Reality Check, Please!
March 12, 2009, 9:51 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
The New York State Legislature is considering a bill that would lift the statute of limitations on civil suits concerning child sexual abuse. The sponsor of the legislation had this to say:
“Senator Thomas K. Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and the bill’s lead sponsor in the Senate, said he was “extremely optimistic” about its chances.
“He said that opponents’ claims of unfairness were not compelling, and that warnings of bankruptcy for religious institutions, which he dismissed as unlikely, missed the point.
“It’s not about money,” he said. “It’s about giving people the right to seek justice.”
It’s not about money?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/nyregion/12abuse.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Thanks, Peggy, for posting this. For me, the most disingenuous part of it is that public institutions are exempt. This just doesn’t pass the smell test. If it is all about victims, then what about the large number who have suffered at the hands of public school teachers over the past decades? I would bet the trial lawyers couldn’t convince the legislators to include these institutions since this could costs cities and municipalities huge sums.
This is the money quote on this point: “Just because it does not broaden the rights of victims 100 percent does not mean we should not try to broaden their rights somewhat.”
Would someone support a bill that only protected girls and not boys arguing that well we have to begin somewhere?
I wrote a brief piece for New York magazine on this last week:
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/55020/
There are hundreds and perhaps a thousand victims who would seek redress, so this is a huge deal. Would Paterson really sign this?
In any case, Cardinal Egan had the best quote, as usual:
“If this legislation passes, I might as well give the keys to St. Patrick’s Cathedral to the first crooked attorney who walks down Fifth Avenue.”
To be fair, the attorney wouldn’t have to be crooked. Moreover, the NY Archdiocese has the assets to take this hit–even though it’d be ugly. Other dioceses in the state with struggling populations certainly would not. Fair? Just? I’m not going there. I have enough nasty emails in my inbox.
As I understand it, this bill completely abolishes the statute of limitations (currently 5 years after the alleged victim turns 18) altogether for a period of one year, and then restores a new statue of limitations of 10 years after the victim turns 18. If a statute of limitations was valuable enough to have in the first place, and valuable enough to restore, then I don’t see how it is defensible to abolish it altogether for a period of a year. To be fair, or at least have a pretense of being fair, they could have changed the statute of limitations to 10 years effective immediately.
Tom Duane is my state senator. I will let him know what I think.
A number of issues:
a) the public institution liability limitation exists in most states – this battle was also fought in California (they did provide a window), Maryland, Ohio, and Colorado (Chaput was very outspoken on this);
b) for me, the issue is that we do not allow victims to come forward because public entities do not share the same liability – so, victims are told – “tought!” Not a very life sustaining approach for a church that screams life begins at conception;
c) NYTimes brings up the issue of “recovered” memories. Mental Health is my work field and there are professional differences of opinion in this area but most (majority) of professionals believe that sexual abuse is often not recovered until later in life and that memories can be trusted. Link: http://www.richardsipe.com/Forensic/Constance%20Dalenberg.pdf (realize that Sipe and company are connected to legal prosecuters and that some think that they have an ax to grind and are in it for the money – not sure that is accurate)
d) Response from Thomas Doyle on each of the points raised in the NY Times (again, realize that Doyle is seen as in opposition to bishops; he has spent his life and given up his clerical career to support victims)…..link: http://www.richardsipe.com/doyle/Response_to_legislators_4-3-07.pdf
e) Ms. Steinfels – you leave the question – it is not about money? Would suggest that public liability laws on sexual abuse do need to be changed in terms of reporting periods; would also agree that windows should be allowed but with monetary award limitations;
f) it conctinues to confuse and hurt catholics in terms of credibility when the church fights childhood victims while maintaining that they are 100% right to life. It is also flys in the face of one interpretation of B16′s words on American soil to the US bishops in terms of healing and reconciling with victims of clerical sexual abuse.
Bill DeHaas, re “recovered” memories: You are expert in this, but I am always uncomfortable when that is raised, not because it is a controversial idea which could be open to abuse by alleged victims, certainly…But mainly because it seems as though it would be better dealt with more parsimoniously by stating the obvious, that it takes years and often decades for adults to reach a point at which they can begin to admit what happened and–hopefully–begin to deal with the trauma. And those are the lucky one. Talking about “recovered” memories is like talking about alien abduction, to most people. The plain reality of post-traumatic stress seems a better argument. But that’s me.
Also from the New York Times story, “But while the Catholic Church is leading the opposition, in recent months a loose coalition of disparate groups has also joined the effort. They include leaders of the Hasidic and Sephardic Jewish institutions in Brooklyn, which could face equally costly abuse claims. The New York Civil Liberties Union and the criminal defense bar oppose lifting statutes of limitation as unfair to the accused, who must defend themselves against claims of transgressions decades old.”
That the NY Civil Liberties Union (an old friend of the Catholic Church! [irony alert]) is opposed to the legislation raises the question about whether it is about justice either.
We’ve been over this turf before, but now it’s new York.
I think many of us shape our views on our presuppositions and experiences, so I’ll repeat again that my views were shaped by experiences not only with sex offenders, victims and involvementation in some policy developmen tin dealing with them (in New York.)
So,:
-I agree with Bill D.”s notions on recovered memory.
-I think talk about “crooked attorneys” is persiflage andshould be dismissed out of hand.
-I wonder if the discussion about bankrupting the various dioceses tacitly assumes they;ve got something to hide and that those who worry about that tacitly assume that what’s hidden happened way back when?
-The issue is often preented as justice for victims vs. money damage.
I agree rather with Ms. Hamilton that the issue is reall yabout protecting children (Way beack on anotherthread, I refenced her presentation on CSPAN, which I found compelling) and, also, that the Catholic hierarchy is a major drag on promoting laws (by actively fighhting them) that will aid child protection.
