The Catholic bishops of Colorado have been fighting a proposed law that would lift the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits related to sexual abuse against private institutions, not public institutions like schools where much more institutional sexual abuse occurs. The bishops say it is intended to specifically target the Church on behalf of trial lawyers.
The bishops have been criticized as somehow trying to prevent justice for victims, when the opposite is true. Thus, the bishops are sponsoring a bill to lift the statute of limitations on criminal prosecution of sex abuse cases without lifting the limitations on civil lawsuits.
In an interview in the March 5 national Catholic weekly Our Sunday Visitor, Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput said that many who are seeking a relaxation of the statute of limitations on civil suits are tort lawyers profiting from “the litigation industry” or are motivated by anti-Catholicism. “Unless Catholics wake up right now and push back on behalf of their church, their parishes and the religious future of their children, the pillaging will continue” because of costly litigation and settlements, he said.
On the one hand, I agree with the bishops that if this was truly about justice for victims, prosecuting the actual abusers would be the top priority, not getting money from the Church. On the other hand, I’m ambivalent about removing the limitations on one and not the other. If there’s a reason to have a statute of limitations for one circumstance—civil or criminal, public or private—then it should apply to all. If not, then none.
I tend to think that the law has had statutes of limitations in place for all but the most egregious crimes for a reason. Does sexual abuse of children fit the case for an exception? It might. But the argument has to be made for it.
Technorati Tags: bishops, Catholic, Colorado, lawsuits, sex-abuse
As a retired government-history teacher who has had to explain the statute of limitations to students it is clear to me that to do away with limitations in such hard to confirm or deny cases as sexual abuse would be to replace one gross injustice with another injustice.
And will the state forego sovereign immunity so lawsuit lawyers can also plunder city and town treasuries over even more widespread similar abuse and cover-ups and incompetence in the public schools and other public agencies.????
I think Deacon Bresnahan’s last question is what teh Denver Archdiocese is trying to address. Instead of coming out and trying to stop the new laws, get constituants to think about what the action entails. If the true motiviation is justice for victims, then you certainly don’t want to have the justice affect only a small minority of victims. But if you make the law fair and applicable to public school students (some of which are Catholic also), then you start to think of wise investing of your tax dollars and if this law is truly just.
Unfortunately, it (appears to me) that Colorado lawmakers have blatently ignored the statistics of sexual abuse in public schools. It’s as if it doesn’t exist (despite recent cases!). It happened several times in my four years in a Denver area high school years ago.
The new emphasis on criminal prosecution is new to me, and I’ll have to look for Archbishop Chaput’s comments on that. I think that Catholic parents who must have their children in public schools have only 180 days to bring a lawsuit to the school (only with school district’s permission). If that is similar for crininal prosecution, then perhaps it should be changed. The highest risk group (those with handicaps) have a hard time understanding what happened until much later, or can’t discuss it until much later.
I’m not a lawyer.
There should be no statute of limitations, either criminal or civil, for child sex abuse cases because it often takes the victims decades to be able to report the abuse. This is especially true when the abuse is quasi-incestuous and sacrilegious, perpetrated by someone the victim calls Father and views as a channel to God.
The Supreme Court has said the constitution forbids the retroactive abolition of the statute of limitations in criminal cases, but not in civil cases.
Therefore the only remedy for victims in the past is civil; if the Colorado bishops are trying to confuse the public by supporting a retroactive extension of the criminal statute of limitations, they are being duplicitous, because they know such an extension is illegal.
Remember: the person or institution does not have to prove it is innocent; the person suing has to prove his case, and the passage of time makes it harder to establish proof. Time acts in favor of the defendant.
As the article says, it is almost impossible to sue a public institution without the consent of that institution, and therefore changes in the statue of limitations for civil cases against public institutions are meaningless.
I do not think the Catholic laity are entirely innocent of complicity in abuse. Often parishes supported accused abusers because the abusers were such great entertainers. Victims were ostracized because they were depriving the laity of wonderful Father Joe, who made everyone laugh so much at Mass.
In a broader sense, the laity enabled abusers by their infantilist clericalism, which prevented them from using ordinary common sense in dealing with priests and bishops. The clergy, Catholic and Protestant, attracts more than its share of narcissists and con artists, and the Catholic laity have enabled these wolves to pillage the flock of Christ without hindrance.
Lee, has anyone ever looked at the victims to see if there are wolves set to pillage the flock of Christ among them?