11 to 8 (update)
The New York State Assembly Codes Committee approved a controversial bill that would suspend the statutes of limitations in cases of sexual abuse involving private institutions. Now the bill will go to the Assembly floor for a vote.
For those who would rather not read the whole piece, excerpts:
But the alternative measure, A5708/S3107, had gained sponsors and attention since its introduction last month as the New York State Catholic Conference put its lobbying clout in Albany behind the legislation. The alternative bill was defeated 11-8 by the Codes Committee Tuesday.
The chairman of the Codes Committee, Joseph Lentol, D-Brooklyn, said he thought both bills would be reported out by his committee and was surprised the newer legislation was defeated.
“I thought that the members would try to take a middle position and maybe try to forge a compromise by reporting both bills,” Lentol, who voted for both bills, said in an interview following the meeting.
Defeat by the Codes Committee does not necessarily doom the alternative bill. After members took their roll call vote indicating 11 “no” votes, Lentol took the bill off the committee’s agenda. That will allow for its return to the committee’s calendar at a later time this legislative session, Lentol said.
“I expect that … there will be pressure for it to come back,” he said.
A2596/S2568, the bill approved in the past by the Assembly, would create a one-year window for the filing of civil suits by the victims of childhood sexual abuse if they were past the age when the current statute of limitations expires, which is when an alleged victim turns 23. The bill would also extend the statute of limitations for the filing of civil suits to when alleged victims turn 28 and the statute of limitations to when victims turn 28 for the filing of some criminal charges relating to the sexual abuse of minors.
(…)
The Catholic Conference, representing the state’s Catholic bishops and New York Archbishop-elect Timothy Dolan, contends that Markey’s bill would allow the filing of suits against the church based on alleged abuse that may have taken place decades before. The church could not hope to defend itself properly against many of the claims, the conference argues.
The alternative, A5708/S3107, contains no window for reviving otherwise time-barred civil actions nor an extender of the statute of limitations for filing sex-related criminal charges for childhood sex abuse. It would extend to 25 the age until which childhood sex abuse victims can file civil suits.
(…)
Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, D-Kenmore, voted for Lopez’s bill and against Markey’s bill Tuesday.
He noted that the state has waived the statute of limitations for the filing of otherwise time-barred civil suits in the past, but only for exposure to substances or drugs that later proved to be dangerous.Schimminger was a chief sponsor of the 1986 “toxic torts” statute allowing late suits by victims of exposure to industrial chemicals, including tungsten carbide.
The state also waived the statute of limitations for suits by those exposed to the Vietnam War-era defoliant Agent Orange and to DES, a drug prescribed to pregnant women in the 1950s to ease nausea.
(…)
As for Lopez’s bill, Poust said he expected it to return to the Codes Committee, possibly with minor alterations, and to also get to the floor of the Assembly.
Lentol said the Markey bill now goes to the full Assembly, though he said it could take several weeks before it comes up for debate and a vote.
For reasons discussed in Peggy Steinfels’s thread on this, I can’t support the Markey bill.
If you live in NY, you should call your representative to oppose this measure.
Or, support it if you think it’s right to open SOL windows -see our previous discussion on this.
I was wondering about this thread being about the vote in committtee.
Here in New Mexico, the committee in the Senate that reviewed death penalty repeal -strongly backed by the Church – barely passed and by a small but reasonable margain passed the Senate. That bill is now awaiting Richardson signatire to make us the 15th state to repeal the death penalty.
So I guess size of margain and who the official Church backs are interesting maters into how much influemce the Church carries in legislatures in various States.
Much of the discussion here previously was would the bill enhance justice or be revenge against the Church.
Sounds to me like SOL sex abuse bils in other States with the same arguments., though, in NY, it’s been added that maybe abortion and same sex marriage hot button views color the legislature’s perspective.
At this point, it may be premature to say the bill will fly – the vote in the NYS Senate may be decisive.
What appears clear to me is that the Church in NY hasn’t sufficient power to have killed the bill before it gets to the full floor and that may say something about both the power of the Church and how it’s perceived.
Mr. Gallicho – my understanding is that it moves to the senate which is democratic for the first time in years. Also, in the earlier blog, you had mentioned another bill – Loza? – which is supported by the church but, I guess, has not been considered? Was wondering about the differences and why it was not considered?
