A Message from Fr. Tom Doyle

SUPPORT FOR CHANGES IN STATE LEGISLATION RELATIVE TO SEXUAL ABUSE: SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Thomas Doyle, O.P., J.C.D.
January 5, 2006

On November 17 I submitted a memo to Voice of the Faithful’s publication In the Vineyard in which I addressed several points relative to the efforts to change the Statutes of Limitation on child sexual abuse in a number of states. Since that time I have testified before the Judiciary Committee of the Ohio State Legislature. On that occasion I listened to the moving testimony of several sexual abuse victims. I also listened to concerns expressed by members of the committee about possible ramifications of the proposed changes in legislation. While there appears to be some consensus on the need to either extend the Statute beyond the present limits in several states, or eliminate it altogether, there remains concern about the so-called “look-back windows.” I wish to address some of these concerns.

The State of California passed legislation to suspend the Statute of Limitations (SOL) for a one-year period to allow those who could not file civil suits to do so. The Catholic bishops of California vehemently opposed this legislation and some continue to label it as an anti-Catholic strategy promoted by victims’ attorneys primarily to reap monetary benefits. Such characterizations of the legislation, the process whereby it was adopted and the motives of those who supported it are completely false. More to the point, these characterizations are slanderous and constitute a re-victimization of men and women who have already suffered immensely at the hands of the institutional Church.

There appear to be three major concerns:

  1. Legislation of this type is unconstitutional.
  2. If passed, there will not only be a flood of new cases but many false accusations and bogus cases.
  3. The increase in cases will result in either bankruptcy for some dioceses or at least serious crippling of the ability of the institutional Church to function.

None of these concerns has any basis in either past experience or present reality. Constitutional lawyers have studied the California legislation and the legislation proposed for other states and found no problem with it. Nevertheless, Catholic lobbyists from state Catholic Conferences and other spokespersons for the institutional Church continue to claim that such legislation violates constitutional provisions. These claims are not based on any concrete information but rather are alarmist attempts at spreading misinformation.

There is no historical validity for the fear of false claims and bogus cases. In my 21 years of direct experience with clergy sexual abuse I know of only ten or so claims that were proven to be either false or baseless. The attorneys put all prospective clients through a rigorous screening before accepting their cases. While some unscrupulous persons have tried to make false claims, nearly all have been rejected by plaintiff attorneys. It is also true that erroneous accusations have been made against some priests, yet experience has proven that the vast majority of the accusations made have been verified. There simply are no legions of falsely accused clerics around the country.

Likewise, there is no real threat of significant numbers of persons lying in wait to make false claims and benefit from the legislation. In practice, it is practically impossible for someone to succeed with a false claim. I am aware of no monetary awards given to anyone who falsely claimed to have been sexually abused by a cleric.

Finally, it is hardly likely that a flood of cases will bankrupt the Catholic Church in the United States. Since the initial revelations in 1984 there have been several thousand civil suits against Catholic dioceses and religious orders throughout the United States. To my knowledge nearly every diocese and archdiocese has been involved in civil cases brought by persons who have been sexually abused by clerics. In some dioceses ministries have been deprived of funding or have been cut back and properties have been sold. The diocesan authorities have claimed or insinuated that this has been the result of large monetary awards given to victims of clergy sexual abuse. It has not been unusual for bishops and others to try to shift the blame to the victims and allege that their claims are responsible for depriving the Catholic community of needed spiritual and charitable services. Such claims have been proven to be not only false but injurious to the victims. Although dioceses do not regularly reveal the true costs of the sexual abuse scandal, it is known that insurance companies pay a significant portion of the awards. Dioceses also do not reveal the amounts spent on attorney’s fees or for public relations firms. Many archdioceses and dioceses have expended more money to fight the victims than the amount finally negotiated for the settlement. For example, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has spent a significant amount of money in legal fees in order to prevent discovery of its personnel files. Although other bishops have surrendered such files and although the Los Angeles Archdiocese has lost its case in the local courts, on appeal and at the level of the California Supreme Court, it continues to resist discovery at tremendous cost to the people who contribute to the archdiocese.

One archdiocese and two dioceses have sought bankruptcy protection. In all three cases parish life has continued. Although some erroneously thought that the dioceses would “go out of business,” this simply has not been true. The many court actions, in which various dioceses have been a party but especially the bankruptcy processes, are having a variety of consequences and one of the most important and most needed has been the beginnings of true financial accountability. Dioceses may claim they have limited funds and financial resources yet as the financial facts are forced to the surface, the true financial picture indicates otherwise. Although Catholic bishops have vigorously fought attempts at complete financial disclosure, it appears that this will be inevitable and so it should be. Another valuable consequence is the fact that people are realizing that the essence of the Church is not its financial foundation but its compassionate care for those in need as witnessed by the mission of Christ.

The institutional Catholic Church has suffered immeasurable harm since the revelation of clergy sexual abuse surfaced more than twenty years ago. The harm should not be measured in terms of financial loss through costs related to individual cases. It is measured in the scandalous realization that Church members, including hierarchy, clergy and lay, placed the image, power and financial security of the institution well before the emotional and spiritual welfare of those harmed by the abuse.

Historically the institutional Catholic Church has abjectly failed those who have looked to it for a pastoral response to sexual abuse. It is sad but most probably true to assume that had the secular media not exposed the scandal and had the civil courts not taken up the concerns of the victims, the situation would not have changed and the countless victims would still be imprisoned in their trauma. There are still unknown numbers of men and women whose lives have been forever scarred by clergy sexual abuse. Their only hope for validation and the beginning of healing is through the civil courts. These men and women are not interested in monetary gain or in bankrupting the dioceses. They long to be believed and to be healed. The prevention programs instituted by dioceses and the canonical defrocking of accused clerics is no valid substitute for the healing and validation owed to the many who remain silent. The opportunity to come forward, provided by renewed civil legislation, will surely not bring relief to all who suffer in silence but it will be an opportunity for some to begin life anew. The Churches and our society owe it to these people to provide every opportunity for healing.

In conclusion, I would like to address a recent suggestion put forward by some and considered as viable by certain law-makers. This is the suggestion that a civil registry be created which would contain the names of clergy abusers who may not have been convicted in criminal courts but nonetheless had been proven to have committed sexual abuse. Such an idea is surely not an acceptable substitute for a retroactive window in which to bring forth claims. It may serve to alert communities if a perpetrator is living in their midst but it does absolutely nothing for those still suffering in silence and those who lost their chance at civil action because of manipulation by Church authorities. More to the point, a civil registry with the names of Catholic clerics would result in a swift reaction from the Vatican because as envisioned, it would be in violation of certain provisions of the Church’s own internal legislation.

The churches are part of and not above our secular society. They are capable of great good and offer immense resources that benefit believers and non-believers alike, especially through charitable endeavors. Churches are also capable of inflicting deep harm. For the good they are to be praised and supported and for the harm they must be held accountable by civil society. No religion or church offers anything to its members or to civil society that can possibly justify any degree of deferential treatment for the sexual, emotional and spiritual devastation of the young and the vulnerable.



In the Vineyard
January 12, 2006
Volume 1, Issue 1
Printer Friendly Version

Page One

COMMENTARY

Reflection and Prayer


Donate

Join VOTF

Contact Us 

Archives


VOTF Home

For an overview of press coverage of VOTF, click here.
©Voice of the Faithful 2006.All Rights Reserved