-Finally, there’s the matter of public perception and to what extent the Church’s opposition to extending these laws (I think among victim advocates, ewxtension for a brief time is an incremental step toward total elimination of SOL in child sex abuse cases) will be seen as merely CYA for the institution.
“I wonder if the discussion about bankrupting the various dioceses tactically assumes they’ve got something to hide and that those who worry about that tactily assume that what’s hidden happened way back when.”
The discussion about bankrupting various dioceses has to do with the fact that, in the pursuit of Justice for those who have been the victim of sexual abuse, many innocent Catholics have been penalized for the crimes of those that brought scandal to the Church.
The question is, how do we meet the needs of those who have been victims of sexual abuse, protect children from sexual abuse, and not victimize the innocent in the pursuit of Justice?
Maybe I can take some of those e-mails off your hands, Dave. This bill is absurdly unjust and unfair–as is the current statute regarding suits against public institutions. Ten years from the age of eighteen ought to apply for both private and public institutions.
The other issue (okay, I’ll lead with my chin) is how singling out the Catholic Church helps to protect children? As terrible as the abuse in the church has been, it’s a tiny fraction of what happens overall, and in public institutions. Passing this bill without addressing the iceberg below the surface would lead to the public and legislators patting themslevs on the back for a job well done, then ingoring the rest of the scandalous abuse.
This is why liberals have little impact in the church. They get sidetracked too easily and miss the forest for the trees.
You want to see money in the Catholic church go observe the enormous amount spent for lobbying in most states to keep victims from clerical abuse getting their day in court. How else will justice be served when Egan has virtually allowed nothing to surface about the sizable abuse in the Archdioces of NY.
Bill D’s post deserves anothe look.
To concentrate on recovered memory is a sidetrack. There is pleny of evidence without that. Morever, maybe we should consider that “bankrupt Catholic Church” is an oxymoron. Sure we have to be practical but the church of a Crucified Lord is mighty rich and many of their lawyers have become rich defending them. The attention should be on them also if we want to center on lawyers exploiting the situation. Not to mention builders.
It is not the lawyers that are the point it is the incredible abuse and coverup by too many bishops. Especially one who is now the president of the bishop’s conference.
The public schools should be included also. But that is no excuse for us not to pursue justice for victims which has happened on our watch, in our church.
Stunning. How liberals can help the bishops get away with this injustice, which surely is a sin that cries to the heavens.
David G & Bill M. I agree completely. The New York existing law unfairly singles out religious and private institutions, while leaving public schools virtually immune to the same potential liability. To sue a public employee or agency for damages of any kind, a person is required to file a claim within 90 days of the alleged injury. A victim of childhood sex abuse by a public school teacher, for instance, has 90 days after turning 18 to file notice of a claim. Why didn’t this been changed as well???
The number of teachers molesting children would the cases of priests and pastors who molest look miniscule by comparison. The seven-month investigation by AP in 2007 found 2,570 educators whose teaching credentials were revoked, denied, voluntarily surrendered or limited following allegations of sexual misconduct over a five year period from 2001 through 2005. A review by America’s Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors over fifty year period from 1950 through 2002. I wonder how many cases teacher sexual misconduct would have been found of if AP had gone back fifty years.
In my city alone for the last three weeks, there has been at one to two public schools teachers arrested for molesting their students and a plea from the police for additional victims to come forward. So far – nearly 30 victims have come forward! How many are going unreported?? Where is the public outcry?? These are people who we as parents trust to educate our children not to rape them!
Therefore – the law should be the same for all churches, ministers, schools and teachers. This is a horrible crime whether the criminal is a teacher or priest or parent – all are in positions of authority or trust.
The Church should stand up and say, “okay – you want to change the law then you change the law for all such cases.” It will mean schools districts going bankrupt but there are superintendents who are doing exactly what the bishops have been doing covering up and moving problem people around.
Bill de Haas: ) “Ms. Steinfels – you leave the question – it is not about money? Would suggest that public liability laws on sexual abuse do need to be changed in terms of reporting periods; would also agree that windows should be allowed but with monetary award limitations.”
Any views on this? And on limits on contingency fees for lawyers.
Bill de Haas
How is it defensible to do away with the statute of limitations altogether for one year and then restore it? If there are good reasons to change it from 5 years to 10 years, or abolish it altogether, then fine. But it just does not seem to make sense to me to say, “Because we have this particular situation — and we all know what it is — we’re going to totally suspend the statute of limitations for this one group of people just this once.”
It’s perfectly clear that the Catholic Church is being singled out here, since the law is being changed only temporarily. The “window” is clearly being opened because of the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, and then it’s being closed again. It’s clearly unjust.
The second document you link to says that “the average age of sexual molestation of a child by an adult is 12 and the average age at which victims come forward is 40.” That would imply that the new statute of limitations (10 years after the alleged victim turns 18) still allows less than half the time it should.
In any case, a “window” to me seems clearly unjust. I suppose if anyone deserves to be treated unjustly, it’s the bishops who covered up cases of sex abuse and moved offending priests to different parishes, where sometimes they had even greater opportunity to abuse children. But the law is supposed to be about justice.