A NY expert on doing away with SOLs is Marci Hamilton. A husband-wife team have written a reply to her latest book (these two were also active in the state of Colorado on a like bill that was defeated). Link: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6540#Nussbaum
Was wondering if many of their detailed objections mirror some of your earlier comments, Mr. Gallicho?
it seems to me that these laws are the equivalent of making prior bad behavior prosecutable, acts that were not illegal when done. What is to prevent legislatures from instituting some retroactive felonies?
It’s the retroactivity that is scary.
Ann – pedophilia has always been a crime. It has also always been a serious crime in canon law. Link: http://www.richardsipe.com/Docs_and_Controversy/Vatican_on_Solicitation_1962.pdf
Yes, there are some issues about memory; passage of time; if the priest is deceased; witnesses gone, etc. But, you run into these same things when criminal cases or cold cases reach court.
Bill, I’ve updated the post with excerpts from the article I linked to. That should answer your questions about the bill. As for the Nussbaums’ piece on the FT site, I agree with much of it, but not all of it. I haven’t read it in weeks, though, and would need to look at it again before elaborating.
Many of us have worked hard for this bill and it should pass. The main objection is that it does not apply to public schools. Put it this way. If one person get away with murder should everyone? This Bill will also force a recalcitrant Archdiocese of New York to be more honest about its very suspicious reporting.
The Catholic Conference is only concerned about money. The hierarchy was found wanting from the beginning of this scandal and remain the same today. The vast majority of Catholic leadership, lay and clerical, had little to do with uncovering this scandal.
That continues today. No matter how we may camaflouge in legalese and double talk.
Bill-
You should retract this statement: “The Catholic Conference is only concerned about money.” Do you mean all the people who work here (mostly laywomen and men)? If so, that is outrageous.
Also, are really concerned about the victims? Or just punishing the bishops. Me thinks mostly the latter
I think this statement is problematic too, Bill: “If one person get away with murder should everyone?” It isn’t a choice between justice for some and justice for none; it’s a choice between voting yes or no on a lopsided bill.
Bill: What is the rationale for excluding the public schools?
Bill D.
I know pedophilia has always been a crime. My problem is with making something legal *retroactively• In order to prosecute someone. It’s a problem with making a •procedure• Retroactive. Procedures protect us all, including victims.
Mr. Gallicho – thanks for responding and including much more detail. That is very helpful. Will try to respond to a number of questions – and include some of my own?
a) Ms. Olivier – like you, have reservations about making legal procedures retroactive but given the last 23 yr. history of this issue + the church’s response, I err to the side of justice for the victims who have no other way of seeking redress. I am also very aware of the balance between recovered memories and how that can be manipulated in court. But, justice deferred is no justice at all;
b) Mr. Gallicho – you raised the other bill and again has said that you are not able to support this current bill but did not give specific reasons. Allow me to respond to my link from the Nussbaum’s:
See http://fjdtestbed.blogspot.com/2007/05/test-on-paper.html about 2/3 of the way down:
“After calling for a level playing field between private and public entities in committee hearing, L. Martin Nussbaum, attorney for the Colorado Catholic Coalition, refused to say that the Catholic Conference would endorse legislation even if it did treat public and private institutions comparably. SNAP’s National Director, David Clohessy, described this argument as “a ruse, a diversion designed to derail the effort.” This seems to contradict his response to Marci Hamilton – it appears to be about the money.
