California bishops' letter challenges change in sex abuse law

Yahoo News ^ | December 8, 2002 | Paul Wilborn

[NYer]

The letter was drafted by the 12 bishops in the state and was sparked by concerns that a new wave of lawsuits would be so expensive that the church's education and social services would have to be curtailed.

.... or, worse yet, the bishop might have to cut back on his personal lifestyle.

[Saundra Duffy]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[NYer]

Here are the names that Cardinal Roger Mahony has been hiding as set forth in the Los Angeles Times, August 18, 2002, page A29.

MAHONY LIST

[wideawake]

The Catholic church has been falsely portrayed as a large corporation with `deep pockets,'" the letter, ready Sunday, said. "In reality, the vast majority of Catholic assets belong to the people of our parishes, schools, charities and other institutions."

Correct.

Which is why these evil, fallen priests are stealing resources away from the Church that could be used to teach children, heal the sick and feed the hungry.

Thanks, guys.

[Desdemona]

I think I've made it clear what I think of Mahoney, but this is...there's not a word for it. It's open season on the church is what it is and makes me sick. Lift the statute of limitations for a year? Oh, come on.

[wideawake]

What will happen now will mirror what happened to companies with asbestos liability.

Thousands and thousands of people who were never injured will claim that they were. Lawyers will encourage these false claims, because the larger the number of plaintiffs they have the more they can ask for.

The diocese will be crippled by the cost, Catholic hospitals will be shut down and there will be no hospital or clinic in California that will not perform abortions.

This is a campaign to shut down the Church as a social force and is a abortionist trial lawyer's dream.

[Phantom Lord]

What is to stop the state from lifting the statute of limitations on other crimes when it is politically expediant and popular to do so? Why even have statutes of limitation in the first place if they can be suspended willy-nilly?

[Chad Bagwell]

Kalifornia reminds me of Nazi Germany. Next step: Kristalnautch 2.

[NYer]

These two states are becoming more and more communistic everyday.

I understand CA is working on a new law that would abolish personal use of fireplaces ... LOL! Guess it will appear in the NYS Legislature next.

[Chemnitz]

They brought it on themselves. The early lawsuits have financed future lawsuits. It will not stop. Honestly and direct action would have helped 20 years ago. Now it is time for Chapter 11.

[wideawake]

Honesty and direct action would have solved the problem years ago. You're right.

And you're also right that the best solution now is probably Chapter 11, in order to keep the plaintiff's lawyers from seizing schools and hospitals to pay their retainer.

[el_chupacabra]

If California were not in the Ninth Circuit I would guarantee you that the proposed statute (as described in this article) would be deemed unconstitutional.

[Chemnitz]

So far the tactics have been as self-defeating as possible. The bishops and cardinals are not used to being treated as mortals.

[wideawake]

I wouldn't say that. I would say that they're not used to a situation where they can't negotiate a free pass with "progressive" Catholics against traditional ones or traditional Catholics against "progressive" ones.

Neither wing of their congregation is willing to forgive this transgression.

[RobbyS]

What is amazing to me is that they have know about this problem since 1985. That they have chosen to go to law to protect perverts rather than boot them out is what make us distrust them.We ask: Are they also guilty?

[wideawake]

I don't think so.

Here's the scenario.

It's 1985 - the Church has been spoonfed the Vatican II "everybody hold hands and dance in a circle" routine for twenty years. You know, sin is just a maladjustment, being judgmental is wrong, you should always be forgiving, etc.

Then it comes to a bishop's attention that a priest has done something pretty sick and evil. He calls him on the carpet.

The priest says: "I'm so horrible, your Eminence! I'm so ashamed. I made a terrible mistake. Please can you find it in your heart to forgive me? I'll never do it again! Please be merciful! I'll never do it again - I'll seek help! I can change!"

The bishop then says: "Well, he seems really penitent and remorseful, he says he'll never do it again, he's begging for forgiveness, it would be mean of me to be all stern when he's so upset . . . if he agrees to go to counseling I'll let him get his life back".

After this act of misplaced compassion and pathetic wishywashyness, the priest in question reoffends.

Then the bishop says: "Uh-oh. I'm the one who let him get out of it - now my reputation is on the line. I better keep this whole thing quiet".

And then the bishop goes from weakness and carelessness to complicity.

And an evil situation becomes even worse through his weakness.

[RobbyS]

If your senario be true, then the bishops are mere sentimentalists like the infamous soccer moms who took to Bill Clinton's show.