All good questions – not sure I have answers.
a) Mr. Gibson – there is a huge difference between sexual abuse scars and PTSD; but, for talking purposes, will accept that they are alike in some ways. Do you realize that PTSD in our military are very under-supported, identified, or treated. Thanks to Gates and some innovative programs, that is beginning to change but I doubt most Americans realize how many military return with closed head or brain injuries; PTSD that creates family violence, drug use, broken homes and that their benefits are completely inadequate. In some ways sex abuse victims and military PTSD have much in common in terms of lack of benefits, understanding, treatment, acceptance by the community, etc.
b) Dilemma – both public and private abuse laws need to be changed. Agree with Mr. Gallicho but he ignores the fact that public liability has not been changed; ten years is a completely inadequate window for victims of sexual abuse; you have to start somewhere; yes, it is unfair and yes, 10X more abusers are in the public institutions than in private churches;
c) Ms. Steinfels – okay, now I am dreaming…but, would like to see the USCCB establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission based on clear protocols – confidentiality, protecting confidential information of victims, setting up requirements to cover treatment for victims, limit any awards up to $500,000 based on a sliding scale in terms of damage and years since abuse, drop all legal delaying tactics e.g. bankruptcy, and approach this as a national conference issue (189 dioceses report) with a common financial pool to draw from; then track, implement both online and written all current reports, safety proctection programs, etc. I said I was dreaming.
d) In response to others – am challenging the US Church to lead the way in setting an example to shape public laws and policy in terms of abuse reporting. SOLs (abolish them completely), and reaching out/supporting victims via on-going programs, inbed into our liturgies, inbed into our sacramental practices.
Okay, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Gallicho, Ms. Steinfils – you can write me off now.
Mr. Nicol – did not mean to ignore your points. Fact – state of California allowed a one year window. From a victims’ standpoint, this was a godsend. 50+ years of abuse could now be rerported…….should the law have done away with the SOL completely? Yes, but you do what you can in the public forum. What you do see in the LA Archdiocese is that somewherer between 7.5-10% of all priests abused…….remember, every dioceses has their own history and pattern.
We know that the Dallas Charter in many ways failed to address foundational issues in terms of sexual abuse. Pedophile priests/church staffs became targets; safety programs were mandated making the ordinary catholic feel like they were responsible for this; bishops and their cover-ups were completely ignored.
Do not agree that the Catholic Church is being singled out – per data from the national board the NY diocese reported less than 1.5% abuse cases – most dioceses were around 4-5% and large dioceses e.g. Boston, LA, Chicago were well above 5%. So, a window will have a significant impact on NY…..what is the alternative? Blame an unfair and inbalanced law that sets different limits for public institutions? Blame lawyers? Raise the fear of bankruptcy” Agree that settlements take my money and it makes me angry – but not at victims; rather at bishops who continue to cover up and pass the blame.
Other churches will also be impacted – Jewish Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptists have major issues. The Baptists continue to reject any centralized efforts to address sexual abuse, post abusers names, etc. They are where the catholic church was in 1992.
Not going to write you off (???), Bill, but: in New York State public liability has not been changed. I will, however, take issue with your strange refusal to see this bill for what it is–an attempt to make the Catholic Church pay. We shouldn’t have to ritualistically observe that the bishops who enabled abusers deserve most of the blame. But neither can we afford to be naive about the motives and consequences of such a bill.
Respect your point – my refusal is not strange. I do not know who wrote this bill; nor am I going to question their motives or intent. Given that, I do not agree that this is “an attempt to make the Catholic Church pay.” I have and do know both victims and pedophile priests – have seen healing, settlements, and agreements that did not bankrupt institutions. I have also seen continued pain, suffering, and downright aggression from folks who just want this whole “abuse” thing to go away. It is the elephant in the living room. Agree, we can not be naive about the consequences (or even that some may have motives that have nothing to do with victims, healing, etc.); realize that this could cost NY a billion similar to LA but the answer is not to do nothing; is not to try to link both public and catholic before we do something.
This is none of my business but if you had a family member who was abused, would you be naive about this bill? Would it matter to you? The gospel calls us to protecting life and children; yet we fight the reprecussions tooth and nail.
Most of my responses go beyond this New York event – it has happened in other states and will again in other states.
I have not linked to Marci Hamilton’s works or her focus/goal – to change all SOL laws both private and public. I share that goal.
You mention “ritualistically” – would suggest that the church is a sacrament; all our actions are sacramental at heart. When the body is damaged or hurt, we heal sacramentally – that means ritual e.g. garden in the new Oakland cathedral; Sean O’Malley giving the Pope a booklet with the names of every victim engraved in it; prayer services whose goal is to heal the community not “observe that the bishops who enabled abusers deserve most of the blame.”
My reference to sacraments, liturgy, etc. is my belief that the community has been hurt by sin – we need to heal as a community; not leave it up to each bishop, diocese, victim, family of a victim. If I must participate in a mandated safety environment program, why are we not making this part of our liturgical life? Lex orandi, lex credendi.
Other than agreeing with Bill and appreciating his deep respect and understanding for victims, I just want to point out that:-(as noted in the article in Jewish Week ,talking about Jewish – not the Church made to pay – survivors,) the head of the NY Catholic confernce said they would not support the Markey bill even if it covered public institutionsd -an interesting note on prejudice.
I began by saying folks perceptions and experiencehere condition their views on this. It strikes me that my questions about what tacit assumptions folk bring to the table on the issue should be made clear.
WordPress just ate my reply to you, Bill, but in brief: We ought to be able to make our arguments without appealing to personal experience. Let’s just stipulate that you and I know a lot about the scandal.
Why do you frame this as a choice between the Markey bill and doing nothing?
For the record Votf has been supporting a bill like this for the longest time. A major effort has been underway to include public institutions. Money is the engine that keeps the bishops in power. Maybe if they lost it they would become humble servants of the Lord. Further, it is a fallacy to believe that the poor would suffer. Catholics and others would give much more to take care of the poor and downtrodden when they see that solid help is being given.
How much progress has been made since Peggy gave her talk to the bishops in 2002? How are the bishops different today? Should we not be concerned about cleaning our own house first?
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/timeline/2002-06-13-Steinfels-Lens.htm
I am with the ACLU, I don’t like expanding statutes of limitations to sweep up behavior that occurred long ago. In many jurisdictions, they would be impermissibly retroactive. On the other hand, this is not a change to a criminal statute, where due process would more or less strip away every other consideration.
