THE TABLET
July 5, 2008

Church Is Target of Legislation

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

It has been a long time since I read the Declaration of Independence, but in preparation for this July 4th weekend I printed it off the Internet.  You may recall in the first paragraph, “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve political bonds. . .”  Then, in the second paragraph, the more familiar, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

These words are recognizable to all of us; however, what follows is not so familiar.  There is a list of grievances directed to the King of Great Britain, as the Declaration states.  They are the very grievances that prompted the colonial people to declare their independence from Britain, and among the grievances listed were imposing taxes on us without our consent and suspending our own legislatures.  Most interesting to me is obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners and refusing to pass others to encourage migration to the colonies.  It certainly was a varied list of grievances that people had with its governance by Great Britain.

Today in our own country, as we are in the midst of this Presidential election, I believe our own list of grievances with our government would be varied and longer than the more than 30 grievances listed by the colonies.  We are not, however, the colony of some foreign power, we are a democracy that has earned its right to govern itself for over 200 years.  But the quality of our democracy is somewhat strained, to borrow a line from Shakespeare.  It seems that many citizens do not feel empowered to influence the course of events in their own country.  Somehow, a separation from government has ensued, or it seems that our elected officials may cater to those who assist them in being elected, instead of turning their attention to the electorate which voted for them and showed their confidence.

The lack of confidence in government today is only a symptom of the general lack of confidence in any kind of authority.  The independent American spirit has now directed itself against those who must exercise authority over us.  Church authority is no exception to the ill feeling that is felt by many citizens.  This occurs most often when unpopular decisions are made and people feel free to voice their opinions, which is certainly right and good; however, sometimes those who complain are misinformed, and do not see the big picture.  One example of this is the closing of our Catholic schools, or rather their consolidation.  Somehow, people believe that it is the authority of the Bishop that closes a school and not the lack of students or the inability to meet a budget.  Understanding the facts about our government, our Church or any set of circumstances in which we are interested should be our first priority before we voice our opinions or cast a vote.

Recently, the New York State Legislature considered a bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Marge Markey, that would amend the statute of limitations for abuse of minors.  The bill provides for a one-year “look back” period.  This would enable those alleging wrongdoing from more than 50 years ago to bring civil lawsuits against the Church that are virtually impossible to defend. Although the Church is not singled out as the target in the text of the legislation, it was clear from the comments of the legislators in the debate that the Church is targeted as it has been in several other states, namely, California and others. 

The statute of limitations is a long-held legal principle that ensures fundamental fairness by placing reasonable time limits in which to bring civil lawsuits.  Over time, memories fade and interested parties pass away.  The ability of any person or institution to defend against old accusations is compromised and fundamental fairness is undermined. Ms. Markey’s amendment of the civil statute of limitations “look back” is aimed not at individuals, but rather at the institution of the Church.  In several states where this “look back” provision is in place, already five dioceses have filed for bankruptcy.  In the State of New York the impetus for this legislation seems to mirror the movement spurred on by trial attorneys and some victims’ groups to punish the Church for its historical inadequacies.

There are some provisions in the bill that do merit consideration, such as extending from 18 to 23 years of age when the five-year statute of limitations begins to toll.   At the same time, the bill seems to distinguish between those abused in private and public institutions.  This provision seems to strike at the heart of equity.  Children abused whether in public schools or private schools are equally victims.  The harm that they experienced is profound and in some cases may never be healed.  If there is going to be legislation to address this tragic situation, it seems clear that victims of abuse in public schools ought to be entitled to the same redress.  Why then does Marge Markey’s legislation allow for civil suits going back decades against the Church but not include the necessary statutory amendments to permit victims abused in public schools to bring a similar claim unless they do so only a few days after the crime?

The Church is not any one individual Bishop, priest or layperson, but it is all of us together and any punishment leveled at the Church affects all of us.  If this legislation becomes law, the Church’s ability to subsidize parishes and schools and to offer services for those most in need will be seriously jeopardized. 

The Church does not in any way ignore past failings of its individuals, priests or others, who have perpetrated crimes of sexual abuse against minors.  Programs of prevention and assistance to victims can be well documented and are important attempts to set the record straight and make up for past failures.  A “look back” in the statute of limitations, however, will potentially expose the Church to liability beyond its ability to respond to particular wrongs, and would force us to address en masse all allegations that would be presented, given the inability to defend the Church in cases of those alleged perpetrators who are deceased.

I urge you as citizens of our state to make your feelings heard about this flawed attempt to amend the statute of limitations.  In a particular way we all ought to commend our Assemblymen Vito Lopez, Karim Camara, William Colton, Alan Maisel and Felix Ortiz for their courageous stand against the trial lawyers in our state.

In the coming months I will use this forum as a means of keeping you informed regarding the impact of this discriminatory and shortsighted legislation.  Be assured that I will continue our efforts to assist victims of clergy sex abuse and to raise greater awareness of the terrible tragedy of the victimization of children.  As always, I invite you to share your thoughts with me.

Any effort to correct past faults is an effort in “putting out into the deep” since it is largely unknown when past abuses have occurred.   Unfortunately, at the height of the sexual abuse crisis careless reports of mishandling of these cases was the norm.  I must assure you that this certainly is not the case here in the Diocese of Brooklyn.  Please, as responsible citizens, make your mind known to your elected officials.