Why the Grand Jury Probe Should Be Welcomed, Not Criticized

By MARCI A. HAMILTON
Thursday, Feb. 5, 2009
FindLaw

Recently, it was announced that Los Angeles United States Attorney Thomas P. O’Brien was starting a grand jury investigation into allegations of a child sex abuse coverup by the Catholic Church’s Los Angeles Archdiocese. The announcement was met with consternation and defensive cries from various Catholic quarters. Before they drown out the larger public good, however it is worthwhile to spend some time with the facts – which, I will argue, show that a grand jury investigation is exactly what should be occurring now.

Professor Kmiec’s Argument: The Claims of Abuse Were "Well-Litigated"

Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec (who has also been a guest columnist on this site) quickly posted a lengthy critique on Catholic Online, arguing that "wading into this already well-litigated matter gives every appearance of ‘piling on.’" In support of his claim, he pointed to the fact that the Archdiocese settled civil claims with over 500 victims for a total of $660 million. The fact, though, is that the claims never were "well-litigated." Kmiec is right about one thing: The end result was a settlement, not hundreds of trials, which would have released mountains of information to the public.

The apparent reasons behind the settlement are very pertinent: First, early on, the church hierarchy succeeded in getting many claims consolidated together, so as to avoid individual litigation. Many survivors wanted their day in court and opposed consolidation, but this procedural move by the hierarchy meant that large collections of cases were treated as though they were single cases with judges overseeing many at one time. That way, the hierarchy could argue to reduce per-person claims, because the size of the total award would be large no matter what and the hierarchy could more effectively and efficiently control what information about the coverup would be released.

Second, the Archdiocese settled essentially on the eve of trial, when it appeared that the Cardinal would have to testify regarding his obvious knowledge of a great deal of abuse. In other words, the settlement was a tactic to keep a further lid on damaging information. Thus, despite the settlement, relatively little information, especially given the amount that is still under the sole control of the Archdiocese, has reached the public.

Kmiec still claims, however, that the public has enough information. He writes: "What’s more, the hypothetical prosecution cannot really be said to promote greater disclosure, as the Cardinal already issued a 2004 report giving individualized detail of priests accused of abuse." Yet that report is better described as a mere outline. Moreover, and more importantly, as part of the Los Angeles settlement, Cardinal Mahony promised to release millions of pages of files on the abusers, the abuse, and the coverup. Survivors insisted on it as a necessary element of the settlement.

These promises have not yet been worth the paper they were printed on. Mahony’s lawyers, on behalf of their client, have been in court ever since the agreement was signed, to oppose release of each of the papers, one by one. As Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley has said, "Three years ago, I urged Cardinal Mahony to provide the fullest possible disclosure of evidence of sexual abuse by clergy. Despite two court rulings ordering full disclosure, Cardinal Mahony continues to claim ‘confidentiality privileges’ that no court has recognized." Few citizens know that the Archdiocese’s lawyers still continue to drag the plaintiffs’ lawyers to court on a regular basis to evade Mahony’s promise to reveal all of the relevant secrets. It is not over, and the reason it is not over is because of the continuing tactics of truth-evasion practiced by Mahony.

The Church’s Claims of a New "Zero Tolerance" Policy Are Belied by the Evidence

Kmiec goes on to claim that "under Rome’s supervision, which the Holy Father personally reasserted just months ago in his visit to America, abusers have been defrocked and a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy is in place." But Kmiec is simply too smart to make such hollow claims. If zero-tolerance is the policy, then the Cardinal has made a mockery of it.

The facts speak for themselves. In 2006, Los Angeles police questioned church and school officials about Daniel Murphy Catholic High School’s Dean of Students, John Malburg, against whom current child sex abuse allegations were being asserted. (Malburg comes from a prominent Los Angeles family.) Yet, despite receiving clear notice from authorities that there were claims of abuse asserted against Malburg, the Archdiocese did not suspend him and kept the information secret. When Malburg was arrested and charged six months later, and parents complained that they had not been timely alerted about the allegations, the Archdiocese blamed the police, saying that they had asked that the information be kept secret. The LAPD, in the Los Angeles Times, said it had never made such a request.