However, I am afraid the Church is running into a well-honed principle: He who seeks equity must do equity in return. It’s just very difficult to appeal to people’s notions of fairness when your own conduct has been so demonstrably unfair.
And as for it not being about money, given the record here, I think it would be best not to sneer at the motives of the potential plaintiffs. So what if it is?
If this bill were truly about seeking justice and protecting children from abuse—and not about bankrupting the Catholic church—why don’t legislators consider lifting the statutes for all allegations?
In both actual numbers and percentages, sexual abuse of children by teachers, coaches, and employees in public schools exceeds anything that occurred in Catholic institutions. Furthermore, in contrast to Catholic institutions, sexual abuse of children in public schools is still occurring in significant numbers. Prof. Carol Shakeshaft, an expert cited by Hamilton, told Education Week, “So we think the Catholic Church has a problem? . . . The physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.”
The 2007 Annual Report prepared by the Catholic bishops identifies fifteen allegations of childhood sexual abuse in the American Catholic Church from 2000 to 2007—an average of less than two per year. The 2007 Associated Press investigation identifies 2,570 public school teachers who, from 2001 through 2005, had their teaching licenses “taken away, denied, surrendered voluntarily, or restricted” as a result of sexual misconduct with minors—an average of 514 per year.
Mr. Gallicho – point well taken. That is why I stated: “This is none of my business…..”
I have never written a bill for a state legislature; nor have any legal training. I have at times seen the value of personal experience – via “oral histories” – they have changed folks’ perspectives; made you walk in others’ shoes; jar you from your comfortable assumptions, etc. So, yes, your point is correct but I also think personal experience can be valuable.
In terms of the Markey bill or nothing….did not mean to set up an all or nothing. But it appears that each lobbying group is only out to protect itself; I see no group trying to broaden, enhance, or add amendments to this original bill. In other states e.g. Ohio, California, Maryland I saw no modified approaches either. Not sure how or who would do that?
Let me add some quotes (oral history) from Ms. Steinfels and the Dallas Chapter that seem very pertinent to this discussion and both Mr. Gibson and your questions:
“We know that there remains a backlog of abuse cases to be addressed. We know that wounds have been opened, anger provoked, suspicions planted, and questions raised that cannot be dealt with here and now—but must be dealt with over time, conscientiously and purposefully.”
“Historian John McGreevy has pointed out that especially this generation of young Catholics already tending toward detachment, this scandal is, in effect, their Vatican II. How crucial, then, the ending of this story.”
“A third temptation is to blame outside forces rather than examine our own consciences. The media. Anti-Catholicism. Political groups working to discredit the voice of the Catholic Church in public life. Plaintiffs’ lawyers. Insurance companies. Blaming others is a natural impulse—an impulse most American church officials thankfully have resisted. The problem, of course, is that outside forces have played a role in making this scandal what it has become, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for dubious ones. No honest chronicle could avoid noting that. But no honest appraisal of responsibility would let that become an alibi.
“The truth is that we don’t know the truth, the full truth, about this sex abuse scandal. Despite the endless reports, sometimes because of the endless reports, we don’t know the truth. Yes, we know some truths—and they are horrifying and overwhelming. So overwhelming that we can scarcely keep track of times and places and numbers. But these facts we do know leave many questions unanswered, even unasked. ”
Ms. Steinfels (your own words) and Barbara – in answer to your question about money: ” But whatever the causes of the scandal, the fact is that the dam has broken. A reservoir of trust among Catholics has run dry. This scandal has brought home to lay people how essentially powerless they are to affect its outcome—and virtually anything else to do with the church. When we ask, “What can I do?” what lay person isn’t brought up short in realizing, forty years after Vatican II with its promise of consultation and collaboration, that our only serious leverage is money? That in itself is a scandal.”
” Much has been said and written about the laity’s growing distrust of bishops. Let me take note of something else: the hierarchy’s distrust of the laity. (I will pass on the issue of your distrust of one another).
When there is no genuine effort to build accountability and transparency into diocesan and parish governance; when we hear those rote phrases about the church not being a democracy, as if it were a system only of majority vote, and not also of checks and balances and of consultation; when we are unilaterally admonished against discussing some topics; when we know that so many bishops and priests cannot or will not say publicly what they really think, especially now when people long to hear an honest word of explanation, when the Vatican appears to place hopes for priestly vocations in the strict liturgical separation of the ordained and the lay, what conclusion can be drawn except that you don’t trust us? ” (some connection between this week’s state of CT almost state house action and this NY bill)
“”A humble acceptance of Catholic solidarity.” “It will,” DeLubac concluded, “help us to fall in love once more, from a new standpoint, with those elements in the wisdom and the institutions and the traditions and the demands of our Church which we were coming near to understanding no longer.”
Margaret O’Brien Steinfels is the editor of Commonweal.
Nothing like seeing myself quoted, but to what end?
I can’t say I had the NY State legislataion ending statute of limitations in mind–or any other state’s for that matter. I actually hoped that the bishops might do penance, might punish their peers who had tolerated this, might track down the victims, might offer what ever consolation and hope they were capable of summoning, and offering whatever resources were needed to help heal the wounds. I think that happened in some but not enough places.
Will a monetary settlement from a civil suit provide this to the victims? Perhaps to some. But is that what they need?
Barbara, I very often agreed with your posts, but I do sneer at the idea that money will help heal the wounds; not that people aren’t happy to have an extra million in their bank accounts. Is that what they really need?
This kind of legislation, I have concluded, is meant to punish the Church [and the bishops insofar as they ever stay in one place, they may feel the effects]. It is punishing the church for its stand on abortion and same-sex marriage, and of course providing a bevy of lawyers with a good income. I could be mistaken, but that’s what I think this is all about.
