Connecticut bishops fight sex abuse bill...seriously

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1
Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.

The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.

The bill has been revised to address some of the church's concerns about frivolous abuse claims against it, according to Connecticut state Rep. Beth Bye, one of the bill's sponsors.

"The church didn't recognize that this bill makes improvements," Bye said. "The victims -- their lives have been changed and some will never recover from years of sexual abuse. For me, it's about giving them access to the courts."

Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused.

"They were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar high," Bye said.

The bill does not target the Catholic Church, she said.

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and Bye said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.




Now I love being Catholic. I understand that a lot of bad has been done by people that are Catholic, but that's not the faith, it's the people following it. This is just plain....insanity though. I understand they're scared of frivolous claims from the past, as they should be. But to just try and squash a bill like this is just....I mean wow
 

TruePaige

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2006
9,874
2
0
Hmm..so currently they can file a report of abuse until they are 48 years old?

I don't think this bill matters either way then, really. 48 isn't exactly limiting your options time wise or anything.

I'm not against it going through like these jackasses, just surprised that the age of 48 wasn't high enough already to handle the cases they want to prosecute.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,622
6,719
126
The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

Nice of them to make derogatory statements about other professions. I guess now I can say that the only reason they oppose the bill is because Catholic priests are all child molesters. Talk about being Catholic in their point of view.

These fuckers have protected assholes that used God to get into children's britches. Summary execution is what they should have to face, the fucking scum.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
While I'm disgusted by the actions of the pedo priests and the Church in covering it up, I'm also firmly opposed to this proposed legislation.

It would essentially open the floodgates on valid as well as scam claims against the church, and would essentially punish the current church and it's members for deeds done 40 years ago that can neither be verified nor proven/disproven. It makes no sense. I can't think of any reason why someone would need more than 35-40 years time to come forward with some claim.

The church is right in fighting this, their very existence in CT is in danger because of that proposed legislation. Simply fighting suits (valid or not) over ancient claims in court would take enough resources to bankrupt the organization.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,708
20,262
146
While I'm disgusted by the actions of the pedo priests and the Church in covering it up, I'm also firmly opposed to this proposed legislation.

It would essentially open the floodgates on valid as well as scam claims against the church, and would essentially punish the current church and it's members for deeds done 40 years ago that can neither be verified nor proven/disproven. It makes no sense. I can't think of any reason why someone would need more than 35-40 years time to come forward with some claim.

The church is right in fighting this, their very existence in CT is in danger because of that proposed legislation. Simply fighting suits (valid or not) over ancient claims in court would take enough resources to bankrupt the organization.

waaaah, maybe they should've handled this hundreds of years ago..GTFO RCC!
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
While I'm disgusted by the actions of the pedo priests and the Church in covering it up, I'm also firmly opposed to this proposed legislation.

It would essentially open the floodgates on valid as well as scam claims against the church, and would essentially punish the current church and it's members for deeds done 40 years ago that can neither be verified nor proven/disproven. It makes no sense. I can't think of any reason why someone would need more than 35-40 years time to come forward with some claim.

The church is right in fighting this, their very existence in CT is in danger because of that proposed legislation. Simply fighting suits (valid or not) over ancient claims in court would take enough resources to bankrupt the organization.

Maybe they shoulda thought of that before they covered up and protected assholes who were fucking little kids.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1





Now I love being Catholic. I understand that a lot of bad has been done by people that are Catholic, but that's not the faith, it's the people following it. This is just plain....insanity though. I understand they're scared of frivolous claims from the past, as they should be. But to just try and squash a bill like this is just....I mean wow

Well it makes financial sense to oppose such a bill. It could open them up to more lawsuits. Honestly while I think the child abuse situation is horrible. If you havent filed a lawsuit in 30 years, then you never will or should.
 

MrMatt

Banned
Mar 3, 2009
3,905
7
0
There is no difference. The faith is driven by the people who proclaim it, and is malleable to suit their desires and attitudes.

Faith is observed by those who practice it. When you do things like what's happened, you're not being a good Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, etc. You're just someone who's hurting others and hiding behind that faith.
 

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
23
81
If they are assaulted before 18 somehow I think all real evidence would have have been gone greater then 30 years before they turned 48...

Still dumb for them to fight it, as it shows at least some attempt to hide what was done.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Faith is observed by those who practice it. When you do things like what's happened, you're not being a good Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, etc. You're just someone who's hurting others and hiding behind that faith.

The religious faith of your choosing isn't a fixed standard. All of them have changed (some more than others) to suit the needs/desires of a majority of their followers. So, yes, faith is as I said it is.

A religious faith is what the majority of its followers make it to be.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Maybe they shoulda thought of that before they covered up and protected assholes who were fucking little kids.