And Malburg is far from the only example demonstrating the Los Angeles Archdiocese’s and sadly the larger Church’s continuing tolerance – and, indeed, protection – of alleged child abusers. Fr. Nicholas Aguilar Rivera allegedly abused at least 26 boys in Los Angeles in a mere nine months. In August 2007, church records about Aguilar were released to the public. The records indicated that then-Msgr. Thomas Curry notified Aguilar about the release of the records, leading Aguilar to escape to Mexico to avoid prosecution, where there are credible allegations that he went on to molest more children. The upshot? Far from being demoted for violating the "zero-tolerance" rule, Curry was promoted to be one of Mahony’s auxiliary bishops, and was never disciplined for putting more children within reach of a priest whom evidence strongly suggests is a serial pedophile.

Then there is Franciscan monk Gerald Chumik — an admitted child molester who has been a fugitive from his native Canada for fourteen years. Until 2005, Mahony had permitted Chumik to live in the Los Angeles Archdiocese; Chumik left only because the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and others demanded that he be turned over to the authorities. Even in the face of these reasonable demands, Mahony did not go to the authorities; instead, he let Chumik move to Missouri.

This is not remotely zero-tolerance. Rather, it is just plain tolerance of pedophiles. Mahony has not made a clean break from the internal culture and rules requiring coverup and secrecy, and his actions and omissions have obviously created danger for children in other states and countries. According to Kmiec, though, "this is not the equivalent of a federal public or corporate corruption offense meriting 20 years in the federal pen." Explain that to the kids evidence strongly suggests were abused by Malburg, the Mexican kids believed to have been abused by Rivera, or to Chumik’s acknowledged victims, wherever they may be. Explain that to the parents at Malburg’s school who surely trusted in all of the public assurances from the Pope on down about zero-tolerance, whose children attended school with a credibly accused pedophile and were told nothing about it until the authorities were involved.

Other Arguments Against the Grand Jury Investigation Are Also Completely Unconvincing

Others came to Mahony’s defense as well, including Professor G. Robert Blakey of Notre Dame Law School, who said the investigation was "outrageous" because the alleged conduct at issue is unrelated to the federal government. That is a mistake, though. It is a fact that predator priests often have been sent across state or national boundaries (see above). The national and international movement of pedophiles makes the task of a full investigation by any local district attorney impossible. Moreover, many of the perpetrators have taken their victims across state lines, frequently for "vacations" or camping trips. The United States should have been involved long ago, and one can only speculate what took the Department of Justice so long to consider investigating what are obviously federal crimes.

Professor Nicholas P. Cafardi, of Duquesne University School of Law, called the inquiry "an intrusion into the church’s First Amendment rights." For him, "It’s time for this to be over. L.A. has settled with all of their claimants." Yet it is crucial to recall that one of the very reasons the victims participated in the civil settlement was to obtain the release of the Archdiocese’s records on abusers – and recall that they continue to wait as the Archdiocese balks, claiming non-existent privileges. The First Amendment is no dispensation from the law or decency. Moreover, since when do crime victims have to choose between civil and criminal justice? Those molested deserve compensation from those responsible, those at risk deserve protection, and the rest of us deserve real justice in criminal court.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Archdiocese issued a statement referring to picketing abuse survivors as "an angry mob" and asserting that "there is no priest currently in the ministry in the archdiocese who had been found to have abused a minor." Yet the latter point offers no comfort: As I explained above, there were virtually no trials and no "findings" in the settlement involving hundreds of victims, likely because the Archdiocese did not want its sins, omissions, and crimes spelled out.

Religious Rules Against Airing "Scandal" Cannot and Should Not Be Enforced in Our Secular Justice System

Finally, it is most telling that the Archdiocese’s defenders would become so worked up over the start of a grand jury investigation. They are opposing the gathering of information and evidence. Why do they care so much, if all the information to be released is out, as they claim? And why do they care so little about children that Mahony’s recent, appalling record regarding credible child-abuse allegations does not give them pause?