c) The idea that Marci Hamilton is simply anti-Catholic is ridiculous. She has handled many other cases related to non-Catholic religious entities;
d) The idea that every Catholic diocese must be unaffected financially, and victims have to forego redress is offensive to me. Survivors have prior claim and frankly, they are owed. Bishops purposely kept the secrets to escape liability and they should NOT get away with it. The alternative bill only increases current reporting age to 25 – it does not give any type of recourse to victims dating back 50+ years; this does not sound like justice; it feels like a legality;
e) What is left out of both bills is the probative process. Yes, the legal back and forths can go on interminably. Survivors who get to court still have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence. Let the court system work. It’s not the free ride Nussbaum implies. His rhetoric in the article was “vicious” in my book and highly misleading;
f) use state of California and the dire predictions of Nussbaum – “The reality in California is that dire predictions regarding window legislation were proved false. As David Clohessy, executive director of SNAP, notes, the courts there are not clogged, no diocese in the state is bankrupt or even threatening bankruptcy, no churches are closing, no other group is asking the legislature to change the rules for us too, and there is no deluge of false allegations;
g) Agree that laws must not create new victims, in the sense of burdening current parishioners for past actions. But, this approach strikes me as counter to the Gospel. Sin (and crime) have consequences and we all as the Body of Christ share in them. Jesus rejected notions like “it’s not my fault,” and so should we. Child sexual abuse survivors stand as victims of the Church herself, and as such should have a special claim on our consciences. Let’s pay the price in justice & in charity, and then move on together with heads held high
Fr. K – as I said in an earlier post, I did not write the Markey bill and am unsure of the legalities around proposing a bill that also included public schools. Why this was not done mystifies me also – but my response is not to reject any bill that seeks recourse and I find the Colorado bishops’ approach to be unhelpful and delaying only. Those bishops repeated a key argument used to defeat reform legislation in some other states, claiming that public schools should not be exempt by sovereign immunity from civil damages, as long as the Catholic Church and private institutions remain liable. Professor Hamilton notes that public and private entities are mostly covered in separate legislation, and not one law singles out any religion or organization. To get to your point, someone in NY would have needed to sponsor 1 or 2 bills that addressed both public (sovereign immunity – sounds complicated) and private.
Allow me to add that public entities have accountability models unthinkable in the Church – even though the victims significantly outnumber catholic church victims. School board members, principals, administrators are subject to removal from office by public vote if they enable abusers or hide documents; their budgets are subject to public scrutiny and approval; and they cannot claim immunity under any constitutional amendment to justify conduct that is illegal for the rest of us.
Anthony, are you telling me that you work for the “Catholic Conference?” Although, the policy of the Catholic Conference is impressive, (http://www.nyscatholic.org/pages/about_us/mission_statement.asp)the actions of that body has spent practically all its time lobbying agains SOL. They are zero in sympathy for victims and totally heartless. They do what the bishops direct.
And the bishops still have not reformed their behavior completely,
Joe, I believe the public schools should be include but we have to begin somewhere. Are the Catholic victims to be deprived if the public schools do not have a strong advocacy.
Mollie, it is not perfect but it is something. As I explained above.
I repeat. The Boston Globe put all of us to shame in their persistence in this area. We are still flagellating with legalisms. It is a plus for Catholic and private victims. We have to advocate for public school victims also.
So it is not so much that Public school abusers are getting spared. It is that their victims are not getting justice. They should.
But Bill, my point is, the alternative to this bill isn’t nothing. Strong emotions are more than justified on this subject, and good intentions are enough when you’re rallying support in opinion pieces and press releases. But when you’re talking about changing the law, “legalisms” are unfortunately pretty crucial.
Here is a link to a website that might help explain why statute of limitations reform is necessary.
http://www.sol-reform.com/
From the website:
“We are a group of concerned citizens working towards the extension and/or removal of civil statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse. By allowing access to the courts, we can ensure that victims will get the justice that they deserve.
At the same time, experiences with statute of limitations reform in several jurisdictions have demonstrated the power of such action to allow society at large to identify predators and bring them to justice. When history has shown that child predators are generally not one-time offenders, the reform of statutes of limitations have the ability to protect the next generation of potential victims.
We need your help to effect change in Legislatures across this nation. The time has come to confront the devastating and heinous crime of child sexual abuse by raising the veil of the statute of limitations, bringing offenders out of the shadows, and subjecting them to the justice system.”
Bill M.,
What do you know about the concerns of the New York Conference of Catholic Bishops? Let me hazard a guess: not enough to claim that they have no sympathy for victims. I won’t defend the spokesman’s quote in the Times piece–a sure way for the church to lose the public argument is to play the victim. But your comment is over the top. “It is not perfect but it is something” is not really an argument, but, as far as I can tell, that is all supporters of window legislation have.
Seven years on, I would hope that we could have a constructive conversation about the tragic conflict of goods inherent to addressing clergy sexual abuse.
Grant,
I have been watching the Catholic Conference of Bishops for a long time. Your guess is a hazard you should reconsider. They are in every state. They have been the (our) principal opponent of SOL, Are you telling me you did not know that? The bill will substantially help Catholic and other private victims. It is more than something if you are going to mince words. Very significantly it will force the bishops to tell the truth where they have been lying or witholding information.
You may have read every letter of the victims but that does not mean that your advocacy for them is adequate or effective.
