Conneticut Bishops Fighting Sex Abuse Bill

[littlebreakdowns]

I'm Catholic - I became one several years ago - and since then I've at least [i]tried[/i] to defend the Church from the people in my life who don't "get it" - they generally mean well, but they don't see it how I see it.

That's been wavering recently, in the last few weeks, because there's certain things I can't justify to myself, let alone anyone else. I'm sure I don't need to explain what things I'm talking about.

The proverbial straw came this morning - http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html - the Bishops in Conneticut are fighting a bill that would remove the statute of limitations on sex abuse cases. The full letter that was read at every Mass in the state this weekend can be found here: http://www.ctcatholic.org/documents/5473LettertoParishioners.doc

The worst part of this? "Over the past several years in states that have even temporarily eliminated the statutes, it has caused the bankruptcy of at least seven dioceses." Um, no. The bankruptcy was caused by priests abusing little kids and the Church being held responsible.

The letter, on the whole, turns my stomach. I can't defend this and I certainly can't support it. Granted, I don't live in Conneticut so they're not talking to me anyway, but this serves to make it clear to me what my faith is telling me and what my Church is telling me are not the same thing at all, and that makes me very sad.

Teresa

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I think the concern is that statutes of limitations aren't meant to say that after a while, the crime ought to be forgotten, but rather, that since the crime has been forgotten after a while, it ought not to be prosecuted. That is, there have been a number of court cases including false accusations against the Church and details pulled from memories 40, 50, or 60 years old, many of which have been convoluted and twisted by fear, anger, hatred, envy, and any number of other emotions. Statutes of limitations aren't a way for the state to say it doesn't care about older crimes (if that were the case, they wouldn't invest money in cold case squads), but a way for the state to acknowledge that, after a while, the evidence is no longer reliable. Furthermore, when memories are not fresh in a person's mind, their memories are very open to suggestion. Witnesses simply aren't reliable after a given time.

[Guest abchavez]

I recommend you read this book:
<h1 class="parseasinTitle">[size="3"]How Not to Share Your Faith: The Seven Deadly Sins of Apologetics [/size][size="3"][url="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Mark%20Brumley"]Mark Brumley[/url][/size]</h1>

One of the topics that deals with your situation, about defending the faith when people may not be making the right decisions is talked about in here. one of the examples is the inquisition and we are called not to change the facts or even say that it was the right thing to torture and kill people if they did not accept Jesus as our savior. But only explain how it did happen. you may not win one for the faith here but it is more important to be truthful even if you lose a debate or cannot justify a decision made by the church... Pope John Paul II actually asked for forgiveness for the decisions made during the inquisition. And remember the church is made up of the people, and people are imperfect and can make mistakes. Also remember that we are not part of this Church because of the people we are apart of it because Jesus has called us to it.

I haven't read the articles however so I am not saying that I either agree or disagree with the situation but hopefully that helps.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='12 April 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1271087368' post='2091512']
I'm Catholic - I became one several years ago - and since then I've at least [i]tried[/i] to defend the Church from the people in my life who don't "get it" - they generally mean well, but they don't see it how I see it.

That's been wavering recently, in the last few weeks, because there's certain things I can't justify to myself, let alone anyone else. I'm sure I don't need to explain what things I'm talking about.

The proverbial straw came this morning - http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html - the Bishops in Conneticut are fighting a bill that would remove the statute of limitations on sex abuse cases. The full letter that was read at every Mass in the state this weekend can be found here: http://www.ctcatholic.org/documents/5473LettertoParishioners.doc

The worst part of this? "Over the past several years in states that have even temporarily eliminated the statutes, it has caused the bankruptcy of at least seven dioceses." Um, no. The bankruptcy was caused by priests abusing little kids and the Church being held responsible.

The letter, on the whole, turns my stomach. I can't defend this and I certainly can't support it. Granted, I don't live in Conneticut so they're not talking to me anyway, but this serves to make it clear to me what my faith is telling me and what my Church is telling me are not the same thing at all, and that makes me very sad.

Teresa
[/quote]
THe bishops are absolutely right.
"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."

If you cannot figure out in 30 years you were abused, then you were not abused. All laws except murder have statues of limitations. This is simply an attempt to attack the church, and you should be against it.

[littlebreakdowns]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='12 April 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1271090315' post='2091538']
If you cannot figure out in 30 years you were abused, then you were not abused. All laws except murder have statues of limitations. This is simply an attempt to attack the church, and you should be against it.
[/quote]

I don't think the issue is that they don't "know" they were abused - but it can be VERY hard to come forward. It's not like your body and your emotional health are going to realize that the court system says if you don't come forward by the age of 48, it doesn't count somehow.

I don't think child molestation is a "lesser" crime than murder. I don't approve of the statute of limitations at all - I didn't before I became Catholic and I'm not going to start now.

[littlebreakdowns]

What seems to be lost on folks here is this is NOT a criminal statute of limitations. It applies ONLY to civil cases.

[Winchester]

I believe in executing sexual predators.

I also believe that proof needs to be brought to convict someone in a court of law, or to sue someone for money.

If you were abused and you have no proof, then you'll have to seek other means of vengeance. And suing for money is vengeance.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='12 April 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1271091324' post='2091546']
What seems to be lost on folks here is this is NOT a criminal statute of limitations. It applies ONLY to civil cases.
[/quote]
Well naturally, the burden of proof is much less and you can get more money. It simply comes down to he said - he said, especially when you are talking about 30+ years later. Its a scam put forth by lawyers who want % of big settlements.