The answer likely lies in culture and theology. There is an internal rule within the Church against "scandal." That is, believers are not supposed to bring shame to the Church by airing its dirty laundry in public. The same principle can be found in Orthodox Judaism, in which it is known as chilul hashem. The phrase literally means "desecration of God’s name," but is used to prohibit giving the community a bad name. The parallel is notable, for certain Orthodox Jewish organizations have become the latest religious groups whose secret coverup of child sex abuse is being exposed to the public. Despite their very different religious beliefs, the two religious groups’ organizational operations with respect to child sex abuse within their community are strikingly similar. Each has something to learn from the other. The Orthodox can learn that internal control of sex abuse never works and the Catholics can get over the destructive tendency to cling to notions of persecution when in fact they are simply on the wrong side of the law.

If U.S. Attorney O’Brien has hit upon a "novel" legal strategy, as has been alleged, so be it. We have an epidemic of child sexual abuse, which is attributable in part to a lack of imagination and sometimes political will on the part of prosecutors and courts. O’Brien should be applauded for joining the small group of federal prosecutors who are now taking a stand for children who suffer abuse in religious settings. Let’s hope that, in the Obama Administration, more U.S. Attorneys will take the same courageous stance. Making children a top priority would be a true change in federal policy.

---

Marci Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and author of Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge 2008). A review of Justice Denied appeared on this site on June 25, 2008. Her previous book is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005), now available in paperback.

 

January 15, 2010
By John R. Ellement and Jonathan Saltzman, Globe staff

Defrocked Roman Catholic priest Paul Shanley today lost his appeal before the state’s high court, ensuring that a key figure in the priest abuse scandal that rocked the Boston Archdiocese will remain behind bars.

(Yoon S. Byun/Globe Staff/file)

The Supreme Judicial Court upheld Shanley’s convictions for two counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault and battery obtained by Middlesex prosecutors in 2005. The victim first made his accusations against Shanley in 2002, some 20 years after the abuse took place at St. Jean’s Church in Newton when the boy was between the ages of 6 and 11.

The SJC rejected defense attorney Robert F. Shaw Jr.’s contention that Shanley’s trial was flawed because the "junk science” of "repressed memory" was used by prosecutors to explain that long gap.

 

 

by Timothy Lytton
December 7, 2009
Huffington Post

News Coverage of Cardinal Edward M. Egan’s cover up of clergy sexual abuse in the 1990s while he was the bishop of Bridgeport would be shocking if it weren’t so familiar. The list of high ranking Catholic Church officials who failed to report credible allegations of child sexual abuse by priests to law enforcement includes the most prominent prelates of this generation: Cardinal Joseph Bernadin in Chicago, Cardinal Bernard Law in Boston, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua in Philadelphia, and Cardinal Roger Mahony in Los Angeles.

The Egan case does, however, highlight one feature of this ongoing scandal that is frequently overlooked: the role that civil lawsuits have played in uncovering most of what we know about clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and in motivating Church officials to address the problem.

To begin with, plaintiffs’ have lawyers compelled Church officials to produce secret files concerning abuse allegations and to provide sworn testimony about their own failures to adequately address the problem. Media reports about Cardinal Egan’s failures in Bridgeport are based on more than 12,000 pages of memos, church records, and testimony from 23 lawsuits against the diocese. Indeed, most media coverage of the scandal–dating back to the early 1980s–has been based on these types of litigation documents.

Civil lawsuits have also shaped our understanding of the clergy sexual abuse scandal as an institutional failure on the part of Church leaders. Throughout the scandal, some within the Church have attempted to focus attention exclusively on the perpetrators, suggesting that clergy sexual abuse is merely a matter of "a few bad apples." Others have argued that the whole matter has been blown out of proportion by plaintiffs’ lawyers and their clients seeking to make money off of the scandal by filing lawsuits. One also frequently hears suggestions that news coverage of the scandal is motivated by anti-Catholic media bias. Indeed, Cardinal Egan’s successor, Archbishop Timothy Dolan leveled this very accusation against the New York Times this fall.

By contrast, civil lawsuits have focused attention on the failures of Church officials. Plaintiffs’ lawyers sue large institutional defendants because they are better able to pay large settlements and judgments, and so clergy sexual abuse lawsuits have emphasized the failure of diocesan officials–especially bishops–to protect children from known abusers.