Peggy,
I am very surprised that you see it this way. Am I to suppose that you are not aware that this has been the number 1 priority of VOTF and SNAP. Are they being bribed and offered money from the lawyers. Is Tom Boyle a fraud? Some future pope will apologize for the martyrdom he has been put through. Boyle was certainly on a track to become a bishop or Cardinal when what we call integrity and conscience got in the way.
The survivors and those who support them are behind this legislation. The man who was the staunch defendor of the bishops and the Catholic conference retired and the Republicans lost their majority. This bill has been there a long time as the Times article noted: “A perennial proposal that has been quashed in past years by Republicans who controlled the State Senate, the bill is now widely supported by the new Democratic majority in that chamber, and for the first time is given a good chance of passing.”
How is it such a surprise? You may not agree with it but the push has been from within the church not outside of it. And as you noted in your speech there is so much secrecy that we have no idea what is being hidden. Still true today.
Peggy, the only form of redress that plaintiffs in the civil court system can typically recover is money. They can’t get a public shaming, or stoning or whatever else they might have felt like doing. Money can help buy services. Money can help provide stability in cases where psychological damage has interfered with educational or professional advantage. It won’t make up for all losses, but nothing else will either. Obtaining damages also has the benefit of validating the harm that, for the most part, they have carried within them all alone.
I don’t support extending statutes of limitations but that’s really unrelated to whether, if they have the right to sue, there is something wrong with plaintiffs being awarded money damages.
(Thank you, Barbara, for at least noting the benefits of redress to survivors in filing civil suits. Those I have worked with find it the most empowering move they have made. They were helpless as children, they are not now. And they want the truth of how their case was handled; what the church knew when.)
In general, it is very disappointing to read the posts here and find the caricature of money-grubbing survivors and attorneys, along with the whole issue being really an effort to punish the church for its stand on abortion and same-sex marriage. Personal experience with survivors is apparently considered beside the point as well.
I hope the legislation passes handily because of the survivors’ need for access to justice and the truth, the greater ability to protect children as a result of perpetrators being named in civil suits, and the possible forced disclosure of diocesan archives so we may know what really happened. In my experience, survivors want that truth as much as they want any money – and the myth of each one coming away with a million or more is poppycock.
Bishops only started sitting up straight when their pocketbooks were affected, and that is the measure of liability and wrong-doing. You cover up, you facilitate abuse, you hide full sexual histories from treatment centers, you lie about perpetrators to victims, you lie to the court about a priest’s record, you treat victims like the enemy, and nothing happens? Don’t play victims against others in need; they have a prior claim and we are all responsible for paying. “It’s not my fault” is hardly the Christian response.
I believe SOL’s have been perpetrator protection statues, and that bishops relied on them to escape accountability. Their cleverness in keeping the secrets long enough to escape liability should not be rewarded further. Dioceses will pay whatever is necessary to keep bishops off the stand under oath, compelled to reveal their criminal negligence. And of course they cannot be criminally charged because the SOL also protects them from prosecution.
The Delaware window and SOL reforms pertain to public entities as well. The whole hue and cry by Chaput in Denver and now in NY about public institutions is a red herring. Even if public institutions were included, it would make no difference to the church’s opposition. It didn’t in Delaware.
Three hundred additional perpetrators were identified after the CA window was opened. Filing a civil suit is the only way to publicly identify past abusers once the criminal SOL has expired. We need the same type of disclosure elsewhere. We also need to eliminate the criminal SOL.
http://www.BishopAccountability.org published a bit about Egan’s record in NY in their newsletter:
“Egan under-reported in 2004 when the US bishops released counts of accused priests. In 2004, Egan reported a mere 49 NY priests accused from 1950 to 2002, or 1.3% of total NY priests. The difference between NY and other dioceses is stark:
1.3% – New York NY
4.9% – Los Angeles
5.7% – Cleveland (grand jury counted 145 accused priests out of 2515 total)
5.9% – Cincinnati
6.3% – Manchester NH
7.0% – Boston
7.6% – Philadelphia (grand jury counted 169 accused priests out of 2204 total)
9.6% – Covington KY
According to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ cumulative accused priest total through 2007, 4.9% of all US priests have been accused of molesting children. If the NY archdiocese’s problem were merely average, its secret archives would contain allegations against 185 priests, not 49, as claimed by Egan.
In other words, Egan implied that NY’s abuse problem was one-fourth the national average. Why hasn’t his preposterous claim been challenged?”
An SOL window will challenge and reveal the facts now hidden.
Carolyn-
Quick question. How do we know the number of priests there were in the US from 1950 to 2002? According to a member of the John Jay study whom I know personally, the number is impossible to come up with. Do you count an Irish priest who spent two years here in the 50′s in the base and other clerical birds of passage? I agree the NY seems awfully low but these percentages are guesses at best. We shouldn’t run to the bank with them.
Bill-
I have almost no respect for SNAP. I find that their statements to be over the top most of the top. They rarely are willing to offer nuance or perspective in terms of bishops who are trying to deal with complex cases of abuse where the facts are difficult to determine. Now, God knows the bishops have given them plenty of cause to become bleary-eyed. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
And to all those who think that massive punitive damages against the diocese of NY won’t really affect the average lay person. I don’t know what planet you are on. My diocese (Brooklyn) is already extremely fragile financially and if this statute is lifted and the lawyers get their 25-40%, there will tremendous suffering on the parish level, because as always the parishes will be asked to bear the brunt of this directly or indirectly (direct assessment or long-term increased diocesan assessment.) What will this lead to? Cuts in parish staff, music programs, religious ed, youth ministers (if they exist anywhere in the Northeast) and all sorts of other programs. Yes, the victims will be heard and the lawyers will get lots and lots and lots of money. I agree that it is too bad that the bishops were not more progamatically proactive in trying to listen to and help heal the wounds (including $$$) of the victims. But would the trial lawyers be happy with that? Me thinks not
I should have said all the dioceses of the state of NY
Just to re-frame: We Catholics, for obvious reasons, think of this whole debate in terms of backing this bill to do justice for the victim/survivors of clergy sexual abuse, or opposing it to “protect” the church, or to do justice by the church.