What a tragedy. Afte all these years the bishops still need Constantine (the State) to suppress their people.
QED.
My question was an honest one: What reason is being given for excluding public institutions? Surely they’ve been challenged on this point. What do they reply? It would seem to me that all the reasons given for removing or changing the SOL should apply across the board. Why the exceptions?
If the SOL is to be changed, I believe it should be done across the board with no exceptions.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090205.html
I’m not a New Yorker, and haven’t been following this. Nor am I a lawyer. But I wonder what reason there could possibly be for excluding public institutions, except money. Who would pay the bills that would come out of the suits, if not the public in the form of individual taxpayers? Or am I missing something? (quite possible).
I have just been reading about 2 brothers who claim to have been abused by an LA priest between 1959 and 1973 and whose case, first thrown out, has been reopened because of one word seized on in something Cardinal Mahony said (that had the housekeeper known the priest was alone with the boys she ‘should’ have reported it). Throwing out statute of limitation is a bonanza for lawyers and clients, who can milk long past events, or recovered memories, very open to a variety of interpretations, for every penny they are worth. Cardinal Mahony is not worried about money but about the functioning of diocesan schools and services for the underprivileged.
I do not think the hounding of Cardinals Mahony et al. is a good idea on the part of reforming Catholics. It aligns them with a right-wing witch-hunt that we will be deeply ashamed of some day.
Mr. Gallicho – here is a quote from your Ms. Steinfels post: “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.”
So, help me understand per your response above to Mr. Mazzella. You find his reply – “it is not perfect but it is something” to be all that supporters of this bill can muster. Not sure you are open to evidence, experience, or the other side. How is his statement any different than yours – “it is not an argument but it is all that window legislators have.” Not a fair or objective statement.
So, what we have in NY are two bills:
a) window of lesgislation but only for private institutions (yes, unfair but targeting the catholic church….can you prove that? yes, I may be naive but can you support your thesis?
b) Lopez bill – move the reporting age limit to 25 or 28 ages but make it applicable to both private and state institutions. Well, this does make it fair but it also completely eliminates a typical victim’s ability to seek redress. For example, victim was abused in 1990 at the age of 16 – is now 34 but this bill would not allow him to do anything. In fact, most abuse victims fit this profile and age than what the Lopez bill would allow. By moving the age to 25 for schools – does that change anything for public institutions? will we see more cases?
You also stated: “Seven years on, I would hope that we could have a constructive conversation about the tragic conflict of goods inherent to addressing clergy sexual abuse.”
What does that mean – can you be specific? It appears that it means any bill must be fair (public & private); that windows should not be allowed: and that no institution (esp. catholic church) should have to pay out damages for the mistakes of priests and bishops who may no longer be alive, functioning, etc. Or , at least, should not have to pay out anything more than the law demands of a public institution.
Here is the actual record of the state of California and their one year window: “The reality in California is that dire predictions regarding window legislation were proved false. As David Clohessy, executive director of SNAP, notes, the courts there are not clogged, no diocese in the state is bankrupt or even threatening bankruptcy, no churches are closing, no other group is asking the legislature to change the rules for us too, and there is no deluge of false allegations.” It did impact diocesan staffs; it did impact diocesan programs but in LA they also sucessfully completed the building of a cathedral that cost just south of $1 billion. Granted, it did nothing to change the public law; would wonder if it did not increase, if not, improve abuse reporting in public schools/institutions? Not sure we know that.
What it did do is identify more than 25 active priests/pastors who are pedophiles (am being conservative) – how many future victims were protected? It did educate catholics to the reality of sexual abuse in the church, cover-ups by bishops/administrators/religious orders. It allowed many victims to, at least, hear bishops say “I’m sorry!” and in some cases receive financial awards (it is an exaggeration to say that most victims received $1 million dollars).
Let’s use a comparison. There have been societal and political proposals to address US slavery in the 19th century and even pay the great or grandchildren some form of compensation. The difference is that this slavery ended 150 years ago; no slaves or slave owners are alive. Any settlements would come from 4 or more generations later (which does not seem fair to most of society). But, the church and its victims – happened over the last 50 years – some pedophiles have died; but most victims are still alive and would wager that 50% of abusers are still alive. Unlike slavery, this situation is still alive and kicking – we still hear every day about another accusation, cover-up, legal delay, reassignment, etc.