Media coverage of the scandal has been heavily influenced by this framing of clergy sexual abuse as an institutional failure on the part of Church officials. Litigation and trials have traditionally provided the type of drama that makes them attractive to journalists seeking to draw in readers. In addition, documents filed in court and sworn testimony provide the kind of credible sources of information that journalists like to rely upon.

By framing clergy sexual abuse as a problem of institutional failure on the part of Church officials, civil lawsuits have also motivated dioceses around the country to institute new programs to prevent sexual abuse before it occurs and to report credible allegations of sexual abuse when it does happen. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reports that over 90 percent of dioceses have instituted such programs and have trained over 7 million people in preventing, investigating, and reporting child sexual abuse.

It is inconceivable that so many U.S. bishops would have instituted such ambitious efforts to address clergy sexual abuse in the absence of the intense media coverage and public attention generated by civil lawsuits–not to mention the liability exposure.

It has been 25 years since the first civil lawsuits were filed against Catholic Church officials for clergy sexual abuse, and much progress has been made as a result of them. That leading prelates such as Cardinal Egan are still fighting so hard to hide the record of their misdeeds indicates that there is more work to be done and that civil lawsuits against Church officials may still have a role in uncovering the truth, highlighting the misdeeds of officials, and providing much needed pressure for reform.

The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland has told UTV he was ashamed and shocked by the revelations of a report into 30 years of child abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese.

"I’m deeply ashamed and shocked at the abuse revealed in today’s report and I want to apologise to those who suffered abuse and to their families", the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, said.

"I also want to apologise to the people of this country that the abuse was covered up and that the reputation of the church was sometimes placed above the safety and well-being of the children."

On Thursday night, the head of the Dublin Archdiocese, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, branded the revelations revolting, adding no words of apology would ever be sufficient for the horrifying abuse.

Archbishop Martin said he was offering his shame and sorrow to survivors and claimed the Archdiocese had failed to recognise the theft of childhood.

The senior cleric said the paedophile priests were devious in their attempts to excuse and deny sickening attacks.

"I would appeal to each of those people who are named in the commission as having acted in a way which put children in peril to assess their behaviour in past and behaviour today," he said.

Archbishop Martin said the numbers of victims were likely to be much higher than known.

He handed over more than 5,000 secret Church documents to the Commission in January last year, sparking a legal battle involving Cardinal Desmond Connell.

The Cardinal tried to block the publication claiming they were legally privileged or confidential.

The Archbishop declined to be drawn on whether Cardinal Connell should step aside.

"I’m pleased to see that over the last few days the judgment of Cardinal Connell is not as black and white, or almost in the black that it was over a period of time," he said.

"He’s a man who struggled with his own personal make-up and his own conscience and came out earlier than most bishops on the right side.

"Give people credit for the good things they do."

On Thursday night, Cardinal Connell asked for forgiveness from the abuse victims who suffered at the hands of paedophile priests under his control.

The senior cleric said he was distressed and bewildered that those in such a sacred position could be responsible for the heinous crimes.

The frail 83-year-old, who was among four Archbishops criticised for not handing over information to authorities on abusers, said the abuse of children was an unspeakable crime.

"Although I am all too aware that such apologies and expressions of regret can never be adequate as a response to so much hurt and violation, and, in any case, lose value through repetition, I apologise again now from my heart," he said in a statement.

"The abuse of children is an unspeakable crime," he continued.

Although critical of the Cardinal, the report gave him credit for instigating two secret canon law trials, despite strong opposition from one of the most powerful canonists in the Archdiocese, Monsignor Sheehy.

They led to two priests being defrocked.

In 1995 he also handed over files on 17 suspect priests to gardai, although it was later revealed he was aware of at least 28 at the time.

Survivors have demanded the Cardinal and other senior figures face a criminal investigation.

© UTV News

www.NPR.org
By Frank James

The Philadelphia Inquirer
October 23, 2009

The best way for Wilmington’s Roman Catholic Bishop W. Francis Malooly to demonstrate his stated concern for "all victims of sexual abuse by priests of our diocese" would be to give those victims their day in court.