How about looking at this in broader terms: Passing this bill would be a grave injustice to the far greater number of children who have been sexually abused in public institutions. By not using the emotional momentum of the clergy scandal to open up accountability to all institutions, we are effectively kicking untold thousands of abused kids to the curb so that we can feel good about having brought accountability to the relatively small arena of the church. Everyone knows the reality here: If this NY law passes, there will be no subsequent push on public schools. In that context, those legions of victims will die unaided and forgotten by the church. That is a very parochial sense of justice, in my view. Is that what we want?
PS: To Bill DeHaas–I appreciate your views and sober and generous assessments here, even when I am in disagreement with them. Re recovered memories and PTSD–my goal in raising that was simply that the larger issue to helping victims not get bogged down in murky debates over “recovered memory syndrome,” which many will pooh-pooh. I say just focus on the simple human reality that kids can’t deal with this shit till they’re older. That should be justification in itself for raising the statute.
Bill D: The Lopez bill is an attempt to address the deficient SOL for both private and public institutions without the one-year “window” (which, at this point in the conversation, I’m ready to jump out of). The Lopez bill would not extend the SOL as far as you or I would like, but it does cover both “classes” of victims.
Carolyn: No one is discounting personal experience. It is relevant when it is relevant. I’m not sure how it pertains to this debate, except as a kind of trump card–”you don’t get what’s at stake here because you haven’t talked to as many victims as I have.” That’s the move I reject. I gather that you and Bill D. assume I and others against the Markey bill haven’t spent enough time considering the suffering of victims. That’s bunkum. For what it’s worth, and in an attempt to put a stop to this low game of gin: In addition to the victims I have spoken with and met through reporting and at conferences, I have read every letter sent by victims to the NRB through 2007.
Anthony: I don’t have the time to nail this down right now, but the John Jay report does have a statistically sound method of determining how many priests there were in the states over the period studied. It’s nowhere near a guess, and it would be a serious mistake to dismiss the data out of hand.
I guess I should be clear: I really have no problem with extending the SOL going forward within the usual bounds of retroactivity for limitations period (which is, if you still could have been sued for your conduct on the day the new law became effective, the new law applies to that conduct even if it occurred prior to the enactment of the law). I have a problem with reopening an otherwise closed period. I disagree that they are perpetrator protection laws. They also protect the non-perpetrators who may be sued out of time, and they apply in virtually every civil action, and most criminal actions as well. There are already exceptions to limitations periods when someone did not know, or was actively frustrated or defrauded such that they were unable to meet the limitations period.
Grant-
In no way am I dismissing out of hand but I heard the substance of what I wrote about three years ago from Dr Maureen O’Connor who is a faculty member at John Jay and who also worked on the report. She was the one who raised the problem of coming up with a definitive base number but said that their determination was an accurate approximation. Also worth mentioning was her response to a question about how severe the crisis of sex abuse by priests was/is compared with men in the general population or other subgroups (teachers etc). Of course one victim is one victim too many but she said that we have no idea if the incidence of abuse (I am not talking about the coverup) among priests is worse than men in general or any other subgroup because NEVER has a subgroup been studied on this issue with such intensity. So again it is very hard to offer hard evidence as to the causes of sex abuse amongst the clergy or even determine if it is any worse than amongst men in general.
David,
Yes by all means include public schools, as in Delaware. There should be no discrimination. Since there’s no comparison between the availability of records on abusers in the public sector and the corrosive secrecy practiced by the church, more public school victims can be helped.
I found it ironic though that Chaput made a huge issue about public schools as a reason to oppose the CO bill, but then when his attorney was asked about including it, it made no difference. So, I do not accept that it was a genuine issue on the merits.
Grant,
I accept and truly appreciate that you have engaged the suffering of victims. I think direct exposure to the reality of and effects of abuse is valuable background, and the lack of that by bishops was one criticism the NRB leveled against them. I admit the encounter affects my views of SOL legislation and what constitutes justice. That we draw different conclusions from the experience negates neither of our efforts. And I assume good will on your part.
Barbara,
Regarding exceptions in NY law, the ba.org newsletter notes:
“Worse, the NY statute of limitations is almost never “tolled,” or waived, as it is in many other states, for reasons such as victim’s delayed realization of harm or fraudulent concealment by the institution.”
Citation, with all the legal references that I cannot decipher: “New York Courts have refused to adopt a common law discovery rule, apply tolling provisions or other theories (i.e. mental disability, fraudulent concealment, equitable estoppel or delayed discovery) to repressed memory or delayed realization cases.
See, for example, Langford v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 705 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. App. 2000);Sharon B. v Reverend S., 244 AD2d 878, 665 N.Y.S.2d 139 (1997 N.Y. App. Div.); Steo v. Cucuzza, 624 N.Y.S.2d 203 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 154 Misc. 2d 46, 584 N.Y. Supp. 2d 713 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1992); Burpee v. Burpee, 1152 Misc. 2d 466, 578 N.Y.S.2d 359 (Sup. Ct. 1991); aff’d .”
Survivors still have to meet the standards of evidence once they reach the courtroom door. It’s not a free pass.
I have a problem with reopening an otherwise closed period.
And then closing it again!
Not to distract from these pithy moral dilemmas, but can one of you legal begals clarify: In New York State does the standard of evidence in civil cases have a lower threshold than in criminal cases?
