to prove it is pretty much harassment. that, and the fact that the news media will automatically assume the priest guilty.

[Krong]

Not only unbelievable, it is also not in agreement with the guidelines for the struggle against pedophilia in the church published this Monday by the Vatican.

Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed.

Well, opposing possible legislation is very different from breaking current law.

[skeptical scientist]

I love the way the legitimate concerns of the church are brought up in a tiny part of the end of the original article and ridiculous out of context statements are what make up the body of it. That reporter should be shot.

More like a single sentence from the church was brought up, in itself highly out of context, and the rest of the article was little more than biased speculation. It's amazing how actually reading the paragraph that sentence was actually in brought to light the true concern, that of going bankrupt due to frivolous (and almost impossible to prove or disprove) lawsuits.

And to think, for a time I wanted to be a journalist!

That's the church's spin. I'll buy that the concern is going bankrupt, but I imagine they're worried about legitimate lawsuits as well as frivolous ones (and with good reason!) Those responsible for the bill say that they have addressed the church's concerns about frivolous lawsuits by "setting the bar high", and yet the church still opposes the bill.

Color me not surprised.

* * *

Also, what are you talking about with "a single sentence from the church was brought up, in itself highly out of context...It's amazing how actually reading the paragraph that sentence was actually in brought to light the true concern"?

Here's the paragraph in the letter containing that sentence:

It is important to understand that the claims which could be made under House Bill 5473 might be 50, 60, 70 years old or older. Most often, these claims would be driven by a small number of trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases. They would be difficult to defend because key individuals are deceased, memories have faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost.

Here's the paragraph in the article which contains the quote:

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

It seems to me that they pretty well paraphrased the entire paragraph, so I don't see how reading that paragraph in the letter somehow makes clear something that wasn't clear from the article.

Look, the church is opposed to a law aimed at allowing victims of childhood sexual abuse to have their day in court, because it's worried about going bankrupt if such claims are allowed. This is a fact. So they asked their parishioners to oppose the law, also a fact, while couching the request it in very careful language with just the right spin so they don't appear to be defending pedophiles. Then the article reports the facts, without using all the careful language that the church used. As a result, the church looks really bad. But you know what? It's not the job of the journalist to carefully use the right spin to avoid making their subject look bad. I think you're going way too far to accuse the journalist of publishing "biased speculation", when the article is entirely factually correct. It's the church's own actions, when seen without the church's spin, that are so damning.

[Telchar]

Color me not concerned if a group has to pay monetary compensation to people it molested and therefore goes bankrupt. QQ more.

[Chen]

It seems to me that they pretty well paraphrased the entire paragraph, so I don't see how reading that paragraph in the letter somehow makes clear something that wasn't clear from the article.

I'm not sure what SummerGlauFan was referring to but what I was referring to as out of context were the two earlier paragraphs:

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

and

The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.

Both of which taken at face value make it look absurd. When read in context of the OTHER points they make it at least makes sense because the letter previously talked about WHY these statements are true. Reading them as they are tends to make it imply that the Church is simply at risk because they are in fact pedophiles (for the first sentence) and the second one implies the mission of the catholic church has to do with pedophilia. All because the journalist didn't say WHY the letter stated those things until later in the article. Its TERRIBLE journalism.

[psyck0]

I am totally OK with the church going bankrupt for any reason at all. Decrepit old institution. Perhaps it did not commit the particular crimes of molestation it has been accused of, but it has committed so many others that I see it as a just punishment.

[Decker]

I am totally OK with the church going bankrupt for any reason at all. Decrepit old institution. Perhaps it did not commit the particular crimes of molestation it has been accused of, but it has committed so many others that I see it as a just punishment.

That's the American Way^TM

[Le1bn1z]

The church go bankrupt!?!

Egad! Then end of Christianity!

Or, oh, what? Do you expect the messanger's of God to travel around the country on foot, preaching in fields and on hills?

And where will they get the preachers? Bankrupt, they'll have to hire fishermen and farmers.

How could Christianity ever survive like that?

{The mind boggles sometimes at the way these Romans think. The RC church going bankrupt might be the best thing that ever happened to it.}

[psyck0]

I'm a Canadian, thank you very much.

[Aetius]

As someone raised Catholic, I obviously hate the church as much as anyone, but this issue strikes me as overwhelmingly about protecting the resources of the non-abusive parts of the church from the liabilities of the abusive parts. If the suits were to take every last penny from a convicted abuser, I'm all for it, but in reality that money is going to come from hospital budgets and charity funds.

[skeptical scientist]

I'm not sure what SummerGlauFan was referring to but what I was referring to as out of context were the two earlier paragraphs:

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

You're right, because putting it into context by adding "...because they are owned by an institution which has protected pedophiles at other parishes and church-owned institutions" makes it look so much better:

This bill would retroactively eliminate the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits related to allegations of child sexual abuse. Connecticut already has the longest retroactive statute in the United States – 30 years past the age of 18. Over the past several years in states that have even temporarily eliminated the statutes, it has caused the bankruptcy of at least seven dioceses. House Bill 5473 would make Connecticut the only State without a statute of limitations. This bill would put all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk.

The nature of bankruptcy litigation puts all assets at risk, even if your parish has had no past incidents, reports or allegations of child abuse. That is why it is important for you to join other Catholics across Connecticut in opposing this legislation.

I really don't see your problem with the quotes you say are out of context. They don't really look much better in context, to me at least. I invite everyone reading this thread to read the entire letter, in the original, and not just the quotes from the article. Even when you read what they're saying in the original context, what they're doing is still skeezy as all hell.

Like many others in this thread, I am unconcerned by the possibility that a church will go bankrupt because a jury decides that it was negligent in allowing pedophiles to remain in positions where they could exploit children, and orders it to pay restitution.

[Coffee Stain]

Like many others in this thread, I am unconcerned by the possibility that a church will go bankrupt because a jury decides that it was negligent in allowing pedophiles to remain in positions where they could exploit children, and orders it to pay restitution.

I would be unconcerned as well. Unfortunately, frivolous lawsuits don't involve such a church.

[psyck0]

As someone raised Catholic, I obviously hate the church as much as anyone, but this issue strikes me as overwhelmingly about protecting the resources of the non-abusive parts of the church from the liabilities of the abusive parts. If the suits were to take every last penny from a convicted abuser, I'm all for it, but in reality that money is going to come from hospital budgets and charity funds.

Funny story. "Catholic" charity hospitals actually contribute far less to their operating budget than the state does.

Now, having said that and searched for 20 minutes, I can't find the breakdown. Bah humbug. It was on pharyngula if you feel like searching. Something about how every hospital is really an atheist hospital because the church contributes <1% of the operating budget to "their" hospitals.

[Heisenberg]

{The mind boggles sometimes at the way these Romans think. The RC church going bankrupt might be the best thing that ever happened to it.}

Maybe for the clergy, but for the thousands served by the shelters, soup kitchens, free clinics, hospices, schools, etc., it probably wouldn't quite be the best thing that ever happened.