A bill in Connecticut’s legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)The proposed change to the law would put “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut’s three Roman Catholic bishops.
After opponents voiced concerns during a public hearing, lawmakers made changes, adding restrictions on people 48 and older. They would not be allowed to file independent lawsuits but could join lawsuits brought by someone younger than 48 with the same defendant and similar allegations. In addition, when filing the complaint, they would have to show that there is documentary or physical evidence to support the claim.
…
Bye praised Catholic institutions for their community service and improved efforts to keep children safe. But she said she was frustrated that the letter did not take into account changes made to the bill and noted that the letter said little about victims. “I think the lack of focus on the victims in this letter is really frustrating,” she said.
Although the proposal would apply to all child sexual abuse victims, it would almost certainly affect the cases against St. Francis Hospital involving Dr. George Reardon, who practiced at the hospital from 1963 to 1993 and is believed to have abused as many as 500 children. Reardon died in 1998, but in 2007, the owner of Reardon’s former home found more than 50,000 slides and 100 movie reels of child pornography hidden in a wall. Since then, more than 135 people have sued the hospital, alleging negligence for failing to stop the abuse.
…
Timothy O’Keefe, a Hartford attorney whose firm represents more than 60 people suing St. Francis, said it was “unfortunate that the Catholic Church hierarchy chooses to spread such misinformation about this legislative initiative.”
“Nowhere in the letter do the bishops let their parishioners know about the safeguards that have been added to the bill to protect against stale or frivolous cases,” he said in a written statement. “They also don’t say anything about the horrendous sexual abuse and torture that hundreds of children suffered at St. Francis Hospital over the course of decades.”
That may be so, but many people who are molested often times do hold in it for long periods of time.Seriously, folks. The Statute of Limitations exists for a reason. When you let a crime go cold for 30+ years the accused have a way of being dead or incapacitated, and just about all evidence being compromised or lost. It unfairly compromises the ability of the accused to enacting a valid defense. It makes cases far less about facts and far more about emotions, rigging jury-pools, and courtroom antics.
As a result, it encourages unscrupulous lawyers to use the “garbage against a wall” theory. They spam lawsuits of dubious merit until something pays off. Worse yet, they start grouping cases together with a small number of truly credible allegations and a payload of non-credible allegations to pad the damages. This kind of behavior gives added incentive for greed and encourages people to report crimes later rather than sooner.
Remember criminal complaints aren’t going to bankrupt a diocese or parish. Tort claims are going to bankrupt it. So this isn’t about protecting children or bringing evil-doers to justice. This is ultimately about acquiring money.
Not only does this sort of practice enrich lawyers to a great extend and claimants to a lesser extent, but it also provides an avenue to harm and silence a parish or diocese - often times now filled with people who had nothing to do with the crime at all.
This also follows in a pattern of proposed legislation in Connecticut specifically directed to try to inflict harm upon or otherwise silence the Catholic Church. Does anyone remember Bill No. 1098 from this time last year?
kofc.org/un/cmf/resources/Communications/documents/ct_bill.pdf
Same committee this year with this bill.
That’s why the Church in CT is so suspicious about this being aimed at bankrupting the dioceses and parishes - because the same committee took aim at them with Bill No. 1098 last year, just from a different angle.
- Marty Lund
Stand up and take it like it should have been along time ago. Don’t try and cover up evil.That may be so, but many people who are molested often times do hold in it for long periods of time.
So what do we do?
We do what we can. We don’t throw out first principles like the Presumption of Innocence or the right to a qualified legal defense - including the statute of limitations on torts.That may be so, but many people who are molested often times do hold in it for long periods of time.
So what do we do?
It is notable that Dr. Reardon, the pedophile who because of his paedophilia committed horrendous pedophillic criminal acts, was not a member of the clergy. Don’t you think?I think this is far worse than some superannuated bishops with ossification of the intellect gabbling on about conspiracies of Freemasons, Jews, and Pharmaceutical firms.
The Bishops have a point here: the local Church could be bankrupted because of the crimes and the cover-ups. I don’t think that would be a good thing. But if it’s the only way of stopping this kind of thing happening, if they just won’t get their act together and keep on blaming the Masons, and the Jews, and the Gays, or whatever - all excuses that have traditionally worked in the past - then what can we do?
It’s up to the congregation. The laiety and that vast majority of the priesthood who are horrified and sickened by this. And not all Bishops are corrupt, nor Cardinals. They need to speak out too. As does the Pope. They all have done - but in muted tones, too little, and far too late.
Letters like this - stating that laws making it easier to prosecute pedophilia will put “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” - don’t help.
The “legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities,” the letter says. A law that makes prosecuting documented paedophilia easier. Words Fail.
I agree with this entirely. Eliminating statutes of limitations for civil suits is just bad law.We do what we can. We don’t throw out first principles like the Presumption of Innocence or the right to a qualified legal defense - including the statute of limitations on torts.
