Some thoughts on

1) Doubt

- but, but most of the abusing priests grew up and were trained pre-Vatican II.

I also have a slight problem with the premise of the play that there is justifiable doubt about the existence of abuse. Understandably you do not want cardboard caricatures, but the focus may insinuate doubt in general about sexual assault. I gather the question is not answered definitively in the film, and I wish it were. Insinuations of maybe, maybe not, fail to honor reality. Maybe I am too literal, but what does a survivor come away with?

There is an eerie resemblance to reality in Chicago where Rev. Daniel McCormack, now in prison, gave an African American mother tuition money while he was abusing her son. His mother was not interested in pursuing the matter, despite the principal’s profound suspicions which she reported to the archdiocesan school board in vain. Read the principal’s report at
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/depo/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George/2008_01_30_Cardinal_Francis_George_arch_Exhibit_111_A.pdf . p. 3 of 5

I hope to see the movie, while being mindful of what my research over the years found to be true.

2) SOL reform

– essential to protect children and give access to justice. Bishops purposely ran out statutes to prohibit prosecution and liability (clever tactic when distressed parents came forward – tie them up in talks/counseling etc. until deadlines pass – then, oops you’re too late); likewise, violate the reporting law, but keep the secrets long enough to evade redress. So, when windows legislation comes along, it is ironic to see such strategies fail.

When a window opened up in CA, 300 additional perpetrators were identified, with thousands of pages of secret church documents exposed or soon to be released (if Mahony et al abide by settlements). Since priests can have long histories of abuse, children are safer when identification is made.

Once the criminal SOL has expired, the only way for a survivor to publicly name his or her perpetrator is to file a civil action that allows media to name that person. The window opened that avenue, and brought some measure of treatment, healing and justice to hundreds of survivors.

Bishops work much harder to prevent abuse, and sit up straighter when their pocketbooks are on the line. Some do not oppose extension of the criminal SOL (no money is at stake), but oppose civil SOL extension. Why should accountability be timed to apply in one case but not the other? Either justice is due, or it isn’t.

When informed about a young man dying of AIDS who had been molested around 5 or 6, a NH bishop was interested only in whether the SOL had passed. No reaching out, just liability concerns. Often a bishop (McCormack of course included) would inquire if a victim was taking “a litigious stance” when reporting to the church. I do not believe such cynical responses deserve legal immunity, especially when artificial time limits pertain, with no relation to actual abuse recovery patterns.

Then, there is George himself. Guilty as sin by his own admission, and free as a bird for failing to report. He beat the clock since 2003 (think that was the date), but there may be a legal remedy if I read another statute correctly. I am not a lawyer but wrote about his case at http://votf.org/vineyard/Nov19_2008/survivor.html and if any legal minds wish to review, please do so.

I find too often that courts are not about a search for the truth or justice, but an adversary proceeding where tying up an opponent in expensive Bleak House maneuvers is the game. That hard assessment is built on following survivors’ cases since 2002, and attending a law school conference on how to pursue actions against diocesan scorched earth tactics.

Watch Marci Hamilton speak at Princeton on SOL when her book “Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children” was published last May. It’s 70 minutes long but Marci’s talk and the Q&A answer many questions.

http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=FV-9480

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081210/REVIEWS/812109991

I think this one gets it right: http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/doubt

I do understand, Bill, and agree that there may be something to capping or limiting awards in some way (although I see it as kind of a mixed bag). I also agree that the limits in some SOLs are way too short, and for that reason would support extending them *for cases of abuse that occur after the law has been changed*.

The issue of retroactively opening a window is a separate issue.

Your characterization may well be right, Susan. On the other hand, the judge may be speaking from his personal experience – in the course of fulfilling his obligations, he may see genuine reasons for a sort of muted optimism.

Yes, I agree.

“Of course, I don’t believe for a minute that the Church is fighting changes for the sake of justice. It’s fighting the changes so that no more priests will be exposed to the laws.”

I think the institutional church has a varity of motives. Chief among them, in my view, is that bishops and other diocesan leaders have an important obligation to be responsible stewards of the financial assets entrusted to their care. Clearly, if new windows of liability were opened up, the results for dioceses would be financially catastrophic. I can understand that a lot of folks don’t particularly care, or think that interests of justice or vengeance trump such considerations. But the hard fact is, these competing interests are all legitimate and need to be balanced.

I’d like to think that church leaders also do have a genuine concern about the integrity of our system of justice, and might oppose setting aside statute of limitations on principle, even if they didn’t have a pressing interest in the outcome.

Frankly, I’d be surprised if, at this point, any bishop is interested in covering up for any abusive priests (or any other cleric or employee). They just want them to go away, preferably without any liability or hassle.

” suppose those fighting eliminate the statutes of limitations may be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but I still think they are wrong. ”

Well put. :-)

As someone involved in behavioral health for the last 25 years, SOLs are outdated and fly in the face of documented studies, experience, and treatment of those who have been sexually abused. This is a larger legal issue involving states, school districts, hospitals, etc. – Folks are advocating that the SOL be narrowly changed or that a window be opened for a period of time so that some type of recourse is available to those who have been hurt. I would also support financial/tort limitations in terms of revising SOLs.

My point is not legal – what is the best pastoral approach? Defending, reinforcing SOLs is not my idea of bishops acting pastorally.

Carolyn – you have more expertise in this area. Can you enlighten us on this issue?

Jim,

I am interesting that somebody else said this, because it is what I was thinking, and I thought that for once I would just remain silent.

There are good reasons for statutes of limitations, and to change them to go after a specific group does strike me as unjust. Of course, I don’t believe for a minute that the Church is fighting changes for the sake of justice. It’s fighting the changes so that no more priests will be exposed to the laws. So the Church may be doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason. I suppose those fighting eliminate the statutes of limitations may be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but I still think they are wrong.

Evidence disappears over time, and human memories are faulty. Recollections of what happened years ago can be faulty. There are stories in my family (not involving child abuse!) that everyone remembers differently. Even perceptions of what happened ten minutes ago can differ from one person to another. It’s clear that way too many people (and especially bishops) behaved very badly, and I don’t blame people for being very angry about it. But changing statutes of limitation is very misguided.

ANY attempt to repeal statutes of limitations in order to expose criminals retroactively to criminal liability is unjust, Bill, regardless of the category or nature of the crime. No matter how deeply we care about the victim or how outraged we are about individual circumstances, we can’t compromise important principles of our legal system.