It seems to me that taking some step is better than holding out for perfect legal equality. The church so easily defends life from conception until death until we get to these sticky situations. Does the motivation of a NY representative or a lawyer out for money jeopardize what the church needs to do to remain credible; to be able to not only preach about the ethic of life but extend mercy, forgiveness, and support to those in the Body of Christ who have been damaged by that Body?
Mr. Sitterding,
I would welcome reform of statuteof limitations laws, but not if it wpuld establish pr reinforce retroactive laws or procedures.
I would like to hear what some of the lawyers on the blog think. It just seems to this non-lawyer that such retroactivity could weaken the whole legal system by being a precedent for less desirable legal effects.
Marci Hamilton on the Statute of Limitations -A pithy response to Lawyers for the bishop’s conference.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090313.html
Joe Komonchak–Re the reason public institutions were not included: Money is a big reason, a huge reason, as the state is strapped and schools aren’t in the best shape. But the principal reason is that getting such a bill past the teacher’s union would be difficult in the extreme. The legislators know that. The RCC becomes like AIG in this sense.
“Money is a big reason, a huge reason, as the state is strapped and schools aren’t in the best shape. But the principal reason is that getting such a bill past the teacher’s union would be difficult in the extreme. ”
So much for justice.
There seems to be some confusion about retroactivity and what it means. Ann, the conduct has ALWAYS been criminal and amenable to civil redress (probably as battery). Nothing about the statute of limitations is changing whether conduct that was legal is now going to be deemed illegal.
Second, this is a CIVIL statute of limitations, not a criminal one. It enlarges the period of time during which individuals can seek money damages. No one who is identified as a predator is going to be subject to criminal liability if the criminal statute of limitations has expired. The law on retroactivity has always been looser for civil liability, but it varies a lot from state to state.
Third, let’s identify the true issue: vicarious liability (or negligent supervision or whatever the theory is) of the Church for the tortious acts of its employees during the course of their employment. No one expects priests to be in a position to pay money damages. This doesn’t require a different standard for private and public institutions, but the sad reality is that there is a perception that the Church enabled abusive priests and failed to protect children, and perhaps even stonewalled other efforts to stop the problem, and there has been no comparable outcry or perception that public institutions have failed in that particular way.
I’m already on record stating that I don’t like retroactive enlargement of statutes of limitations but I think a lot of the arguments here are avoiding the central difficulty for the church in making this argument on a straightforward rather than an indirect basis (e.g., it’s unfair because public institutions won’t be similarly affected).
Jim, be careful how you use the word “justice.”
Part of the isue here is money/power trying to influence the legislature abou tlegislation that would allow some victims access to the Courts -
Courts in which the big money/power will hav eless influence to find justice (despite whatever warts the Court system has.)
I realize there’s a lot of heat behind the expression of views on both sides here.
I continue to think we’d all do well to consider our presuppositions and presumptions abput this.
“Part of the isue here is money/power trying to influence the legislature abou tlegislation that would allow some victims access to the Courts -”
I’m not sure how to say this without sounding like someone who is heartless about the victims, but … the victims always had access to the courts, from the moment the abuse occurred until their statute of limitations window closed. In many cases, this period of time was ten years or more. I’m really sorry the window closed before they moved on it. And I do understand that there are many factors that would prevent them from doing so, e.g. an exaggerated reverence for the institutional church. I just don’t have a better idea, in terms of legal redress. I don’t see piling one injustice atop another as a way to achieve justice.
The only other thing I can think of is that they need to seek elsewhere than the courts, i.e. try to deal directly with the church. Perhaps that is a naive suggestion. But in the post-Dallas Charter world, there are mechanisms in place for this, are there not? And I’d like to think that, if there is no chance for a lawsuit, the church might deal with these victims as they should, i.e. from love, and with a desire to apologize, help and reconcile.
The problem with that, Jim, is that the record of the church so far, according to many victims, is no tgood beiung more self serving than loving.
Beyond that, sincei t takes many child victims years to come to grips, saying you’re sorry they didn’t do anything legally in time is not very helpful to them and, again, sounds like the self serving Church.
Barbara – thanks for your clarifications; that helps. But, it also underlines the point that many make that this NY bill is out to get the church – per your clarifications, that point is not really made. In fact, you highlight that the church only seems to be able to defend its opposition by saying that the law or window must be the same between public and private…..when, in fact, they are two different systems in the eyes of the current law.
