A bill to temporarily lift the statute of limitations (and then permanently increase it) on lawsuits for child sexual abuse finally has a good chance to be approved by the New York state legislature — except that it is opposed by Catholic authorities, Orthodox Jewish organizations, and the Republican Party.
The bill would give one year to victims of child sexual abuse to file a lawsuit against the alleged perpetrators, an action for which the current legislation sets a statute of five years after the victim turns 18. After one year, the statute of limitations would be permanently extended to ten years. The idea is supported by children’s advocates, who maintain that it often takes a long time to come to terms with having been the subject of sexual abuse, because of the shame and psychological trauma. Similar bills have passed in Delaware and in California, and in New York Governor Paterson has said that he would sign it.
Seems like a no brainer, right? Especially in a child-centric society like the United States, you would think that nobody would dare opposE such a bill. But you would be wrong. The spokesperson for the New York State Catholic Conference, Dennis Poust, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that “this bill is designed to bankrupt the Catholic Church.” Besides the fact that I personally don’t think that bankrupting the Catholic Church would be a particularly terrible sin, the charge is obviously paranoid. Then again, it is true that the incoming Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, was forced to put his headquarters in Wisconsin up for sale in order to pay judgments from law suites generated by a similar law...
Catholic authorities are being helped in fighting against the bill by leaders of both Hasidic and Sephardic Jewish institutions in Brooklyn, which evidently fear that they might be the target of similar accusations and legal actions. Moreover, this is actually the fourth time that the bill has come up for consideration, each time stoically shepherded by Assemblywoman Margaret Markey of Queens (a Democrat). The previous three times the effort was blocked, with the bill never even getting to be discussed by the state Senate because of opposition by former majority leader Joseph Bruno (a Republican). Things are looking up this time, though, because thank god control of the state legislature switched to Democrats after the last elections.
The real question is this: why do some conservative religious people in a position of authority (be they Catholics, Hasidic, Sephardic) have a tendency to engage in child sexual molestation? And why can't Republican politicians help themselves from shielding the perpetrators, legally and in the public arena?
I don’t know enough about Hasidic and Sephardic Jews, but I grew up Catholic and I have a strong suspicion that the reason for the widespread sexual abuse of children within the Church is very, very simple indeed: priests can’t have sex openly, so they get it in other ways. I’m sure this suggestion won’t shock anyone with a modicum of understanding of human nature, but it is remarkable that the Church won’t do the only thing that will stop the practice (other than facing up to it instead of hiding it): let the poor bastards marry, just like the Protestants do. After all, the scriptural mandate for members of the Church not too marry is based on really shaky grounds. I’m sure God would understand.
As for why Republicans are so keen to help child molesters when they are members of the clergy, despite their vocal protestations about “putting children first” every chance they get, this too is rooted in rather simple notions. The most obvious one is that conservatives seem to think that religious authorities need to be protected at any cost, because they are, after all, the source of moral teaching for the rest of us. I doubt the irony of this position in the case of child sexual abuse perpetrated by priests reaches the average Republican mind, notoriously shielded from the real world by thick layers of denial and rationalization.
Then again, the whole relationship between conservatism and sex is so hilarious that it makes for wonderful satirical comedy. Just think of the recent scandal involving “reverend” Ted Haggart and homosexuality, or the the finding that more porn is consumed in regions of the country where religious conservatism is stronger. That’s the problem when one turns normal human behavior into “sin.” Wouldn’t it be better for priests and conservatives to simply enjoy some consensual sex among adults and leave homosexuals free to do what they like, rather than molest children and support the porn industry?
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
Thank you Massimo. I can't do much more than splutter when I think about the Catholic Church and what it has knowingly hidden for so long. And now I'm hearing disappointing tales about Jewish men's bathhouses. WTF?
ReplyDeleteAnd the Republicans! For years I was a Republican because I considered myself to be conservative. But I guess my definition of conservative didn't match theirs because year after year the party supported things, like this instance, that seemed immoral or unconstitutional. GHWB pushed me to the brink and GWB pushed me out completely.
