The New York Catholic Conference's Aggressive Bid to Stop Reform of Child Sex Abuse Laws

[moobu2]

By MARCI A. HAMILTON

Thursday, July 29, 2009

Based on an unscientific survey of everyone with whom I have spoken in recent months, I have come to the conclusion that there is an untold story that would shock the vast majority of Americans. Pieces of it have appeared in various publications, but never the whole story. It is the story of the New York Catholic Conference's outrageous measures to stop the reform of New York's laws that govern child sex abuse.

The bottom line is that the Catholic bishops have committed both themselves and their copious resources to becoming the political enemies of all child sex abuse victims and thus the political allies of all child predators (whether they be priests, teachers, or uncles).

The Child Victims Act and the New York Conference's Aggressive Opposition

The proposed Child Victims Act (CVA) is currently being considered in the New York State legislature, which is expected to hold several special sessions this fall in the wake of its recent, circus-like sessions in May and June. The CVA would modestly extend the statute of limitations for child sex abuse – by five years for both civil and criminal claims – as well as open a "window" for all past victims to be able to go to court for one year despite the currently expired statutes of limitations on their claims.

As I have discussed in previous columns such as this one, this kind of window legislation has already been enacted in other states, where it has led to the public identification of previously unknown child predators.

The CVA's most active opponent is the New York Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm for the Roman Catholic bishops. (Some ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups have tagged onto the Conference, but the vast majority of Orthodox and other Jewish groups have chosen to side with the victims, as has the National Black Church Initiative.) While other state Catholic Conferences have fought such legislation, the New York group has let no ethical or humane interest stand in its way, hiring numerous top-dollar, seasoned lobbyists to try to kill the CVA through one devious approach after another. Also new in New York is the willingness of the bishops themselves to publicly rail against statute of limitations reform as though it were the equivalent of mandatory abortion.


Find Law

[closeupready]

1. That's unreal - shocking and appalling. Why anyone remains Catholic

in light of these kinds of stories is a mystery to me.

[Dorian Gray]

15. I remain Catholic

and I know some of the people who are high up in the fight against changing the laws. Though I disagree with their public stance, it has been expressed to me that it is about equanimity. I don't know if I truly believe the priests who claim that. (There are many priests who also think that the Bishop and the Diocese need to be more apologetic and less fighting of the changes in the law.) They say that they believe that the laws are changed for private institutions, but not public institutions. So, a teacher in a public school would be subject to current statutes of limitations while those in private institutions wouldn't be.

I support a change in the law, but I do think that for sex crimes such as these, there should be no statute of limitations on anyone. The nature of child abuse is so horrific. Priests who have engaged in it should be punished, both by their Bishop and by the law. I in no way want to sweep the abuses under the carpet.

[LAGC]

23. Even after what the Church did to that little girl in Brazil??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x213946

How can you have any faith in the church leadership anymore?

[Eric J in MN]

2. The problem with letting people go to court decades later...

...is that people's memories may have been messed with by psychologists over those decades.

[closeupready]

5. A minor problem, at worst.

Are you Catholic?

[Eric J in MN]

7. No, I'm not Catholic.

I don't consider false memories causing people being sued or prosecuted decades later a minor problem.

[closeupready]

9. You're entitled to your opinion, but

it is unlikely that a psychological and statistical aberration - such as false memories of being molested/raped as a child - negates the net balance of justice served to those who were violated long ago.

[struggle4progress]

12. The problem with letting people go to court decades later is that most people can't tell you where

they were or what they were doing at X o'clock on the Yth of Z thirty years ago. So an honest defendant, in a civil suit with a preponderance of evidence standard, who faces a plaintiff claiming "thirty years ago, g at X o'clock on the Yth of Z, defendant sexually assaulted me" is likely to have to throw up his hands and say "Actually, I have no idea where I was or what I doing then"

[closeupready]

16. A competent defense attorney would attack a plaintiff's account on that basis, i.e.,

a failure to recall such details with precision, but such a failure - in the presence of other evidence, such as corroborative witnesses, medical reports, etc. - would be rather unlikely to persuade a jury that this is simply a false memory, since no one generally can be expected to possess such precise recall (i.e., three decades later).

[struggle4progress]

19. We have statutes of limitation because almost nobody believes a case from decades ago

can be resolved. So these are typically going to produce settlements

[moobu2]

13. That hasn’t been a problem in other states

that have extended the SOL’s and enacted window legislation for child sex abuse.

[valerief]

3. Time to replay that South Park episode where all the Vatican bishops get their skirts in a

twist because they can't figure out how to molest children without their congregations getting angry with them.

[fascisthunter]

4. mind blowing... wouldn't this case make a great commercial

or better yet, movie?

[sybylla]

6. I see a Law & Order episode in our future...

This would make a great one.

[defendandprotect]

8. What's new . . . they fought ERA... they've given us Prop 8 . .. religion is

mainly for the benefit of male elitists --

You know . . . like the entire Vatican . . .

and the secret-handshaking areas of the Mormon Church -- !!!

[brendan120678]

10. If I recall, the main issue that they had with this....

was that the extension of the Statute of Limitations originally applied only to Catholic clergy (or maybe it was all clergy).
Statute of Limitations on anyone else (teachers, etc.) remained at one year.

However, I am pretty sure that in mark-ups to the proposed bill, it was changed to apply to everyone.

[redqueen]

14. If that's the case then they had good reason to challenge it.

Hopefully they have rectified that idiocy and will now proceed to pass the bill.

[struggle4progress]

11. N.Y. bill would lift limits on suing Church over abuse (Apr 2009)

By Amy Kotlarz
Catholic News Service
Wednesday, April 01, 2009

... "Under the Markey bill there are really two classes of victims: the public-institution victim and the private-institution victim, one of whom could sue for something that happened during the Roosevelt administration, and one of whom could be shut out after a year or less," said Dennis Poust, director of communications for the Catholic conference.

Although the New York State Catholic Conference opposes Markey's Child Victims Act, it is promoting a legislative alternative, a new bill sponsored by Assemblyman Vito Lopez and Sen. Carl Kruger, both Democrats.

The Lopez bill would extend the length of time child sex abuse victims would have to sue in future cases and equalize the rules for civil child sex abuse suits against both public and private institutions ...

"If the intent of the (Markey) bill is to give remedy to victims of child sexual abuse, in fairness they ought to include all victims," Bishop Clark said ...

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/newsreport.aspx?id=889

[closeupready]

17. The Vatican thinks it can be so sneaky, and nobody will notice.

Please note that the alternative legislation the Vatican is promoting "applies to all" FROM TIME POINT OF PASSAGE TO ALL FORWARD ACTS but does NOT apply retroactively, and so, changes NOTHING about how past abuses have been dismissed under existing statute of limitation laws.

Therefore, it seems clear that they seek to continue stonewalling and sweeping past matters under the rug rather than come clean. :mad:

[struggle4progress]

18. Dunno. I don't live in NY and haven't seen the test of either bill.

[closeupready]

20. You don't have to - just read the story you posted - it says that

the bill which the church is supporting is effective "going forward".

[struggle4progress]

21. Could be. I never trust press accounts of legislation to read so much into a one word like "future"

[closeupready]

22. Who knows. I just know the members of the Vatican are masters of the game of semantic sophistry.

And they have always used that to their advantage.