I’m not a legal beagle, but I believe the standard of evidence in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in a civil trial, it is by a preponderance of the evidence.
Anthony,
Anthony,
You bring up a good point about exact counts and clerical birds of passage. I believe if a priest was given faculties and abused during his two years, he was counted as an extern, not part of the diocesan priest total. At least that is the way they were listed in my diocese. Same for separating religious order priests.
From the point of view of the victim, it makes no difference if the priest was incardinated, extern or religious order. The abuse happened and whoever did it did it. BishopAccountability.org prefers to deal with service records (who actually ministered where) as opposed to assignment records, which diverge more than thought.
I agree the numbers are not sacrosanct, but believe they have enough credibility to be useful guides. BTW, 27 percent of priests who served in my parish since 1950 were abusers, including one clerical bird. When you break it down to the parish level, where most people interact with the church, there can be surprising results.
What I find distressing is the fine tuning by the USCCB to minimize reports of abuse. Their annual audits exclude abuse by seminarians who did not go on to ordination, all religious order brothers (who technically are not clergy), and mentally handicapped victims whose abuse did not begin before their 18th birthdays.
To clarify: I do not think the victims of child sexual abuse are money-grubbers. Their lawyers seem to believe they are doing God’s work and don’t consider themselves money-grubbers either. So….they are making a good living doing justice! God bless them.
On the justice question: the victim tells their stories in court or in a deposition. Whatever evidence is available is presented. If the perpetrator is still alive he can affirm or deny the victim’s account. The judge and/or jury (don’t know about juries in these civil case) decides who’s telling the truth, renders a verdict, and establishes the award. How many cases come to this? How many end in out-of-court settlements? What constitutes justice in either of these scenarios? Telling the story? Being vindicated by judge or jury? Receiving monetary compensation for one’s suffering? What if the decision goes against the plaintiff?
It is a sin and a shame that the bishops didn’t take on the task of offering some version of this process, including monetary compensation (and let’s admit some did) because it would have included an act of repentance and if the victim were willing an act of reconciliation. To my mind, that’s justice. And it’s a sin and a shame that many bishops still won’t do it.
Is a civil court procedure the answer? What many of you seem to be saying is: That’s the best we have. Perhaps so. But let’s admit that it’s not the bishops who suffer the punishment or the deprivation.
David G said: >>Passing this bill would be a grave injustice to the far greater number of children who have been sexually abused in public institutions. By not using the emotional momentum of the clergy scandal to open up accountability to all institutions, we are effectively kicking untold thousands of abused kids to the curb so that we can feel good about having brought accountability to the relatively small arena of the church. Everyone knows the reality here: If this NY law passes, there will be no subsequent push on public schools. In that context, those legions of victims will die unaided and forgotten by the church. That is a very parochial sense of justice, in my view. Is that what we want? <>let’s admit that it’s not the bishops who suffer the punishment or the deprivation.<<
yes agreed completely. it’s the parishioner that will suffer with more church closing and fewer men wanting to be priests and current priests, who have told me, they are afraid of being warm to children and adults for fear of accusations.
This bill as currently written seems to me to have a spirit of revenge more than justice.
A couple of things: To clarify: “preponderance of evidence” means the majority of evidence on balance – the standard is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt”,i.e. a dount for which one can offer a rational reason, or moral certitude, because in criminal mattera person’s liberty is at stake.
Most cases civilly are settled pre-trial and most criminal cases are plea bargained.
Because the process is adversarial, in both instances, both sides try to do their best to win.
How the Church should act in terms of honesty in such matters through leadership or their lawyers is part of the issue about the discovery of truth in these matters.
I’m not sure what all the harrumphinhg about experience is here.
As in the case of folks helping imigrants in the newest thread, or when we’re discussing scientific issues related to faith for example, , I tend to give more attention to folks who’ve worked in the field.
As I read several comments here, they seem to be based on an intuition of motives and, while I can’t change people’s opinions, I think it’s useful to question how informed they are.
Peggy: The civil standard is much lower.
Carolyn: New York courts are actually quite strict in a number of different ways, so this doesn’t surprise me. The strict standard probably militates in favor of an overall longer statute of limitations for these cases, but it doesn’t obviate the potential unfairness of reopening a closed period. In many states, such a maneuver would violate state constitutional doctrines of impermissible retroactivity. I have no idea to what extent such a challenge would be successful under New York law.
The New York State Legislature is a model of dysfunctionality and the new majority leader has already shown himself to be well-schooled in its ways.
So we shall see what passes–or not; what amendments or alterations come about. The New Yorkers on the blog will be happy to keep things up-to-date.
Carolyn – thanks for adding your expertise in this area. Mr. Gallicho, Mr. Gibson, & Ms. Steinfels – appreciate your comments and views. On some, we will probably just have to agree to disagree.
Ms. Steinfels – your initial response to my “long” diatribe was surprising and disappointing given your impressive words in Dallas. Your last two comments have clarified things, thanks.
The 2008 Annual John Jay report was just released. Not sure if some of us are reading the same report, but abuse has not decreased. Yes, the increased reporting is on cases decades old but even current cases are up.
Not sure where to take all of this. My gut tells me that inaction only leads to the famous quote: “all it takes is for regular folks to do nothing; for evil to flourish” SNAP and VOTF may not always be objective; may be overly passionate; may be single focused in the minds of some but you do have to respect their mission and love of the church.
Had another dream that bishops might actually reach out and appoint at least one local SNAP person to their diocesan safe environment board – as Lincoln used to say: “That guy doesn’t agree with me; I need to meet him!”