[rkwright]

[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='12 April 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1271091239' post='2091544']
I don't think the issue is that they don't "know" they were abused - but it can be VERY hard to come forward. It's not like your body and your emotional health are going to realize that the court system says if you don't come forward by the age of 48, it doesn't count somehow.

I don't think child molestation is a "lesser" crime than murder. I don't approve of the statute of limitations at all - I didn't before I became Catholic and I'm not going to start now.
[/quote]


[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='12 April 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1271091324' post='2091546']
What seems to be lost on folks here is this is NOT a criminal statute of limitations. It applies ONLY to civil cases.
[/quote]

I think its odd in your first post you said child molestation is not a lesser [i]crime[/i] than murder, and then in your second you seek to remind everyone we're talking about civil cases not criminal. Did you forget in your first post?

Second, you're problem seems to be more with statutes of limitations in general and not so much with Catholicism. Don't let this "hinder" your faith in anyway. If you thought poorly of them before becoming Catholic, it shouldn't disturb you to think they're bad now. At least your consistent.

[littlebreakdowns]

[quote name='rkwright' date='12 April 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1271096234' post='2091613']
I think its odd in your first post you said child molestation is not a lesser [i]crime[/i] than murder, and then in your second you seek to remind everyone we're talking about civil cases not criminal. Did you forget in your first post?

Second, you're problem seems to be more with statutes of limitations in general and not so much with Catholicism. Don't let this "hinder" your faith in anyway. If you thought poorly of them before becoming Catholic, it shouldn't disturb you to think they're bad now. At least your consistent.
[/quote]


I didn't forget - it just became clear to me that people responding to my post didn't seem to realize we were talking civil and not criminal, so I thought I'd clear that up.

My problem isn't with my faith or with Catholicism *in theory* - my problems are more with the Church. The Vatican coming down today with the explicit instructions the clergy should follow local laws helped put my mind at ease, somewhat. I was THISCLOSE to checking out an Episcopal Church this weekend. I need to give it some thought and some prayer. I love my faith, so that's not the issue. It's more not approving of how the Church is going about taking care of some of the issues that it's facing.

I still think the Bishops in Conneticut were wrong to say that the removal of the statute of limitations caused parishes to become bankrupt - wrong in a big, big way.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='12 April 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1271103529' post='2091757']
I didn't forget - it just became clear to me that people responding to my post didn't seem to realize we were talking civil and not criminal, so I thought I'd clear that up.

My problem isn't with my faith or with Catholicism *in theory* - my problems are more with the Church. The Vatican coming down today with the explicit instructions the clergy should follow local laws helped put my mind at ease, somewhat. I was THISCLOSE to checking out an Episcopal Church this weekend. I need to give it some thought and some prayer. I love my faith, so that's not the issue. It's more not approving of how the Church is going about taking care of some of the issues that it's facing.

I still think the Bishops in Conneticut were wrong to say that the removal of the statute of limitations caused parishes to become bankrupt - wrong in a big, big way.
[/quote]
Since you love our Faith, you know just as we do that the Episcopal community doesn't have it.
EDIT: I want to add that I don't mean this to offend anyone who is part of that community- I'm talking [u]strictly[/u] theologically here.
It's good to not get caught up in this kind of thing, IMO. We've always seen bad people doing bad things. Sometimes bad people claim to be Catholic, sometimes they don't. Whatever they claim to be, it doesn't change what Catholicism is, and the perversion of a small minority of priests over the last few decades is emphatically *not* Catholicism.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='littlebreakdowns' date='12 April 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1271103529' post='2091757']
My problem isn't with my faith or with Catholicism *in theory* - my problems are more with the Church. The Vatican coming down today with the explicit instructions the clergy should follow local laws helped put my mind at ease, somewhat. [b] I was THISCLOSE to checking out an Episcopal Church this weekend.[/b] I need to give it some thought and some prayer. I love my faith, so that's not the issue. It's more not approving of how the Church is going about taking care of some of the issues that it's facing.
[/quote]

Disagreeing with the leadership is not a just reason to turn your back on the Eucharist.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='12 April 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1271103804' post='2091766']
Disagreeing with the leadership is not a just reason to turn your back on the Eucharist.
[/quote]
As I'm sure you'd agree, there is no just reason.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Raphael' date='12 April 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1271104004' post='2091770']
As I'm sure you'd agree, there is no just reason.
[/quote]

Yes, I agree.

[CatherineM]

There are Statutes of Limitations for a reason. It should never be longer for Civil cases than for Criminal for an obvious reason. If it is a crime, you should be more interested in having the perpetrator removed from society for our protection, and for their hopeful reconciliation, than you are in money. Civil cases are solely about money. You learn that the first day of Law School. The money may be for a good cause, such as therapy for an abuse survivor, physical therapy for someone harmed in an accident or malpractice, but a minimum of 60% of all judgments, minus all expenses off the top, goes straight to the lawyers. One of the federal cases against the Vatican right now involves something that allegedly happened in 1928, and the priest involved died in the 50's.

I'd love to sue the Japanese for what they did to my Uncle in 1943. He died a decade ago, but that shouldn't matter should it?