We help those suffering to the best of our ability - even when we (the people doing the helping) weren’t the ones that harmed them.
If the offender is still alive and the threat is credible we suspend them from the ministry and investigate as best we can. We also comply with criminal investigations by the government, obviously. We don’t want more people being preyed upon.
We do not, however, enable a handful of greedy lawyers and their lobbyists in government discard basic judicial principles to line their own pockets at the expense of our pastoral and charitable works.
The very idea of punitive damages against modern-day religious institutions and congregations for the actions of people often two generations prior who are long in the grave is pretty sketchy. The telling point for me is that if I replace the local Catholic Church with the local Public School District and keep all the other details the same it still seems messed up.
- Marty Lund
No, that is NOT notable. What difference does it make if the offender is clergy or not? The scandal of the abuse of children by clergy is the complicity ( whether intentional or out of ignorance) of the Church administration in the crimes of abuse.It is notable that Dr. Reardon, the pedophile who because of his paedophilia committed horrendous pedophillic criminal acts, was not a member of the clergy. Don’t you think?
Hmm, are you saying that a little bankruptcy will be good for the souls of the parishioners whose money will go to settle civil suits about matters which happened before they were born, and about which the facts remain in doubt?No, that is NOT notable. What difference does it make if the offender is clergy or not? The scandal of the abuse of children by clergy is the complicity ( whether intentional or out of ignorance) of the Church administration in the crimes of abuse.
It is unfortunate that the Bishops’ letter does not put forth a statement that the Church will strive to reach out to those victims who continue to suffer in silence with the trauma resulting from the abuse. In reading the letter, I found that my own conscience was stung by the thought of victims who have not received the care they need.
As Catholics, we should pray, fast and sacrifice for the victims of clergy sex abuse. It is our dollars and our loyalty that sustain the Church (in the material sense). We all owe the deepest apologies to the victims. We should beg the Holy Spirit to lead us all, Bishops, priests and laity, to the most charitable and Christ-like response to the victims. In one sense, all members of Christ’s body have been insulted and hurt by the actions of these supremely selfish child abusers.
One more thought: Sometimes a little bankruptcy can be good for the soul.
Yes, it is better to feel the pain that results from past failures of our Church, than to be protected from the effects of those failures. It’s just money, being taken from adults who are voluntary members of the Church. Not nearly as traumatic as the rape of a deaf child in the confessional! Is it fair for all of us who support the Church to see our contributions spent to pay for the actions of a few criminals? No, but is it fair for the victims whose souls were torn by these abusers? Is it fair for all of the wonderful, dedicated priests, who see that the sacrifices that they make everyday to serve Christ, were exploited as a smokescreen for perverts?Hmm, are you saying that a little bankruptcy will be good for the souls of the parishioners whose money will go to settle civil suits about matters which happened before they were born, and about which the facts remain in doubt?
It is unfortunate that the Catholic Church has become a target defendant on the heels of genuine cases in the past and out of court settlements arising out of class lawsuits.Seriously, folks. The Statute of Limitations exists for a reason. When you let a crime go cold for 30+ years the accused have a way of being dead or incapacitated, and just about all evidence being compromised or lost. It unfairly compromises the ability of the accused to enacting a valid defense. It makes cases far less about facts and far more about emotions, rigging jury-pools, and courtroom antics.
As a result, it encourages unscrupulous lawyers to use the “garbage against a wall” theory. They spam lawsuits of dubious merit until something pays off. Worse yet, they start grouping cases together with a small number of truly credible allegations and a payload of non-credible allegations to pad the damages. This kind of behavior gives added incentive for greed and encourages people to report crimes later rather than sooner.
Remember criminal complaints aren’t going to bankrupt a diocese or parish. Tort claims are going to bankrupt it. So this isn’t about protecting children or bringing evil-doers to justice. This is ultimately about acquiring money.
Not only does this sort of practice enrich lawyers to a great extend and claimants to a lesser extent, but it also provides an avenue to harm and silence a parish or diocese - often times now filled with people who had nothing to do with the crime at all.
This also follows in a pattern of proposed legislation in Connecticut specifically directed to try to inflict harm upon or otherwise silence the Catholic Church. Does anyone remember Bill No. 1098 from this time last year?
kofc.org/un/cmf/resources/Communications/documents/ct_bill.pdf
Same committee this year with this bill.
That’s why the Church in CT is so suspicious about this being aimed at bankrupting the dioceses and parishes - because the same committee took aim at them with Bill No. 1098 last year, just from a different angle.
- Marty Lund
The lawsuit against St Francis Hospital has nothing to do with the who is admitted to the priesthood.It looks to me like the Church has to be more careful in its process of admitting people to the priesthood.
If everyone had of been honest and above board in the beginning and called a spade a spade, there would not be lawsuits, perhaps a settlement.Hmm, are you saying that a little bankruptcy will be good for the souls of the parishioners whose money will go to settle civil suits about matters which happened before they were born, and about which the facts remain in doubt?