IÂ’m no friend of child abusers, including those in the clergy. Indeed, I had pretty harsh words about the lenient treatment of one of the guys I went to seminary with after he entered a plea of guilty. But I have a real problem with the notion of lifting statutes of limitations on old cases, whether for civil or criminal actions. I therefore have to disagree with the New York Times on this one.

For decades, priests who preyed sexually on children did so with shocking ease and impunity. Their superiors acted as functional accomplices, shuttling abusive priests among parishes and buying or bullying victims into silence. Shame and guilt did the rest, burying abuses under a shroud of secrecy that often far outlasted the statute of limitations for prosecutions or lawsuits.
Those victims deserve a day in court. The New York Legislature should grant it to them, by passing a bill that would temporarily lift the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits involving the sexual abuse of children.

The bill would open a one-year window during which accusers would be allowed to sue in civil court, no matter how old the case. After a year, the statute of limitations would be restored, but an accuser would have up to 10 years after turning 18 to make a claim, instead of five. The statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions would not be changed.

Now I have two problems with this legislation. One deals with the issue of practicality. The other deals with the issue of equal protection of the law.

Let’s look at the first one. Many of the cases that might be brought deal with situations that happened decades ago, and will make it quite difficult for an accuse individual to defend himself. I’m thinking of a case that I’m familiar with from the diocese with which I was affiliated before I left the seminary. One older priest was accused of an incident a quarter-century before by a woman who had been permitted to live in the rectory after being thrown out of the house by her parents. The story was one of sexual abuse by both the priest and a deceased nun – and involved some really warped stuff. The evidence? A report from a psychologist engaged by an advocacy group and an affidavit by the alleged victim. Unfortunately for Father X, both the accused nun and the rectory housekeeper were dead, and all he could do was offer denials of the accusations and a psychological report that indicated it was not in his psychological make-up to do such things. He was pulled from parish ministry, and denied the right to publicly act as a priest thereafter. With the lifting of the statute of limitations, that decision by an overly-cautious church hierarchy would be taken as evidence that they viewed Father X as guilty, and probably result in a jury verdict against him. More importantly, the passage of time would make effective defense in such a case impossible.

But beyond that, there is the equity/equal protection question. In New York State, where this suspension of the statute would be implemented, there is a 90-day window to file claims and suits when the alleged molester is a public school teacher or other public employee. The bill does not lift the statute of limitations there, despite the fact that the rate of sexual offenses among teachers is, lamentably, as high as or higher than among clergy. The disparate treatment here – which allows long-delayed suits against pastors and churches but not against teachers, principals, and school districts – is shocking to the conscience. The reason for that difference is the unwillingness of the New York legislature to expose state and local governments to the sort of liability they are imposing upon the private sector.

In other words, I object because of the injustice that is done to the accused by this change – and because of the favoritism shown to public institutions and employees in the bill. It should either be amended to end the disparity or, as much as I hate to deny an alleged victim the right to file suit, vote down this legislation as well-intentioned but ill-advised.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 5 kb.