Jim – you need to study this whole issue especially victims. Here are some excerpts from a legal expert on the First Amendment that was brought in by the Boston Archdiocese to try to derail the sexual abuse trial of Geoghan (one of the worst pedophile priests to date):
March 20, 2003
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS – Redoubling their hardball legal tactics, lawyers representing the Boston archdiocese moved to have all 450 civil lawsuits thrown out as violations of the First Amendment protection of religion. Their novel and frustrating argument went like this: Central to Catholic belief are the sacraments, especially the sacrament of penance; Cardinal Law and his leadership team were exercising their freedom of religion when they forgave abusive priests and transferred them, rather than firing them; the litigants are treading all over that
right; they seek to “modify the church’s understanding of forgiveness and grace.” Judge Sweeney rejected the motion. The archdiocese appealed to the state Appellate’ Division. During a court hearing in the case recently, attorney L. Martin Nussbaum, the First Amendment specialist hired by the archdiocese, put it this way: “Some of the greatest leaders in church history are, as the church would say, redeemed sinners, but as our civil justice might say, former criminals.”
“Mark Chopko, general counsel to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, was encouraging diocesan attorneys to test similar arguments around the country. No secular judge, he believed, would be equipped to rule on the teachings of a church. “How do you measure the reasonableness of a policy set in religious doctrines of forgiveness,
of redemption, and so forth?” Some legal precedents to this argument were developing around the country. State courts in Wisconsin and Maine dismissed lawsuits brought by adults who said they were victimized by clergy members, specifically citing the constitutional rights of church officials to commit theologically based errors of judgment. That, said lawyers for the plaintiffs and survivor group leaders, missed a fundamental point, that society’s desire to protect children from harm was more powerful than any managerial policies of an organized
religion. Criminal laws can’t be broken, even by churches. “When it comes to the protection of kids, our courts have spoken,” said Eric MacLeish. ‘The need to protect children supersedes fervently and deeply rooted religious beliefs.”
If you review some of my posts above, you will notice that Nussbaum was the lead attorney defending the state of Colorado bishops against a bill to allow window legislation using the same approach as the current NY proposed statutue. He and his wife have also been prominently displayed on First Things in a written response to Marci Hamilton’s new book – which, by the way, calls for window legislation across the nation for both private and public institutions.
Bill, the argument goes something like this: if you perceive that one class of potential defendants has erected obstacles to the pursuit of civil suits by abuse victims, and that these obstacles (or the knowledge of such obstacles) has materially interfered with the ability or willingness of the victim to bring a suit, then you might think that party deserves a longer statute of limitations.
If, on the other hand, other parties (public entities) haven’t done that and try to follow well-established procedures when accusations are brought, then the failure of an abuse victim to bring a suit is unlikely to be due to the public entity’s own conduct. This is particularly likely to be the case if you can control what kinds of procedures such entities use (because, after all, they are directly subject to public control in a way that no church could ever be).
On the one hand, you can look at this from the perspective of when a victim might be willing or able to bring a lawsuit against any abuser at all — that would lead to a uniform SOL. On the other hand, you can recognize that certain classes of abusers have gone out of their way to impede redress and decide that they deserve a longer SOL.
Again, not a fan of expanding SOLs, but think many here is really missing the point of why the church is in the crosshairs when other entities aren’t.
“The problem with that, Jim, is that the record of the church so far, according to many victims, is no tgood beiung more self serving than loving.”
Sure, I do acknowledge that, Bob.
If you and I are neighbors, and you have a grievance against me, you might stop by to discuss it with me, and we’d both hope that we could talk about it amicably, and come to an agreement.
If we’re neighbors, but you’re an individual resident and I’m General Electric, the dynamic is considerably different, because we’re no longer equals, i.e. I have much more power and resources. You might despair of even getting a hearing from me.
If you stop by to diiscuss the problem, and bring your lawyer along, now yet another impediment to helpful dialogue has been introduced – in fact, I’d immediately refuse to say anything and would refer your attorney ot my attorney.
That’s about the size of things right now, istm. And so we revert to the worst, most expensive and least friendly way to resolve our differences, via legal combat.
We need to find a way to change the inevitability of the process.
“Beyond that, sincei t takes many child victims years to come to grips, saying you’re sorry they didn’t do anything legally in time is not very helpful to them and, again, sounds like the self serving Church.”