Anyway, if the Catholic Church goes bankrupt over child sex scandals, none of us should shed a tear.
"The real question is this: why do some conservative religious people in a position of authority (be they Catholics, Hasidic, Sephardic) have a tendency to engage in child sexual molestation? And why can't Republican politicians help themselves from shielding the perpetrators, legally and in the public arena?"
ReplyDeleteObviously there is something wedged in the bill limiting churches and religious orgs. from defending themselves from any kind of accusation whatsoever. I can guarantee it. Just by who is supporting it...and mostly at least, who is against it.
I live in state where the RCC dumped a good deal of its "bad" priests. I know people who have been abused by priests, but to suggest that the intention is just to exploit children and that is the ONLY reason to NOT vote for this bill, makes me think of the wild propaganda that was spread just before Htlr made his case to 'rid the world of the Jews'.
We know good and well that the most passionate opponents of child porn and the like usually are not people on the left.
"Civil liberties MAN! Don't step on my civil liberties." etc.
This is a twisted case your making here Massimo. And in spite of insane things that the RCC has lets pass( they will be judged for that) there is NO WAY that the reason some of these people ARE NOT voting for this bill is because they WANT to have children unprotected.
I just don't buy it. There's more to this story.
What's the point in making it one year for the duration of the first year?
ReplyDeleteI think it means one year to pursue ANY old cases, then it's a ten-year statute of limitations for anyhting new.
ReplyDelete@Paul:
ReplyDeleteYeah, you're right. I should have read the article first :)
Yes, I recently heard on NPR that 1 in 5 Borough Park / Williamsburg Jewish kids has been molested by a Rabbi. The issue is, of course, tabboo in the religious community, and kids risk disparaging their families if they reveal the abuse to authorities. In some cases parents actively discourage children from talking. It appears child molestation has become socially acceptable in these communities.
ReplyDeleteI won't try to guess the motives of the bill's opponents, but the NYT article did suggest that the bill's opponents are concerned about religious discrimination:
ReplyDelete"Foes of Assemblywoman Markey’s bill also say it unfairly singles out religious and private institutions, while leaving public schools virtually immune to the same potential liability." and "The Rev. Kieran E. Harrington, spokesman for Bishop DiMarzio, said that “a fair piece of legislation would treat all victims equally, and this bill does not do that.”"
I'd say that's a reasonable (if not entirely persuasive) argument. However, I also think Sen. Schneiderman had a good point when he said: “Just because it does not broaden the rights of victims 100 percent does not mean we should not try to broaden their rights somewhat.” That seems particularly so if the abuse report statistics point in the direction of these religious institutions (i.e. you focus first on the problem spots).
Tough cookie - the question about why those tendencies towards sexual abuse in these groups. I guess best answer is because they sell the concept of abstinence. They sell it to the world and to each other. Conceptually it may be a worthy concept as concepts go but something has to give, ergo higher rates of sexual deviancy are the price - pretty much as u say.
ReplyDeleteI will also go out on a limb a bit and agree more w/u than Caliana about RCC defenders probably do put church interests above the safety what i assume will be an ever-decreasing number of children abused in this country at least.
Yes, I recently heard on NPR that 1 in 5 Borough Park / Williamsburg Jewish kids has been molested by a Rabbi. The issue is, of course, tabboo in the religious community, and kids risk disparaging their families if they reveal the abuse to authorities. In some cases parents actively discourage children from talking. It appears child molestation has become socially acceptable in these communities
ReplyDeleteIf this is true it would refute Massimo's suggestion to let catholic priests marry as a means of reducing religiously protected paedophilia - as most if not all Rabbis marry and are encouraged to have kids.
I'm not sure I agree that higher rates of child sex abuse among Catholic clergy are directly due to the celibacy requirement (though I heartily agree that it should be lifted--simply because its pointless).
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is a factor. I don't rule it out. But I suspect that the primary reason for it is different.