Who's this "they" you refer to? These are going to be claims from 40+ years ago. Clearly there's no real way to conclusively prove or disprove the claims, so it's set up to hurt the current church, not help anyone. This legislation appears to be just a knee jerk reaction to the past actions of the church, but it's not well thought out. The church is right to fight for it's existence.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
If they are assaulted before 18 somehow I think all real evidence would have have been gone greater then 30 years before they turned 48...

Still dumb for them to fight it, as it shows at least some attempt to hide what was done.


Yea seems trying to block this will only make it worse. Let alone all the press it will get now.

Falls into the coverup is worse than the crime type thing.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
If they are assaulted before 18 somehow I think all real evidence would have have been gone greater then 30 years before they turned 48...

Still dumb for them to fight it, as it shows at least some attempt to hide what was done.

We have statue of limitations on other civil litigation. Why not extend the ability of joe mechanic to sue you to 50 years from now for a disputed claim? What? You dont have paper work from 50 years ago and your memory isnt so great? Tough luck, pay up.

Lets not let the horrible actions of a few cloud our judgement on what is reasonable. 30 years is already a very long time to bring a civil action.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,708
20,262
146
Hundreds of years ago? Wow. Are you stupid or just acting that way? :rolleyes: Your bigotry is showing.

What you call bigotry, which doesn't concern me, I call strong opinion against the RCC in this case but also religion in general.

Hundreds of years is probably not even a close estimate. The difference is now people are more outspoken. Maybe that's because the church isn't running the government now and people can be, maybe it's not. Bottom line, this has been going on for FAR to long and needs to end. The Pope acting like he's beyond reproach is not helping their case. The bishops in CT fighting this bill is NOT helping their case. They should be assisting the authorities with weeding out the bad apples and having them treated like any of sex offender.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Silly Catholic Bishops/Priests (who are guilty), you may find a way to weasel your way out of the court system while alive, but I doubt you will be able to avoid your ultimate judgment.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
We have statue of limitations on other civil litigation. Why not extend the ability of joe mechanic to sue you to 50 years from now for a disputed claim? What? You dont have paper work from 50 years ago and your memory isnt so great? Tough luck, pay up.

Lets not let the horrible actions of a few cloud our judgement on what is reasonable. 30 years is already a very long time to bring a civil action.
:thumbsup:

but the church is evil, so sure, let's open the floodgates. why have statutes of limitations for anything?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1





Now I love being Catholic. I understand that a lot of bad has been done by people that are Catholic, but that's not the faith, it's the people following it. This is just plain....insanity though. I understand they're scared of frivolous claims from the past, as they should be. But to just try and squash a bill like this is just....I mean wow

Ya right, they are scared of "frivolous" claims. Tell us all another one, maybe it will make us laugh. :'( me some tears.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Hmm..so currently they can file a report of abuse until they are 48 years old?

I don't think this bill matters either way then, really. 48 isn't exactly limiting your options time wise or anything.

I'm not against it going through like these jackasses, just surprised that the age of 48 wasn't high enough already to handle the cases they want to prosecute.

This. I don't really care either way, but sweet Lord, thirty years isn't enough?
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I see two sides of the debate.
One - you want the victims to have a chance to punish their abusers.
Two - problems that the statute of limitations was designed to prevent

Waiting 30 years to come forward really is going to be too long to be able to provide proof that the event occurred unless you have a lot of witnesses or evidence.

I can see the churches point here too, what if they accuse a priest who is dead, now the church becomes the target without the ability to defend itself.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,575
9,831
136
How can it be anything other than slander 30 years later? It is quite a stretch to come forward so late for a "he said / she said" case.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Who's this "they" you refer to? These are going to be claims from 40+ years ago. Clearly there's no real way to conclusively prove or disprove the claims, so it's set up to hurt the current church, not help anyone. This legislation appears to be just a knee jerk reaction to the past actions of the church, but it's not well thought out. The church is right to fight for it's existence.

You could start with the Bridgeport Diocese http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...S0iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=AnQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4392,2961754 and go from there.

Sorry bud but the "who" really doesn't matter. There simply shouldn't be a statute of limitations when dealing with rape and molestation of children, psychological damage alone is reason enough for it to take so long for someone to come forward. The RCC has put themselves in this position by trying to cover up and protect the guilty instead of working with law enforcement to put the bastards guilty of child molestation in jail where they belong. It would be no different if Walmart did the same thing.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
psychological damage alone is reason enough for it to take so long for someone to come forward.
30 years worth of psychological damage? I mean, I can understand a kid not coming forward or even a young adult, but if you're in your late 40's and you still haven't bothered coming forward, you're practically as guilty as the church for aiding in the cover-up by allowing it to continue.