An apology is not to be just discarded – I believe some victims have said it’s what they want more than anyting else. And there are a number of other concrete things the church could do for the victim, such as pay for their therapy.
Bill D., you’ve thrown a lot against the wall in this thread, and I’m not sure how much of it sticks. You seem to want hard proof that the Markey bill was crafted to destroy the Catholic Church in New York State. I doubt that evidence exists. We know what happens when such a bill is passed. In California, 80 percent of the claims were made against the church. Perhaps it is not designed to harm the church, but I’m afraid I don’t buy the notion that the bill is not intended to drain the church’s coffers (I can’t blame victims for wanting redress). That much seems obvious. And when those of us opposed to the bill ask why, if the Markey bill and its supporters are so concerned with justice for victims, public institutions are exempted, we are told that, well, some justice is better than none, right? Not if you reject the premise.
The problem is that window legislation is an overcorrection. It’s a mistake for church lawyers seek to have civil suits thrown out on First Amendment grounds. But it is equally wrongheaded to seek to abolish the SOL for an arbitrary amount of time–as though they serve no good purpose–only to reinstate them in modified form.
Window legislation may be an overcorrection but currently there appears to be no group, church, legislative body that is willing to craft a bill that meets victims, public/private institutional financial means, limits liability awards, etc.
It is not that I reject your premise that the target for some is church money…it is that there are other issues that are more important than money and to say that this is the only motivation? You also seem to miss Barbara’s clarifications between public and private institutions; you have not responded to SNAP’s summary of what happened in California – you cite that 80% of claims where against the catholic church – and so?
We, the church, are called to a mission to proclaim in word & sacrament our faith in the Risen Lord. Lex orandi, lex creendi. We are a sign/sacrament of what we preach and celebrate.
To be indifferent to questions such as “due process for victims” (or at least settle on an arbitrary age limit and ask victims to work with the church, pastor, bishop because they are past the statute of limitations?) is to be indiffernt to the manner in which the church as an institution treats its own members and, ultimately, to be indifferent to the impression the church makes upon the rest of the world as an authentic (or inauthentic) community.
To be concerned about social justice, schools, abuse in other institutions outside the church and not about justice inside the church suggests a “strangely” selective understanding of the virtue of justice.
It also ignores numerous church principles that forcefully declare that the church can not effectively work for justice in the world if she is not herself just in the eyes of the world.
As you have said to me in earler threads. we both know too much. We have a number of issues here:
a) we have an issue in society – sexual abuse is under-reported, covered up, etc. in both private and public institutions and no governmental body seems willing to address this;
b) we have an “unaddressed issue’ in the catholic church – the Dallas Chapter completely avoided the role of bishops, sanctions, accountability, cover-ups, etc. This is the “elephant in the living room”……the USCCB continues to ignore this reality; continues to use legal approaches to resolve a pastoral problem (is this required by their insurance coverage?); continue to be unaccountable – no bishop has really paid a price for their mis-deeds. Yes, you are correct. Those most responsible for this remain unaccountable and the only recourse to victims is to play the same legal game;
c) on another note – why does the NY legislation so concern you? Numerous states have now passed window legislation and dotCommonweal has said nothing? Sorry, but the archdiocese of NY is not the center of US Catholicism; it will survive as will the church. Yes, it will be a painful price – if the LA & Boston patterns are matched, we will see 5-7% of all priest ordained since 1960 accused of sexual abuse – this will be hundreds if not thousands of cases. Rest assured that Dunwoodie ordained just as many “problems” as St. John’s in Camarillo or Boston. The outgoing administration by Egan will not do any better than Law, Mahoney, or the retired cardinal of Philadelphia. The religious communities of NY will also be confronted.
Barbara–
Thanks very much for the clarifications.
The “vicarious liability” theory does present some problems, I think. I don’t see how one adult can be responsible for another adult’s secret acts unless there I’d some negligence invoked. So I can understand (though not approve) the bishops avoidance of such liability. It seems that bad laws lead to bad behavior.
I am going to rapidly exceed my competence, I fear, but vicarious liability is the norm for employers whose employees commit negligent acts during the scope of their employment. If a UPS driver goes through a red light and causes an accident, you can sue UPS and not just the driver himself.
