Posted on 12/09/2002 11:14:16 AM PST by NYer
In a letter read at Catholic churches throughout California, priests challenged a new state law they believe will prompt a flood of sexual abuse lawsuits seeking millions of dollars.
Starting Jan. 1, the statute of limitations on the filing of molestation lawsuits will be lifted for one year. Catholic officials intend to contest the new law in court.
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. Budget problems already have forced the Los Angeles archdiocese to cut $4.3 million in programs.
"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."
In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony read the letter to thousands of parishioners at the new cathedral. Many applauded after he finished.
Outside the cathedral, about 10 protesters representing sexual abuse victims said the bishops should support the new law, not challenge it.
"We think it's inappropriate, especially in view of the terrible revelations in Boston," said Mary Jane McGraw, referring to the release last week of documents describing sexual abuse in the Boston archdiocese.
The letter said the church would seek to help victims of abuse. It also noted that U.S. bishops have adopted several reforms in the past year, including working with parishes to report sex abuse allegations to authorities and removing abusive priests.
In Sacramento, parishioner Penelope Harrison said she liked the letter.
"I think there are some people out there who will take advantage of the church ... and I think that's what the bishops are saying," Harrison said.
Victims of childhood sexual abuse have to file lawsuits by their 26th birthday or within three years of discovering emotional problems linked to a molestation incident.
The new law would lift those restrictions in cases against churches or other institutions that continued to employ known molesters who went on to abuse other victims. The lawsuits would have to be filed in 2003.
Most bishops are politicians who have negotiated their way through the hierarchy by being nice, smoothing things over and avoiding controversy.
History shows that the best bishops (and Popes) have been forced to become bishops against their will.
We have too many bishops in our hierarchy who have been angling for the episcopate since before they were ordained.
Wrong!
The State Legislature retains the authority to set, suspend, or vary a Statute of Limitations.
Several states have never had them [Statutes of Limitation] for sexual molestation.
In the period immediately following the introduction of the new Missal, traditional Catholics wanted to continue using the old one and "progressives" wanted to scrap even the new liturgy and make up their own prayers, rites, etc.
The hierarchy reacted by sternly forbidding any return to the old Missal but winking at any and all transgressions by "progressives" including "clown masses" (sic), readings taken from Kahlil Gibran instead of the Scriptures, etc.
Traditional Catholics became increasingly enraged by this, and the hierarchy started toning down the most radical stuff and booting people like Matthew Fox who openly practiced witchcraft from his pulpit.
As the traditional Catholics found their voice and began to call for a return to Catholic practice, the Vatican saw fit to permit priests to offer the old Mass again with their bishops' permission. The "progressives" were outraged and lobbied against giving permission. So the bishops permitted the old Mass only in some dioceses, often only on Saturday night, or every other week, or only allowed people over 30 to attend (in order to split up families and prevent young people from becoming attached to the old Mass).
Lately more and more traditional Masses are being offered in certain dioceses, and other dioceses (like Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles) are either banning them again outright or restricting them to one or two churches once a week (remember that those who attend the old Mass are often daily communicants).
Another issue is abortion. The Church can never waver on it - but the hierarchy can pass over it in silence.
All through the 1980s the Catholic faithful came out in droves to fight abortion and infanticide, enraging the "progressives" to no end. A few bishops came out and actively involved themselves in the pro-life movement (like the late John Cardinal O'Connor) but 95% of them stayed out of the public square in defernce to the "progressives" who were already mad at them for not defying the Vatican on abortion.
Here is another situation where, afraid of offending "progressives", the bishops have failed in their duty.
On the issue of women's ordination the "progressives" manged to get the bishops to write and publish all kinds of documents pushing "equal pay for equal work" and other feminist claptrap. They even got the hierarchy to enroll women in certain seminaries where they received priestly training in case the Holy See came around to their point of view. But, because traditional Catholics would have gone to war, they never officially called for women's ordination.
The list goes on and on.
They always excused themselves to "progressives" pleading that people like me were too "mean-spirited" to be placated. They always excused themselves to people like me by saying that the "progressives" have powerful friends and it's best not to burn bridges when we have a chance of bringing them back into the fold.
But neither traditional catholics or "progressives" can be played off against each other effectively here. The "progressive" may think the solution is to ordain women and allow openly homosexual men to be priests (the Episcopalian solution) and the traditionalist may realize the only option is to thoroughly vet all ordinands to seek out dishonesty and inversion.
But we both agree that keeping these filth around is not part of any solution.
Yup. In 1968 Pope Paul VI (who was supposed to be a liberal, "progressive" Pope) issued Humanae Vitae, reaffirming the Church's opposition to artificial contraception.
The "progressives" went ballistic.
I assume that a college full of kids who desperately wanted all their female classmates to be on the pill would have opposed, in the 70s, this latest exercise of magisterial authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.