Instead, Malooly’s eleventh-hour decision Sunday to file for bankruptcy protection effectively halted the first of eight clergy sex-abuse trials set to start the next day. That will have the net effect to further delay or perhaps thwart many victims’ long quest for justice.

The bishop wrote to the diocese’s 230,000 faithful that the "painful decision" to file for bankruptcy was intended to ensure that funds are available so that all of the victims get a fair settlement.

In other words, the bishop claims he doesn’t want one big verdict to deplete the church coffers and leave nothing for the other victims.

Puh-leeze.

Malooly denied that church leaders were trying "to dodge responsibility for past criminal misconduct by clergy – or for mistakes made by Diocesan authorities."

If true, it’s a welcome change from a church hierarchy that for decades has shielded predator priests by moving them from parish to parish. But an idiom recited by the many fine nuns in parish schools comes to mind: Actions speak louder than words.

Given the real-world impact of the bankruptcy claim, there’s no way around the perception that Delaware church officials have ducked for cover – in what one attorney for an abuse-case plaintiff called "scandal prevention."

Indeed, the first trial in a civil damages lawsuit brought by a former altar boy, John M. Vai, 57, would have revealed chilling testimony about violent sex acts by a priest from 1966 to 1970, according to Vai’s attorneys.

Now, those embarrassing allegations and many others won’t be aired in open court for months and months, if at all. Nor will the public hear any details of church leaders’ efforts to cover for predator priests.

As time goes on, it becomes increasingly difficult to mount legal claims like these because they rely heavily on victims’ testimony about long-ago abuse. So the danger is that justice delayed will mean justice denied.

The diocese’s move represents a stunning rebuke to Delaware state lawmakers, who, in 2007, voted to clear the air on the state’s clergy sex-abuse scandal.

Dover lawmakers opened a two-year window permitting civil suits by adult victims of sex abuse, even though the alleged assaults occurred years ago and the statute of limitations had lapsed.

Patterned after a California law, the measure put the First State in the forefront to give abuse victims their day in court. It gave hope to victims’ advocates in Pennsylvania, who have been stymied in their push for similar legislation in Harrisburg. That effort is opposed by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the state Catholic Conference, and others.

In Philadelphia alone, hundreds of abuse victims have been awaiting justice since a scathing grand jury report in 2005. The report concluded that 63 archdiocesan priests had sexually abused children and that top church leaders helped cover for some.

But church officials across the nation continue to fight statute moratoriums with specious claims that victims’ lawsuits will lead to parish closings, and several dioceses have resorted to the dubious bankruptcy claim.

If nothing else, the Delaware bankruptcy filing appears premature. After all, diocesan officials won’t even know the full scope of their financial liability until the abuse cases go to trial.

Legal experts said the diocese – which is a separate entity from Wilmington parishes and church schools – could have awaited the outcome of the trials before claiming it is broke.

Had Wilmington church officials allowed the civil cases to go forward, they would have avoided the perception that the cover-up continues.

The justices on Monday turned down a request by the Roman Catholic diocese in Bridgeport, Conn.

Foxnews.com
Monday, November 5th, 2009

The Supreme Court has refused to block the release of documents generated by lawsuits against priests in Connecticut for alleged sexual abuse.

The justices on Monday turned down a request by the Roman Catholic diocese in Bridgeport, Conn.

Several newspapers are seeking the release of more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests.

The records have been under seal since the diocese settled the cases in 2001. Courts in Connecticut have ruled that the papers should be made public.

The high court also refused to make a decision Monday on whether to hear arguments from a group of Chinese men who have been imprisoned at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for more than seven years.

The justices reviewed the case last week, but made no announcement about how they will move on the petition from the Uighurs — whose relocation has been part of a larger headache for the Obama administration, which is trying to meet its self-imposed pledge to close Gitmo by January.  The Uighurs were picked up in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks, but have steadfastly maintained they had no role in supporting the Taliban or Al Qaeda.  The Pacific island of Palau has agreed to take 12 of the remaining 13 Uighurs on a temporary basis.  Last year, a federal judge in Washington concluded the men had been detained long enough and ordered that they be released into the United States. On emergency appeal, another court blocked that decision and eventually overturned the ruling. 

