|
COMMENTARY
Speaking of Fairness
Tom Myles, VOTF Long Island, NY
[Response to “Changing
the law would be unfair”]
An editorial in the May 3, 2006 edition of the Long
Island Catholic titled "Changing the Law Would Be Unfair" argues
against bills in the New York State legislature that would
extend the statute of limitations in civil cases and provide
a window of opportunity for sexual abuse victims to bring
action in civil court for past abuses.
The lead paragraphs in the editorial mention the actions
taken by the Catholic Church since 2002 to prevent sexual
abuse. Then the editorial attempts to portray the proposed
legislation as explicitly targeted at the Catholic Church.
It further states that Church leaders have an obligation
to protect donations of the Catholic faithful and that
while victims have a right to sue it must be done in a
reasonable time otherwise guilt or innocence becomes impossible
to establish. The editorial ends with "There is no
reasonable or practical way that statutes of limitations
should be altered or changed for one type of crime while
left in place for others."
The Diocese's arguments do not relate to fact, contradict
a previous statement of Bishop Murphy, or are vacuous.
In the John Jay Study commissioned by the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Diocese of Rockville
Centre enumerated more than forty priests in the Diocese
of Rockville Centre for whom there were credible allegations
of sexual abuse of a minor. Yet despite admitting this,
the Diocese has not offered to the community the names
of those accused. In fact, as evidenced by the 2003 report
of Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota, the diocese
systematically sheltered known abusers, while neither informing
legal authorities nor the community at large. If the Diocese
believes that changing the current laws would be unfair,
does the diocese believe it fairly treated the victims
of sexual abuse and even the alleged abusers that it hid?
None of the proposed legislation directly targets the
Catholic Church. The bills are aimed at all alleged abusers.
While there are reasons for having statute of limitations,
there is no statute of limitations for murder, and many
a victim of sexual abuse will tell you that sexual abuse
is "murder of the soul." Establishing guilt or
innocence is not impossible to prove, even after the lapse
of time. Would it not be fairer to let a jury decide than
to categorically reject all claims of past sexual abuse?
The editorial does not mention that Bishop Murphy has
previously written in support of amending the statute of
limitations. In a Report to the Diocese on June 11, 2003,
Bishop Murphy wrote "Ever since the Diocese instituted
procedures in 1992, this local Church has responded to
the needs of anyone who was sexually abused by a priest
with whatever psychological counseling was appropriate.
The Diocese makes this open ended offer to everyone who
has been abused. There is no "statute of limitations" on
the help we give and will continue to give to those who
were sexually abused by clergy. We will continue to do
so, so long as these and any other victims who come forward
have need of such counseling and help" and "That
is why I have supported legislative initiatives that would
extend the statute of limitations in sexual abuse cases
from five to fifteen years and to make all members of the
clergy, Catholic and non-Catholic, mandatory reporters
of sexual abuse of a minor, with exceptions for confidential
relationships and the Sacrament of Reconciliation." One
wonders why the Long Island Catholic editorial contradicts
Bishop Murphy's prior statement.
It is commendable to carefully steward funds. However,
a bishop who spends tens of thousands of dollars of diocesan
funds to renovate his personal residence is hardly in a
position to state that he is protecting donations of the
Catholic faithful. Further, the primary role of any church
is to minister to those in the most need. No one can deny
that minor-aged victims of sexual abuse are as a group
people who are in need of spiritual and temporal care.
By opposing the proposed legislation, the Diocese of Rockville
Centre, under the direction of Bishop William F. Murphy,
abandons that role, and by so doing tells the community
that money is more important than people.
The specious arguments notwithstanding, totally absent
from the editorial is an acknowledgement that the past
irresponsible actions of the Diocese have caused harm to
hundreds of known and unknown sexual abuse victims. Instead
of working to address the needs of the abused, the Diocese
of Rockville Centre continues the abuse.
Long Island Voice of the Faithful supports all proposed
legislation that would enable those who were sexually abused
as minors to have their day in court. That is what is fair!
We request all residents of New York State to reject the
arguments offered by the Diocese of Rockville and to urge
their legislators to support these bills.
|