Imagine a catholic teen or young adult who, from whatever cause, has pedophilic impulses. Naturally, this is going to be a great cause of shame and internal conflict.
It would not surprise me at all if some of them are drawn to the priesthood out of a desperate desire to control this impulse and decide to dedicate their lives to God (and celibacy) thinking, mistakenly, that this will help them overcome or suppress it.
So it would not be that celibacy is driving priests who would have had normal sexual impulses to prey sexually on children (they could, after all, have affairs, visit prostitutes, etc) but instead that some with pedophilic impulses would be drawn to enter the priesthood.
David,
ReplyDeleteyes, that is definitely another possible causal scenario. Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive either.
Seems to me that the whole religious orthodoxy / sex relationship is, well, f*$#* up!
I wonder whether there's ever been a similar problem reported with Buddhist monks.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason could be situational. I remember sitting in a closed room with a bunch of other children and an old man, and the atmosphere always creeped me out. Quiet, serene, awkward, and all focus on the priest, who was viewed as super-human in a sense. The 'spiritual' closeness during such convents or rituals 'sets the mood.'
ReplyDeleteHow often does a school teacher get one on one time behind closed doors in a serene, 'connected', setting? Not as much as a priest of course.
This raises the question of what you would do if you were in the same situation. The explanation becomes sort of taboo for that reason.
Extending Joe's and David Ellis' thoughts, then there is the workplace, or any other organization with lots of ppl. In the organization we have 1/mixed sexes 2/no kids. Has there been 1 instance in recorded history where there has NOT a real or suspected 'illicit' relationship going on at the highest levels? I can't think of any in my experience.
ReplyDeleteNow lets go to school. It is all well and good 2 want 2 affect the growth of lots of kids, but teachers and principals have power. They may be in their jobs less for the money, and more for the influencing opportunities the job affords. But they are people. It is possible for the illicit relationships to include adult/child pairs.
Now take religious institutions (pls) Using the same argument, more influencing and hoodwinking is possible. Being in an environment where educational and spiritual growth are conjoined can have toxic results because of the needs of the humans who run these places and their motivations for being in them.
The Catholic church has done enough apostatizing and confusing of the Catholic faithful that it really would be be just fine if they went bankrupt far as I am concerned. But it won't. These are the kinds of things some people will always want to believe, that you can work your way to God's favor through being a priest or nun, even tho the Bible says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about such commitments to God.
ReplyDeleteEVEN MY MOTHER wanted to become a nun. (because that's what good Catholics do) But a family misfortune prevented her from going ahead with what she thought she was supposed to do and so she had a nervous breakdown within a year of when she was suppose to commit to her college or convent.
I do know that the Catholic church teaches unbiblical practices all the time. And who is responsible to know where all the heretical doctrine will lead?
me.
Even if you happen to be in the RCC you can choose to search out truth.
In the scheme of life there's not only the deceiver but there is the one willing to be deceived.
which one are you?
If this is true it would refute Massimo's suggestion to let catholic priests marry as a means of reducing religiously protected paedophilia
ReplyDeleteFaithlessgod, I was thinking the same thing when he brought up Tim Haggard further down in the post. Of course, Haggard was not engaging in pedophilia, but it does show that being a married pastor with a family is not necessarily a safeguard in engaging in behavior deemed "immoral".
With regard to the Catholic Church though, the celibacy requirement does limit the pool of potential priests to fill their ranks. Either the Church will eventually find some theological underpinning to permit married and women priests or it will fracture into an orthodox faction that will oppose it and a liberal faction that supports it.
The ban on women priests was one of the things that caused be to become disillusioned with the Church during my late teens. I remember thinking, "The truth is the truth whether it comes from the mouth of a man or a woman." Even now as an atheist, I still believe the Church needs to change its position on this and permit women priests, because it just strikes me as fundamentally unjust.
"Even now as an atheist, I still believe the Church needs to change its position on this and permit women priests, because it just strikes me as fundamentally unjust."