FOX News’ Lee Ross and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

Assemblywoman Margaret M. Markey was rushed to an Albany hospital on June 23, the last day of the Assembly’s session, and was held overnight for observation with symptoms later diagnosed as dangerously high blood pressure.

The episode, aides said, whatever its cause, capped an intensely difficult period for Ms. Markey, 62, a Queens Democrat who had been cajoling and vote-herding for months in a frantic effort to shore up support for her Child Victims Act, a bill that would loosen restrictions on lawsuits involving the sexual abuse of children.

This was the year the perennial legislation appeared to have a chance. It had already passed in the Assembly by wide margins in 2006, 2007 and 2008. And though the State Senate had blocked the bill in the past, a new Democratic majority there appeared likely to make New York one of three states with a law allowing people to sue their alleged molesters — during a specific grace period — no matter how long ago the abuse took place.

But on that day, as the clock ran out on the 2009 session, Ms. Markey had come up short: Assembly leaders were unconvinced that she had the votes to win, and had yanked her bill from the calendar — ending its prospects in the near term and raising questions about its future viability.

Opponents have declared the bill dead. Ms. Markey has assured supporters it will pass in the fall, if the governor calls a special session of the State Legislature.

In any event, the bill’s collapse was a victory for the Roman Catholic Church, which led a shrewd and relentless campaign against the measure, and a blow to abuse victims and their lawyers, who have been pressing for Ms. Markey’s bill, and others like it around the country, since the revelations in 2002 about the molestation of children by priests in Boston.

And Ms. Markey’s brief medical emergency — she returned to work the following day — only seemed to underline the intensity of the struggles already fought and still ahead for a bill that plumbs two of the most profoundly complicated issues in human experience: sexual abuse and money.

The fight has been grueling on both sides. Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of the Diocese of Brooklyn, the outspoken prelate who marshaled the church’s campaign against the legislation — calling it anti-Catholic, and warning lawmakers he would be forced to close churches and schools in their districts — was himself ordered by doctors to undergo hastily scheduled heart bypass surgery on June 16.

He and other Catholic bishops in New York said the Markey bill would impoverish the church, pointing to a 2002 law in California that prompted hundreds of lawsuits, forced the state’s dioceses to pay more than $1 billion in restitution and led the Diocese of San Diego to file for bankruptcy protection.

“Nothing I’ve been involved in during my years in politics has ever been as excruciatingly painful as the fight over this bill,” said Assemblyman Charles D. Lavine, a Long Island Democrat who is among two dozen lawmakers who supported the Markey bill in past years, but hesitated this year.

Mr. Lavine changed his mind after priests and residents in his predominantly Italian-American and Hispanic district, especially older voters, started swamping his office with phone calls last winter, expressing their opposition. The pressure, which went on for months, led him to consider — for the first time, he said — the “humongous financial burden and, frankly, the ridicule” that the Child Victims Act and resulting lawsuits would inflict on the church.

His yes votes in past sessions, he said, were made partly with the knowledge that the Republican majority leader in the Senate, Joseph L. Bruno, a staunch opponent, would never let the bill see daylight in that chamber. Mr. Bruno stepped down in 2008.

“When it was never going to fly anyway, there was a tendency for many of us who are concerned about victims’ rights to symbolically support legislation like this,” Mr. Lavine said.

In the same way, the Catholic hierarchy in New York never felt it had to mount a serious campaign against the bill as long as Mr. Bruno held the line, according to lobbyists and legislative aides. Their effort this year forced longtime backers of the bill, like Mr. Lavine, to weigh the potential consequences of that support against their empathy for abuse victims.

With 76 votes needed for a majority in the 150-member Assembly, Ms. Markey’s bill passed with close to 100 votes in past years. This year, the bill’s solid support ranged, depending on the day, between 70 and 80, Ms. Markey’s aides said.

Lobbyists and advocates on both sides say other factors contributed to the change in climate.

When the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate was toppled on June 8 by the defection of two members to the Republican ranks, wavering supporters lost an incentive to risk the church’s ire in the crucial final weeks of the Assembly session.

“If it’s going to be a one-house bill anyway, why make people take the heat?” said Assemblyman Peter J. Abbate Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat who was once a co-sponsor of Ms. Markey’s bill, but this year withdrew his support.