Ms. Steinfels – is a civil procedure the best? No, but what else is there? Does a civil procedure impact the bishop? Not sure….personally, NO! (please remember to continue to track the Kentucky and Oregon appeal cases that have now allowed cases to proceed naming the Vatican as part of the abuse pattern – long shot….will go to the Supreme Court….Marci Hamiltion will argue for the victims. also, we have the “strange” federal grand jury in LA?) Even when a district attorney has been aggressive in pursuing abuse cases, no bishop has been tried and found guilty of cover-up – not sure most have even had charges filed (another legal gap).
Who does a civil procedure impact? Yes, we, the unwashed in the pews. In LA it played out with significant cut backs on diocesan staff and services; closure of some ministries, parishes, etc. Caused social, sacramental services, and education to suffer. (notice that he still moved forward on his $700 million dollar cathedral e.g. $1 mil for the bishop’s chair; $1 mil for the ambo; $1 mil for the presider chair; multi-million for an altar of rare Italian marble, etc. Oh yeah, even with the LA settlement, Mahoney continues to not meet the requirements – he has continued to legally fight and delay the release of personnel files/records (yes, issue with the mediator judge but we are now done with that – still delays).
My most direct experience is the Dallas diocese – civil suit and settlement was very damaging in terms of credibility, diocese basically went on hold for 15 years until bishop retired, he made Hispanic ministry take the financial hit even tho they were his last remaining suppporters. On the other hand, it did lead to the Dallas Charter (for what it is worth); it did surface many other pedophiles in this diocese and probably prevented even more abuse (what is that worth in dollars/cents?); it forced structural changes, more oversight, more lay involvement. It forced an old monsignor-led leadership into retirement and opened doors for new ministries, approaches, pastors, etc. It made catholics look at the church; take some ownership (at least for a time period); it removed the old “pray, pay, obey” – catholics had to grow up and be adults; just because father said it doesn’t mean that it is true. Did it lead to mistrust? Yes. Have division healed – not yet; will they – we have a better chance than a diocese that has kept all of this hidden. (because eventually it will become public)
Ms. Steinfels – if you think the NY State Legislature is dysfunctional, you need to come to Texas…..we are trying to compete with Illinois.
Finally, Mr. Gallicho, appreciate your comments. I never said nor implied that you were not aware of the victims’ pain (if I conveyed that, shame on me). I do think an individual’s experience and history sheds light on their stance, comments, and recommendations in terms of the church, bishops, and sexual abuse. But, agree, that lobbing experiences at each other to justify a point gets us nowhere.
H/T to Michael Miller in the CT priest blog above. He quotes from Roger Haight on Liberation Theology. I have taken the liberty of changing the context to this thread and catholics, victims who must confront evil, bishops, structures. Here is a little of what Haight wrote.
“Two fundamental elements reflect the essential logic of liberation theology. The first is negative experience, which leads to an awareness of the dehumanized condition of large numbers of people. The experience has three dimensions: a situation is wrong; we know it
could and should be different; the contrast fuels an urge to right the wrong. What does Christian theology say to this situation? (negative experience = pedophile clergy/staffs; hierarchy cover-up; pay-off & settlements)
“The second fundamental element of liberation theology seeks to answer that question. The response appears embryonically in Luke’s parable of the Good Samaritan, which can be read as dramatizing the principle that love of God is displayed as love of neighbor. The truth of the
principle is conveyed with climactic force by the shocking fact that only the Samaritan had internalized it. Modernity adds a conviction that beyond tying up the victim’s wounds, true love will make the road to Jericho safe for all. With this addendum liberation theology rewrites the parable for the whole world.
“Lesson 1. Social practice is an intrinsic dimension of Christian faith from which one cannot prescind. One of the deepest principles liberation theology presents to the Christian community is that action and practice are not just the consequences of faith, but the
intrinsic testimonial of its authenticity. As Ignatius of Loyola postulated in his Spiritual Exercises, “Love ought to manifest itself more by deeds than by words” (No. 230). For this love to be effective and authentic, it must be directed against the causes of human
suffering. (think of victims who finally find the courage to speak up; think of groups such as SNAP, VOTF, etc. who support victims – compare that to the “words” of the Dallas Charter and bishops who continue to cover-up)
“Lesson 2. Social-ethical considerations are intrinsic to theological understanding. Catholic theology has come to a new realization of the social ethical implications of Christian faith. After a period of separation between theology and ethics, theology has recognized the
necessity of accountability. In 1971 the essential link between faith and justice was written into magisterial teaching when the World Synod of Bishops wrote that “action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the gospel” (Justice in the World, Nov. 30, 1971).” (accountability – very few bishops have been accountable; in terms of the church worldwide and Rome’s handling of sexual abuse – do we actually see accountability or just words?)
“SNAP and VOTF may not always be objective; may be overly passionate; may be single focused in the minds of some but you do have to respect their mission and love of the church. ”
We know, from the invaluable contributions of SNAP activists in this forum, that there are folks involved with SNAP who love the church.
Nevertheless, it’s far from clear to me that SNAP as an organization loves the church. In my observation, SNAP bears great enmity toward the church, in its legal and legislative advocacy against the church, and in its numerous public statements that bash – without any nuance, qualification or quarter – the church and its officials.
In the present instance under discussion, SNAP is actively working to open a statute of limitations window that will cost the church – not complicit officials, not guilty sexual predators, but the People of God they ostensibly love – hundreds of millions of dollars. In what way is this an expression of love? We don’t sue the ones we love to the point of impoverishment.
I had concluded long ago that SNAP is an enemy of the church. Certainly that is true from a legal perspective, and it is true in its public rhetoric. In SNAP’s arithmetic, helping victims = hurting the church.
SNAP is an enemy of the church
Maybe it’s more correct to say that SNAP is an enemy of a church hierarchy that seems to care more about protecting itself than caring for its flock. The church is all of us not just the hierarchy.
Let’s call it quits until our State Legislature actually produces a something. Thanks to all for construcitve but not unprovocative comments.