ReplyDeleteBe that what ever it may be, all these old traditional sects like Greek ortho and the RCC are mocking, imitating and mirroring the Jewish Priesthood. And in the good old days, OT, if your heart was not right, pure and sinless before God (in the tabernacle, Holy of Holys) God would strike em dead right where they stood. And I believe it because I've seen something like that happen several times in my lifetime.
People in these positions today often want the glory (just to be out in front of people) but certainly not the responsibility for all that sin stuff.
I have a simpler hypothesis/explanation for why religious authorities have a tendency to be sexual abusers.
ReplyDeletePOWER
They are people who crave and seek power, and one way to get some power is to be a so-called spokesman for God, and the other is to use this power against easy targets, children.
S "They are people who crave and seek power, and one way to get some power is to be a so-called spokesman for God, and the other is to use this power against easy targets, children."
ReplyDeleteSo called spiritual people can be deceived as well. To be right with God tho that's another matter.
Quite frankly a lot of weird things go on in NM in my estimation. A man up north, leader of a cult,(whathisname) thinks he's the Messiah. Been in court lately, maybe you've seen him in the news since its close to Co.. Clearly he's not the Messiah since he's been 'laying in bed with young girls giving them "spiritual instruction".' And it boggles the mind that there are adults in the cult, other women, his own adult children, who support this and think he's misunderstood.
!!?
Then there's the guy down the road here. This person gives a TON of money to science. Has something to do with investing or accounting for Victoria's secret. He's doing basically the same as the other guy, he just doesn't call it "spiritual instruction", he calls it: "I have so much money, nobody tells ME what to do".
Evil makes its home in the hearts of all kinds of people, Sheldon.
The reason for not extending the statute of limitations is that it’s unfair to defendants (though I get the sense you don't care). Not every accusation is true, and not every lawsuit is motivated by a desire to seek justice (doesn’t Elizabeth Loftus sometimes write for the same magazine you do?). Such a long statue of limitations encourages unscrupulous lawsuits, when memories have faded, and the accused are doddering, if not dead.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, why do you think public school teachers have a tendency to engage in child molestation? School teachers can marry, after all.
Also, in New York claims involving childhood sex abuse by public school teachers must be filed within 90 days after the age of 18. This law wouldn't change that. Why are Democratic politicians so keen to help child molesters who happen to work for the state?
CVC,
ReplyDelete"The reason for not extending the statute of limitations is that it’s unfair to defendants (though I get the sense you don't care)."
Yes, I care, but the current statute is much too short, and remember that this would be a one-time one-year extension, after which the standard statute would be increased.
"why do you think public school teachers have a tendency to engage in child molestation?"
I don't. There are no widespread reports of the kind, unlike with priests.
"in New York claims involving childhood sex abuse by public school teachers must be filed within 90 days after the age of 18. This law wouldn't change that. Why are Democratic politicians so keen to help child molesters who happen to work for the state?"
One answer is that just because the new law is not perfect that doesn't mean it isn't an improvement on the current one. The other is that, again, the systematic problem seems to be with some religious institutions, not with schools (public or not).
Now let me ask you a question: why do Republican politicians always beat their chest do defend children from pornography over the internet but not from being the subject of sexual assault inside a church?
See the AP report "Sexual Misconduct Plagues Public Schools"
ReplyDeleteThere shouldn’t be a different statute of limitations depending on where the accused molester works. It’s obvious legislators recognize the potential for financially destructive fraudulent lawsuits in the case of public schools, meaning Dennis Poust isn’t being paranoid when he states “this bill is designed to bankrupt the Catholic Church.”
I really don't think the two cases are on the same scale at all. And why would Democrats -- many of whom are Catholics -- bankrupt the Catholic Church anyway? Even paranoia requires motives no?
ReplyDeleteWell...as the Vatican is scouring the planet's pockets for funding to buy off their victims, a few monks are averse to their god's will that causes wrinkles.
ReplyDeleteThe monks are marketing a wrinkle cream to drum up funds.