As originally proposed, Ms. Markey’s legislation had two main parts, one permanent and one temporary: It permanently extended the statute of limitations for filing civil suits over alleged child sexual abuse to 10 years — from the current 5 years — after a victim turns 18.

The temporary and more contentious proposal was to suspend the statute of limitations altogether for a year. Starting the day the law took effect, anyone claiming past abuse would have one year to file suit, regardless of how long ago the incident occurred. After a year, the statute of limitations would resume.

In trying to bolster her support, Ms. Markey added amendments. One gave the same rights to abuse victims who attended public schools as those from private or parochial schools, overriding the special protections public entities have under state law. One set an age limit of 53 on those who could file suits during the one-year window.

By most accounts, the amendments produced no new votes and fractured her support. Thomas K. Duane, the Senate sponsor of her bill, washed his hands of it, objecting to the age-limitation amendment. The amendment to include public schools drew fire from school and municipal officials.

Supporters of the bill, including BishopAccountability.org and Survivors for Justice, a Jewish group, have vowed to press on.

Ms. Markey’s spokesman, Mike Armstrong, said advocates are paying visits this summer to the offices of the two dozen lawmakers considered wobbly in their support, but still persuadable. “The leadership has told us they will put it on the agenda if she holds her votes with comfortable margins,” he said.

Bishop DiMarzio, whose diocese includes Queens, where Ms. Markey lives, has often mentioned her bill in sermons and his column in the diocesan newspaper.

“Retribution never brings about justice, nor will the crippling of the church’s ability to carry out its mission serve any purpose,” he wrote in his last column before entering the hospital in June. He has not addressed the issue since then. A diocesan spokesman said his quadruple bypass surgery was a success.

As it happened, the bishop was released from the hospital on June 23 — the day Ms. Markey’s bill was withdrawn.

By Catholic News Service
Posted: 6/2/2009

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (CNS) — Bridgeport diocesan officials said they were reviewing their options after a May 22 ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court to make public sealed documents from settled sexual abuse lawsuits filed against priests in the Bridgeport Diocese.

The 4-1 ruling involves the release of documents from 23 lawsuits against six priests settled in 2001. In 2006, a Superior Court ruled that the files should be released but the diocese appealed the decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision to release the files would not take effect until it was published in the Connecticut Law Journal June 2.

According to a May 22 statement from the Bridgeport Diocese, church officials were "deeply disappointed" in the ruling.

The battle over the sealed documents began in 2002 when The New York Times filed suit to obtain the documents that it said were a key par of the church’s record of handling charges of clergy sex abuse. Three other newspapers joined in the suit: The Hartford Courant, The Boston Globe and The Washington Post.

About a dozen people, including members of the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests, delivered a letter to Bridgeport Bishop William E. Lori May 26 urging the diocese not to appeal the release of the more than 12,600 pages of documents.

SNAP director David Clohessy personally handed the letter to a diocesan official at the Catholic Center, where the diocesan offices are located. The letter urged Bishop Lori to let the court ruling stand to allow parishioners and the public "the chance to learn the truth about the crimes that were committed and concealed."

Although the group did not meet with Bishop Lori, they were handed a statement by Joseph McAleer, a spokesman for the diocese, which outlined the work the diocese has done to assist abuse victims and prevent abuse.

"We appreciate that emotions run high on this topic," the statement said. It also added that the diocese’s objection to the recent court decision "concerns judicial fairness and the fundamental right of any individual or organization to fair adjudication in any legal proceeding."

"In a state where the Catholic Church has had to vigorously fight for its constitutional rights, we are going to continue to examine any and all legal options," the statement added.

It also faulted the ruling for ignoring the state’s statute of limitations on the unsealing of court documents.

"Sadly, the history of this case has been about access by the secular media to internal church documents of cases more than 30 years ago to suggest, unfairly, that nothing has changed," the statement said.

"This is despite the extraordinary measures the Catholic Church has undertaken over the past several years to treat victims with great compassion and dignity, and to put in safeguards and educational programs to ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again."

The New York Archdiocese also released a statement about the Connecticut court ruling since Cardinal Edward M. Egan, retired archbishop of New York, was bishop of Bridgeport from 1998-2000.