The real conundrum comes when the “acts” committed during one’s employment are outside of the scope of that employment (let’s say the UPS driver had finished his deliveries for the day and stopped at a bar before taking his truck back to the hub). When those acts are actual crimes, such as, for instance, the sexual abuse of minors, (and here is where my knowledge is a bit more limited) I think the norm is not to impose a strict vicarious liability (because intentional wrongdoing is never within the scope of one’s authorized employment) but do impose liability for negligent failure to supervise or failure to correct or mitigate the problem.
Bill,
You and I will have to agree to disagree about what constitutes good legislation on SOL. I remain unconvinced that the statutes ought to be abolished for one year and then restored. By your own examples–the thirty-four-year-old who was abused in 1990 when he was sixteen–the Markey bill is not sufficient, apart from the suspension.
My response to SNAP’s summary of the CA situation is that California is not New York. Apparently you believe I’m being New York-centric in my concern. I did not suggest that the Archdiocese of New York is the center of U.S. Catholicism, and you know that. Here’s what I know: If the Markey bill is approved, it’s hard to imagine most of the state’s dioceses surviving without going bankrupt.
Thank you, Mr. Gallicho for “listening” to my positions with respect and graciousness. Guess we will have to agree to disagree. On the other hand, your analysis and comments forced me to be more careful about my positions, stance, argumentation. In fact, reached out to a number of my “kitchen cabinet” to share your challenges, your experience, and your insights.
Please excuse any of my inarticulate respones, any defensiveness on my part, and probably some of my hardheadedness.
Hope that some time in the near future, we both see legislative bodies (federal and state) address the issue of sexual abuse, incest, etc. across the board without difference between public and private. Hopefully, it will accomplish allowing victims the time that is necessary to bring complaints forward (SOL); that it builds in guidelines that allow the accused to defend themselves; limits liability and awards; and develops ways to address abuse in public schools.
In terms of the church, eventually leadership will have to be accountable, catholics will have to demand leadership accountability from bishops/Rome, and some type of truth and reconciliation board (not the current National Board controlled and accountable only to bishops) that answers to the total church. This is a worldwide issue e.g. Ireland, Australia, Spain, Italy, England, Canada,etc.
Ecclesiology teaches about a church that is ad intra and ad extra. SOL windows address a lucana in the ad intra church (accountable leadership may have made this unnecessary?); but the church is both/and – if my direction is to overcompensate, then the church ad extra may be damaged in terms of its mission e.g. schools, staffs, parishes, ministries – diocesan and local, bankruptcy for some dioceses which impacts all of us. In order to give victims a chance to heal, we may risk added scandal, financial burdens, and personnel issues. I do feel for the priests, pastors, teachers, and school administrators who may get caught in the middle. On the other hand, I wonder if some will not welcome this given situations where they must minister with secrets, concerned about another’s behavior, always looking over their backs, etc.
When the hierarchy of the Catholic Church shielded child molesters, they sowed the wind.
Thanks, Barbara. i wonder if putting incompetent people in positions of authority could be considierd negligence. Hmm.
Bill wrote:
“In order to give victims a chance to heal, we may risk added scandal, financial burdens, and personnel issues. I do feel for the priests, pastors, teachers, and school administrators who may get caught in the middle. On the other hand, I wonder if some will not welcome this given situations where they must minister with secrets, concerned about another’s behavior, always looking over their backs, etc.”
His comments speculate on some positive results when and if revised SOL takes effect. Many other commentators appear unwilling or perhaps unable to imagine any positive effects. But, I think Bill is right that legislation that forces accountability will also force changes on middle management, and that some of these changes will be for the better. I would extend that insight to the great mass of the iceberg below the water, the laity.
Up til now, the majority of the laity, though certainly strongly opinionated, have seemed isolated from the sexual abuse scandal, and perhaps willingly so. It has not affected Sunday church-going to any great degree.
When legislation passes, and/or million dollar awards are made, the status quo has a way of shifting. Almost certainly, SOL reform will lead to changes in spending patterns and priorities. Just ask the Burlington Diocese (VT).
Though the prospect of such radical change may not be pleasant for everyone, it will be change, even if it is a forced change. I hope I am not alone in my belief that a fully accountable Church, a changed Church, will be a better Church.
Gov. pattrson ius reported today to have questions baout SOL and events that happened 30, 40 years ago.
Hmmmmmmm…….
But, on the other hand, there’s today’s NYT’s editorial.
Hmmmm……..