A May 22 statement by Joseph Zwilling, director of communications, said the sealed documents involved five priests who were accused of sexual misconduct prior to then-Bishop Egan’s appointment to Bridgeport. One of the priests died before the bishop was appointed to the diocese and the other four were sent to a top psychiatric institution for treatment and expert evaluation, the statement said.

"They were returned to ministry only upon the written recommendation of the aforementioned institution along with the advice of experienced members of both clergy and laity," the statement said. "At the time, this was the recognized professional manner of handling cases of sexual misconduct with minors."

When new information was received about the sexual misconduct of four of the priests, two were removed from ministry, one retired and another priest was permitted to continue in a restricted ministry in a home for the aged, according to the statement.

www.OregonLive.com

by Paul Mones, guest opinion
Tuesday June 02, 2009, 8:30 AM

Our state legislators are in the midst of dealing with one of the worst fiscal crises in recent memory. No doubt they will have to make many tough, unpopular decisions this year. However there is one legislative decision they need not fret over because it is a no-brainer. House Bill 2827 is a simple piece of legislation that gives an extra measure of justice to victims of child abuse.

In the words of one of the bill’s co-sponsors Chris Garrett (D-Lake Oswego ) – the other sponsor is Rep. Andy Olson (R-Albany) – this bill "will ensure an effective civil remedy for victims of child abuse."

The bill extends the present statute of limitations by giving victims until the age of 40 to file an action against their abuser, requiring that claims be initiated by the time the victim turns 40 years old or within five years of when the injury or the connection between the abuse and the injury is discovered. The bill has unanimously passed the house but curiously has not received the same overwhelmingly positive reception in the Senate.

The extension of the statute of limitations makes common sense because it recognizes that most child victims of sexual abuse cannot confront their debilitating problems until they are mature adults. Moreover, most victims can’t even make the connection between the abuse and their psychological problems until they have some real distance from the time period of their abuse.

Child abuse is the perfect crime because its victims are too powerless, too confused to help themselves when they are actually being abused. These children travel quietly through their days interacting with teachers and passing police officers, friends and neighbors, never revealing the anguish of their existences. And if by chance someone asks them how they are being treated at home their responses will be uniformly the same: OK.

As adults we expect all human beings to escape or at least want to escape when someone injures them, but for victims of abuse, the reverse occurs. And that is in fact perhaps one of the most insidious aspects of child abuse: It binds the child closer to the abuser. The abuser’s threats and intimidation engender in the child not only fear but self-blame and embarrassment – all of which turns a child’s survival mechanisms topsy-turvy. Emotional attachment and sexual violence become so inextricably confused that even when the abuse is reported, the child will often kick and scream as they are being removed from their draconian environment by a social worker.

The other aspect that makes child abuse a perfect crime is that most adults continue to believe that child-rearing is a private matter. They don’t want a relative, friend or neighbor telling them how to raise their child so they won’t intervene in someone else’s family. While we all cherish our right to privacy, our devotion to this cornerstone of democracy is strangling the lives of thousands of children every year. Abusive parents and caretakers thrive on isolation and that is exactly what their relatives, friends and neighbors give them.

Daily, people turn a blind eye to the screams, bruises and frightened eyes of battered and molested children. Their reaction actively reinforces the offender’s omnipotence and tells the child you’re on your own, no one is going to help you. By powerful social training we are more likely to intervene on behalf of a dog being kicked by its owner than a child being mistreated by a parent. As Americans we routinely gawk at the suffering of car accident victims but we avert our eyes and ears when we see a child being backhanded in a supermarket.

It is often only when a child becomes a mature adult that he or she has the strength and emotional resources to confront the scourge of their past.

We have done much in Oregon over the past few years to protect victims of abuse, the most recent example being the passage of HB 2062, which will prevent schools from silently moving sexually abusive teachers one district to another. If the Senate saw fit just several weeks ago to join the House in ending the scandalous practice of allowing sexually abusive teachers from negotiating sweetheart deals with their school districts, then it surely should see the wisdom in HB 2062.

Paul Mones is an attorney and a children’s rights advocate.